Smokers suck

[Bazooka_From_Viduka 0]

starts at 6am on Sunday

as the Fish rightly says 6.00a.m on Sunday...and i know we are all giving the grest huzzah to it but just thuink if we wll packed in the revenue that would be lost

 

 

and how much is that compared to the budget for the care of lung cancer/emphesema/bronchitis/mouth cancer/heart disease/tumor patients ?

[Bazooka_From_Viduka 0]

if the only argument against a smoking ban is this fear of a nanny state then I'm not too bothered. I see this ban as protecting my right to breathe smoke free air, regardless of the proportional risk. I don't see it as an example of government hand holding gone wrong in the same way as I see ASBOs

 

I genuinely don't see a downside in this, even if it simply forces the smokers outside and nobody actually quits.

 

Well ignoring the fact their are basically lying to everyone (I guess people simply expect that from their elected officials these days).

 

The only downside is really IF they use the same methods (silly scare tactics and science misconstrued to the point of being a lie - it's a bigger public deception than the dodgey dossier ever was) to ban something else (motorbikes, abortions, chips, whatever - it's actually quite amazing how draconian this legislation is if you look at it out of the direct context).

 

Of course the British government would never do anything like that would they.

 

 

quite apart from the fact it wasn't government policy at all but a free vote of the commons, won by an unprecedented majority as it happens

[Meenzer 15717]

All the best arguments (have more stuff inside the parentheses than outside, because that's where the important stuff is kept)

[Guest alex]

Definitely Vic imo.

[Fop 1]

I'm sure that it is entirely possible to take things to a terrifying point mate, but honestly.. it's a smoking ban.

 

 

 

I reckon we'll see stricter and "nanny"tastic directions being suggested as an answer.

 

obviously it's NOT the answer, but imo we need to do something to fix this ailing country. I just hope there are far far smarter people about than the last few of governments.

 

 

True, but the disturbing thing about this isn't that it is "Nanny says cigarettes are bad for you therefore we'll ban many of your opportunities to smoke them" which would be one thing (or even ban them outright which would be another).

 

But the main thrust and scare of the current legislation is based upon the second hand smoke issue (not the smoke smokers take directly into their lungs), and as I said the science involved in that has been perverted beyond anything that even resembles the original science.

 

Which is basically "Nanny says the big bad bogey man under the bed will get you IF you don't do what Nanny says".

 

i.e. scare tactics and lies.

[Fop 1]

if the only argument against a smoking ban is this fear of a nanny state then I'm not too bothered. I see this ban as protecting my right to breathe smoke free air, regardless of the proportional risk. I don't see it as an example of government hand holding gone wrong in the same way as I see ASBOs

 

I genuinely don't see a downside in this, even if it simply forces the smokers outside and nobody actually quits.

 

Well ignoring the fact their are basically lying to everyone (I guess people simply expect that from their elected officials these days).

 

The only downside is really IF they use the same methods (silly scare tactics and science misconstrued to the point of being a lie - it's a bigger public deception than the dodgey dossier ever was) to ban something else (motorbikes, abortions, chips, whatever - it's actually quite amazing how draconian this legislation is if you look at it out of the direct context).

 

Of course the British government would never do anything like that would they.

 

 

quite apart from the fact it wasn't government policy at all but a free vote of the commons, won by an unprecedented majority as it happens

 

 

Again a vote based largely upon scare tactics and lies.

 

Many quite terrible things have been "democratically" won by a "free" majority, that's got little to do with anything (look at the Iraq vote, same thing [scare tactics and lies], was that therefore "right"?).

 

 

As I said the smoking ban itself I'll enjoy, I'm just sensible enough to understand I should be concerned about how exactly it's has been pushed though.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3973]

I'm sure that it is entirely possible to take things to a terrifying point mate, but honestly.. it's a smoking ban.

 

 

 

I reckon we'll see stricter and "nanny"tastic directions being suggested as an answer.

