Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
24-04-2005, 01:13   #31
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphaph
Says the WHO is more like it.
Nice pun.
Quote:
Cigarrete smoke contains hundreds of known carcenogens. That's all the proof I need that breathing it in is a bad idea.
And th air is full of such things from all the cars etc. What about all the crap in the food chain? The list is endless.
Quote:
Just because you don't 'buy into' the passive smoking is a killer thing, doesn't mean you should get to take chances with other people's lives. Fair enough?
No, because its question-begging.
Eriugena is offline  
Advertisement
24-04-2005, 04:02   #32
SeanW
Registered User
 
SeanW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,111
I don't smoke. You probably do. That is your choice. However when you smoke in a confined space where I am, I have to breath in high concentrations of poisonous substances. Plus I have to wash all my clothes as they completely reak of YOUR TOBACCO SMOKE. If the smoking-ban were revoked, and I were in a bar, could I get all the smokers to pay my increased healthcare costs and dry-cleaning/washing bills?

Quote:
No, because its question-begging.
The only question-begging is why you want to force the general public to risk their health because you like to smoke and "don't buy" into mainstream science?

Quote:
And th air is full of such things from all the cars etc. What about all the crap in the food chain? The list is endless.
Lame. Those things would be there anyway and they are all issues in and of themselves. Besides none are as unpleastent or unhealthy as large concentrations of cigarette smoke. Besides car fumes are outdoors. If we're taking your ridiulous example of air pollutants from cars, then surely if you should be allowed to smoke in a bar, I should be allowed to bring my car into the pub and rev up the engine

Or - if I bottled all the crap in tobacco smoke and put into a spray can, would you object to me spraying the can in your face? Into your mouth? All over your clothes? I imagine you would have a BIG objection to that. "Oh, but the air is full of bad stuff" ...

Last edited by SeanW; 24-04-2005 at 04:06.
SeanW is online now  
24-04-2005, 04:15   #33
SeanW
Registered User
 
SeanW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,111
Here's a list of the crap that's in cigarette smoke:

http://www.safeguards.org/pages/t_contains.asp

If you want to smoke that stuff, that is your call - its your life, your health to use or abuse as you choose. However, I shouldn't have to stay out of all indoor public places simply to avoid it.

There is a multitude of evidence to prove that smoking, and indeed passive smoking is bad. If you don't buy into it, that's your business. Just don't expect anyone to take your stance seriously.

Last edited by SeanW; 24-04-2005 at 04:19.
SeanW is online now  
24-04-2005, 08:45   #34
murphaph
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,011
Anyway, moving on (cos the perenial smoker's rights v everyone elses will never be settled), I hate to see IE staff in particular all smoking on the platforms. Sets a very bad example. Munich recently banned smoking on the platforms of all stations on the S-Bahn. It was not a popular move!
murphaph is offline  
24-04-2005, 09:22   #35
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanW
I don't smoke. You probably do. That is your choice. However when you smoke in a confined space where I am, I have to breath in high concentrations of poisonous substances. Plus I have to wash all my clothes as they completely reak of YOUR TOBACCO SMOKE. If the smoking-ban were revoked, and I were in a bar, could I get all the smokers to pay my increased healthcare costs and dry-cleaning/washing bills?
That's part of the traditional pub atmosphere. Cigarettes go with pint drinking. If you don't like it don't go to pubs. Instead, the self-righteous have destroyed pubs in their quest to feel high and mighty and vindicated. If it is not this its some other issue.

Quote:
The only question-begging is why you want to force the general public to risk their health because you like to smoke and "don't buy" into mainstream science?
Sorry, that's not true. There are also studies which show no passive smoking. I would bet that "passive" smoking was orginally invented by some smart American lawyer.
Quote:
Lame. Those things would be there anyway and they are all issues in and of themselves.
No, those things are there because people put them there. More specifically, corporations put them there. The food chain has not become polluted on its own. The ozone hole did not get there on its own, and the polar ice caps will melt because of the emissions that seem to bother you less than a bit of smoke in a pub. These things are far more serious than a bit of smoke on your jacket. But then its easier to hit on smokers especially when the law has been changed to facilitate this. I was gratified to notice that hospitals reported a sharp spike in people being admitted to hospital with broken noses when they introdced the ban, i.e. to self-righteous triumphalists making comments to those outside.
Quote:
Besides none are as unpleastent or unhealthy as large concentrations of cigarette smoke. Besides car fumes are outdoors. If we're taking your ridiulous example of air pollutants from cars, then surely if you should be allowed to smoke in a bar, I should be allowed to bring my car into the pub and rev up the engine
I like your analogy because it exposes the falsity of your argument immediately. If you revved your car in a pub everyone within would be dead inside ten minutes.

