|
Blowing Neighbours smell away
"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. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
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 |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
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 |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
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. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
"'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% |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
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 |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
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 |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
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 |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
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 |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
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 |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
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 |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
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 |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
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 |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
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 |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
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. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
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 |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
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. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
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! |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
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. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
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. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
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. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
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 |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
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? |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
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. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
On 30/08/2011 4:02 a.m., Elmo wrote:
I don't scream (do you?) I don't, but my mother-in-law does whenever she is having an orgasm, which is quite often since my father-in-law discovered Viagra. My wife is no longer so keen to have them visit. Thank God for Viagra. LOL |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 19:35:34 +0100, "'Mike'"
wrote: snip 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? . Oh dear :-(( Another person with an inability to answer simple questions, but the ability to jump to wrong conclusions. AKA a ****wit. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:18:38 +0100, "Kathy" wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message ... On 28/08/2011 19:35, 'Mike' wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:37:43 +0100, wrote: "The Medway 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 :-(( Oh dear, oh dear. Another smoker trying to justify their addiction to the obnoxious weed. Another non smoker unable to support his biased opinion. 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? Why can't you appreciate that anally retentive, small minded people like you will believe anything that supports your cause? Many of your habits might well be vile to me. On Monday March 7th, 2011, my eldest brother died, quite nastily, from lung cancer caused by smoking. Smoking can cause lung cancer and lung cancer can kill. Fact. Here is a clue: it was your brother who died - not you. (Another clue : primary smoking is not secondary smoking) |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:00:27 +0100, TGH wrote:
snip And Roy Castle, a famous case if I am not mistaken. TGH Yawn. You are. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 19:36:20 +0100, "'Mike'"
wrote: "Judith" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 18:40:02 +0100, wrote: On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:20:27 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote: 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. Roy Castle. Indeed - according to that well known Cancer expert : his wife. If you could actually point to the autopsy result which confirms what you say - it would be much appreciated. Oh dear :-(( Another smoker trying to justify their addiction to the obnoxious weed. Oh dear : another ****wit jumps to a wrong conclusion. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 19:37:20 +0100, "'Mike'"
wrote: "Judith" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 21:47:18 +0100, David Rance wrote: On Sat, 27 Aug 2011, The Medway Handyman wrote: 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. Roy Castle, the entertainer. Nope. It is well documented that Roy Castle did die of passive smoking Please point out the many scientific articles which support you claim. (Letters from his wife to the Daily Mail do not count as such) Oh dear :-(( Another smoker trying to justify their addiction to the obnoxious weed. Another ****wit jumping to wrong conclusions. |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
In message , Interloper
writes Having analysed the various passive smoking arguments, "Keith" made the following contribution to the discussion: I believe that you are a ****wit. Is that good enough for you? Rather like 'TMH', if the best you can come up with is a personal insult, then you have lost the argument. So some say, but why ? There is no hard evidence to support it and few have died from it -- geoff |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
In message , ARWadsworth
writes Fuschia wrote: On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 22:06:16 +0100, "ARWadsworth" wrote: David Rance wrote: On Sat, 27 Aug 2011, The Medway Handyman wrote: 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. Roy Castle, the entertainer. Nope. It is well documented that Roy Castle did die of passive smoking, but if you are simply going to contradict anyone who doesn't agree with you then I shall not waste my time with you. He died of lung cancer. Passive smoking was a suggested cause of that lung cancer. That does not make it a well well documented proof. He believed it himself. That's good enough for me. And if he believed that fairies lived at the bottom of the garden? You mean ... they don't ? -- geoff |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
