Buy to lets

There's more than enough 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone in sidestream smoke to be a problem

I love the way that nicotine junkies conflate an essential activity (travel) with their addiction to a recreational drug.

Especially as many habitual criminals are either illiterate or drug users, and would find it almost impossible to keep, even if they could get, a job.

For those that can keep a job, it's probably the best means of keeping them out of crime as they then have something to lose if they reoffend.

Owain

Quite. I mean, why wouldn't it? The difference between the passive smoke that I have to breathe on occasions contains all the same s**te as the stuff which the smoker inhales... oh hang on, no it doesn't: the smoker (usually) has the benefit of a filter which removes a good percentage of it.

If you google for "passive smoking" and "risk" you'll come up with a huge body of scientific studies which have demonstrated the link, and only a very small number of largely wacky ones which refute it.

David

Its medical fact I'm afraid, sorry to disappoint you. Different form of cancer, different part of the lung.

As any toxicologist will tell you the poison is in the dose. PAH's come from incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as wood, coal, diesel, fat, tobacco, or incense - so lets ban them as well shall we?

Then do what the guvmint, the EU & the BMA have all failed to do. Provide one single example of a death certificate that gives passive smoking as the cause of death.

All of the above august bodies are not above outright lies, bad science, sexing up the figures to support thier hypothosis etc, but they draw the line when it comes to fraudulent death certificates.

Nice try, no cigar - which you wouldn't smoke anyway.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

Aah, I wondered who made little green apples

You are clearly barking...and live in Suffolk

What do you mean, fraudulent death certificates!!??

Where do you get the information that a doctor cannot give passive smoking as a cause of death? I have no idea whether there exist any death certificates stating "passive smoking" as either a cause or contributory factor - do you know, really?

If a doctor believes that "X" is the cause of death, then he is free to put that down on the death certificate - who do you imagine is going to police what he writes?

If someone dies as a direct result of smoking, then the *actual* cause of death would be listed as lung cancer or whatever, and the fact the the deceased smoked 5 packs of Gauloise a day would no doubt be listed as a 'contributory factor'. It would be the same with a death attributable to passive smoking - it's not going to be headlined as The Cause of Death.

David

You're banging your head against a number of particularly *THICK* brick walls if you had not already noticed.

What I mean is that the entire anti smoking hysteria is based on bad science & propaganda from the nicotine patch pharmacutical multinationals. The average doctor or paramedic would not risk stating cause of death on an official document as 'passive smoking' because they know full well it would be a claim impossible to substanciate.

I do know. FOREST (Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco) have challenged the establishment on many occassions to provide evidence of such a certificate. No such document exists. It's been challenged in the USA as well with similar results.

No Doctor is going to write 'passive smoking' as a cause of death on an official document because he is unable to prove that as cause of death. Because there is no credible evidence whatsoever to confirm it. If anyone did they would be open to a legal challenge, which they couldn't defend.

Lung cancer is an actual 'cause of death' because scientific studies have established a link beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore 'Lung Cancer caused by Cigarette Smoking' would be acceptable. However, you simply cannot develop lung cancer as a result of so called passive smoking.

Simply because it can't be supported by any credible scientific evidence whatsoever.

That's the problem with the current anti smoking hysteria. The smoking ban has changed the social lives & human rights of 30% of the UK population, has changed the British pub forever, has demonised people who enjoy a perfectly legal activity and contribute £16bn a year to the treasury.

However, no problem. In a few years anyone who enjoys a few beers will be demonised. Then it will be anyone eating a bacon sandwich. Next 'Devils Spawn' will be meat pies. Then you won't be able to drive your car.

You just carry on believing the outright lies from the guvmint & the meeja and 1984 will have arrived a few years late. Learn to think for yourself.

Alcohol *is* next. Someone

In message , Doctor Drivel writes

barking is in essex you tosser

But surely smoking is never put as the actual cause of death either?

With respect , you don't *know*, you just choose to believe the garbage spouted by FOREST, who are of course openly funded by the big multinational tobacco firms who have more than a vested interest in debunking passive smoking, rather than the medical/scientific community who have a genuine interest in promoting good health.

OK, I've just made an appointment with a GP to discuss this issue. Wasn't that hard really, as I share a bed with her.

She says she or any of her colleagues would have no problem in principle in including "passive smoking" on a death certificate (ie, along with the primary cause of lung cancer or whatever). That would be her opinion as a professional. I asked if she ever *had* written it down, and she thought for a moment, and said she hadn't. (Note - she had to consider before answering; it's not as if the answer was a no-brainer because there was some edict or other which says she couldn't have done so.)

So why hasn't she? Take an example of a patient of hers who died of lung cancer pretty horribly not long ago. This was a non-smoker who lived with a family of long-term heavy smokers. SWMBO would have been perfectly able to write "passive smoking" on the death certificate, secondary to lung cancer; however, she has to look at the bigger picture

- she also cares for the rest of the family who she is helping through their bereavement. If she'd written 'passive smoking' on the death cert, she might as well have just said to them - 'it's your fault they died' (which is what she firmly believes), so for pretty obvious reasons, she omitted it.

As Dr SWMBO says, basically you'd need to be a pretty bolshy sort of doctor to write "passive smoking" on a death certificate, but she'd be extremely surprised if nobody ever had done so, ever.

A legal challenge - from who? A cigarette manufacturer, or do you think an upset relative is going to try to take SWMBO to court over it? Just wouldn't happen. And if for some bizarre reason it did, she'd have absolutely no problem in defending it in court as being her opinion as to a contributory factor to death.

David

I had noticed ;-) It's a classic case of Denial.

So calling something an 'essential activity' - as if there was no alternative - makes it somehow ok?

By that logic carcinogens from a diesel would be fine from a vehicle on an essential journey - but what if it's a truck delivering alcohol?

But the whole thing is straying far off my original point which was there is simply no need to force smokers into draughty beer gardens etc outside pubs for any logical reason. It is simply a punishment by legislators for a habit they don't approve of. While making the use of an arguably more dangerous drug - alcohol - easier. The results of which are coming home to roost.

I'm sure that's the case - it will appear as secondary or contributory to lung cancer or whatever - which is why I don't see why the non-appearance of passive smoking on death certificates relevant to whether it "exists" or not, which appears to be FOREST's argument.

Referring to my earlier post today about the reluctance of doctors to refer to 'passive smoking' in a death certificate to avoid offending the sensitivities of the deceased's surviving nearest and dearest - that certainly wouldn't apply to writing 'smoking', ie where the condition has been self-inflicted.

David

Pressure groups need new crusades to get their kicks. Banning dogs might be a good one. Just establish a link between dog s*it and disease and we can all march about with placards saying, "Don't let your dog kill my child" etc.

Remember that FOREST is mainly funded by the tobacco industry so it is hardly an unbiased organisation.

I like that one. Put me down for a placard.