Smoking

Wahey! The smoking article is up and running again!
Right let's get stuck in! Davros I hold you personally responsible for melting all those icebergs and triggering the beginning of the apocalypse!!!! ;-)

Good luck Billo

 

I thought this thread had burned itself out weeks ago..

 

oh i dont blame him, he is a miracle of modern science, just by him smoking a cig somehow means the smoke that he breathes out and the smoke that comes from the other end of the cig is magically transformed into harmless vapor, its like the 2nd coming of christ

 

Regardless of what you may have heard, the scientific establishment has found it impossible to reach agreement on the issue. Interviewed on BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs on 23 February 2001, Professor Sir Richard Doll, the first scientist to publish research that suggested a correlation between lung cancer and primary smoking, commented: “The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me.” Professor Doll’s comments surprised some people, but not those who have analysed the arguments about ETS in detail.

 

The idea that tobacco smoke, heavily diluted in the atmosphere, can kill or seriously harm large numbers of non-smokers is so implausible that the anti-smoking lobby has gone to exceptional lengths to foster a fear of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), also known as secondhand smoke (SHS) or “passive smoking”.

While it is perfectly legitimate for people to express a dislike of the smell of tobacco smoke or say it causes them some discomfort, the distortion of scientific, statistical, methodological, and research procedure to provide a medical justification for banning smoking in public places is not acceptable, least of all as a pretext for removing the rights of ten million British adults.

Are non-smokers at risk from ETS?
Regardless of what you may have heard, the scientific establishment has found it impossible to reach agreement on the issue. Interviewed on BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs on 23 February 2001, Professor Sir Richard Doll, the first scientist to publish research that suggested a correlation between lung cancer and primary smoking, commented: “The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me.” Professor Doll’s comments surprised some people, but not those who have analysed the arguments about ETS in detail.

•World Health Organisation
In March 1998 the World Health Organisation was forced to admit that the results of a seven-year study (the largest of its kind) into the link between passive smoking and lung cancer were not “statistically significant”. This is because the risk of a non-smoker getting lung cancer had been estimated at 0.01%. According to WHO, non-smokers are subjecting themselves to an increased risk of 16-17% if they consistently breathe other people’s tobacco smoke. This may sound alarming, but an increase of 16-17% on 0.01 is so small that, in most people’s eyes, it is no risk at all.
•Greater London Assembly report
In April 2002, following an exhaustive six-month investigation during which written and oral evidence was supplied by organisations including ASH, Cancer Research UK and Forest, the Greater London Assembly Investigative Committee on Smoking in Public Places declined to recommend ANY further restrictions on smoking in public places, stating very clearly that it is not easy to prove a link between passive smoking and lung cancer. As joint author of the report, Angie Bray put on record her opposition to a total ban on smoking in public places in a letter to the Daily Telegraph (5 July 2003). According to Bray: “The assembly spent six months investigating whether a smoking ban should be imposed in public places in London. After taking evidence from all sides, including health experts, it was decided that the evidence gathered did not justify a total smoking ban.”
•Enstrom/Kabat study
In May 2003, the British Medical Journal published a study that seriously questioned the impact of environmental tobacco smoke on health. According to the study, the link between environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed. The analysis, by James Enstrom of the University of California, Los Angeles and Geoffrey Kabat of New Rochelle, New York, involved 118,094 California adults enrolled in the American Cancer Society cancer prevention study in 1959, who were followed until 1998. The authors found that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, was not significantly associated with death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time or at any level of exposure. These findings, say the authors, suggest that environmental tobacco smoke could not plausibly cause a 30% increased risk of coronary heart disease, as is generally believed, although a small effect cannot be ruled out.
•House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee report
In July 2006 the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee published a report on the management of risk. One of the subjects they looked at was passive smoking. The committee, whose members included former Chancellor Lord Lawson, concluded that, “Passive smoking is an example in which [government] policy demonstrates a disproportionate response to a relatively minor health problem, with insufficient regard to statistical evidence.”
No clear connection
The simple fact is that in terms of establishing a clear causal connection between exposure to ETS and illness in non-smokers, the anti-smoking industry has continually failed to prove its case.

