On 29/08/2011 17:34, Fuschia wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:40:54 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In ,
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.

To which he cross posted.

But it's been quite enlightening to learn just how extreme some
addicts can be in defence of their habit.

Even more enlightening to learn how extreme rabid anti smoking fascists
can be in the persecution of a minority.

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.

Its a reminder that we should be teaching people to think for themselves.

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

On 29/08/2011 12:44, Clive George wrote:
On 29/08/2011 11:54, The Medway Handyman wrote:

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

Far too useful in many occasions, and there's the big failed experiment
from the US too. It'll never happen.

Don't you believe it, thats what was said about smoking. The anti
alcohol campaign is following the anti smoking campaign almost exactly.

"A bid to impose a total ban on alcohol advertising on television has
been launched in Parliament".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/me...d-2257537.html


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

On 29/08/2011 13:23, Steve Firth wrote:
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.

Yup. I got stared at long and hard in company "personnel" meetings when
I asked if I could take 15-20 minutes off every hour

Again, just how large is this cigarette that takes 20 mins to smoke?

Exaggeration is a standard tactic used by anti smoking fascists.


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

On 29/08/2011 12:06, charles wrote:
In , The Medway Handyman
wrote:
On 29/08/2011 10:52, 'Mike' wrote:
"Gib wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2011 3:10 a.m., wrote:

Well, if we ignore the obvious trolling and prejudice, cigarette
smoke makes a lot of people with breathing problems cough very badly.

I think this is the main issue. Except in very smoky confined spaces,
I'm guessing that the cancer risk from other people's smoke is pretty
minimal, but those particulates can be very troubling for some. Any
smoke is air pollution, regardless of what's being burnt.

The smoker's attitude.'It's legal and therefore I can do it. If it
pollutes your airspace, .... tough'

The non smokers attitude. I don't like it so I want it banned
everywhere, if that restricts personal choice - tough.

I think you mistake some non-smokers with all non-smokers.

Some of the legislation is stupid: if I give someone a lift in my car on
behalf of a charity, I need to display a "No Smoking" sign in the car.

Entirely fair.

However, if I go on a job with my smoking mate, in the van I own,
technically its illegal. My van, we are both smokers.

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

On 29/08/2011 17:28, dennis@home wrote:


"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:59:43 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 29/08/2011 10:52, 'Mike' wrote:
"Gib wrote in message
...
On 28/08/2011 3:10 a.m., wrote:

Well, if we ignore the obvious trolling and prejudice, cigarette
smoke makes a lot of people with breathing problems cough very badly.

I think this is the main issue. Except in very smoky confined spaces,
I'm guessing that the cancer risk from other people's smoke is pretty
minimal, but those particulates can be very troubling for some. Any
smoke is air pollution, regardless of what's being burnt.

The smoker's attitude.'It's legal and therefore I can do it. If it
pollutes your airspace, .... tough'

The non smokers attitude. I don't like it so I want it banned
everywhere, if that restricts personal choice - tough.

The smokers' attitude. I like it so I want to be able to do it
everywhere, if that restricts personal choice - tough.

More like.. they can't prove it was my smoke that killed insert name
so I am alright and sod everyone else.

Passive smoking has never killed anyone.

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

On 29/08/2011 10:37 p.m., The Medway Handyman wrote:

That's why they deserve our sympathy. OK, so someone made a bad choice
in starting to smoke (probably as a teenager). We all make bad choices
when young, it's just that this decision is very hard to reverse.

Always assuming one wanted to.


Most smokers do.

On 29/08/2011 16:01, mike wrote:

In what way are Joe Jackson's views on smoking any more "balanced"
than Gary Glitter's views on the age of consent?


Do I really need to explain that to you?

Jon

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
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.

most of the complaints about smoking here refer to the past, and to people
smoking outdoors at the entrance to buildings. The last part would be
easily addressed by having smoking rooms. With proper filtration.

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.

Have you seen the figures for those treated for alcohol addiction? And the
numbers who drink every day is vast. Smokers can and do go for long
periods in a day without smoking too - just like many social drinkers.

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,

Yes - by those who use it or sell it. Plenty of doctors specialising in
such things is the only safe consumption is zero.

whereas the reports on cigarette smoke show harm
beginning at even the lowest levels.

It can be a useful drug for those who might otherwise need a different
medication. Of course it has well known downsides. But so do other forms
of medication. Especially with long term use.

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.

Given it's possible to provide a safe working environment for those
handling much more dangerous gases etc than smoke, it doesn't take too
much thought to realise you could make filtered smoking areas.

--
*Certain frogs can be frozen solid, then thawed, and survive *

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

On 30/08/2011 1:40 a.m., Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Gib Bogle wrote:
On 29/08/2011 10:23 p.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
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.

Sounds just like you with that glass of wine you so enjoy.


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.

Nothing wrong with wine. I had a glass yesterday. I'll probably have
another glass next Sunday too.


Addict!

In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
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.

I doubt it. Too many in high places are addicted to it. And if not
actually addicted, just heavy users.

--
*How about "never"? Is "never" good for you?

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

On 29/08/2011 11:17 p.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Gib wrote:
On 29/08/2011 10:23 p.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
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.

Sounds just like you with that glass of wine you so enjoy.


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.


Silly boy.

On 29/08/2011 10:54 p.m., The Medway Handyman wrote:

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.

You think people who don't like tobacco smoking are puritans? Sillier
and sillier.

In message , 'Mike'
writes


"Judith" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:37:43 +0100, "'Mike'"
wrote:





"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.


Was this the result of an autopsy - or just your guess.
Did it say on the death certificate : Lung Cancer caused by passive
smoking?

- or are you just guessing or suggesting that Lung Cancer is *only* caused
by
inhaling cigarette smoke?

Oh dear :-((

Another smoker trying to justify their addiction to the obnoxious weed.

Why can't they just admit that they are wrong, pack up their vile habit and
stop polluting the air WE breath and the pavements with their dog ends?

Mmmm ... nicotine

Mmmm ... the hit from that first cigarette in the morning

Err ... Mmmm - gobbing up half a ton of brown phlegm 10 minutes later



--
geoff

On 30/08/2011 10:18 a.m., The Medway Handyman wrote:
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.



I think it would make sense to legalize cocaine and ban tobacco.
Smokers could then switch and become coke-heads. Cocaine is both less
harmful to the user and harmless to bystanders.

Does this make me a puritanical fascist?

On 30/08/2011 2:49 a.m., Kathy wrote:

No one is disputing that. Which bit of 'passive' confused you?

Passive or active, tobacco smoke causes illness.
It is also, as you have acknowledged, polluting and frequently
unpleasant. No matter how many times you scream that it is your right to
be a unpleasant polluter, you do not have the right to pollute other
people's airspace.


Even if we take health effects completely out of the equation, smoking
around people who hate tobacco smoke is like farting in a crowded lift.
Extremely discourteous. Although, according to TMH, anyone objecting
in this instance would be a stupid, puritanical fascist.

A big river in Africa.