July 1st (moved from General)

Page 2 - Passionate about caravans & motorhome? Join our community to share that passion with a global audience!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jan 19, 2008
9,103
0
0
Visit site
"dont believe me read the entire tread I have answered all their challenges and counterd all thier claims and the responce".

I used the same arguments as a smoker colin while all the time knowing I was talking through my a$$ just to try and justify an habit that was affecting others.
 
Jan 12, 2007
107
0
0
Visit site
Colin - can you point to where exactly in your "counter arguments" that you have provided conclusive evidence that your smoking will not create possible health risks for other around you - or impact their use of public places?

Similarly can you outline where the World Health Organisation and the Medical Profession are going wrong in their assessments that smoking kills directly and indirectly. I am pretty sure they would be willing to listen and save the millions spent on publicising these facts.

If you can also prove to me that being subjected to passive smoking will not threaten my own or any other individuals health then I will happily sign any petition against a ban.

Similarly you never responded a previous point that smoking whilst driving your lorry is as dangerous as using a mobile phone - as you would not be giving the task in hand the 100% concentration required. Unless it is possible to light and smoke a cigarette hands free?
 
Jan 19, 2008
9,103
0
0
Visit site
O.K. I'm now out of the bath where I lay philosophing ;O)

What I am saying, and I think most of the others are too, colin, gio, geordie, et al, is that nobody is trying to stop yourselves from smoking, it is your bodies and your choice. The only ones who probably care are the ones near to you, like your families.

I think we are agreed that ex-smokers are the worse regarding anti-smoking once we get the filter tip between our teeth and I will own up to that. The obvious reason why though is that we have been there and done it whereas you haven't. We have put forward the crap arguments for smoking in the past. We have now conformed to the majorities wishes not to pollute their air space. We saw how selfish we were in the past by doing it so stopped. I found it extremely difficult to stop, infact at one time I had resigned myself that I would never stop. Don't ask me what happened but one day I saw the light (forgive the pun) and decided enough was enough, I wanted to see my kids grow up and have families of their own. I thought how selfish I was if I passed away leaving my wife a widow to fend on her own. From that point I didn't find it as difficult as I thought. It cost me as much money for Murray Mints as it did for fags at the time but I kicked the habit and have never regretted it. I hate to think how many peoples lungs I've polluted over 30 years, other people who chose not to smoke because of the health risks. I would apologise to them all individually if I could, that's how guilty I feel.

Now regarding your arguments getting no answers, I profess not to know them. Simply because some of the questions are crap and don't make sense or I'm not intelligent enough to provide you with facts and figures for air pollution.

The points I have made in my posts are from eminent Doctors, Professors and Scientists. I don't intend to post bullchit with no substance at all (doesn't that constitute diahorrhea), unlike the Practical Caravan Forum oracles :O)

Like I said before, I will foremost believe what they say rather than pro-smokers in this forum ;O)
 
Jan 19, 2008
9,103
0
0
Visit site
O.K. I'm now out of the bath where I lay philosophing ;O)

What I am saying, and I think most of the others are too, colin, gio, geordie, et al, is that nobody is trying to stop yourselves from smoking, it is your bodies and your choice. The only ones who probably care are the ones near to you, like your families.

I think we are agreed that ex-smokers are the worse regarding anti-smoking once we get the filter tip between our teeth and I will own up to that. The obvious reason why though is that we have been there and done it whereas you haven't. We have put forward the crap arguments for smoking in the past. We have now conformed to the majorities wishes not to pollute their air space. We saw how selfish we were in the past by doing it so stopped. I found it extremely difficult to stop, infact at one time I had resigned myself that I would never stop. Don't ask me what happened but one day I saw the light (forgive the pun) and decided enough was enough, I wanted to see my kids grow up and have families of their own. I thought how selfish I was if I passed away leaving my wife a widow to fend on her own. From that point I didn't find it as difficult as I thought. It cost me as much money for Murray Mints as it did for fags at the time but I kicked the habit and have never regretted it. I hate to think how many peoples lungs I've polluted over 30 years, other people who chose not to smoke because of the health risks. I would apologise to them all individually if I could, that's how guilty I feel.

Now regarding your arguments getting no answers, I profess not to know them. Simply because some of the questions are crap and don't make sense or I'm not intelligent enough to provide you with facts and figures for air pollution.

The points I have made in my posts are from eminent Doctors, Professors and Scientists. I don't intend to post bullchit with no substance at all (doesn't that constitute diahorrhea), unlike the Practical Caravan Forum oracles :O)

Like I said before, I will foremost believe what they say rather than pro-smokers in this forum ;O)
oops, spell check ..... philosophising.
 
Mar 13, 2007
1,750
0
0
Visit site
right ho

As quick as I can as I am up at 5am conclusive proof no I cant and neither can anybody else only quote meaningless statistics that dont take into consideration all the data available only the bits that are relevant to there argument like genetics and the rabbit experiments.the real truth is 95% of places are already smoke free and there is no need for a ban in area's where smoking is permitted non smokers need not attend its that simple you worry about the smoke stay away have two sort of pubs and eateries smoking and non smoking then theres a choice for every one apart from them every where else is smoke free anyway

the W. H. O. make oulandish claims about the effects of smoke with incomplete data stating that 90% of lung cancers are caused by smoking however failing to include statistics for other causes they also claim that 70% of heart desease are also as a result of smoke but fail to explain why 60% of japanese smoke but have the lowest rate of deaths from either complaint and how it is that the average chinaman lives 15 years longer than us in the west but 90% of the worlds consumption of cigaretts is in china and some of its peoples are the poorest in the world.

to be continued (bed time)

colin
 
Jan 12, 2007
107
0
0
Visit site
Okay - ignore the statistics it is well known that these can be used to manipulate argument no matter what side of the fence you sit on - just ask the current Govt.

So I will ask again,

1. where is the evidence that smoking does not have a direct or indirect impact on health through passive smoking? Again I am sure the medical profession would like to know where they are going wrong.

2. Where is the evidence that smoking whilst driving is any safer than using a mobile phone.

3. If buildings or places are designated smoking or non-smoking then they are not public places. A public place is for the use of the general public and the rules governing use must reflect this. Some areas ban the consumption of alcohol in public places, some buildings require the wearing of suitabile attire - all aimed at ensuring no particular segment monopolise use of the facilty.

If a restaurant or pub wants to become smoking only - that is fine by me - as long as it does not advertise itself as anything other than such, as this would no longer be a public place. Now how many owners of public houses would want to exclude a large segment of thier potential customer base. Hence the rules need to cover use by the general public.

I don't care who chooses to smoke - only where.
 
Jan 19, 2008
9,103
0
0
Visit site
Here goes ...... first page I came across after Googling "japanese smokers".

In the past the leading cause of death from cancer in Japan has always been stomach cancer. In 1989 about 49,000 Japanese died from stomach cancer versus 36,000 from lung cancer. Since then stomach cancer deaths increased only marginally but lung cancer deaths have been rising steadily, at a rate of an extra 1500 deaths every year. In 1998 there were 50,477 deaths from stomach cancer but 50,460 deaths from lung cancer. [2] The steadily increasing lung cancer death rate is the long-term effect of the steep increase in smoking that occured amongst Japanese men in the 1960s, when cigarette smoking gained popularity amongst increasingly wealthy Japanese. It is expected that lung cancer will be the leading cause of cancer deaths in Japan by the year 2000, and lung cancer is not the only type of cancer caused by cigarette smoking. Furthermore, figures from other countries suggest that cardiovascular diseases caused by cigarette smoking kill three to four times as many smokers as smoking-induced cancer.

The rest of the site makes interesting reading as well but is too long to paste.

http://www.taima.org/en/nicotine.htm#asahi
 
May 10, 2007
257
0
0
Visit site
If you choose to drink or take cocaine in a public or work place the taking affects no one else until your behaviour gets out of hand.

The smoke from cigarettes has an effect on so many around you within seconds of lighting up without going into the health dangers.

What other habit effects so many for the so called enjoyment of individuals.

Roll on the ban, and lets hope that those who flaunt it get the huge fines that are imposed on the Irish if they dare to break the no smoking rules.

James
 
Jan 19, 2008
9,103
0
0
Visit site
ITV News today, I've copied the transcript.

Interview from the World Health Organisation in Geneva.

ITV correspondent - Professor Nicostein I have it on good authority that your figures proving that smoking is injurious to smokers AND passive smokers is totally wrong.

Professor Nicostein - OH, so you do, vat af de information do yoo af? Wut it be possibul to gif me da names ov doze dat disagwee wiv da W.H.O.

ITV correspondent - Yes professor, they are colin-yorkshire, gio and geordie.

Professor Nicostein - ...an wot organisation do this peesons do research for? I af never hurt ov these pipul.

ITV correspondent - Oh, sorry to confuse you professor but they only do research on their own bodies and minds.

Professor Nicostein - an wher ist der laboritiz dat dey perfom der research?

ITV correspondent - They have no laboritories professor, there research is done on a keyboard in the Practical Caravan forum.

Professor Nicostein - Ahh mein got, i zee now, in dat case dey must be hurd, dis forum iz known wordwide fa itz theoristz pipul like gio.
 
Apr 13, 2005
1,210
2
0
Visit site
Nice one LB smiles all round, going to work now, just two more days of having to endure this filth on the platforms then its a long weekend in the van at rivendale in derbyshire before returning to work on wed next week to a smog free life, bliss.

TTFN.
 
Mar 16, 2005
650
0
0
Visit site
LB.

You have not listen to me !

I do not smoke and never have, although the hypocrises

could drive me to it.

Just a thought though, why is it when anyone claims to have

smoked, and given up they are acclaimed! afterall if passive

smoking is indeed a serious issue, then ex smokers have indeed

been series to the crime too?

How come ex drink drivers who have knocked people down,

dont get the same acclaim for their sins? remember the EX bit.

Or rapists or killers? bit extreme? don't think so, afterall

isn't whats being said here is that passive smoking kills?

So ANYBODY who has smoked in public would be ALL equally guilty?

Whether they did or did not still smoke?

What do you think.......... Guilty as charged......

F.O.R.E.S.T. is that a football team? because i have told you

before i think for myself, for better or worse.
 
Jan 19, 2008
9,103
0
0
Visit site
gio, you have not listened to me. Yes, as an ex-smoker I am guilty of polluting non-smokers lungs.

I quote from the post above that I made earlier ....

*I hate to think how many peoples lungs I've polluted over 30 years, other people who chose not to smoke because of the health risks. I would apologise to them all individually if I could, that's how guilty I feel.*
 
Mar 13, 2007
1,750
0
0
Visit site
hi all

so we have to resort to ridicule do we LB so be it, as humour is the lowest form of wit I will let that go by without comment,

and will somebody wake up icemaker hes dreaming again (thinks hes in smoke free utopia) wrong.

smokers will carry on smoking the new chancellor will still be raking in his 10.7 billion in tabacco tax, and the 95% of no smoking areas will be increased to 98% and non smokers will still choose to go and sit (or stand ) in smoking areas in preferance to going into the non smoking areas where all the miserable ***** sit (the words spoken by my colleuges not me) and come monday morning it will be business as usual.

I dont know about anyone else butI shall be making full use of my extra (smoke breaks) and make a point of taking my cigs with me where ever I go in preferance to leaving them behind as I do now and lighting up at every opportunaty possible in protest.

bye for now

colin

ps. this is my last post and will make no futher comment.
 
Mar 14, 2005
755
0
0
Visit site
Colin,

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, not humour. LB posted something funny ... what's wrong with that?

Yes, some non-smokers are happy to be in a smoky area. So what? What matters here is choice. If someone doesn't want to stink of cigarette smoke, then they should be able to eat, drink, socialise, party or whatever without the stink being imposed on them.

Incidentally, "The revenue generated from excise duties on tobacco, alcohol and oils is significant. Excise duty receipts for 2003-04 totalled some
 
Jan 19, 2008
9,103
0
0
Visit site
Well, well. I'm sorry you feel that way colin :O(

Just to correct you it is "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" not humour.

I was trying to be humorous and look at it lightheartly, not sarcastically. I am surprised that it is you that found it sarcastic because I have found some of your posts on this subject humorous and have taken them in that vein.

If some other members took it as a serious post that wouldn't have surprised me, take the rubber bodied cars or fluffy clouds post for example.

Oh well, maybe you're tired and when you wake at 5a.m. and have that first *** to bump start your lungs you'll be happier mate .... hehheh! Nitey nitey, time for beddybyes ;O)
 
Jan 19, 2008
9,103
0
0
Visit site
Colin,

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, not humour. LB posted something funny ... what's wrong with that?

Yes, some non-smokers are happy to be in a smoky area. So what? What matters here is choice. If someone doesn't want to stink of cigarette smoke, then they should be able to eat, drink, socialise, party or whatever without the stink being imposed on them.

Incidentally, "The revenue generated from excise duties on tobacco, alcohol and oils is significant. Excise duty receipts for 2003-04 totalled some
 
Sep 30, 2006
208
0
0
Visit site
If you find a premises breaking the new anti-smoking law there is a freefone number to report it... 0800 587 1667.

I wonder how busy this line will be?
 
May 10, 2007
257
0
0
Visit site
Article below is from the " The Co-operative Membership magazine" and offers a few points on Smoking.

_____________________________________

The environmental toll of tobacco production is

devastating and includes deforestation, pollution from heavy pesticide and fertiliser use, and soil depletion. On top of all that, there's the negative impact it has on the health of tobacco workers and with nearly three-quarters of the world's tobacco grown in developing countries, it's the poor who are hit hardest.

Growth Industry

Despite high awareness of the harmful impact of smoking, the tobacco industry is in pretty rude health. According to The Tobacco Atlas (Dr Judith Mackay, Dr Michael Eriksen, Dr Omar Shafey, published by the American Cancer Society, 2006), global production has doubled since the 1960s, and tobacco is now grown in more than 120 countries. There's been a shift in where it's grown, too: production has trebled in developing nations, while in the developed world it's fallen by half over a

comparable period. In fact, experts predict that by 2010, more than 85% of the world's tobacco will be grown in developing countries.

Any economic benefits come at a price, and it's paid for by the environment. Tobacco depletes the soil of large amounts of nutrients, and its susceptibility to disease makes it a candidate for intensive pesticide use - up to 16 applications in a three-month growing cycle. These are not substances you'd want to get too close to, either:

common pesticides include aldicarb, a nerve poison classed by the World Health Organisation as 'extremely hazardous', and chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate insecticide known to contaminate air, groundwater, rivers and lakes. Unsurprisingly, these harsh chemicals take their toll on

Any economic benefits come at a price, and it's paid for by the environment. Tobacco depletes the soil of large amounts of nutrients, and its susceptibility to disease makes it a candidate for intensive pesticide use - up to 16 applications in a three-month growing cycle. These are not substances you'd want to get too close to, either:

common pesticides include aldicarb, a nerve poison classed by the World Health Organisation as 'extremely hazardous', and chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate insecticide known to contaminate air, groundwater, rivers and lakes. Unsurprisingly, these harsh chemicals take their toll on the people who handle them, too. A study of tobacco workers in Brazil, published by Christian Aid in 2002, raised deep concerns about the effect that pesticides were having on their health. It went on to conclude that: 'Some farmers appear to be suffering from exposure to the pesticides, especially to organophosphates, which are used widely in tobacco cultivation.'

Even the tobacco plant itself can be harmful. An illness called Green Tobacco Sickness occurs when nicotine is absorbed through the skin via contact with wet tobacco

leaves. It causes nausea, dizziness, cramps, plus fluctuations in blood pressure and heart rate.

One study of tobacco workers in North Carolina found that 41% got the illness at least once during the harvest season.

Kill To Cure

After the tobacco is harvested it is cured (dried) by passing heated air through the leaves. In developing countries this process involves cutting down trees to burn, which

J causes deforestation.

Worldwide, it's estimated that one in eight trees felled is for tobacco production, and for every 300 cigarettes produced, one tree is cut down for curing. This results in

an estimated loss of 200,000 hectares of forest worldwide. In one region of Malawi, nearly 80% of the trees cut down are for curing tobacco. And clearing forests can result in soil erosion, which in turn can lead to the

floodingof nearby agricultural land.

Put simply, the tobacco industry is not planting enough trees to replace those it is using to cure the leaves. But that still isn't the whole story. The bi-product of the industry is, of course, waste. In 1995, it churned out 2.3 billion kilograms of manufacturing waste and 209 million kilograms of chemical waste. And after the cigarette reaches the consumer? Well, it appears that the butt stops with us. In a 2002 study conducted by Keep Britain Tidy, cigarette-related litter was discovered in 77% of all locations across the UK; and the international Coastal Clean Up Day in 2003 found that cigarette litter accounted for nearly 30% of the rubbish on our beaches and in our rivers and streams.

Helping Your Helth - And The Worlds

That was the bad news. The good news is that you can do your bit - by giving up cigarettes. Not only will you be doing the environment a favour, but stopping smoking will have long-term, positive effects on your health.

Becoming a non-smoker will reduce your risk of suffering from several types of cancer, heart disease and breathing diseases such as emphysema and bronchitis, as well as cut your risk of experiencing fertility problems and improve your overall health and wellbeing. And that's before you take into account the knock-on effect on the people around you, who will no longer be breathing in your secondhand smoke.

If you need more motivation to quit, consider this. Just 20 minutes after having your last cigarette, your blood pressure returns to normal. After 24 hours, all carbon monoxide is eliminated from your body, and after 48 hours, there's no nicotine left in your system. Soon, your lung capacity improves, and after a few weeks your skin brightens and you look and feel much healthier.

Over time, your risk of contracting a serious illness, such as lung cancer and heart disease, drops substantially. Fifteen years after giving up cigarettes, your risk of heart attack is the same as a lifelong non-smoker. You'll also have more money to spare (around
 
May 5, 2005
1,154
0
0
Visit site
can't beleive it just got back from pub and I haven't got to shower and afetr seeing those pathetic souls under gazebos in the rain having a *** I am delighted I don't smoke.
 
Jan 19, 2008
9,103
0
0
Visit site
Just wait until all public buildings where smoking was allowed are re-decorated. All the brown nicotine walls and ceilings will be no more. Lots of bright colours instead of the standard diarrhoea brown :O)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts