2 days left for a fag!

[footygirl]

Have to admit I'm a non smoker myself but live and let live is what I say.

Couple of PMs for you Blondie

[austrian_girl]

Every packet sold in this country states that smoking kills. A claim that has never been proven but has been disproven hundreds of times by the mere survival of regular lifelong smokers way past their 100th birthday.

Smoking is a danger to your health but no one really knows to what extent. It may be only a long term effect as smokers live on average 3 years less than non smokers but as smokers generally are less health consious than non smokers that one factor only statistic itself is not proof.

Heart disease and lung cancer account for 95% of all adult deaths in the uk. That's smokers and non smokers alike, a statistic hardly likely to change significantly were we all to stop smoking.

We all inhale in the open air toxins produced from many sources least not the motor car, Carry on as we do burning fossil fuels and our grandkids wont have to worry about smoking the sea levels may well rise and drown them all before they are old enough to buy some fags.

Of course barmen, waiters, singers, musicians, and whoever else works in a pub/bar have the right to be working in an environment that's not hazardous to their health as no one makes them follow such careers. We all give up some safety aspect no matter what our job when we take it on.

The simple solution wanted by the vast majority including the owners of enclosed public spaces was to have seperate smoking and non smoking areas.

Like I said, how this ridiculous law ever got passed is beyond belief.

I really don't intend to argue about the statistics of smoking for I don't know enough about it. I don't know how long non-smokers live and by how much smoking reduces your life expectancy. I don't know how many of the lung cancer patients smoke and to be honest, I don't care to the extent that would make me do some research on the matter. However, I hope we agree that smoking does affect your health to some extent and personally, if a lifetime of smoking would cost me one millisecond of my life, then I wouldn't do it. But each to his own, obviously!

All I can say about the car and fuel issue is that I fully agree. But I'm grateful for every little atom of smoke that I don't have to inhale, even if it only comes from a ciggarette.

"...no one makes them follow such careers. We all give up some safety aspect no matter what our job when we take it on." Am I really reading this? Ok, then let's remove all lead-weighted jackets from x-ray rooms because nobody forces the nurse to take this job. Let's remove all the seat belts in cars because people take their own risks when they get into a car. Let's get rid all the safety precautions in planes because it's their own fault when people fly... Why do I have to risk my health just because I decide to work in a bar? I know some barmen who quit because they couldn't take the smoke any more. And I also know people who would like to quit because of that but can't because they need the money. Most musicians don't have the luxury of rejecting a bar gig because they need the money. Try singing for 3 hours in a smoky bar when you are a non-smoker. You can feel it for days!

Personally, I prefer a ban over the separated areas but I can see where you are coming from, really. I have to agree with elvaago that I wouldn't mind at all if smoking were to be banned totally, however, I don't think it's possible to enforce this.

Apart from all this, I'd like to ask a question to all the smokers that might sound sarcastic but I am 100% serious: How are your gums/teeth doing? (I'm really interested in the answer. Honest.)

[Blondie]

Have to admit I'm a non smoker myself but live and let live is what I say.

Couple of PMs for you Blondie

Hi Susie,

..........so sorry sweetheart, I didn't come back to you, but I'd love to go, sounds wonderful, and may have to lose a little weight though to get into my little black dress. I'm sure yours fits like a glove...

.........and just sents 2 pms....

Lol..........xx

[footygirl]

O.K thanks for that

There is a PM for you

[Blondie]

O.K thanks for that

There is a PM for you

lol.....xx

[PaulTheSoave]

Its just tactics! You did not forget. You just thought, lets not hop on it straight away! hehehehehe I let him sweat a bit!

On topic. I agree with you about the long arm of the state, in certain aspects. But on this one I am not with you. If I have a drink, it does not affect someone else directly, unless I get drunk, being agressive and touchy to the ladies or gents 9whatever side you are batting for), which I never am. I do find it ridiculous though my health insurance is sky high as people still keep on smoking after a lung cancer treatment or folks who are overweight and still visit McDonalds after several bypasses. Moreover the smoke of a cigarette does affect others directly. I could live with a law where there should be separate areas for smoking and non smoking. In restaurants it should be forbidden alltogether as it spoils the appetite and flavours of the food!

Hi pts,

..........and sorry not to come back to you sooner, bed, interesting one, and how silly of me to forget. Bored yet? hehehe lol..xxx..

On topic, and maybe a little bit political here from me, but "the long arm of the state gets even longer". - DISCUSS.

To me, the blanket ban on smoking in public places hasn't really worked, and maybe the property owners themselves should determine whether smoking is permitted. Mind you, I suppose it's debatable whether you can ever actually own a 'public house', even if you have bought it, they are either franchised to a brewery, or in the case of a 'free house' only have autonomy as long as they do not break the terms and conditions of the license. I still think the customers would vote with their feet though.......

And as I mentioned earlier, I only really have the odd one or two socially, and if I'm honest I probably prefer a non-smoking atmosphere, but I still think there's clearly a place for smokers, and even for those who enjoy a smoky atmosphere, inside or outside.



Lol.......xx

[atthebookies]

I second the last opinion. It could have dealt with in mutual agreement, smoking and non smoking areas. If it is not possible legislation should be brought into action. i am often present at the Chelsea after parties and I am disgusted by the smoke in the corridors and bars!! I wont even go into having a decent meal, spoiled by chimneys!

Frank

[Miss_S]

@austrian_girl: My gums and teeth are doing fine.
Been smoking for over 10 years (ooops...it's been THAT long..), but then again,I have strong teeth.

@Wity: I understand where you're coming from, and before we got the ban here, I'd probably agree with a lot of what you're saying. I guess we smokers felt like the gouverment were out to get us,lol.

I guess this ban might have a diffeent impact in countries where people are used to smoke everywhere.
Here in Norway we weren't used to smoking in shops and shopping malls or in hotel lobbies anyway, but I know they are in other countries (which I actually find quite disgusting, to be honest).
We used to have smoking/non-smoking areas here, and that was all well and good. But I actually prefer it the way it is now.

@PTS: Agree with you. Smoking should never be allowed in a restaurant/café, because it's not very pleasant to eat while people are smoking everywhere around you.

[dantuck_7]

Every packet sold in this country states that smoking kills. A claim that has never been proven but has been disproven hundreds of times by the mere survival of regular lifelong smokers way past their 100th birthday.

Smoking is a danger to your health but no one really knows to what extent. It may be only a long term effect as smokers live on average 3 years less than non smokers but as smokers generally are less health consious than non smokers that one factor only statistic itself is not proof.

Like I said, how this ridiculous law ever got passed is beyond belief.

On the smokers that live past 100 years of age - this is not a disproof that smoking kills. You need to look at the percentage of people that live past 100 years that are smokers against non-smokers.

Some people will react different to years of smoking, just as people react differently to alcohol abuse. I have heard that some pubs are installing 'smoking shelters' that are just canopies for people to smoke under - not sure if this is allowed within the smoking ban - as the staff will still have to clean and serve this area. It will be interesting to see how the new law is enforced. There will no doubt be a premises fined in the next few months as an example to others.

I don't really see it as a ridiculous law but they are certain amount of hypocrisies within it. Such as how the government can continue taking the amount of taxes that they do.

[Wity]

On the smokers that live past 100 years of age - this is not a disproof that smoking kills. You need to look at the percentage of people that live past 100 years that are smokers against non-smokers.

Of course its proof you daft bugger.

The goverment catogorically state that smoking will kill you.

Not can. not may, not might, not could, but the word is " WILL

It only one life long smoker lives way in excess of average life expectancy then it proves either he or she had some magic cure / immunity or the claim is false.

Least that's how I was taught English as i did not aways wag it for a smoke the back of the bikesheds.

Heres another one I used to hear said a lot..

"Two thirds of deaths in th Uk are a consequence of smoking related illness"

A lot aint it? Makes you think eh?

Would it be more effective had they said..

95% of adults die from a smoking related illness"

It would woudn't it? Might even have you reachng for the nicotine patches.

Now think about it for a mo...




















OK It's time for the maths lesson.

Question 1.

How can 2/3rds die from smoking when only 13/60ths smoke?


Question 2 will follow let see first how many answer Q1

[davis_greatest]

Of course its proof you daft bugger.

The goverment catogorically state that smoking will kill you.

Not can. not may, not might, not could, but the word is " WILL

It only one life long smoker lives way in excess of average life expectancy then it proves either he or she had some magic cure / immunity or the claim is false.

Least that's how I was taught English as i did not aways wag it for a smoke the back of the bikesheds.

Heres another one I used to hear said a lot..

"Two thirds of deaths in th Uk are a consequence of smoking related illness"

A lot aint it? Makes you think eh?

Would it be more effective had they said..

95% of adults die from a smoking related illness"

It would woudn't it? Might even have you reachng for the nicotine patches.

Now think about it for a mo...




















OK It's time for the maths lesson.

Question 1.

How can 2/3rds die from smoking when only 13/60ths smoke?


Question 2 will follow let see first how many answer Q1

Why are you calling dantuck daft, while littering this thread with nonsense?

The UK Government has not stated that smoking a cigarette will lead to instant death. Therefore, the existence of smokers, at any age, who have not yet been killed does not disprove the statement that smoking kills. The statement in the Goverment's White Paper on Tobacco, that "Smoking Kills", is inescapable fact - at least 120,000 deaths p.a. in the UK are caused directly by smoking, this being the increment in mortality over the number of deaths that would have occured in the absence of smoking.

The fact that neither you nor I have ever been killed by a bullet is not proof that bullets don't kill. The proof that smoking kills is that it has a statistically significant positive impact on mortality. There is not to date one credible analysis in existence of the comparative mortality of smokers and non-smokers that has not reached this conclusion.

You are presumably familiar with CMIR 19, the most recent investigation by the Continuous Mortality Investigation Bureau into the comparative mortality of smokers and non-smokers - in case not, it is here. http://www.actuaries.org.uk/files/pd...ir19/part5.pdf

It is clear that mortality rates are significantly greater for smokers than non-smokers for both males and females at every age and duration. Without quoting here CMIR 19's figures for each age and duration, it suffices to quote the key excerpt of its conclusion: "the conclusion that ... smoking as an indicator is linked to a very serious additional mortality risk remains inescapable".

Please show where the UK Government, the CMI or any other credible body has ever claimed that either 95% of two-thirds of adults die from a smoking related illness.

Now allow me to have a go at your maths puzzles:

"Question 1.

How can 2/3rds die from smoking when only 13/60ths smoke?"

a) It is not true that 2/3 of deaths are caused by smoking. That would imply only 180,000 deaths in the UK each year, from all causes, when the true figure of course is over 600,000.
b) The result of passive smoking means that the number of deaths caused by smoking, including passive smoking, among all individuals exceeds the number of deaths of smokers caused by smoking.

PS Thanks for the maths lesson. I have learnt a lot from your post...

What's question 2 then?

[Wity]

The statement in the Government’s White Paper on Tobacco, that "Smoking Kills", is inescapable fact.

Crap!

That’s as stupid as saying 6 pints of beer will get anyone drunk. It can with some but it doesn't apply to everyone does it?

Suppose you'll be telling us next 1000 deaths are caused each year in the UK by passive smoking. Another load of drivel with absolutely no proof to back it up.

Bottom line is it all depends on what statistics you believe or want to believe. Admittedly I got it wrong when I said a smoker lives on average 3 years less than a non smoker. After 25 years of selling life insurance in the 4 years since I’ve retired I got it mixed up with male/female life expectancy. I suspect the number is closer to 5 although having done a brief Google on the subject the number varies from 4 to 12 not dependent on age but on who compiled the figures.

As I said before though whether one smokes or doesn't is only one factor of many when estimating life expectancy or should I say guesstimating it? Blokes in the North east apparently can increase their life expectancy by moving to the more affluent south of England far more than by quitting smoking. Longer still if they had a sex change op.

No I was not familiar with those tables. I was with G.A.D. tables and life office’s rates though as an I.F.A. But also as a salesman I know the power in the old saying "there are statistics and then there are statistics" better than any actuary and nearly as good as a politician out for votes from the anti smoking majority.

Of course as a salesman I never used the 2/3rds statement, the 95% one got far more reaching for the proposal form. The 95% figure I took from memory of the countless bits of info provided to me by insurers particularly in the critical illness cover market.

Actually I think it was Dr Marius Barnard who I first heard it from about 15 yrs ago. Nice bloke he was, hope he's still kicking he promised me a free heart transplant op if I ever needed it.

[snookersfun]

oh, for crying out loud Wity, what are you at? So, shaving 5 years of your live is well worth smoking? Comes at the wrong end of live anyway?

That is just the dying, what about people suffering nicely and prolonged due to lung-emphysema, heart-problems, insufficient blood supply... all fine for those happily self inflicted, but what about non-smokers living with a smoking spouse, or parents...

I guess most has been said about this subject already, but let me just throw some chemical facts in (as that is my profession):
Mainstream and sidestream gas-phase smoke each have about the same concentration of radicals, about 1x10^16 radicals per cigarette (or 5x10^14 per puff). These radicals are reactive, yet they appear to be remarkably long-lived: they are still spin trapped from gas-phase smoke after more than 5 min.
Radicals in cigarette smoke (mainly alkoxyl radicals, NO and NO2) promote the development of emphysema in the lungs due to inactivation of alpha 1-antitrypsin.

and yes, the radicals are just a tiny part of the problem, other substances (Cigarette smoke contains over 4000 chemical compounds. Many are toxic, and some are known carcinogens) in cigarettes make you addicted, therefore leading to denying facts and decrease in reasoning… How else would people allow all the crap in cigarettes to enter their bodies knowingly...

This here is a good read as well:
http://medicolegal.tripod.com/tobaccoaddiction.htm

have a go and combat all those points one by one!

[Nina]

I started reading this thread yesterday, and I still can't believe there is someone who will support the assumption that smoking is NOT harmful.
I have been thinking of arguments that prove it, but then again I saw the wonderful posts by those with a clear mind being dismissed with an eloquent "crap"!

All I can say is, I KNOW smoking kills because it killed my father. I was going to elaborate on that, but if I get the "nonsense, it was sth else" response I...
don't know what I will do, so I just won't go into the details.

My response to the "freedom of choice" argument is, by all means, feel free to slowly kill yourself (after all it is a given fact that death is not as fast with smoking as with say a bullet, but then again who's in a hurry, right?) BUT if the smoke makes me sick then I demand you take it out of my face. Not smoking in certain areas is not exactly gagging!

A last thing, regarding the Forum: I have read many times that if you disagree with an opinion you must state so on the thread and not just anonymously give negative reputation, and I think that is more than fair. I will therefore say it now that I am going to do so for (well, any one of) Wity's posts, because I find the promotion of smoking dangerous and irresponsible, especially when the argument is "it all depends on which statistics you choose to believe". Considering the fact that there are many teenagers reading this Forum, I dare not imagine the effect such an attitude could have on them (even if the acquittal of smoking is implicit).

[Wim]

While most governements are doing a good job trying to prevent younger people not even to start smoking by well explained campaigns it is indeed - and I refer to Nina - quite irresponsible to try to find arguments are even to try to convince other people that smoking is not dangerous for your health. So individuals who want to smoke just try to only convince yourself it is harmless. And if u keep us out of your smoke no problem. And if it can be prevented that teenages start smoking than it has to be done by all means - when they will be adults and full aware of the risks than they still can choose what they like.