Mosquito under-25 repellant device

[ARWadworth]

We were thinking that at work. Still, you cannot stop made up stories from doing the rounds.

Adam

[Clive George]

Why would anybody provide a non-smoking venue in that situation? Where's their commercial incentive to do so? That was the situation before the smoking ban - what proportion of eg pubs were non-smoking? Bugger all.

clive

[dennis]

I downloaded a wave file and played it on the rather tinny speakers of a laptop and I couldn't hear it but my daughter was going to chuck the laptop out the windows after 30 seconds.. she was 21 at the time. I expect that it would work as a ring tone.

[Andy Champ]

It was bugger all - and rising fast. In restaurants it was becoming a quite reasonable proportion. I've never smoked (well, not as much as a full packet anyway!), but I regard this legislation as a typical Nu Laber authoritarian response. Over complicated, over expensive, over detailed. For example, why do we have to have signs outside every building saying smoking is illegal, when it's illegal in all buildings?

And come to that, why hasn't anyone prosecuted 10 Downing St for not having a sign?

And another thought. We have a pensions crisis. Smokers pay enough tax to pay for their health care, then die before they can claim their pensions. Go ahead guys, be my guest. I'll sit by the window though if you don't mind!

Andy

[BRG]

Feel free, then I can come along and shit on yours - as well as in your old bag of DIY tools (one pile of shit joining another)!

I must have touched a raw nerve somewhere then?

BRG

[BRG]

Just a guess, but I always keep my tools sharp!

Smoking or on-smoking venues, what a laugh! A smoker lights up anywhere just to get the fix - and sod the non-smokers

Well if you wish to do that as a perversion or fetish, I'm sure that you will find someone leaning towards your ilk.

I am not assuming anything! The simple fact is that no matter where you smoke publicly [1], you will share it with everyone in the vicinity - especially if you are pathetic enough to stand out in all winds and weathers in doorways or open shelters just to feed your addiction - you also feed the passers-by!

[1] - And if you have children, then when you smoke 'privately' in your own home, you share it with them and they have no choice but to inhale your *noxious* fumes - do they?

BRG

[geoff]

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

It doesn't affect me that way

I've mentally switched into "non-smoker" mode

I don't like the smell any more, it doesn't make me feel like wanting to smoke

(50 a day two years ago ...)

[BRG]

But using your statistics, then the other 75% of the UK population find it abhorrent - a majority I think (that's assuming there are no fence-sitters)!

And remember, that a non-smoker also wish to carry out a perfectly legal activity - breathing clean air!

But you do have legal 'smoking areas' - your own homes!

It is a problem in the open air - smokers are polluting and here are some statistics for you to inhale:

SECONDHAND SMOKE CONTAINS 4,000 TOXIC CHEMICALS People that breath secondhand smoke are at risk of the same diseases as smokers, including cancer and heart disease, because secondhand smoke contains 4,000 toxic chemicals. It is estimated that secondhand smoke causes thousands of deaths each year.

That is a fact - see above or of you can find the time or effort - just do a quick 'google' and look for yourself - or just in case you are a little blinkered I'll do one for you>

(or a shorter link: At what range? Can smokers injure the health of small children &

That statement shows just how ignorant you are of the facts - if you have kids yourself and you smoke in the house - then work it out for yourself!

There used to be many smokers in shops before the ban was introduced - both staff and clients!

Do what you like in your own home, that is yours - but remember the children!

So what does that make you? A long term executioner and a suicide candidate I would say!

That is a bastardisation of a disputed poem depicting mass slaughter, and the use it in this context to justify your own habit really shows how pathetic you are!

BRG

[Rod]

Agreed - now I hate the smell at a thousand paces...

But, somewhat ironically, giving up appears to precipitate or disclose thyroid disease. Quite seriously, the nicotine may help to mask and overcome the lack of thyroid hormone. If you are going to give up, I suggest that you get your doctor to do a thyroid function test first.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Which suggests there was no real call for the smoking ban in pubs. There were non smoking pubs before the ban - and if they'd been a commercial success others would have followed suit.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

You've certainly proved you can't reason things through. You object to the pollution smokers cause - others can object to the pollution your car or boiler causes. They can object to your cat or dog spreading disease. Or anything else a bigot cares to think up.

