Mosquito under-25 repellant device

[geoff]

In message , T i m writes

Aren't you N London / Enfield way ?

A spring bimble or a BOTAFOT (google it) must be in order, then

[dennis]

Irrelevant and typical of the junk smokers bring up to justify their addiction.

There are already laws to control drunkenness and they have been there far longer than antismoking laws. And I know of nobody that has suffered from secondary drinking in a pub/restaurant or cinema.

[T i m]

Yus ..

Well, whilst it's entirely possible (and thanks for the thought) when we do get a chance to go out on our bikes we generally try to combine that with long unvisited friends / family etc.

All the best ..

T i m

p.s. I had looked up BOTAFOT previously ;-)

[Rod]

This thread is reminding me of the days of smoking on trains - when I smoked and they allowed it! You would frequently see a group of people in the smoking compartments only one of whom was a smoker. As the proportion of smokers and the amount of smoking capacity reduced, you ended up with the situation in which smokers could not find anywhere to smoke as the seats were filled with non-smokers. I believe that a similar effect occurred in pubs.

[T i m]

Thanks. I have long since lost the energy to defend my rights for such issues. Luckily I don't have to do it so much now. ;-)

I fear that legislation is sometimes the only way to force some people to respect other peoples rights. I suspect the main reason it was allowed to go through 'blanket' was not to protect the rights of the majority but to minimize the potential liability from health related issues from the staff (in any employment role).

I'm all for any legislation (that 'works') that forces the inconsiderate minority to curtail their anti-social activities for the benefit of the majority (in the absence of 'good citizenship / respect' etc). I used to take our daughter over onto some 'waste land' (Technically unused private property) for her to run her little Yamaha PW50 motocrosser. I made a point of ensuring 1) The exhaust was working properly (as in noise reduction), 2) the nearby houses couldn't here it (I checked with some of them) and 3) whenever we came across any dog walkers or other folk (also unofficially) using the area we either went up the other end or stopped running the bike till they left. We also used to use a public track but that facility was closed due to 'environmental reasons' (which was bs) because of the noise levels of a minority of the bikes. As always, we all lose out because of the ignorant or arrogant actions of a minority.

And I appreciate and respect your right to whatever you like, as long as it doesn't negatively impact everyday folk, especially for_no_reason (like knocking out a dented panel on your car is 'a genuine reason', banging a old bath in the garden with a hammer isn't). Most 'smokers' use the car pollution as a counter argument to their public pollution whist (in most cases) being drivers themselves. (I was always told two wrongs don't make a right ). The other example they give is alcohol and whilst I agree 'all things in moderation' we (these days) generally all need to drive (or be driven or have our goods delivered etc) and all need to drink (something / liquid) .. but *need* to smoke? Now, what could have saved the day for the smokers was if the companies who make billions producing the cigarettes spent some of that money developing one (or a suitable gadget) that restricted that smell / smoke (and we can ignore medical risks if you like) to the user. Similar if you like, to the fact we are all expected to maintain a certain level of hygiene and use anti-perspirant etc.

Agreed, but as mentioned elsewhere that might be difficult to manage as at least now all smokers knows 'everywhere' (covered area etc) is off limits (possibly for the legal reasons mentioned above).

Whilst I agree any tax gained by the government from smokers can be used to treat them, I personally would rather pay the shortfall in my taxes and not have (had) to endure the outfall of other people habits on such a regular and often confrontational basis. [1]

If you want to smoke in your own house and as you as you have the honest and un-assumed permission of all you share it with [2] then that I guess is fine. Even step out onto the pavement and light up, you will never know how many people you offend who have done nothing whatsoever ever to you (and I appreciate *you* may be considerate to your family etc).

All the best ..

T i m

[1] I gave up trying to reason with folk who would insist on lighting up in front of the 6' long 'No Smoking' signs, no matter how politely anyone asked. Similar I guess as those who park in disable / mother child bays or across my side gates.

Me: "Excuse me mate, could you not park there (white line, large 'Please do not obstruct these gates' sign etc) as I'm going out now .."

Them: "Sorry mate, I'll only be 5 mins"

(the Police were called on rare occasions and the vehicle *was* removed)

[2] If there are any babies or pets in the house who can't have their say then I think the assumed answer should be NO.

[The Medway Handyman]

I don't RASF. I just want to be able to smoke in venues that choose to allow it.

That assumes that passive smoking is a health hazard - it isn't.

And you are a typical RASF, any evidence that doesn't support your hysteria must be wrong. There is scientific evidence that being an active smoker is harmful, but there is none that supports the passive smoking myth.

[The Medway Handyman]

Its already started Dave. Smoking was the thin end of the wedge.

's next?

[The Medway Handyman]

Apart from the people assaulted by drunks that is. My daughter deals with dozens every Friday & Saturday night.

Typical of the junk RASF's bring up to justify their hysteria.

[The Medway Handyman]

Nail, hit, head.

Another common myth used by FASF's. The revenue gained by the Guvmint on tobacco producst amounts to £12 billion a year. The NHS's figures on the costs of 'smoking related disease's ( a broad & flexible term) is £1.5 billion.

[Hugh Jampton]

Provide proof of that statement please ?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Really? It's perfectly relevant since *you* brought up drugs and addiction.

And are ignored or not enforced.

I'm willing to bet far more have been killed by others under the influence of alcohol than have ever been harmed by passive smoking.

[dennis]

Its irrelevant as someone having a drink has zero effect on anyone else unless it is taken to excess, which has been illegal for a lot longer than the smoking ban but you didn't care then. A smoker effects everyone around the second they light up even if you choose to ignore that fact. As for bringing heroin into it then if you think smoking is comparable to heroin I won't argue with you.. now how to get it classified as "A"?

