Why the hell should I? I'm entitled to breath fresh air and if you feel that you want to pollute it then it's you who should move, and the further away the better.
Smoking
- Thread starter billofengland
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Why the hell should I? I'm entitled to breath fresh air and if you feel that you want to pollute it then it's you who should move, and the further away the better.
Between 1960 and 1998, James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat, two American researchers - fiercely anti-smoking, both of them - conducted a survey of 118,094 Californians in a bid to discover once and for all whether or not the inhalation of other people's cigarette smoke causes heart disease or cancer. Their conclusion? No it doesn't.
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 as being in the pay of "Big Tobacco". Indeed this is partially true - but only because the anti-smoking organisations that originally supported their research (such as the American Cancer Society) dropped them like a hot potato the moment they realised they were failing to reach the "right" answer. Scientists need funds, so their work had to be completed with support from the tobacco industry.
"Passive smoking" in other words is a total lie, invented by health and safety agitators and connived in by the state in order to railroad through an iniquitous law by pretending it's about the "public interest".
Remember, most people have only heard one side of the story....the side which the governments anti-smoking zealots want you to hear.
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 as being in the pay of "Big Tobacco". Indeed this is partially true - but only because the anti-smoking organisations that originally supported their research (such as the American Cancer Society) dropped them like a hot potato the moment they realised they were failing to reach the "right" answer. Scientists need funds, so their work had to be completed with support from the tobacco industry.
"Passive smoking" in other words is a total lie, invented by health and safety agitators and connived in by the state in order to railroad through an iniquitous law by pretending it's about the "public interest".
Remember, most people have only heard one side of the story....the side which the governments anti-smoking zealots want you to hear.
You must log in or register to see media
Last edited by a moderator:
Some people believe the world is flat and that Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Last edited by a moderator:
Between 1960 and 1998, James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat, two American researchers - fiercely anti-smoking, both of them - conducted a survey of 118,094 Californians in a bid to discover once and for all whether or not the inhalation of other people's cigarette smoke causes heart disease or cancer. Their conclusion? No it doesn't.....THIS IS THE BIGGEST STUDY IN THE WORLD, CONCERNING THE EFFECTS OF PASSIVE SMOKING.
So.....where's YOUR "overwhelming" evidence? And by the way......Darwins theory of evolution is not a fact....it's a theory which many top scientists dispute.
I like tabs.
I miss smoking at the match.
I prefer not smoking in bars.
There's my 5 and a half p worth.
I miss smoking at the match.
I prefer not smoking in bars.
There's my 5 and a half p worth.
Of course I'm not saying that ....
People get distressed, and it's worse when it has been self inflicted. Perhaps you have never experienced such grief yourself. Hopefully you never will.
Of course we all die and some ealier than others.
But why hasten the journey .... leaving distress in your wake ?
.... that's all I'm saying...
I have no wish to argue with you.
I respect your autonomy.
THEIR conclusion which was completed 13 years ago has been outstripped by a lot of research since. Anyway my original point was that I returned home from the pub stinking of cigarette smoke and don't try to tell me that your two Yank researchers have proved that cigarettes don't stink.
OK then.....we'll ban something which has been part of the institution of this country for hundreds of years.....because you don't like the smell.
And no....their research HAS NOT been outstripped. THERE IS STILL NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT PASSIVE SMOKING CAUSES CANCER...and that IS FACT.
It's not just me that doesn't like the smell, there's millions of others too and I'm bloody glad we don't have to put up with it any more, If you had anything between your ears that could evaluate information and see sense you'd realise what a load of bollocks you're writing. To quote yourself "you sad twat"
You're a complete joke....just like your arguments. I've offered facts, backed up by written evidence. All you've offered are petty arguments and lies with no foundation whatsoever.
You, like millions of others, have been taken in by the health fanatics and zealots, spouting their propaganda without coming up with the FACTS to back up their lies. As the good book says...."there's none so blind as those that will not see".
P.S. Adolf Hitler also wanted to ban tobacco.
ZIEG HEIL
Just remember the human cost to families...
My father in law died HORRIBLY at 59 with Lung Cancer - 50 a day man
My mother died horribly at 69 with Emphysema - 40 a day
My friend died horribly at 70 with Lung Cancer - Chain Smoker
Yes, it was their own choice .... but they each in their own way brought anger, sorrow and distress upon those left...
In Glasgow they would be revered as Gods for living that long!
OK Davros lets agree to disagree there's no way that we're going to change each others opinions. We've each got millions of backers, so what's the point in a futile argument. just railing on at each other to no avail. i give up on this, but I wont say which of us is right All the best!!
PS All Hitler's ideas weren't bad, only 99% of them.
PS All Hitler's ideas weren't bad, only 99% of them.
James enstrom research is outdated and was likely funded by tobacco company's The World Health Organisation did a study in 2004 that shows passive smoking IS responsible for Upto 600000 deaths worldwide. Also why would the government shoot themselves in the foot by discouraging smoking when they rake in so much tax from it? Sorry but denying passive smoking harms people is ridiculous. I work in the health service and see the evidence daily.
I have to agree with you on some parts of this Bill, but one of my kids smoke Wacky Backy, because she's adopted, as of the age of 11, came from a very neglectful mother and father who were drug abusers, emotional and physical abusers. Father smoked, mother didn't...was only crazier than hell, and I believe she smokes it, because it makes her feel good, and laugh, and be irresponsible, and forget for awhile, what her biological parents did to her. Self-medication, to null the void and pains of the past... is very real, and wacky backy are not the only things people use, to do it with!! I also agree with several other comments made....such as; people should have the freedom to choose, and not be forced by government, but on the other hand, smoke knows no boundaries, but I used to be a heavy smoker, and can sympathize with a smoker's plight, and a non-smoker's as well. I think there should be areas designated for the smokers, out of the cold weather elements, equally as comfortable, as the non-smoker's section, and the choice to enter, or NOT, still be given to the people, where it should always have stayed.... The insurance companies of these tobacco companies, from lawsuits over lung cancer, and what not, have a major play in all of this, but what they fail to realize is, people have the choice of smoking or not, some can quit, some can't, but there are other factors out there that help, and it's still a choice, whether they want it or not!!! Both of my parents died from smoking, so I can relate to the anger, the hatred of smoking, because it caused the loss of loved ones, but you have to know at some point, that they died doing what they loved to do, whether it was smoking, or doing whatever else they wanted, that made them comfortable and happy, because it wouldn't have mattered if my parents quit or not, they were too far gone in their disease, and it wouldn't have brought them back, that's for sure... They have air purifiers, ionizers, and other mechanical devices out there, that can be used, if people choose to smoke in pubs! It's the pub owners that suffer as well, trying to please their customers on both sides, and still loose in the end, as government dictates....and it's our own fault, for allowing them to take.... our freedoms to choose away!!
James Enstrom was fiercely anti-smoking. His 38 year study into the results of passive smoking was, infact, funded by anti-smoking groups such as The American Cancer Society. When, after the worlds biggest ever study, he was asked for his results....these organisations dropped him like a hot potato, for failing to come up with the "right" answer.
It was AFTER this that the tobacco companies started, obviously, to fund his research. THIS IS ALL FACT....not fiction. Passive smoking IS fiction, and the zealots who push it, have harrassed governments worldwide into enforcing draconian laws.
You may see people daily with cancer, or heart disease, and these people may come in contact with "second hand smoke", but you CANNOT say it is caused by breathing in other peoples smoke. SCIENTISTS CANNOT OFFER ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THIS. THIS IS FACT!!!
Smoking is a killer.....passive smoking isn't.
Don't believe everything you hear. Don't believe the health zealots, and certainly, don't believe me!......Check the FACTS out for yourself!
Ok then....truce
and I apologise for arguing my point so vehemently. Its just because I've done quite a bit of research into the results of passive smoking, and its a subject which is really emotive to me, when I hear all the "uneducated" lies being spouted on tv and radio daily, by the so-called experts.
HAWAY THE LADS!!
never smoked never wanted too but your choice your life however what i dont like is when they breath the smoke in your face
Darwins theory is, what it is......a theory.
Second hand smoke, according to the FACTS, is safe.....yes.
The overwhelming evidence supports the theory that smoking, whether passive or not, is harmful to health; but ha'way man, it doesn't take scientific studies to know this: anyone with a grain of sense must realise that breathing toxic fumes directly into your lungs is not going to do you much good!