[Clot]

To me, smoking in public, which I do, has been to date quite straight forward. In days of old when it was permissible in buildings, I would never smoke in a restaurant to avoid offending others. In "my local" pub in areas where folk were smoking, I would permit myself to light up provided that there were not folks immediately adjacent who were not. When in a strange pub/ hotel bar I would not light up unless others close by were, but ever concious of those about.

For many years prior to the ban when outside during the limited periods of an English summer, at an hotel or pub, I would ensure that I was always to leeward of others to avoid offence. I still do the same; it is courteous to do so.

[Clot]

It's time you looked at statistics. The same can be said for the effluvia from a barbeque, coal or wood fires. The amount and concentrations of these emissions must be taken into account. Your apparent appreciation of these issues suggests that you have suffered from the doctrines of New Labour.

[The Medway Handyman]

Then they could frequent non smoking venues and I could frequent smoking venues. Simple isn't it?

Oh dear, not that old chestnut again. You really are gullible aren't you?

OK, for the hard of thinking, lets go through it one thing at a time;

"SECONDHAND SMOKE CONTAINS 4,000 TOXIC CHEMICALS" Indeed it does, but at what dose? You don't know do you? Basic rule of toxicology 'the poison is in the dose'. May I remind you that many other things also contain many toxic chemicals.

"People that breath secondhand smoke are at risk of the same diseases as smokers, including cancer and heart disease,"

Clearly riduculous. Smokers must absorb the majority of the toxins, or smoking would have no adverse affect on them. Therefore smoke diluted by the smoker cannot have the same effect.

As a matter of interest, non smokers also develop lung cancer. Before you trot out the Roy Castle argument you should know that non smokers develop an entirely different form of cancer in a copletely different part of the lung.

"It is estimated that secondhand smoke causes thousands of deaths each year"

Indeed it is. Estimated. 'Thousands' is an interesting term. There are 'official' figures for the number of deaths caused by passive smoking. The UK Guvmint claim either 9,000 or 11,000 in the UK (depends which department you listen to). The EU claim 16,000 Europeans (which includes the UK) every year. I'll leave you to spot the anomaly in the figures.

What? Its a fact that second hand smoke in the open air is a serious threat to the health of small children & possibly fluffy bunnies?

Well strangely enough we designated the kitchen (with two extractor fans) as our smoking area simply because they didn't like the smell.

Keep the argument rational please. "Long term executioner"? Not letting emotion get in the way are we?

Alas it displays that the smoking ban is the thin end of the wedge. Who is next? Drinkers? Bacon sarnie eaters? Drivers? Fat people? You?

[The Medway Handyman]

Errm. No. Smokers IME including me do (did) not light up in no smoking areas.

The smoking ban would be just as easy to enforce in different venues as a total ban. We could have had choice - but you and your type don't want choice do you? You want to punish smokers.

Extremists like you are dangerous to society.

[Clive George]

Eh? Rather the opposite, surely?

cheers, clive

[Si]

This is part of a(n off-topic) thread on uk.d-i-y. You may find the final paragraph interesting?

d

[Si]

In message , Si writes

fsck! - that was supposed to be emailed (to swmbo who smokes (in the garden only (as did I when I still smoked) & has thyroid probs)

[Rod]

Does giving up smoking (and thus avoiding the 4,000 toxic chemicals) make us notice the 4,000 toxic chemicals [1] in the air vented from KFC branches and similar? Or have they added them since I gave up?

I have never liked the smell of most commercial catering establishments, but since giving up a few years ago, I feel nauseous when I pass such places.

Is there any real research on the fowl air coming from KFC?

[1] Mandatory made up statistic.

[Rod]

Si,

Just delighted that anyone was at all interested!

Have a look here (an article I happened to have displayed as I read your post):

and get her over to .

I am more than willing to receive emails on thyroid issues if we can help at all. I think my posting email works.