Smokers fuming at ban proposals (From Swindon Advertiser)

The Adver is suddenly obsessed with smoking. Editor, do you think you could quit it?


Ho ho.

I personally would set a foot in restaurant or pub where there is smoke.
However I recognise that smoking is a personal choice, a freedom that smokers should be able to enjoy in places of their chosing.
Unfortunately we live in a state where decisions are taken on behalf of individuals, where choices are taken away.
Is it surprising when living under a Socialist governement?
If someone smokes or want to smoke that doesnt bother me as long as I do not have to breathe their smoke.

politicrat, swindon says...
8:21pm Fri 5 Feb 10

I personally would set a foot in restaurant or pub where there is smoke.
--
So you are in favour of smoking in restaurants.

This is getting ridiculous now!!
Keep off the garlic folks - soon we won't be able to breathe incase we inflict some poor soul with the fumes!

"However I recognise that smoking is a personal choice, a freedom that smokers should be able to enjoy in places of their chosing"
 
Thankfully you are totally wrong. Non-smokers have a 'chose' too you know.

The new Tobacco Prohibition

I would like to take the time to tell the entire community about a falsehood so big that everyone who believes in freedom should be appauled.
This falsehood is so big it resonates from historical fact forward to this day. This falsehood is so big billions of dollars have been spent to make it believable to those of us who dont take the time to look up the facts.
We all remember reading about alcohol prohibition,but did you know there was also tobacco prohibition going on before alcohol became such a target of the last nanny staters.
Our great grandparents lived thru prohibition and the great depression,they also lived thru tobacco prohibition.

Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. "Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity" (Dillow, 1981:10).

1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. "You can't do that on Fifth Avenue," the arresting officer says.

1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: "Business ... is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do."

1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

1930: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.

Now onto the falsehood......

We have been told for years by smoke free advocates that second hand smoke is the cause of everything from johnnys ear ache to cousin ED'S lung cancer. But wheres the proof!!!

Remember they claim 50,000 deaths a year yet,there are no bodys not even mass graves of the dead to second hand smoke.We await the names of these victims.

A simple stroll down historys road say 10 years or so and we start to get at the truth......

A federal Judge by the name of osteen got a case dropped in his lap in North Carolina,the case was that of EPA'S study on second hand smoke/environmental tobacco smoke.The judge an anti-tobbaco judge by reputation spent 4 years going thru the study and interviewing scientists at EPA and came to the conclusion :

JUNK SCIENCE

''EPA's 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.Before its 1992 report, EPA had always used epidemiology's gold standard CI of 95 percent to measure statistical significance. But because the U.S. studies chosen for the report were not statistically significant within a 95 percent CI, for the first time in its history EPA changed the rules and used a 90 percent CI, which doubled the chance of being wrong.

This allowed it to report a statistically significant 19 percent increase of lung cancer cases in the nonsmoking spouses of smokers over those cases found in nonsmoking spouses of nonsmokers. Even though the RR was only 1.19--an amount far short of what is normally required to demonstrate correlation or causality--the agency concluded this was proof SHS increased the risk of U.S. nonsmokers developing lung cancer by 19 percent.''

So here we find that second hand smoke was made a political scapegoat by EPA.Lets not forget how EPA has reworked the global warming studys just this last summer. Where its top scientists paper was rebuked because it didnt carry the EPA'S stand that global warming was real.

The political shenanigans surrounding SHS/ETS go deep not only with the government and its health agencies but also to the big pharmaceutical companies and non-profit orginizations aka ACS,ALA,AHA and a meriad of others. All lobbying for smoking bans and their weapon of choise Propaganda paid for by big pharma and tax dollars. Studys made to order that second hand smoke is deadly. Take a memory note here too,over 250 studys on shs/ets have found it safe.

Yet a simple look at the chemistry shows us that its:

The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities if at all.This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke. (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms! (Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01). - (Excerpted from "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" with permission of the author.)


Now, how odd that when we search the smoke free activists sites not one of them mentions that water vapor and air are the main components of second hand smoke. Is this just a fluke or an outright omission to further their political healthscare against the general public.

The last informative tid bit I have for you is what does OSHA have to say about all this secondhand smoke stuff.

Here is where it gets interesting,it seems John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) decided to sue OSHA to make a rule on shs/ets not that OSHA didnt want to play ball with him,its just that the scientific facts didnt back up a rule to start with.

Now for a rule to happen Osha has to send out for comments for a period of time and boy did the comments fly in, over 40,000 of them....Osha has whats called PEL'S and limits for an 8 hour period of exposure to chemicals in indoor environments...

This is where second hand smoke really becomes a joke,remember its nearly 94% water vapor and air.....now lets get to the facts of toxicology and dose makes the poison:

According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke........

They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA'S minimum PEL'S on shs/ets.......Did it ever set the debate on fire.

They concluded that:

All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzopyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

WHAT! DILUTED BELOW PERMISSABLE LEVELS

By the way ASH dropped their lawsuit because OSHA was going to make a rule and that rule would have been weak and been the law of the land,meaning no smoking bans would ever have been enacted anywhere,simply because an open window or a ventilation system would have covered the rule.


Let me also tell you that the relative risk for shs/ets by the SG report of 2006 was a 1.19 ''EPA study is whats used to call it a carcinogen''......mi
lks is a 2.43 and that glass of chlorinated water your about to drink is a 1.25 yet these things aren't determined to be a carcinogen....The gold standard in epidemiology is a 3.0....Now had the SURGEON GENERAL included 2 other shs/ets studys the relative risk for disease from shs/ets would have been nearer a.60-.70 meaning it would have a protective effect against ever getting disease.

But,what each of us has is years and years of exposure and the knowledge that our kids all grew up around shs and generations of others,yet we are here alive not dead from a lousy 30 minute exposure to shs as stanton glantz tries to claim.....thats another story and its just as crazy as all the rest of smokefree's claim about shs/ets.

Oh! have you heard the one about ''laugh'' thirdhand smoke or third hand drinking.
Like I said their claims border beyond that of any reasonable persons commomsence.

The next time you see a healthscare claim
consider the source.Especially if it comes from a government or non profit agency!

disclaimer; I am a victim of the smoking bans like tens of millions of smokers and non-smokers who liked to hang with their friends in a public accommodation. We have in effect lost our freedom of association because of the bans.
Property owners have lost their right to their property rights by these laws based upon psuedo-science and propaganda.I dont work for any tobacco company nor do I get anything but the satisfaction that I can make the smoke free activists cringe when the truth gets out.

harley rider -boring boring!! BRING IT ON!! BAN IT TOTALLY BAN THE FAG - Oh I mean the cigarette type of fag! Just got back from the pub -chokers outside in the freezing cold -as it should be - don't have to chuck all the clothes in the bin - pillow won't stink of stale tobacco! BRING IT ON filthy disgusting habit!

harleyrider1978 - you don't live in Swindon so keep your beak out. Learn to make a succinct point or shut-up.

Doesn't anyone get it yet? This is the governments solution to tackling the 'booze culture' society that many have complained about. But once again have got it wrong!

It really is only a matter of time before an all out ban. personally, as an ex smoker i have mixed views. People should have the ability to do something legal as they choose, however, I don't want to have to walk through a bunch of smokers each and every time I go near a pub. I certainly don't want my asthmatic son being exposed to smoking and he is far more since the smoking ban came in.
I'd have more respect for the Govt if they came out and said they were going to ban it in say 12 months and then plough tons of resources into supporting everyone to give up. Or they could leave well alone.

peatmoor, but why should the tax payer pick up the tab for smoking cessation, it is a life style choice. Those that really want to quit, do it without help, those who 'play' the quitting game to keep their doctors happy, don't succeed.

As I have said before the 'official' definition of quit, is just 4 weeks. It could well be that the same 'quitter' comes back a few months later and is counted again.

It also matters not what the local smoking cessation facilities claim. The smoking rate has not reduced since the 2007 ban, but had been reducing steadily for 10 years before it.

£2 billion later nothing has changed, except there are now more working class smokers than ever before, some improvement in health inequality.

I wonder what any govt will do if they really do get all the smokers to quit.
How will they replace the revenue they recieve from hefty taxes already placed on cigarettes?

Just a thought....

Never mind that, what about the billions from alcohol, and the tens of billions from 'junk' food restaurants. If we all become carrot juice drinking, non smoking 'veggies' (don't forget they already want to outlaw cows, something to do with CO2 emissions), the country will never recover from the recession.

All that precious land given over to growing tobacco when it could be growing food for the world's hungry.

Finsbury, I would be more worried about the 70% of arable land being handed over to grow biofuels, which has already caused a doubling of world prices in the last twelve months.

Many of the worlds hungry would be even hungrier if they closed the tobacco fields which are a major source of income. No one ever got rich by feeding the poor.

That aside if they didn't make such a mess of the anti-smoking laws it wouldn't have caused a problem. It is quite simple really. You have to have alcohol, food and music licenses so why not a smoking license. Everyone would be clear then as to where they can go, either smoking or non-smoking and you probably wouldn't get the huddles outside the door.

Smokers would accept limited venues to go but the anti-smokers will still complain about not being able to go everywhere.

as I said before there are few if any respondents who actually promote smoking but the anti's still show a rude and arrogant stance. They are so fond of throwing insults at smokers.

Robh, agree totally with your last, and there in lies the problems, the majority of non smokers would support such choices, they of course keep a low profile for fear of the diatribe they would receive from the Rabid anti smoking brigade.

It you go on any forum world wide dealing with topic, the abuse is from those who do not democracy and choice, but 'my way' or 'no way'.

Bobfm wrote:
peatmoor, but why should the tax payer pick up the tab for smoking cessation, it is a life style choice. Those that really want to quit, do it without help, those who 'play' the quitting game to keep their doctors happy, don't succeed. As I have said before the 'official' definition of quit, is just 4 weeks. It could well be that the same 'quitter' comes back a few months later and is counted again. It also matters not what the local smoking cessation facilities claim. The smoking rate has not reduced since the 2007 ban, but had been reducing steadily for 10 years before it. £2 billion later nothing has changed, except there are now more working class smokers than ever before, some improvement in health inequality.

I didn't say they should, I just said it would be more honest. I'm more worried about my asthmatic son having to walk through town when there are hordes of people standing about smoking.

I say, they should either ban it and support people in doing it or not ban it but stop with these half-a**ed ideas.

Personally, I say live and let live and I never supported the smoking ban in the first place. I'd go further though, if people want to take drugs etc, that is a personal choice - as long as it doesnt impact on others, what right have any of us got to impose our own moralities on anyone

By all means ban smoking. Ban alcohol also. Ban junk food. Ban cars. Ban air travel. Ban dangerous and contact sports. Ban sex unless you can prove you're only doing it for reproductive purposes.
.
Everyone will still die, most still long before they reach 85.
.
Yes, let's all lead entirely miserable and pointless lives with no freedoms, no joy and no adventure and then simpy die regardless.

Bobfm wrote:
Robh, agree totally with your last, and there in lies the problems, the majority of non smokers would support such choices, they of course keep a low profile for fear of the diatribe they would receive from the Rabid anti smoking brigade.

It you go on any forum world wide dealing with topic, the abuse is from those who do not democracy and choice, but 'my way' or 'no way'.

Robh and Booby - what sort of cretins are you? I mean could you have a more stupid point of view? I doubt you have a pair of brain cells between you. If such a stupid idea as you tout here was to be made law we would be back having unfortunate people working in a smoke filled environment. How do you propose to provide the duty of care to your bar staff in a smoke filled bar? Have them wear gas masks? No a complete ban is the only democratic option.
.
I'll sit back now and wait for booby to post an irrelevant and very boring link to an article!

Briz

It is rather unfortunate that you have to resort to verbal abuse in pursuit of what is no more than personal opinion (which of course you are entitled to give). Despite claims you make there is no accepted and independent research that links smoking and passive smoking with any form of cancer and no proof that smoking is the trigger of any form of cancer. Most cancers are the same in that respect, although many breakthroughs have now been made due to the efforts and funding by specific charities. You may indeed recall a very local campaign to fund research into myloma--a devastating form of blood cancer which had no cure. Our local man underwent horrendous treatment which was wholly experimental and was filmed during the process. Given one year to live he survived 4. Shortly after his death his efforts were rewarded with the news that that group of cancers were now treatable successfully. Common sense should tell you that if lung cancer had been proved to cause death through smoking tobacco; at the very least any proved carcenogenic would have to be removed from tobacco's or if that was not possible banned completely. Clearly with such proof there would be a flood of claims through courts throughout the world if that was proven. I do not smoke-nor drink-but i used to enjoy going to the pub to have soft drinks and friendly banter with the locals or a game of darts or other activities. So pal -what happened to all the non smokers who claimed that it would be so nice to go to the pubs when they became smoke free? Alcohol has been proved to cause organ damage and social problems as well as death and injury by folk who choose to drink and drive. There are many measures that could have been taken in public places to extract smoke from premises in this high tech world instead of penalising the smoker. Give your final thought to the motorist who's vehicle despite the advent of catalitic converters still produce a wide variety of toxins and known carcinogens in greater volumes than tobacco. Unfortunately you are one of the anti-smoking brigade who cannot accept smoking--but ignore the numerous dangers and health hazards that surround us. So do refrain from your name calling--and if you can produce conclusive evidence to support your opinion--as you have so many times on other issues have asked others to prove--and in fact i supported your views on. Clearly you are intelligent--too intelligent to resort to name calling with anyone who does not agree with your opinion.

itsamess wrote:
Briz

It is rather unfortunate that you have to resort to verbal abuse in pursuit of what is no more than personal opinion (which of course you are entitled to give). Despite claims you make there is no accepted and independent research that links smoking and passive smoking with any form of cancer and no proof that smoking is the trigger of any form of cancer. Most cancers are the same in that respect, although many breakthroughs have now been made due to the efforts and funding by specific charities. You may indeed recall a very local campaign to fund research into myloma--a devastating form of blood cancer which had no cure. Our local man underwent horrendous treatment which was wholly experimental and was filmed during the process. Given one year to live he survived 4. Shortly after his death his efforts were rewarded with the news that that group of cancers were now treatable successfully. Common sense should tell you that if lung cancer had been proved to cause death through smoking tobacco; at the very least any proved carcenogenic would have to be removed from tobacco's or if that was not possible banned completely. Clearly with such proof there would be a flood of claims through courts throughout the world if that was proven. I do not smoke-nor drink-but i used to enjoy going to the pub to have soft drinks and friendly banter with the locals or a game of darts or other activities. So pal -what happened to all the non smokers who claimed that it would be so nice to go to the pubs when they became smoke free? Alcohol has been proved to cause organ damage and social problems as well as death and injury by folk who choose to drink and drive. There are many measures that could have been taken in public places to extract smoke from premises in this high tech world instead of penalising the smoker. Give your final thought to the motorist who's vehicle despite the advent of catalitic converters still produce a wide variety of toxins and known carcinogens in greater volumes than tobacco. Unfortunately you are one of the anti-smoking brigade who cannot accept smoking--but ignore the numerous dangers and health hazards that surround us. So do refrain from your name calling--and if you can produce conclusive evidence to support your opinion--as you have so many times on other issues have asked others to prove--and in fact i supported your views on. Clearly you are intelligent--too intelligent to resort to name calling with anyone who does not agree with your opinion.

You really are a prat if you believe the tripe you have copied and pasted into this diatribe.
.
I suspect that you are just posting this to try and stimulate a debate. Honestly you'd have more credibility arguing the earth is flat. Grow up you moron.

We ignore the abusive insults. It just proves how some anti-smokers, the minority act and try to force their opinions on others.

Robh wrote:
We ignore the abusive insults. It just proves how some anti-smokers, the minority act and try to force their opinions on others.

How is in the minority boy? The smokers are the minority lets get that straight. The majority of people find it a filthy and offensive habit. But hey don't let the facts get in the way of the rubbish you post on here.

Typo how reads who!

Messy, just because harleyrider1978 submitted a record three feet of irrelevant crap there's no need to compete with him.

"Despite claims you make there is no accepted and independent research that links smoking and passive smoking with any form of cancer and no proof that smoking is the trigger of any form of .............
"
Why do people insist on living their lives off the back of statistics? Statistics can be handpicked, and interpreted, to say just about anything.
Why not stick to common sense?
Breathing in acidic smoke is hardly going to have health benefits is it?
Yes I know all about car fumes, blah blah.
I drive a car, but I don't walk up to bonfires and deeply inhale the smoke, or put car exhaust pipes in my mouth.
That would be unhealthy wouldn't it. Rather like breathing in cigarette smoke.
I have no problem, if others choose to deliberately poison themselves, in doorways. I'm just glad that I no longer have to endure entire evenings, in barely breathable air, since the current smoking ban.

Briz
You really must be completely stupid as i never copy and paste--however--you are unable to rely on any reliable research study which can lay claim to prove smoking causes cancer in any form. Sticks and stones may break my bones--names will never hurt me. Maybe you should learn to respect others opinions as it seems you prefer that only your opinion counts--it doesn't. You waste your intelligence by resorting to abuse which is a clear sign of personal insecurity. Are you in fact a recovering alcoholic--or a junkie--or simply crave for attention. People who continually resort to abuse do so when they have no real answers. You do have the intelligence--howeve
r you choose to embarass yourself.

Wurzellly wrote:

Robh wrote: We ignore the abusive insults. It just proves how some anti-smokers, the minority act and try to force their opinions on others.

How is in the minority boy? The smokers are the minority lets get that straight. The majority of people find it a filthy and offensive habit. But hey don't let the facts get in the way of the rubbish you post on here.

Wurzellly, it's not clever to resort to insults all the time.
.
Smokers in pubs were in the majority until the minority of anti-smokers forced them out. Non-smokers (myself included) tend to be more tolerant and support a freedom to choose.

CO
Sorry--i am not competing with anyone--you are anti-smoking--i am neither for or against and i do not smoke--never have never will--but i do believe in freedom of choice. I dont have the choice to ban cars or avoid the smell or pollutants and i don't drink because i dont like it--that is my choice to make. Most certainly i do not lecture folk on why they should not drive cars--smoke--or drink and a host of other things. I repeat i simply believe in the individuals choice to follow any lawful activity and social practice ad believe we are over regulated on what is basically propoganda.

Pseudo don't be so dense. Smoker were only in the majority because pubs were unbearable for non-smokers. Non-smokers are now firmly in the majority and decent pubs are busier than ever. Busy inside that is, with a few morons chuffing by the door.

messy - you have leapt to some very strange conclusions about who I am. Boy you are way off!
.
Now back to your idiotic comments. There is irrefutable evidence (i.e. facts) that show direct links between smoking and cancer. As said before only and idiot would stand up and suggest differently.

