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, forced it
through.

Its undemocratic & basd on false evidence.

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

On Aug 29, 12:21*am, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

No, we have a smoking ban because a fanatical group of anti smokers,
backed up by the lobbying of multi national drug companies, forced it
through.


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

Which multinational drug companies are in favour of keeping people in
tip-top health and therefore without need of expensive
pharmaceuticals?

On 29/08/2011 15:15, mike wrote:
On Aug 29, 12:21 am, The Medway
wrote:

No, we have a smoking ban because a fanatical group of anti smokers,
backed up by the lobbying of multi national drug companies, forced it
through.


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.

Which multinational drug companies are in favour of keeping people in
tip-top health and therefore without need of expensive
pharmaceuticals?


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

On Aug 29, 4:17*pm, The Medway Handyman
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.

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.

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 Aug 29, 4:07*pm, Tim Streater wrote:

Which multinational drug companies are in favour of keeping people in
tip-top health and therefore without need of expensive
pharmaceuticals?

A meaningless question as perfect health for all doesn't and won't exist.

What?

Are there drug companies out there that are actively looking to reduce
sales and profits?

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