Ban Alcohol

[DodgyAgent]

WHAT ABOUT ROY CASTLE!!!!!

There is no proof that he died from passive smoking. It is no more than an assumption. Likewise the human contribution to global warming.

[sasguru]

There is no proof that he died from passive smoking. It is no more than an assumption. Likewise the human contribution to global warming.

Both topics on which you have done extensive research? Or have you got your opinions ready-made from the "Telegraph"?

[DodgyAgent]

Both topics on which you have done extensive research? Or have you got your opinions ready-made from the "Telegraph"?

It is not an opinion it is simply a fact. Are you implying that because the article comes from the Telegraph that the story of the world health organisation is not true? If you do not believe the Telegraph then maybe you should try a google search.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/smoking/St...957231,00.html

even your newspaper agrees

[sasguru]

It is not an opinion it is simply a fact. Are you implying that because the article comes from the Telegraph that the story of the world health organisation is not true? If you do not believe the Telegraph then maybe you should try a google search.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/smoking/St...957231,00.html

even your newspaper agrees

From the article you quote:

"But the cancer society said its study had been misused. It was impossible to separate out the effects of a spouse smoking because in 1959, smoking was all-pervasive, it said. There was also no information on the spouse's smoking habits collected after 1972, they could have stopped in the 26 years until the study ended.

"ACS scientists repeatedly advised Dr. Enstrom that (the) data were unsuitable," said the society's vice president Michael Thun.

Dr Enstrom and Professor Kabat declared they had received funding from the tobacco industry in recent years. They also acknowledged that their study had support from the dismantled Center for Indoor Air Research.

Last December an article in the British Medical Journal showed how the CIAR was used as cover for studies funded by tobacco companies aimed at rebutting claims hat passive smoking is harmful. "

Stick to pimping. Basic flaws in the scientific method seem beyond you. I blame the state of scientific education in the UK.

[DodgyAgent]

From the article you quote:

"But the cancer society said its study had been misused. It was impossible to separate out the effects of a spouse smoking because in 1959, smoking was all-pervasive, it said. There was also no information on the spouse's smoking habits collected after 1972, they could have stopped in the 26 years until the study ended.

"ACS scientists repeatedly advised Dr. Enstrom that (the) data were unsuitable," said the society's vice president Michael Thun.

Dr Enstrom and Professor Kabat declared they had received funding from the tobacco industry in recent years. They also acknowledged that their study had support from the dismantled Center for Indoor Air Research.

Last December an article in the British Medical Journal showed how the CIAR was used as cover for studies funded by tobacco companies aimed at rebutting claims hat passive smoking is harmful. "

Stick to pimping. Basic flaws in the scientific method seem beyond you. I blame the state of scientific education in the UK.

There is still no hard factual evidence that passive smoking kills. Anyway back to the original point, if smoking is banned why not alcohol?

[Old Greg]

Bloody hell, we agree!

I've changed my mind now

[The Lone Gunman]

I've changed my mind now

Aw, and we were just starting to get along.

[Old Greg]

There is still no hard factual evidence that passive smoking kills. Anyway back to the original point, if smoking is banned why not alcohol?

Well having done a significant amount of research:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking

I have concluded that the evidence base suggests a link between passive smoking and a wide range of fatal diseases. Dissenting views are referenced in the article.

[wobbegong]

There is still no hard factual evidence that passive smoking kills. Anyway back to the original point, if smoking is banned why not alcohol?

But smoking isn't banned per se, it's banned in "enclosed public spaces". Areas where person 'A' could, through no intent of their own, be subjected to breathe in person 'B's tobacco smoke. Now with drinking, If I walk past a table in a restaurant where 8 people are sipping their Chardonnay, I don't unwittingly (more's the pity) intake any of it.

[Old Greg]

Aw, and we were just starting to get along.

It's possible that at one level we share a libertarian outlook but we differ in our analysis of problems and subsequently their solutions.