Again.
Why do people insist on living their lives off the back of statistics? Statistics can be handpicked, and interpreted, to say just about anything.
Why not stick to common sense?
Breathing in acidic smoke is hardly going to have health benefits is it?
Yes I know all about car fumes, blah blah.
I drive a car, but I don't walk up to bonfires and deeply inhale the smoke, or put car exhaust pipes in my mouth.
That would be unhealthy wouldn't it. Rather like breathing in cigarette smoke.
I have no problem, if others choose to deliberately poison themselves, in doorways. I'm just glad that I no longer have to endure entire evenings, in barely breathable air, since the current smoking ban.
"Despite claims you make there is no accepted and independent research that links smoking and passive smoking with any form of cancer and no proof that smoking is the trigger of any form of ............. " Why do people insist on living their lives off the back of statistics? Statistics can be handpicked, and interpreted, to say just about anything. Why not stick to common sense? Breathing in acidic smoke is hardly going to have health benefits is it? Yes I know all about car fumes, blah blah. I drive a car, but I don't walk up to bonfires and deeply inhale the smoke, or put car exhaust pipes in my mouth. That would be unhealthy wouldn't it. Rather like breathing in cigarette smoke. I have no problem, if others choose to deliberately poison themselves, in doorways. I'm just glad that I no longer have to endure entire evenings, in barely breathable air, since the current smoking ban.
Quote » | Report this post »
itsamess, swindon says...
8:44pm Sat 6 Feb 10

Briz
You really must be completely stupid as i never copy and paste--however--you are unable to rely on any reliable research study which can lay claim to prove smoking causes cancer in any form. Sticks and stones may break my bones--names will never hurt me. Maybe you should learn to respect others opinions as it seems you prefer that only your opinion counts--it doesn't. You waste your intelligence by resorting to abuse which is a clear sign of personal insecurity. Are you in fact a recovering alcoholic--or a junkie--or simply crave for attention. People who continually resort to abuse do so when they have no real answers. You do have the intelligence--howeve

r you choose to embarass yourself.
Briz You really must be completely stupid as i never copy and paste--however--you are unable to rely on any reliable research study which can lay claim to prove smoking causes cancer in any form. Sticks and stones may break my bones--names will never hurt me. Maybe you should learn to respect others opinions as it seems you prefer that only your opinion counts--it doesn't. You waste your intelligence by resorting to abuse which is a clear sign of personal insecurity. Are you in fact a recovering alcoholic--or a junkie--or simply crave for attention. People who continually resort to abuse do so when they have no real answers. You do have the intelligence--howeve r you choose to embarass yourself.
Quote » | Report this post »
Pseudo, Swindon says...
8:52pm Sat 6 Feb 10

Wurzellly wrote:

Robh wrote: We ignore the abusive insults. It just proves how some anti-smokers, the minority act and try to force their opinions on others.
How is in the minority boy? The smokers are the minority lets get that straight. The majority of people find it a filthy and offensive habit. But hey don't let the facts get in the way of the rubbish you post on here.
Wurzellly, it's not clever to resort to insults all the time.
.
Smokers in pubs were in the majority until the minority of anti-smokers forced them out. Non-smokers (myself included) tend to be more tolerant and support a freedom to choose.

Wurzellly wrote:

Robh wrote: We ignore the abusive insults. It just proves how some anti-smokers, the minority act and try to force their opinions on others.

How is in the minority boy? The smokers are the minority lets get that straight. The majority of people find it a filthy and offensive habit. But hey don't let the facts get in the way of the rubbish you post on here.

Wurzellly, it's not clever to resort to insults all the time. . Smokers in pubs were in the majority until the minority of anti-smokers forced them out. Non-smokers (myself included) tend to be more tolerant and support a freedom to choose.
Quote » | Report this post »
itsamess, swindon says...
8:57pm Sat 6 Feb 10

CO
Sorry--i am not competing with anyone--you are anti-smoking--i am neither for or against and i do not smoke--never have never will--but i do believe in freedom of choice. I dont have the choice to ban cars or avoid the smell or pollutants and i don't drink because i dont like it--that is my choice to make. Most certainly i do not lecture folk on why they should not drive cars--smoke--or drink and a host of other things. I repeat i simply believe in the individuals choice to follow any lawful activity and social practice ad believe we are over regulated on what is basically propoganda.
CO Sorry--i am not competing with anyone--you are anti-smoking--i am neither for or against and i do not smoke--never have never will--but i do believe in freedom of choice. I dont have the choice to ban cars or avoid the smell or pollutants and i don't drink because i dont like it--that is my choice to make. Most certainly i do not lecture folk on why they should not drive cars--smoke--or drink and a host of other things. I repeat i simply believe in the individuals choice to follow any lawful activity and social practice ad believe we are over regulated on what is basically propoganda.
Quote » | Report this post »
Wurzellly, Swindon says...
8:58pm Sat 6 Feb 10

Pseudo don't be so dense. Smoker were only in the majority because pubs were unbearable for non-smokers. Non-smokers are now firmly in the majority and decent pubs are busier than ever. Busy inside that is, with a few morons chuffing by the door.
Pseudo don't be so dense. Smoker were only in the majority because pubs were unbearable for non-smokers. Non-smokers are now firmly in the majority and decent pubs are busier than ever. Busy inside that is, with a few morons chuffing by the door.
Quote » | Report this post »
Wurzellly, Swindon says...
9:01pm Sat 6 Feb 10

messy - you have leapt to some very strange conclusions about who I am. Boy you are way off!
.
Now back to your idiotic comments. There is irrefutable evidence (i.e. facts) that show direct links between smoking and cancer. As said before only and idiot would stand up and suggest differently.
messy - you have leapt to some very strange conclusions about who I am. Boy you are way off! . Now back to your idiotic comments. There is irrefutable evidence (i.e. facts) that show direct links between smoking and cancer. As said before only and idiot would stand up and suggest differently.
Quote » | Report this post »
Your SayYour SwindonManage Your Account »
Email me when a comment is added: Name: I Too


Comment:

Enter the above word in the box below


Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this comment’ link.

Sorry.
I have no idea, why all the other posts got attached to mine.
I certainly didn't copy ALL of them

Wurzellly wrote:
Pseudo don't be so dense. Smoker were only in the majority because pubs were unbearable for non-smokers. Non-smokers are now firmly in the majority and decent pubs are busier than ever. Busy inside that is, with a few morons chuffing by the door.

A few pubs may be busier but most are empty or closing because the promised influx of non smokers hasn't happened.
Yes, there is a link between smoking and illnesses but nothing proven against passive smoking.
As before you cannot seem to have a rational debate without insults

Gosh.
I've just reported my own post.
I might even get myself banned.

Pseudo - there is nothing rational about your point of view. Passive smoking is just as harmful as actual smoking given that the fumes are unfiltered.
.
Obvious really and as stated before only a buffoon would struggle to understand this. So either you are a buffoon or just plain ignorant.

I'm not sure I can believe, breathing unfiltered poison is bad.
Are there any statistics ?

Dunno maybe one of the rabid pro-smoking lobby could do a test for us and report back?

Wurzellly wrote:
Pseudo - there is nothing rational about your point of view. Passive smoking is just as harmful as actual smoking given that the fumes are unfiltered. . Obvious really and as stated before only a buffoon would struggle to understand this. So either you are a buffoon or just plain ignorant.

Proof please..

Wurzellly wrote:
Pseudo - there is nothing rational about your point of view. Passive smoking is just as harmful as actual smoking given that the fumes are unfiltered. . Obvious really and as stated before only a buffoon would struggle to understand this. So either you are a buffoon or just plain ignorant.

Just because you keep saying it, does not make it true.
There is no evidence that passive smoking is dangerous. Unpleasant maybe

Show me a death certificate that says 'cause of death - smoking'.

Fact: Few smokers die of a smoking related disease.

Fact: Many non-smokers die of what could be regarded as a smoking related disease but not because of passive smoking

I do not promote smoking but am fed up with disinformation and non factual comments like smoking kills. It doesn't.

It is like saying falling off a twenty storey building will kill you. It doesn't. It is hittig the ground that kills you and a lot can happen on the way down.

Forget the health arguements. It is pureley down to a minority who don't like it and use all the excuses in the book to impose their ideals on others and claim to speak for the majority of non-smokers.

Robh clever wordsmithing does not alter the fact that smoking kills. It causes cancer and that will kill you. To try and argue anything different will just embarrass you and make you look like a prat.

Prove it. saying something many times does not make it true. It is still a lie.

As I said before I do not promote smoking but disinformation and lies are rife.

Nonsense of the highest order. I will not stand for any other point of view. To state it in very simple terms - you are wrong. Smoking kills. Passive smoking kills. Can you manage to comprehend those words?

Prove it.

It says so on the packets - so it must be true! You disprove it idiot.

Wurzellly wrote:
Nonsense of the highest order. I will not stand for any other point of view. To state it in very simple terms - you are wrong. Smoking kills. Passive smoking kills. Can you manage to comprehend those words?

Just because you believe it and repeat it doen't make it true nor should you be able to impose your beliefs on other people.
Banning smoking is not democratic as it restricts the rights of a large percentage of the population.

Nonsense. You cannot choose to avoid second hand smoke. Where is my democratic right to not breath poison? Your argument is completely flawed. It is only a matter of time until it is banned in all public areas - bring it on!

Wurzellly wrote:
Nonsense. You cannot choose to avoid second hand smoke. Where is my democratic right to not breath poison? Your argument is completely flawed. It is only a matter of time until it is banned in all public areas - bring it on!

Yes you can choose.
Have smoking and non-smoking pubs or is that too difficult for you to accept?

Proof is a very hard commodity to find in these times of chequebook research...

At 12:48pm, Robh said "You have to have alcohol, food and music licenses so why not a smoking license. Everyone would be clear then as to where they can go, either smoking or non-smoking and you probably wouldn't get the huddles outside the door."

Sounds like a reasonable idea to me - as long as staff are not forced to work in a smokey atmosphere (i.e. they are smokers themselves and sign to say that they understand the risks of working in a place where smoking takes place. And maybe insist that the licence-holders have some sort of smoke-extraction equipment.

That would surely give everyone a choice?

Pseudo wrote:

Wurzellly wrote:
Nonsense. You cannot choose to avoid second hand smoke. Where is my democratic right to not breath poison? Your argument is completely flawed. It is only a matter of time until it is banned in all public areas - bring it on!

Yes you can choose.
Have smoking and non-smoking pubs or is that too difficult for you to accept?

Simply not safe for the poor staff that would have to work there. You cannot sign a disclaimer to harm yourself at work it would leave the employer liable regardless of the disclaimer.

But the law needed to introduce this would have to take this aspect into account.

If smokers believe that they are not being harmed by inhaling smoke from cigarettes, how could they raise a case? Especially if they are made aware of any potential dangers beforehand?

There are many dangerous jobs out there. You can't say to people you can't do these jobs because they are hazardous! The employer just needs to make sure they do all they can to minimise the risks involved.

HoneyPie wrote:
But the law needed to introduce this would have to take this aspect into account.

If smokers believe that they are not being harmed by inhaling smoke from cigarettes, how could they raise a case? Especially if they are made aware of any potential dangers beforehand?

There are many dangerous jobs out there. You can't say to people you can't do these jobs because they are hazardous! The employer just needs to make sure they do all they can to minimise the risks involved.

Honeypie - you clearly haven't thought through what your saying!
.
Fact smoking is harmful. You cannot disclaim something that is a fact, it would be nonsensical to do so.
.
You cannot have people working in hazardous environments without the necessary protection. That is why firemen have breathing apparatus.
.
It would quite simply be unworkable, and what would the benefit be? None what so ever - no benefit to society.
.
Totally daft idea - dismissed!

Jock Strap wrote:
harley rider -boring boring!! BRING IT ON!! BAN IT TOTALLY BAN THE FAG - Oh I mean the cigarette type of fag! Just got back from the pub -chokers outside in the freezing cold -as it should be - don't have to chuck all the clothes in the bin - pillow won't stink of stale tobacco! BRING IT ON filthy disgusting habit!

next time pop outside so we can use your forehead to stub our butts out on .....

I never said that smoking wasn't harmful.

But unfortunately, smoking is not illegal in this country, so there has to be some sort of compromise on how you can make legal drug use workable.

And as to the benefit to society, it is a legal drug (= no benefit), which brings in a large amount in taxation (= benefit, albeit of questionable worth).

I Too wrote:
Gosh. I've just reported my own post. I might even get myself banned.

We can but hope along with red manc - never mind my forehead you can use your arse! then you'll feel at home!

red manc wrote:

Jock Strap wrote:
harley rider -boring boring!! BRING IT ON!! BAN IT TOTALLY BAN THE FAG - Oh I mean the cigarette type of fag! Just got back from the pub -chokers outside in the freezing cold -as it should be - don't have to chuck all the clothes in the bin - pillow won't stink of stale tobacco! BRING IT ON filthy disgusting habit!

next time pop outside so we can use your forehead to stub our butts out on .....

manc boy does a first class job of illustrating the average level of intelligence that a smoker has!
.
Only a dumb a$s would knowingly poison himself!

Brizzy

Your comments are becoming nonsensical with every post. Rise to the challenge Produce one scientific report that proves smoking causes cancer. Can you avoid breathing car and lorry fumes--NO? Which is more likely to kill you? Ban the car? Try being realistic. Ban gas boilers that give off carbon monoxide? Ban nuclear power to generate electricity? Ban hypocritical govts that use depleted uranium in weapons--then use them against a country they claimed they attacked because they had weapons of mass destruction. You write personal opinion--not fact. You have no right to decide what others can or cannot do purely because you dont like it.

Brizzy

By your standards the Govt are hypocrites as they licence the sale of tobacco--drink and vehicles and take the revenue collected and therefore assist in killing folk. I suggest you sue the govt. Sue me--even though i drive a hybrid car that still produces poisons.

Messy are you a member of the Flat Earth society?

Putting aside the freedom to choose issue for a second, are you seriously suggesting that smoking does not cause cancer?

Are you saying that because no scientist has produced anything to satisfy you it does, then it can't be true?

This is what CRUK say about it:

http://info.cancerre
searchuk.org/healthy
living/smokingandtob
acco/

Now, immediately Bobfm will jump on this and say they are lying lunatics and are funded by anti-tobacco groups and it's all a conspiracy or whatever, but surely you are sensible enough to realise that the evidence is irrefutable.

All cancers are caused by mutating DNA, cells form into tumours, if that tumour becomes malignant they are called cancerous, if benign they are not.

Smoking is a 23% trigger which will cause mutating cells/tumours to become malignant hence cancerous. It follows that if the smoking percentage is 23%, then that leave 77% of other factors.

Some cancers are caused by inherited conditions. Lung Cancer is gene specific, if you don't have the gene you will not get lung cancer even if you do smoke. This is why only 8% of those who smoke get lung cancer.

This is getting silly now. Why can't we just accept the generalisation that smoking is not good for your health. As with many other illnesses a 100% direct link has not been proven so you cannot catagorically state that smoking kills.

Do we really want to prove that?

Lets just reinforce the message that smoking is not good for your health and try to stop young persons taking up the habit.

Robh I do not think any pro choice posters has said smoking is good for your health, however that gets lost in the diatribe of abuse from some.

I also agree young people should be discouraged but smoking bans do the opposite. Those who smoke over 60 have never been lower at 12% but 20 to 24 it has never been higher at 31%.

So the policy is failing. Ironically it will lead to more and more elderly people living longer, at a time when resources for this sector is on it's knees already.

No one has said smoking is good for your health. My point is do we want to prove it is not bad? The anti-smokers have driven this discussion to that extreme with their personal opinions and abuse.

Smoking is absolutely awful I mean what's nice about it? your teeth look manky you smell like an awful bonfire you look absolutely awful sucking the life out of this thing called a cigarette, your lips look all puckered with lines, around your eyes because you can't see because of the smoke, your skin looks smoked from inside out. You can tell a smoker just by looking at them as they are wrinkled and got no colour in their cheeks, I mean who would stick them heads in a bonfire and inhale it & think this is great. We don't need to be told you will become ill through smoking I mean any normal human being with a brain would know that, but hey ho it's an addiction so you can't tell a smoker its no good for them as they will always have an excuse

What an odd final sentence krisha, I have never heard a smoker deny the health risks. I don't quite know who you have been speaking to.

There are health risks associated with many life style choices, and there in is the clue, 'choices'.

I share peoples lack of understanding about why people smoke, but that is their choice.

For the mis-informed, or in some cases pure ignorant "Smoking causes almost 90% of lung cancer deaths" (http://info.cancerr
esearchuk.org/cancer
stats/types/lung/ind
ex.htm), so please refrain from the naive comments that smoking does not cause death. I watched two friends die from lung cancer and trust me it isn't pretty. I agree that smoking should be banned from crowded public places, i.e. town centre during the day simply because it's not pleasant for others, especially children. I do not agree however that smoking should be banned in pubs or restaurants who have purpose built smoking areas. If one chooses to go into those areas, it’s their choice. We are fortunate to live in a society whereby we have freedom of choice, therefore both arguments should be respected not responded with abusive, ill-informed and quite frankly childish comments.

CO

There has indeed been numerous studies by Cancer research groups all over the world that have come up with different conclusions over a number of years. None yet can identify any known carcinogens and cannot state that tobacco or specifically the smoking of causes cancer to form in any part of the body. I do concede that there is no doubt at all that smoking contributes to reduced lung function and emphesemia. The words we believe are often used which is an opinion--not fact. In positive research which has led to successful treatment of many cancers they identified the organisms and rogue cells that can trigger many cancers. As there are virtually thousands of mutations known as cancers. In fact many deaths were termed as caused by lung cancer until a family challenged the cause of death purely because the relative had never smoked. The findings of the autopsy confirmed it was lung cancer with no evidence of it being smoke related--since that time many other similar studies were made which resulted in a change to the terminology used for smoking related disease of the lungs. I do not deny that smoking contributes to premature death in many cases. It does remain that lung cancer can strike at both smokers and non smokers. I choose not to smoke and believe those who do are foolish as it is not healthy and expensive--but the right to smoke should not be penalised. The hub of many communities were the pubs and clubs where both sides united to drink or be entertained--bingo etc. There can be no dispute as to the affect the ban has affected the social businesses which is sad when both sides used to join together without disputes. Modern technology could have provided highly effective filtration. You have no choice in breathing in vehicle fumes--or aircraft fumes that far outweigh the dangers of the cigarette and the volume % is greater. How many folk in your street have gas central heating--do study the emissions they give off. Dont centre on one danger when you are surrounded by many.

As this has turned into the Bob 'n' Messy show (again!) I'm going down the pub where I can enjoy a quiet pint or two in a pleasant, smoke-free environment. I can look out of the window and chuckle at the strange people outside shivering and sucking their cancer-sticks, producing a foul stench that they used to blow in my face.

itsamess - The reason for commenting on "one danger" is due to focusing on the story SMOKING, not gas central heating, aircraft fumes etc... I would have thought that obvious.

Fineirish
That is a well known site which although makes claims of links to cancers they offer no scientific results that prove it--most of it it purely speculative and names a host of products believed to induce cancer. As i have stated before there is no proven link as they qualify their claims by saying genetics--food -diesel fumes and thousands of other things contribute to cancers forming and all agree until they find the trigger that activates cancerous cells they cannot make drugs to block or cure. Thankfully due to extensive research many previously uncurable cancers can now be cured. Therefore it is clear that as lung cancer still has no cure they still cannot rightfully claim they know what causes it.

CO

Enjoy your pint or 2--dont drink and drive and do be careful as it has been proved it causes liver and kidney damage.
Fineirish

How strange to make that comment when the site you posted as the claims are that smoking causes lung cancer and that site deals with the numerous factors that could cause this--without any scientific proof. Did you not read of the 2 youngsters who died in spain from carbon monoxide from a faulty gas boiler. My point is always that those who choose to smoke should not be penalised unfairly after centuries of both groups sitting in the same pubs-clubs and leisure spots without complaint. I do not smoke--but if visitors want to smoke i am happy to allow them to as i believe it is rude and ignorant to decide what folk choose to do. British people are no longer tolerant and our favourite hobby is to impose our will on other countries and turn on our own people--we have turned from a friendly and prosperous country to a nation of complainers believing others should be like us--not have their own ways.

Of course I am aware of that tragic case relating to carbon monoxide, but as I stated previously I am merely commenting on smoking, perhaps try reading my posts accurately. I go as far as to say that I agree with you that people have the right to choose, whatever their preference - my concern is related to someone else's lifestyle affecting others. I don't smoke but I certainly do not discrimate against others or my own friends/family who do - it's their choice.

Funny old article this. It seems that there are many non-smokers defending the rights of smokers against the intolerance and abuse of anti-smokers.

Trouble is that the anti's have got a foothold in areas of persuasion. Like the GWH Trust who have made a truely draconion and unenforceable rule against smoking on site.

Like imigration matters it is galvanising the people to stand up and be counted. The nanny state has crept up on a sleeping population. By stretching the rope too far they will criminalise the average person for simply exercising their rights and will create a backlash that is undesirable.

fineirish, I think your point about 90% of deaths is in a sense valid, that those 90% smoked.

That is quite different from saying that smoking causes lung cancer. We know that only 8% of smokers contract lung cancer and yes 90% will die, but ask yourself why 92% don't contract it.

It is because they do not have the gene type which makes any DNA mutation and resultant tumour become malignant (cancerous). It is the same reason that many other cancers are not common.

The more science investigates without preconceived notions, the more gene variants are identified. There has been a gene identified that appears to elevate Lung Cancer risk by 60% in both smoker and non smoker.

Having read your posts so far you appear to be approaching this matter from a sensible stand point and would ask that you read the research at this link; http://tinyurl.com/y
fd6rte

This study is by World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, it puts to bed the belief that cancer is 'caused' by certain factors, by stating 'Cancer is caused by defects in DNA, the basic genetic material', and describes smoking as a 'risk factor', not a cause.

Given that identification of this gene type could lead to Lung Cancer being a thing of the past, would it not be a good idea for smokers to be offered a simple cheap gene test. If the desire of the Cancer charities and HMG is the eradication of cancer.

Jock Strap wrote:

I Too wrote: Gosh. I've just reported my own post. I might even get myself banned.

We can but hope along with red manc - never mind my forehead you can use your arse! then you'll feel at home!

Hmmm? Curious.
Why are you fascinated with my arse.
If you had read any of my posts, you would see that I actually agree with your point of view, on this topic.
Red Manc would like to use your head as an ash tray, but there is no link between the two of us. So I'm not sure, why the fascination with my posterior.
Are you just trying to "out" yourself?

Wurzellly wrote:
Pseudo don't be so dense. Smoker were only in the majority because pubs were unbearable for non-smokers. Non-smokers are now firmly in the majority and decent pubs are busier than ever. Busy inside that is, with a few morons chuffing by the door.

Really? What gives you the right to say what other people think?

Since the smoking ban, half the pubs are empty while others, very well known and popular pubs (not talking about pubs like Yates etc. which are popular with night-clubbers)

We all heard the argument from the anti-smokers like yourself that the pubs would be full to overflowing with supposed non-smokers who wouldn't go to pubs because of the smokers.

WHERE ARE THEY? Why have so many pubs closed down? Simply because, like most government sponsored things, THEY SIMPLY DID NOT EXIST.

You state that pubs were unbearable for non-smokers? What a load of codswallop. I know many non-smokers, some of whom have never even tried smoking who have never minded people smoking in pubs or anywhere else, provided there was adequate ventilation.

Anti-smokers (or bigots) want everything their own way.

You state that smoking gives you cancer. Well, maybe it does, but so do a million other things. Eat food and drinks with Aspartame in it? Take a look at how dangerous that stuff is, yet is it banned? No.

Another thing to throw into the melting pot. Smoking gets blamed for causing heart disease.

So, can you please explain to me why, since there are supposed to be many less smokers now than there were 20 years ago, why the incidents of heart disease are rising instead of falling.

No doubt you will come back and blame lack of exercise, poor diet etc., but many people who are dying of sudden heart attacks are very young people who exercise regularly and eat healthy food.

The figures do not add up and I class the "second-hand smoke" scare tactics along with every food scare we've had since Edwina Currie spouted off that eggs gave you Salmonella, Swine Flu would kill millions, Global Warming, Climate Change etc. etc. as purely that -
SCARE TACTICS to forcibly CONTROL the population.

No doubt you will come back and call me some choice name or another, but remember, when you resort to insults and name-calling, you have lost the argument.

PK wrote:

Wurzellly wrote:
Pseudo don't be so dense. Smoker were only in the majority because pubs were unbearable for non-smokers. Non-smokers are now firmly in the majority and decent pubs are busier than ever. Busy inside that is, with a few morons chuffing by the door.

Really? What gives you the right to say what other people think?

Since the smoking ban, half the pubs are empty while others, very well known and popular pubs (not talking about pubs like Yates etc. which are popular with night-clubbers)

We all heard the argument from the anti-smokers like yourself that the pubs would be full to overflowing with supposed non-smokers who wouldn't go to pubs because of the smokers.

WHERE ARE THEY? Why have so many pubs closed down? Simply because, like most government sponsored things, THEY SIMPLY DID NOT EXIST.

You state that pubs were unbearable for non-smokers? What a load of codswallop. I know many non-smokers, some of whom have never even tried smoking who have never minded people smoking in pubs or anywhere else, provided there was adequate ventilation.

Anti-smokers (or bigots) want everything their own way.

You state that smoking gives you cancer. Well, maybe it does, but so do a million other things. Eat food and drinks with Aspartame in it? Take a look at how dangerous that stuff is, yet is it banned? No.

Another thing to throw into the melting pot. Smoking gets blamed for causing heart disease.

So, can you please explain to me why, since there are supposed to be many less smokers now than there were 20 years ago, why the incidents of heart disease are rising instead of falling.

No doubt you will come back and blame lack of exercise, poor diet etc., but many people who are dying of sudden heart attacks are very young people who exercise regularly and eat healthy food.

The figures do not add up and I class the "second-hand smoke" scare tactics along with every food scare we've had since Edwina Currie spouted off that eggs gave you Salmonella, Swine Flu would kill millions, Global Warming, Climate Change etc. etc. as purely that -
SCARE TACTICS to forcibly CONTROL the population.

No doubt you will come back and call me some choice name or another, but remember, when you resort to insults and name-calling, you have lost the argument.

PK - you clearly don't go to the pubs I do then. There are plenty of pubs, town centre or suburbs that are so busy you need to get in there early to get a seat. The pubs that are only half full are the horrible dingy dumps that decent clean non-smokers don't want to frequent.

Briz
Some of us remember the days when pubs were happy smiling places--so i guess all the anti social behaviour which has become the norm now must be due to the flood of non smokers returning to the pubs. You should become a polititian--no one believes them as they cant see the wood for the trees either.

Messy if you haven't got a useful point to post you should shut-up. The fact is you have been shown to be a complete and utter prat with you dumb assertions that smoking doesn't cause cancer. Any credibility you had has been wiped away. Prat.

Since when has calling someone a prat won an arguement. Lost for words or simply brain dead?

Robh
Dont worry about briz he always calls everyone names when he cant prove what he says--must be the alcohol that does it as he gets out early to get a seat--poor old boy needs it. You cant miss him--he's the one with the parrot on his shoulder.

Ladies ladies. I think common opinion would state that anyone who believes that smoking does not cause nor promote cancer is a prat. Enough said really. Can I make my point any clearer than that? No.

Can we clear this up once and for all.

Cancer is caused when DNA mutates. The mutating cells can, but not always depending on the individuals own immune system, form into tumours, it is at this point that risk factors, not causes react with the tumours. If the person has a strong immune system the tumour will remain benign (non cancerous), if there are hereditary conditions present or other risk factors present, like the person being a smoker, or drinker, or one who eats foods that contain certain harmful elements then the tumour becomes malignant (cancerous).

So the bottom line is the cause of the process towards cancer is natural, and as yet DNA mutation is beyond science although as I have already said the 'gene's' likely to cause various cancers have been identified and work on a test is under way, and there now there is also work on a simple blood test that can identify early stage Lung Cancer, if the gene work and the blood test work prove to be successful Lung Cancer could become a thing of the past, even for smokers.

That of course is up to Big P. After all they are the biggest beneficiaries of cancer continuing, especially Lung Cancer.

Briz
You are most welcome to put your point of view. However facts are better than opinion and you have avoided the facts. Those that call names denote they are immature and do not accept any opinion other than their own. As i have said--there are many known carcinogens in many products including vehicles--households and even foods. As i have said--i do not smoke or drink for the simplest of reasons--i choose not to--if i wanted to i should be allowed without prejudice--these freedoms were given to us under the Magna Carta.

Messy - whilst what you write there is not wrong. What you are trying to imply is. Smoking causes cancer end of story.
.
I am entitled to my opinion - you will not stop me from stating it. You are also entitled to your opinion. However when your opinion constitutes some of the biggest errors and lies I have ever read on this forum I will hold you accountable, in the same why I have held the hapless booby accountable on numerous occasions. If you don't like it don’t post rubbish. If you continue to spread these mis-truths based on dubious research then you can expect to be hung out to dry.

He certainly talks a good fight. Shame there are no facts to back it up.

We do not want to and cannot prove that smoking is beneficial in anyway but the facts do not prove the claims made by this extreme minority of anti-smokers. Being abusive and stating blatant lies is their only answer. It's called scaremongering and it hasn't worked so far as it would appear more and more young people are taking up the habit.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that smoking can trigger cancer, not that it causes it?

Robh wrote:
He certainly talks a good fight. Shame there are no facts to back it up. We do not want to and cannot prove that smoking is beneficial in anyway but the facts do not prove the claims made by this extreme minority of anti-smokers. Being abusive and stating blatant lies is their only answer. It's called scaremongering and it hasn't worked so far as it would appear more and more young people are taking up the habit.

You pro-smokers are a sick breed indeed. Not content with wrecking your own body you want to inflict your poison on as many people as possible.
.
You then make up lies and hang outlandish statements of the back of fringe research. You deny smoking causes cancer, which lets face it is well proven medical fact. Then when someone points out your shortcomings you have the audacity to call them an extreme minority.
.
Son you need to grow up and drag yourself into the real world.

Pseudo wrote:
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that smoking can trigger cancer, not that it causes it?

Semantics. The facts are clear smoking is the biggest cause of cancer and heart disease in this country bar none.
.
The pro-smoking brigade now need to rely on wordsmithing to try and make a point. Sad. They have lost the argument plain and simple.

Pseudo, you are of course correct but we see despite posting links to WHO research that describes smoking as a 'risk factor', amongst other risk factors and despite stating a fact that DNA mutation is actually the 'cause' of Lung and other cancers some still persist in clinging to fallacy. It's the mantra of ASH, say it enough times and it must be true. In the case of smoking the Lie has become the Truth.

Wurzellly wrote:

Robh wrote: He certainly talks a good fight. Shame there are no facts to back it up. We do not want to and cannot prove that smoking is beneficial in anyway but the facts do not prove the claims made by this extreme minority of anti-smokers. Being abusive and stating blatant lies is their only answer. It's called scaremongering and it hasn't worked so far as it would appear more and more young people are taking up the habit.

You pro-smokers are a sick breed indeed. Not content with wrecking your own body you want to inflict your poison on as many people as possible. . You then make up lies and hang outlandish statements of the back of fringe research. You deny smoking causes cancer, which lets face it is well proven medical fact. Then when someone points out your shortcomings you have the audacity to call them an extreme minority. . Son you need to grow up and drag yourself into the real world.

Wurzellly, I think you've lost the plot!
.
Technology exists to allow smokers and non-smokers to co-exsist, as does the option of smoking and non-smoking pubs
.
Smoking causes cancer is not a proven fact!
.
Smokers are in the majority of pub customers, it is the facisit minority of anti-smokers that has pushed them out.

Wurzellly wrote:

Robh wrote:
He certainly talks a good fight. Shame there are no facts to back it up. We do not want to and cannot prove that smoking is beneficial in anyway but the facts do not prove the claims made by this extreme minority of anti-smokers. Being abusive and stating blatant lies is their only answer. It's called scaremongering and it hasn't worked so far as it would appear more and more young people are taking up the habit.

You pro-smokers are a sick breed indeed. Not content with wrecking your own body you want to inflict your poison on as many people as possible.
.
You then make up lies and hang outlandish statements of the back of fringe research. You deny smoking causes cancer, which lets face it is well proven medical fact. Then when someone points out your shortcomings you have the audacity to call them an extreme minority.
.
Son you need to grow up and drag yourself into the real world.

I bet you are just sooooooooooooooooooo
oooooo much fun to live and work with Wurzelly. Actually that was a lie. Most people are able to have a sensible debate - and you don't fall within this category I'm afraid - it's YOUR way or NO way - and of course, you are ALWAYS correct. I think I'd better stop writing anything else now else I'll probably start spouting bigoted vitriolic insulting remarks to match your own.

Pseudo wrote:

Wurzellly wrote:

Robh wrote: He certainly talks a good fight. Shame there are no facts to back it up. We do not want to and cannot prove that smoking is beneficial in anyway but the facts do not prove the claims made by this extreme minority of anti-smokers. Being abusive and stating blatant lies is their only answer. It's called scaremongering and it hasn't worked so far as it would appear more and more young people are taking up the habit.

You pro-smokers are a sick breed indeed. Not content with wrecking your own body you want to inflict your poison on as many people as possible. . You then make up lies and hang outlandish statements of the back of fringe research. You deny smoking causes cancer, which lets face it is well proven medical fact. Then when someone points out your shortcomings you have the audacity to call them an extreme minority. . Son you need to grow up and drag yourself into the real world.

Wurzellly, I think you've lost the plot! . Technology exists to allow smokers and non-smokers to co-exsist, as does the option of smoking and non-smoking pubs . Smoking causes cancer is not a proven fact! . Smokers are in the majority of pub customers, it is the facisit minority of anti-smokers that has pushed them out.

WRONG, WRONG,WRONG. I cannot and will not accept any of the drivel you, the hapless booby or the ignorant messy have posted on this subject. . And neither will the vast majority of people that have the common sense to see you have lost an argument and are now clutching at straws. Smoking is the major cause of cancer and heart disease in this country, you cannot and will not tell me differently.
.
Technology does not exist, unless you propose bar staff and non smokers where respirators whilst enjoying a quiet pint.
.
The facts are clear. The pro-smoking brigade are in the minority. You disgust the majority of the population and as such even the filthy fag shelter is doomed. Well bring it on is what I say. I wait the day with anticipation when you are confined to your own house (not even garden) to participate in your filthy cretinous habit!

Cavalera wrote:

Wurzellly wrote:

Robh wrote: He certainly talks a good fight. Shame there are no facts to back it up. We do not want to and cannot prove that smoking is beneficial in anyway but the facts do not prove the claims made by this extreme minority of anti-smokers. Being abusive and stating blatant lies is their only answer. It's called scaremongering and it hasn't worked so far as it would appear more and more young people are taking up the habit.

You pro-smokers are a sick breed indeed. Not content with wrecking your own body you want to inflict your poison on as many people as possible. . You then make up lies and hang outlandish statements of the back of fringe research. You deny smoking causes cancer, which lets face it is well proven medical fact. Then when someone points out your shortcomings you have the audacity to call them an extreme minority. . Son you need to grow up and drag yourself into the real world.

I bet you are just sooooooooooooooooooo oooooo much fun to live and work with Wurzelly. Actually that was a lie. Most people are able to have a sensible debate - and you don't fall within this category I'm afraid - it's YOUR way or NO way - and of course, you are ALWAYS correct. I think I'd better stop writing anything else now else I'll probably start spouting bigoted vitriolic insulting remarks to match your own.

No not ALWAYS right. But in this case I AM!

Cavalera wrote:

Wurzellly wrote:

Robh wrote: He certainly talks a good fight. Shame there are no facts to back it up. We do not want to and cannot prove that smoking is beneficial in anyway but the facts do not prove the claims made by this extreme minority of anti-smokers. Being abusive and stating blatant lies is their only answer. It's called scaremongering and it hasn't worked so far as it would appear more and more young people are taking up the habit.

You pro-smokers are a sick breed indeed. Not content with wrecking your own body you want to inflict your poison on as many people as possible. . You then make up lies and hang outlandish statements of the back of fringe research. You deny smoking causes cancer, which lets face it is well proven medical fact. Then when someone points out your shortcomings you have the audacity to call them an extreme minority. . Son you need to grow up and drag yourself into the real world.

I bet you are just sooooooooooooooooooo oooooo much fun to live and work with Wurzelly. Actually that was a lie. Most people are able to have a sensible debate - and you don't fall within this category I'm afraid - it's YOUR way or NO way - and of course, you are ALWAYS correct. I think I'd better stop writing anything else now else I'll probably start spouting bigoted vitriolic insulting remarks to match your own.

No not ALWAYS right. But in this case I AM!

....oh and patronising people by calling them 'Son' or 'Boy' does absolutely nothing to enhance your argument - nor does it give you this 'elder-statesman authoritative figure' persona that it seems you strive for. I won't add what it does make you like like.

Wurzellly wrote:

Pseudo wrote:

Wurzellly wrote:

Robh wrote: He certainly talks a good fight. Shame there are no facts to back it up. We do not want to and cannot prove that smoking is beneficial in anyway but the facts do not prove the claims made by this extreme minority of anti-smokers. Being abusive and stating blatant lies is their only answer. It's called scaremongering and it hasn't worked so far as it would appear more and more young people are taking up the habit.

You pro-smokers are a sick breed indeed. Not content with wrecking your own body you want to inflict your poison on as many people as possible. . You then make up lies and hang outlandish statements of the back of fringe research. You deny smoking causes cancer, which lets face it is well proven medical fact. Then when someone points out your shortcomings you have the audacity to call them an extreme minority. . Son you need to grow up and drag yourself into the real world.

Wurzellly, I think you've lost the plot! . Technology exists to allow smokers and non-smokers to co-exsist, as does the option of smoking and non-smoking pubs . Smoking causes cancer is not a proven fact! . Smokers are in the majority of pub customers, it is the facisit minority of anti-smokers that has pushed them out.

WRONG, WRONG,WRONG. I cannot and will not accept any of the drivel you, the hapless booby or the ignorant messy have posted on this subject. . And neither will the vast majority of people that have the common sense to see you have lost an argument and are now clutching at straws. Smoking is the major cause of cancer and heart disease in this country, you cannot and will not tell me differently.
.
Technology does not exist, unless you propose bar staff and non smokers where respirators whilst enjoying a quiet pint.
.
The facts are clear. The pro-smoking brigade are in the minority. You disgust the majority of the population and as such even the filthy fag shelter is doomed. Well bring it on is what I say. I wait the day with anticipation when you are confined to your own house (not even garden) to participate in your filthy cretinous habit!

It's 'WEAR' Mr. Perfect, not 'where'.

Cavalera wrote:
....oh and patronising people by calling them 'Son' or 'Boy' does absolutely nothing to enhance your argument - nor does it give you this 'elder-statesman authoritative figure' persona that it seems you strive for. I won't add what it does make you like like.

Thanks for that boy! I’ll make sure I do it a lot more often it gets your back up son!

Wurzellly wrote:

Cavalera wrote: ....oh and patronising people by calling them 'Son' or 'Boy' does absolutely nothing to enhance your argument - nor does it give you this 'elder-statesman authoritative figure' persona that it seems you strive for. I won't add what it does make you like like.

Thanks for that boy! I’ll make sure I do it a lot more often it gets your back up son!

Oh and contrary to what you and many others seem to believe, I post on here to share my opinions and to correct those that state mistruths and lies. I am not looking for popularity or acceptance. I leave that type of vain ego boosting to the hapless booby.

Cavalera wrote:

Wurzellly wrote:

Pseudo wrote:

Wurzellly wrote:

Robh wrote: He certainly talks a good fight. Shame there are no facts to back it up. We do not want to and cannot prove that smoking is beneficial in anyway but the facts do not prove the claims made by this extreme minority of anti-smokers. Being abusive and stating blatant lies is their only answer. It's called scaremongering and it hasn't worked so far as it would appear more and more young people are taking up the habit.

You pro-smokers are a sick breed indeed. Not content with wrecking your own body you want to inflict your poison on as many people as possible. . You then make up lies and hang outlandish statements of the back of fringe research. You deny smoking causes cancer, which lets face it is well proven medical fact. Then when someone points out your shortcomings you have the audacity to call them an extreme minority. . Son you need to grow up and drag yourself into the real world.

Wurzellly, I think you've lost the plot! . Technology exists to allow smokers and non-smokers to co-exsist, as does the option of smoking and non-smoking pubs . Smoking causes cancer is not a proven fact! . Smokers are in the majority of pub customers, it is the facisit minority of anti-smokers that has pushed them out.

WRONG, WRONG,WRONG. I cannot and will not accept any of the drivel you, the hapless booby or the ignorant messy have posted on this subject. . And neither will the vast majority of people that have the common sense to see you have lost an argument and are now clutching at straws. Smoking is the major cause of cancer and heart disease in this country, you cannot and will not tell me differently. . Technology does not exist, unless you propose bar staff and non smokers where respirators whilst enjoying a quiet pint. . The facts are clear. The pro-smoking brigade are in the minority. You disgust the majority of the population and as such even the filthy fag shelter is doomed. Well bring it on is what I say. I wait the day with anticipation when you are confined to your own house (not even garden) to participate in your filthy cretinous habit!

It's 'WEAR' Mr. Perfect, not 'where'.

Well I must be right if all you can find to criticise is a typo!

To return to the topic of smoking bans, the Scottish Government have been forced to concede, dare I say admit, that the smoking ban has done nothing to reduce the levels of smoking which have increased marginally since their ban 3 years ago.

What a surprise. The official NHS admissions figures for Heart Attacks have also not decrease since the ban, despite a a clear downward trend prior to it for 10 years.

I liked this spin however from ASH Scotland,
Sheila Duffy, chief executive of anti-smoking charity ASH Scotland, said: "These figures show there has been a decline in smoking prevalence with rates dropping from nearly a third of the population in 1998 to just under a quarter in 2008.

"Although this is welcome news, there is much more to be done.

She completely ignores the fact there has been no drop during the ban period.

Bobfm wrote:
To return to the topic of smoking bans, the Scottish Government have been forced to concede, dare I say admit, that the smoking ban has done nothing to reduce the levels of smoking which have increased marginally since their ban 3 years ago. What a surprise. The official NHS admissions figures for Heart Attacks have also not decrease since the ban, despite a a clear downward trend prior to it for 10 years. I liked this spin however from ASH Scotland, Sheila Duffy, chief executive of anti-smoking charity ASH Scotland, said: "These figures show there has been a decline in smoking prevalence with rates dropping from nearly a third of the population in 1998 to just under a quarter in 2008. "Although this is welcome news, there is much more to be done. She completely ignores the fact there has been no drop during the ban period.

All this does is prove that there is more than one way to interpret statistics and surveys. However, the Scottish government was clearly correct in leading the way with their bans. Typical of booby to post something that is barely relevant to the topic in hand.

To quote: "Oh and contrary to what you and many others seem to believe, I post on here to share my opinions and to correct those that state mistruths and lies. I am not looking for popularity or acceptance. I leave that type of vain ego boosting to the hapless booby."

So it's nothing to do with attention-seeking, then. That's cleared that one up.

Nothing at all honeypot - thanks for clearing it up!

I Too wrote:

Jock Strap wrote:

I Too wrote: Gosh. I've just reported my own post. I might even get myself banned.

We can but hope along with red manc - never mind my forehead you can use your arse! then you'll feel at home!

Hmmm? Curious. Why are you fascinated with my arse. If you had read any of my posts, you would see that I actually agree with your point of view, on this topic. Red Manc would like to use your head as an ash tray, but there is no link between the two of us. So I'm not sure, why the fascination with my posterior. Are you just trying to "out" yourself?

I Too wrote: Gosh. I've just reported my own post. I might even get myself banned.
I wrote -we can only hope! i.e .that you do get banned, particularly for all your Coate tosh! and Red Manc as well and that he should stub his fags out on his arse - nothing to do with yours which I'm not remotely interested in or any other male waste dispoal unit come to that. I like to steer my boat on a straight course without any deviation.

Brizzy

Sorry boy but you are well aware i am a non smoker. However i do believe in the right to choose and disapprove of unequal legislation. If asked what advice i would give to anyone who considered smoking i would say i believe it wiser not to smoke as there are health risks as well as the cost factor. I would give the same advice to a drinker. However i would not try to fill their heads with claims unsupported by scientific evidence--and despite all your abuse and self praise you do not present any credible argument. I would suggest you read some of the links presented on this post which do show how overstated many claims are--but that is hardly your style as you are of the opinion that only your opinion counts--and that is what it is--your personal opinion. Maybe you are a failed playground bully--or someone stole your toys as on numerous occasions you act totally irrationally by hurling abuse--which has caused you to be removed numerous times--you change your log in then return. Sometimes you do post realistically--gener
ally you turn to abuse when others disagree. There are no victories to be won on here as no-one takes much notice.

itsamess wrote:
Brizzy

Sorry boy but you are well aware i am a non smoker. However i do believe in the right to choose and disapprove of unequal legislation. If asked what advice i would give to anyone who considered smoking i would say i believe it wiser not to smoke as there are health risks as well as the cost factor. I would give the same advice to a drinker. However i would not try to fill their heads with claims unsupported by scientific evidence--and despite all your abuse and self praise you do not present any credible argument. I would suggest you read some of the links presented on this post which do show how overstated many claims are--but that is hardly your style as you are of the opinion that only your opinion counts--and that is what it is--your personal opinion. Maybe you are a failed playground bully--or someone stole your toys as on numerous occasions you act totally irrationally by hurling abuse--which has caused you to be removed numerous times--you change your log in then return. Sometimes you do post realistically--gener

ally you turn to abuse when others disagree. There are no victories to be won on here as no-one takes much notice.

Oh messy - did it take you long to come up with all that holier than sh1te?
.
Son, I will post on here as I see fit you will not stop me from doing so. Also if you and the pro-smoking brigade post your pro-smoking cr@p I will continue to point out the errors that you post.
.
Do I care what you think of me? Absolutely not - I couldn't give a toss.
.
Continue with the righteousness and you'll find a bar stool waiting in boobys boozer with your name on it ..... shame you are to righteous to have a drink ..... it may help you see things more clearly and relieve some of your anal tension!

Brizzy

Post all you like--you are off your trolley--you old alcoholic.

Wurzellly, I am now convinced you are the Messiah please help us to understand where we are all going wrong. Please enable us to change, please give us your wisdom. Please tell us who you are we all need to know how to follow the doctrine according to Wurzellly.

Bobfm wrote:
Wurzellly, I am now convinced you are the Messiah please help us to understand where we are all going wrong. Please enable us to change, please give us your wisdom. Please tell us who you are we all need to know how to follow the doctrine according to Wurzellly.

Soon my child soon!

itsamess wrote:
Brizzy

Post all you like--you are off your trolley--you old alcoholic.

Boy, as I have said before I will post all I like. There is nothing old nor alcoholic about me by the way. Is that the best you can do?

'Son, I will post on here as I see fit you will not stop me from doing so. Also if you and the pro-smoking brigade post your pro-smoking cr@p I will continue to point out the errors that you post.'

Most posts are based on fact yours are pureley based on opinion, drivel and disinformation. I don't see any pro-smokers on here just reasonable non-smokers.

It would be totally wrong surely to ban smoking in designated open air areas, smoking isnt illegal, non smokers dont have to go into the smoking area outside. To say that it is to encourage more people to give up is nonsense, smokers know its not good generally for their health yes I am one of those 'Morons' who smokes in the pub smoking areas. Having said that, I am for smoke free restaurants in pubs, especially nowadays when children are allowed in most eating pubs.

What I really don't understand is how Wurzellly/Brizzley (whatever he is calling himself today) is continually allowed to post his drivel??
.
9. Registration
When seeking access to parts of the website, such as community forums, reader comments or blogs, you may be asked to register if you want to submit a contribution. You must then supply certain details if requested, such as your email address and a password. If you are under 16 you must get the consent of a parent or guardian before registering.
.
You can only access the registration areas of the site if:
.
your email address and password (if requested) are personal and may not be used by anyone else to access the site;
you do not do anything to allow anyone who is not a registered user to access any registration area of the site;
you do not create additional registration accounts which may cause disruption or abuse of the site;
you do not supply us with false or misleading information or pass yourself off as another user.
If we believe that you have not complied with these requirements, we may cancel your access to the site immediately and without notice.
.
In particular ....."you do not create additional registration accounts which may cause disruption or abuse of the site;"
.
How many times does one person have to break the ToC to be banned? Surely this site has Mods?? (they remoive comments when they feel like it!) You must have his IP address!! Why not do something about it and allow this forum to return to a place where intelligent folk can discuss their opinions in an open and articulate manner!

rimaste wrote:
What I really don't understand is how Wurzellly/Brizzley (whatever he is calling himself today) is continually allowed to post his drivel?? . 9. Registration When seeking access to parts of the website, such as community forums, reader comments or blogs, you may be asked to register if you want to submit a contribution. You must then supply certain details if requested, such as your email address and a password. If you are under 16 you must get the consent of a parent or guardian before registering. . You can only access the registration areas of the site if: . your email address and password (if requested) are personal and may not be used by anyone else to access the site; you do not do anything to allow anyone who is not a registered user to access any registration area of the site; you do not create additional registration accounts which may cause disruption or abuse of the site; you do not supply us with false or misleading information or pass yourself off as another user. If we believe that you have not complied with these requirements, we may cancel your access to the site immediately and without notice. . In particular ....."you do not create additional registration accounts which may cause disruption or abuse of the site;" . How many times does one person have to break the ToC to be banned? Surely this site has Mods?? (they remoive comments when they feel like it!) You must have his IP address!! Why not do something about it and allow this forum to return to a place where intelligent folk can discuss their opinions in an open and articulate manner!

How? Pray tell? Can you prove conclusively I am the same person? 95% of the UK private addresses have floating IP addresses. Now granted most people use a router that stays connected. But the more IT savvy (like me) know that a regular simple reboot (that's cycling the power bob) of the router gives you a shiny new IP address.

Wurzellly wrote:

rimaste wrote:
What I really don't understand is how Wurzellly/Brizzley (whatever he is calling himself today) is continually allowed to post his drivel?? . 9. Registration When seeking access to parts of the website, such as community forums, reader comments or blogs, you may be asked to register if you want to submit a contribution. You must then supply certain details if requested, such as your email address and a password. If you are under 16 you must get the consent of a parent or guardian before registering. . You can only access the registration areas of the site if: . your email address and password (if requested) are personal and may not be used by anyone else to access the site; you do not do anything to allow anyone who is not a registered user to access any registration area of the site; you do not create additional registration accounts which may cause disruption or abuse of the site; you do not supply us with false or misleading information or pass yourself off as another user. If we believe that you have not complied with these requirements, we may cancel your access to the site immediately and without notice. . In particular ....."you do not create additional registration accounts which may cause disruption or abuse of the site;" . How many times does one person have to break the ToC to be banned? Surely this site has Mods?? (they remoive comments when they feel like it!) You must have his IP address!! Why not do something about it and allow this forum to return to a place where intelligent folk can discuss their opinions in an open and articulate manner!

How? Pray tell? Can you prove conclusively I am the same person? 95% of the UK private addresses have floating IP addresses. Now granted most people use a router that stays connected. But the more IT savvy (like me) know that a regular simple reboot (that's cycling the power bob) of the router gives you a shiny new IP address.

Whatever your views, I can't recall a single person speaking out in your defence - though I can see very many people advising that they find your posts abusive, insulting, lacking credibility etc. Take a book out of other (more moderate) posters and don't 'bully' your position and 'force your opinions down everybody else's throats' and maybe, just maybe you'll find that the criticism stops and people may listen to you. You have isolated yourself with your bigoted, bullying and insulting method of posting and it's little wonder that people don't even listen to your arguments anymore but simply post about the WAY that you make your points and not the content.

"But the more IT savvy (like me) know that a regular simple reboot (that's cycling the power bob) of the router gives you a shiny new IP address."

Dipstick. What about the MAC address or are you regularly replacing the router as well.

Cavalera wrote:

Wurzellly wrote:

rimaste wrote: What I really don't understand is how Wurzellly/Brizzley (whatever he is calling himself today) is continually allowed to post his drivel?? . 9. Registration When seeking access to parts of the website, such as community forums, reader comments or blogs, you may be asked to register if you want to submit a contribution. You must then supply certain details if requested, such as your email address and a password. If you are under 16 you must get the consent of a parent or guardian before registering. . You can only access the registration areas of the site if: . your email address and password (if requested) are personal and may not be used by anyone else to access the site; you do not do anything to allow anyone who is not a registered user to access any registration area of the site; you do not create additional registration accounts which may cause disruption or abuse of the site; you do not supply us with false or misleading information or pass yourself off as another user. If we believe that you have not complied with these requirements, we may cancel your access to the site immediately and without notice. . In particular ....."you do not create additional registration accounts which may cause disruption or abuse of the site;" . How many times does one person have to break the ToC to be banned? Surely this site has Mods?? (they remoive comments when they feel like it!) You must have his IP address!! Why not do something about it and allow this forum to return to a place where intelligent folk can discuss their opinions in an open and articulate manner!

How? Pray tell? Can you prove conclusively I am the same person? 95% of the UK private addresses have floating IP addresses. Now granted most people use a router that stays connected. But the more IT savvy (like me) know that a regular simple reboot (that's cycling the power bob) of the router gives you a shiny new IP address.

Whatever your views, I can't recall a single person speaking out in your defence - though I can see very many people advising that they find your posts abusive, insulting, lacking credibility etc. Take a book out of other (more moderate) posters and don't 'bully' your position and 'force your opinions down everybody else's throats' and maybe, just maybe you'll find that the criticism stops and people may listen to you. You have isolated yourself with your bigoted, bullying and insulting method of posting and it's little wonder that people don't even listen to your arguments anymore but simply post about the WAY that you make your points and not the content.

I don't actually post on here to win support from anyone. I am not surprised that no one speaks out in my defense? Why should they? I post on here to express my opinion and correct the idiots that post mis-truths and lies – such as the hapless booby and the moronic messy. Now if you don’t like that move along. No one is forcing you to read my posts let alone reply to them. A suitable analogy would be over hearing a conversation in a bar. If you don’t like it, don’t listen. Only someone who is very rude indeed would consider intervening. Are you very rude? I think you must be.

Again, insulting and abusive - other people who's opinions do not agree with yours are 'idiots'. The other day, people who don't smoke were 'the decent ones'. You are in a minority of ONE - that's it ONE - you are the only person that agrees with your posts - what does that tell you. And someone that dares to pass comment on the rubbish that you post is 'rude'. You really ought to listen to yourself.

....and how on earth is a suitable analogy 'over-hearing a conversation in a bar'? You are therefore saying that this is your own private conversation and anyone that doesn't agree is poking their nose in? A better analogy is a public debating forum where people are free to express their opinions and entitled to be listened to - not shot down the minute they post something that you don't agree with. I bet you've got loads of friends.

Cavalera wrote:
....and how on earth is a suitable analogy 'over-hearing a conversation in a bar'? You are therefore saying that this is your own private conversation and anyone that doesn't agree is poking their nose in? A better analogy is a public debating forum where people are free to express their opinions and entitled to be listened to - not shot down the minute they post something that you don't agree with. I bet you've got loads of friends.

I have got masses of friends - thanks for asking. I am not looking for any more.
.
See this is not a debating forum it is a comments section. Now that may lead to debate. If debate occurs then I will post comments as I see fit. Now if you are too stupid to get your head around that then maybe you are the idiot?
.
So again, thank you for your insulting little rant. Do I care – I couldn’t give a toss. If you don’t like it move on. If you think you have the debating skills and the intellectual prowess to challenge me – go right ahead – you will fail!

Ooooh ark at 'er......You really need to get your facts right Mr Perfect (in fact, change your name while you're at it - it's more apt)....I didn't say it was a debating forum...read my post (though you clearly don't actually read anybody else's comments at all) - I said that was an ANALOGY....certainly better than your suggestion of a 'pub conversation'. Again - resorting to insults. You have proven with your last few posts that you do indeed lack the maturity and intellectual prowess to hold a civil conversation - I wonder if the Adver have a kids section on this site anywhere (you might win an argument there or be able to bully others with your opinions) - I'll take a look and let you know. As for 'masses of friends' - I had to laugh out loud when I read that.

I only tend to read posts that actually interest me. Yours do little more than catch my eye they tend to be that dull. You really haven't changed my opinion yet. I don’t think your ANALOGY was very good at all. It certainly wasn’t better than my pub ANALOGY. You see for an ANALOGY to be good it needs to draw upon something that in ANALOGOUS. A debating forum is really too similar to this comments section for it to be effective as an ANALOGY. Now if you have no further questions I suggest you move on. Oh and thanks for the tip about the username – I hadn’t thought of that but hey you are right I am closer to perfection than most of the dross (you included) that post on here!

Courtesy of Wiki:
"An analogy can be a spoken or textual comparison between two words (or sets of words) to highlight some form of semantic similarity between them. Such analogies can be used to strengthen political and philosophical arguments, even when the semantic similarity is weak or non-existent (if crafted carefully for the audience). Analogies are sometimes used to persuade those that cannot detect the flawed or non-existent arguments."
PMSL! You lose!!

Yawn - predictable - boring - inaccurate - insulting - adds nothing to the argument - childish - yup...a typical Wurzelly post. Anyway, can't you just go away and have a sensible and mature debate with your 'masses of friends'....LOL. Couldn't find a kids section but if you click on families at the top of the main page and then scroll down, there are links to various toddler and pre-school groups where your comments should really be posted. While you're on there, get one of your masses of friends to review 'analogy' or analogous' and tell you what the correct meaning is.

Oh dear,same old arguments on nearly every thread, the views of the people on these issues get totally lost in this constant playground fighting.

Could so easily be solved... why why why dont you all just ignore any bullying offensive posts? After all we all know thw Psychologies behind this sort of stuff? 100 and odd comments and more than half are ridiculous diatribes...makes swindon look a bit stupid.

They can't ignore it beacuse they know I am right!

^2 hours and that's the best you've got?? How is it "La-la land"? Sun shining and birds singing?
.
security word - soil-play - yep, that just about covers it!

Don’t you guys get it yet?
.
C/O and Brizz or Wuzzley are just here to wind people merchants. If you ignore them, they will get bored and f-u.
.
I have yet to find an article on which they have commented to any other post in agreement.
.
.
People should realise, you only live once, make the most of it. Hey, smoking may well kill, but so does driving fast and drinking. Other things in life can kill you; Walking in front of a bus, bungee jumping without being strapped to a rope...
.
People should live and let live, this country has become a dictatorship, not a democracy..
.
ps; you may enjoy the smoke free pubs but by god, they just smell of BO and ****.. At least when you could smoke, that stench was hidden...