So, who's going to suffer, and who will thoroughly enjoy it? ;)
Printable View
So, who's going to suffer, and who will thoroughly enjoy it? ;)
Bit of both i like to smoke, but i also dont like to smoke, and this is the place where i most like to smoke.:)
So it should stop the casual smoking i sometimes partake in
Well its going to help when you go out, but you just know some people arent going to care and light up 2 ft away from the doors entrance to a banned place.
And secondly, if you live with a smoker, no real chance of getting away from the blasted "aids in a stick"
Aids in a stick lmao
Well thankfully i dont live with smokers, i used to.. tbh i smoked quite heavily too when i was on the beer
i smoke but it wont bother me, i can go without if i have to
I went out last night and I stank of smoke. It seemed everyone was making the most of it. I'm glad this horrible thing has been banned from pubs and bars. I still think they should ban it from crowded public places though like high streets.
Nno they really shouldnt ban it from high streets, no need to take away that right, this country is becominig very nanny state as it is thats one step too far..
I think its a very good idea, should of been done alot sooner tho. Nothing worse than coming home stinking of smoke
Apart from getting stabbed ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by vc54321
:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by steve threlfall
that of course is not great
Its an excellent idea.
One of the THE worst places that I know of for smoke, is the Stott Lane entrance to Hope Hospital in Salford. There are people sat in wheelchairs, with drips, smoking away :lol: and there was one bloke that had been wheeled down by a nurse, and he had a drip full of blood on a stand next to him :eek:
You can walk around 30m inside the hospital and it still stinks of smoke, and that goes for all the other entrances as well, and people seem to stand further inside on colder days.
People outside Tesco waiting for a taxi, stood just inside the doorway of tesco smoking, thats another, and if you are stood with a load of bags of shopping, you dont want it stinking of smoke.
All the smokers that bleat on about having their rights taken away, know deep down that its nothing to do with that, its because they are weak and dont have the balls to give up :D
No flaming please, there is a smoking ban :D
I smoke and i say Yes to the ban, however the first suit that tells me i can't smoke in my back garden is going to a :censored: shotgun up the nose :)
I smoke and support the ban.
But I dont drink so dont frequent pubs so makes no odds and I hate ingnorant smokers who light up in restaurants with no thought to folks eating near them.
They should be shot not fined.
But can somebody explain to me what difference its going to bring to our polluted atmosphere.
I live near Stansted so I am polluted from that.
A dualled very busy bypass is less than a mile away and I live in a small village surrounded by fields which are constantly sprayed with noxious substances.
So I reckon I will probably end up with cancer of some sort anyway.
Yep the bans fine with me. Trouble is the zealots out there will keep on pushing and that just makes me feel like pushing back. With my fist.
I will give the nasty things up when I am good and ready and when I find an alternative mix for my herbs:)
Three cheers for the ban....people who smoke are bloody idiots anyway....and I should know, I used to smoke. You smoke near me and my kids and I want to beat you to death anyway, so this is one less potential fatility, never mind how many people will quit 'cause they can't smoke in enclosed spaces any more.
I smoke but im an Englishman living in Wales so im used to it now as its been outlawed here since the end of April.
TBH...you get used to it really quick.
Definitely a 'nanny-state' rule though.
I dont think idiots, i think that alot of smokers want to quit but cant , and some want to smoke they know the implications and still do it... And its not like you and your kids cant move the same ass they can..Quote:
Originally Posted by ibm
Although i agree with it i think that both sides of the story need to come into play, hence why i think that it shouldnt be banned in public places.. might asswell ban alchahol too, that kills people!
Too true tbh.Quote:
might asswell ban alchahol too, that kills people!
Its 3am in your local Accident & Emergency.
How many people come in from Drink related causes compared to smoking related ones.?
