55
   

THE BRITISH THREAD II

 
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2007 11:06 am
spendius wrote:
Mac wrote-

Quote:
What points?

1- The equating a cigarette with a smouldering refuse tip was underhand and a lie.

I was comparing the smell of the hair, clothes and person of a smoker with someting very unpleasant. That is not a lie, it is true. But I may have permitted myself some dramatic licence to get your attention. Worked, too.
Quote:

2- That you abuse our trust by finding an incident involving a "heavy" smoker and even then blithely assuming that the problem reported by a member of the claque was caused by that and not something else just on his/her sayso.

So? Medical evidence shows that the detrimental effects of just about every ailment are made worse by smoking.
Quote:

3- That you have no proof that passive smoking does anybody any harm and that it is a lie to assert, on no scientific evidence, that it does.

Steve has spoken to that. Roy Castle.
Quote:

4- That '14-'18 soldiers, airmen and sailors would have despised these fear-raddled do-gooders freaking out at the aroma of tobacco smoke.

Opinion. Times change, and habits too as new evidence comes to the fore. But irrelevant
Quote:

5- That this fear is often faked in order to gain power to officiously order everybody about in humiliating circumstances.

Partly true, but if you think that is what the Government are doing, bear in mind they are bringing about a huge drop in tax revenues. Now why would they choose to do that, if the advantages did not outweigh the disadvantages?
Quote:

6- That they won't go away now they have this victory.

"They" may be your best friends
Quote:

7- That smoking deaths, through abuse mainly, are much cheaper for the NHS than the long drawn out declines of people into their 80s and 90s.

Smoking banned extends useful lives. Rejoice.
Quote:

8- That non smokers get fat and obese and present the NHS with another set of difficulties.

Let's jump one fence at a time
Quote:

9- That non-smokers are crap company.

I've seen this stated before. It may be true. But smokers are smelly company.
Quote:

10- That nicotine inhibits degenerative brain disease and stimulates creativity which we need to prosper.

That's a new one on me, and probably not true. Users of other narcotics who wish to stimulate their brains (Coleridge, Byron) usually don't do it for long.
Quote:

11- That candlelit dining out should be outlawed on your own arguments along with a lot of other stuff.

Let's take a vote on that one. I vote for occasional candlelit dinners.
Quote:

12- That passive driving has killed and maimed millions of people for sure and thus unauthorised driving should be banned forthwith.

Unauthorised driving IS banned.
Quote:
13- That your excessive concern for our health is a club to beat us with and actually you don't give a shite and that if you do give a shite but not for victims of passive bargain hunting in the sweatshops of the world then you are objectively a dyed-in-the-wool racist and value human life on a sliding scale with yours at 100 and a coolie on zero.

My concern is for my health, and the pleasantness of my surroundings.
Mr Brown's concern is for all of us, even the miserable gits.
Quote:

14- That the ban is an attack on freedom.

It is, but what sort of freedom if that? I don't have the freedom to piss in your soup, even though you have no proof that it will do you any harm.

Any more?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2007 11:52 am
Quote:


That was simply to show that there are other viewpoints and other research and if the money and skills used to present the anti smoking view had been used on that side you would all be puffing away happily.

But you don't do happiness do you?
0 Replies
 
Mathos
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2007 12:05 pm
Spendi, you are clutching at straws!

Talking to a friend of mine in the political fraternity of life today, he mentioned that the next stage regarding drinking alcohol was in progress! They are going to make it illegal to drink in public places, parks, beaches, street, etc etc. Higher the legal age from 18 to 21..That's good isn't it, old enough to legally kill but not permitted to have a beer because the government consider you too young!


This is the New Control Government Spendi, Might is Right..
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2007 12:45 pm
Not quite yet old bean.

They have forgotten the INTERNET. All it takes is a leader. Organise a nationwide smoke-in, like the Save the Earth silliness without the silliness and in-yer-face hypocrisy.

The National Smoke 20 fags in a pub Day.

We all get arrested, we all refuse to pay fines, we all get sent to prison.

I don't think so do you? The FTSE will collapse.

I'm not against anyone banning smoking on their own premises BTW.

