Smoke Free Britain

[thefox]

Originally Posted by asto85

Lungs were not supposed to filter toxins. Anyway, if you smoke- you stink and you have no right whatsoever to make any non smoker stink too.
No technical evidence needed. BUT of course being a smoker -smelling worse than a turd through being in the vicinity is the non smokers fault isnt it FOX?
Arrogance personified --- always!!

Im not doubting that.

But i could say the same after the countless pints that have been split on new shirts which have stained never to be worn again. Atleast smoke washes off in the main.

[asto85]

Originally Posted by thefox

Im not doubting that.

But i could say the same after the countless pints that have been split on new shirts which have stained never to be worn again. Atleast smoke washes off in the main.

HAVE YET TO MASTER THE SKILL OF WASHING MY LUNGS OUT--- WITHOUT DROWNING, but Fox -why are smokers so arrogant?

[Doc]

If you're unable to wash beer out of a shirt, you need a new detergent.

Causation can't be proved even in the case of smokers, any more than it can be proved that drinking impairs your driving. However what you can do is show a correlation which is highly statisticially significant, such that the 'null hypothesis' (i.e. smoking has no link with cancer) can be rejected at that level of statistical significance.

But if you want to go to that level of semantics you don't have to accept that the earth revolves round the sun, that gravity exists, that there really is a country called Australia etc.

However, if you believe that 'active' smoking causes cancer, and you don't believe that passive smoking does, then the logical implications are:
a) There is some threshold value below which it is perfectly harmless and above which you get cancer, and that that concentration is only obtained in 'active smoking', or
b) ALL carcinogens are inhaled by every smoker AND all other by-products are harmless

Even if you're stupid enough to think that, there is still the point about smell etc - and your counterargument in that regard is ludicrous. Smokers who smoke in company KNOW that as a direct consequence of THEIR CHOICE other people suffer (i.e. end up smelling of smoke). The correct analogy would be a 'drinker' who decided to throw his drink in the air knowing that it would land on everybody (drinker and non-drinker) in his/her company. I'd suggest to you that anyone who did that would be heading for a slap in the chops, and rightly so. Would that smokers were the same

[thefox]

Where were you when Richard Smith-ex-editor of the BMJ-admitted in his book that the studies published in the BMJ during his 13 year tenure were woefully inadequate under international standards? Did you miss the chapter he wrote on the amount of junk science they published while he was at the helm?

Did you NOT read the WHO's (IARC) 7 year, 7 nation study that concluded that the link between ill health and SHS (Second Hand Smoke) was over-estimated? Did you miss the part that concluded children with smoking parents were afforded a 22% PROTECTION from their parents smoke? That they were 22% LESS LIKELY to contract lung cancer in later life?

Did you completely ignore the worlds largest SHS study to date (Enstrom & Kabatt 2003)-100,000 people studied over 39 years-that concluded that the risk to non smokers from SHS was "statistically insignificant"?

There has not been one real death from SHS anywhere, ever. I challenge you to find one body. Just one.

The DOH cant, ASH cant,and neither can Cancer Research. You have to read their words carefully, they are all full of might, possibility, maybe, estimate they cannot provide any evidence whatsoever and there lies the problem.

Do we really want laws imposing on people who are not doing any wrong on the back of a pack of lies, well I dont.

The only report that came up with any risk was the EPA who gave a risk factor of 1.19, even this was discredited in court and thrown out after it was discovered that the EPA had fiddled the figures. Anything under a risk of 3 is not considered a risk at all and whole milk has a risk factor of 2.5.

People need to get educated and stop listening to all the junk science that is put out, this in turn makes a laughing stock of scientists who turn out this rubbish, the only thing that they have achieved is a lack of credibility.

Regarding the smell for smoke, my counter argument is ludicrous as thats all i can think off, i did make it clear though that the smell is not in doubt im not disputing that.

Do i smoke ?? thats for you to decide. LOL.

[asto85]

If you smoke FOX is not relevant BUT for certain you have the arrogance of a smoker! Why are 90% of smokers arrogant? OH YES and 100% of the supporters of this disgusting abuse?

[Napoleon Solo]

Surgeon General's report on involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/librar...actsheet6.html

[thefox]

Originally Posted by asto85

If you smoke FOX is not relevant BUT for certain you have the arrogance of a smoker! Why are 90% of smokers arrogant? OH YES and 100% of the supporters of this disgusting abuse?

Im just sparking up now tbh.

[asto85]

Originally Posted by thefox

Im just sparking up now tbh.

Well you should be extinguished promptly:gett1n

[raven]

Why are 90% of smokers arrogant

Because smoking is cool, makes us appear sophisticated and stops us from jogging.

[Winrew]

[Dave Jay]

I smoke but I don't have a dishwasher .. so I've started calling everyone who has a dishwasher a 'lazy fucking moron', for wasting electricity and destroying the planet. I think dishwasher should be banned, as well as all the other stuff I don't do or have that might be considered bad for you/me/children or theenvironment.

The evidence that passive smoking damages your health is actually all made up .. there isn't any real evidence at all .. !

[asto85]

[quo



The evidence that passive smoking damages your health is actually all made up .. there isn't any real evidence at all .. ![/quote]


And you are qualified to make that statement catagorically?
( They still stink, they are still arrogant and they are still inconsiderate morons--- indisputable fact!)

[Dave Jay]

Yes I am qualified to make that statement, thanks !

[thefox]

Me too. Im Dr Fag.

[asto85]

Originally Posted by thefox

Me too. Im Dr Fag.

Yes of course you are - But what does that have to do with SMOKING?:wasntme