When was the last time someone got into a fight and stoved someones face in because they had been power smoking, couldnt handle it, and half killed some poor git on the way home :)
That could soon change if ibm and his vigilante squad are let loose:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitzen
I thought it was just because of inconsiderate smokers puffing all over everyone in restaurants and public places (the bus station is a prime suspect here)..?Quote:
Originally Posted by redlight
So a small whiff of a cigarette is worse for you while standing at a bus station breathing in bus exhaust fumes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiternoise
To me, if the person is standing in front of me, yes. There are far more dangerous chemicals in cigarette smoke than in car exhaust, which i imagine is mostly CO and various dioxides thanks to the wonders of catalytic conversion! And if you're passively breathing in smoke, then it's effectively unfiltered.
accept for the fact its been through a filter already and in his lungs then out? id say that was filtered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiternoise
Happened in Scotland a while before I left for the US. Pubs seemed a fair bit emptier.
The thing that worries me is how easily people can be coerced into going along with these kinds of things, what happens when in a few years politician's decide that due to liver disease and other health and social issues your not allowed to drink spirits anymore?
What irritates me is rather than have bars where smoking is allowed and let people use free will the majority jumped on the total ban bandwagon.
Smoke does leave the end of the cigarette as well, and even if it is filtered, that's still just squashed up cotton wool - there are still pretty harmful things in the exhaled smoke. But then that's almost worse, because it's like someone breathing into your face.Quote:
Originally Posted by arbitor
Well I (primarily) live in Guernsey where the law has been enforced for a year or so now, and it works very nicely. I can say that I prefer going out much more now because of the ban than ever before. I think it'd encourage non-smokers to go out a lot more, and enjoy it a lot more too.
I was going to say the exact same thing. And I wouldn't say just because it's been a filter, then in and out someone's lungs it's now "filtered". It's still just as bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiternoise
true, smoke is bad i know that.
I dont worry a huge amount about that, as cancer seems pretty much common if you smoke or not these days so its not the be all and end all, i just hate smelling of it, because if i dont get sweaty then i could wear the clothes on the way home next day fine, but i cant because i smell like a bloody ashtray :(
I smoke, why should people be expected to put up with it, i always hated sitting in the smoking section at resturants, if i went out with the mrs we would pick none smoking, trouble is the bro in law and wife smoked so with them we always would up in the smoking section.
i welcome this with open arms..
2 packs of baccy to go and i join the rank of the none smokers (i hope)
As a none smoker tired of stinking from a night in the pub or clubs I welcome this with open arms
Its not the killing that's the issue, its the passive harm it does to others without their participation.Quote:
Originally Posted by arbitor
When people drink alcohol, people around them don't get intoxicated off it. When people smoke around others, they also inhale it.
Love the move personally, and I know there is already around 10 of us going out next weekend to celebrate :)
I have no problem with people smoking (after all, their taxes have helped pay for all the NHS treatment that I've used), but only when it doesn't effect others.
Completely agree with you there, it is a right pain in the arse going out for the night, having a great time and then having to have yet another shower to get the smell of fags out of my hair.Quote:
Originally Posted by arbitor
yup. my main beef with it, and not to mention the fact they cost a fortune
Brilliant news for me, only problem with going to pubs now is the cost :p
I used to smoke 20 a day, it costed like £2.80 a deck back then for either B&H or Du Marier (sp?). Not sure how much they are now mind you.
One worrying thing has just made its way into my mind.
Often, when people give up smoking, they do something else to fill the void, like eat. So at clubs, what are people going to do... drink more? :\
You've all got the ban, and there are still non-smokers complaining.......
There is nothing that worries me more in the world this very second than the implications of that sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kezzer
No, not at all it is by far the worst thing in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by vc54321
Cleanliness is such a bother isn't it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiternoise
My testicular fortitude really has nothing to do with it so I suggest you don't continue down that road.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clunk
Now a quote from myself, on the 6/12/2005
Who's still complaining? And who was right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Knoxville
They'll drink more, sweat more and vomit more, but thats exactly what you all wanted right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve
Umm.. yes it is as it happens.. especially if you don't happen to like the smell of tobacco smoke in your hair and if you sleep on it, it makes the pillows stink. I do appreciate the ban, but that doesn't suddenly make smoking all happy and ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knoxville
I stil think that there should be a minimum amount of pubs, clubs etc where smoking IS ok. It should bea license that the owner pays for, and it'll no doubt pay foritself outright :) very soon, as lots of people will want to go.
