Message to all SMOKERS moaning about the new laws

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

drinkers dont open up peoples mouths around them and pour in though do they?(well not normally) thats exactly what smokers are doing, forcing u to take it in.

 

[dougdeep]

a warning to people though


don't think the pubs are going to smell nice from now on

some ireland pubs smell of a nice little cocktail of: fart, b.o and vomit

Just like home then.

 

[Nemesis]

then at the same time its not as bad as you think. all this bullshit about pasive smoke etc. it aint as deadly as you drama queens are making it out to be. say what you like but thats my opinion

The experts all seem to disagree with you:

cough cough cough

and if you can't be bothered to follow the link:



How your secondhand smoke
affects others


Breathing in other peoples' secondhand smoke can damage almost every organ in the human body. It increases the risk of lung cancer by 24% and heart disease by 25%.

Breathing in secondhand smoke makes the blood more sticky. This means that there is a risk of blood clots forming. A blood clot can block an artery and cause heart attacks, strokes, angina or even complete heart failure.

When you go smokefree you will be protecting the health of your family and friends.
Secondhand smoke is very dangerous for children


* Cot death is twice as likely for babies whose mothers smoke.
* Smoking near children is a cause of serious respiratory illnesses such as bronchitis and pneumonia.
* Secondhand smoke increases the risk of getting asthma and causes asthma attacks. And younger children are much more likely to contract a serious respiratory infection that requires hospitalisation.
* There is also an increased risk of meningitis for children who are exposed to secondhand smoke.
* Babies and children exposed to secondhand smoke are more likely to get coughs and colds, as well as middle ear disease which can cause deafness.

 

[graz126]

The experts all seem to disagree with you:

cough cough cough

and if you can't be bothered to follow the link:



How your secondhand smoke
affects others


Breathing in other peoples' secondhand smoke can damage almost every organ in the human body. It increases the risk of lung cancer by 24% and heart disease by 25%.

Breathing in secondhand smoke makes the blood more sticky. This means that there is a risk of blood clots forming. A blood clot can block an artery and cause heart attacks, strokes, angina or even complete heart failure.

When you go smokefree you will be protecting the health of your family and friends.
Secondhand smoke is very dangerous for children


* Cot death is twice as likely for babies whose mothers smoke.
* Smoking near children is a cause of serious respiratory illnesses such as bronchitis and pneumonia.
* Secondhand smoke increases the risk of getting asthma and causes asthma attacks. And younger children are much more likely to contract a serious respiratory infection that requires hospitalisation.
* There is also an increased risk of meningitis for children who are exposed to secondhand smoke.
* Babies and children exposed to secondhand smoke are more likely to get coughs and colds, as well as middle ear disease which can cause deafness.

not ALL the experts agree with that either. a doctor in america has been campaigning to stop all this scare monger tactics set up by anti smoking groups. and found very suprising results. something like 10 out of a thousand people he surveyed in america thought passive smoke was not too much of a health risk. the same survey in england was put to 100 people, something like 90% said passive smoke can be a health risk.
looks like the anti smoking campaign in england is going really well.
i personally think there is a health risk from passive smoke but not as bad as people make out. at no point have i actually said there isnt a slight risk.

 

[blue'n'white]

All this bollocks about smoking !!!
IF IT'S THAT BAD FOR YOU WHY DOES THE GOV'T NOT f***ing BAN IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!! I won't go on about the many World Health Organisation reports that say that smoking is not dangerous cos all you non smokers won't listen anyway as you've got your heads up your own backsides but I'll tell you why the gov't won't ban it and it's because they get too much revenue from it that's why.
If we stop smoking all you goody goody little twats will have to pay a f*** of a sight more income tax and then you'll complain about that won't you.
Instead of banning it totally have a bit of common sense about all this - you should have smoking and non smoking pubs for a start.
They should be clearly marked on the door that "This is a smoking establishment" or "This is a non smoking establishment" and then EVERYONE has a choice. You can recruit smoking staff for the smoking establishments and non smoking staff for the non smoking establishments. To me that seems logical

 

[Da Man Clay]

Instead of banning it totally have a bit of common sense about all this - you should have smoking and non smoking pubs for a start.
They should be clearly marked on the door that "This is a smoking establishment" or "This is a non smoking establishment" and then EVERYONE has a choice. You can recruit smoking staff for the smoking establishments and non smoking staff for the non smoking establishments. To me that seems logical

Id have to agree with that.

 

[graz126]

All this bollocks about smoking !!!
IF IT'S THAT BAD FOR YOU WHY DOES THE GOV'T NOT f***ing BAN IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!! I won't go on about the many World Health Organisation reports that say that smoking is not dangerous cos all you non smokers won't listen anyway as you've got your heads up your own backsides but I'll tell you why the gov't won't ban it and it's because they get too much revenue from it that's why.
If we stop smoking all you goody goody little twats will have to pay a f*** of a sight more income tax and then you'll complain about that won't you.
Instead of banning it totally have a bit of common sense about all this - you should have smoking and non smoking pubs for a start.
They should be clearly marked on the door that "This is a smoking establishment" or "This is a non smoking establishment" and then EVERYONE has a choice. You can recruit smoking staff for the smoking establishments and non smoking staff for the non smoking establishments. To me that seems logical

i also have to agree. and i have said that about the tax and goverment revenue from it all along.

 

[Juan Albion]

All this bollocks about smoking !!!
IF IT'S THAT BAD FOR YOU WHY DOES THE GOV'T NOT f***ing BAN IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!! I won't go on about the many World Health Organisation reports that say that smoking is not dangerous cos all you non smokers won't listen anyway as you've got your heads up your own backsides but I'll tell you why the gov't won't ban it and it's because they get too much revenue from it that's why.
If we stop smoking all you goody goody little twats will have to pay a f*** of a sight more income tax and then you'll complain about that won't you.
Instead of banning it totally have a bit of common sense about all this - you should have smoking and non smoking pubs for a start.
They should be clearly marked on the door that "This is a smoking establishment" or "This is a non smoking establishment" and then EVERYONE has a choice. You can recruit smoking staff for the smoking establishments and non smoking staff for the non smoking establishments. To me that seems logical

And breathe (*cough cough*).

Smoke as much as you like, as far as I and I suspect most people are concerned. If you want to kill yourselves or have your legs amputated, you just carry on. JUST DON'T DO IT WHERE I HAVE TO BREATHE IT IN AS WELL.

 

[Yorkie]

not ALL the experts agree with that either. a doctor in america has been campaigning to stop all this scare monger tactics set up by anti smoking groups. and found very suprising results. something like 10 out of a thousand people he surveyed in america thought passive smoke was not too much of a health risk. the same survey in england was put to 100 people, something like 90% said passive smoke can be a health risk.
looks like the anti smoking campaign in england is going really well.
i personally think there is a health risk from passive smoke but not as bad as people make out. at no point have i actually said there isnt a slight risk.

I would say the same thing. I grew up in the 50's where smoking was normal for most people. My Dad got cigarettes free of charge in the Navy as part of his wages (duty frees) The WVS used to hand them out during the war as being good for you.
I grew up in a household with 4 adults smoking and started smoking myself when I was 16. I smoked when I was pregnant (I'm not proud of it and cut down as much as I could)
Fortunately for me I managed to stop at 42 after 26 years of it, and have been free of it for 16 years now.
I haven't had any health problems with passive smoking and neither have my children. My stepMum didn't smoke but was with my Dad for 32 years and is still going strong at 94.
I'm not saying it was right but I do think it is exaggerated by some medical experts.

 

[dougdeep]

Back to basics. Can breathing in smoke be healthy?

 

[Deleted User X18H]

he died of lung cancer yes. where is the proof it was passive smoking that was the cause of this? did he grow up in a industrial town. or next to a main road.

No the poor sod palyed the trumpet in smoky clubs inhaling the shit every time he played.

 

[Yorkie]

No the por sod palyed the trumpet in smoky clubs inhaling the shit every time he played.

He grew up in Huddersfield which isn't the cleanest town in the country.

 

[fatbadger]

Doo you have any message for the non-smokers who oppose the new laws?

 

[fosters headband]

He grew up in Huddersfield which isn't the cleanest town in the country.

Dont burst their bubble Yorkie, it is very comfortable for them to think if they dont smoke or live with a smoker they are free from lung cancer!!
So many chemicals that people have to work with or use in every day living can also cause cancer.
But they dont want to hear this, even the demon drink can cause cancer!! But this dont stop them pouring gallons of the stuff down their throats.


http://www.labtestsonline.org.uk/understanding/conditions/alcoholism.html

 

[Half Time Pies]

I would say the same thing. I grew up in the 50's where smoking was normal for most people. My Dad got cigarettes free of charge in the Navy as part of his wages (duty frees) The WVS used to hand them out during the war as being good for you.
I grew up in a household with 4 adults smoking and started smoking myself when I was 16. I smoked when I was pregnant (I'm not proud of it and cut down as much as I could)
Fortunately for me I managed to stop at 42 after 26 years of it, and have been free of it for 16 years now.
I haven't had any health problems with passive smoking and neither have my children. My stepMum didn't smoke but was with my Dad for 32 years and is still going strong at 94.
I'm not saying it was right but I do think it is exaggerated by some medical experts.

Whenever you have these discussions you always get someone who throws the old "I knew someone who smoked 100 a day for 90 years and lived to the ripe old age of 104" into the mix. Of course some people are going to be more susceptable thans others and some people will just be very lucky, however For anyone with their head burried in the sand these are the facts (from the british heart foundation):

Smoking just three to six cigarettes each day doubles your chance of having a heart attack.
Smokers are more than twice as likely to have a fatal heart attack than non-smokers.
One in five people in Britain die from smoking - that's more than 115,000 every year.
About half of all regular smokers will eventually be killed by their habit.
On average, UK smokers who die in middle age lose 21 years of life.
Smoking causes heart disease

People claim that these risk are exadurated by the EXPERTS, but the evidence is overwealming. For every person who who smoked everyday and lived until they were 90 there are several 1000 people who died a slow and painful premature death and for every tobbacco industry funded study that says smoking is not as bad as people make out there are 100's that prove that it is. It is fine to argue that that the government should allow you to smoke when and where you want but to argue that smoking is not as seriuos a problem to health as people make out is simply ridiculous.

 

[Yorkie]

I know it is a serious health risk. What I am saying is that the problems are exaggerated.
As stated before, if the government were so concerned, then they would ban smoking but then they would lose millions in tax revenue.

 

[Half Time Pies]

I know it is a serious health risk. What I am saying is that the problems are exaggerated.
As stated before, if the government were so concerned, then they would ban smoking but then they would lose millions in tax revenue.

I cant see what the motivation would be for exaggerating the risks, especially considering the amount of revenue the government makes from smokers - Surely if the government was driven by the money that it makes from smoking then its interest would be in promoting the idea that it is not as bad as people make out?

Everytime a study comes out that questions the extent of the risk of smoking it has 9 times out of 10 been funded by the tobbaco industry. In my opinion it is far easier to see why these studies would be biased.

 

[fosters headband]

How about this from the World Health Organization
Everybody stop eating quick

What are carcinogenic substances?

In addition to the external "environmental factors" comprising 80-90% of the causes of cancer such as carcinogenic substances, exposure to irradiation, and virus, instances in lowering of immune functions caused by heredity, agedness, change in lifestyle are internal factors.

According to a report from World Health Organization (WHO), 35% of carcinogenic substances are derived from food and drinks, and 30% are from smoking as the second rank.

When speaking of carcinogenic substances, usually the impression relates to food additives and agricultural chemicals, chemicals and so on. What exactly do these stuffs relate ?

First of all, let me simply explain the process in which carcinogenic substances give rise to cancerous cells and tumors due to external factors.

There are the first stage (initiation) and second stage (promotion) in the carcinogenic process, whereby carcinomatosis is formed by chemical substances.

 

[graz126]

No the poor sod palyed the trumpet in smoky clubs inhaling the shit every time he played.

nobody forced him to do that. yet earlier in the thread we smokers are still classed as murderers. a hell of a lot of places are non smoking now. if ya dont wanna inhale any passive smoke then take your choice of going to those places and stop calling smokers murderers.
unfortunatley roy castle and many others that have died of lung cancer etc didnt know the risks of passive smoke back then (although exaggerated). but also as i said earlier it may not of been the smoke that killed him. it may have been the food he ate or anything. cancer is indiscriminate and caused many ways. it just takes something to trigger it as we all have cancerous cells in our body just they are not all active.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

It's a bit of a lose-lose situation at Withdean. If the smoke don't get ya, the burger will