Merseyside and Cheshire campaign for smoke ban to protect children

St Helens Star: Smoking ban sought by campaigners Smoking ban sought by campaigners

AN online campaign is urging parents to protect their children from cigarette smoke within the confines of the car by calling for legislation to protect them from secondhand smoke.

Video footage starring Neil Fitzmaurice, best known for his roles in the comedies Peep Show and Phoenix Nights, and Jazmine Franks from the Channel 4 drama Hollyoaks, highlights that many young people are too frightened to speak up about their parents or other adults smoking in a car.

Produced jointly by North West based, Tobacco Free Futures and the British Lung Foundation the film is part of a wider campaign calling for legislation to make sure all cars carrying children are smoke-free.

The issue is due to be debated in the House of Lords in the New Year as part of the Children and Families Bill.

Hollyoaks actress Jazmine Franks, who plays Esther Bloom, said: “I’m sure a lot of people think that as long as the window is open the cigarette smoke is not doing any harm to other passengers in the car, especially children, but it’s not safe and it isn’t fair that children have to breathe it in.”

Matthew Ashton, Cheshire and Merseyside Lead for Public Health said: “Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, 60 of which we know cause cancer. Hundreds of children suffering the effects of second-hand smoke are admitted to Cheshire and Merseyside hospitals every year with complications such as bronchitis, asthma and reduced lung function.

“We want to highlight this issue with parents in our communities and give local people a chance to have their say.”

The fresh call for legislation follows recent research by BLF which shows that more than 430,000 children, aged 11-15, in England are exposed to secondhand smoke in family cars at least once a week. In September the BLF produced two videos starring actors Linda Robson and David Harewood. At the end of the videos viewers were asked to vote for or against a ban and of those who voted, 90% voted in favour.

In a 2010 survey for Tobacco Free Futures 87% of residents in Cheshire and 83% of residents in Merseyside agreed that smoking should be banned in cars that are carrying children younger than 18 years of age.

Andrea Crossfield, Chief Executive of Tobacco Free Futures said: “Secondhand smoke in cars is dangerous and can be up to 11 times the levels you would find in a smoky room. Plus over 80% of this deadly smoke is invisible. We urge people to watch and share the video, and to get in touch with their MP asking them to support legislation. Opening a window won’t protect children, smokefree cars will.”

Dr Penny Woods, Chief Executive of the British Lung Foundation, said: “We know that secondhand smoke is particularly dangerous to young people within the enclosed confines of a car, even when the window is open or the air conditioning is on. However, our research has shown that when an adult smokes in a car with them, less than a third of young people ask them to stop, with over a third feeling too frightened or embarrassed to do so.

“This is not acceptable. If young people aren’t able to protect themselves against this danger, the government has a duty to do so by banning smoking in cars with young passengers”.

In the North West second-hand smoke results in at least 34,000 GP visits and over 1,100 emergency admissions to hospital each year.[1] You can watch the video at: http://tobaccofreefutures.org/how-do-we-do-it/5-reducing-exposure-to-secondhand-smoke/smoking-in-cars-carrying-children/

Comments (66)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:42pm Mon 30 Dec 13

Parmenion says...

More scaremongering by Andrea Crossfield, in her non-job as Chief Executive of Tobacco Free Futures Andrea...Could you please cite just a few pieces of actual research (as in studies, not websites, articles, quotes from important sounding people, advocacy "factsheets", generalized reports etc, but actual scientific studies) showing any harm to children's health from the levels and durations of exposure to smoke they would normally be getting in cars with their parents? Unless a child is one of the small portion of the population with a highly smoke-sensitive asthma trigger, I believe you'll find that there's absolutely no real evidence to back up your biased assertions.
More scaremongering by Andrea Crossfield, in her non-job as Chief Executive of Tobacco Free Futures Andrea...Could you please cite just a few pieces of actual research (as in studies, not websites, articles, quotes from important sounding people, advocacy "factsheets", generalized reports etc, but actual scientific studies) showing any harm to children's health from the levels and durations of exposure to smoke they would normally be getting in cars with their parents? Unless a child is one of the small portion of the population with a highly smoke-sensitive asthma trigger, I believe you'll find that there's absolutely no real evidence to back up your biased assertions. Parmenion

6:41pm Mon 30 Dec 13

chas says...

In the mid 20th Century nearly every child was exposed to second hand smoke and yet that generation is living longer than ever.
In the mid 20th Century nearly every child was exposed to second hand smoke and yet that generation is living longer than ever. chas

9:11pm Mon 30 Dec 13

harleyrider1777 says...

The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.

“Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.

The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
“These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.”

They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Volume 121, Issue 1 , Pages 38-42.e3, January 2008
http://www.jacionlin
e.org/article/S00...
(07)01954-9/abstract


.
This is a Swedish study.

“Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis
, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)

CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”
Clin Exp Allergy 2001 Jun;31(6):908-14
http://www.data-yard
.net/30/asthma.htm
The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%. “Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders. The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens. “These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.” They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.” The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Volume 121, Issue 1 , Pages 38-42.e3, January 2008 http://www.jacionlin e.org/article/S00... (07)01954-9/abstract . This is a Swedish study. “Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis , allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7) CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.” Clin Exp Allergy 2001 Jun;31(6):908-14 http://www.data-yard .net/30/asthma.htm harleyrider1777

9:13pm Mon 30 Dec 13

harleyrider1777 says...

In the North West second-hand smoke results in at least 34,000 GP visits and over 1,100 emergency admissions to hospital each year.[

Tobacco Control Scotland has admitted it has no record of any deaths or demonstrable harm caused to anyone from second hand smoke as the UK Govt pushes forward the idea of third hand smoke, aka Invisible Smoke, without any evidence at all.

Bill Gibson, The International Coalition Against Prohibition (TICAP) chairman, was interested to know how many actual deaths and respiratory illnesses were recorded in Scotland from passive smoking, given the reported guesstimate 13,000 figure which is repeated parrot fashion year after year.

He put in an FOI request and found that there wasn't one death or respiratory illnesses attributed to SHS or tobacco. Perhaps I should repeat that. Not one death has been recorded in Scotland as definitely related to tobacco smoking or passive smoking.

http://patnurseblog.
blogspot.com/2012/04
/foi-shows-no-tobacc
o-related-deaths.htm
l

If we did the same the world over we would get the same answer.

Remember this story from last year:

B.S. Study: 600,000 People Die Worldwide From Secondhand Smoke Every Year

http://grendelreport
.posterous.com/bs-st
udy-600000-people-di
e-worldwide-from-sec



US Bureau of Labor Statistics Shows Zero Deaths From 2nd Hand Smoke
Where are the deaths?
If people who work in bars die from secondhand smoke, why does the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the last 4 years show ZERO DEATHS from exposure to harmful substances or environments?
http://stats.bls.gov
/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb
0259.pdf This data is for 2011. (pg38 of 53). Notice that 31 people died while working in a "drinking place"(which my bar is classified as). 27 deaths were by violent injuries by persons or animals(?). 2 died by fires or explosions. I don't know where the other 2 deaths are listed however, there are 0 deaths from exposure to harmful substances or environments.
So where are these deaths from SHS?
Notice 2010 under this below. In 2010, there were 28 total deaths, 25 from violence and 0 from exposure to harmful substances or environments.
http://stats.bls.gov
/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb

0250.pdf (pg 18).
In 2009, 32 deaths of bar workers. 31 were violent deaths and 0 from exposure to harmful substances or environments.
http://stats.bls.gov
/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb
0241.pdf (pg 18)
In 2008, 35 deaths of bar workers. 32 were violent deaths and 0 from exposure to harmful substances or environments.
http://stats.bls.gov
/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb
0232.pdf (pg 18).
They aren't crawling out and dying in the parking lots either. We would have noticed 'em."
Sheila Martin
http://stjtelegraph.
org/wp-content/uploa
ds/2013/07/stjtelegr
aph-24-30-16_page-5.
pdf
stjtelegraph.org
In the North West second-hand smoke results in at least 34,000 GP visits and over 1,100 emergency admissions to hospital each year.[ Tobacco Control Scotland has admitted it has no record of any deaths or demonstrable harm caused to anyone from second hand smoke as the UK Govt pushes forward the idea of third hand smoke, aka Invisible Smoke, without any evidence at all. Bill Gibson, The International Coalition Against Prohibition (TICAP) chairman, was interested to know how many actual deaths and respiratory illnesses were recorded in Scotland from passive smoking, given the reported guesstimate 13,000 figure which is repeated parrot fashion year after year. He put in an FOI request and found that there wasn't one death or respiratory illnesses attributed to SHS or tobacco. Perhaps I should repeat that. Not one death has been recorded in Scotland as definitely related to tobacco smoking or passive smoking. http://patnurseblog. blogspot.com/2012/04 /foi-shows-no-tobacc o-related-deaths.htm l If we did the same the world over we would get the same answer. Remember this story from last year: B.S. Study: 600,000 People Die Worldwide From Secondhand Smoke Every Year http://grendelreport .posterous.com/bs-st udy-600000-people-di e-worldwide-from-sec US Bureau of Labor Statistics Shows Zero Deaths From 2nd Hand Smoke Where are the deaths? If people who work in bars die from secondhand smoke, why does the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the last 4 years show ZERO DEATHS from exposure to harmful substances or environments? http://stats.bls.gov /iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb 0259.pdf This data is for 2011. (pg38 of 53). Notice that 31 people died while working in a "drinking place"(which my bar is classified as). 27 deaths were by violent injuries by persons or animals(?). 2 died by fires or explosions. I don't know where the other 2 deaths are listed however, there are 0 deaths from exposure to harmful substances or environments. So where are these deaths from SHS? Notice 2010 under this below. In 2010, there were 28 total deaths, 25 from violence and 0 from exposure to harmful substances or environments. http://stats.bls.gov /iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb 0250.pdf (pg 18). In 2009, 32 deaths of bar workers. 31 were violent deaths and 0 from exposure to harmful substances or environments. http://stats.bls.gov /iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb 0241.pdf (pg 18) In 2008, 35 deaths of bar workers. 32 were violent deaths and 0 from exposure to harmful substances or environments. http://stats.bls.gov /iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb 0232.pdf (pg 18). They aren't crawling out and dying in the parking lots either. We would have noticed 'em." Sheila Martin http://stjtelegraph. org/wp-content/uploa ds/2013/07/stjtelegr aph-24-30-16_page-5. pdf stjtelegraph.org harleyrider1777

9:14pm Mon 30 Dec 13

harleyrider1777 says...

This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

http://vitals.nbcnew
s.com/_news/2013/01/
28/16741714-lungs-fr
om-pack-a-day-smoker
s-safe-for-transplan
t-study-finds?lite

Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...............
............

Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!


OSHA ON SECOND HAND SMOKE...............
..

According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke........

They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA'S minimum PEL'S on shs/ets.......Did it ever set the debate on fire.

They concluded that:

All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzopyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes.

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA.
This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke: http://vitals.nbcnew s.com/_news/2013/01/ 28/16741714-lungs-fr om-pack-a-day-smoker s-safe-for-transplan t-study-finds?lite Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds. By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News. Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe. What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none. “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study............... ............ Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it! The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered: Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year. 146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY. A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose. Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh! OSHA ON SECOND HAND SMOKE............... .. According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke........ They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA'S minimum PEL'S on shs/ets.......Did it ever set the debate on fire. They concluded that: All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR. For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes. "For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes. "Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes. Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up. "For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes. For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time. The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes. So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets : Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA. harleyrider1777

10:49am Tue 31 Dec 13

norm says...

The truth is - smoking in enclosed areas stinks! I remember as a kid being in cars, on buses, with smoking parents and it is not pleasant. And it's not nice watching a parent dying from lung disease either.
The truth is - smoking in enclosed areas stinks! I remember as a kid being in cars, on buses, with smoking parents and it is not pleasant. And it's not nice watching a parent dying from lung disease either. norm

11:46am Tue 31 Dec 13

chris w says...

When I was a kid in the sixties there was no bad smell as I would remember,i,m sure they have altered the ingredients in cigarettes since then,but why ?
When I was a kid in the sixties there was no bad smell as I would remember,i,m sure they have altered the ingredients in cigarettes since then,but why ? chris w

11:51am Tue 31 Dec 13

chris w says...

It might be intentional to build up the Anti-smoking Agenda by the Government ?
It might be intentional to build up the Anti-smoking Agenda by the Government ? chris w

12:01pm Tue 31 Dec 13

Parmenion says...

'Smell' is purely subjective, and back then no-one at all complained...infact, it was often referred to as the 'pleasant aroma of tobacco'. Constant propaganda, junk-science, scaremongering and downright blatant lies by those on handsome salaries in the tobacco control industry, have since, brainwashed the gullible to believe that tobacco smoke is akin to sarin gas!
'Smell' is purely subjective, and back then no-one at all complained...infact, it was often referred to as the 'pleasant aroma of tobacco'. Constant propaganda, junk-science, scaremongering and downright blatant lies by those on handsome salaries in the tobacco control industry, have since, brainwashed the gullible to believe that tobacco smoke is akin to sarin gas! Parmenion

12:07pm Tue 31 Dec 13

Parmenion says...

Second hand smoke 'dangers' were invented by the anti-smoking movement to force through iniquitous bans and legislation.
The Relative Risk of second hand smoke is 1.17, which means an increase in risk of 17%. To put this into some sort of perspective, you've more chance of getting cancer from drinking water, with a RR of 1.25, beer (RR 1.60), whole milk (RR 2.14), bacon (RR 3.00), and many other everyday 'safe as houses' foodstuffs.

Statistically, higher cancer risks have been found for eating mushrooms, wearing a bra, or keeping a pet bird than for secondhand smoke. A barman has a much higher statistical chance of dying in a bicycle accident, or from being left-handed and using right-handed things, than he or she has from exposure to tobacco smoke.

Would any sane person believe that a persons health can be seriously harmed by drinking 'government-approved
-as-safe' tap water? Of course not.

Robert E Madden,
Practicing chest surgeon, teacher and a former cancer researcher. Past president of the NY Cancer Society. USA .
"To me the most offensive element of the smoking bans is the resort to science as "proving that second hand smoke causes lung cancer". Not only is this unproven but there is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for a scientist like myself to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society (of which I am a member) and the American Lung Association used to justify what is best described as a political agenda."

Trust the scientists,
http://tctactics.org
/index.php/Critical_
Scientists
THIS IS NOT ABOUT HEALTH.
Second hand smoke 'dangers' were invented by the anti-smoking movement to force through iniquitous bans and legislation. The Relative Risk of second hand smoke is 1.17, which means an increase in risk of 17%. To put this into some sort of perspective, you've more chance of getting cancer from drinking water, with a RR of 1.25, beer (RR 1.60), whole milk (RR 2.14), bacon (RR 3.00), and many other everyday 'safe as houses' foodstuffs. Statistically, higher cancer risks have been found for eating mushrooms, wearing a bra, or keeping a pet bird than for secondhand smoke. A barman has a much higher statistical chance of dying in a bicycle accident, or from being left-handed and using right-handed things, than he or she has from exposure to tobacco smoke. Would any sane person believe that a persons health can be seriously harmed by drinking 'government-approved -as-safe' tap water? Of course not. Robert E Madden, Practicing chest surgeon, teacher and a former cancer researcher. Past president of the NY Cancer Society. USA . "To me the most offensive element of the smoking bans is the resort to science as "proving that second hand smoke causes lung cancer". Not only is this unproven but there is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for a scientist like myself to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society (of which I am a member) and the American Lung Association used to justify what is best described as a political agenda." Trust the scientists, http://tctactics.org /index.php/Critical_ Scientists THIS IS NOT ABOUT HEALTH. Parmenion

12:58pm Tue 31 Dec 13

kjd161 says...

Take away all the hysterical rhetoric, and we are left with this. The smell of stale cigarette smoke on your person and clothing is vile. I have friends and relatives who smoke , and on first meeting them in a social situation, the first thing I notice is the rank smell. And I know they've had a bath or shower in the previous hour. As an ex 40 a day man, I know what I'm talking about. I'm not, however , a rabid, anti smoker. I just ask for a little consideration, which I was too oblivious of other people's need to give when I was smoking. Just give a thought to others. I wish I had.
And Barrie. Calm down a bit.
Take away all the hysterical rhetoric, and we are left with this. The smell of stale cigarette smoke on your person and clothing is vile. I have friends and relatives who smoke , and on first meeting them in a social situation, the first thing I notice is the rank smell. And I know they've had a bath or shower in the previous hour. As an ex 40 a day man, I know what I'm talking about. I'm not, however , a rabid, anti smoker. I just ask for a little consideration, which I was too oblivious of other people's need to give when I was smoking. Just give a thought to others. I wish I had. And Barrie. Calm down a bit. kjd161

3:25pm Tue 31 Dec 13

chas says...

I was brought up in the 1940s and 1950s and went to many smokey pubs and clubs, but neither myself (who was a non smoker) or anybody else ever noticed or complained about the smoke.
Anti-smokers are like a load of sheeple.
Sheeples are people who unquestioningly accept as true whatever their political leader says; or people who adopt popular opinion as their own without crutiny. People who don't think for themselves.
I was brought up in the 1940s and 1950s and went to many smokey pubs and clubs, but neither myself (who was a non smoker) or anybody else ever noticed or complained about the smoke. Anti-smokers are like a load of sheeple. Sheeples are people who unquestioningly accept as true whatever their political leader says; or people who adopt popular opinion as their own without crutiny. People who don't think for themselves. chas

4:01pm Tue 31 Dec 13

barrie timpson says...

Have you asked yourselves what harm it would do to YOU to go outside or away from children when you smoke?

Chas- "sheeple" stay away from the David Icke mate - it's doing you no favours.
Unless that's what "crutiny" is ;)

I smoke , I don't think second hand smoke does much harm , but if you smoke around children you are scum .
Have you asked yourselves what harm it would do to YOU to go outside or away from children when you smoke? Chas- "sheeple" stay away from the David Icke mate - it's doing you no favours. Unless that's what "crutiny" is ;) I smoke , I don't think second hand smoke does much harm , but if you smoke around children you are scum . barrie timpson

4:05pm Tue 31 Dec 13

barrie timpson says...

All this because people are to weak of mind and selfish to either enter another room or go outside. Real champions eh?
"What are you doing today?" - - "I'm smoking around my children and making their clothes smell".
Really nice trait.
All this because people are to weak of mind and selfish to either enter another room or go outside. Real champions eh? "What are you doing today?" - - "I'm smoking around my children and making their clothes smell". Really nice trait. barrie timpson

5:23pm Tue 31 Dec 13

saintsfan says...

kjd161 wrote:
Take away all the hysterical rhetoric, and we are left with this. The smell of stale cigarette smoke on your person and clothing is vile. I have friends and relatives who smoke , and on first meeting them in a social situation, the first thing I notice is the rank smell. And I know they've had a bath or shower in the previous hour. As an ex 40 a day man, I know what I'm talking about. I'm not, however , a rabid, anti smoker. I just ask for a little consideration, which I was too oblivious of other people's need to give when I was smoking. Just give a thought to others. I wish I had.
And Barrie. Calm down a bit.
There are a lot of foul smells around, most notably human beings who don't wash properly. Should the sources of all foul smells be banned simply because they smell foul? We'd not have sprouts at Christmas or any fish of any description at all to enjoy with our chips. To ban anything simply because it smells foul - as indeed does the smell of beer, for example - is just a silly, silly argument that holds no worth at all.

As for the issue of second hand smoke ... there is precious little evidence to say that second hand smoke causes any problems except to those who would be sensitive to ANY form of smoke (eg wood smoke from bonfires). I think those getting their knickers in a twist about the so-called risks of second hand smoke should look out for papers which report on the massive risks to their children from exhaust fumes, particularly those children in buggies that are exposed to an intense degree due to their position in relation to exhausts. Carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide - both killers - are blown all over us every time we walk out of the door. I don't see anyone calling for a ban on cars.

Dogma is dull. Please change the record.
[quote][p][bold]kjd161[/bold] wrote: Take away all the hysterical rhetoric, and we are left with this. The smell of stale cigarette smoke on your person and clothing is vile. I have friends and relatives who smoke , and on first meeting them in a social situation, the first thing I notice is the rank smell. And I know they've had a bath or shower in the previous hour. As an ex 40 a day man, I know what I'm talking about. I'm not, however , a rabid, anti smoker. I just ask for a little consideration, which I was too oblivious of other people's need to give when I was smoking. Just give a thought to others. I wish I had. And Barrie. Calm down a bit.[/p][/quote]There are a lot of foul smells around, most notably human beings who don't wash properly. Should the sources of all foul smells be banned simply because they smell foul? We'd not have sprouts at Christmas or any fish of any description at all to enjoy with our chips. To ban anything simply because it smells foul - as indeed does the smell of beer, for example - is just a silly, silly argument that holds no worth at all. As for the issue of second hand smoke ... there is precious little evidence to say that second hand smoke causes any problems except to those who would be sensitive to ANY form of smoke (eg wood smoke from bonfires). I think those getting their knickers in a twist about the so-called risks of second hand smoke should look out for papers which report on the massive risks to their children from exhaust fumes, particularly those children in buggies that are exposed to an intense degree due to their position in relation to exhausts. Carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide - both killers - are blown all over us every time we walk out of the door. I don't see anyone calling for a ban on cars. Dogma is dull. Please change the record. saintsfan

6:28pm Tue 31 Dec 13

chas says...

barrie timpson wrote:
Have you asked yourselves what harm it would do to YOU to go outside or away from children when you smoke? Chas- "sheeple" stay away from the David Icke mate - it's doing you no favours. Unless that's what "crutiny" is ;) I smoke , I don't think second hand smoke does much harm , but if you smoke around children you are scum .
So what harm does second hand cause, sheeple?
[quote][p][bold]barrie timpson[/bold] wrote: Have you asked yourselves what harm it would do to YOU to go outside or away from children when you smoke? Chas- "sheeple" stay away from the David Icke mate - it's doing you no favours. Unless that's what "crutiny" is ;) I smoke , I don't think second hand smoke does much harm , but if you smoke around children you are scum .[/p][/quote]So what harm does second hand cause, sheeple? chas

9:49am Wed 1 Jan 14

barrie timpson says...

chas wrote:
barrie timpson wrote:
Have you asked yourselves what harm it would do to YOU to go outside or away from children when you smoke? Chas- "sheeple" stay away from the David Icke mate - it's doing you no favours. Unless that's what "crutiny" is ;) I smoke , I don't think second hand smoke does much harm , but if you smoke around children you are scum .
So what harm does second hand cause, sheeple?
Do you fancy a live debate? I'll be in town next weekend?
[quote][p][bold]chas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]barrie timpson[/bold] wrote: Have you asked yourselves what harm it would do to YOU to go outside or away from children when you smoke? Chas- "sheeple" stay away from the David Icke mate - it's doing you no favours. Unless that's what "crutiny" is ;) I smoke , I don't think second hand smoke does much harm , but if you smoke around children you are scum .[/p][/quote]So what harm does second hand cause, sheeple?[/p][/quote]Do you fancy a live debate? I'll be in town next weekend? barrie timpson

10:23am Wed 1 Jan 14

chas says...

barrie timpson wrote:
chas wrote:
barrie timpson wrote: Have you asked yourselves what harm it would do to YOU to go outside or away from children when you smoke? Chas- "sheeple" stay away from the David Icke mate - it's doing you no favours. Unless that's what "crutiny" is ;) I smoke , I don't think second hand smoke does much harm , but if you smoke around children you are scum .
So what harm does second hand cause, sheeple?
Do you fancy a live debate? I'll be in town next weekend?
Do you fancy answering a simple question?
What harm does second hand smoke cause?
[quote][p][bold]barrie timpson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]barrie timpson[/bold] wrote: Have you asked yourselves what harm it would do to YOU to go outside or away from children when you smoke? Chas- "sheeple" stay away from the David Icke mate - it's doing you no favours. Unless that's what "crutiny" is ;) I smoke , I don't think second hand smoke does much harm , but if you smoke around children you are scum .[/p][/quote]So what harm does second hand cause, sheeple?[/p][/quote]Do you fancy a live debate? I'll be in town next weekend?[/p][/quote]Do you fancy answering a simple question? What harm does second hand smoke cause? chas

11:46am Wed 1 Jan 14

norm says...

chas wrote:
I was brought up in the 1940s and 1950s and went to many smokey pubs and clubs, but neither myself (who was a non smoker) or anybody else ever noticed or complained about the smoke.
Anti-smokers are like a load of sheeple.
Sheeples are people who unquestioningly accept as true whatever their political leader says; or people who adopt popular opinion as their own without crutiny. People who don't think for themselves.
What planet are you on chas? Do you not remember the smell of stale smoke on the top deck of buses, it was enough to make a pig sick! And I decided for myself, as a kid, not to smoke - not because of popular opinion or to follow like sheep because my piers were doing it. Dare I suggest you may have been a bit blotto in pubs and clubs to notice anything?
[quote][p][bold]chas[/bold] wrote: I was brought up in the 1940s and 1950s and went to many smokey pubs and clubs, but neither myself (who was a non smoker) or anybody else ever noticed or complained about the smoke. Anti-smokers are like a load of sheeple. Sheeples are people who unquestioningly accept as true whatever their political leader says; or people who adopt popular opinion as their own without crutiny. People who don't think for themselves.[/p][/quote]What planet are you on chas? Do you not remember the smell of stale smoke on the top deck of buses, it was enough to make a pig sick! And I decided for myself, as a kid, not to smoke - not because of popular opinion or to follow like sheep because my piers were doing it. Dare I suggest you may have been a bit blotto in pubs and clubs to notice anything? norm

12:29pm Wed 1 Jan 14

chas says...

norm wrote:
chas wrote: I was brought up in the 1940s and 1950s and went to many smokey pubs and clubs, but neither myself (who was a non smoker) or anybody else ever noticed or complained about the smoke. Anti-smokers are like a load of sheeple. Sheeples are people who unquestioningly accept as true whatever their political leader says; or people who adopt popular opinion as their own without crutiny. People who don't think for themselves.
What planet are you on chas? Do you not remember the smell of stale smoke on the top deck of buses, it was enough to make a pig sick! And I decided for myself, as a kid, not to smoke - not because of popular opinion or to follow like sheep because my piers were doing it. Dare I suggest you may have been a bit blotto in pubs and clubs to notice anything?
It was common practice that smokers used the upper deck and non smokers used the lower deck on buses. I went to many jazz clubs which were very smokey and even non smokers went to these clubs and didn't complain.
I don't recall any non smokers complaining about smokers in the mid 20th century.
[quote][p][bold]norm[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chas[/bold] wrote: I was brought up in the 1940s and 1950s and went to many smokey pubs and clubs, but neither myself (who was a non smoker) or anybody else ever noticed or complained about the smoke. Anti-smokers are like a load of sheeple. Sheeples are people who unquestioningly accept as true whatever their political leader says; or people who adopt popular opinion as their own without crutiny. People who don't think for themselves.[/p][/quote]What planet are you on chas? Do you not remember the smell of stale smoke on the top deck of buses, it was enough to make a pig sick! And I decided for myself, as a kid, not to smoke - not because of popular opinion or to follow like sheep because my piers were doing it. Dare I suggest you may have been a bit blotto in pubs and clubs to notice anything?[/p][/quote]It was common practice that smokers used the upper deck and non smokers used the lower deck on buses. I went to many jazz clubs which were very smokey and even non smokers went to these clubs and didn't complain. I don't recall any non smokers complaining about smokers in the mid 20th century. chas

12:34pm Wed 1 Jan 14

kjd161 says...

saintsfan wrote:
kjd161 wrote:
Take away all the hysterical rhetoric, and we are left with this. The smell of stale cigarette smoke on your person and clothing is vile. I have friends and relatives who smoke , and on first meeting them in a social situation, the first thing I notice is the rank smell. And I know they've had a bath or shower in the previous hour. As an ex 40 a day man, I know what I'm talking about. I'm not, however , a rabid, anti smoker. I just ask for a little consideration, which I was too oblivious of other people's need to give when I was smoking. Just give a thought to others. I wish I had.
And Barrie. Calm down a bit.
There are a lot of foul smells around, most notably human beings who don't wash properly. Should the sources of all foul smells be banned simply because they smell foul? We'd not have sprouts at Christmas or any fish of any description at all to enjoy with our chips. To ban anything simply because it smells foul - as indeed does the smell of beer, for example - is just a silly, silly argument that holds no worth at all.

As for the issue of second hand smoke ... there is precious little evidence to say that second hand smoke causes any problems except to those who would be sensitive to ANY form of smoke (eg wood smoke from bonfires). I think those getting their knickers in a twist about the so-called risks of second hand smoke should look out for papers which report on the massive risks to their children from exhaust fumes, particularly those children in buggies that are exposed to an intense degree due to their position in relation to exhausts. Carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide - both killers - are blown all over us every time we walk out of the door. I don't see anyone calling for a ban on cars.

Dogma is dull. Please change the record.
Read it again saintsfan. Nowhere in my post do I call for a ban. Just a little consideration. Don't put words in peoples' mouths.
[quote][p][bold]saintsfan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kjd161[/bold] wrote: Take away all the hysterical rhetoric, and we are left with this. The smell of stale cigarette smoke on your person and clothing is vile. I have friends and relatives who smoke , and on first meeting them in a social situation, the first thing I notice is the rank smell. And I know they've had a bath or shower in the previous hour. As an ex 40 a day man, I know what I'm talking about. I'm not, however , a rabid, anti smoker. I just ask for a little consideration, which I was too oblivious of other people's need to give when I was smoking. Just give a thought to others. I wish I had. And Barrie. Calm down a bit.[/p][/quote]There are a lot of foul smells around, most notably human beings who don't wash properly. Should the sources of all foul smells be banned simply because they smell foul? We'd not have sprouts at Christmas or any fish of any description at all to enjoy with our chips. To ban anything simply because it smells foul - as indeed does the smell of beer, for example - is just a silly, silly argument that holds no worth at all. As for the issue of second hand smoke ... there is precious little evidence to say that second hand smoke causes any problems except to those who would be sensitive to ANY form of smoke (eg wood smoke from bonfires). I think those getting their knickers in a twist about the so-called risks of second hand smoke should look out for papers which report on the massive risks to their children from exhaust fumes, particularly those children in buggies that are exposed to an intense degree due to their position in relation to exhausts. Carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide - both killers - are blown all over us every time we walk out of the door. I don't see anyone calling for a ban on cars. Dogma is dull. Please change the record.[/p][/quote]Read it again saintsfan. Nowhere in my post do I call for a ban. Just a little consideration. Don't put words in peoples' mouths. kjd161

12:46pm Wed 1 Jan 14

barrie timpson says...

Chas , I 'll buy you a coke if you can find what I think the harm is in second hand smoke in my above posts.

I'll give you a clue: I'm not sure it causes any harm at all , but smoking around children is the habit of a sub human , who cannot be bothered to go outside to stop his offspring from smelling like an ashtray.
Chas , I 'll buy you a coke if you can find what I think the harm is in second hand smoke in my above posts. I'll give you a clue: I'm not sure it causes any harm at all , but smoking around children is the habit of a sub human , who cannot be bothered to go outside to stop his offspring from smelling like an ashtray. barrie timpson

1:22pm Wed 1 Jan 14

Parmenion says...

Grandad's Law...The first person to mention “the children” in an attempt to sway public opinion has lost their case.

http://harridanic.co
m/wiki/Grandad's_Law
Grandad's Law...The first person to mention “the children” in an attempt to sway public opinion has lost their case. http://harridanic.co m/wiki/Grandad's_Law Parmenion

1:22pm Wed 1 Jan 14

Parmenion says...

Grandad's Law...The first person to mention “the children” in an attempt to sway public opinion has lost their case.

http://harridanic.co
m/wiki/Grandad's_Law
Grandad's Law...The first person to mention “the children” in an attempt to sway public opinion has lost their case. http://harridanic.co m/wiki/Grandad's_Law Parmenion

1:51pm Wed 1 Jan 14

chas says...

barrie timpson wrote:
Chas , I 'll buy you a coke if you can find what I think the harm is in second hand smoke in my above posts. I'll give you a clue: I'm not sure it causes any harm at all , but smoking around children is the habit of a sub human , who cannot be bothered to go outside to stop his offspring from smelling like an ashtray.
You said ' I don't think second hand smoke does much harm '. So what harm does second hand cause?
[quote][p][bold]barrie timpson[/bold] wrote: Chas , I 'll buy you a coke if you can find what I think the harm is in second hand smoke in my above posts. I'll give you a clue: I'm not sure it causes any harm at all , but smoking around children is the habit of a sub human , who cannot be bothered to go outside to stop his offspring from smelling like an ashtray.[/p][/quote]You said ' I don't think second hand smoke does much harm '. So what harm does second hand cause? chas

3:36pm Wed 1 Jan 14

barrie timpson says...

Are you retarded? It stinks. I think smoking around children makes them smell badly. Would you like to go somewhere and have people notice that your children smell of smoke?
Are you retarded? It stinks. I think smoking around children makes them smell badly. Would you like to go somewhere and have people notice that your children smell of smoke? barrie timpson

3:39pm Wed 1 Jan 14

barrie timpson says...

Parmenion wrote:
Grandad's Law...The first person to mention “the children” in an attempt to sway public opinion has lost their case.

http://harridanic.co

m/wiki/Grandad's_Law
My law , people posting under a pseudonym are the epitome of a keyboard warrior.

Also posting links from a site that has a user edit function is laughable.

You "guys" can do what you want , I won't be smoking around my children , if you want to then go nuts.
[quote][p][bold]Parmenion[/bold] wrote: Grandad's Law...The first person to mention “the children” in an attempt to sway public opinion has lost their case. http://harridanic.co m/wiki/Grandad's_Law[/p][/quote]My law , people posting under a pseudonym are the epitome of a keyboard warrior. Also posting links from a site that has a user edit function is laughable. You "guys" can do what you want , I won't be smoking around my children , if you want to then go nuts. barrie timpson

3:59pm Wed 1 Jan 14

chas says...

barrie. You said ' I don't think second hand smoke does much harm '. So what harm does second hand cause?
barrie. You said ' I don't think second hand smoke does much harm '. So what harm does second hand cause? chas

4:00pm Wed 1 Jan 14

barrie timpson says...

Imagine having a debate on pedophilia and being in the wrong for mentioning the children. The horror.
Imagine having a debate on pedophilia and being in the wrong for mentioning the children. The horror. barrie timpson

4:45pm Wed 1 Jan 14

barrie timpson says...

Happy New Year Chas. Like I say if you ever fancy a pint , just let me know.
Happy New Year Chas. Like I say if you ever fancy a pint , just let me know. barrie timpson

4:57pm Wed 1 Jan 14

chas says...

barrie. Happy new year to you When are you going to tell us what harm second hand smoke does?
barrie. Happy new year to you When are you going to tell us what harm second hand smoke does? chas

5:12pm Wed 1 Jan 14

barrie timpson says...

I think it makes things smell badly. I also think there is conflicting evidence from the pro and anti camps. If there is any doubt whatsoever I wouldn't risk my children in any way.

I think the fact that people are actually complaining about having to stub it out around children is beyond selfish.

If you become ill please don't visit any NHS establishment - their information and methods might be wrong. x

Can you understand this ?

Now can you answer a simple question - what harm will it do to you to leave the room when smoking? If a child asks you nicely?
I think it makes things smell badly. I also think there is conflicting evidence from the pro and anti camps. If there is any doubt whatsoever I wouldn't risk my children in any way. I think the fact that people are actually complaining about having to stub it out around children is beyond selfish. If you become ill please don't visit any NHS establishment - their information and methods might be wrong. x Can you understand this ? Now can you answer a simple question - what harm will it do to you to leave the room when smoking? If a child asks you nicely? barrie timpson

6:33pm Wed 1 Jan 14

chas says...

You please answer my simple question. What harm does second hand smoke cause?
If you are outside having a smoke outside what do you do when a child walks past?
You please answer my simple question. What harm does second hand smoke cause? If you are outside having a smoke outside what do you do when a child walks past? chas

8:35pm Wed 1 Jan 14

norm says...

chas wrote:
norm wrote:
chas wrote: I was brought up in the 1940s and 1950s and went to many smokey pubs and clubs, but neither myself (who was a non smoker) or anybody else ever noticed or complained about the smoke. Anti-smokers are like a load of sheeple. Sheeples are people who unquestioningly accept as true whatever their political leader says; or people who adopt popular opinion as their own without crutiny. People who don't think for themselves.
What planet are you on chas? Do you not remember the smell of stale smoke on the top deck of buses, it was enough to make a pig sick! And I decided for myself, as a kid, not to smoke - not because of popular opinion or to follow like sheep because my piers were doing it. Dare I suggest you may have been a bit blotto in pubs and clubs to notice anything?
It was common practice that smokers used the upper deck and non smokers used the lower deck on buses. I went to many jazz clubs which were very smokey and even non smokers went to these clubs and didn't complain.
I don't recall any non smokers complaining about smokers in the mid 20th century.
Yes, exactly. Non-smokers went downstairs on buses - given the choice. As a kid, I had to ride on the upper deck with my dad on a Friday night on the way home from my Grandma's because he wanted a smoke. And there was no such thing as giving him any 'lip' about smoking infront of us or I would have got a 'thick ear'.
[quote][p][bold]chas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]norm[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chas[/bold] wrote: I was brought up in the 1940s and 1950s and went to many smokey pubs and clubs, but neither myself (who was a non smoker) or anybody else ever noticed or complained about the smoke. Anti-smokers are like a load of sheeple. Sheeples are people who unquestioningly accept as true whatever their political leader says; or people who adopt popular opinion as their own without crutiny. People who don't think for themselves.[/p][/quote]What planet are you on chas? Do you not remember the smell of stale smoke on the top deck of buses, it was enough to make a pig sick! And I decided for myself, as a kid, not to smoke - not because of popular opinion or to follow like sheep because my piers were doing it. Dare I suggest you may have been a bit blotto in pubs and clubs to notice anything?[/p][/quote]It was common practice that smokers used the upper deck and non smokers used the lower deck on buses. I went to many jazz clubs which were very smokey and even non smokers went to these clubs and didn't complain. I don't recall any non smokers complaining about smokers in the mid 20th century.[/p][/quote]Yes, exactly. Non-smokers went downstairs on buses - given the choice. As a kid, I had to ride on the upper deck with my dad on a Friday night on the way home from my Grandma's because he wanted a smoke. And there was no such thing as giving him any 'lip' about smoking infront of us or I would have got a 'thick ear'. norm

9:03pm Wed 1 Jan 14

barrie timpson says...

Chas I don't think I'm qualified to answer your question.
Perhaps a therapist or an English teacher at the college can help you out.
Chas I don't think I'm qualified to answer your question. Perhaps a therapist or an English teacher at the college can help you out. barrie timpson

10:02pm Wed 1 Jan 14

chas says...

barrie timpson wrote:
Chas I don't think I'm qualified to answer your question. Perhaps a therapist or an English teacher at the college can help you out.
So why did you say 'I don't think second hand smoke does much harm '?
[quote][p][bold]barrie timpson[/bold] wrote: Chas I don't think I'm qualified to answer your question. Perhaps a therapist or an English teacher at the college can help you out.[/p][/quote]So why did you say 'I don't think second hand smoke does much harm '? chas

3:25pm Thu 2 Jan 14

MrBenggo says...

Dirty,filthy,unhealt
hy and a cause of many fires resulting in death.
That's smoking for you.
Can anyone enlighten us all as to the benefits of smoking.
Dirty,filthy,unhealt hy and a cause of many fires resulting in death. That's smoking for you. Can anyone enlighten us all as to the benefits of smoking. MrBenggo

3:44pm Thu 2 Jan 14

kjd161 says...

MrBenggo wrote:
Dirty,filthy,unhealt

hy and a cause of many fires resulting in death.
That's smoking for you.
Can anyone enlighten us all as to the benefits of smoking.
Bang on. Right to the point. Anyone care to answer the man?
[quote][p][bold]MrBenggo[/bold] wrote: Dirty,filthy,unhealt hy and a cause of many fires resulting in death. That's smoking for you. Can anyone enlighten us all as to the benefits of smoking.[/p][/quote]Bang on. Right to the point. Anyone care to answer the man? kjd161

5:19pm Thu 2 Jan 14

barrie timpson says...

You're going to upset Chas speaking like that. When he escapes his other loop.
Like my Nan used to say - it's a shame....
You're going to upset Chas speaking like that. When he escapes his other loop. Like my Nan used to say - it's a shame.... barrie timpson

5:56pm Thu 2 Jan 14

chas says...

Do you sheeples allow your children to go near:
BBQs because they may smell of smoke?
Firework displays in cause they smell of bonfire smoke and fireworks?
Roads in case they smell of exhaust fumes?
Eat garlic in case they smell of garlic?
etc. etc.
I feel sorry for your children.
Do you sheeples allow your children to go near: BBQs because they may smell of smoke? Firework displays in cause they smell of bonfire smoke and fireworks? Roads in case they smell of exhaust fumes? Eat garlic in case they smell of garlic? etc. etc. I feel sorry for your children. chas

6:28pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Parmenion says...

So...the gullible sheeple would like to know about some health benefits from smoking. Try these for starters.
The FACT is that tobacco is one of the most beneficial plants on the planet.


Smoking lowers risk of skin cancer http://ije.oxfordjou
rnals.org/content/ea
rly/2012/10/11/ije.d
ys146.abstract

Smoking lowers risk of breast cancer http://www.iarc.fr/e
n/media-centre/pr/19
98/pr125.html

Smoking lowers risk of Alzheimers http://www.forces.or
g/evidence/carol/car
ol16.htm

Smoking during pregnancy reduces the risk of preeclampsia (one of the leading causes of maternal and infant mortality and morbidity worldwide) by up to 50% http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pubmed/17127
256?dopt=Abstract

Smoking increases intelligence
http://cfrankdavis.w
ordpress.com/2013/12
/12/nation-of-morons
/

Smoking Helps Cardiac Arrhythmia
http://www.f2c.org.u
k/blog/2013/04/03/ca
n-smoking-help-cardi
ac-arrhythmia/#comme
nt-20303

Smoking lowers risk of ulcerative colitis http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pmc/articles
/PMC2014383/

Smoking lowers your risk of joint replacement surgery http://douglassrepor
t.com/2011/07/31/lif
elong-tobacco-habit/


Smoking lowers risk of Parkinson's disease. Smoking lowers risk of obesity. Smoking lowers risk of death after some heart attacks. Smoking helps the heart drug clopidogrel work better. Smoking lowers risk of knee-replacement surgery. http://www.livescien
ce.com/15115-5-healt
h-benefits-smoking-d
isease.html

Smoking increases work capacity http://dengulenegl.d
k/English/Nicotine.h
tml

Children of mothers who smoke at least 15 cigarettes a day tend to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis
, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked. http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pubmed/11422
156

P.S Did you know that 80% of people diagnosed with lung cancer in 2012, are non-smokers? http://lungcancer.ab
out.com/b/2012/11/29
/why-anti-smoking-ca
mpaigns-arent-enough
-to-eliminate-lung-c
ancer-deaths.htm

Hope these help.
So...the gullible sheeple would like to know about some health benefits from smoking. Try these for starters. The FACT is that tobacco is one of the most beneficial plants on the planet. Smoking lowers risk of skin cancer http://ije.oxfordjou rnals.org/content/ea rly/2012/10/11/ije.d ys146.abstract Smoking lowers risk of breast cancer http://www.iarc.fr/e n/media-centre/pr/19 98/pr125.html Smoking lowers risk of Alzheimers http://www.forces.or g/evidence/carol/car ol16.htm Smoking during pregnancy reduces the risk of preeclampsia (one of the leading causes of maternal and infant mortality and morbidity worldwide) by up to 50% http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/17127 256?dopt=Abstract Smoking increases intelligence http://cfrankdavis.w ordpress.com/2013/12 /12/nation-of-morons / Smoking Helps Cardiac Arrhythmia http://www.f2c.org.u k/blog/2013/04/03/ca n-smoking-help-cardi ac-arrhythmia/#comme nt-20303 Smoking lowers risk of ulcerative colitis http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pmc/articles /PMC2014383/ Smoking lowers your risk of joint replacement surgery http://douglassrepor t.com/2011/07/31/lif elong-tobacco-habit/ Smoking lowers risk of Parkinson's disease. Smoking lowers risk of obesity. Smoking lowers risk of death after some heart attacks. Smoking helps the heart drug clopidogrel work better. Smoking lowers risk of knee-replacement surgery. http://www.livescien ce.com/15115-5-healt h-benefits-smoking-d isease.html Smoking increases work capacity http://dengulenegl.d k/English/Nicotine.h tml Children of mothers who smoke at least 15 cigarettes a day tend to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis , allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked. http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/11422 156 P.S Did you know that 80% of people diagnosed with lung cancer in 2012, are non-smokers? http://lungcancer.ab out.com/b/2012/11/29 /why-anti-smoking-ca mpaigns-arent-enough -to-eliminate-lung-c ancer-deaths.htm Hope these help. Parmenion

7:02pm Thu 2 Jan 14

kjd161 says...

Right. That's me. Off for 20 Bensons. Be in the next Olympics.
Right. That's me. Off for 20 Bensons. Be in the next Olympics. kjd161

7:24pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Parmenion says...

kjd161 wrote:
Right. That's me. Off for 20 Bensons. Be in the next Olympics.
Well...smoking didn't seem to do Bradley Wiggins much harm in the Olympics!
[quote][p][bold]kjd161[/bold] wrote: Right. That's me. Off for 20 Bensons. Be in the next Olympics.[/p][/quote]Well...smoking didn't seem to do Bradley Wiggins much harm in the Olympics! Parmenion

8:33pm Thu 2 Jan 14

saintsfan says...

kjd161 wrote:
saintsfan wrote:
kjd161 wrote:
Take away all the hysterical rhetoric, and we are left with this. The smell of stale cigarette smoke on your person and clothing is vile. I have friends and relatives who smoke , and on first meeting them in a social situation, the first thing I notice is the rank smell. And I know they've had a bath or shower in the previous hour. As an ex 40 a day man, I know what I'm talking about. I'm not, however , a rabid, anti smoker. I just ask for a little consideration, which I was too oblivious of other people's need to give when I was smoking. Just give a thought to others. I wish I had.
And Barrie. Calm down a bit.
There are a lot of foul smells around, most notably human beings who don't wash properly. Should the sources of all foul smells be banned simply because they smell foul? We'd not have sprouts at Christmas or any fish of any description at all to enjoy with our chips. To ban anything simply because it smells foul - as indeed does the smell of beer, for example - is just a silly, silly argument that holds no worth at all.

As for the issue of second hand smoke ... there is precious little evidence to say that second hand smoke causes any problems except to those who would be sensitive to ANY form of smoke (eg wood smoke from bonfires). I think those getting their knickers in a twist about the so-called risks of second hand smoke should look out for papers which report on the massive risks to their children from exhaust fumes, particularly those children in buggies that are exposed to an intense degree due to their position in relation to exhausts. Carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide - both killers - are blown all over us every time we walk out of the door. I don't see anyone calling for a ban on cars.

Dogma is dull. Please change the record.
Read it again saintsfan. Nowhere in my post do I call for a ban. Just a little consideration. Don't put words in peoples' mouths.
Non-smokers of any age and disposition have had plenty of consideration. They have their ban in enclosed public places. That's enough for me. It's now time for the non-smokers to shut up and let the subject alone. It's become a ridiculous obsession as if there are no other risks in the world and it's become old and dull. Hell, even the people who are using e-cigs to give up tobacco are coming across nutters banning them from using a harmless substitute because the action of using them resembles smoking. Some folk are so up their own backsides as to be disappearing from view.
[quote][p][bold]kjd161[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saintsfan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kjd161[/bold] wrote: Take away all the hysterical rhetoric, and we are left with this. The smell of stale cigarette smoke on your person and clothing is vile. I have friends and relatives who smoke , and on first meeting them in a social situation, the first thing I notice is the rank smell. And I know they've had a bath or shower in the previous hour. As an ex 40 a day man, I know what I'm talking about. I'm not, however , a rabid, anti smoker. I just ask for a little consideration, which I was too oblivious of other people's need to give when I was smoking. Just give a thought to others. I wish I had. And Barrie. Calm down a bit.[/p][/quote]There are a lot of foul smells around, most notably human beings who don't wash properly. Should the sources of all foul smells be banned simply because they smell foul? We'd not have sprouts at Christmas or any fish of any description at all to enjoy with our chips. To ban anything simply because it smells foul - as indeed does the smell of beer, for example - is just a silly, silly argument that holds no worth at all. As for the issue of second hand smoke ... there is precious little evidence to say that second hand smoke causes any problems except to those who would be sensitive to ANY form of smoke (eg wood smoke from bonfires). I think those getting their knickers in a twist about the so-called risks of second hand smoke should look out for papers which report on the massive risks to their children from exhaust fumes, particularly those children in buggies that are exposed to an intense degree due to their position in relation to exhausts. Carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide - both killers - are blown all over us every time we walk out of the door. I don't see anyone calling for a ban on cars. Dogma is dull. Please change the record.[/p][/quote]Read it again saintsfan. Nowhere in my post do I call for a ban. Just a little consideration. Don't put words in peoples' mouths.[/p][/quote]Non-smokers of any age and disposition have had plenty of consideration. They have their ban in enclosed public places. That's enough for me. It's now time for the non-smokers to shut up and let the subject alone. It's become a ridiculous obsession as if there are no other risks in the world and it's become old and dull. Hell, even the people who are using e-cigs to give up tobacco are coming across nutters banning them from using a harmless substitute because the action of using them resembles smoking. Some folk are so up their own backsides as to be disappearing from view. saintsfan

10:02pm Thu 2 Jan 14

barrie timpson says...

See I told ya , know they're all off.

Imagine your main friend in life being an email news alert for smoking.
See I told ya , know they're all off. Imagine your main friend in life being an email news alert for smoking. barrie timpson

10:07pm Thu 2 Jan 14

barrie timpson says...

..and for Christ sake Chas, it's just sheeple - not sheeples

Would you say " do you peoples allow" etc etc , no, you would say "do you people".

Tsk.
..and for Christ sake Chas, it's just sheeple - not sheeples Would you say " do you peoples allow" etc etc , no, you would say "do you people". Tsk. barrie timpson

10:07pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Parmenion says...

barrie timpson wrote:
See I told ya , know they're all off.

Imagine your main friend in life being an email news alert for smoking.
Hahaha!...So says the anti-smoking troll who has more posts on here than anybody else.
[quote][p][bold]barrie timpson[/bold] wrote: See I told ya , know they're all off. Imagine your main friend in life being an email news alert for smoking.[/p][/quote]Hahaha!...So says the anti-smoking troll who has more posts on here than anybody else. Parmenion

10:12pm Thu 2 Jan 14

barrie timpson says...

I like the troll word , nice one !
I like the troll word , nice one ! barrie timpson

10:22pm Thu 2 Jan 14

barrie timpson says...

...and if you read my trolling posts , General , you would see that I am a smoker , I just have the decency to spare others who don't the disgusting smell.

I smoke silk cut - does that count?
...and if you read my trolling posts , General , you would see that I am a smoker , I just have the decency to spare others who don't the disgusting smell. I smoke silk cut - does that count? barrie timpson

10:27pm Thu 2 Jan 14

barrie timpson says...

Parmenion , would you say that this is your passion in life , you've racked up a fair amount of comments here like digger...

https://www.google.c
o.uk/search?q=parmen
ion+smoking&oq=parme
nion+smoking&aqs=chr
ome..69i57.5676j0j7&
sourceid=chrome&espv
=210&es_sm=122&ie=UT
F-8
Parmenion , would you say that this is your passion in life , you've racked up a fair amount of comments here like digger... https://www.google.c o.uk/search?q=parmen ion+smoking&oq=parme nion+smoking&aqs=chr ome..69i57.5676j0j7& sourceid=chrome&espv =210&es_sm=122&ie=UT F-8 barrie timpson

10:50pm Thu 2 Jan 14

chas says...

barrie. Do you allow your children to go near BBQs, firework displays, roads and eat garlic?
barrie. Do you allow your children to go near BBQs, firework displays, roads and eat garlic? chas

4:20pm Sat 4 Jan 14

norm says...

parmenion says, "Did you know that 80% of people diagnosed with lung cancer in 2012, are non-smokers?"

... is that because they were all 'passive smokers'?
parmenion says, "Did you know that 80% of people diagnosed with lung cancer in 2012, are non-smokers?" ... is that because they were all 'passive smokers'? norm

9:36am Sun 5 Jan 14

chas says...

norm wrote:
parmenion says, "Did you know that 80% of people diagnosed with lung cancer in 2012, are non-smokers?" ... is that because they were all 'passive smokers'?
A little bit of research would have stopped you asking such a stupid question.
There are many causes of lung cancer, probably the biggest cause is air pollution.
[quote][p][bold]norm[/bold] wrote: parmenion says, "Did you know that 80% of people diagnosed with lung cancer in 2012, are non-smokers?" ... is that because they were all 'passive smokers'?[/p][/quote]A little bit of research would have stopped you asking such a stupid question. There are many causes of lung cancer, probably the biggest cause is air pollution. chas

12:12pm Sun 5 Jan 14

MrBenggo says...

Chas.
I couldn't care less if you smoke,I have seen some one die directly as a result of their life long addiction to smoking,and believe me when a person is hardly able to breath,even with oxygen,it isn't a pleasant sight.
It is an addiction,no other word for it,and no matter how many no smoking campaigns are run the smokers will have their fix,and I think the no smoking campaigns are a waste of time and money.
You go and kill yourself with your addiction,just don't take down people who don't smoke.
Chas. I couldn't care less if you smoke,I have seen some one die directly as a result of their life long addiction to smoking,and believe me when a person is hardly able to breath,even with oxygen,it isn't a pleasant sight. It is an addiction,no other word for it,and no matter how many no smoking campaigns are run the smokers will have their fix,and I think the no smoking campaigns are a waste of time and money. You go and kill yourself with your addiction,just don't take down people who don't smoke. MrBenggo

6:40pm Sun 5 Jan 14

chas says...

MrBenggo. I don't believe that anbody has said that smoking cannot kill and I am so pleased that I have your permission to smoke, but what do you mean by 'just don't take down people who don't smoke'?
MrBenggo. I don't believe that anbody has said that smoking cannot kill and I am so pleased that I have your permission to smoke, but what do you mean by 'just don't take down people who don't smoke'? chas

6:51pm Sun 5 Jan 14

MrBenggo says...

Chas,
people breathing in your exhaust fumes.
Chas, people breathing in your exhaust fumes. MrBenggo

6:53pm Sun 5 Jan 14

norm says...

chas wrote:
norm wrote:
parmenion says, "Did you know that 80% of people diagnosed with lung cancer in 2012, are non-smokers?" ... is that because they were all 'passive smokers'?
A little bit of research would have stopped you asking such a stupid question.
There are many causes of lung cancer, probably the biggest cause is air pollution.
Chill out, chas. It was meant tongue-in-cheek.
[quote][p][bold]chas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]norm[/bold] wrote: parmenion says, "Did you know that 80% of people diagnosed with lung cancer in 2012, are non-smokers?" ... is that because they were all 'passive smokers'?[/p][/quote]A little bit of research would have stopped you asking such a stupid question. There are many causes of lung cancer, probably the biggest cause is air pollution.[/p][/quote]Chill out, chas. It was meant tongue-in-cheek. norm

6:54pm Sun 5 Jan 14

MrBenggo says...

Roy Castle,the entertainer performed in clubs for many years,when smoking was the normal thing inside,and he contracted lung cancer,his wife set up the "Roy Castle Trust"in his name.
Roy Castle,the entertainer performed in clubs for many years,when smoking was the normal thing inside,and he contracted lung cancer,his wife set up the "Roy Castle Trust"in his name. MrBenggo

6:56pm Sun 5 Jan 14

Parmenion says...

MrBenggo...Don't tell me that you still believe that passive smoke nonsense!...haha...m
an, you most be so gullible!

No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer
http://jnci.oxfordjo
urnals.org/content/e
arly/2013/12/05/jnci
.djt365.extract

...or read here what the scientists (not the sun or the tv) have to say about secondhand smoke.
http://tctactics.org
/index.php/Critical_
Scientists
MrBenggo...Don't tell me that you still believe that passive smoke nonsense!...haha...m an, you most be so gullible! No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer http://jnci.oxfordjo urnals.org/content/e arly/2013/12/05/jnci .djt365.extract ...or read here what the scientists (not the sun or the tv) have to say about secondhand smoke. http://tctactics.org /index.php/Critical_ Scientists Parmenion

7:03pm Sun 5 Jan 14

MrBenggo says...

Parmenion,
so you like breathing in second hand smoke,do you,I prefer not to and Yes I do well believe second hand smoke is harmful,so I prefer not to.
Parmenion, so you like breathing in second hand smoke,do you,I prefer not to and Yes I do well believe second hand smoke is harmful,so I prefer not to. MrBenggo

9:15pm Sun 5 Jan 14

Parmenion says...

By the way MrBenggo, Since it became common knowledge that Roy Castle smoked cigars, the RC Foundation have distanced themselves from the passive smoke debate.
By the way MrBenggo, Since it became common knowledge that Roy Castle smoked cigars, the RC Foundation have distanced themselves from the passive smoke debate. Parmenion

9:24pm Sun 5 Jan 14

Parmenion says...

MrBenggo, the amount of toxins in SHS are so miniscule, they're impossible to be harmful. Take arsenic for example (as this is one of the anti-smokers favourites). What they don't tell you is that you'd have to inhale all the smoke from 165,000 cigarettes to ingest as much arsenic as you'd get from a large glass of water. You've been lied to and misled by the anti-smoker propaganda. If I was you I'd be angry...very angry indeed.
MrBenggo, the amount of toxins in SHS are so miniscule, they're impossible to be harmful. Take arsenic for example (as this is one of the anti-smokers favourites). What they don't tell you is that you'd have to inhale all the smoke from 165,000 cigarettes to ingest as much arsenic as you'd get from a large glass of water. You've been lied to and misled by the anti-smoker propaganda. If I was you I'd be angry...very angry indeed. Parmenion

9:27pm Sun 5 Jan 14

Parmenion says...

Fox, R. Michael
Nuclear scientist and university chemistry professor,USA.
"Of those chemicals present in ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) only a very few can be classified as toxins or carcinogens. Some basic physics, a bit of chemistry and a series of rather simple mathematical calculations reveal that exposure to ETS is hardly a dangerous event. Indeed, the cancer risk of ETS to a non-smoker appears to be roughly equal to the risk of becoming addicted to heroin from eating poppy seed bagels."
Fox, R. Michael Nuclear scientist and university chemistry professor,USA. "Of those chemicals present in ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) only a very few can be classified as toxins or carcinogens. Some basic physics, a bit of chemistry and a series of rather simple mathematical calculations reveal that exposure to ETS is hardly a dangerous event. Indeed, the cancer risk of ETS to a non-smoker appears to be roughly equal to the risk of becoming addicted to heroin from eating poppy seed bagels." Parmenion

9:27pm Sun 5 Jan 14

chas says...

MrBenggo wrote:
Chas, people breathing in your exhaust fumes.
It is you that is talking out of your backside.
[quote][p][bold]MrBenggo[/bold] wrote: Chas, people breathing in your exhaust fumes.[/p][/quote]It is you that is talking out of your backside. chas

9:30pm Sun 5 Jan 14

chas says...

Roy Castle only THOUGHT that his lung cancer was caused by second hand smoke. How would he know the cause of his lung cancer without an autopsy?
Think before making stupid comments.
Roy Castle only THOUGHT that his lung cancer was caused by second hand smoke. How would he know the cause of his lung cancer without an autopsy? Think before making stupid comments. chas

9:49pm Sun 5 Jan 14

Parmenion says...

Chas, an autopsy STILL cannot prove that lung cancer is caused by actual smoking, never mind from secondhand smoke, despite them spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to do so. Scientists have been trying for decades to induce lung cancer from tobacco smoke in everything from golden hamsters to beagles...and it's never happened.
In one 'beagle' test, these cute dogs were subjected to radiation poisoning...with a 100% death rate assured. The scientists were astounded when some of the dogs survived...ironicall
y, those which had earlier been subjected to huge amounts of tobacco smoke!
This might explain the 'Japanese paradox'...where Japan has twice as many smokers (per capita) as America, yet America has twice as many lung cancer victims (per capita) as Japan!
Chas, an autopsy STILL cannot prove that lung cancer is caused by actual smoking, never mind from secondhand smoke, despite them spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to do so. Scientists have been trying for decades to induce lung cancer from tobacco smoke in everything from golden hamsters to beagles...and it's never happened. In one 'beagle' test, these cute dogs were subjected to radiation poisoning...with a 100% death rate assured. The scientists were astounded when some of the dogs survived...ironicall y, those which had earlier been subjected to huge amounts of tobacco smoke! This might explain the 'Japanese paradox'...where Japan has twice as many smokers (per capita) as America, yet America has twice as many lung cancer victims (per capita) as Japan! Parmenion

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree