In message , The Medway Handyman writes
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?
So why do you smoke?
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?
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes
'Kin prosit, mate
So, are you an addict or not ?
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes
So how does a glass of wine / beer / whatever affect others in close proximity in the same way that smoke does?
Well, absolutely
I'm not that fussed about the smoke - any damage is already done
good fun to wind up though
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:
You are Mrs Medway Handyman and I claim my £5.
Or maybe you just use the same scriptwriter.
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.
Do you mean *in* a big river in Africa?
It's a different drug and effects others in a different way. Never been in a restaurant next to a table full of rowdies?
It's not PC to mention these days, due to some government initiative to bear down on drinking, but within the last decade two /major/ studies showed the same thing.
One report was mentioned in the newspapers, and I can't recall the details now. The other was a study of 10,000 civil servants over a 15 year period. I knew two people that were part of the study. Every year they were given a full medical, including lifestyle survey, diet and exercise survey, blood tests, ECGs, the whole nine yards. The level of detail meant that effects could be separated from each other.
The surveys showed the following, with regard to 'life outcomes':
- not drinking at all was the worst
- drinking between 21 and 42 units a week gave the best[1]
- drinking over 42 units was in between in terms of outcomes.
[1] this level of drinker was found to live longer than the other groups, suffer fewer illnesses, and die from a more limited range of conditions.The 21-unit 'safe level' was a number plucked out of the air by a government-appointed committee, and based on nothing evidential at all. Since the two surveys contradicted this, they have seemingly disappeared without trace.
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.
An extremely libertarian perspective might be that employers should be free to set whatever smoking/non-smoking policies they want, and prospective employees can accept them or go elsewhere; *some* libertarians seriously argue against anti-discrimination laws on the grounds that, in the long term at least, racist employers will be less successful than non-racist ones (because they are drawing employees from a smaller pool selected without regard to competence). ("In the long run we are all dead." -- J M Keynes)
Thank you for mentioning the latter. Gillian McKeith is merely one example of what has become a regrettably common phenomenon, but David Icke does appear to have taken the Velikovsky, von Däniken and Hubbard approaches to a new, er, dimension!
The trolls on this thread are far less amusing.
Regards, A loyal subject of Her Reptilian Majesty.
So the barmaid is going to wear a face mask with filters and possibly an air supply? And the smokers are going to pay more for their drinks to pay for this?
There are easier solutions, like giving up the addiction.
If you've not read it, you're "peddling assumptions" and you should read it for the "real facts". Or for the insight into delusion or maybe just the lulz.
You can repeat that as many times as you like, it just proves that you don't have a clue. At least when you were claiming it hadn't kill it was impossible to prove but to claim anyone just shows you don't understand epidemiology. You could have claimed smoking never killed and it would have been hard to disprove but epidemiology shows that smoking does kill people, the same as it shows secondary smoking does. Now go and cut someone's grass and stop making stupid statements.
Why would a barmaid ever have to enter the dedicated smoking area?
Perhaps you've not noticed the numbers of pubs that have close since the smoking ban? And of those that haven't, the numbers who have provided heated spaces outside for smokers? One such did so by removing the kid's play area...
Do get a life, Dennis.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.