Out of date & out of touch! - Page 2

TannyD · 24-04-2008, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Butcher

This doesn't appear to be part of anything... it is just a lone article against smokers. I assumed that it was part of a wider debate.

Is this really about having a pop at Farage... a heavy smoker... and positioning him as 'out of touch and out of date'?

If you are having a pop at Farage then you are also having a pop at the rest of the smokers in the process...

Mark Croucher · 24-04-2008, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gc

[ Medical evidence strongly suggests otherwise....... most especially in the light of overwhelming medical evidence. Yes indeed there is always conflicting scientific evidence on issues, but in regard to smoking and the damaging effect it has on not only smokers’ health but also on ‘passive smokers’, the evidence is overwhelming.

No, it doesn't suggest otherwise, it is less than overwhelming, no, it is not conflicting, it all says it has no effect and the 'dangers' of passive smoking do not exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smoking Out The Truth FOREST

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."
........
In 1992, for example, the American Environmental Protection Agency published a report that was said to demonstrate the link between passive smoking and ill health in non-smokers. In 1996 however a US federal court ruled that the EPA had completely failed to prove its case. It was found not only to have abandoned recognised statistical practice, but to have excluded studies which did not support its pre-determined conclusion
.........
in 1997, the National Health & Medical Research Council in Australia was found guilty by a federal court judge of acting improperly in preparing its draft report on passive smoking because it didn't consider all the relevant scientific evidence and submissions
........
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 has 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.
........
the Economist (15 March 1998), pointed out that, 'It is dangerous to become involved in campaigns that are not solidly based on scientific evidence' and added: 'Although passive smoking is unpleasant and irritating for non-smokers, that alone cannot justify banning it in public places.'
........
in July 1999, in its draft Approved Code of Practice on Smoking at Work, the United Kingdom's Health and Safety Commission declared that, 'Proving beyond reasonable doubt that passive smoking ... was a risk to health is likely to be very difficult, given the state of the scientific evidence.'
..........
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.
........
In 2003 the British Medical Journal, no friend of tobacco, published an explosive, peer-reviews study that seriously questioned the impact of environmental tobacco smoke on health (16 May 2003)........ 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. Particular focus was on the 35,561 never smokers who had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits........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.

Now go away, stand in the corner, do some proper research, and come back when you have an argument against smoking that is not based on personal dislike of cigarette smoke. As I've said before, I dislike the smell of cabbages, Lynx (boom chick-a wow wow) deodorant and Kebabs. I could find equally spurious reasons why they should be banned, but in a libertarian society, you have to put up with some of the things you don't personally like lest you infringe others freedoms. It's called tolerance, a commodity which is in increasingly short supply.

Rgds

M

tito · 24-04-2008, 07:11 PM

Bravo Mark.

The fact of the matter is that nobody has any right to be in a pub full stop. If I was a landlord I'd be half tempted to kick out those who agreed with the smoking ban.

Mark Croucher · 24-04-2008, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tito

Bravo Mark.

The fact of the matter is that nobody has any right to be in a pub full stop. If I was a landlord I'd be half tempted to kick out those who agreed with the smoking ban.

The sad truth is that with the smokers staying at home, if I kicked out those who agreed with the smoking ban, who would I sell beer to?

Its a pretty tough time in the industry - don't take my word for it, Punch Taverns, Enterprise Inns and Mitchell & Butlers, the big 3 pubcos, are all issuing profits warnings which, if anything, understate the problem that operators such as myself are facing. My rent has gone up by 6%, rates by 7%, electricity & gas by 5%, beer by 11%, all since January. The only things that have gone down are my margins and general footfall.

Look at yesterday's reports on rising food costs: £15 a week increase over recent months. Factor in the increased cost of fuel: another £10 a week. Higher council tax: another £5. What have you got? One night out a week less. And then look at the response to the budget by pubs and supermarkets: I had no choice but to put 10p on the pint, and even that was less than the brewery put on my costs. Sainsbury's, on the other hand, responded by cutting the price of beer.

And here's a thought for you. The pubs worst hit are the old style community locals, which rely upon a relatively small number of regulars from a limited catchment area. And these are located in residential areas. How much would it help the government to meet its housebuilding targets if these sites were redeveloped as brownfield sites to provide housing? And with a significant number of these pubs occupying relatively large plots, large enough for, say, 2 small blocks of flats with 10 flats in each, how much beer would the brewery have to sell to make the freehold value?

Rgds

M

Bob FM · 25-04-2008, 09:09 AM

Let me firstly say, I am a non smoker. Let me also say I am a UKIP Chairman for Swindon, a PPC and local candidate. I have also spent 4 years investigating the effects of passive smoke, and they are scientifically insignificant, as well as the bulk of the science saying so, so does the OSHA in the States and the UK's own H&SE, which is why HMG had to bring the ban in under the DoH. Even if the smoke were an irritant of pre-existing conditions it can be removed from the air. Who says that, ASHRAE, the experts on ventilation and filtration. They revised their policy in May 2007 which effectively said that adjacent smoking/non smoking areas can be 100% clear of any contaminants with modern HEPA Filter, Ultra Violet systems. Mr Wise is also out of touch with UKIP who have made it a manifesto pledge to re-visit the smoking ban and change the regulations to include choice. In fact in a recent piece of research into the effects of the ban on UK hospitality, the forward is written by Godfrey Bloom MEP.
http://www.ukip.org/ukip/images/stor...moking_gun.pdf

UKIP's support of the rights of smokers and their tolerant non smoking friends has led William Hill to contend that UKIP in elections could now benefit from potentially 20 million votes because of the ban. Politically we would be stupid as a Party to ignore that. I think Tom is out of Touch.

Geoffrey Collier · 25-04-2008, 08:14 PM

For all kinds of reasons, pubs have been on the decline for decades. I am sure that the smoking ban hasn't helped, but that is just another factor in a long process. Smoking is class related, it is practised more among the lower social groups than the higher professional ones. I find it difficult to believe that the smoking ban will be changed, although some kind of accommodation for those indulge in those habits, no doubt, will be found.

If you are a smoker, pension providers will give you a better pension, confident that they will not be paying you too long. Yes, there will be the heavy-smoking centenarian, but insurers have actuarial evidence that smokers do not live as long as non-smokers. They also have poorer health
and cost the Health Service more, but they can confidently be given a larger pension while a-waiting their final car ride. Do we have any actuaries on this web? Life is a quest for definition, evidence and statistical probability. Leave all else to the public house philosophers.

a swansong 4 europe · 25-04-2008, 09:16 PM

Hail tobacco, long live the cancer sticks! So, smoking is ok because the science is wrong?? If it is so safe, then why ban it for under 16s, or 18s or whatever?

Comparisons with cabbages and deodorant etc is the most stupid pile of total ***** I have ever heard, as I would have no fear about ill health from say cabbages for my kids, but offering them a woody? Get real, the art form is on its way out and serves no benefit to any ones health, period.

The idea that opposing smoking is somehow facist is also equally fuckwitted.

If UKIP starts the pro-smoking approach it will LOSE votes, be assured of that.

steve fowler · 25-04-2008, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a swansong 4 europe

Hail tobacco, long live the cancer sticks! So, smoking is ok because the science is wrong?? If it is so safe, then why ban it for under 16s, or 18s or whatever?

Comparisons with cabbages and deodorant etc is the most stupid pile of total ***** I have ever heard, as I would have no fear about ill health from say cabbages for my kids, but offering them a woody? Get real, the art form is on its way out and serves no benefit to any ones health, period.

The idea that opposing smoking is somehow facist is also equally fuckwitted.

If UKIP starts the pro-smoking approach it will LOSE votes, be assured of that.

It isnt your right to tell the public they can smoke or not at the end of the day so get over it!.

mkpdavies · 25-04-2008, 09:23 PM

Mark Croucher · 25-04-2008, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

. They also have poorer health
and cost the Health Service more, .

Contribution to the exchequer of smokers in tobacco duty..... £ 9bn
Cost to health service of 'smoking related diseases'*............ £ 1bn
Amount you'd have to pay in tax if smoking was banned........ £ 8bn

*'smoking related disease' - any form of heart disease in a smoker, regardless of whether it is equally prevalent among non-smokers or not. Alternatively, any form of heart disease in a non-smoker who has worked in a smoke-filled environment, regardless of whether it is equally prevalent amongst non-smokers who have not worked in a smoke-filled environment.

Rgds

M

25-04-2008, 09:09 AM	#15 (permalink)
Bob FM Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 33	Tom Wise is Out of Touch Let me firstly say, I am a non smoker. Let me also say I am a UKIP Chairman for Swindon, a PPC and local candidate. I have also spent 4 years investigating the effects of passive smoke, and they are scientifically insignificant, as well as the bulk of the science saying so, so does the OSHA in the States and the UK's own H&SE, which is why HMG had to bring the ban in under the DoH. Even if the smoke were an irritant of pre-existing conditions it can be removed from the air. Who says that, ASHRAE, the experts on ventilation and filtration. They revised their policy in May 2007 which effectively said that adjacent smoking/non smoking areas can be 100% clear of any contaminants with modern HEPA Filter, Ultra Violet systems. Mr Wise is also out of touch with UKIP who have made it a manifesto pledge to re-visit the smoking ban and change the regulations to include choice. In fact in a recent piece of research into the effects of the ban on UK hospitality, the forward is written by Godfrey Bloom MEP. http://www.ukip.org/ukip/images/stor...moking_gun.pdf UKIP's support of the rights of smokers and their tolerant non smoking friends has led William Hill to contend that UKIP in elections could now benefit from potentially 20 million votes because of the ban. Politically we would be stupid as a Party to ignore that. I think Tom is out of Touch.

25-04-2008, 09:23 PM	#19 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,287	__________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

25-04-2008, 08:14 PM	#16 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 409	For all kinds of reasons, pubs have been on the decline for decades. I am sure that the smoking ban hasn't helped, but that is just another factor in a long process. Smoking is class related, it is practised more among the lower social groups than the higher professional ones. I find it difficult to believe that the smoking ban will be changed, although some kind of accommodation for those indulge in those habits, no doubt, will be found. If you are a smoker, pension providers will give you a better pension, confident that they will not be paying you too long. Yes, there will be the heavy-smoking centenarian, but insurers have actuarial evidence that smokers do not live as long as non-smokers. They also have poorer health and cost the Health Service more, but they can confidently be given a larger pension while a-waiting their final car ride. Do we have any actuaries on this web? Life is a quest for definition, evidence and statistical probability. Leave all else to the public house philosophers.

25-04-2008, 09:16 PM	#17 (permalink)
a swansong 4 europe Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 54	Hail tobacco, long live the cancer sticks! So, smoking is ok because the science is wrong?? If it is so safe, then why ban it for under 16s, or 18s or whatever? Comparisons with cabbages and deodorant etc is the most stupid pile of total ***** I have ever heard, as I would have no fear about ill health from say cabbages for my kids, but offering them a woody? Get real, the art form is on its way out and serves no benefit to any ones health, period. The idea that opposing smoking is somehow facist is also equally fuckwitted. If UKIP starts the pro-smoking approach it will LOSE votes, be assured of that.