P.K. Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 You can be relatively young and active and still get hit by a bus... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 You can be relatively young and active and still get hit by a bus... Which is okay as long as you're wearing clean underwear. [My mum taught me that!] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 You can be relatively young and active and still get hit by a bus... And there's also preventative measures to reduce that risk as much as possible, like speed limits, drink driving laws, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 You can be relatively young and active and still get hit by a bus... Which is okay as long as you're wearing clean underwear. [My mum taught me that!] Sage counsel... You can be relatively young and active and still get hit by a bus... And there's also preventative measures to reduce that risk as much as possible, like speed limits, drink driving laws, etc. And with all the "preventative measures", "risk reduction", H&S legislation etc etc you could also die of boredom... It's their money so I have no problems with folks killing themselves with fags apart from how selfish it is from the perspective of their loved ones, however they shouldn't be allowed to take anyone else down with them. Simple as. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 And with all the "preventative measures", "risk reduction", H&S legislation etc etc you could also die of boredom... It's their money so I have no problems with folks killing themselves with fags apart from how selfish it is from the perspective of their loved ones, however they shouldn't be allowed to take anyone else down with them. Simple as. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Here are abstracts of some of the data showing that banning smoking in public has an effect in reducing smoking at home: Determinants and consequences of smoke-free homes: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey After the smoke has cleared: evaluation of the impact of a new national smoke-free law in New Zealand I await arguments as to why none of this is relevent to the IOM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 You can be relatively young and active and still get hit by a bus... More chance of being hit by a fucking inconsiderate cyclist running a red light or riding on the pavement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 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. No shit? I am so glad I do not know you, you seem to be the biggest morose bore in the entire world, WTF do you know about my imagination? Shall I tell you about my grandfather who died of more cancer than I can fit on a page? the one who never smoked? or would you like to hear about my husband who recovered from cancer earlier this year? Or do you want me to tell you about my next door neighbour whose husband died of a heart attack 15 years ago and she has been waiting to die ever since, it pains her to walk etc etc and she feels guilt because she would rather be dead? oh forget it, I am so not in the mood for you and your pathetic lion poking today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 More chance of being hit by a fucking inconsiderate cyclist running a red light or riding on the pavement. Sigh, why make stuff up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 No shit? I am so glad I do not know you, you seem to be the biggest morose bore in the entire world, WTF do you know about my imagination? Shall I tell you about my grandfather who died of more cancer than I can fit on a page? the one who never smoked? or would you like to hear about my husband who recovered from cancer earlier this year? Or do you want me to tell you about my next door neighbour whose husband died of a heart attack 15 years ago and she has been waiting to die ever since, it pains her to walk etc etc and she feels guilt because she would rather be dead? oh forget it, I am so not in the mood for you and your pathetic lion poking today. My comments about your imagination come from your apparent inability to see things from anyone elses perspective, despite the examples you list, I don't want to suck smoke, is that OK? It's hilarious that people think they're free thinking and 'life and let live' and get rid of all rules and let us do what we like, but there's another side to that coin, the majority of people that have to put up with your unwanted pollutants. We share this space, are you that selfish that you can't see it? And I'm a morose bore because I don't want to risk death inhaling someones smoke? How is inhaling second hand smoke exciting? What's so great about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 Here are abstracts of some of the data showing that banning smoking in public has an effect in reducing smoking at home: Determinants and consequences of smoke-free homes: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey After the smoke has cleared: evaluation of the impact of a new national smoke-free law in New Zealand I await arguments as to why none of this is relevent to the IOM. Because it is pseudo-science brought to us by the same people that brought us this. The anti-smoking business has become as big as the pro-smoking business - and there are deeply embedded vested interests on both sides. Look closely at the studies you quoted. They talk about levels of Cotinine (which has an in vivo half-life of approximately 20 hours), not levels of exposure e.g. if you test kids at school, it will be a week day, when additional exposure would be taking place at the weekend when smokers would be more likely to go out. Smoking has become so anti-social now, what do you expect people on the phone (one was a phone survey) to say regarding exposing their children to potentially noxious substances of any kind? One also refers to 'there was no clear evidence of a short term effect on health or on adult smoking prevalence', so if the prevalance is the same, and people can't do it away from their children two days of the week, what does that say to you logically? Psuedo science. Not scientific. You're cherry-picking and you should know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 this. The anti-smoking business has become as big as the pro-smoking business - and there are deeply embedded vested interests on both sides. What are the vested interests of anti-smoking business? The Scotland article you linked said there was a noticable drop in heart attacks, just not as large as originally claimed. Isn't that still good news? How about: http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/news/arch...ndly&a=5441 But do you really need science to back this up? Banning smoking in public places reduces the risk of second hand smoke. Are you actually disputing the negative effects of second hand smoke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 The Scotland article you linked said there was a noticable drop in heart attacks, just not as large as originally claimed. Isn't that still good news? But do you really need science to back this up? Banning smoking in public places reduces the risk of second hand smoke. Are you actually disputing the negative effects of second hand smoke? Heart attack drop and the statistics were unrelated - that was my point. Yes I do still dispute much of the evidence, and e.g. studies. But, as much as you cherry pickers want to divert the issue, let's stick to the point shall we - there is no serious scientific evidence for the claim being made by Anita Imberger - either way. Though with similar levels of smoking prevalance, off-licence sales shooting up, and people only able to do it in certain places - I know what I'd be putting my money on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alibaba Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 That Velvet glove site is pretty interesting - cheers for the link! People now think that if they get any cigarette smoke in their face they might get cancer and it's just fucking ridiculous how bad people have been sold on that. And when I go to a bar or to a party - even though I don't smoke - I hang out in the smoking section because that's where all the fucking cool people are. I fully agree with this quote from one of the South Park guys. Now people are complaining about people smoking outside and how they 'have to walk through peoples disgusting smoke'! It's what you wanted, you've already won, piss off and leave us alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 14, 2009 Author 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. I'm arguing against the pseudo-science and propaganda. If 'children were breathing in more smoke' was the reality based on a serious study I'd rather hear the truth, and not just stick my head up my arse, hum 'la la la', and call people names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.