+- TT Website Forum (https://www.ttwebsite.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Isle of Man TT Website (https://www.ttwebsite.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: TT Related Posts (Only) (https://www.ttwebsite.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: NO SMOKING (/showthread.php?tid=3121)
Pages:
1
2
NO SMOKING - Anonymous - 21-10-2004
If you are planning to sail from Liverpool to the IOM forget about smoking as Liverpool City Council last night approved a NO SMOKING BAN throughout the city, this ban will probably take 18 months to enforce and will be the first city in the UK to follow Dublin's example.
Re: NO SMOKING - Anonymous - 21-10-2004
don't you just hate these gloating ex-smokers? :-]
ade!
Nanny State Dictates Again. - Anonymous - 21-10-2004
I take it that this is based on health issues, particularly Passive Smoking, well the facts do not stand up as I am led to believe. The following extract was taken from a publication on <A HREF="http://www.forestonline.org">www.forestonline.org</A>
"Are non-smokers at risk from ETS?"
"This is what everyone wants to know. The truth is that the scientific establishment has found it impossible to reach agreement on the issue. Interviewed on Radio 4's Desert Island Discs (23 February 2001), Professor Sir Richard Doll, the first scientist to publish research that suggested a correlation between lung cancer and primary smoking, commented: 'The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me.'
Professor Doll's comments may surprise some people but not those who have analysed the argument about passive smoking in detail. In 1992, for example, the American Environmental Protection Agency published a report that was said to demonstrate the link between passive smoking and ill health in non-smokers. In 1996 however a US federal court ruled that the EPA had completely failed to prove its case. It was found not only to have abandoned recognised statistical practice, but to have excluded studies which did not support its pre-determined conclusion, and to have been inconsistent in its classification of ETS compared with other substances.
Likewise, in 1997, the National Health & Medical Research Council in Australia was found guilty by a federal court judge of acting improperly in preparing its draft report on passive smoking because it didn't consider all the relevant scientific evidence and submissions.
If that wasn't damning enough, in March 1998 the World Health Organisation was forced to admit that the results of a seven-year study (the largest of its kind) into the link between passive smoking and lung cancer were not 'statistically significant'. This is because the risk of a non-smoker getting lung cancer has been estimated at 0.01%. According to WHO, non-smokers are subjecting themselves to an increased risk of 16-17% if they consistently breathe other people's tobacco smoke. This may sound alarming, but an increase of 16-17% on 0.01 is so small that, in most people's eyes, it is no risk at all".
"ETS is often confused with mainstream smoke and sidestream smoke. ETS is the final stage of tobacco smoke dispersion when it becomes highly diluted in the surrounding air. Although assumed to possess the same properties as mainstream and sidestream smoke, this remains unproven."
Re: NO SMOKING - Anonymous - 21-10-2004
Ade me gloat? well a little.
Re: NO SMOKING - Anonymous - 21-10-2004
We here in Ireland laughed ourselves to the ground when the ban was mentioned, however when it was enforced...it was inforced!
Now our Pubs are much cleaner - us smokers must of been filthy punters!!!
Just joined the forum - Greetings to many of my friends on the 'other' forum - "Hi" to Ade, Pikey [met you at Monaghan], Stella and Helen (the witch) and many more!
Re: NO SMOKING - Anonymous - 21-10-2004
Seedy jog my memory i met you at Monaghan ,were you with the famous Baylon.
Re: NO SMOKING - Anonymous - 21-10-2004
Pykey, I was with Chas Corris, Myles Lally and Woody and I met you at Cassidy's Jump ...(never mind the excellent racing - what about those bloody wasps!)
Remember me now?
Re: NO SMOKING - Anonymous - 21-10-2004
Sorry Folks, Seedy is a new name. Others may know me as 'Noddy' from realroadracing.com
(Seedy - as in CD 175, also known as 'Noddy's - just can't get away from them!)
Re: Nanny State Dictates Again. - Anonymous - 21-10-2004
And?
Re: NO SMOKING - Anonymous - 21-10-2004
seedy? naaaaaaaaaah, noddy suits ya better me boy!
i'll mail ya after tea, think i owe you one or two :-]
ade!
Re: NO SMOKING - Anonymous - 21-10-2004
Welcome to TTwebsite Seedy/Noddy ;-)
As for smoking ? Whew what a can of worms.....Personally i watched my mum loose her life last year after an agonising fight suffering from emphysema.Would not wish that on my worse enemy. I know that i will never smoke nor will my kids. However i truly believe that its a matter of choice. A lot used to be said re the Regal, Marlborough, JP Norton etc Sponsorship but it never even entered my head that i would start smoking as a result of this. The only thing that worries me slightly is the amount of young girls especially, i still see smoking if only they knew etc.
Anyway the sun shone in Edinburgh today while i was spending my hols chillin up town !
cheers,
Stella
Re: NO SMOKING - Anonymous - 21-10-2004
Stella the young girls smoke these days to keep their weight down after munching burgers every night, hope you are well and hope to see you at oulton next season?
Re: NO SMOKING - Anonymous - 21-10-2004
Seedy which one were you? i saw Myles & Chaz at the jumps and was talking to a few but sorry i only remenber the wasps and Ray Porter's antics, unless you were the guy with the posh motorhome.
Re: NO SMOKING - Anonymous - 21-10-2004
if i was to describe him best to ya pykey, he'd probably not speak to me again. i'll be as diplomatic as possible. noddy is slightly less high than me, slightly rounder than me, has short blond hair and wears glasses. if i can find our skerries photo from the michael collins pub, i'll send it ya. ok? keep an eye on ya mail box.
ade!
Re: Nanny State Dictates Again. - Anonymous - 21-10-2004
Re: NO SMOKING - Anonymous - 21-10-2004
Yes Pykey really hope to catch up with you next season.Missed Oulton Park very much this year. Ankle is coming on, still aches and limping at times but told it will take a year at least. Just got to be patient. Hope your well yourself ?
lots love as always,
Stella x
Re: Nanny State Dictates Again. - Anonymous - 21-10-2004
Malcolm i take it you smoke but visiting Eire this year was a pleasure, smoking is now anti-social eveywhere and people shouldnt have to put with other peoples filthy habits, and yes i used to smoke but i quit on medical advice.
Re: Nanny State Dictates Again. - Anonymous - 21-10-2004
This non smoking rule in clubs and pubs is being phased in and will be law by 2007 in Australia. I don't smoke and I prefer to be in areas where there is no smoking but if a club or pub is willing to securely close off an area for smokers and the staff working in that area are smokers themselves then I can't see a problem there. It's the workers in the clubs who are concerned about their health and I can see their point. Must say, at my last TT visit the establishment where I stayed absolutely stunk of cigarettes and the smoke gave me the worst sinus. Was not a happy camper, I can tell you.
Re: Nanny State Dictates Again. - Anonymous - 22-10-2004
Yes I am a smoker and by choice. I enjoy having a smoke when I sit down after a meal, at the bar with friends etc and I am still of the opinion that it is a matter of choice for the individual and not for Government to dictate what will and wont be.
I have lived and worked in many countries around the world, and some of those have a much higher %age rate of smokers than the UK has, yet they have a lesser %age fatality rate of people dying from smoking related illnesses than the UK has. Why is that ? Is it the diet that these people have, is it the man made preservatives that are infiltrating the food that you buy in the supermarket every day, who knows, but the evidence for me is totally inconclusive.
FOREST sent the results of their Populus poll to no fewer than 22,000 regional and national politicians, including local councillors, AMs (Welsh Assembly), MSPs (Scottish Parliament), MPs and members of the House of Lords. The results, which are presented in a six-page brochure, are accompanied by a letter from director Simon Clark who writes:
"Following the ban on tobacco advertising, the anti-smoking lobby has been vociferous in demanding another ban - this time on smoking in public places. So far, government ministers have said there are no plans for a national smoking ban, though they may consider giving powers to local councils to ban smoking in public places in their areas ...
"An independent poll of 10,000 people in ten regions across Britain has just been carried out. The findings show that seven out of ten people (74%) do NOT support a blanket ban on smoking in pubs and bars. In fact the comprehensive, regionally representative survey by Populus found that only 24% of people thought smoking should be banned completely in pubs, clubs and bars. A large majority undoubtedly want improvements - more smoke-free areas and well-ventilated pubs - but they want choice, not an outright ban.
"Another key focus of the [Fight For Choice] campaign is whether smoking policies in pubs, bars and clubs should continue to be set by the management or whether the UK should blindly follow the example of New York and Ireland and ban smoking completely, against the wishes of most people in the hospitality industry. The survey found that almost two thirds of people (63%) believe policies on smoking should be left to the owners and managers of individual premises, rather than local councils (21%) or central government (14%).
"The hospitality industry in the UK has worked hard to improve ventilation and to create more non-smoking areas and nonsmoking pubs and restaurants. Further progress in these areas will provide real choice for smokers and non-smokers alike."
LIKE THE overwhelming majority of smokers, FOREST understands and fully accepts the health risks of smoking and the nature of that risk. Indeed, the health risks have been known for so long (the US Surgeon General first announced a link between smoking and lung cancer in 1964) there cannot be a sane adult in the UK who is not aware of the potential danger.
We do however have a problem with the tactics adopted by politicians and the health industry who routinely use the health argument to say they are 'protecting' smokers from themselves. The health argument is then presented in one of several ways.
The first is to frighten smokers into believing that they will almost certainly die before their time ('Quit or die'). The problem with this message is that it is so obviously false. As a great many families (and even doctors) will testify, many smokers live a long and healthy life, sometimes outliving their non-smoking peers.
Moreover, with one major exception (lung cancer), none of the illnesses described as 'smoking-related' is exclusive to smokers and all are primarily diseases of the elderly. In reality, two-thirds of all deaths in the UK are caused by 'smoking-related diseases', despite the fact that only half of those people actually smoke.
Other factors
Something else therefore must be causing these 'smoking-related diseases' (and, no, it's not passive smoking!) which is unrelated to smoking - diet, perhaps, or genetic factors, or even general lifestyle (lack of exercise, for example). Or maybe (horror of horrors) it's just old age.
One disease that smoking cannot ignore is lung cancer for the simple reason that it very, very rarely afflicts non-smokers. (The average annual risk of a non-smoker getting lung cancer has been calculated to be 0.01%.) Even for smokers, however, the quit or die message seems a bit excessive. According to Professor Sir Richard Doll (the man who first discovered a correlation between smoking and lung cancer in the 1950s) research suggests that if you start smoking as a teenager and quit aged 30, the risk of developing lung cancer is 2%; give up at 50 and the risk goes up to 8%; give up at 70 (by which time you have been smoking for more than 50 years) and the risk rises to 16%.
Surprised? Let's face it, these figures paint a rather different picture from the anti-smoking lobby which gives the impression that most if not all smokers are going to die a horrible, agonising death well before their time. Again, this isn't to deny the health risks, but let's get this in perspective. In spite of what some people would have you believe, smoking is not a one-way ticket to Death Row.
Beneficial qualities
Revealingly, the anti-smoking lobby refuses point blank to acknowledge that smoking has any beneficial qualities whatsoever. The health risks of smoking may outweight the health risks of stress, for example, but there are many smokers who believe passionately that the former helps reduce the latter.
Likewise, many smokers believe (rightly or wrongly) that smoking (and the occasional smoking break) helps improve their concentration and makes them more efficient at work. Meanwhile, instead of welcoming research which suggests that smoking may help ward off Alzheimer's Disease (one of most debilitating illnesses known to man), the anti-smokers pour scorn on the idea. Why?
Finally, there is a clear lack of perspective in the smoking debate, a factor most clearly illustrated by the anti-smokers' complaint that James Bond, in the 2002 film Die Another Day, was seen smoking a cigar (in Cuba!). The fact that they had no problem with 007 having casual, unprotected sex, driving dangerously fast or being in possession of a loaded gun (with intent to kill!) reveals more about their narrow-mindeded obsession than it does about the dangers of smoking.
Re: NO SMOKING - Anonymous - 22-10-2004
Ade - 'not a bother' as we say round here!
short blond hair? a touch gray more like, plus you forgot I've always a smile on me!
I'll be changing me name back to Noddy.....as soon as I work this thing out