kernow

You are trying to guess (wrongly ) what I think! Where did I say I didn't want people opening up smoking Pubs?

Bob FM

* Second hand smoke increases the risk of lung cancer by 20 – 30%
* Passive smoke increases the risk of heart disease by 25 – 35%

I've not bothered with the other they have no scientific basis, self reporting is not science.

Lung Cancer: 20 to 30% increased risk is actually, 1.2 to 1.3 Relative Risk, not absolute risk. 1 is no risk at all, 20% of no risk is scientifically insignificant.
Heart Disease: The same applies.

The use of percentages in this way is designed to con the people into believing passive smoking causes serious or fatal ill health. So let me give you some other % risks that cause cance, now bear in mind what I have said above.

3 cups of coffee a day: 60%
mushrooms ( 1 portion a day): 50%
Whole Milk (1 pint a day): 60%.

Now a question, do you believe the above percentages, because if you do, tens of millions of people are at greater risk of cancer from milk, coffee and mushrooms than from exposure to passive smoke. But of course you are not because they are relative risks if 1.6, 1.5 and 1.6, not absolute risks. The BMA know exactly what they are up to. the BHF tried the same trick and had to formally apologise for misleading the public, using the same heart stats.

Bob FM

Re my last post. If anti smokers wish to know the truth read Center for Public Accountability in Tobacco Control This is the site of Professor Michael Siegel a life long campaigner in favour of smoking bans, and a Public Health specialists. He analysis the lies. He has integrity.

Mark Croucher

Of course, this is not a problem nowadays!

Rgds

M

SponPlague

Unless you're in Zurich

mkpdavies

Or Barcelona.

I went in a smoky pub there, just to remind myself of freedom.

I also went to a club, that had two sections. One smokers, one non smoking.

All the cool good looking people were in the smoking section. That's why I hung out in the non smoking area.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

cassie

_


In a so called democracy, why should not the majority opinion and interests prevail . . . at least once!





-

Geoffrey Collier

Bob FM: This gentleman and many others, are confusing different issues. Legislation is only wrong if it failed to reflect the will of Parliament. That doesn't mean that legislation is necessarily wise or justified by subsequent events. Parliament, rightly or wrongly, banned smoking in public houses, and that made it law.

It is far better that lesgislation is soundly based, rather than restling on flimsy
evidence, but that is largely irrelevant in constitutional terms. Parliament cannot be over-ruled by the scientific establishment, without that power being a threat to the Supremacy of Parliament. I thought it was that, that UKIP supposed to be defending.

Take an exmple , the U.K's first Public Health Act (1848). Concern existed about the effect of polluted water on public health. Separating drinking water from other water courses was deemed prudent; stagnent water holes on pavements were also identified as a possible threat, not to mention cess-pools and general street drainage. It was to be many more years before Dr Snow identified cholera as a water borne disease. If I remember correctly, it took even longer, to finally verify the relationship of typhoid to general filth and dirty water. Are you arguing that the Public Health Act was precipitous and should have post-dated the conclusive scientific evidence?

Parliament was slow in accepting the strong anecdotal evidence concerning
the drug thalidomide. That drug continued to be dispensed lawfully, despite increasing concern about its safely. It wasn't malevolent, or a dereliction of duty by our legislators, it resulted from conflicting evidence from various interest groups. The final consequences were unfortunate and subsequent governments agreed to allocate economic resources to the victims. Have you a similar assurance from the breweries, that they will underwrite any future claims from the customers, should your 'scientific evidence' be found wanting?

There is a debate at the moment about various additives in food. Strong, but not conclusive evidence, suggests that hyperactivity in children, can result from the LAWFULLY added additives in their food. Do you wait another generation before the evidence - one way or the other - is irrefutable, or do we act now?

mkpdavies

Because democracy has no right to tell a man what he can or can't do in his own property, as long has he doens't force people into his property and make them do things they don't want to do.

Democracy DOES have the right to decide truly grey areas, such as smoking on public transport. I fully support banning it on public transport, as I support private indiviuals and companies banning it on their transport, or in their buildings.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Geoffrey Collier

Mk daviesA public house is private property only in a limited sense. Private, relates only to the status of ownership, and nothing else. It's primarily a venue for trade and it's rated accordingly. Would you extend the same right to private shops, factories, warehouses and land? You are not forced to work in a shop, factory or on land, but we are required to seek employment, if we are in need of income. If the ownership status alone, allows exemption from legislation, by what criteria could it ever to imposed? With due respects, I do not feel that you are arguing on firm ground.