tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post7675409673129802400..comments2024-03-25T18:49:00.608+00:00Comments on The Pub Curmudgeon: Hate campaign breeds hatred shockCurmudgeonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02558747878308766840noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-82420907164568388912012-03-02T07:38:39.172+00:002012-03-02T07:38:39.172+00:00Now, you're being silly, Lapsed. It isn't ...Now, you're being silly, Lapsed. It isn't what's being said. It's a MASSIVE exaggeration that doesn't warrant the authoritarian clout that's been applied. Even you must see that some are benefiting from it, Pharma, Taxpayer funded rent seekers such as Sandford, Pell, Arnott, etc. and last, but not least, Govts. seeking to spread control of your, and my, life and lifestyle.<br /><br />Even your old granny could have told you that too much of anything isn't too good for you and she was right. But note, 'too much' not none at all. If they had insisted on strict, powerful, filtration systems (or close down) it could be understood but a total ban? It stinks of other agendas and isn't justified by the 'research'. I will not go into the so called 'research', I could write reams on how rubbish it is!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-34138716951202415522012-03-01T23:50:31.563+00:002012-03-01T23:50:31.563+00:00Jonathan, as already stated I have nothing against...<i>Jonathan, as already stated I have nothing against smokers / smoking. I smoked myself for years. I think it's unfair that you should be prevented from forming a smoking club as you described above. I also agree that an intolerent / prohibitionist brigade are getting louder and louder. If smoking pubs were to reopen it wouldn't bother me.</i><br /><br />In which case, you are in the vast majority. About the only people who can't see this are daft MPs who are browbeaten by the massed ranks of health bullies. The same ones - and I mean the very same people in many cases - who are now going after normal, respectful beer drinkers.<br /><br /><i>To accuse non-smokers of thinking of smokers as Scum is childish.</i><br /><br />This, however, is a bit naive. When a government adviser begins recognising what we have all seen first hand, there is little left to defend. The campaign of 'denormalisation', instigated by the CMO Liam Donaldson, has done exactly that with smokers. The same principle is being openly promoted towards alcohol.<br /><br />You're clever enough to see through it, without doubt, but the policy relies on the weak-minded not to be as intelligent.Dick Puddlecotehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01481866882188932892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-71883691789997179262012-03-01T21:22:53.766+00:002012-03-01T21:22:53.766+00:00Hook, line and sinker...
They love people like yo...Hook, line and sinker...<br /><br />They love people like you.nisakimannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-79142344342272883282012-03-01T20:03:48.183+00:002012-03-01T20:03:48.183+00:00'Smoke can stay in the air for up to two and a...'Smoke can stay in the air for up to two and a half hours.'<br />Propaganda can stay in simpletons brains for ever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-13337679815692180962012-03-01T18:54:21.070+00:002012-03-01T18:54:21.070+00:00And Elvis works in a chipper in Blackpool!!
And t...And Elvis works in a chipper in Blackpool!!<br /><br />And the Magic Bullet theory was proven to be true!!<br /><br />So smoking doesn't cause cancers, isn't bad for you general health and the medical authorities are in numerous countries are lying, to help cessation product companies make millions. Look, it's a Gloucester Old Spot behind that cloud.Lapsed Catholicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-31914934852155104152012-03-01T15:52:24.060+00:002012-03-01T15:52:24.060+00:00"Lapsed Catholic said...
Gary here's...<i>"Lapsed Catholic said...<br /><br /> Gary here's some facts from the NHS, maybe you missed it.<br /><br /> Is passive smoking dangerous?<br /><br /> Yes. Breathing in someone else’s cigarette smoke (passive smoking or secondhand smoking) can increase your risk of cancer and other health problems. It is also particularly harmful for children."</i> <br /><br />LC, I am 62 years old, and so, like the rest of my generation, grew up in the fifties and sixties. In those days, Tobacco smoke was inescapable. Virtually everyone smoked, so the vast majority of kids grew up in a home with at least one smoking parent. Who smoked in the home, in the car, and everywhere else they went. There was smoking in buses, trains, planes, libraries, hospitals, cafés, government offices, restaurants; in fact pretty much everywhere. So us lot who are now in their sixties quite literally grew up in a constant fug of tobacco smoke.<br /><br />So how do you reconcile the fact that we are the healthiest and longest-lived generation yet? <br /><br />How do you reconcile the fact that when we were kids, childhood asthma and multiple allergies were almost unheard of? In fact, as smoking has decreased, childhood asthma has increased.<br /><br />Odd that, isn't it? You would almost imagine that exposure to tobacco smoke is actually not harmful to kids, but on the contrary, it is beneficial. The evidence would certainly indicate that that is the case.<br /><br />Doesn't it ever occur to you that the <i>actualité</i> doesn't quite tie in with the propaganda? Has it never occurred to you that this whole debacle might be happening because a bunch of puritanical zealots have managed (with massive funding) to get into a position to lobby government about their pet mania? Are you unaware of the fact that the pharmaceutical companies, for whom NRT and smoking cessation products are a billion dollar industry, have donated hundreds of millions of dollars to organisations worldwide that lobby for smoking bans?<br /><br />Do you not <b>smell a rat</b>?nisakimannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-26979361531745481782012-02-29T21:11:36.773+00:002012-02-29T21:11:36.773+00:00As for SHS and lung cancer deaths:
Lung cancer is...As for SHS and lung cancer deaths:<br /><br />Lung cancer is a very rare disease and only(USA) 2/10,000 per year never smokers will die from it.<br /><br />SHS exposure causes a 25% increased risk of death to 2.5/10,000 deaths.<br /><br />Not dying = 9,997.5/9,998 = 99.995%<br /><br />SHS exposed never-smokers have 99.995% of the non-exposed never smokers chances of not dying from lung cancer.<br /><br />Gary K.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-22629487023655278942012-02-29T21:00:43.148+00:002012-02-29T21:00:43.148+00:00LC,
2006 SG's Report also says that stroke in ...LC,<br />2006 SG's Report also says that stroke in not proven to be caused by SHS/ETS exposure.<br /><br />As for all those toxic chemicals:<br /><br />Here is a list of 33 of the 188 toxic pollutants the EPA has found will be in CLEAN smoke free, air. <br /> <br /> Some you may recognize as being in cigarette smoke and there are some that are not found in cigarette smoke. <br /> <br /> http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/mapconc.html <br /> <br /> <br /> Acetaldehyde-Acrolein-Acrylonitrile-Arsenic Compounds-Benzene-Beryllium Compounds-1,3-Butadiene-Cadmium Compounds-Carbon tetrachloride-Chloroform-Chromium Compounds-Coke Oven Emissions- 1,3-Dichloropropene-Diesel Particulate Matter-Ethylene dibromide-Ethylene dichloride-Ethylene oxide-Formaldehyde-Hexachlorobenzene- Hydrazine-Lead Compounds-Manganese Compounds-Mercury Compounds-Methylene chloride-Nickel Compounds-Perchloroethylene-Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)-Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM)-Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (7-PAH)-Propylene dichloride-Quinoline-1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane- Trichloroethylene-Vinyl chloride<br /><br />Gary K.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-29316678668197330402012-02-29T19:46:41.650+00:002012-02-29T19:46:41.650+00:00Gary here's some facts from the NHS, maybe you...Gary here's some facts from the NHS, maybe you missed it.<br /><br />Is passive smoking dangerous?<br /><br />Yes. Breathing in someone else’s cigarette smoke (passive smoking or secondhand smoking) can increase your risk of cancer and other health problems. It is also particularly harmful for children. <br /><br />Smoke stays in the air<br />When someone smokes a cigarette, the smoke from the burning tip stays in the air. So does the smoke they breathe out. Smoke can stay in the air for up to two and a half hours. It may still be there even if you can’t see it or smell it. <br /><br />This also applies in small enclosed places, such as cars. Smoke may still be present in large amounts even after the person has stopped smoking.<br /><br />Risks of passive smoking<br />Passive smoking can damage your body because secondhand smoke contains more than 4,000 toxic (harmful) chemicals, many of which are known to cause cancer. Passive smoking from all forms of tobacco is harmful, including: <br /><br />•cigarettes <br />•cigars <br />•pipe tobacco <br />•hand-rolling tobacco <br />Frequent exposure to other people’s smoke can increase your risk of lung cancer, even if you’re a non-smoker.<br /><br />Passive smoking also increases your risk of other smoking-related conditions. These include:<br /><br />•coronary heart disease <br />•heart attacks <br />•angina (chest pain) <br />•heart failure <br />•strokes <br />•chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) <br />•pneumonia (inflammation of the lungs) <br /><br />This could go on for ever, lets agree to disagree.Lapsed Catholicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-32010743996745257342012-02-29T19:11:54.642+00:002012-02-29T19:11:54.642+00:00LC,
Here is a report that you missed.
The 2006 Sur...LC,<br />Here is a report that you missed.<br />The 2006 Surgeon General's Report says that SHS/ETS exposure does NOT cause:<br /> <br />1. breast cancer.<br />2. a risk of nasal sinus cancer among nonsmokers.<br />3. a risk of nasopharyngeal carcinoma among nonsmokers.<br />4. the risk of cervical cancer among lifetime nonsmokers.<br />5.for persons with nasal allergies or a history of respiratory illnesses to be more susceptible to developing nasal irritation from secondhand smoke exposure.<br />6. acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among persons with asthma.<br />7. acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among healthy persons.<br />8. chronic respiratory symptoms.<br />9. an acute decline in lung function in persons with asthma.<br />10. an acute decline in lung function in healthy persons.<br />11. a small decrement in lung function in the general population.<br />12. an accelerated decline in lung function.<br />13. adult-onset asthma.<br />14. a worsening of asthma control.<br />15. risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease(emphysema and chronic bronchitus).<br />16. morbidity in persons with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.<br /><br />Gary K.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-58196731954352672302012-02-29T17:53:09.062+00:002012-02-29T17:53:09.062+00:00Jonathan, as already stated I have nothing against...Jonathan, as already stated I have nothing against smokers / smoking. I smoked myself for years. I think it's unfair that you should be prevented from forming a smoking club as you described above. I also agree that an intolerent / prohibitionist brigade are getting louder and louder. If smoking pubs were to reopen it wouldn't bother me.<br /><br />Every report that I have read has stated that passive smoking adversely affects peoples health. To call it speculation is disengenous. To accuse non-smokers of thinking of smokers as Scum is childish.Lapsed Catholicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-68780829598247812642012-02-29T17:45:21.087+00:002012-02-29T17:45:21.087+00:00"It was, as has been later admitted by severa..."It was, as has been later admitted by several of those involved, to lower smoking prevalence, which here, and in many other countries, it has spectactularly failed to do. "<br />JB,<br /><br />And evidence from before the ban<br /><br />"I hope that in 10 years’ time we<br />will be much closer to the situation where <b>smoking is no<br />longer as socially acceptable. That’s what this ban is about -<br />cultural change.</b>" - <a href="http://pubcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2011/03/she-would-say-that-wouldnt-she.html" rel="nofollow">Dr Linda Bauld, April. 2007.</a><br /><br />Not protecting staff after all but deliberate <b>stigmatisation of a minority</b>.<br /><br />Fredrik.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-88349201908326701812012-02-29T17:29:55.823+00:002012-02-29T17:29:55.823+00:00Cooking lager, I'm sorry to disappoint you but...Cooking lager, I'm sorry to disappoint you but truth is not "a relative based on a perspective within a zeitgeist". No wonder I couldn't make head or tail of your comments. I had my mathematician/scientist head on.<br /><br />LC, I am jon56 who back in 2010posed the question in the Guardian which you linked to at<br /> <br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jul/27/smoking-ban-human-rights-act<br /><br />I regretted not wording my question tightly enough. As I said in one of my comments below the article, I was trying to elicit a response to why private smoking clubs with membership by invitation only, staffed by volunteers, are banned; yet I can get together with a few friends and attempt a very dangerous rock climb. The answer, of course, is that the purpose of the smoking ban was not to protect employees. It was, as has been later admitted by several of those involved, to lower smoking prevalence, which here, and in many other countries, it has spectactularly failed to do. All it has achieved is to to lead a group of people to think it now their right to be able to walk into any non-residential building and object if things are not exactly to their liking.Jonathan Bagleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17331501151709216753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-78299253237896551282012-02-29T17:08:52.972+00:002012-02-29T17:08:52.972+00:00Lapsed Catholic,
If smoke-free restaurants and pub...Lapsed Catholic,<br />If smoke-free restaurants and pubs were abolished then that would force people to either stay at home or <br />subsidise places that they would not go to were there smoke-free alternatives. To my knowledge no government has ever abolished smoke-free restaurants and pubs in the history of this species. Even when smoking prevalence was 90% males and 50% females - no such laws were passed. Publicans did not ever go to prison if they refused to put ash trays on the tables when smokers were the voting majority.<br />These are facts and not delusional. <br />If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.<br /><br />FredrikAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-37752875449388230622012-02-29T16:35:22.691+00:002012-02-29T16:35:22.691+00:00Who is forcing you to subsdise pubs and restaurant...Who is forcing you to subsdise pubs and restaurants? I do pay for my life style choices, I am not trying to dictate your choices to you. <br /><br />Do you seriously think that the governments of the countries with smoking bans are forcing their smoking citizens to subsidise the pubs and restaurants used by their non smoking citizens? Or is it only the UK government?<br /><br />Not only are you persecuted, I'm afraid you have become delusional.Lapsed Catholicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-83799642566978609002012-02-29T11:46:48.866+00:002012-02-29T11:46:48.866+00:00"I believe it damages my health. Is that a ha..."I believe it damages my health. Is that a hate crime?" - Lapsed Catholic.<br />No, it is a speculation. What arguably makes it a hate crime is when a speculation<br />is used to abolish the pubs and restaurants smokers use in order to force smokers to subsidise the pub and restaurants<br />you want to use.<br />Pay for your own life style choices and leave us alone.<br />Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-68566193810227072722012-02-29T11:26:04.844+00:002012-02-29T11:26:04.844+00:00The links provided by Anon are not to the Daily Ma...The links provided by Anon are not to the Daily Mail, therefore they cannot be true.<br /><br />I am not anti smoking, if you want to smoke then that is your business. As for smokers being thought of as "Scum" that's just more of the persecution complex that some people suffer from. I don't want to inhale your second hand smoke. I believe it damages my health. Is that a hate crime?Lapsed Catholicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-56934274773657280932012-02-29T11:16:17.680+00:002012-02-29T11:16:17.680+00:00Lapsed Catholic
You may find this one particularl...Lapsed Catholic<br /><br />You may find this one particularly interesting.<br /><br />Analysis Reveals that Institute of Medicine Report Failed to Include Data that Found No Effect of Smoking Bans on Acute Coronary Events in 3 Countries<br /><br />“I have analyzed the data which the Institute of Medicine included and failed to include in its report and today, I reveal that the report failed to consider data from three countries <b>England, Scotland, and Wales</b> which seem to clearly show that the smoking bans in these countries had no significant short-term effect on acute coronary events. <br /><br />These data are all national data which include all hospital admissions at all hospitals in these countries.<br /><br />Thus, they represent a better source of data than what was used in some of the published studies (which only included a sample of hospitals).<br /><br />Moreover, they cover large populations, with a sample size greater than that of all other studies combined. Thus, the data from these countries are critically important an carries much weight in the overall analysis.”<br />http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/10/analysis-reveals-that-institute-of.html<br /><br />I trust his calculations because for some inexplicable reason, he'd really like the secondhand smoke/heart attack theory to be true.<br /><br /><br />RoseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-18568359631721858762012-02-29T10:48:06.851+00:002012-02-29T10:48:06.851+00:00You didn't misread me Jon, you are a bunch of ...You didn't misread me Jon, you are a bunch of fringe loons.<br /><br />The truth isn't an absolute, it's a relative based on a perspective within a zeitgeist. <br /><br />You wouldn't be a bunch of loons on mainland europe.<br /><br />Whether you win is not based on the quality of your argument, it is based on how your argument is received. You need to stop making the argument, alter the zeitgeist, then make it again.Cooking Lagerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02830924433230427226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-15057353139341840672012-02-29T10:37:22.260+00:002012-02-29T10:37:22.260+00:00Lapsed Catholic,
Smoking bans do not cause a drop ...Lapsed Catholic,<br /><a href="http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&q=AMI+site:http%3A%2F%2Ftobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com&oq=AMI+site:http%3A%2F%2Ftobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=12&gs_upl=3565l3565l2l4620l1l1l0l0l0l0l109l109l0.1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=5db63c371ab589de&biw=950&bih=370" rel="nofollow">Smoking bans do not cause a drop in heart attacks.</a> <br />It's is completely untrue.<br /><br />Fredrik.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-54725673195086404192012-02-29T09:11:19.147+00:002012-02-29T09:11:19.147+00:00Fred, I've stopped going anywhere that employs...Fred, I've stopped going anywhere that employs people outside of "office hours". I couldn't have mass deaths on my hands. But because I'm otherwise occupied during said hours I haven't contributed to my local economy or community since you highlighted my murderous ways. May even chane my sogn in to Pol Pot.<br /><br />Mudgie when it come to smoking in pubs you and others seem to have a wee bit of a chip on the ol shoulder. I maintained that the ban was to protect workers health.<br />This article seems to agree, it's not the Daily Mail, but still<br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/jul/27/smoking-ban-human-rights-act<br /><br />Even if you all you smokers are the most persecuted section of society the health benefits are there for all to see. From the redoubtable Dail Mail, therefore it must be true<br />http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1213180/Smoking-ban-led-dramatic-fall-heart-attack-rates.htmlLapsed Catholicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-21267182912912981482012-02-29T07:35:02.398+00:002012-02-29T07:35:02.398+00:00This piece is just another angle of the 'trash...This piece is just another angle of the 'trash' view. Note it's accepted we're trash so now let's start to feel sorry for us poor addicts.<br /><br />We understand you're the poor, uneducated, helpless, morons and we're now here to help you.<br /><br />F**k off!Franknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-10196379470596770102012-02-29T02:37:14.971+00:002012-02-29T02:37:14.971+00:00I know this view of smokers as an oppressed and re...I know this view of smokers as an oppressed and reviled minority suits the theme of this blog, but that doesn't reflect real life as I see it, and I mean that in relation to the many of my friends who smoke. No one took much notice of the staff in my office who went for a fag, and the people I know who revile smokers are few and far between. In fact, I can't think of one, and I know a lot of people.<br /><br />Either I live in an unreal bubble (a very large unreal bubble), or some people are exaggerating for effect.Neville Grundyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10923209266005338452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-9306285162039310602012-02-28T23:10:29.135+00:002012-02-28T23:10:29.135+00:00Stono is right to an extent - irrespective of time...Stono is right to an extent - irrespective of time taken to do so, if I announce at work that am having a pint at luchtime people gasp and start assessing me for yellowed skin. And going for one on my own - what am I? a sot? Seems so...<br /><br />I think the anti smoker hate campaign suggested is present but not prevalent yet. Maybe its more noticable in social settings where a minority smoke? <br /><br />Almost everyone i go drinking with smokes, most of my house guests do and most of my colleagues do. Since i Have lots of really good friends who smoke its pointless for me to demonise them. Maybe ostracising smokers is a means to an end. The less support for smoking the easier the habit is to condemn.wee beefyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16922755344809968104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-84532754346915282492012-02-28T22:20:03.181+00:002012-02-28T22:20:03.181+00:00I dont think the two things conflate, alot has cha...I dont think the two things conflate, alot has changed in the workplace in the last 25 years <br />regular surveys throw up stats like more than half of UK workers never take a lunch break, and of those that do the large majority have it their desk or take less than 20mins, people increasingly work more than their contracted hours.<br /><br />this isnt anything to do with pubs/beer or the social acceptability of drinking, these are things that have come about due to pressures in the work environment employees feel they are now in, fear of losing a job is much greater fear than conforming to somekind of anti drinking movement, weve simply become a nation of workaholics.Stonohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02656315721111561414noreply@blogger.com