But I must admit I dislike going into a pub for only 15 minutea and coming out smelling of cigarette smoke, as I wouldnt normally go straight home and changfe my shirt....but I do if i've been in a smokey room.
Same here.I prefer non-smoking places anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulq
it means that your gonna come home and be able to smell the BO and booze on your clothes instead of smoke :)
personally im not really that bothered about it.
What is it then? Just because you no longer have the right to poison other people in public places?Quote:
Originally Posted by Knoxville
But, the good news for smokers is, you can still do it in your own home as much as you like, but dont forget to have a shower and brush your teeth before you go out because the stench of your clothes and breath is really repugnant to non smokers. :D
The smoking ban has been in place for a year now in Scotland and it's excellent! No more druggie vermin polluting the air and stinking the place out!
Like Bluecube says, the smoking ban has been in place for over a year up here now and frankly I love it.
I don't believe all these tales of pubs losing business either---if people have stopped going to the pub because they can't smoke then I'd suggest that the pub wasn't that great in the first place :naughty:
Personally, I know I go to the pub far more often now---a cheeky pint on the way home or after sport becomes much more tempting now that I know I won't have to change my clothes when I get in!
I think the fact that the likes of Wetherspoons were making their pubs nonsmoking well in advance of the ban speaks volumes too.
Cheers
Sam
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clunk
disagree....lots of smokers dont smell of smoke at all.
I find only some people "hold" the smell. I can assure you...Knox aint one of them :)
Nah, clothes and breath hold onto it, its unavoidable really, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree :)
I went into a pub tonight. You really notice how much it stunk of stale beer and sweat.
Still at least people don't need to be forced to breathe in second hand smoke, bar staff should be very happy!
Bar staff should stop crying and get a new job if they had a problem, i refuse to agree with that argument. Dont like it dont work there, simple.
And i read oin the paper an average of 3 pubs a week went out of business in scotland since the ban, slowed now..
Il try and find a quote, it really hit hard
I do feel sorry for the pub landlords, and I also think that they should be able to have a smoking pub if they want to, as long as they make it clear that its a smoking pub at the doorway.
There was a few on the news the other night (might have been in blackpool), and he said he was going to ignore the ban and let his customers smoke, and then the newspeople interviewed some local bigwig from the council, and they said that they would look into revoking his alcohol license if he did.
YES! At last! This has to be THE best thing the Government has ever done for us!
I went into the local Whetherspoons for lunch with the missus; I must say, I've never quite experienced such a thing in my whole life, I could only smell the alcohol!
I'm so happy! LOL! :D
well I am rather p*ssed off already with the ban
Went to my local carling accademy for a gig (Me first and the gimme gimmes supported by pickled dick and a rubbish band), tried to go outside for a cigarette in between bands and they wouldnt let me!
I was told if I went outside I would have to pay full price to get back in, that was nearly £20! Not only that but when I told them about the people that were smoking inside they just didn't care
I smoke, however I will comply with the ban, what I won't do though is keep my mouth shut when people don't, get off with no penalty yet I am penalised for trying to follow it.
For me the argument is simple.
According to sources like World Health Organistation, about 6 million people die of cancer very year (6.7 million in 2003, for instance), globally. And of those, about 30% are caused by smoking. That puts smoking-related cancer deaths at around 2 million a year.
And according to the same WHO sources, passive smoking increases the chances of non-smokers getting cancer by between 20% and 30%.
Smoking is the world's largest cause of preventable cancers. And that's just cancer. Smoking causes far more deaths through cardiovascular and lung diseases than it does through cancer. And it causes a raft of other problems, from ear infections and asthma to sudden infant death syndrome in kids.
If you look at the evidence, you'll find much posturing on both sides. But the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a part of the World Heath Organisation was unequivocal, saying
The bold was added by me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Richard Doll, IARC, WHO
They also concluded that
Now, if someone wants to smoke and increase their risk of cancer, lung or cardiovascular disease to that extent, well, it strikes me as an idiotic thing to do, but we're all entitled to make our own decisions on that. But we're NOT entitled to foist it on other people.Quote:
one half of all persistent cigarette smokers are eventually killed by a tobacco-related disease ...... Half of these deaths occur in middle age, which means they lose an average of 20-25 years of non-smoker life expectancy.
