I felt this little post was needed to explain a point in my next post. My current contract is with a tobacco company. Shock. Horror. In the headquarters, where I have my office, there are lounges on each floor where employees can go, drink coffee, socialise and do the business that often gets done better informally than in the formal business process. On each floor, one lounge is a smoking lounge and one is non-smoking. Employees therefore have the choice and do choose, without any interference from authority, whether to drink their coffee with smokers, or without.
As a matter of interest, the proportion of smokers and non-smokers in the company reflects the proportion in the general population – I have found this to be generally the case in all of the places I have worked with the company, E/W Europe, the States, S. America and Asia.
I have no objection to bans on smoking where appropriate – I do not smoke in my own house, for example – what I do object to is the compulsory nature of blanket bans on smoking in places which you can choose to enter, or not – pubs, clubs, restaurants and so forth. (I do not include public buildings or public transport.) The community I work in shows that it is quite possible, and reasonable, for people to make their own choices without the imposition of centralised controls and the bureaucracy of rules, regulations and intrusive inspectorates that such controls entail.
Boadicea's Chariot 
Smoking areas and non-smoking areas is the sensible solution – but when was the last time that a ‘sensible’ government was in office?
Bravo, as a non-smoker I have to say that in all the countries where I have lived some smokers cannot be relied upon to follow rules which are made for the comfort of non-smokers. It is as if we are the ‘bad’ guys for not choosing to pollute the environment. Aren’t some of your community similarly antisocial – rendering the rules useless?
Janus, I have no beef against segregation of smoking areas – which is the point of the post. People who do not follow sensible rules, whether concerning smoking or anything else, are to be found everywhere. Don’t get me started on the ‘science’ of environmental tobacco smoke – at least unless you know, or until you have read ,something about what are the ‘pollutant’ constituents of the air in your favourite restaurant, whether it is a smoking environment, or not.)
The point remains, if you could choose between a pub where smoking was allowed and one where it were not, then you would choose the latter, and I the former – unless I was going for a pint with you when we would probably decide between us in favour of the latter since I can always nip outside for a drag, while you could not avoid the tobaccco smoke in the former establishment. We would regulate ourselves and not have regulation forced upon us.
Bravo, are you suggesting that other people’s smoke is not injurious to my health?
Janus. Yes.
Hit the post button too soon. I am, by no means suggesting, that the smell of cigarette smoke is not obnoxious to non-smokers, but that is an entirely different matter.
There is a huge body of evidence and opinion that passive smoking is not good for you:
“Currently, there is widespread scientific consensus that exposure to second hand smoke is harmful. The link between passive smoking and health risks is accepted by every major medical and scientific organization, including:
* The World Health Organization[3]
* The U.S. National Institutes of Health[80]
* The Centers for Disease Control[81]
* The United States Surgeon General[23]
* The U.S. National Cancer Institute[82]
* The United States Environmental Protection Agency[83]
* The California Environmental Protection Agency[2]
* The American Heart Association,[84] American Lung Association,[85] and American Cancer Society[86]
* The American Medical Association[87]
* The American Academy of Pediatrics[88]
* The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council[89]
* The United Kingdom Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health[90]
* The governments of 168 nations have signed and currently 164 have ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which states that “Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability.””
From Wikki.
I agree with the ban on smoking in bars etc. here, as do the vast majority of people (including smokers, who accept that they must smoke outside). When brought in the ban was presented as a workers’ rights issue, which is exactly what it is … people should not be forced to passive-smoke in the course of earning a living, as will inevitably happen if smoking is allowed in these places.
Of course it also makes an evening in the pub or cinema far, far more pleasant for the non-smoking majority.
You sanctimonious bullies!
I have just given up a 30 year habit, been clean now for two months and it is looking promising. I have to say I prefer pubs now that they are smoke free, but I detest the idea that smokers are banned from indoor smoking by an overbearing nanny state.
It was the same with the hunting ban, the meeja hate campaign against anyone who isn’t built like a stick insect, dog owners, car drivers, mobile phone users and other such hardened criminals.