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 |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
In message , "dennis@home"
writes "Jon" wrote in message ... Very true - there are a lot of myths about smoking, perpetuated by those with an agenda and propagated by those who slavishly believe whatever they're told. Mostly by the addicts. For a more balanced view on the subject, the singer Joe Jackson decided to look into REAL facts regarding smoking and wrote "Smoke Lies, and the Nanny State" Addicts and their suppliers always like to look at studies and ignore those that don't agree with their findings. remember how many decades the smoking lobby told everyone that smoking didn't harm the addicts? remember how many decades the smoking lobby claimed smoking was not addictive. Now they claim passive smoking does no harm. You just can't trust the smoking industry or the addicts, they lie, they lie lots. There is no way an addict will admit that he has helped to kill someone and they will cling on to any sliver of evidence to say they didn't, such is life and death. Its pointless arguing with addicts until they are cured. Well, report back when you've been cured of your addiction to stupidity What drugs have you tried dennis ? Alcohol caffeine ketamine ? What has addled those grey cells in your cranium? -- geoff |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
In message , The Medway Handyman
writes On 28/08/2011 18:57, dennis@home wrote: "Jon" wrote in message ... Very true - there are a lot of myths about smoking, perpetuated by those with an agenda and propagated by those who slavishly believe whatever they're told. Mostly by the addicts. For a more balanced view on the subject, the singer Joe Jackson decided to look into REAL facts regarding smoking and wrote "Smoke Lies, and the Nanny State" Hello Dennipoos. You are well known around here for being a thick ****. This does nothing to avoid that opinion. Addicts and their suppliers always like to look at studies and ignore those that don't agree with their findings. The anti smoking fascists do exactly that. Any study refuting the passive smoking myth are suppressed and never published - and they are legion & many fold. remember how many decades the smoking lobby told everyone that smoking didn't harm the addicts? Remember how the ASF spent years trying to denigrate smokers? remember how many decades the smoking lobby claimed smoking was not addictive. You are going to have to provide some evidence for that. Now they claim passive smoking does no harm. You just can't trust the smoking industry or the addicts, they lie, they lie lots. Nothing like the anti smoking lobby. When it comes to lies, false information & fudged reports they are in a league of their own. Perhaps you would like to check out the well known anti smoking charity Action on Smoking & Health? Let me know when you do, we can talk about funding & lying. There is no way an addict will admit that he has helped to kill someone and they will cling on to any sliver of evidence to say they didn't, such is life and death. There is no way a small minded idiot like you would ever develop the intellectual capacity to think for himself. I think you have it slightly wrong there If Deennis were to call any part of his imagined word into question, his whole wall would come crumbling down Take drugs dennis, take lots of them -- geoff |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
In message
, mike writes On Aug 28, 12:40*am, Jon wrote: For a more balanced view on the subject, the singer Joe Jackson decided to look into REAL facts regarding smoking and wrote "Smoke Lies, and the Nanny State" It can be downloaded here as a doc or PDF file: Jon In what way are Joe Jackson's views on smoking any more "balanced" than Gary Glitter's views on the age of consent? Not read it but ... I think that the general thrust is that he has gone out to find real facts rather than the oft peddled assumptions Paul Gadd's sexual preferences are out of tune with the current commonly accepted norms. I'm not sure what the relevance is -- geoff |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
In message , The Medway Handyman
writes On 27/08/2011 23:05, Huge wrote: On 2011-08-27, David wrote: On Sat, 27 Aug 2011, The Medway Handyman wrote: 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. Roy Castle, the entertainer. Nope. It is well documented that Roy Castle did die of passive smoking, but if you are simply going to contradict anyone who doesn't agree with you Which he will. There's no point in arguing with junkies. No point in arguing with anyone if you don't know the facts. Well, the facts are, if you smoke (not talking about secondary smoking) you are clogging up your lungs with tars and other carcinogenic substances, impairing their ability to function properly the carbon monoxide you inhale preferentially attaches to the haemoglobin, further reducing the body's ability to get oxygen to the cells which need it to produce the energy required to function correctly There are no real benefits from smoking ( slight improvement in memory aside) - no high, no tripping, no benefit to the body They are now seriously expensive - what, £7/packet So it begs the question - other than the nagging little voice of addiction - why would any rational human want to smoke? -- geoff |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
In message , The Medway Handyman
writes On 28/08/2011 10:20, Peter James wrote: Dave Plowman wrote: In article1k6pbn0.zrjw1i1dikjd4N%pfjames2000@googlem ail.com, Peter 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. Indeed. But did you read the attached URL's? I suppose you are a strong believer in the tobacco companies assertion that there is no proven link between tobacco and lung disease? There is conclusive evidence to link active smoking with lung cancer. So, why do you smoke? . -- geoff |
Blowing Neighbours smell away
In message , The Medway Handyman
writes On 28/08/2011 21:07, dennis@home wrote: "charles" wrote in message ... In article , 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. not if your job depends on it. That's why we have a smoking ban, you can't go into smoke filled rooms because of your job anymore. No, we have a smoking ban because a fanatical group of anti smokers, backed up by the lobbying of multi national drug companies, Which ones ? forced it through. Its undemocratic & basd on false evidence. Good, though, isn't it -- geoff |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter