Albert Tatlock Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 From MR: Children breath in less smoke since ban More crappy wishful thinking from the health fascists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Would you prefer it if the news was that children were breathing in more smoke? Stop being such a baby. It's been almost a year and people are used to it. I've seen nothing but advantages since it started, not least of which is discouraging cantankerous old crybabies like you from going to pubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 1. She is guessing, without any supporting evidence. 2. The word is 'breathe.' not 'breath,' so nil points to MR for spelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Ms Imberger says people are actually smoking less in the home since the ban was brought in: So she spends her time peering in windows? Island's tobacco strategy co-ordinator Salary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Quite a leap from "no evidence to suggest children in the Isle of Man have been exposed to more second hand smoke" to "Children breath in less smoke since ban". The truth is there's no evidence either way because nobody has researched it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Albert - I realise you are grumpy about this issue, but when a researcher has gone out and found 2,500 odd kids before and after the smoking ban, taken a mouth swap, measured the level of smoking related bi-products in their saliva and found: a 39 per cent reduction in salivary cotinine levels. In addition, the researchers found "no evidence" of increased secondhand smoke exposure among children living in smoking households, suggesting that parents are not smoking more at home as a result of the ban in public places. Then I believe it is you who are suffering from wishful thinking - and I ask you whether smokers are being selfish fascists for insisting on the right to spread the cancer causing bi-products of their addictive smelly habit to third innocent parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryMcCann Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Unfortunately children using hair straighteners are now breathing in more smoke as they tend to be on fire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Albert - I realise you are grumpy about this issue, but when a researcher has gone out and found 2,500 odd kids before and after the smoking ban, taken a mouth swap, measured the level of smoking related bi-products in their saliva and found: a 39 per cent reduction in salivary cotinine levels. In addition, the researchers found "no evidence" of increased secondhand smoke exposure among children living in smoking households, suggesting that parents are not smoking more at home as a result of the ban in public places. Then I believe it is you who are suffering from wishful thinking - and I ask you whether smokers are being selfish fascists for insisting on the right to spread the cancer causing bi-products of their addictive smelly habit to third innocent parties. The thread refers to a story on Manx Radio about what has happened on the Isle of Man (the clue being that its in 'local news') where far-reaching conclusions have been drawn without any form of research whatsoever. Unlike the Scottish report, which you (selectively) quote from, allowing others to do the same, perhaps? However, the reduction in cotinine levels in non-smokers from smoking households was insignificant, suggesting that this group of people "continue to have high levels of exposure to secondhand smoke". I no longer have any problems with the smoking ban (other than the fact that it has contributed to a reduction in the number of people going out in the evenings and thus reduced the volume of trade available to me), but I do not appreciate the health fascists proclaiming positive winners when the race has barely begun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Erm Lonan3 I think we have to raise the quality of Manx Radio's headline writer - Ms Imberger specifically mentions world wide studies and is drawing a conclusion from that. In what way is that inference invalid? The point Ms Imberger was making and the point Albert was disagreeing with and calling wishful thinking was that "worldwide studies" have not shown an increase in smoke exposure to children in the home. That is not wishful thinking and in 2 seconds on google I found 3 such studies - if you feel I've distorted their conclusions in my "selective quoting" I disagree - we are arguing about increasing exposure due to smoking bans. Yes children living with a smoker are exposed to high levels of secondhand smoke - that is a huge problem - in non-smoking spouses of smokers their saliva levels are between 60% and 70% of the smokers saliva levels - ie for ever 3 cigarettees the smoker smokes the non smoker smokes 2. This is a big problem - especially with children who cannot give informed consent to be so exposed - which again echoes my comment who is enforcing their behaviour on who here. But the point relevent to this discussion is whether the smoking ban has increased it - and the statistical evidence I've quoted from large scale surveys shows that its not. I am continually amazed by IOM exceptionism - as though the conclusions of a study in Ireland or Scotland or far worse England cannot be reasonably applied to these Isles. Well Lonan3 the race may have barely begun, but comparing the results of testing 2500 children with Albert's grumpiness I think I know who has a stronger case to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bendytoy Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I ask you whether smokers are being selfish fascists for insisting on the right to spread the cancer causing bi-products of their addictive smelly habit to third innocent parties. Hear hear. I don't understand why not wanting yourself or other people to die a wretched death from lung cancer makes you a fascist? Take pubs. Smokers have rights, it's true. And they have exercised them freely in pubs since pubs began, at the expense of non-smokers who nonetheless also put money over the bar. Now, in light of medical knowledge, things have swung the other way. It's change, that's all. Thank fuck. I was brought up in a household where one parent smoked 60-70 a day and couldn't give up, even though he knew the risk not just to his own life but those of his kids. But it's an addiction, so we have to show understanding. And this attitude runs on through life with some smokers, who bang on about their rights but don't seem so interested in other people's. I know that's not true of everyone, and I'm not even a particularly zealous champion of the (flawed, problematic) ban, but I can't be doing with anyone who's anti-smoking being automatically branded a 'fascist'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Who cares? People are living too long anyway. What is the point of all this nanny health shit? Giving up smoking prolongs life...yipppeeee! More old people on more pointless pills to keep them alive when they could have just died of a 'smoking related' illness, I certainly do not want to be living when it pains me to walk, talk and I feel like Im being a burden to my family (regarless of them thinking it or otherwise). It is quite ridiculous that they actually employ someone to report this rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Hear hear. I don't understand why not wanting yourself or other people to die a wretched death from lung cancer makes you a fascist? It was the word 'wanting' that ought to have been in italics. Unfortunately, there are those who feel compelled to inflict their views on everyone else - by means of legislation if all else fails. That, I'm afraid, is what leaves a much worse taste in the mouth than smoking even the foulest cigarette. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Stop being such a baby. It's been almost a year and people are used to it. I've seen nothing but advantages since it started, not least of which is discouraging cantankerous old crybabies like you from going to pubs. I'm a big supporter of the smoking ban, but you'd think the clubs/pubs would provide some alternative aromas. The smell of sweat and farts in these places is hideous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 It never ceases to amaze me how smokers never feel the least bit guilty about how they poison everyone's atmosphere with their carcogenic pollutants. Talk about being in denial... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Who cares? People are living too long anyway. What is the point of all this nanny health shit? Giving up smoking prolongs life...yipppeeee! More old people on more pointless pills to keep them alive when they could have just died of a 'smoking related' illness, I certainly do not want to be living when it pains me to walk, talk and I feel like Im being a burden to my family (regarless of them thinking it or otherwise). Concentrate now Bees I'm going to try and explain something to you. Cancer does not only stop you from becoming old and dependent, you can be relatively young and active and still die. You may not want those years, and with your apparent lack of imagination I'm not surprised, but I do, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.