Mosquito under-25 repellant device

[The Medway Handyman]

Very true Frank. If you are a judgemental non smoker.

[Clive George]

too hard, was it.

I know you're a big fan of Forest and believe everything they write, but they're not exactly disinterested.

[Clot]

Steady, Dave, you are now showing emotion and therefore liable to be irrational.I too am sceptical of the passive smoking argument and am not sure that conclusive work has been done on this to date. However, from the possible chance that this could be true, I did not smoke in the house until my kids went to bed and also only smoked in one room.

The Romans used pewter mugs and lead piping. We now know what lead can do. Folks of our age know what smogs could do. I'm not of the Nanny fratunity but I do feel we need to be objective!

[Dave Plowman (News)]

I'm quite happy with the smoking ban in public places. But don't consider privately owned buildings like pubs or clubs to be public places in the same way as you apparently do. And certainly don't see the need to force smokers outside to the pavement etc when a smoking area inside could easily be provided. That is simply trying to punish them.

As does someone who farts. Are you going to make that illegal too?

Think like all alcohol lovers you miss the fact that alcohol does more damage than heroin - but is legal and positively encouraged. Which makes you somewhat of a bigot. But we knew that, don't we?

Who knows indeed. Are you going to invent any more theories to back your intolerance?

>

[Dave Plowman (News)]

One famous oft quoted example. How about all the other musicians and performers in exactly the same position?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Pray prove that lead piping etc is a hazard to health. And it was still being installed in the last century in this country - let alone in Roman times. Of course lead is harmful if ingested in various ways - but assuming it dissolves in water is not one of them.

[dennis]

I will make it quite clear here.. secondary smoking is a health risk without a doubt.. I suffer allergic reactions from it so it is proven without a doubt. There are probably many others too. Now will you please stop using lies to support your cause?

[dennis]

Is that what you think? I didn't say that so you must have a poor opinion about smokers.

You have no credibility about smoking at all, you are addicted so nothing you say about it is rational as is evidenced here.

Make sure you post the whole of what I said so they can laugh at you for the correct reasons.

As I said, addicted, irrational. You have no argument to support inflicting your habit on others so you resort to abuse and misquotes to try and win. You may as well learn to live with the truth as it is out now and everyone knows that smoking is bad for everyone.

[dennis]

Smoking isn't banned in private buildings.. it is banned in places of employment though. Strictly speaking if the handyman smokes on a job it is an offence AFAICS.

What's the problem with inventing theories? That's what people do. Then you try and prove them. You don't lie like smokers do and claim there is no evidence even when there is. As it happens it is easy to prove what I said above but not the magnitude of the effect.

As for my intolerance then why not, it makes me ill and I don't see why I should let you make me ill. If I came into the pub and started glue sniffing next to you, would you complain or just sit there and breath in the fumes? Glue sniffing is not illegal BTW.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

If the pub had a sign saying 'glue sniffing allowed' I'd simply give it a miss. There are plenty others. And I really don't see why the same can't apply to smoking. Except to satisfy the anti smoking bigots.

[T i m]

Pub's didn't have 'Smoking Allowed' signs because it was assumed that it was and it was just sheer luck if you turned up at one (often if you were out in the sticks the only one for miles) that was smoke free (let alone 'No Smoking'). Even if it was smoke free when you turned up there was no guarantee it would still be that way when yer food turned up.

So would that mean me and my family going on a pub crawl (looking for one that was non-smoking) when ALL we want is a drink, some pub grub and maybe to sit in the warm for a bit? [1]

I can understand why smokers are feeling persecuted but maybe its right that they should be now and we can have our turn at a bit of choice at last. Equality and that?

All the best ..

T i m

[1] We tend to choose semi remote places when on our family motorcycle camping holidays. You wouldn't believe the number of campsites where we haven't been able to just walk to the local village for a pint (a real treat for me as I'm normally driving) and a pie because when we got there and looked through the door we couldn't see the bar for smoke. And why should we sit outside, outside is for bonfires and inside is for people! Now we know we can go anywhere that sells beer and food and that's all we are going to get. ;-)

p.s. I care less what you or anyone else does as long as I don't have to join in whilst just going about my day.

[dennis]

That would be fine if you are going to restrict smoking to approved places and nowhere else and none smokers get a say in where the approved places are.

I have no problems with smokers going and killing themselves as long as they don't inflict it on anyone that can't say OK or says no.

That is the problem, too many smokers have the "right" to inflict it on others. They still do it now.

[The Medway Handyman]

The entire passive smoking myth started when the World Health Organisation published a report claiming the link. The reports was a synopsis of 30 studies wordwide which was later debunked as being rigged by the WHO to support their theory. Once exposed they admitted that the link between passive smoking and lung cancer were not 'statistically significant'.

In 1992, the US Environmental Protection Agency published a report about the link between passive smoking and ill health in non-smokers. In 1996 a US federal court ruled that the EPA had completely failed to prove its case.

In 1997, the National Health & Medical Research Council in Australia was found guilty by a federal court judge of acting improperly in preparing its draft report on passive smoking because it didn't consider all the relevant scientific evidence and submissions.

I think that makes your claim "You don't lie like smokers do and claim there is no evidence even when there is" look rather stupid dont you?. The entire passive smoking myth is based on lies. Sorry if you don't like that RASF, but its true.

See John go to the "non glue sniffing pub" See janet go to the "glue sniffng" pub. Got the idea?

[The Medway Handyman]

Do I detect a small amount of reason creeping in Dennis? Now your hysterical arguments have been shown to be riduculous?

[The Medway Handyman]

Not too hard to read it & realise it was based on the discredited 1992 report either.

[dennis]

Why restrict it to cancer? I have already posted enough proof that passive smoking is harmful. You can't change the facts.

You are wrong as you well know.

[dennis]

Your lies are ridiculous. I have never said smoking should be banned, just in *all* places the public has access to and anywhere there are kids. Its you that spouts out rubbish about links to caner being unproven, etc.

The same sort of rubbish the anti-MMR campaigners spout.

[dennis]

You read *all* 500+ reports that date after 1992? I don't believe you!

[The Medway Handyman]

Including for example the Oxford Pipe Smokers Club?

[Andy Hall]

It's better for them. They can smoke virtually instead....