Mosquito under-25 repellant device

[Rod]

Si and everyone else,

Just chortled a bit at this smoking story from Germany:

(Don't get any ideas, Si. :-) )

[Mark]

OK. I'll bite.

Absolutely. There are actually only 3996 toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke. Four of them are safe.

Just because there are other toxins in the environment does not justify exposing people to more because of a drug addiction.

There is no evidence for this. If smokers absorb enough toxins through their filters to harm themselves it proves nothing about the level of toxins absorbed by people nearby.

Where's the evidence for this?

So 9,000 is acceptable and 16,000 is not? Even the lowest figure is horrendous.

So your neighbours get it instead?

So we should let anyone do anything they like, no matter the consequences?

M.

[Appin]

The message from Rod contains these words:

Well, it is mainly chicken they sell, so the air would obviously be "fowl" :-)

[Si]

In message , Rod writes

Interesting - thanks :)

However, SWMBO is an extreme version of a TMH ;-) and since her mother unfortunately (and I mean that *most* sincerely folks) lived to be 85 she's unlikely to be discouraged from the filthy weed by mere rational scientific research.

[The Medway Handyman]

I rather think it does. Smoke dilued by the smoker and then further diluted in the air is clearly not the same as being an active smoker. Thus the accusation that "People that breath secondhand smoke are at risk of the same diseases as smokers, including cancer and heart disease,"

In any medical text book.

The figures have no credible basis whatsoever. They are made up to support an argument. Since there is no scientific evidence to support such a claim the RASF's [1] make the figurs up.

I've never liked them :-)

Any smoke not absorbed by us is then diluted into the air. Look up 'diluted' if still confused.

If people choose to smoke it is their decision. If we had 'smoking' venues no one else would be affected.

[The Medway Handyman]

There is no rational scientific research to support the passive smoking hysteria. Give my regards to SWMBO, she sounds like a wonderful woman.

[The Medway Handyman]

Sorry, forgot to explain RASF's. Its a new acronym I've just invented.

Rabid Anti Smoking Fascist.

[Dave]

I can't see the original poster of this, as my reader dumps read posts, but

I was born with asthma and foolishly took up smoking at an age of about

1. Since giving up the weed and indeed before, I have had a reaction whenever I walk past someone smoking in public. It literally takes my breath away, as does the exhaust from most diesel engines.

Dave

[BRG]

TMH,

Why don't you just admit that you lack the willpower to give up the 'weed' and you will use any excuse not too!

A little bit of info for you - I have *never* smoked but both my parents used to smoke *60* a day *each* (1 died of lung cancer the other a stroke) and I have suffered from chest problems for most of my 59 years - which after a battery of tests some 12 years ago, it was concluded that the most likely cause of this was passive smoking (something you deny can happen).

But I suppose you will still disbelieve this - so hide your head in the sand and cause yourchildren problems because of your obnoxious habit!

As a matter of interest, would you expose your kids to asbestos?

BRG

[Dave Plowman (News)]

No. There are other benefits commercially to non smoking premises - longer lasting decorations, possibly lower insurance premiums, etc. But very few pubs chose to be non smoking. If those that did were a commercial success others would have followed.

I don't know of anyone who avoided pubs when smoking was allowed who now is a regular pub user. I do know of a few smokers who no longer go as often as they did, though.

Plenty said they avoided pubs because of the smoke - but that's not the same as now using them as they're non smoking.

[Clive George]

Yes, and that was my original point - given the choice of going smoking vs non-smoking, commercial reasons dictated all but a very few choose smoking. So TMH's idea of having "smoking venues" would merely mean a return to the previous situation of smoking pretty much everywhere.

cheers, clive

[Andy Hall]

Because now you can smell the rankness of the cooking fat trodden into the carpets and permeating the decorations.

[Andy Champ]

Curiously my son's asthma improved once he started spending time in smoky pubs...

Andy

[Frank Erskine]

They don't use cooking fat in my (semi)local pub.

Nor indeed are there carpets, come to think of it (apart from a rug in front of the log fire).

But they do a wonderful pint of cask Black Sheep...

[The Medway Handyman]

Market forces. When the smoking ban was enforced the RASF's told everyone that the pub trade would boom. The LVA said different and were proved right, the English Pub is on is last legs over this.

[The Medway Handyman]

I have no intention or desire whatsoever to give up smoking. I thoroughly enjoy it.

There is a myth, perpetrated by the RASF's that 'most' or 'all' or 'the majority' or 'thousands' of smokers want too give up. All without any ststistics to back it up of course.

I'm coming to the inevitable conclusion that being a non smoker makes you a lying bastard.

'most likely'? I think that means they had no idea.

Interesting isn't it. I'm hetrosexual, but I don't rant hysterically about gay people. I'm white but I don't rant hysterically about black people. Why do non smokers rant hysterically about smokers?

To return to your point, my children are in the best of health thank you.

It would depend on the credible scientific research. Once again you have fallen for a scare story. Because you read it in the papers doesn't mean it's true.

If I were to start cutting or drilling asbestos, because there is credible scientific evidence of the hazard, then I wouldn't let them near it. But I have no problem letting them into the asbestos roofed garage.

Learn to think for yourself.

[The Medway Handyman]

So its airbourne particulates that trigger an existing condition, rather than passive smoking?

[Huge]

... in the minds of the nicotine poisoned, anyway.

[Mark]

See my previous paragraph.

Actually there are several types of lung cancer. Smoking is usually the cause of one type but not always. You cannot conclude that passive smoking is safe. Being exposed to cigarrette smoke increases the risk of many diseases. This has been proved "beyond reasonable doubt" in courts.

Because they don't smoke?

>> Alas it displays that the smoking ban is the thin end of the wedge.

The people who work there would be affected.

M.

[Huge]

What baffles me is that the non-smoking pubs I know of *were* a huge commercial success.