OT - For the smokers!

[BRG]

Passive smoking - more infomation for those addicted to the weed - it's interesting to see that that they are now advising smokers with children to partake of their fix outside rather than in the home - an excerpt and the link are below. He said: "Passive smoking at home, exposing children to smoke they cannot escape from, increases the risk of them getting ear disease, sticky runny noses and sore throats, and further down the track, some of these ENT symptoms can in due course led on to worse diseases such as asthma."

He added: "We need to keep banging the drum. We need to publicise the fact that every cigarette you smoke is a cigarette that your child is smoking also."

That was taken from this link

and posted to re-ignite (argh!) the subject after that rather long thread in Mosquito Repellent - things are getting a little dull at the moment!

Enjoy!

BRG

[Rod]

Regardless of anything else, I'd like to see any evidence that "some of these ENT symptoms can in due course le[a]d on to worse diseases such as asthma". (That is, asthma specifically being caused by the ENT symptoms.) Sounds like argument by assertion...

[Frank Erskine]

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 23:19:17 -0000, "BRG" had this to say:

I feel sorry (genuinely) for those youngsters in push-chairs (or buggies, to use an horrible expression), whose parents smoke and cough fumes/sputum or whatever all over them even in the open air.

And feed them pies/pasties/chips/sausage rolls at virtually every 'meal' as they (the parents) waddle through shopping centres.

And then totally expect the NHS (at _our_ expense) to sort out the numerous illnesses that their kids develop.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Nothing like a bit of wild exaggeration to make a point, I suppose.

[The Medway Handyman]

Here we go again. Groupthink. More unsubstantiated claims to support the RASF's cause. No evidence to support the spurious claims of course.

Perhaps you could explain why asthma has increased substantially in the last decade whilst smoking has decreased substantially? No of course you can't. Inconvenient fact I know, but being a RASF you will no doubt choose to ignore it.

Also typical of the RASF's. If you can't find any credible evidence to support your claim, try emotional blackmail. "Smoking might harm little babies & fluffy bunnies". Rather like the Babies on Bayonets propaganda in WW2 designed to convince a gullible public that our enemies were also the anti Christ.

Just goes to show how fanatical RASF's can be. Far worse than Al-Qaeda in their opinions IMO.

[The Medway Handyman]

Just for the record, smokers contribute around £12 billion a year in tax, and according to NHS oficial figures "smoking related diseases" cost them £1:5 billion a year to treat. If you present as a smoker of course, almost everything is attributed to smoking. Even so, we contribute 8 times what we cost the NHS.

I have no idea what pie eating (or even passive pie eating) costs the NHS.

[Anne Jackson]

The message from "The Medway Handyman" contains these words:

I blame the amount of really _stinking_ cleaning stuff that's currently marketed.

[nafuk]

17,000 under-5s are hospitalised each year as a result of respiratory conditions caused by their parents smoking Royal College of Physicians, Smoking and the Young, 1994.

Also, a full economic costing of smoking shows the cost is greater than the tax revenue.

[Rod]

But you don't have to eat them - just breath in the fumes as you go by.

(Sounds like a cue for the anti-Morrisons brigade.)

[Rod]

Chav perfume?

[cerberus]

Snipped>

Any statistics showing respiratory conditions caused by traffic fumes & industrial pollution (including the use of pesticides) by any chance???

Don.

[dennis]

Of course there is.. however traffic fumes and industry are getting less each year.. clean air act, cats, etc. Now its smokers turn to contribute and about time too.

Dirty drug habit that it is.. get hooked by a high.. suffer from withdrawal symptoms.. claim its still giving them a high and that they enjoy it.. typical addict.. can't admit the truth.. its the lows they suffer from and they don't get highs after a few weeks/months.

Anyway smokers soon get upset if you whip a bottle of evostick out and open it in the pub.. its my choice to glue sniff if I want, I can't help it that it pollutes their air at least *I* get a high even if I have to share it with them. I can't help it if they then suffer withdrawal from not having the Evostick when they go home either.. they can start sniffing too if its a problem. There are no studies that show secondary glue sniffing is dangerous so what do they have to complain about? Next they will be saying it ruins the taste of their pint.. I don't care as long as I get my fix. Look on the bright side their kids will be able to get a good sniff off their clothes when they get home too so they will be acclimatized by the time they are old enough to go into a pub.

[dennis]

Does that include all the treatment of non smokers illnesses caused by secondary smoking or do you just ignore that as you claim there are no effects? How about the other non NHS costs? Like sick pay, disability pay, etc. you appear to forget that.

[Frank Erskine]

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 01:03:37 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" had this to say:

Ah - right. So it's perfectly OK to blow smoke all over your kids then, and pass on terminal illnesses; the taxes raised by government will more than compensate for that.

If we really _have_ to contribute to the NHS, why not spend on treatment of unavoidable illness?

[Frank Erskine]

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 09:14:36 -0000, "dennis@home" had this to say:

It's nowhere near as good as it used to be... :-)

[Rob]

Rather dated research? I'm not sure of the solution to the problem. I don't think emotional blackmail and legislation is the way. In the words of Brooker/Lewis:

[cerberus]

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

This well-known saying is part of a phrase attributed to Benjamin Disraeli and popularized in the U.S. by Mark Twain: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. The semi-ironic statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers, and succinctly describes how even accurate statistics can be used to bolster inaccurate arguments.

Don.

[The Medway Handyman]

Clutching at straws again Dennis? Just to please you, lets assume there is a link between passive smoking & ill heath. In that case the £10:5 billion surplus should cover it with a bit left over - making smokers 'health neutral'.

[The Medway Handyman]

Nonody said they wanted to deliberately blow smoke over children or fluffy bunnies. There is no evidence to suggest that doing so would 'pass on terminal illness's'. The emotive argument yet again.

Have none of the RASF's noticed BTW? Passive smoke travels upwards when expelled from active smokers lings, not downwards. Since children & fluffy bunnies are usually much shorter than smokers (even though smoking stunts your growth) they are unlikely to recieve much.

Cue RASF to claim that children & fluffy bunnies on stilts could still be effected. Or that smoking midgets..............

[Anne Jackson]

No, I have no experience of chavs, or their perfume. I found Marks & Spencer's bathroom cleaner to be one of the worst cleaners available in the 'take your breath away' stakes.

Now, if it can affect MY breathing, what would it do to that of a child?