Last edited by Eriugena; 24-04-2005 at 09:26.
Eriugena is offline  
Advertisement
24-04-2005, 16:55   #36
SeanW
Registered User
 
SeanW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,111
Quote:
I like your analogy because it exposes the falsity of your argument immediately. If you revved your car in a pub everyone within would be dead inside ten minutes.
You're the one who compared cigarette smoke to car emissions. Not me. It was of course just a fluff - "there's bad stuff out there anyway" - was your argument, but it was totally irrelevant. YES CAR FUMES ARE OUTDOORS, SMOKE IS INDOORS. This discredits your fluff immediately. IT WAS YOUR ARGUMENT

Quote:
If you don't like it don't go to pubs.
Ireland has a pub culture. It is not acceptable to tell 75% of the population "just don't go to the pub." Also, is it acceptable to tell bar-workers unions (who supported the ban) "your members are a bunch of crybabies - just suck it in." Of course not But it's not just pubs. You call into question the whole problem of second hand smoke. That means if you had your way, smokers could smoke anywhere. That means myself - and the vast majority of people in Ireland who do not smoke, would have to stay away from bars, offices, and public transport, like trains and DART stations which was the original topic of this thread. So should 75% of the population be reduced to hermits because you like to smoke everywhere?

As for all the "no-ban" campaigns and alarmist nonsense against bans, most of it is tobacco industry propoganda.like this interview for example.

Not co-incedentally, 70% of the population have reported improvements in their pub experiences since the ban was introduced. The Dept. Of Health did a follow up survey and made some staggering findings. Read them here.
  • 82% support the Smoke-Free at Work measure;
  • 90% agreed that going smoke-free is of benefit to workers;
  • 82% agreed that it benefits everyone in public places;
  • 95% agreed that the legislation is a positive health measure.

So thankfully, you are in a small minority. The health and comfort of the country has improved and will continue to improve substantially, because this government actually showed some moral fortitude and didn't whore itself to the tobacco lobby as so many governments have done. BRAVO MINISTER MARTIN.

Also see here,
Quote:
The government said people who work in smoky pubs are as much as 30% more likely to get heart disease, while tobacco-related illnesses are blamed for 7,000 deaths per year.
That is substantial, and if you want us to take you seriously you need something substantial to refute it, and "I don't buy it" doesn't count.

Quote:
I was gratified to notice that hospitals reported a sharp spike in people being admitted to hospital with broken noses when they introdced the ban, i.e. to self-righteous triumphalists making comments to those outside.
So you admit that you support random acts of violence against people who disagree with you? Final nail in the coffin of your ridiculous argument.

Please lets get back to the topic. Maybe you should bring this debate to the "skeptics" forum ...

Last edited by SeanW; 24-04-2005 at 17:03.
SeanW is online now  
24-04-2005, 17:13   #37
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanW
Please lets get back to the topic. Maybe you should bring this debate to the "skeptics" forum ...
Do you think it could happen that by permitting smoking on its premeises, IE risks being sued by smoking commuters who fall ill as a result of being allowed to smoke?
NewDubliner is offline  
24-04-2005, 18:54   #38
Victor
Registered User
 
Victor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 72,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriugena
Exceptions means smoking/non-smoking parts of pubs etc.
Smoking parts of pubs is the equivalent of pissing areas in swimming pools.
Victor is offline  
24-04-2005, 19:16   #39
DublinWriter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 9,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphaph
I'll take it you've never watched anyone die of cancer.
I have, and guess what? I'll let you into a little secret, non-smokers AND non-drinkers die of cancer everyday.

To be honest, I hope this doesn't turn into a smoking/non-smoking debate.