Bravo is right, why should the clean air freaks control the lifestyles of those who wish to smoke?
Why can’t there be smoking and non-smoking facilities? People should be free to choose.
Actually – smokers don’t agree with the total ban. They accept that they have to smoke outside because they have no choice, but that doesn’t mean that they agree that a total ban is right.
I have said nothing against any ban on smoking in bars – by choice. i am saying here should also be choice in the opposite direction. That applies to working in such establishments also. Some people execrate the eating of pork. Are you therefore suggesting that pork should be banned from pubs also? That is where such reasoning leads.
Pseu. All of what you quote above can be traced back to the worst example of statistical and epidmiological malpractice ever countenanced – the US EPA meta study of 1998. This is the same authority who have colluded at the deaths of millions from malaria through instigating the ban on the single most effective control of the anopheles mosquito, namely DDT.
Do the numbers yourself, look at the studies and decide. You need to know about relative risk and statistical significance there are good explanations here.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/RR.htm
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/significance.htm
Look out for the fudge words, ‘might,’ ‘may, etc. These are also good indicators of the relevance of epidemiological studies for the other risks that are trumpeted at us from the meeja, and so nice to have a handle on.
PS. Think ‘Global Warming.’
Passive eating of pork is an unusual phenomenon.
Bravo, to suggest that air pollutants in restaurants already threaten diners’ health and therefore a few clouds of smoke won’t hurt is the most inventive piece of special pleading I’ve read in ages!
Actually Janus, burnt meat is exceedingly carcinogenic, especially in particulate form. I forget where I learnt that from, but I’m sure someone will tell us. Or prove me wrong. 😕
Cooking pork is not.
Janus, I suggested nothing of the sort. What I did suggest was that you look at analysis of the pollutants in the air inside restaurants. You might be surprised.
I would suggest the same for barbecues – and, no, I am not suggesting that we ban the babecueing of meat, far from it.
Bearsy, our comments crossed in the ether, sorry.
… and it’s sorry from me, too. Great minds think alike! 😆
particulate form … nouvelle cuisine?
Very, very small pieces – micron sized – suspended in air. Like asbestos, similar effect on the lungs.
I have yet to meet a smoker who is not aware and sensitive to the fact that his / her smoke is offensive to non-smokers. It may have taken a few years for them to learn and accept that, but nonetheless the lesson has been taken to heart.
I have met a few non-smokers who appreciate that the law has gone overboard their way, but they are few and far between and the majority are not willing to compromise even a fraction of an inch.
No one is asking for a return to the days when one lit up in a restaurant and puffed smoke all over someone else’s meal. But is it really too much to ask that at the end of that meal smokers might retire to a separate, indoor area with a comfortable seat and a table where they can enjoy a cup of coffee, a liqueur and a cigarette instead of standing outside in the wind and the rain trying to balance a cup on a saucer, a glass and at the same time endeavouring to keep their cigarette from getting soggy?
And, by the way, no one is trying to force any non-smoker to accompany them…
Bearsy, I’d like to know from the barbie expert whether the carcinogenic properies of burnt wood/charcoal are publicised down under?
Janus – if I said that I didn’t know, that means that I don’t know. Nor am I an expert at barbies. Setting all those points aside, thank you for your question. 😦
Furry, “why should the clean air freaks control the lifestyles of those who wish to smoke?” I don’t see it like that. I see it as non-smokers trying to control our own environment!
I know about particulates (PM10, PM2.5) … I have done a lot of work for the Environmental Protection Agency here.
#19 was meant to be a joke on small portions.
Boadicea, those people would still have to be serviced, so to speak; that would represent a potential thin end of the wedge; and smoke travels. I think a blanket ban is better.
Yep, pubs (those that haven’t been forced to close due to the draconian smoking ban) are much cleaner places now. The clientele have moved away from nasty cigarettes and the resulting dangerous/polluting fumes to much cleaner habits. They now just retire to the bogs and snort class A dugs up their nose.
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/2178968.pub_defends_toilet_cameras_as_a_means_of_tackling_drug_use/
http://valemail.wordpress.com/2007/11/09/70-out-of-71-local-pub-toilets-test-positive-for-cocaine/
Brendano
I think you mean the rooms… well I hope you do!
Tocino
You have highlighted another of my grievances. Users of the legal substance nicotine, which is one of the most addictive drugs around, are treated as the pariahs of society, whilst those who partake of illegal substances seem to be treated as poor, sorry souls.
Has there been a case of anyone bashing an old lady over the head to get the money for a nicotine fix?
‘Has there been a case of anyone bashing an old lady over the head to get the money for a nicotine fix?’
Yes, but Ferret has left all that behind him. 🙂
I have never been a smoker and I can’t abide the habit. I will even go so far as to admit that I think less of people who do smoke, just as I think less of people who have tattoos. However, I totally agree that market forces should drive the provision of smoking and non-smoking bars and restaurants or sections therein. If it is a private establishment it should be up to the proprietor whether or not smoking be allowed. I do not buy the passive smoking argument. It was thought up by litigators and sanctimonious gits who want to deprive others of their enjoyment. I cannot for the life of me understand why society seems so damned keen on keeping people alive. If they want to kill themselves, for God’s sake, let them do it.
Sipu, the idea is that they are free to kill themselves but not others. Rights and freedoms are contingent.
Brendano. Pork.
It is about choice and freedom. if there were smoking and non-smoking establishments then people could choose.
Incidentally, I watched a movie last night. Harry Brown – England, starring Michael Caine. In the movie was a series of gaphic portrayals of violence, including murder and rape, the smoking and injection of narcotics, and alcohol abuse. Amongst all of those scenes, and a dour protrayal of a working class London housing estate, not one cigarette, pipe or cigar was to be seen – even the dope was smoked from a number of devices, none of which looked like a joint. Go figure.
Great movie, btw, the violence was not gratuitous – the film was more of a social study. Worth a look if you get the chance.
This is no longer interesting or amusing – I’m outa here. Byee.
Brendano, “Rights and freedoms are contingent.” This is true, but that is not what the smoking ban is about. Passive smoking has an almost negligible effect on the health of others. Car exhaust fumes are far more damaging. Smoking is banned because it is dangerous to the smoker. I say let them die. The money they spend on tax saves the lives of more non smokers than are lost through passive smoking.
OK Brendano,
It has long been proven that exposure to loud music causes damage to the ears. I have a choice, frequent live music bars or frequent not. I can live with that.
However if I shared your joy in making everyone else abide by my prejudice, I would be campaigning for a blanket ban in all public places, including concert venues of course.
Not so funny when the nanny control alls pick on something you enjoy is it?
Wrong again Brendano,
Now that I have given up the weed, I have taken to only bashing old ladies over the head for fun. 🙂
That does seem bizarre, Bravo. An awful lot of cigarettes are smoked in an awful lot of movies, though, including recent ones (I seem to recall something with Helena Bonham-Carter).
Sipu, people are free to smoke in their own space. ‘Passive smoking has an almost negligible effect on the health of others’ … possibly; possibly not. It doesn’t seem to have done me any harm.
Ferret, it’s not a matter of joy or prejudice. I see your point re loud music … it is analogous to smoking in that people who work in music venues may suffer some adverse consequences. Of course I wouldn’t ban it. I still the smoking ban is worth while … we had it here before you did, and it’s popular. In general we have a far less developed ‘nanny state’ than you do.
That’s OK, Ferret … I probably don’t know them. 🙂
Any non smokers on this blog willing to cough to doing drugs at some time or other?
Yes, why?
Tocino, define doing drugs. Have I ever smoked marijuana? Yes. How often? Fewer than 20 times in my life, I would imagine. I have a very low opinion of people who take any kind of drugs on a regular basis. Having said that, I consume alcohol regularly, so I guess that leaves me open to the accusation of hypocrisy.
It’s a long time since I used any kind of drug, apart from alcohol. I used to smoke cannabis occasionally before I had children.
The only reason I ask is that I think it is a generation thing. When I was growing up, smoking was a perfectly acceptable vice. Almost everyone smoked even at school, the senior boys had access to a smoking room. Drugs and drug taking on the other hand were was something that me and my contemporaries knew absolutely nothing about. I continue to smoke but can honestly saw I have never done drugs.
Sipu,
With you on the alcohol. I think our posts crossed. I hold no strong views on cannabis/marijuana. Indeed, even when visiting Amsterdam I wasn’t tempted. As I say, just a generation thingy.
I have often wondered why non smokers are quite so manic.
So they live a few years longer, maybe.
They have all the time in the world to become arthritic, lose their wits, their bladder control and sit moronically dribbling in an old people’s home asking their loved ones ‘Who are you?’ and being abuse by the staff!
Wonderful, have fun!
I would prefer to go with lung cancer, as I shall, with an excess of morphia in due course, already stockpiled.
Meanwhile I continue to smoke 40 a day and patronise restaurants that close, draw the curtains and bring out the ashtrays! (Of which there are many)
The usual line in PC bullshit being sprayed here a bit thickly this morning.
Since someone brought up alcohol, (smirky thing,) and the social consequences of excess alcohol consumption are readily demonstrable – and with much more reliable evidence than the perceived dangers of passive smoking, why is the consumption of alcohol not banned?
Smoking isn’t banned … what is banned is polluting other people’s air in enclosed communal spaces.
Alcohol is a different case. Certainly one could make a case for its banning, but it is too popular and too much a part of the culture for that to happen. Anyway, a ban would only boost organized crime, as happened in the USA.
Bravo,
Funnily enough, alcohol is banned the other way about here in Newcastle.
It is against the law to consume alcohol outdoors unless you are in a beer garden/open reataraunt/private property. 🙂
Christina; you do conjure up such a picture of yourself! I don’t want to venture into ‘confessional mode online’, but I will say that I think it is perfectly normal to try ‘things’ when you’re younger. I daresay this drugs argument is an example of how smokers cling to all kinds of absurd relativism to rationalise their habits, when the simple fact is that there is a huge difference between a few blow-outs on weed or whatever in your twenties, and serious, long term nicotine addiction as you get older… : )
Brendano, >what is banned is polluting other people’s air in enclosed communal spaces.<
Then roasting meat and wood or charcoal grills should also be banned in enclosed public spaces. Before you answer, look it up.
Ferret. I went for a job interview in Newcastle once. Had to stay overnight, so I went out for a walk and finished up in a boozer where ther was a wedding party going on. I was sitting nursing a beer when one of the guys came over and said, I think, ‘On your own, bonny lad, dinna sit there moping, come over and have a drink.’ So I joined the party and had a great time. I’ve always liked Geordies 🙂
Go ahead and start a campaign, Bravo. You know what they say about foolish consistency, hobgoblins, etc.
So you didn’t look it up. Why am I not surprised. No content, as usual, only insult. Why let fact get in the way of prejudice. Plus ca change…
But yes, Boa; I agree with you…having been a smoker myself,I don’t think it’s too much to ask for smokers to be allowed to light up indoors. In France it’s not seen as some huge social crime, and the result is that they smoke – and drink – with moderation.
Bravo, why would I look it up? I am taking your word for it that potentially dangerous chemicals may be released. No insult, no prejudice. Start a campaign.
BBQ and outside fireplaces are already banned in parts of California.
Unfortunately the smog is a. natural and b. enhanced by auto emissions!
I don’t think the odd BBQ cuts too much extra, but they are banned.
but the Californians love banning things as long as it isn’t a sexual perversion or catching AIDS.!
CO, funny you say that about California banning fires. I often wonder at some of the special effects in movies. To what extent are those explosions real when bombs go off, cars explode, infernos devour buildings etc? I am sure some of them are probably quite small but made to look enormous, but on the other hand I imagine that others are just that, infernos.
claire I am really not too interested in what society thinks about anything.
Should tobacco be made illegal, I would merely grow my own as I grew my son’s pot for years. I refused to allow him to pay upward of £180 per ounce for second rate contaminated product sold by dodgy Pakis on street corners when I could grow organic Californian Orange for free!
Quick trip to Holland for the seeds and off one goes. Not my choice of poison but there you are.
I considered growing opium poppies for him too, but as the NHS handed him an excess of supply of every known morphia based drug known to the Taliban I didn’t bother.
Nowadays I confine myself to tomatoes, peppers, aubergines and cucumbers in the greenhouse.
When he was in a hospice I used to take him home baked organic ‘brownies’, weed is a very good anti nausea for drug treatments, especially chemo.
When and as I choose to topple off my twig I shall do so in the sure knowledge that I smoked a sufficiency of good quality cigarettes, and shall go with a box or two of Black Sobranie and a decent claret and a smile on my face without incontinence pads!
I do not whine, mewl, meech or puke now, and have absolutely no intention of doing so on exit.
And I have no intention of sharing my afterlife with any handwringing contemptible conforming liberals within eye/ear sight.
sipu, all done by that company Dreamworks, all by computer these days, (how boring!)
Stick around for the big one, plenty of fires then along the San Andreas fault.
If I miss it in this life I’m booking a ringside seat to watch San Francisco burn in the next!
CO,
I love reading your comments and your outlook on life.
Cheers.
Yes indeed Tocino, highly amusing and idiosyncratic, if you don’t take them seriously: and after two years of reading same; I don’t!
Hey Ara; I think that could be said for all of this blogging business. I lasted about 48 hours with my big flounce…
CO: Well, as a self confessed lefty liberal whatnot, I guess I’d be bottom of your friends list in Elysium…But I do like your style hon : )
Hello Claire: I saw you had weakened! 🙂 I’m finding it difficult to fit in these days, just a busy period, but my first port of call tends to be here, and I’m becoming so selective. Most of the stuff on MyT is not worth a visit. Very formulaic repetitive rubbish, with the occasional gem!
I know. The spam is beter than some of the blogs over there. The creative writing/short story thing seems to have died a death…shame really. I’m getting hooked on bloody Facebook again now though. : )
Araminta,
I have issues with some you support as well. But hey, it’s only make believe isn’t it?
Well, that turned out a bit mangled in the posting didn’t it? Not to worry, I think my answer was clear enough.
Mangling unmangled – Ed. 🙄
Mangled or not: yes, indeed, Tocino! 🙂
I never lie, far too indolent to remember lies, no one ever believes the truth anyway!
CO, I too enjoy your rants. However “I have often wondered why non smokers are quite so manic” demands a reply.
Non-smokers are driven to ‘manic’ draconian behaviour by smelly inconsiderate smokers who believe they have the right to pollute everything around them.
Bravo, just rereading this blog. “Janus, I suggested nothing of the sort.” Akshully you did say other people’s smoke wouldn’t hurt me! Which I reject absolutely, being an asthma kinda person.
Not one smoker here has said that they have the right to pollute everything around them. In fact, quite the reverse. They have all said that they understand the non-smokers’ concerns and that it is right and proper that there should be non-smoking areas.
It is the non-smokers who refuse to even contemplate a compromise and believe they have the right to control every where.
Boa, I’m sure all the smokers here are paragons of virtue as I am! 8)
1) Separate but equal facilities, now where have I heard that before? 😉
2) I’m also left wondering how many of the ‘anti-smoking’ brigade have profited by investments in the Tobacco giants, either directly through investments or indirectly via pension and insurance holdings?
Soutie, I’m sure hypocrisy is as rife on this topic as on every other. People’s personal habits always cause friction after all.
Boadicea, I don’t think it’s a ‘smokers v. non-smokers’ issue. Here many smokers welcomed the ban, and the rest accepted it. There has been no organized opposition since it was introduced.
As I mention above, it was presented here as primarily a workers’ rights matter.
I would bet a pound to a pinch of poo that my cigarette smoke, even if I stood in my own back garden and lit up 100 a day and exhaled east would not have any effect on your asthma.
“Hold on world, one self centered sanctimoniuos hypoconriac in Denmark has a tickly cough. You are all banned from smoking!”
Get a grip on yourself Hugh.
But Ferret, if you were in the same enclosed space as Janus it might.
It seems, we smokers will extinct soon. I wish they would respect us, and let us smoke in separate places.
Being treated like second -class, diseased person is annoying.
Brendano,
I agree, that is not what smokers are asking for.
I am saying it is wrong for non-smokers to be able to dictate lifestyle choices of others based on their own prejudice.
It is as ludicrous as a blanket ban on loud music venues, even more so since there is actual proof that exposure to excessive noise causes deafness.
As for your claim of no resistance Brendano you are completely wrong. http://www.freedom2choose.org.uk/
Smoking is legal, and there should be a freedom of choice to do so. This is just another erosion of civil liberty and it will not be long before the nanny state chooses to ban something you enjoy. Good luck finding any sympathy from me when that day comes.
Furry, “one self centered sanctimoniuos hypoconriac”. Leaving aside your obvious illiteracy, I am not opposed to people smoking either in general or in particular. However I dispute Bravo’s convenient claim that other people’s smoke is harmless. Whether this justifies your quoted description of me, I’ll leave to others to decide. 8)
Ferret, as I said above, I see your point about loud music. I said that here there has been no organized opposition since the ban was introduced … that is true as far as I am aware. Our ban predates yours, and is slightly different.
There is freedom to smoke (i.e. smoking is not banned); there is not necessarily freedom to pollute the sir that others must breathe. We will have to agree to differ on this or just go over the same ground.
Yes, indeed, Tina, I agree, no one ever believes the truth anyway. How bloody true! Perhaps you should try it sometime!
“Yes, indeed, Tina, I agree, no one ever believes the truth anyway. ” Bollocks!
My comment was with regard to a specific “truth”, Sipu, not a general observation.
Sipu is not a gentleman.
Hello, Bearsy: since it was Tina’s comment in the first place perhaps it would be better for Sipu to take up the issue with her!
Janus,
Do not change the meaning of your original posit.
Your question was “Bravo, are you suggesting that other people’s smoke is not injurious to my health?”
The answer to which is in 99.99999999999999999999999% of all cases, a resounding NO it is assuredly not.
Which is fine., except… cast you rmind back to the cinemas of your youth. Remember the blue smoke curling up into the beams from the projectors? Children were exposed to quantities of tobacco smoke orders of magnitude greater than they are today….and yet asthma was much less prevelant. How odd.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT A SMOKE FILLED ROOM IS COMFORTABLE FOR AN ASTHMA SUFFERER! Just in case there is any doubt, you understand. Merely pointing out one of the anomalies in the whole ETS lousy science scheme of things. There is another, of course, there is a large cohort of people like me. Smokers since their early teens who were children at a time when exposure to large amounts of environmental tobacco smoke was universal. it seems to me that there would be very little difficulty involved in compiling a study of how many of us are succumbing to ‘early’* death as a result of ‘smoking related’ diseases and compare the results with non-smokers of the same generation. This would be of similar rigour to the Doll and Bradford Hill study of the association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.
Missed the footnote:
* ‘early’ is in quotes because I once read a ‘study’ that tabulated ‘early’ deaths amongst………… 80-year olds.
Just as a matter of interest. Does anyone know what is demonstrably, by mortality tables, by far the greatest risk factor for cancer? Any cancer?
Global warming? 😆
Araminta, in re Sipu –
It would be better if he didn’t address either you or Tina in public bar terminology. {abusive, but pertinent, taxonomy deleted} 🙄
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not speaking ex-cathedra.
I agree, Bearsy 🙂 I was rather puzzled by his comment anyway, or rather his issue with my response, but then I was rather bemused, and amused by Tina’s original comment, but no matter.
Is it, Bravo, “not eating your veggies”? 😕
Bravo,
Exposure to UV Light?
or
Booze?
Heredity, perhaps.
Come on you lot! The one and only cause of death is…
… living.
Boredom?
Fair Enough Boa,
It is a terminal condition and no mistake. 🙂
Jokes are never funny if you have to explain them, so I wont.
Surely clean air is the ‘default setting’. There is some really warped thinking in this blog and some odd ideas about non-smokers bullying smokers. I have yet to meet a smoker that asked everyone’s permission before lighting up in a public place. The solution is to install public ‘coffins’ for smokers to lay in and smoke. This would be an efficient mechanism for recycling otherwise wasted smoke in a smelly and confined area (a bit like smoking a kipper) and allow for easy removal in the case of asphixiation.
It was only when a friend of mine gave up that he realised the awful smell he was carrying around with him (stale tobacco) was something he couldn’t notice when he was a regular beagle. Apart from the obvious perils, it turns your nails and hair yellow and ages your skin, so I can see no reason why nicotine shouldn’t be classified as a hard drug and dealt with accordingly. The answer is simply, profiteering and tax revenue. I cannot think of anything more socially useless that thrives on the poverty and deprivation of the masses and the stupidity of the better informed.
Paul, to answer your question, one word.
Alcohol
Paul – hi; excellent comment…from a completely logical standpoint. But life isn’t always logical, and have you ever smoked? I used to be a 10 a day girl, as a teenager. I recall the chief health inspector – Liam Donaldson or someone, causing a storm a few years ago when he said that the odd crafty ciggie is the only pleasure some people have…not his exact words, but something to that effect. I’m glad I don’t smoke now – and I hate it when smokers start bleating on about being victimised etc etc – but vices do come in all shapes and sizes, so I think we can live and let live a little on this one, from time to time.. 😉
Furry, “The answer to which is in 99.99999999999999999999999% of all cases, a resounding NO it is assuredly not.” Nobody could ever accuse you of understatement even when you write tosh.
Janus, what Ferret writes is not, in fact, tosh, accirding to the actual facts and not the made up hype. Do wgat I said, learn a a little bit about risk ratios and confidence factors in the statistics of epidemiology, then skim some of the papers showing that ther ‘might’ be a link between smoking and, say, ingrowing toenails. It’s tosh.
according……what……..there – the keyboard dyslexia strikes again
Bravo, you remind me of the conspiracy theorists who can produce reams of data to support their conclusions but manage to avoid the obvious explanations for things.
Janus, except that, in this case, the obvious explanation is, by no means obvious – but, as I keep saying, don’t take my word for it, do the freakin’ numbers. You might start by boning up on the ‘Doctors Study,’ by Doll and Bradford Hill which, through rigorous epidemiological practice and subsequent clinical study showed, conclusively, the link between smoking and lung cancer. There is no comparative study to show any link whasoever between ETS and any, repeat, any illness at all.
Go see the things that ‘might’ cause cancer and see which ones on the list ‘may’ affect you.
Bravo, thank you but your ‘any illness at all’ betrays your case. At the risk of offending members by referring to my no doubt trivial experience, my own asthma was aggravated by exposure to other people’s smoke. I was there.
Ok. I retract. ’cause’ and ‘aggravate’ are two entirely diferent things. My bad. I do, however, point you towards the comment on cinemas I made earlier. I also ask if you can unequivocably show the link you state? Were there any other contributing factors? Any other asthma sufferers with similar outcomes?
I am not making light of what you are saying, simply pointing out that corelation is not always causation and that there is a raft of bad science out there. ETS is a prime example.
Bravo, To answer your questions:
Yes. No. Yes.
Janus,
What else aggravates your Asthma.
Freshly Mowed Grass?
Car Exhaust?
Burnt Toast?
Bonfire Nights?
Dust?
Perfume?
The wrong kind of sunlight?
Carelessly applied condiments?
I will be happy to start up a campaign to ban those too. You precious little hot house orchid.