 

obviously it's NOT the answer, but imo we need to do something to fix this ailing country. I just hope there are far far smarter people about than the last few of governments.

 

 

True, but the disturbing thing about this isn't that it is "Nanny says cigarettes are bad for you therefore we'll ban many of your opportunities to smoke them" which would be one thing (or even ban them outright which would be another).

 

But the main thrust and scare of the current legislation is based upon the second hand smoke issue (not the smoke smokers take directly into their lungs), and as I said the science involved in that has been perverted beyond anything that even resembles the original science.

 

Which is basically "Nanny says the big bad bogey man under the bed will get you IF you don't do what Nanny says".

 

i.e. scare tactics and lies.

 

 

You say the science has been perverted. Can you back this up with facts? From what I can remember a recent study showed that a 4 hour shift in a smoky pub increased the toxins which caused carcinogens.

[Park Life 71]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/20070629/tuk-...an-dba1618.html

 

It's not fair we are not allowed to poison others lungs anymore. We have the right to cause lung cancer in others.

 

Wankers.

 

In all honesty, much as I'll prefer a smoke free atmosphere, the second hand smoke hysetria maybe the most over egged nonsense in history.

 

Outside of young children at home and people that work 30+ hours a week in (preivously) smoky bars/pubs the actual increase in incidence of anything second hand smoke related (over and above your average pollution/every day lifestyle issues) is very, very small.

 

 

 

 

 

The thing that worries me is if they'll basically make all this stuff up (which is what they are doing, very, very loosely basing it on science and then exaggerating everything to the nth degree) about second hand smoke to push though an agenda what will they use it on next?

 

 

Aye Fop. What next eh? I'm looking forward to the next 'intervention' (I've got some ideas like). They'll be looking to plug the shortfall from smokers tax.

[Park Life 71]

if the only argument against a smoking ban is this fear of a nanny state then I'm not too bothered. I see this ban as protecting my right to breathe smoke free air, regardless of the proportional risk. I don't see it as an example of government hand holding gone wrong in the same way as I see ASBOs

 

I genuinely don't see a downside in this, even if it simply forces the smokers outside and nobody actually quits.

 

We'll be looking for your vote when we ask for a major city wide car ban at weekends....Now that is a real nasty air/smell issue.

[Park Life 71]

if the only argument against a smoking ban is this fear of a nanny state then I'm not too bothered. I see this ban as protecting my right to breathe smoke free air, regardless of the proportional risk. I don't see it as an example of government hand holding gone wrong in the same way as I see ASBOs

 

I genuinely don't see a downside in this, even if it simply forces the smokers outside and nobody actually quits.

 

Well ignoring the fact their are basically lying to everyone (I guess people simply expect that from their elected officials these days).

 

The only downside is really IF they use the same methods (silly scare tactics and science misconstrued to the point of being a lie - it's a bigger public deception than the dodgey dossier ever was) to ban something else (motorbikes, abortions, chips, whatever - it's actually quite amazing how draconian this legislation is if you look at it out of the direct context).

 

Of course the British government would never do anything like that would they.

 

 

quite apart from the fact it wasn't government policy at all but a free vote of the commons, won by an unprecedented majority as it happens

 

 

Again a vote based largely upon scare tactics and lies.

 

Many quite terrible things have been "democratically" won by a "free" majority, that's got little to do with anything (look at the Iraq vote, same thing [scare tactics and lies], was that therefore "right"?).

 

 

As I said the smoking ban itself I'll enjoy, I'm just sensible enough to understand I should be concerned about how exactly it's has been pushed though.

 

Id cards anyone?

[Bazooka_From_Viduka 0]

if the only argument against a smoking ban is this fear of a nanny state then I'm not too bothered. I see this ban as protecting my right to breathe smoke free air, regardless of the proportional risk. I don't see it as an example of government hand holding gone wrong in the same way as I see ASBOs

 

I genuinely don't see a downside in this, even if it simply forces the smokers outside and nobody actually quits.

 

Well ignoring the fact their are basically lying to everyone (I guess people simply expect that from their elected officials these days).

 

The only downside is really IF they use the same methods (silly scare tactics and science misconstrued to the point of being a lie - it's a bigger public deception than the dodgey dossier ever was) to ban something else (motorbikes, abortions, chips, whatever - it's actually quite amazing how draconian this legislation is if you look at it out of the direct context).

 

Of course the British government would never do anything like that would they.

 

 

quite apart from the fact it wasn't government policy at all but a free vote of the commons, won by an unprecedented majority as it happens

 

 

Again a vote based largely upon scare tactics and lies.

 

 

have you got anything to back up that statement?

[The Fish 10965]

We'll be looking for your vote when we ask for a major city wide car ban at weekends....Now that is a real nasty air/smell issue.

I'd be in favour of a city wide ban on non-commercial or public transport vehicles. I understand many people think that they need to park in town because of shopping for bulky items etc. But to be fair if there is something too big to carry to a park-ride stop the shop will provide a delivery service.

 

I'd like to see the entire city pedestrianised.

 

Id cards anyone?

 

 

Not so bothered about this, the governemnt can already track movement, collate data on spending patterns of the individual, and "spy" on us so the "Civil Liberty" argument doesn't really wash with me.

 

the only problem seems to be the price. My dad was quite involved with the whole ID Card idea stage and states quite confidently that the money we'll save from tax and benefit fraudsters will pay off the cost and maintenance of the system. He's not a right wing nut, he's not in favour of a nanny state, he just sees the ID Card as a solution to a problem. Prevention is better than punishment in his eyes.

 

and while I agreee I wish the government was straight with the public. I wish they gave us the real reason why they are willing to stride into Iraq to dispose of a despot, but leave so many African nations in the hands of fanatical warlords. I wish they'd admit the reasons behind the Fox Hunting Ban.

 

But I'm aware that the government has to convince the Sun readers, not the rest of us. I think politicians underestimate the mood and motives of the English people.

[Bazooka_From_Viduka 0]

modern cars are hardly massive polluters

[Steve 0]

I'd like to take the smoking ban one step further and tell the smokers that they go to the bottom of waiting lists for angiography, stress echo, myocardial perfusion scans and bypass surgery until they quit smoking for good. Fuck the smokers.

[Fop 1]

 

You say the science has been perverted. Can you back this up with facts? From what I can remember a recent study showed that a 4 hour shift in a smoky pub increased the toxins which caused carcinogens.

 

Without a doubt, although I'd be interested to see the level of them (although carcinogens are not dose reliant, the actual % chance at most levels is so low they effectively are) and also to see the background levels in the area anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

But the main perversions I've seen have been:

 

 

1. the issue about it being worse to breath in smoke from the burning end than through the filter.

 

It is true that the filter takes out a significant amount of the chemicals, BUT the huge difference is nearly 100% of said chemicals go into the smokers lungs.

The burning ends output if measured at the source is higher but for every millimeter away from that ignition source you get so the chemicals both dilute and in some cases degrade so even if you're sat just two feet away from the ignition source only a fraction of the chemicals are going to enter your lungs.

 

This is true even in the most smoky of pubs, even the most lacking in ventilation, the atmosphere simply isn't going to build up to a level where (even with fairly regular short term 1-10 hours a week exposure) there's any real increase in risk (other than smelling).

 

 

 

 

2. is the related issue of that whole it's not what you can see thing.

 

Again that is technically true, but the "smoke", that is particals that you see as it, persists in a way that the most of dangerous most chemicals do not.

And again it goes back to dilution, some of the nasties that appear from cigarette smoke are dose specific toxic (ie you need a certain concentration to have an effect) and the conditions for that to occur would have to be extreme indeed. But even the non-dose toxic ones are generally so dilute that unless you're in one of the risk groups (young children with developing lungs and bodies or people that work for very long periods in such atmospheres for years and years) the increase risk isn't much at all (you'd increase your life expectancy more by not taking trains no doubt).

