Buy to lets

Oh FFS, you do know the difference between anecdote and epidemiology, don't you?

It's another of the smokers denial syndromes. Epidmiology proves (not hints or suggests) that smoking is the root cause of an epidemic of pulmonary, circulatory and cardiovascular disease. The fact that you may know someone who has beaten the odds or died early does not change the evidential link nor the link to the health costs of smoking.

I think I lost my patience with smokers when working in a hospital. Amputations for smoking related disease were a daily occurence and the smokers all whine "I didn't know that smoking could make me lose my (arm, leg, penis, WHY)." Give them nine months to a year and they will be back again to have another limb trimmed, having failed to give up smoking in the meantime.

If you want to play anecdotes, imagine the cost of treating and caring for these stupid bastards.

Apart from the health risks, what about the discomfort caused to non-smokers? And the smells that impregnate their clothing?

Nobody is saying that non-smokers should suffer any irritation, discomfort or smell. The point is that smokers have the right to enjoy a perfectly legal activity in venues where the owner so decides.

Smoking Pubs & Non Smoking Pubs. Simple concept innit?

You wouldn't go to a Smoking Pub, I wouldn't go to a Non Smoking Pub. Everybodys happy.

Well done. You win the prize for the most stupid post ever.

I'll try to explain. Try to remember the phrase "the poison is in the dose".

If 100% of the toxins were exhailed by the active smoker, all smokers would be as fit as a butchers dog, and non smokers would be dropping like flies.

Now think a little.

But what of non smokers who would like to work in one of these smoking pubs? They wouldn't be able to do it.

OTOH, a smoker wishing to work in a non smoking pub could do so quite easily. That's somewhat inequitable....

How do you propose to make certainty of caughtness a reality, or use it as a deterrent?

We wont get hard proof until its tried. And I do think society needs to try some alternatives to the current setup, otherwise no progress will be made. Until then we have 2 things:

1. the results of boot camp trials, which show a significant rate of offenders deciding tog et their act together on release, in sharp contrast to conventional prisons
2. The knowledge that solitary confinement is a much harder punishment than regular bird, and the basic proven logic of punishment being a deterrent, and greater punishment being a greater deterrent.

yes, another aspect we need to tackle.

It would make no difference. Half the inmates per cell staying for half as long equals same capacity, as I said. Of course that doesn't mean we shorten all sentences, particularly lifers, nor does it imply that all cells should be run this new way, but certainly its a goer for many offenders.

It wouldnt need any increase, kitchen people & cleaners could be those with lightest sentences, ie no solitary.

Maybe you havent.

The popular approach to this seems to be that whaever is done we must not spend anything on doing it. This is fundamentally illogical. If we do some trials and find a way that works better, even if it costs more society is still ahead due to the reduced costs of crime.

NT

If it were banned, everyone and their dog would be growing nicotiana in the garden. Its very easy to grow, and would be tough to outlaw considering its already a standard garden flower.

As for processing, thats easy. The big difference is the time scale, but it aint hard and would quickly become widespread.

NT

If you dont think the return figure is key, and thus how much change in financial & letting market conditions you can tolerate, it'll be an interesting story to watch. :)

NT

Did you bother to read my post before getting all defensive? I asked if all the toxins in the smoke where absorbed by the smoker - not sure why you decided to turn that on its head, I`d love to hear your explanation. Passive smoking is entirely harmless according to your previous post, yes? In which case, there must be absolutely no toxin available for anyone else in the area by the cigarette to inhale or otherwise absorb yes? Or are you arguing that a small does of a toxin is harmless, despite the growing amount of evidence showing that even small amounts of many different kinds of toxin can be concentrated by living organisms, leading to problems later on? And you`re also presumably ignoring the fact that when considering a number of different toxins the result isn`t simply additive - 100 small doses of different toxins is more than 100 times more harmful than a single dose of a single toxin. Are you simply reading a website produced by a (presumably) pro-smoking organisation and not bothering to chek any of the facts listed yourself, or are you making up your facts to suit your arguement?

Now rather than getting all defensive, can you please answer my question - where is the evidence that all the harmful substances are removed from cigarette smoke before anyone else in the area can absorb them, by whatever means.

Let me stop you there. The dose to a passive smoking individual is reduced by dilution. Admittedly, like piss in a public swimming pool, the more dilute the better even if amounts detectable by Lab techniques / instruments remain, (I don't go swimming any more BTW) .

:((

Sorry. No money for you in that, they do it already.

DG

I did read your post, boring & trite though it was.

No, harmless according to all the credible scientific evidence.

Oh dear. I did ask you to remember the phrase "the poison is in the dose". Clearly beyond your intellectual capacity. Look up the phrase "The Dose".

No I'm not ignoring the entirely false science that makes such idiotic claims. I just wish I could. That claim is 100% false. You clearly have no idea of toxicology and accept the badly researched or badly understood claims of people who should know better.

Ask a toxicologist "the poison is in the dose". The claim that "100 small doses of different toxins is more than 100 times more harmful than a single dose of a single toxin." is simply idiotic, fuelled my ignorant journalists and new age hippies. Don't waste my time please.

Making up the facts to support an argument is the prerogative of the anti smoking lobby. They have provided so many false claims, misinterpreted figures and outright lies that no reasoning intelligent person could believe them.

Try to reason for yourself instead of believing all the media, govmint, nicotine patch industry hype.

I'll try to explain this again for the hard of thinking.

The burden of proof is on the person or persons making the claim. In this case the claim is that passive smoking is the antichrist, responsible for more deaths than two world wars, AIDS, the great plague, Chemical Ali & the Russian revolution.

If you make such a claim, you have to provide evidence to support it.

That has to be credible, scientific evidence.

There is none to support the claim.

Now, please listen hard. Credible, scientific evidence isn't "our bread tastes better, 57% of a survey (of 200 people) agree", or "our cream reduces wrinkles (tested on 176 people, 126 agree).

Credible scientific evidence is the result of a study of hundreds of thousands of people over a long time period. Not what you choose to believe.

You are clearly punching well above your weight here. Get back to me when you have learned to think logically.

That's very silly

Why? There are types of employment where exposure to hazard is a necessary part of the job - for example, emergency services, coal miners and so on. Exposure to tobacco smoke in the place of work is not a necessary hazard because there is no need for it to be there.

What a plantpot!!!!! A pub is for the consumption of alcohol, NOT smoking. The two are mutually excusive. A man who wishes to drink alcohol has the right to go into any licensed premises and not be poisoned by toxic fumes.

What a sirry irriot!!!

Then you will need to ban smoking in people's homes in case a meter reader comes calling. You will also need to display a certificate on the door to state that smoking has not taken place for the last 10 years so that the appropriate protective clothing can be worn. It's all very silly indeed, as you well know.

or food, or gambling, or games, or chat...

but can be poisoned by toxic alcohol... or sugar...

Indeed you are.

In message , Stuart Noble writes

They've already started doing that in parts of california (according to New Scientist)

In message , Doctor Drivel writes

...a public house where members of the public meet for various pastimes

ISTR it's happening already happening here in some areas, where social service staff have to come in and care for individuals who smoke in their own homes - aren't they being told they can't smoke within an hour of the carer's arrival or something? Pretty sure I read it right here last time there was a major row about smoking...!