In message , The Medway Handyman
writes
On 28/08/2011 19:01, dennis@home wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Peter James wrote:
Could you name someone who as died from passive smoking? Anywhere in
the world will do.

How about Roy Castle a man who died from lung cancer and who never
smoked. Said he picked up the disease from the night clubs he worked in
and where smoking was rampant.
For further information see the following URL's.

One swallow - even with a famous name - does not a summer make. And even
if it did, there's a very big difference between working all your life in
smoky rooms and having neighbours who smoke outdoors.

that's true.. you can choose not to go into smoke filled rooms.
in the other case they are taking away your freedom.

What about the freedom of smokers to go into smoke filled rooms?

There should be no more publicly accessible smoke filled rooms


Or is 'freedom' a one way street?


Yeah - good, isn't it



--
geoff

In message , The Medway Handyman
writes

Whose choice is more important? The drug addict's or the clean living
person's?

Both. But the anti smoking fascists removed choice from the equation.




You do have a choice

don't smoke in public places

or

get arrested


|Lets use a gun analogy

do you see it as everyone's personal right to carry a firearm?


--
geoff

In message , Judith
writes
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 08:33:52 +0100, (Peter James)
wrote:

snip


For further information see the following URL's.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d.../2/newsid_2493
000/2493567.stm

Mr Castle had never smoked, but said he contracted his illness after years of
playing in smoky jazz clubs



http://www.stopsmokingtoday.com/dync...e_Smoking.html

One US study observed that passive smoking increased the incidence of feline
lymphoma in cats and the likelihood of them developing health complications
increased the longer they were exposed to passive smoking.



Yep - that's proof if ever there was any


So ****ing what?

Look - you're a ****ing druggie

You are addicted to a substance which has no positive benefits and
plenty of negative ones in your means of absorption - i.e. smoking
tobacco

it controls you, you are a slave to nicotine, one of the most addictive
drugs in common circulation

Whatever pathetic excuses or justifications you care to post don't
change the fact that you are a spineless druggie unable to kick the
habit


Yeah - I was 60 / day ... I did it



--
geoff

In message , The Medway Handyman
writes
On 29/08/2011 13:06, Interloper wrote:
"Hugh - Was Invisible" observed:

"The Medway Handyman" wrote:

You being their undisputed king ****wit.

TMH. Get your head out of the sand. You are making
yourself look a complete idiot.

Yes indeed!

Most people are good at something :-)

Where did you take your degree in higher stupidity?




Just a minute

you spend how much a week on a habit that seriously damages your health
and has no real benefit



who are you calling stupid?




--
geoff

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Fuschia 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.

'Kin prosit, mate

So, are you an addict or not ?


--
geoff

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article , 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.

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.

So how does a glass of wine / beer / whatever affect others in close
proximity in the same way that smoke does?



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.

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.



Well, absolutely

I'm not that fussed about the smoke - any damage is already done

good fun to wind up though




--
geoff

In article , The Medway Handyman
wrote:
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?

The cigarette doesn't take 20 minutes to smoke - but the absence from work
could be that long:

Leave desk, go to toilet, wait for lift, use lift (which stops at all
floors), go outside, look in bag or pocket for cigarettes, same with
lighter/matches, smoke cigarette, go back indoors (having first found
security pass in pocket/bag, wait for lift, use lift, go to toilet, return
to desk. That's an easy 20 minutes.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

Tim Streater wrote:

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

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

Why would you want to get ****ed - unless you're a ****-artist.
Getting legless is something everybody should do once, but beyond
that it just ****es birds off.

The women are usually worse than the men when it comes to getting ****ed.

--
Adam

On 30/08/2011 07:50, charles wrote:
In , The Medway Handyman
wrote:
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?

The cigarette doesn't take 20 minutes to smoke - but the absence from work
could be that long:

Leave desk, go to toilet, wait for lift, use lift (which stops at all
floors), go outside, look in bag or pocket for cigarettes, same with
lighter/matches, smoke cigarette, go back indoors (having first found
security pass in pocket/bag, wait for lift, use lift, go to toilet, return
to desk. That's an easy 20 minutes.

You forgot continuing to chat with colleague who came out later until
he/she finishes their cigarette.

On 30/08/2011 6:02 PM, Hugh - Was Invisible wrote:
On 30/08/2011 07:50, charles wrote:
In , The Medway Handyman
wrote:
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?

The cigarette doesn't take 20 minutes to smoke - but the absence from
work
could be that long:

Leave desk, go to toilet, wait for lift, use lift (which stops at all
floors), go outside, look in bag or pocket for cigarettes, same with
lighter/matches, smoke cigarette, go back indoors (having first found
security pass in pocket/bag, wait for lift, use lift, go to toilet,
return
to desk. That's an easy 20 minutes.

You forgot continuing to chat with colleague who came out later until
he/she finishes their cigarette.

S/he also forget to wash hands.

"Judith" ranted:

Another ****wit jumping to wrong conclusions.

You are Mrs Medway Handyman and I claim my £5.

Or maybe you just use the same scriptwriter.
--
Interloper

In article ,
Gib Bogle wrote:
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.

I'd suggest you do some research before writing such crap. Cocaine does an
incredible amount of damage to the body and mind. As can alcohol.

The safest of all the common drugs as regards physical damage is heroin.

But I'm not advocating using it or any other drug.

--
*Fax is stronger than fiction *

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

In article ,
geoff wrote:
Hmm. Interesting the way you bend addiction to rule out a drug you use
and turn it to others.

So how does a glass of wine / beer / whatever affect others in close
proximity in the same way that smoke does?

It's a different drug and effects others in a different way. Never been in
a restaurant next to a table full of rowdies?

--
*Who is this General Failure chap anyway - and why is he reading my HD? *

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

In article ,
Hugh - Was Invisible wrote:
The cigarette doesn't take 20 minutes to smoke - but the absence from
work could be that long:

Leave desk, go to toilet, wait for lift, use lift (which stops at all
floors), go outside, look in bag or pocket for cigarettes, same with
lighter/matches, smoke cigarette, go back indoors (having first found
security pass in pocket/bag, wait for lift, use lift, go to toilet,
return to desk. That's an easy 20 minutes.

You forgot continuing to chat with colleague who came out later until
he/she finishes their cigarette.

Indeed. And frequently talk about work. So work may not actually stop with
a fag break - or any other sort of break. Unless your job is sticking
wheels on a car in a factory. In which case you'll not be allowed fag
breaks. Only designated breaks that all get.
It was so in my job. Could only take a break when it was possible work
wise. Not just to suit myself. Not every one works in a poorly supervised
office, etc.

--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it *

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

On 2011-08-30, charles wrote:

In article , The Medway Handyman
wrote:
On 29/08/2011 13:23, Steve Firth wrote:

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?

The cigarette doesn't take 20 minutes to smoke - but the absence from work
could be that long:

Leave desk, go to toilet, wait for lift, use lift (which stops at all
floors), go outside, look in bag or pocket for cigarettes, same with
lighter/matches, smoke cigarette, go back indoors (having first found
security pass in pocket/bag, wait for lift, use lift, go to toilet, return
to desk. That's an easy 20 minutes.

It seems a bit unfair to count "go[ing] to toilet", since all
employees do that anyway; if anything, combining the toilet & smoking
breaks is probably a bit more efficient than making separate trips.
;-)

Anyway, the OP didn't ask how to make his neighbours stop smoking, or
even stop smoking in their garden --- just how to keep the smoke/smell
away from him & his family in their own garden.