One of the few scientists who managed to publicise attempts to measure significant exposure to environmental tobacco smoke - in Swedish homes - was a toxicologist, Professor Robert Nilsson. Nilsson quoted findings that showed that non-smokers who consistently breathe other people’s tobacco smoke are smoking the equivalent of one cigarette a week to two cigarettes a year.

Yet only the most diligent or scrupulous students will have heard of such findings because, as Professor Nilsson explained, studies that produce the “wrong” results (that is, unwelcome to the extensive anti-smoking network) do not get published. So the campaign of intimidation and suppression goes unchallenged.

So why are we told that “passive smoking kills”?
Anti-smoking campaigners are determined to stop people smoking. The suggestion that smokers are harming non-smokers is a carefully orchestrated means to an end. The argument that an adult has the right to choose whether or not to indulge in a legal activity can be undermined if it is established that they are harming others. ETS is a very effective weapon with which to demonise smokers and justify their calls for a blanket ban on public smoking. But as they have been unable to prove that “passive smoking kills”, the anti-smoking lobby propagate a falsehood hoping that “a lie told often enough becomes the truth”.

Why do doctors and health authorities support the claim?
There is a “party line” on passive smoking and dissent is neither encouraged nor welcome. Some understand that the claims are not sound but they conclude that obscuring the truth about passive smoking is acceptable if it helps people to quit smoking. Others fail to speak out for fear of professional retaliation.

If the science on ETS is so flawed, why don't doctors and scientists speak out?
Some doctors and scientists have spoken out but they are shouted down by an antismoking movement which is well-organised, well-funded, and on a roll. Those who have dared stick their heads above the parapet include the late Dr Ken Denson of the Thame Thrombosis and Haemostasis Research Foundation who wrote, “The ill effects of passive smoking are still intuition rather than scientific fact, and billions have been spent by the medical institutions in pursuing this illusory myth” (British Medical Journal, 1 August 2004).

Dr Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, famously commented, “We must be interested in whether passive smoking kills, and the question has not been definitively answered” (British Medial Journal, 30 August 2003).

 

****ing hell, glad you gave us the short version

p.s im a part time smoker, but never indoors

 

As a singer who plays in pubs and clubs in the North East - OI have never smoked in my entire life - however, before the smoking ban a few years ago, my Dr sent me for a chest scan when I contracted a bronchial infection. The person who did the scan advised me I had to stop smoking immediately or I would end up with serious illness for a long period. I have NEVER smoked anything and the only reason for this could be the second hand smoke from the clubs and pubs I was playing in.

Since the ban I have found my vocals are much better and I can sing for 3 or 4 nights on the bounce without any problems - when the smoking was allowed I could only play for 2 nights before experiencing problems - and at that time I was getting vocal coaching too.

Davros - I don't need facts to tell me that it was second hand smoking that made me ill - passive smoking caused my bronchial infection and lung Cancer has killed 2 of my singing friends that also never smoked - may not be substantive evidence but it's all I need to tell me that second hand smoking isn't exactly good for you.

PS Davros - I'm not fishing for an argument mate - each to their own as far as I'm concerned but for me the ban has been good - obviously as a non-smoker (the ban also saved my dad as he had Heart disease caused by smoking and he gave up smoking shortly before a bypass due to the smoking ban)

 

Facts can be manipulated to fit anything. I know I worked with Statistics for years. An example is 50% of the people present supported smoking. There were 2 people present. Smoking is bad for you. Second hand smoking does kill (Roy Castle was a prime example). It is also technically assault if someone inhales your smoke.

 

Bill, you're effin mad, mate. Luv ya.

 

Davros are you receiving brown envelopes from Mr Benson and Mr Hedges? And how come your happy to cite the world health organizations 1998 findings now but refused to acknowledge them when I cited their more recent study which highlighted the risk to passive smoking! Come on you can't have it both ways!

 

It is not technically assault - I don't ask you to inhale my smoke. Ha, ha! It's a silly argument, isn't it? Why don't I sit in a properly defined Smoke Room and you sit in the other part fo the pub? Seriously, do any of us need this politically correct crap? I fully respect your right not to breathe my smoke - I genuinely believe you're right. All it takes is for you to acknowledge that to put 30% of the population out in the sleet and snow for the 'crime' of disagreeing with ASH is not the mark of a civilized country and we're home and dry. This country - smoker and non-smoker alike - does not need foot-stamping bossy little brats like ASH. We can very easily work it out without those bozzos - I sit in the Smoke Room and you stay out of it - simple or what?

 

It just depends on the person. i have smoked for nigh on 30 years, and had 0 chest complaints at all, i bet if you lived in Redcar you would have asthma and god knows what else from the steel industry, i have lived here for 9 years, wife for 39 and had no problems. (but others do)

in all honesty though, i do believe in the smoking ban, especially on public transport, when it first came into force on busses, it would make me feel sick if someone was smoking at the back of the bus (and i dont get travel sicknes), even going over to florida for 8 hours was OK, even though i couldnt have a smoke for all that time, and never slept once there or back.

I personally think it makes it more pleasurable to go out without a smoke filled room, even though, i myself do smoke.

I just dont like the way the non smokers come off telling us what we can and cant do, but i have always been like that with anything lol

 

stop your moaning and put that out now( I was a smoker, can you tell)

 

I have been a smoker for nearly 40 years, but have to say that I agreed with the smoking ban in pubs/clubs etc. I can still remember standing at the bar, chatting to my mates with my eyes stinging and streaming because of all the smoke and don't ever want to go back to those days thank you.

These days, it's nice to go for a meal and a drink in pubs that don't have brown ceilings and stink of stale smoke. I'm quite happy to stand outside to smoke, as I do the same at home.

 

When I put this thread on to start with, was about smoking, in the stands, if you like, everybody did in those days.,,,,you cant change history,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,people smoked,,,,,,,,,,,,,, as your parents did, what did they have otherwise thn a pint and s ***, nowadays thats even less, thank you gorden blair.

 

hope you enjoyed your visit to blighty mate welcome back

 

...and this should remind everyone why it wasn't a good idea to smoke in stadiums. The cause was found to be a discarded cigarette landing in some rubbish that had accumulated under the stand. Be aware that if you haven't seen this before, it's graphic and upsetting.

 

Was good rog, met nieces for the first time, 15 year old twins, class mate, happy as can be, NOW,,,,,,,,,,,,,, back, and ready ,,,bring em on. thanks for the support ROG.

 

I wasn't going to get any further into this ,but, here goes. Firstly, your 2 BIG FACTS.


1. Enstrom was fired from his post at University of California and Los Angeles last year.

Have you actually looked into WHY he was fired?....Basically, he spoke out about new laws in California which are going to ban diesel vehicles because, they say it will prevent 2000 deaths per year from diesel fumes. His studies found that the figure should be nearer 0. It's really quite interesting! http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/31/pc-professors-firing-fueling-exhaustive-debate/

2. This study you identified was funded by Philip Morris Int a rather large american tobacco company.
Alarm bells ringing yet?

Indeed this is partially true - but only because the anti-smoking organisations that originally supported his research (such as the American Cancer Society) dropped him like a hot potato the moment they realised he was failing to reach the "right" answer. Scientists need funds, so his work had to be completed with support from the tobacco industry.

You say smoking is a killer in one sentence but then also state its just burning leaves! So which is it?

No contradiction there. Smoking IS a killer, and they ARE burning leaves....which, when inhaled DIRECTLY into the lungs, can be deadly.

Also if you accept smoking is a killer do you believe that the person inhaling that smoke somehow purifies it in their lungs before exhaling thus rendering it inert and harmless?

I'm not a medical expert, so I don't know exactly how it works. What I did read, was that someone who comes into constant contact with SHS, "smokes" the equivelent of TWO cigarettes per year. This is a miniscule ammount, and certainly not the raging killer which ASH would have us believe.

Look I can see you love smoking and are passionate about defending your pleasures (and i support your right to smoke) but you need to look at the bigger picture and not just cling onto one study that supports your own beliefs.

Believe me, I've done bucket loads of research into SHS and its effects, and I'm not clinging onto one study. It's just that the Enstrom / Kabatt study is the worlds biggest, and, as they were both fierce non smokers, it's what initially aroused my interest in the topic.
A question that came to me today....If passive smoking is so bad, then why do passive smokers never get addicted to cigarettes!!?? I'll have to do some research into this one!

One last thing....I don't love smoking, I've been addicted for over 40 years. Thanks for supporting my right to smoke!....wish ASH would feel the same!

Last word....I dont like to argue with a fellow mackem but please understand when my knowledge and beliefs are questioned i will stand up for myself, much like yourself