Pub landlord gives 2 fingers to the smoking ban

[mr motorola]

1. Where did you find that out? You call over 100,000 UK deaths per year 'a drop in the ocean'? Globally, millions die from smoking-related disease, and that's a 'drop in the ocean' to you? Smoking IS one of the major forms of avoidable death on this planet - fact. But then you don't deal in facts, do you? You make up nonsense about spiked drinks and bans on farting to rescue a failed point. Or, as you quoted 'Spout all the links and professional advice you like , i don't give a flying toss'. You don't offer a counter-argument, either, though do you? You just pull more unsupported cobblers out of the air.

 

2. I realise your understanding of simple fact is impaired, so I'll explain things again; I am not a tabloid journalist, see? I write mainly for sporting publications, about shooting and fishing and dogs. I ghost the occasional book and I spend most of my time editing the work of others. I've even contributed a piece or two to this noble forum. Now, has that sunk in? No sensationalist stories, no spin and no covering of election issues. Get a grown-up to read that back to you and we can move on.

 

Elton/Mods; apologies for the less-than-polite exchanges between myself and Mr. Motorola. He started it, and he's rubbish at it, but I'm still too much of the basic old country boy to allow that to pass without a reply in kind.

 

Regards.

You're STILL not prepared to let it drop are you.

I'll tell you what , being the well mannered man that i am , i will apologise to my fellow readers for my behaviour and ask wordbender to leave any more diatribe to my pm box.

AN Members , Mr Motorola is sorry for his slight lapse in behaviour on this thread. As far as i'm concerned the matter is over.

[Ken Davison South Wales]

1. Where did you find that out? You call over 100,000 UK deaths per year 'a drop in the ocean'? Globally, millions die from smoking-related disease, and that's a 'drop in the ocean' to you? Smoking IS one of the major forms of avoidable death on this planet - fact. But then you don't deal in facts, do you? You make up nonsense about spiked drinks and bans on farting to rescue a failed point. Or, as you quoted 'Spout all the links and professional advice you like , i don't give a flying toss'. You don't offer a counter-argument, either, though do you? You just pull more unsupported cobblers out of the air.

 

With all due respect that is the biggest load of journalistic rubbish I have ever read.

 

And it is that type of of misuse of information that I hate.

 

Millions more people are dying from disease and starvation than ever die from smoking, the poor buggers can't afford to buy food let alone smoke.

 

Smoking IS one of the major forms of avoidable death on this planet

 

Untrue

 

Yes it does kill but not on the scale you are proclaiming

[nick]

With all due respect that is the biggest load of journalistic rubbish I have ever read.

 

And it is that type of of misuse of information that I hate.

 

Millions more people are dying from disease and starvation than ever die from smoking, the poor buggers can't afford to buy food let alone smoke.

 

 

 

Untrue

 

Yes it does kill but not on the scale you are proclaiming

 

you are now suggesting that smoking is not one of the biggest causes of AVOIDABLE deaths on the planet?

 

That it does not kill 100,000 people in the UK each year.

 

Please please please publish you scientific research papers, the fag makers will pay you millions for your findings...

 

You are totally in denial and living in lala land.

[Wordbender]

1. With all due respect that is the biggest load of journalistic rubbish I have ever read.

 

2. Millions more people are dying from disease and starvation than ever die from smoking, the poor buggers can't afford to buy food let alone smoke.

Untrue

 

3. Yes it does kill but not on the scale you are proclaiming

 

1. Which of the statements do you claim is untrue, Ken? They are all completely correct, actually. Can you direct me to your own findings that contradict them?

 

2. I have never claimed that smoking is THE major cause of death. That's your mistake. I said it was a major cause of avoidable death - which it undoubtedly is.

 

3. These 'proclamations' are not mine, Ken. They come from those who are qualified medical experts on this subject. Are you really qualified to contradict them? Do you know more about this than those who have researched it for years? If so, please show us your credentials.

 

Regards.

[snakey1]

Here is link to a paper relating to worldwide smoking related deaths written by 2 gentlemen one from the university of oxford the other from the World Health Organisation,(you may have heard of them). have a read if you like and make of it what you will. worldwide affects of tobacco

[gozzer]

Being a sceptic when it comes to statistics, I would like to ask a question.

 

What constitutes a death caused by smoking?

 

I am a smoker, and if I were to die tomorrow from a respiratory disease, I assume it would be classed as a 'smoking death'.

Would the 35 years spent breathing vapourised metals, acetate and paint fumes, the vapourised content of various fluxes, several shielding gasses as well as the insulation and residue from pharmaceutical vessels that were in for repair, be taken into the equation? I think not.

 

I'm not defending smoking, or the ban, (though I feel it could be 'tweaked' a little). I'm just questioning the thoroughness of some of the statistics that are banded about. Nicks Scottish Report for one. I believe it came from a survey of 9 hospitals, when there are around 300 in Scotland. Granted some are specialised in other fields, but even so, still a small sample. That's apart from the miraculous 'improvement' in such a short space of time. It's figures like this that cause my scepticism.

 

If such surveys took into account other factors, such as, the change in industry, diet, lifestyle, transport etc, then I would probably have more faith in them.

 

John.

[*Ant*]

Being a sceptic when it comes to statistics, I would like to ask a question.

 

What constitutes a death caused by smoking?

 

I am a smoker, and if I were to die tomorrow from a respiratory disease, I assume it would be classed as a 'smoking death'.

Would the 35 years spent breathing vapourised metals, acetate and paint fumes, the vapourised content of various fluxes, several shielding gasses as well as the insulation and residue from pharmaceutical vessels that were in for repair, be taken into the equation? I think not.

 

I'm not defending smoking, or the ban, (though I feel it could be 'tweaked' a little). I'm just questioning the thoroughness of some of the statistics that are banded about. Nicks Scottish Report for one. I believe it came from a survey of 9 hospitals, when there are around 300 in Scotland. Granted some are specialised in other fields, but even so, still a small sample. That's apart from the miraculous 'improvement' in such a short space of time. It's figures like this that cause my scepticism.

 

If such surveys took into account other factors, such as, the change in industry, diet, lifestyle, transport etc, then I would probably have more faith in them.

 

John.

 

I totally agree John. It's hard to accept reports that would suggest that from a quarter to a third of the population should have died by now from a direct result of passive smoking.

 

btw - "he started it" .......giggle inducing stuff. lol

[Tony U]

Right got it; the overwhelming body of scientific evidence is wrong, but a couple of blokes posting on AN are right, makes sense to me?????

[*Ant*]

Right got it; the overwhelming body of scientific evidence is wrong, but a couple of blokes posting on AN are right, makes sense to me?????

 

 

Actually i've spent quite a few hours over the last couple of days searching the net and reading various reports and opinions. The only thing that is clear is that there is probably just as much info stating the unproven effects of secondhand smoke as the so called proven effects.

 

Personally I have no idea but I do believe that it is hyped up out of all proportion and will await difinitive proof either way.

 

Sorry Tony but your statement that "overwhelming body of scientific evidence is wrong" is in itself wrong as far as I can see. But hey, if you wanna pull funny faces who am I to pass opinion, you go for it. lol

Edited January 24, 2008 by *Ant*

[Tony U]

Ant

I am sure Davy R could provide you with a reading list of attributable scientific papers on the issue if you want to do some serious research, otherwise you are just bearing out my comments.

 

Tony