• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Why only smoking? Let's ban drinking in public places

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Can anyone point me to some evidence that shows that passive smoking increases your risk of anything at all? and I'm talking about a properly designed scientific study, not mere hearsay.
    Hard Brexit now!
    #prayfornodeal

    Comment


      #12
      cant be bothered to read it but loads of link from the URL

      http://www.ash.org.uk/html/passive/html/passive.html

      I would post the text but its too long
      Your parents ruin the first half of your life and your kids ruin the second half

      Comment


        #13
        and now for another completely unbiased opinion....

        http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page159.asp

        Older and ...well, just older!!

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by Rebecca Loos
          The difference between alcohol and smoking is that if I drink I am not poisoning the person next to me,.

          Very popular misconception.

          You are not doing any damage directly to persons next to you, but after drinking to exces you are more likely to beat your wife / attack people / get into punch-ups / have accidents if driving / clog up already-struggling A&E depts - so you are doing damage to others. The only difference is in the directness of the damage.

          Or by the same token, why are drugs illegal? Not doing any damage to anyone if I pop a few pills, am I?
          I was very specific in talking about moderation. Violence against anybody should be described thus. It is not the fault of the beer that the person who drinks it cannot do so without going to excess.

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by zathras
            It is not the fault of the beer that the person who drinks it cannot do so without going to excess.
            It is not the fault of the fag that the person who smokes it cannot do so without breathing out.

            Game, set and match.

            Comment


              #16
              No, a cigarette spends 95% of its time being flailed about by the 'owner', dripping out of their mouth, and left giving off its carconogenic gases on the edge of an ashtray. Actually smoking it and exhaling it is only a minor part of the trail of carnage smoking causes.

              Just broke your serve, I guess...

              And as I have early stages of cancer, my smoker father had a heart attack, my smoker uncle died from throat cancer, and my smoker grandad had bits of his body amputated over time to poor blood flow / emphysemia related to smoking, Im afraid youll really have to come up with a better arguement to convince me otherwise.
              Last edited by mcquiggd; 25 November 2005, 01:08.
              Vieze Oude Man

              Comment


                #17
                Originally posted by mcquiggd
                No, a cigarette spends 95% of its time being flailed about by the 'owner', dripping out of their mouth, and left giving off its carconogenic gases on the edge of an ashtray. Actually smoking it and exhaling it is only a minor part of the trail of carnage smoking causes.

                Just broke your serve, I guess...

                And as I have early stages of cancer, my smoker father had a heart attack, my smoker uncle died from throat cancer, and my smoker grandad had bits of his body amputated over time to poor blood flow / emphysemia related to smoking, Im afraid youll really have to come up with a better arguement to convince me otherwise.
                Sorry McQuiiggd, but you, or to be more precise your family genes, must be a throwback to c. 1,000,000 BC when humans first learned to make fire. After a over a million years hunched round smokey fires your ancestors and you really should have built up more resistance by now.

                I firmly believe that young people, especially babies and infants, need to be exposed to _more_ smoke not less, and the current massive increase in asthma is due to coal fires and smokey chimneys no longer being around, and the current neurosis and hysteria concerning smoking will only make things worse!
                Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

                Comment


                  #18
                  Well, several studies have pretty much conclusively explained the link between secondary smoking and cancer.... or related respitory diseases.

                  In my case its severe pancreatitis which will lead to a pretty rapid demise should it become full blown pancreatatic cancer - survival rates are negligible (in fact non existant - its just that old 5 year in remission figure thats quoted), and its usually from 2 weeks to 3 months before you are dead.

                  My family history is that men all smoked 40+ a day... on the female side of my family none of them smoked, and none of them have died of cancer. My great grandmother was 103 when she passed away. My dads brother comitted suicide with morphine after contracting bowel and spinal cancer.

                  Emphysemia and Throat Cancer are directly linked to smoking. I dont think weve even begun to establish just how badly it affects your body...
                  Vieze Oude Man

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Originally posted by AlfredJPruffock
                    Timothy 5:23

                    Be no longer a drinker of water only, but use a little wine for your stomach's sake and your frequent infirmities.
                    Sorry Alfie, the reason behind that was not a divine instruction to get drunk, but rather the antiseptic effects of alcohol.

                    Comment


                      #20
                      None smokers have a choice.
                      Whether they be bar staff or customers they can choose to drink or work in non smoking establishments, if there arent any then they are at liberty to open one.
                      By entering a smoking establishment they are making a choice and putting themselves in harms way much the same as the smoker.

                      The people who get beaten to death or assaulted by drunks have very rarely made a similar choice.

                      Check Mate.
                      I am not qualified to give the above advice!

                      The original point and click interface by
                      Smith and Wesson.

                      Step back, have a think and adjust my own own attitude from time to time

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X