There's a wider issue here. We Irish are becoming more English than the English themselves, a petty, tetchy little nation of rule lovers. Churlish to the point of anality.

Listen Bud, if the government really cared about the nation's health do you think that they'd let 350+ people lie on trollys in A&E departments around the country as was the case last week? Do you think that they'd let a 90 year old spend two days sitting on a chair *waiting* for a trolley?

Scratch beneath the surface and you'll find out that everything done politically so far in this country since Sean Lemass has been for the politcial embetterment of individual politians so far.

Open your eyes and take a look around you and you'll see that there are far, far worse problems than second-hand smoke in this country of ours.

Personally, I'm not potlical insofar that I don't support any particular party.

However, I don't think there's a lamp-post high enough on Kildare St. to string most of the current lot from.

Just remember this little factoid nugget - Spain is currently tops the EU chart for life-expectancy. Spain is also highest in the EU chart of smokers per capita.

Stick that in yer pipe and smoke it!
DublinWriter is offline  
Advertisement
24-04-2005, 22:05   #40
murphaph
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by DublinWriter
Just remember this little factoid nugget - Spain is currently tops the EU chart for life-expectancy. Spain is also highest in the EU chart of smokers per capita.
Classic "my old man smoked 400 cigarretes a day and it did him no harm" kind of sh!te. You are clearly implying that you believe smoking does not increase the risk of cancer. It does. Whether or not your fact is true does not effect this reality. Other factors will have positive effects on life expectancy (not eating deep fried mars bars etc. will help the spaniards live longer).

You won't find any argument here about there being many other issues we also need to tackle in this country. As for us becoming more english than the english.....well to be honest mate, I hate the "ah sure'in it'll be grand if ye ignore rule x" bollo**s that we espouse here. It's bending rules that has urban sprawl all over this city. Sure it'll be grand to build all these houses. Rules and the rule of law are very important in modern mature SOCIETIES. In tribal times they weren't.
murphaph is offline  
30-04-2005, 23:20   #41
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 6,796
The original poster should contact Office of Tobacco Control for advice on the legal situation regarding train stations. He should also give consideration to contacting the MD/Chairman/Health & Safety manager of CIE/Iarnrod Eireann to get them moving.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriugena
The law is a tyrnnical one, brought in at the behest of nanny-statists, without any real discussion and with no exceptions.
The 'no discussion" arguement is factually incorrect. The HSA did an extensive public consultation programme, with online submissions and public meetings. Remember the big brouhaha about the publicans in Sligo (IIRC) being ejected from the meeting. This programme was extensively advertised. Did you bother your arse going to one of the meetings? I guess not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriugena
I don;t buy this "passive smoking" thing. You can find studies to prove anything if you need them. .
Of course, you can choose not to 'buy' it if you wish, but you are ignoring swathes of medical evidence. The HSA commissioned a study from leading public health experts who were non-aligned on smoking issues in 2002/2003. The study reviewed all available data and concluded there was a genuine, serious risk from passive smoking. The data is there - it may not suit your opinion, but that doesn't change the data.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriugena
What about all the crap in the food chain? .
Unless you go forcing your food down other people's throats, this is not relevant. You can still choose to continue to smoke, you are just restricted from inflicting the effects of your addiction on other people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriugena
That's part of the traditional pub atmosphere. Cigarettes go with pint drinking. If you don't like it don't go to pubs. Instead, the self-righteous have destroyed pubs in their quest to feel high and mighty and vindicated. If it is not this its some other issue.
Ludicrous - Why should the 75% majority of non-smokers suffer to accomodate a small minority (and that's without even thinking about the many smokers who are in favour of the ban). If you don't like the ban, you don't go to pubs. This is the same oul guff we got 20-30 years ago when drink-driving became socially unacceptable. It was foolish then, and it is foolish now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriugena
Sorry, that's not true. There are also studies which show no passive smoking. I would bet that "passive" smoking was orginally invented by some smart American lawyer.
Please show your sources? Show us just one study published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal carried out by medics who have not recieved funding from tobacco companies which shows no danger from passive smoking?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriugena
I was gratified to notice that hospitals reported a sharp spike in people being admitted to hospital with broken noses when they introdced the ban, i.e. to self-righteous triumphalists making comments to those outside.
Please show your source for this myth also?

If smoking ever comes back into pubs, I'm going to take up the habit of bringing my urine in a little squeegy bottle to the smoking pubs and spray it round. After all, it is my god-given right to spray my waste products into your hair, your clothes, your eyes, your mouth - right?

It's about time we had some serious enforcement on the littering problem too? Did you realise it takes 12-15 years for a butt to biodegrade? 15 years of litter - just because many, many smokers can't be bothered to carry a little container that keeps their rubbish to themselves.

Last edited by RainyDay; 30-04-2005 at 23:23.
RainyDay is offline  
30-04-2005, 23:27   #42
Chalk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,222
Quote:
Secondhand smoke

In the last newsletter, I mentioned that Penn and Teller were challenged at James Randi's Amazing Meeting 2 last January regarding their Bull****! episode that claimed the studies on secondhand smoke were bogus. I said I'd look into it. I did and P & T are right. Almost everybody who claims that the scientific evidence supports the claim that passive smoking causes 3,000 lung cancer deaths a year cite a single source: our own Environmental Protection Agency's 1993 report.

The EPA's data show no significant link between passive smoke and lung cancer. Even after lowering the standard from p=0.05 to p=0.1 (i.e., from a one in twenty to a one in ten chance of a spurious correlation), they were still able to get a relative risk of only 1.19. According to John Brignell, "risk ratios of greater than 3 are normally considered significant. One might even stretch a point and go down to 2, but never lower" (Sorry Wrong Number, p. 129). Yet, the EPA has not backed off. Neither has the World Health Organization, which published a study in 1998 that concluded: "Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS [environmental tobacco smoke] and lung cancer risk." The WHO study also noted that there was only "weak evidence" for a risk of lung cancer from spousal or workplace ETS. Yet WHO put out a press release that contradicts their own conclusions.

There have been other studies on secondhand smoke but the evidence goes against the EPA, which likes the work of Elizabeth Fontham, whose data has been questioned for treating ex-smokers as non-smokers. If there is a causal connection between passive smoke and lung cancer, it is a very small contributing factor.

Penn & Teller had somebody do the math. There is a 25% higher risk of dying of lung cancer from being regularly exposed to passive smoke. For those regularly exposed to ETS, the death rate from lung cancer is 1 in 80,000. For those not exposed, it is 1 in 100,000. Looked at another way: For every million people exposed to ETS, there will be 12.5 deaths from lung cancer; for every million people not exposed to ETS, there will be 10 deaths due to lung cancer. This is statistically of no significance. [See episode 5 of their excellent DVD: Bull****! ]
the epa have removed the document from the site but you can buy it from them ,
ill try to find a copy for you
Chalk is offline  
30-04-2005, 23:34   #43
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 6,796
OK - now find the loophole in the Irish HSA report?
RainyDay is offline  
30-04-2005, 23:43   #44
Chalk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,222
havent read it.
do you have a link?

/edit
just to add your using a fairly loose definition of loophole there,
id consider it a finding of the study that ets doent cause damage rather than it being a particular reading,
ie the epa lowered there thresholds of significance and ets as a cause of cancer still didnt make it.

//double edit,
found the hsa doc,
60 pages and im a bit drunk,
ill have a read soon and see what it says.

Last edited by Chalk; 30-04-2005 at 23:49.
Chalk is offline  
30-04-2005, 23:52   #45
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 428
Rainyday, if you have genuinely researched this issue you would be aware that long term exposure to cigarrette smoke increases the risk of contracting lung cancer in a non-smoker by around 40%. HOWEVER, the risk of contracting lung cancer for a non-smoker is still low as a comparatively large % of a low risk, still equates to a relatively low risk.

As a smoker I am happy to comply with the smoking ban in pubs, which I was and still am in favour of, but the idea that someone's health is seriously adversely affected by standing next to someone smoking on a railway platform for 10 minutes just isn't going to wash, I'm afraid.

As regards ciggie butts, do you honestly think that they represent a serious environmental problem, or are you just using this as another excuse to bash smokers?
hawkmoon269 is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet