"Fuschia" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:40:54 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Fuschia wrote:
By all means let's talk about alcohol in another thread, but that's
not what the OP was complaining about.

He wasn't 'complaining' at all. Just the usual troll.

He's not the 'usual' troll on the gardening group which I follow, so I
assume you are referring to the diy group.
But it's been quite enlightening to learn just how extreme some
addicts can be in defence of their habit. It's a reminder why we need
to have laws to protect the innocent majority from the diminishing few
who set their own needs above their neighbours' comfort and safety.

Too true

Mike


--

....................................

Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.

....................................

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Indeed. The snag with the smoking laws is most reasonable people think
them unfair as well as not actually doing what was wanted.

IME most reasonable people don't think the smoking laws go far enough.
I expect you know too many smokers and not enough non smokers.

But then you're neither sensible or reasonable.

--
*Where do forest rangers go to "get away from it all?"

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Fuschia wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:40:54 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Fuschia wrote:
By all means let's talk about alcohol in another thread, but that's
not what the OP was complaining about.

He wasn't 'complaining' at all. Just the usual troll.

He's not the 'usual' troll on the gardening group which I follow, so I
assume you are referring to the diy group.

I was referring generally. I don't know the gentleman. But since he hasn't
participated in the thread it's safe to say he's a troll

But it's been quite enlightening to learn just how extreme some
addicts can be in defence of their habit. It's a reminder why we need
to have laws to protect the innocent majority from the diminishing few
who set their own needs above their neighbours' comfort and safety.

It might be more to the point if you thought up some ways of answering the
problem. It's almost certain you have habits others would happily ban. The
nature of the human.

--
*If your feet smell and your nose runs, you're built upside down.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" observed:

I was referring generally. I don't know the gentleman. But since
he hasn't participated in the thread it's safe to say he's a troll

You're right, we haven't heard much from the OP since he lit the blue
touch-paper and retired to a safe distance!

He initiated a lively, entertaining thread though ;-)
--
Interloper

In article ,
Interloper wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" observed:

I was referring generally. I don't know the gentleman. But since
he hasn't participated in the thread it's safe to say he's a troll

You're right, we haven't heard much from the OP since he lit the blue
touch-paper and retired to a safe distance!

He initiated a lively, entertaining thread though ;-)

;-) It comes up about every year. With the same predictable arguments.

--
*Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Indeed. The snag with the smoking laws is most reasonable people think
them unfair as well as not actually doing what was wanted.

IME most reasonable people don't think the smoking laws go far enough.
I expect you know too many smokers and not enough non smokers.

But then you're neither sensible or reasonable.

Well I don't smoke so that makes me far more sensible than all smokers.
I don't stop smokers smoking unless its harming others so I am also more
reasonable than most smokers.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Interloper wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" observed:

I was referring generally. I don't know the gentleman. But since
he hasn't participated in the thread it's safe to say he's a troll

You're right, we haven't heard much from the OP since he lit the blue
touch-paper and retired to a safe distance!

He initiated a lively, entertaining thread though ;-)

;-) It comes up about every year. With the same predictable arguments.

Probably felt he couldn't add much to the experts comments.

My opinion of smokers was formed when it was legal to smoke in cinemas.
The smokers hand was invariably positioned so that the smoke did not
drift towards his own face.

I don't think 23 years exposure to office smokers has shortened my life
but I do still wish they wouldn't do it. I have now survived a further
28 years with hazards limited to harvesting dust, chemical sprays and
welding fumes:-)

regards


--
Tim Lamb

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"dennis@home" wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Huge wrote:
I find it very amusing. Non smokers always said how much they
hated pubs because of the smoke. Now they're all non smoking,
they're closing in droves...

So the predatory behaviour of brewers, discount alcohol from
supermarkets and the drink-drive laws have nothing to do with it?

You think these only started after the smoking ban? Have you tried
asking those publicans who's pubs have had to close?

They were interviewing publicans on BBC WM a couple of months ago
about the closing of pubs.
Half of them said the smoking ban had had a positive effect and they
now served more food and had families in.
the other half said they were going broke.
You can draw whatever conclusion you like.
I note that there are now far more places to go than pubs, like
smoke free restaurants, cinemas, etc.
Pubs that don't offer more than drinking look like dying pubs to me.
If you just want to drink then its a lot cheaper at home.

I can't see the point of a pub that doesn't do food.

Well you could get ****ed in it.

--
Adam

On 29/08/2011 19:30, ARWadsworth wrote:
Tim wrote:
In ,
wrote:

"Dave Plowman wrote in message
...
In ,
wrote:
I find it very amusing. Non smokers always said how much they
hated pubs because of the smoke. Now they're all non smoking,
they're closing in droves...

So the predatory behaviour of brewers, discount alcohol from
supermarkets and the drink-drive laws have nothing to do with it?

You think these only started after the smoking ban? Have you tried
asking those publicans who's pubs have had to close?

They were interviewing publicans on BBC WM a couple of months ago
about the closing of pubs.
Half of them said the smoking ban had had a positive effect and they
now served more food and had families in.
the other half said they were going broke.
You can draw whatever conclusion you like.
I note that there are now far more places to go than pubs, like
smoke free restaurants, cinemas, etc.
Pubs that don't offer more than drinking look like dying pubs to me.
If you just want to drink then its a lot cheaper at home.

I can't see the point of a pub that doesn't do food.

Well you could get ****ed in it.

I go to my local for a better pint of ale than I can get anywhere else
and to catch up on what is going on in the village. The smokers are
happy to go outside and I only have to walk 150 yards home soberly
without endangering anyone else.

"'Mike'" wrote in message ...




"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message ...
On 27/08/2011 16:18, Interloper wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" mocked:

Why don't you try getting a life?

Most likely Dave has already got a life and he is trying to hang on to it
and his health by avoiding passive smoking.

Could you name someone who as died from passive smoking? Anywhere in the world will do.

Margaret Horsborough
25 Colchester Road
Leicester

My next door neighbour when I lived in Leicester in the 60's and 70's

A non smoker, died of Lung Cancer due to secondary/passive smoking whilst in an office environment.


And Roy Castle, it must be true it's in Wikipedia.


I would also like to add that the treatment that I received in hospital recently when I firs,t had a quadruple heart by pass,
followed by a LUNG decortication, was enhanced because I didn't smoke and NEVER HAD SMOKED

You mean your prognosis was better. One would hope the treatment you received was appropriate
to your needs at the time regardless.
..


--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On 29/08/2011 17:06, Elmo wrote:
On 30/08/2011 1:40 AM, mike wrote:
On Aug 29, 4:17 pm, The Medway
wrote:
On 29/08/2011 15:15, mike wrote:

Surely multinational drug companies would be in favour of smoking
because they could then sell anti-cancer drugs to the people who
became ill.

You have no idea how profitable nicotine patches etc are.

I can well imagine how profitable nicotine patches are but surely a
constant supply of cancer-riddled addicts is more profitable than the
diminishing supply of patch-buying quitters that a ban would produce.



Using a nicotine patch isn't giving up smoking - it is just changing
brands.

Oh I don't know. My father gave up smoking for a number of years, but
then the company he was working for wanted to make a number of
redundancies and he was the one that had to tell the employees. He was
stressed and uncomfortable with this and a smoker offered him a
cigarette, which he unfortunately took. A few years later on Father's
Day, I gave him a pack of nicotine patches, he never bought a second
pack, but he never smoked again!

SteveW

On 29/08/2011 14:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In , Steve Walker
wrote:
Do you think everyone who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic?

It was in reply to the addicts part. And yes, many who claim to simply
just enjoy a glass of wine - and it's always wine - are addicted.

The difference is that smoking is highly addictive (any regular smoker
that stops will experience cravings/withdrawal symptoms); serves no
useful purpose and is afflicted on averyone around.

The same can be thought of alcohol if you co to many town centres of an
evening.

Except that in moderation, no-one around is affected, unlike smoking.

Drinking is far less addictive (those who succumb generally have
addictive personalities anyway and can become addicted to a whole range
of things - even exercise - the rest suffer no effects on doing
without);

Hmm. Interesting the way you bend addiction to rule out a drug you use and
turn it to others.

It's simple fact, most people can drink all their lives without ever
devloping an addiction (defined as producing withdrawal symptoms when
they don't drink), most smokers who try to give up struggle and do
suffer physical withdrawal symptoms.

in small quantities it can have health benefits and certainly
does no harm;

You'll find plenty of 'authorities' who disagree with this statement:
likely just as many as on passive smoking.

There are frequent scientific reports of health benefits of small
quantities of alcohol, whereas the reports on cigarette smoke show harm
beginning at even the lowest levels.

it's only afflicted on those around by those who
overindulge - which we do have laws against, but somehow fail to enforce.

Indeed. The snag with the smoking laws is most reasonable people think
them unfair as well as not actually doing what was wanted.

Oh, I think that the smoking laws are unfair to an extent - smoking in
company vehicles, etc. but I can't see any way to allow smoking in pubs,
restaurants, etc. without affecting either other customers or staff.

SteveW

On 29/08/2011 12:21, Fuschia wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:54:42 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 29/08/2011 11:06, Fuschia wrote:
On 29 Aug 2011 08:45:35 GMT, wrote:

On 2011-08-28, Steve wrote:

The selfishness of smokers has always amazed me.

They're junkies. Junkies will lie, cheat, steal, do *anything* to get their
fix. Junkies deny realities obvious to non-junkies. The life of the junky
revolves around their addiction. Nothing else matters.

It's only natural for addicts to claim that they enjoy the habit and
that they are being persecuted. It's so much easier than admitting
they are too weak minded to give it up.

You fail to understand that some people have no wish to give it up.

Keep telling yourself that. One day you might just believe it - if the
cancer doesn't get you first.

I'm going to die of something - and so are you.


Fortunately, smoking IS gradually dying out. Too slowly, but it is
happening.

Alcohol is next on the new puritan list. Hope you don't like a drink.

A non-sequitur much beloved of smokers.
"Help, I've lost the argument again! - ah yes, the alcohol dodge."

You really should try & understand Latin phrases before you use them in
an effort to appear clever.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 29/08/2011 13:51, Steve Firth wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

In ,
wrote:
A non-sequitur much beloved of smokers.
"Help, I've lost the argument again! - ah yes, the alcohol dodge."

Plenty of similarities. Both are mind changing recreational drugs.
However, the detrimental effects of alcohol on behaviour (with many) make
it very different. And the havoc is causes to society in a totally
different league. But carry on thinking it's harmless. Just because you're
a user.

Anyone who needs to take 15 minutes per hour off work to get a drink has
a problem. So does someone who needs to spend the same amount of time
smoking.

15 minutes? How big is this cigarette?

Another gross exaggeration, typical of the anti smoking fascists.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 29/08/2011 14:19, Fuschia wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:31:35 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In ,
wrote:
A non-sequitur much beloved of smokers.
"Help, I've lost the argument again! - ah yes, the alcohol dodge."

Plenty of similarities. Both are mind changing recreational drugs.
However, the detrimental effects of alcohol on behaviour (with many) make
it very different. And the havoc is causes to society in a totally
different league. But carry on thinking it's harmless. Just because you're
a user.

And where did I say alcohol is harmless? Alcohol certainly has great
dangers and has to be controlled.

What I said is that it's a non sequitur. Look it up if you need to.
Alcohol is not relevant to the discussion on passive smoking, and has
no bearing on whether passive smoking is unpleasant and/or dangerous.

By all means let's talk about alcohol in another thread, but that's
not what the OP was complaining about.

And thats not what I was talking about idiot.

Smoking has been demonised by the health police - fact.

Alcohol is next on their lists - fact.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk