Do you smoke?
-
You can smoke on planes. If you're on a first class flight use their toilets
-
Just be sure to flush after each exhale.
-
@unknownuser said:
You can smoke on planes. If you're on a first class flight use their toilets
I was on a flight last year in which two girls did just that..
we land and pull up to the gate then sat there for 45 minutes or so while the air marshalls came on board to arrest them.. then paperwork etc..talk about an irate group of passengers...
-
@gaieus said:
Toby, I completely agree with the protection of non-smokers. However with today's technology, a pub or bar can be equipped with a ventilation system that should get all the smoke out of the air. Or why not allow separate rooms at least?
I agree 100% with this. It's how it should have been in the first place. It's been really enlightening reading these pieces by Joe Jackson on this blog;
A smoker's guide to Europe and beyond (part one)
&
A smoker's guide to Europe and beyond (part two)
@tobobo said:
One of the reasons for tha ban in the UK was the allow non-smokers to be in pubs and clubs with out risking cancer or posioning.
Well yes, if there actually was any evidence to support this claim...?!;
@unknownuser said:
*Dr Ken Denson, a medical professional who is prepared say what others only think, puts it more bluntly: "The ill effects of passive smoking are still intuition rather than scientific fact... All in all, the medical evidence for any deleterious effect of passive smoking is extremely tenuous and it is unlikely that it would ever stand up in a court of law."
A recent report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer reveals that, "In total, 23 studies have been published on [workplace] exposure to secondhand smoke. Only one reported a statistically significant association between exposure to secondhand smoke at the workplace and risk for lung cancer." One out of 23 is usually dismissed as a rogue result.
Since then, further evidence has been published by the BMJ. In March 2005 it offered fresh data suggesting that passive smoking may kill 11,000 people a year in the UK. The crucial word is "may". If there is a direct causal link between secondary smoking and lung cancer it is so tiny that dedicated campaigners have struggled to identify it. Scotland's Green Party, hardly a promoter of smoking, recently alleged that more Scots are killed by exhaust fumes than by secondary smoke.*
As for poisoning? Poisoning from what? The governments lack of direction only intending to appease the populate simply to get re-elected?
OT: 'Steppin' Out' by Joe Jackson (one of my all time fave singles!)
[flash=850,688:1143yeki]http://www.youtube.com/v/dopneKcyNXU?s=1&hl=en_GB&fs=1&&[/flash:1143yeki]
-
@unknownuser said:
@tfdesign said:
Individuals should be allowed to make their own minds up whether they can smoke or not.
No-one is telling smokers they aren't allowed to smoke. They (we-I smoke) aren't allowed to smoke in certain places. The difference between these two concepts is hardly a subtle one.
As for making one's mind up for oneself - that's precisely what smoking bans allow for.
Erm.... not according to the BMA! They want you to stop smoking in your own car. Even if you are the only person driving it!!!
@unknownuser said:
The toxic levels that can quickly build up inside a car are up to 23 times the levels found in a smoky bar, the BMA says. Children (passengers in this context) absorb such toxins faster than adults and may also acquire the smoking habit. Some 80,000 people a year still die of smoking-related illnesses in Britain. The figures are awful.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/nov/16/banning-smoking-cars-authoritarian-solution The real problem though, is that the evidence is unfounded!;
@unknownuser said:
We traced the evolution of this “myth turned fact” to emphasize that only credible evidence should be presented to advance policy. Solid evidence has been the foundation of the progress made in tobacco control in recent decades. The biggest danger of inaccurately interpreting research on smoking in cars for the sake of a snappy media sound bite is to lose favour with an overwhelmingly supportive public and to provide ammunition for opponents of tobacco control.
We recommend that researchers and organizations stop using the 23 times more toxic factoid because there appears to be no evidence for it in the scientific literature. Instead, advocates of smoking bans in cars should simply state that exposure to second-hand smoke in cars poses a significant health risk and that vulnerable children who cannot remove themselves from this smoky environment must be protected. Further, we recommend citing the 2006 study by Rees and Connelly 34 as reliable evidence that the level of particulate matter found in cars where smoking is allowed exceeds that in the safety guidelines of the US Environmental Protection Agency, particularly for children.
Again, really worth a read!
-
@tfdesign said:
Erm.... not according to the BMA! They want you to stop smoking in your own car. Even if you are the only person driving it!!!
Ah, yes. I did read about that.
-
Well, whoever smokes in a car where there are children, should be charged for serious assholism IMO. But why on earth could I not smoke when I am alone? Or with another person who also smokes?
-
@Rich O'Brien
I take only this!
-
Something to read http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/
Bep
-
@bep said:
Something to read http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/
Well waddaya know! "WHO opens Centre for Tobacco Control in Africa". It's that word "Africa" again.
Keep 'em all in mud huts say the World Health Organisation! This is all getting rather predictable......
@unknownuser said:
Tobacco is one of the major contributors to NCDs - heart attacks, strokes, cancers, diabetes, asthma and other chronic diseases together account for 63% of all deaths worldwide. In the 46 countries of the WHO African Region, noncommunicable diseases are expected to increase by 27% in the next decade and will account for more than 50% of all deaths by 2030.
Is that so? What about 'vaping' or taking in the form of Snuss?? The above only really applies to smoking tobacco! Of course America is still allowed to grow it, for manufacture in use of Electronic cigarettes and the like as well as anti-smoking products?
I hope these zany human-loving philanthropists Bill and Melissa have clear consciences?
-
A TV presenter called Roy Castle never smoked a day in his life and he died of lung cancer. In his early career he played trumpet in working men's clubs and pubs. The large lung-fulls of air he had to take to play, meant breathing in loads of second-hand smoke.
I'm not saying that one case proves the theory... but it is something I always think about.
-
@tobobo said:
A TV presenter called Roy Castle never smoked a day in his life and he died of lung cancer. In his early career he played trumpet in working men's clubs and pubs. The large lungfuls of air he had to take to play, meant breathing in loads of send hand smoke.
It means nothing. It's just coincidence, an example loved by pressure groups such as ASH to win points.
Both grandfathers of my wife, both lived to 99 and 101. Both smoked all their lives. In fact one of them also drank a glass of Vodka everyday too!
Herbie Hancock has probably played in more smoky nightclubs than Roy has had hot dinners! Herbie's now 71 and he's still going strong!
-
@unknownuser said:
It's like getting advice from Ozzy Osbourne
[attachment=0:23fn45vv]<!-- ia0 -->Image 1.png<!-- ia0 -->[/attachment:23fn45vv]
-
Fun fact: when people smoked on planes the air was fresher, as they would have to air-condition the cabin more thoroughly
-
It has nothing to do with keeping people in 'mud huts'.
It has everything to do with tobacco companies switching their focus to 3rd World countries who are too poor to resist...after smoking restrictions were introduced in the West.
Link.Roy Castle's death due to secondary inhalation is not 'coincidence'. It was a proven fact and was a major factor in the establishment of the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation . The fact that Herbie Hancock has survived is down to luck and genetics...as in the case of my grandmother who smoked profusely into old age. My grandfather on the other hand...a burly longshoreman who used to roll his own...died in his 50's weighing only 6 stone (84 lb)
-
@alan fraser said:
It has nothing to do with keeping people in 'mud huts'.
It has everything to do with tobacco companies switching their focus to 3rd World countries who are too poor to resist...after smoking restrictions were introduced in the West.
Link.I'm sorry Alan, but I think it has everything to do with 'mud huts'.
And while it is probable that 98% of lung cancer 'may' caused by smoking, other factors caused by nitrosamines and acrylamides come into play. These can be from frying bacon, cooking chips or even drinking beer. Actually, all the things the British Food Standards Agency love to hate, and love to preach to us what and what not to eat or smoke.
But what you haven't taken into account is that I was talking about smoking tobacco replacement therapies such as gum, pills and vapourisation. With 'vaping' there is no evidence whatsoever that there is any carcinogenic risks involved. So with that, why are we stopping Africans from harvesting tobacco for alternative enjoyment?
@alan fraser said:
Roy Castle's death due to secondary inhalation is not 'coincidence'. It was a proven fact and was a major factor in the establishment of the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation . The fact that Herbie Hancock has survived is down to luck and genetics...as in the case of my grandmother who smoked profusely into old age. My grandfather on the other hand...a burly longshoreman who used to roll his own...died in his 50's weighing only 6 stone (84 lb)
It was a proven "fact"? Where?
In the case of your own parents and my grand parents don't you see any paradoxes? Your grandfather being a "longshoreman" who died in his 50's? What from smoking? Or perhaps via the passing of tonnes and tonnes of other environmentally hazardous chemicals and substances later found out to be highly detrimental to human health?
While there are many reports that clearly show that smoking can be highly detrimental to your health (I, for one have already given up, and feel so much better for it too), there is still very little evidence to show that passive smoking actually causes cancer. In the case of the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation, I completely unsurprised that there is an emphasis on any kind of smoking causing cancer because by their very nature, the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation are a charity, and charities need to survive by attracting funders, and if you argue that disease caused by passive smoking hasn't really a leg to stand on, then you are going to turn away many possible investors? It would also be interesting to know who that list of investors are as well. (ASH or the WHO maybe?)
My basic gripe, and don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of smoking- but I've seen so many great businesses go down the pan because the smoking ban has had the opposite effect rather than the desired one, my basic gripe is being nannied by the state to be told what I can think and what I can't in the name of "The Science", where actually there is very little science/evidence to support the claim.
-
Tom, it's perfectly apparent that you think everything is to do with 'mud huts'...even if it involves being staunchly anti-capitalist on one thread and supporting and promoting the profits and exploitative practices of some of the most powerful corporations on earth...like British American Tobacco on another. Citing alternate forms of smoking is pointless. That's not the reality; that's not what is being pushed by the tobacco companies. It will never amount to anything other than a niche market.
You can fantasise all you like about other possible causes, but in the case of Roy Castle, if someone who has never smoked in his life is found to have lungs half-full of tobacco tar you have to stand reason on its head to argue anything other than secondary smoke inhalation. Similarly with my grandfather; I'll take the word of the oncologists who treated him over your speculations, if you don't mind.
-
Surely this is all about OUR freedom, all of us to make our own choice. Why can't there be smoking bars, there were non smoking bars before the ban.
Who are these people who want to treat us like children?When did we give them the right to make laws curbing our freedom without a referendum? I don't remember anyone asking me what i thought.
Suddenly it became law & we all rolled over & accepted it - never mind passive smoking, we are becoming passive tv watching, game playing, facebook users & twitts.Ok smoking might be bad for you, drugs might not do your health any good in the long run - certainly alcohol in excess is bad, but is life all about
being safe?I gave up smoking 18 months ago & i feel better for it, not to mention all the tax i used to give the government, but i loved smoking, i really did!
-
Smoking...?
Who me...?
Although my avatar tells a different story, I haven't been smoking since I was a kid...
-
@frederik said:
Although my avatar tells a different story, I haven't been smoking since I was a kid...
Well, your avatar is telling that exact story.
Advertisement