It's not necessarily the health risks directly caused by passive smoking (cancer eg.) but being around smoke may get kids hooked more effectively than if there wasn't any smoke around.
Haha!....well done! I was waiting for someone to mention the record breaker! Roy Castle died of lung cancer. HE blamed it on passive smoking because he spent a lot of time in smokey jazz clubs, but there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to say this is the case. Unfortunately, lots of folk, smokers and non-smokers, die of lung cancer. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...d-for-you-but-is-it-really-so-bad-454412.html
Ok I get it, you don't want to hear alternative arguments so continue to cling to that one study which stinks to high heaven and ignore the more recent up to date and more ethically funded studies. You still didn't explain your contradictions by the way! Enjoy your tabs
Take off your bloody blinkers man! 1.FACT...These two scientists were funded by The American Cancer Society for 40 years! 2.FACT...The ACS stopped their funding because their work didn't produce the "right" answer. 3.FACT...Scientists need funds, so their work had to be completed with support from the tobacco industry. So why are the results of the world's only large-scale, long-term survey in this field not more widely appreciated? Because these honest scientists have been ignored by governments and smeared by health campaigners and MrRAWhite as being in the pay of "Big Tobacco". Thats it.....rant over....truce
That ONE study remains, to this day, the biggest study ever taken into the subject. And how, exactly, does it stink to high heaven?.....because it goes against your views? Wake up and smell the coffee. "The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views"
Passive smoking? It's all lies, damn lies and statistics 12:01AM GMT 21 Nov 2004 In the absence of proof, health campaigners use smoke and mirrors, writes Robert Matthews Smokers can hardly say they didn't see it coming. The partial ban on smoking in public places proposed in last week's White Paper has been on the cards ever since 1997, when scientists claimed to have conclusive evidence that smokers were killing innocent bystanders via "passive smoking". Until then, the idea that non-smokers could also die from cigarette-induced lung cancer and heart disease had seemed like health-zealot paranoia. For decades scientists had tried to measure the risk in dozens of studies, but three-quarters of them came up empty. Then, in October 1997, the British Medical Journal published two studies by researchers from St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, which pulled all these inconclusive studies together and put them through the statistical mangle. Out dripped the result that many just knew was in there: evidence that passive smoking leads to a 26 per cent increased risk of lung cancer, with a similar increase for heart disease. This was the turning point in the long-running debate over smoking and health. For years, anti-smoking campaigners had sought ways of getting the habit banned, but had been frustrated by the lack of proof that smokers were harming anyone but themselves. Now they had what the scientists themselves hailed as "compelling confirmation" that passive smoking causes lung cancer and is an "important" cause of ischaemic heart disease, or stroke. Ever since, it has been open season on smokers, who are now routinely accused of killing 1,000 people each year in the UK. Meanwhile, the scientific foundation of such claims has steadily vanished behind a veil of political correctness. Even if the results are accepted at face value, the impressive-sounding risk figures for lung cancer and heart disease imply that passive smoking accounts annually for one extra death in every 10,000. Yet those who attempt to question the reality - let alone the importance - of the threat from passive smoking are condemned as fools or lackeys of the smoking industry. No one knows this better than Professor James Enstrom of the University of California. He was the principal investigator on a huge study of the health effects of living with smokers, which was begun by the American Cancer Society in 1959. Covering more than 100,000 people, it was expected to produce the definitive answers that had eluded smaller studies.By the late 1990s, it became clear what that answer would be; unfortunately for Prof Enstrom, it was not the right answer. Funding for the study was suddenly cut off and he was compelled to accept funding from the only organisation apparently interested in the outcome: the tobacco industry. Despite insisting that his results were in no way influenced by the industry, Prof Enstrom's study was rejected by several journals. His paper finally appeared in 2003 in the British Medical Journal - and showed absolutely no evidence for a link between passive smoking and either heart disease or lung cancer. Prof Enstrom was immediately attacked for failing to reach the right result. Critics seized on his acceptance of tobacco-industry funding, with even the American Cancer Society, which had set up the study, dismissing the study as nothing more than a propaganda exercise. Such tactics have become a standard feature of the passive smoking debate. After reporting the failure of a World Health Organisation study to confirm the supposed risks from passive smoking, campaigners attempted to have this newspaper censured by the Press Complaints Commission; they failed. Privately, some scientists and anti-smoking lobbyists concede that the evidence for the lethal effects of passive smoking is less than compelling. Yet they insist that qualms over the scientific evidence should not get in the way of the ultimate goal: the elimination of an avoidable cause of more than 100,000 deaths in the UK each year.
No bother at all Davros: I have loads of mates who smoke, and they won't listen to reason either.. However, they are still mates and we stick together through thick and thin....
Well lads and lasses, been away to sunny Sunderland for a brief spell, the response to this thread has been, shall we say various. in my statements I said It was not about the pros and cons of smoking, just about realy the differences over the years, be it club. pub or arena, and as a smoker who goes outdoors for his fix, and is respectful of other folk, [ i dont smoke indoors] can I have some respect from you folks who get pissed and spew up, when I am out with my lady, could you also please stop fffffiinn and blindin, when Im in company, can you please keep the noise down, and above all can you spare a thought for other people, who maybe dont think like you? discussion not dictation,,,,,,,,,,,,,,end of.
MackemsRule View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message View Blog Entries View Articles Add as Contact Senior Member Achievements: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Join Date Jan 2011 Location Sunderland Posts 1,238 Points 4,266 Level 41 Rep Power 2 A 3 *** read, wow not many of them on here. Makem, was stating " things have gone forward since I was a lad" but as you can see, it went a bit pear shaped, in my statement , I said not about the pros and cons of smoking. I honestly thought it would get about fifty viewers, ten replys, so maybe it realy was contentious, ,,,,,,,debate,,,,,,wonderful thing eh?
Aye mate nowt like a good debate. I have a couple of interesting points on the whole thing, they shall have to wait another day though, as the malt has got my heed and the smoke got in my eyes.
Just to put the cat back amongst the pidgeons. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...d-for-you-but-is-it-really-so-bad-454412.html carry on folks,
This article is very much done tongue in cheek: I particularly liked his positive reason for smoking as it hides the stench of smelly farts...Brilliant!
Although a smoker myself , I fully understand other peoples points of view, I dont smoke in my house, that is respect for the wife, we are in process of divorce, amicable, but if I was a twat I could be a rotten ****, but costs nowt to go outside. spoiled the pubs though, the one I had, has gone to the wall, but I saw what was coming and got out sharpish, still lost a bit of money though.
Sorry I meant to say this bloke is a good writer, got to find more of his articles, reckon hes a bit of a lad.
got to change the music, find some music makes me drive faster, drink more, smoke more why is that, anyone else think the same way , or as that teenage asshole trolling ninja right about a carer, raquell welch would be ok,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Well I think so.
as Ive said Iam a smoker a good tab, a good pint, in good company, BLISS. http://www.forestonline.org/ THIS IS FOR ONE FOR ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