Think of the money the medical bureaucracy will make out of long-term degenerative brain disorders. I should think it will be the whole national cake in thirty years. Unless they bring in administrative terminations of course.
0 Replies
 
Mathos
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2007 12:59 pm
The Happy Scotsman...Pub in Blackpool, the Landlord has point blank refused to tell anyone they can't smoke, so the punters have been smoking!

The smoke catcher General and his men went in today! Three punters fined on the spot £50 each! Landlord being taken to Court, advised he faces A FINE OF £2500..00

Like I said mate, MIGHT IS RIGHT!

If Matthew was the Smoke Catcher General, the poor sod would be burning on the beach tonight.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2007 02:47 pm
spendius wrote:
Quote:

THERAPEUTIC EFFECTS OF SMOKING AND NICOTINE.

Smoking lowers Parkinson's disease risk - More evidence that smoking fights Parkinson - "A new study adds to the previously reported evidence that cigarette smoking protects against Parkinson's disease.


Its true it protects against alzheimers, parkinsons disease heart disease multiple sclerosis etc. because it ****ing kills you before they do.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2007 02:55 pm
you know spends what really annoys me about you is your game playing. You are far too intelligent to actually believe the crap you come out with. You just do it to provoke a response from those you consider the lesser mortals with whom you like to toy. Its just play for you. Nothing is serious. Nothing is really meant. And nothing you post reveals anything about you.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2007 03:36 pm
My very first post, which was my member profile, unchanged to this day, and my only username, likewise unchanged, tell an intelligent person more about me than all your posts past and future will ever reveal about you.

You are talking about superficial "knowing".

I haven't the faintest idea, and nor do I care, whether or not smoking inhibits degenerate brain conditions or any other condition. I am just showing that some scientists say it does and that you lot have picked the scientists to believe who you want to believe and rolled out a money-spinning bandwagon on the strength of it which I think will bankrupt the country unless it is stopped. Just as a similar death fear bankrupted ancient Egypt and left it prostrate at the feet of an invader.

I think cancer is caused by weakened immune systems. And loss of self-respect is a major cause of those. And I would feel like a gobbin if I believed one lot of scientists whose cash interest I can easily see and called the others crap.

I do know that non-smokers are boring though.

It's pub time. I'm hoping there are more in than has been of late. It's as if there's a typhoid scare on.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2007 05:07 pm
But really-when all is said and done- it is so humiliating.

The idea that I need a bunch of scientists, whose motives I can easily determine from an honest appraisal of my own, to tell me how to live is just about as humiliating as humiliating gets.

It is as if I have no brains of my own and that is detrimental to my self-respect and anything of that nature is bound to affect the immune system and leave me vulnerable to whatever comes first.

The very idea that these f*****g boffins know better than I do how I should live my one and only life is so far off my agenda as to be out of f*****g sight.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jul, 2007 02:50 am
spendius wrote:
But really-when all is said and done- it is so humiliating.

The idea that I need a bunch of scientists, whose motives I can easily determine from an honest appraisal of my own, to tell me how to live is just about as humiliating as humiliating gets.

It is as if I have no brains of my own and that is detrimental to my self-respect and anything of that nature is bound to affect the immune system and leave me vulnerable to whatever comes first.

The very idea that these f*****g boffins know better than I do how I should live my one and only life is so far off my agenda as to be out of f*****g sight.


Spendy, don't take on so. It's not as bad as all that.

Look at it this way: I can't show my backside in Burton's window. It is contrary to social norms. But I can still remove my trousers, under certain circumstances.

You can still smoke. But not in a public, enclosed space. The world has not stopped turning. Carry on with the self-abuse, if that is your wish.
0 Replies
 
Clary
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jul, 2007 02:55 am
Glad to know you can still remove your trousers in certain circs, McT, and hope that doing so isn't as injurious to your health as smoking. I liked the thing yesterday about Smoke on Trent who'd forgotten to get the requisite paperwork done to enforce the ban!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jul, 2007 06:27 am
Quote:
Backing for UK waters smoking ban
11 July 2007 | 14:35

PROPOSALS to ban smoking on all ships sailing in UK waters have been greeted with widespread support.

With new restrictions on smoking in public places now in force, ministers are now looking at putting in place a similar ban on all vessels with crews and passengers sailing up to 12 miles off the coast and on inland waterways.

It would not just apply to UK registered ships but to ships of any flags, and those visiting Felixstowe and other UK ports come from all over the world

Following a consultation exercise on the idea, the government is now set to follow it up with a set of draft regulations for further comment this autumn and hopes to bring in a new law next year.

"We received a very positive reaction to our plans to introduce restrictions to sea going and inland waterways vessels," said a Department of Transport spokesman.

"Very few respondents took issue with the proposals and most clearly recognised the health benefits associated with reduced exposure to second hand smoke and were keen to see clear unambiguous regulations introduced."

The consultation asked for comments on how the rules should be enforced and what penalties should apply.

Lawyers have assured government it will be within its rights to enforce smoking bans on ships of other nations sailing in UK waters.

The consultation received 45 responses from interested organisations in the maritime industry - with 40 supporting the proposals.

It was felt by some that while smoking in work and communal areas, including sleeping quarters, should be banned, there would still need to be areas on board where people could smoke away from fellow seafarers - especially as people stay on ships for months.

However, it was felt some vessels were unsuitable for smoking on deck and in some cases smoking on deck is fully restricted.

One idea to be investigated is the possibility of designating some cabins for smokers.

"There was agreement amongst most consultees that the benefits would not only include the improved health of workers but would also lead to a more pleasant working environment," said the Dft spokesman.

"Most felt that this would be difficult to quantify in money but in any case would outweigh any potential costs identified.

"The costs were considered to be minimal unless modifications were needed to the structure of a vessel to provide adequate ventilation for areas where smoking is permitted."

Shipping union Nautilus UK felt workers should be protected from second hand smoke wherever they are in the world and that other Health and Safety legislation does not stop applying once a vessel has left UK territorial waters.


Viewers might notice that this whole Kafkaesque nightmare into which they are enthusiastically diving is posited on this one thing-

Quote:
the health benefits associated with reduced exposure to second hand smoke


which is an unsupported assertion.

And if-

Quote:
there would still need to be areas on board where people could smoke away from fellow seafarers


Why can't pubs have a similar convenience?

I'll tell you why. It is because non-smoking rooms in pubs where there are also smoking rooms do not pay because nobody enjoys spending the evening in the company of non-smokers. Not even non-smokers.

The economic evidence is that non-smokers cannot sustain a pub industry so it is fair to assume that pubs are on the way out because the fewer customers they have the higher the prices they need to charge and a downward spiral is bound to set in.

Your future is on the couch with the cans and separated from communal discourse which is exactly where they want you and the objective of these policies.

And the freedoms all those heroes died for is shredded on the basis of two lies put out by a conspiracy of self-interested, often self appointed, busybodies whose hearts go pitter-patterpitter-patter if somebody bursts a paper bag and who have taken over our governmental instiutions and media centres and are set to wring your f****ng necks. You will be free to be little goody-goodies.

And if you encourage them, or even sit quiet, they will do as Max Weber pointed out over 100 years ago.

Quote:
Don't be a good little, good little boy
Being as good as you can
And agreeing with all the mealy-mouthed, mealy mouthed truths
That the sly trot to protect themselves
And their greedy mouthed, greedy mouthed cowardice.
Every old lout.


D.H. Lawrence. (From memory so might contain trace errors)
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jul, 2007 05:44 pm
Quote:
Cancer can develop in the lungs in two ways. It can start in the lung (primary lung cancer), or it can spread there from a primary cancer elsewhere in the body. If a cancer spreads to the lungs from another part of the body, this is known as secondary or metastatic lung cancer.

Cancerous tumours are made up of millions of cells. Some of these cells may break away from the primary cancer and travel in the bloodstream or the lymphatic system to another part of the body, in this case the lungs. Although any type of cancer can spread to the lung, the most common types to spread to this area are cancers of the large bowel (colon and rectum), breast, bladder, testicle, stomach, gullet (oesophagus), kidney (renal), and a type of skin cancer called malignant melanoma.


Obviously, if one could link them all to passive smoking by constant repetitive assertion, like Goebells explained in his "How to" book, one might have the whole nation running around like silly buggers which is the very epitome of the technique known as the "practical joke" or the "wind-up". And, as a bonus, avoid having to explain the cause of the primary cancers. And, as the icing on the cake, make a fortune as well whilst looking like 50,000 Florence Nightingales all rolled into one coincentrated loci of pure virtuous concern for other human beings such as the baby strapped to the back of its mum for twelve hours so you can all have bargains in the shops.

Once they banned media advertising tobacco products then the rest is simple, straightforward and not unexpected. Just imagine a bloke spending £40 a week, nearly all tax, and media not being able to get at it in the same way they can get at spending on cars and disinfectants and banking services and stair lifts and remote controlled garage doors.

The smoker became a pariah as soon as media couldn't get a percentage out of him. Obviously. He was reducing their profits and that's subversive as far as media is concerned.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jul, 2007 06:01 pm
And it's a toss up whether alcohol or saturated fat abusers will become the next pariahs.

I saw a bloke today at a roadworks cutting a kerbstone in half with one of those Stihl saws and a whole cloud of concrete dust was enveloping him and drifting into the air conditioning intakes of the motorists passing by. If he gets lung cancer in the future it will be either because he smoked or had once seen a photograph of somebody having a fag.

He was working for the council which has just been granted the power by Royal Assent to humiliate us, and our heroic dead, in a blitz of do-gooding and lucrative self-importance.

No wonder half the population say they would leave if they could find somewhere promising to go.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jul, 2007 01:31 am
You can get a Stihl saw attachment which sprays water on the workpiece so the dust is controlled.

My uncle died of silicosis from his work as a marble mason. Nasty.

I saw a building being demolished in Nuremberg by one of these huge hydraulic peckers and there was a man with a water hose too, spraying the wall so no dust escaped. How unlike here.

Goebbels is spelt like that. T H A T

It looks like Spendy was right. Yesterday on the news they were discussing proposals to tax fattening food. That's my favourite kind, too.

Oh well, I 'xpect it's for my own good. :wink:
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jul, 2007 04:22 am
Mac wrote-

Quote:
You can get a Stihl saw attachment which sprays water on the workpiece so the dust is controlled.


We know that Mac. The point was that the self-same council that is responsible for that blokes dire and well-proven dangerous working conditions is exactly the same one that is running officiously wild humiliating us all, non-smokers as well, on the basis of two bare-assed lies which seems to me proof that it isn't saving lives that is their priority but creating themselves jobs where they can officiously boss us all to no effect except to put up the council tax. That bloke is probably cutting kerbstones on a daily, or even hourly, basis. I have seen that scene many times.

My info about secondary cancer came from someone in NHS admin who said that most lung cancers were secondaries.

Eating more than 20g a day of saturated fat is a bigger problem by miles than passive smoking. It is just that these busybodies will have to take on the agricultural and food processing and distribution industries rather than the sapped-out powerless proles to do anything about it. As they haven't so far one can only assume that they are bullies as well.

Another bit of info I have from large scale American research is that if your cholesterol level is above 3.9 you are getting sicker every minute that goes by. Mine is 3.4 and I got it down from 4.8 without giving up smoking moderately. It is ridiculous to class 10 a day roll-your-owners with 60 a day packet shiters together as smokers and forget all about other aspects of the latter's lifestyles unless you want to get an officiousness bandwagon rolling.
0 Replies
 
Dorothy Parker
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jul, 2007 09:07 am
I won an excellence award at my graduation thing the other day! I'm very happy!

Got a likkle trophy n everyfink!

(they hadn't put my name on it though so I'll have to do it myself - bit mean innit?)

All this smoking talk is just making me want a cig.

How is everyone then?
0 Replies
 
Clary
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jul, 2007 09:21 am
Hearty Congratulations, DP! Hope you find a good etcher.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jul, 2007 09:21 am
Nice one, DP.

Any chance of a shampoo 'n' set?

(I trust your salon is smoke-free)

Bored today. Heavy rain out. I've got a bad cold too. Dash it all.
0 Replies
 
Clary
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Jul, 2007 09:23 am
No rain here!!!! Mirabile dictu!
But heavy cloud and thunderstorms predicted for Sunday when I've got 18 people coming to lunch Sad
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION - Discussion by Mapleleaf
The United Kingdom's bye bye to Europe - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
Sinti and Roma: History repeating - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
[B]THE RED ROSE COUNTY[/B] - Discussion by Mathos
Leaving today for Europe - Discussion by cicerone imposter
So you think you know Europe? - Discussion by nimh
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 07/19/2025 at 03:16:15