The argument about the effects of second hand smoke have raged back and forth for years, but it seems to me that there is now solid evidence that second hand smoke is a killer, and a serious one at that, and the World Health Organisation, in the form of 29 experts from 12 different countries, agrees.
The US Surgeon General has stated :-
1) Secondhand smoke causes premature death and disease in children and in adults who do not smoke.
2) Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.
3) The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
4) Secondhand smoke is responsible for about 3,400 lung cancer deaths in nonsmoking adults per year (in the US alone)
5) Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.
It's just my opinion, but to me, the arguments about smelly hair, ponging clothes and even whether or not bars will go out of business are all secondary to what now seems to be fact ... the risks to health from second hand smoke are serious, significant and imminent. What else do we need to know?
I don't care about smokers, they can soak / freeze in the cold / rain for all I care.
Now I can enjoy myself, drink and eat without having my lungs raped or smelling like an ashtray.
That's standard practice not to let people back into a gig if they go out.Quote:
Originally Posted by finlay666
Also, Me First and the Gimme Gimme's rock. Fat Mike was so drunk last time I saw them :D
its a good idea to ban in confined spaces. but i think theres alot more serious problems that people and the government should tackle and be more worried about right now with this country.
Well on Sunday afternoon I went to the pub and it was literally a breath of fresh air.
One thought: good money to be made for businesses making outdoor smoking shelters.
To be honest, the outdoor shelters we have in Guernsey are lush. Not only that, but there's a lot of pubs/bars which have patios to go out onto with heaters and those big umbrella things, so it's not all that bad for smokers in that scenario. English pubs have a tendency to have nothing but a roadside pavement for smoking ;)
One step at a time. And there's many sections to the government, not all of the offices would concentrate on one area in specific :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 5cupa
m8 rang me this morning, during the convo he pointed out how he was ejected from the same pub 4 times last night as he was pissed as a fart and kept forgetting to go outside after he rolled up..
I am used to having smoke-free pubs so when I go into an espace fumer (a smoker) by accident I am instantly aware that I have done so, because of the smell. I'm pleased about the ban, but I do believe that private 'smoking clubs' (i.e. pubs with a sign up) should be allowed. I don't have to go in, after all.
I don't like a nanny state doing what's good for me, but I do understand that this is about protecting kids and passive smokers and about reducing the NHS bills. It's a good thing on balance, but now it's done let's start working on banning speed cameras.
Might be, but they wouldn't allow you to smoke inside (regardless of people doing it, and the fact that they did nothing about it so could be reported)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kezzer
They do indeed, the new bassist was drinking every time they played a cover song :lol:
Thing is that what they did was AFAIK illegal (in that they didnt attempt to do anything about the smokers inside) but also that they will lose business as TBH the place reeked of BO by the end of the gig, not to mention the smelly female hippy in front of me (manky dreadlocks banging in my face....ew)
Fair enough it is early days, but they should at least have thought of what they were going to do for smokers, seems silly to just tell 1/3 of your customers to bugger off and not come back if you want a smoke
i don't mind smoking outside at all - encourages me to smoke less, however my office has completely flown off the handle about it.
we're not allowed morning and afternoon tea/coffee breaks as we're in engineering rather than manufacturing (reason being we're allowed hot drinks at our desks) so I have a period from 12:15 until 1pm to have my cigarettes during the day.
i might suggest that my boss issues smoking passes as I was actually reported to HR for having a ciggie in our defined smoking area at 10:30 yesterday morning.
i've got to say, it's really nice being treated like an adult, given that I'm in my early thirties and am more than capable of totting up my hours. considering i only took 15 mins for lunch I figure I'm entitled to use the other half hour as I please.
in fact i might craft an email to that effect to my boss now.
pr*cks.
hooray! no more morning train retching when some selfish smoker sits next to me still enveloped in last second smog.
I still don't understand why people have to be told to not to smoke in places like bus shelters, or on train stations when kids are off to school - I would have happily volunteered to be part of voluntary vigilante tazer squad.
Disgusting as smoking is, it should not have been banned in pubs. For a lot of people chain smoking over a couple of pints all day/evening is basically their whole sad existence.
On sunday my gf popped into a local convenience store and outside under the awning, from the pub about 30 yards away were a dozen or so half cut neanderthals smoking away and calling out unpleasant abuse to the shoppers. So it's not just pubs that are going to suffer.
Seeing as though I work for one of the largest software companies in the world, I thought I could comment on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by scottyman
That's friggin' stupid.
We're allowed to take breaks whenever we feel like it at my work, we're allowed to turn up when we want and we're allowed to leave when we want, as long as we make up the hours in the week. Hell, in my 12 months of employment I've only been here for 8 months, and I finish this month, yet they still let me keep my job.
Smokers have been complaining for years about non-smokers making a fuss about smoking in public....and now it's your turn. So suck it up, it's not going to change.Quote:
Originally Posted by arbitor
We've got a guy who smokes outside our shop, off to the side. Now given that we're seated a good 30 foot away, enough smoke reaches us for us to comment about the stink. Now think about all the emmissions you can't see, the majority of which are toxic, then condense it into a small restaurant or pub. I don't want to be breathing that. And as for bar staff stopping crying and get a new job, some people are in the unfortunate position of having to take whatever work they can, and they don't have the luxury of taking time out and finding a place of employment with a good health policy.
So I'll have to say that the only one who should stop crying is you, you don't like it, move to a country who doesn't have such a ban. Simple.
And I sympathise for pubs that have gone out of business, but if they rely upon smokers to keep them afloat, then I liken them to opium houses in the 1800s who went out of business when they banned that narcotic. Times are a changing.
Yeah, times changed for the better when they shut down the opium dens didn't they....Quote:
Originally Posted by ibm
No doubt like every other work place since the ban, there is a lot of talk about it where I work.
The general consensus among smokers was that they have cut down an awful lot and instead of
having 12 cigs while at work they had only 3. So quite a bit of money saved.
Statistically, the Japanese are one of the heaviest smoking nations in this world, yet statistically they also have one the best record of health and life expectancy......
I dont careQuote:
Originally Posted by ibm
I can smoke at work, the pubs i go to have nice beer gardens that are covered, it doesnt bother me if i want to smoke i can
Statistically, statistics are usually wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proplus
Oh the infinite regression!
But you believe the statistics that governments (namely ours and the US) pump out about the 'harms' of smoking. Notice how government funded surveys on the 'harms' of smoking that does not have results showing smoking is bad, they conveniently sweep it under the carpet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kezzer
Well if John Smeaton wasn't allowed to be having a smoke out the front of his workplace, events would have turned out much worse :)
Hold on, how on earth did you get to assuming that I believed in such statistics? I was pointing out that statistics are a load of crap most of the time, and you reply with that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Proplus
You've got a screw loose ;)
i found all the new designated smoking areas quite funny !
and you see people huddling up in them, all they are are shelters over a parking space outside a supermarket.
Whilst it is certainly the case that governments like to use statistics to prove their point, especially if it justifies their actions, you can't justifiably just dismiss all statistics because of that. And when those statistics aren't coming from government, but from one medical authority, domestic and international, after another, it would be plain pig-headed stubbornness to pretend they're all wrong. Talk to just about any medical authority, or for that matter, attend an autopsy and just look at lung tissue from a smoker and a non-smoker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proplus
When you get one report after another, by independent bodies and medical organisations, saying exactly the same thing decade after decade, surely even the most obtuse have to admit eventually that they may have a point. The evidence for links between smoking AND passive smoking with cancer, cardiovascular disease etc., are now so overwhelming, and repeated by country after country after country, that respected international bodies like the World Health Organisation use words and phrases like "definite" and "no question" to describe the link between smoking and a whole raft of nasty medical conditions, including primarily cancer and heart problems, but all sorts of other things too.