Apart from the fact that smokers often drink too, one type of addiction is often associated with others, so many of those killed have been killed by smokers. Who knows now they can't smoke in the pub they may not get drunk and the smoking ban could be saving on assaults too. Anyone got the figures yet?

[BRG]

My last words on this subject.

To the best of my knowledge, no long term studies have ever been carried out on the effects of passive smoking - but it is obvious that if non-smokers live or work for a long period of time in the company of smokers, then this

*has* to have an effect on them simply because of the amount of noxious chemicals that are produced from the tobacco and the residues exhaled by the smoker.

(It has certainly happened with me as I stated in another post somewhere in this thread).

To cite an example of this is the late Roy Castle, who was a non smoker but developed lung cancer from the years that he spent inhaling the many cubic yards of second-hand smoke produced by the audience whilst he was frequently 'playing the club circuit'.

It's also a similar effect to that of asbestosis - where a man's wife has never worked with asbestos but died from the disease simply by inhaling the (sometimes only very small quantities) of dust/fibres from his overalls.

So in effect, your statement -- "I'm willing to bet far more have been killed by others under the influence of alcohol than have ever been harmed by passive smoking." -- really is untested, as to die *OR* to kill after taking excessive amounts of alcohol is given far wider publicity than someone dying of lung cancer - or other ailments - due to passive smoking.

All best.

BRG

[Frank Erskine]

Health risks aren't the only objection. Smoking and smokers smell awful. And it looks common.

[<me9]

A reformed smoker then?

[T i m]

;-)

No, sorry Dave, *I* was saying that if (say) there were no taxes raised from tobacco (because it was banned etc) I would be happy to pay (my share) of the loss of tax revenue just for the privilege of not having to breathe / smell other peoples smoke. Or I would_have because I had to moderate my (our) social life so much as a means of avoiding such situations. We only have the open public places (like pavement doorways) to really contend with now.

As a sort of an aside ... along with smoking comes other smoking relates issues (and I'm not suggesting all smokers do the following etc ..)

Fires (accidental) and arson (eg, I can't start a fire when I'm out and about because I don't carry matches or a lighter).

Litter, not only the butts but the boxes and other packaging etc.

Accidents, burning (not fire) yourself or others, or their clothes / carpets / furniture etc. I have had a lit butt flicked at me (accidentally quite probably) from a car while I've been on my motorbike.

Torture, I can't burn someone on purpose because I neither carry cigarettes nor the means to light them (and it does happen, even to babies etc).

Cost, I saw some old dear on TV News a while back on an article about energy costs complaining that she couldn't have more that one electric bar on. On the fireplace must have been 40 quid's worth of cigarettes?

Contamination, the amount of kit I have dealt with over the years that either stinks or has a layer of yellow sticky slime in / on it. I can tell instantly if something I have bought from eBay etc has come from a smoking home when I unpack it [1]. Our lounge ceiling hasn't been painted for ~25 years and it's still arctic white as no one has *ever* smoked in here. I would never buy a second hand car from a smoker.

(Back on the original topic ) I would pay extra taxes to have armed wardens patrolling the streets with a shoot_on_sight policy [2] where if they see anyone committing vandalism (kicking wing mirrors off cars etc). Strict but fair.

I wasn't saying what you think a FASF might say. ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

[1] I have never ever suspected they did heroin, drove a diesel, drunk heavily, liked spicy food, played loud music, used pine air fresheners nor had body odor. [2] And they can be on commission ...

p.s. I predicted the banning of smoking in public places 20 years ago and despite what some people have said here, it's not just 'our' nanny state that's done it ..

[The Medway Handyman]

Probably because you have realised your argument is completely flawed.

Many studies have been carried out on the effects of passive smoking and non have reached the conclusion that it is a health risk. You are clutching at straws in order to support your argument.

Oh dear, the old 'Roy Castle' argument again. This has been disproved so many times its just plain silly. Typicically it has the support of the hysterical anti smoking lobby who prefer anecdotal evidence to scientific fact.

Let me spell it out for you. Non smokers do contract lung cancer, as did Mr Castle. However it is an entirely different form of cancer and affects a completely different part of the lung. The possibility of it being caused by passive smoking is statistically & medically impossible. Roy Castle did not die as a result of passive smoking, neither has anyone else.

Sorry that doesn't support your hysterical & over emotional view, but I'm afraid its true. Zero out of ten, please try harder.

Many research projects involving the non smoking wives of smokers have concluded that they are far less likely to develop lung cancer than wives of non smokers. Suppressed in the holey discredited WHO report for obvious reasons.

Interesting that. Yet another example of rabid hysteria. There is no accurate data whatsoever to support the fallacy that passive smoking is harmful, but there is a whole shit load of recorded data relating to death caused by excessive alcohol intake, and a further shit load of data relating to deaths/serious injury caused by people under the influence of alcohol.

Face it. Your arguments are hysterical, biased & based on an inability to comprehend basic science. Get back to me when you have learned to think for yourself.

[Clot]

B*gg*r! :)

[Frank Erskine]

Yes.

[The Medway Handyman]

And how do they affect others Dennis? A smell some may dislike? Or do they trigger your personal bias?

Oh FFS! You are now getting seriously silly. Smokers are now serial killers? And because they can't smoke in the pub they will go out and murder someone?

Any credibility you held in the argument has just flown out of the window.

I've heard some completely stupid claims about smoking im my time. You have just won the prize for the most completely idiotic, biased, emotional, hysterical claim there is. I'll let Forest know in the morning, they would like a good laugh.

You are a complete and utter f****it.