 

 

 

 

Most of the smoking campaign groups will freely admit they use "shock" tactics, although equally most will not admit that (at least when it comes to 2nd hand smoke) they are being disingenuous to say the least, although a lot will say any means justify the end (which is scary ).

 

So as I say for most non-smokers the net "health" benefit is basically not having smelly clothes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually the whole thing reminds me a bit of the whole 80's have unprotected sex and YOU WILL GET AIDS AND DIE!!!!! thing, only these days they'd probably have tried to ban sex as well.

[Park Life 71]

We'll be looking for your vote when we ask for a major city wide car ban at weekends....Now that is a real nasty air/smell issue.

I'd be in favour of a city wide ban on non-commercial or public transport vehicles. I understand many people think that they need to park in town because of shopping for bulky items etc. But to be fair if there is something too big to carry to a park-ride stop the shop will provide a delivery service.

 

I'd like to see the entire city pedestrianised.

 

Id cards anyone?

 

 

Not so bothered about this, the governemnt can already track movement, collate data on spending patterns of the individual, and "spy" on us so the "Civil Liberty" argument doesn't really wash with me.

 

the only problem seems to be the price. My dad was quite involved with the whole ID Card idea stage and states quite confidently that the money we'll save from tax and benefit fraudsters will pay off the cost and maintenance of the system. He's not a right wing nut, he's not in favour of a nanny state, he just sees the ID Card as a solution to a problem. Prevention is better than punishment in his eyes.

 

and while I agreee I wish the government was straight with the public. I wish they gave us the real reason why they are willing to stride into Iraq to dispose of a despot, but leave so many African nations in the hands of fanatical warlords. I wish they'd admit the reasons behind the Fox Hunting Ban.

 

But I'm aware that the government has to convince the Sun readers, not the rest of us. I think politicians underestimate the mood and motives of the English people.

 

 

Getting people to use public transport in the center or indeed walk has to be good on so many levels, its not even worth debating. The amount of charges for a car in London now are so high, might as well just go the next step. Paris banned 4x4 from the city center not so long ago iirc.

 

 

I think you're dads cost analysis and benefit is comepletely whack, even before you factor in fraud using the card data or whatever new scams come with them.

[Ally 0]

Can't be arsed reading through 4 pages but personally I can't wait until tomorrow, be nice to come home from a night out and not have the smell of a rotting corpse on the floor when you wake up.

[Park Life 71]

 

You say the science has been perverted. Can you back this up with facts? From what I can remember a recent study showed that a 4 hour shift in a smoky pub increased the toxins which caused carcinogens.

 

Without a doubt, although I'd be interested to see the level of them (although carcinogens are not dose reliant, the actual % chance at most levels is so low they effectively are) and also to see the background levels in the area anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

But the main perversions I've seen have been:

 

 

1. the issue about it being worse to breath in smoke from the burning end than through the filter.

 

It is true that the filter takes out a significant amount of the chemicals, BUT the huge difference is nearly 100% of said chemicals go into the smokers lungs.

The burning ends output if measured at the source is higher but for every millimeter away from that ignition source you get so the chemicals both dilute and in some cases degrade so even if you're sat just two feet away from the ignition source only a fraction of the chemicals are going to enter your lungs.

 

This is true even in the most smoky of pubs, even the most lacking in ventilation, the atmosphere simply isn't going to build up to a level where (even with fairly regular short term 1-10 hours a week exposure) there's any real increase in risk (other than smelling).

 

 

 

 

2. is the related issue of that whole it's not what you can see thing.

 

Again that is technically true, but the "smoke", that is particals that you see as it, persists in a way that the most of dangerous most chemicals do not.

And again it goes back to dilution, some of the nasties that appear from cigarette smoke are dose specific toxic (ie you need a certain concentration to have an effect) and the conditions for that to occur would have to be extreme indeed. But even the non-dose toxic ones are generally so dilute that unless you're in one of the risk groups (young children with developing lungs and bodies or people that work for very long periods in such atmospheres for years and years) the increase risk isn't much at all (you'd increase your life expectancy more by not taking trains no doubt).

 

 

 

 

Most of the smoking campaign groups will freely admit they use "shock" tactics, although equally most will not admit that (at least when it comes to 2nd hand smoke) they are being disingenuous to say the least, although a lot will say any means justify the end (which is scary ).

 

So as I say for most non-smokers the net "health" benefit is basically not having smelly clothes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually the whole thing reminds me a bit of the whole 80's have unprotected sex and YOU WILL GET AIDS AND DIE!!!!! thing, only these days they'd probably have tried to ban sex as well.

 

 

Good post Fop. But surely way over their heads as they load the washing machine for more lovely smelling clothes.

[Park Life 71]

Can't be arsed reading through 4 pages but personally I can't wait until tomorrow, be nice to come home from a night out and not have the smell of a rotting corpse on the floor when you wake up.

 

YOu party in the graveyard?

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3973]

 

You say the science has been perverted. Can you back this up with facts? From what I can remember a recent study showed that a 4 hour shift in a smoky pub increased the toxins which caused carcinogens.

 

Without a doubt, although I'd be interested to see the level of them (although carcinogens are not dose reliant, the actual % chance at most levels is so low they effectively are) and also to see the background levels in the area anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

But the main perversions I've seen have been:

 

 

1. the issue about it being worse to breath in smoke from the burning end than through the filter.

 

It is true that the filter takes out a significant amount of the chemicals, BUT the huge difference is nearly 100% of said chemicals go into the smokers lungs.

The burning ends output if measured at the source is higher but for every millimeter away from that ignition source you get so the chemicals both dilute and in some cases degrade so even if you're sat just two feet away from the ignition source only a fraction of the chemicals are going to enter your lungs.

 

This is true even in the most smoky of pubs, even the most lacking in ventilation, the atmosphere simply isn't going to build up to a level where (even with fairly regular short term 1-10 hours a week exposure) there's any real increase in risk (other than smelling).

 

 

 

 

2. is the related issue of that whole it's not what you can see thing.

 

Again that is technically true, but the "smoke", that is particals that you see as it, persists in a way that the most of dangerous most chemicals do not.

And again it goes back to dilution, some of the nasties that appear from cigarette smoke are dose specific toxic (ie you need a certain concentration to have an effect) and the conditions for that to occur would have to be extreme indeed. But even the non-dose toxic ones are generally so dilute that unless you're in one of the risk groups (young children with developing lungs and bodies or people that work for very long periods in such atmospheres for years and years) the increase risk isn't much at all (you'd increase your life expectancy more by not taking trains no doubt).

 

 

 

 

Most of the smoking campaign groups will freely admit they use "shock" tactics, although equally most will not admit that (at least when it comes to 2nd hand smoke) they are being disingenuous to say the least, although a lot will say any means justify the end (which is scary ).

 

So as I say for most non-smokers the net "health" benefit is basically not having smelly clothes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually the whole thing reminds me a bit of the whole 80's have unprotected sex and YOU WILL GET AIDS AND DIE!!!!! thing, only these days they'd probably have tried to ban sex as well.

 

 

2 issues which are not part of the argument. The reason it was banned is because of the effect of employees made to work in a smoking environment and the rights of non smokers. That is why smoking rooms were not allowed as employees would still need to work in them. I personally would like the right to sue everybody who chooses to smoke in a confined area therefore knowingly putting my healt at an increased risk. There is no argument that this is not the case as no matter what the dose it does increase the risk of certain diseases.

Edited June 30, 2007 by Kevin Carr's Gloves

[Bazooka_From_Viduka 0]

I'm confused, so you can't get cancer from second hand smoke, but breathing in exhaust fumes is deadly?

[Park Life 71]

 

You say the science has been perverted. Can you back this up with facts? From what I can remember a recent study showed that a 4 hour shift in a smoky pub increased the toxins which caused carcinogens.

 

Without a doubt, although I'd be interested to see the level of them (although carcinogens are not dose reliant, the actual % chance at most levels is so low they effectively are) and also to see the background levels in the area anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

But the main perversions I've seen have been:

 

 

1. the issue about it being worse to breath in smoke from the burning end than through the filter.

 

It is true that the filter takes out a significant amount of the chemicals, BUT the huge difference is nearly 100% of said chemicals go into the smokers lungs.

The burning ends output if measured at the source is higher but for every millimeter away from that ignition source you get so the chemicals both dilute and in some cases degrade so even if you're sat just two feet away from the ignition source only a fraction of the chemicals are going to enter your lungs.

 

This is true even in the most smoky of pubs, even the most lacking in ventilation, the atmosphere simply isn't going to build up to a level where (even with fairly regular short term 1-10 hours a week exposure) there's any real increase in risk (other than smelling).

 

 

 

 

2. is the related issue of that whole it's not what you can see thing.

 

Again that is technically true, but the "smoke", that is particals that you see as it, persists in a way that the most of dangerous most chemicals do not.

And again it goes back to dilution, some of the nasties that appear from cigarette smoke are dose specific toxic (ie you need a certain concentration to have an effect) and the conditions for that to occur would have to be extreme indeed. But even the non-dose toxic ones are generally so dilute that unless you're in one of the risk groups (young children with developing lungs and bodies or people that work for very long periods in such atmospheres for years and years) the increase risk isn't much at all (you'd increase your life expectancy more by not taking trains no doubt).

 

 

 

 

Most of the smoking campaign groups will freely admit they use "shock" tactics, although equally most will not admit that (at least when it comes to 2nd hand smoke) they are being disingenuous to say the least, although a lot will say any means justify the end (which is scary ).

 

So as I say for most non-smokers the net "health" benefit is basically not having smelly clothes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually the whole thing reminds me a bit of the whole 80's have unprotected sex and YOU WILL GET AIDS AND DIE!!!!! thing, only these days they'd probably have tried to ban sex as well.

 

 

2 issues which are not part of the argument. The reason it was banned is because of the effect of employees made to work in a smoking environment and the rights of non smokers. That is why smoking rooms were not allowed as employees would still need to work in them. I personally would like the right to sue everybody who chooses to smoke in a confined area therefore knowingly putting my healt at an increased risk. There is no argument that this is not the case as no matter what the dose it does increase the risk of certain diseases.

 

 

Move to America.

[Fop 1]

Id cards anyone?

 

Indeed, and that's something that they've already admitted will be used for purposes they initially denied they'd be used for (which have nothing to do with preventing "terror" and everything to do with control).

 

Much like the DNA database that's already being built by stealth.

 

 

 

have you got anything to back up that statement?

 

Yup see above.

 

Don't swallow propaganda, even if it agrees with would you'd like. It's still a VERY dangerous thing.

 

 

 

modern cars are hardly massive polluters

 

Comparatively to what they used to be true, but (and again we get to the inconvenient bit) they still pump out a lot of crap, and certainly can have as much (or much more) effect on your health than a few hours a week in a smoky pub.

 

Actually that's also one of the biggest drawback of biofuels currently (beside raping the 3rd world and that some biofuels aren't particularly carbon saving), that they have some seriously NASTY emissions issues, stuff that if you had an LA or now Asian type car smog would do serious damage to peoples health.

 

Although this is again something the eco-nazi's (in this case) tend to ignore or gloss over and try to forget.

 

 

(and again I've all for a pollution free world with a pefect climate and many more trees [i've been growing and planting oaks and such for nearly 20 years now, long before it was trendy], but again I'm not silly enough to ignore the reality or say that the Government should be allowed to use whatever nonsense it likes to do whatever it likes)

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3973]

 

You say the science has been perverted. Can you back this up with facts? From what I can remember a recent study showed that a 4 hour shift in a smoky pub increased the toxins which caused carcinogens.

 

Without a doubt, although I'd be interested to see the level of them (although carcinogens are not dose reliant, the actual % chance at most levels is so low they effectively are) and also to see the background levels in the area anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

But the main perversions I've seen have been:

 

 

1. the issue about it being worse to breath in smoke from the burning end than through the filter.

 

It is true that the filter takes out a significant amount of the chemicals, BUT the huge difference is nearly 100% of said chemicals go into the smokers lungs.

The burning ends output if measured at the source is higher but for every millimeter away from that ignition source you get so the chemicals both dilute and in some cases degrade so even if you're sat just two feet away from the ignition source only a fraction of the chemicals are going to enter your lungs.

 

This is true even in the most smoky of pubs, even the most lacking in ventilation, the atmosphere simply isn't going to build up to a level where (even with fairly regular short term 1-10 hours a week exposure) there's any real increase in risk (other than smelling).

 

 

 

 

2. is the related issue of that whole it's not what you can see thing.

 

Again that is technically true, but the "smoke", that is particals that you see as it, persists in a way that the most of dangerous most chemicals do not.

And again it goes back to dilution, some of the nasties that appear from cigarette smoke are dose specific toxic (ie you need a certain concentration to have an effect) and the conditions for that to occur would have to be extreme indeed. But even the non-dose toxic ones are generally so dilute that unless you're in one of the risk groups (young children with developing lungs and bodies or people that work for very long periods in such atmospheres for years and years) the increase risk isn't much at all (you'd increase your life expectancy more by not taking trains no doubt).

 

 

 

 

Most of the smoking campaign groups will freely admit they use "shock" tactics, although equally most will not admit that (at least when it comes to 2nd hand smoke) they are being disingenuous to say the least, although a lot will say any means justify the end (which is scary ).

 

So as I say for most non-smokers the net "health" benefit is basically not having smelly clothes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually the whole thing reminds me a bit of the whole 80's have unprotected sex and YOU WILL GET AIDS AND DIE!!!!! thing, only these days they'd probably have tried to ban sex as well.

 

 

2 issues which are not part of the argument. The reason it was banned is because of the effect of employees made to work in a smoking environment and the rights of non smokers. That is why smoking rooms were not allowed as employees would still need to work in them. I personally would like the right to sue everybody who chooses to smoke in a confined area therefore knowingly putting my healt at an increased risk. There is no argument that this is not the case as no matter what the dose it does increase the risk of certain diseases.

 

 

Move to America.

 

 

Why?

[Bazooka_From_Viduka 0]

Id cards anyone?

 

Indeed, and that's something that they've already admitted will be used for purposes they initially denied they'd be used for (which have nothing to do with preventing "terror" and everything to do with control).

 

Much like the DNA database that's already being built by stealth.

 

 

 

have you got anything to back up that statement?

 

Yup see above.

 

Don't swallow propaganda, even if it agrees with would you'd like. It's still a VERY dangerous thing.

 

 

 

modern cars are hardly massive polluters

 

Comparatively to what they used to be true, but (and again we get to the inconvenient bit) they still pump out a lot of crap, and certainly can have as much (or much more) effect on your health than a few hours a week in a smoky pub.

 

Actually that's also one of the biggest drawback of biofuels currently (beside raping the 3rd world and that some biofuels aren't particularly carbon saving), that they have some seriously NASTY emissions issues, stuff that if you had an LA or now Asian type car smog would do serious damage to peoples health.

 

Although this is again something the eco-nazi's (in this case) tend to ignore or gloss over and try to forget.

 

 

(and again I've all for a pollution free world with a pefect climate and many more trees [i've been growing and planting oaks and such for nearly 20 years now, long before it was trendy], but again I'm not silly enough to ignore the reality or say that the Government should be allowed to use whatever nonsense it likes to do whatever it likes)

 

 

as you've just said it's harmless it wouldn't be hard for a car to be more harmful than a cigarette would it?