The WHO report I mentioned in a previous post was based on a review by 29 experts from 12 countries of 50 independent research studies, and the same conclusions have been reached all over the world.
clicky
Original report which a lot of this smoking stuff was based on was a pile of bull, faked figures and cherry picked data :)
Statistics can be used any way, you just change the sample people, phrase the questions differently to get a different response. If anyone has seen "Yes Prime Minister" there was an example of this when it came to conscription.
It is common sense that smoking is not good for you. I pity the fool who smokes. I feel sorry for those who are addicted to it. Can't they just remove the nicotine? That would stop addiction! :)
The government will never ban smoking or drinking. They are both such a revenue generator for them. They will continue to hike the taxes up on your pint and ciggies, and you will still moan but by them, because you need them. Nice viscous circle. They make money out of your addictions.
The majority of cases in hospitals are drunk related. I have a friend who works in ICU who can vouch for this. Drugs also.
I am happy for the ban. Hopefully it will encourage people to smoke less.
went into a pub at about 7pm yesterday to have a glass of wine there, rather then be with 50+ foreign students on a train station platform and I definitely noticed how twitchy and grumpy the bar staff and customers were. Might have been localness, but looked more like the overtly aggressive behaviour of recovering nicotine addicts. Pub smelt horrible: stale; dank and fetid.
Let's see.Quote:
Originally Posted by finlay666
On the one hand, you've got a couple of TV personalities claiming they can show how ONE report was faked. On the other, you have 29 experts from 12 countries using 50 independent reports to draw conclusions published under the auspices of the World Health Organisation. So naturally, we're supposed to believe the TV mouthpieces and dismiss 29 experts and 50 reports from WHO?
It would certainly be naive to take any old statistics at face value, and if you're referring to surveys (which, I'd point out, are not the same thing at all as a scientific evaluation of factual data) then yes, the phraseology of questions is critical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stringent
But, a marketing survey asking for views and opinions is very different from long-term, large-scale statistical studies of, for example, the backgrounds and smoking habits of those that died from cancer, cardiovascular disease, etc. In one, you can prejudice results by asking loaded questions, but in the other, you're analysing results and facts, not asking questions. You certainly still have to be careful how you design the analysis, but if you look at a large enough sample, then you can conclude that the analysis is accurate enough to be representative, within a given level of probability.
Suppose you look at the cancer deaths in five hospitals over a three year period, and relate those results to patient's histories. Suppose you then find that for certain types of cancer, 80% of sufferers have been long-term smokers. Then suppose a different team do a similar study but using their own methodology, and use different hospitals over a different time period, and reach similar results. And then suppose that 27 more teams do similar studies, in 11 over countries, and again reach similar results. Do when then just ignore the conclusions because the studies were statistically done?
When organisations like WHO, or the BMJ use words like "definite" and "without question" to describe the inferences drawn from statistical surveys, then in my view, you can only draw one of two conclusions :-
1) The whole thing is faked up to the gills, and those organisations are out to deceive us deliberately.
2) The evidence is so overwhelming as to induce otherwise coy and reserved bodies to conclude something is proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
We can all reach our own opinions, and I'm certainly not one to take many things at face value (in fact, I'm usually accused of being overly cynical), but when such overwhelmingly consistent data tallies so appropriately with my own experiences and with anecdotal evidence from friends and family, I'm forced to conclude that 1) is just paranoia, or perhaps an ostrich complex, and that at least in this case, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, start hunting for the orange sauce. :D
I'll take it you havent seen the show....Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
There are senior medical officials from the US in the show that state that there
Dr Elizabeth Weilan (sp?) President of american council of science and health said that the evidence is extremely scanty on the connection between 2nd hand smoke and disease
The federal court lambasted the original survey (on which MANY following surveys have been partially based on) for:
Procedural failure
Cherry picking data
Yes the WHO press release did say it can cause cancer, the survey however had a very different conclusion
(ETS being the term for 2nd hand smoke)Quote:
Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk.
We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS.
There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure
The WHO study is mostly inconclusive of any proof
The ALA, AHA, ACA, US PHS all state it is a killer, although they all base that on the original (and discredited) EPA survey
http://www.heartland.org/archives/en...ep98/smoke.htm <- That is the news report for the original survey incase you were interested
A LOT of evidence that people bring forward is either flawed or inconclusive
thats my http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...ts%2520pix.jpg though :)
Correct, I haven't.Quote:
Originally Posted by finlay666
Without knowing who, or what they say, I can't make much of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by finlay666
She said a fair bit more than that, but I'll grant you, she makes some good points .... much of which is based on a criticism of the many studies being based on assessment by toxicologists rather than epidemiologists. Both represent fair ways of looking at things, but I'll grant, she makes a good case for epidemiology.Quote:
Originally Posted by finlay666
Yes, a court decision which was subsequently thrown out by the Court of Appeals 4th Circuit, on multiple grounds including that the plaintiffs didn't have standing to challenge the report, that Osteen was wrong in that the report was an Administrative Procedures Act final agency action, that the EPA did follow relevant procedures and that any not followed were not grounds for vacating the report anyway, and that Osteen's court had exceeded it's authority for judicial review. A pretty firm slap down for Osteen whom, it appears, got it wrong on several bases and didn't have the authority to act anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by finlay666
Or are we supposed to conclude that one judge was right and the Court of Appeals are part of a conspiracy? If we are to place any reliance on the authority of the federal Court to throw it out, we implicitly have to place greater reliance on the Court of Appeal to chastise him and throw it right back in again.
I'm working my way through the various IARC monologues, and it's hard going, but I'd rather try to establish what it said than rely on a news report by an organisation that, allegedly, has very suspect objectivity. Heartand's own website is fairly unapologetically pro-smoking, has had management of tobacco companies (Philip Morris) on it's board, if the recipient of tobacco funding funding. Roy Marden said in 1994 that he wasQuote:
Originally Posted by finlay666
He was a member of Heartland's board, and the Manager of Industry Affairs for Philip Morris (a tobacco company). As late as 2006, Heartland partnered with the National Association of Tobacco Outlets to run "a campaign to change public opinion about tobacco."Quote:
working with the Heartland Institute in the planning of a health policy forum for state-level think tanks to develop a unified strategy and action plan, and in the use of their fax-on-demand technology to promote health care positioning consistent with our interests to legislators, public opinion makers and the public
While the fact that Heartand seems to have a long-standing and intimate relationship with the tobacco industry doesn't necessarily mean that what they say is false, it certainly leads me to suspect that it's going to have a very definite spin and means I'm not going to place much credence, personally, in their objectivity.
As I said earlier, there are certainly problems with designing analyses of data to draw cause and effect conclusions, and that's the basis of the toxicology versus epidemiology argument, there being a whole raft of hard to assess factors that distinguish between whether a substance can cause, for instance, cancer, and whether it actually does, on any significant scale. But, it's those very awkward factors that mean that statistical analysis is going to be about all we have to rely on, and from what I've seen and read, the evidence for cause and effect is substantive.
My view is that if you're deciding a case like a smoking ban, you have to balance the rights of smokers to smoke where they want, against the rights of non-smokers not to be affected (whether medically or just by the thorough unpleasantness of other people's smoke), and you have to draw a balance because there's one thing in all this that is absolutely certain - whether you impose a ban/restriction or don't impose one, a lot of people aren't going to be happy with the situation. Given the situation, I think there is sufficient medical grounds, let alone social ones, for a ban on smoking in public places because we didn't ought to be waiting for categoric proof of the dangers before we act to protect people, and I still haven't seen anything to alter that opinion. If it can be clearly shown that no significant risk exists from second hand smoke, then perhaps it'll be time to look at it again, and decide if the smoker's right to smoke in public places trumps other people's right to not have smoke inflicted on them in public places. Personally, on that basis alone and regardless of medical harm or not, I support a ban because I'm sick of other people's smoking ruining my meals in a restaurant, for example. Now it's my turn, and the turn of others like me, for peaceful enjoyment, and the smokers can either wait for a fag, or go outside.
Hasn't affected my local, they still smoke inside!
I totally agree. However despite scientific study, they seem to change their minds anyway on a regular basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen