I wish you could sue smokers!

jaydeeuk1

Most annoying thing I see is parents smoking in their car with children in the back seat. Should be a criminal offence imo as it shows they just don't give a f**k about them.

hartcjhart

Jaydde I completely agree with you:mad:

If I am out with my father or brothers in the car(theirs or mine) I do not smoke as they dont,

Volcano

hartcjhart wrote: »

ask the experts to state catergorically 100% and they will decline to do so

From my first link: "PASSIVE SMOKING DOES CAUSE LUNG CANCER, [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans Serif]DO NOT LET THEM FOOL YOU"[/FONT]
From my second: "Around 90% of cases are due to smoking. Other causes include passive smoking and exposure to certain gases and chemicals."

I think that's fairly 'catergorically' stated.

figures are massaged for the outcome you want

Certainly not what I want. I'd like smoking to be found to be completely harmless, unfortunately it kills around 46,000 people a year in the UK and is responsible for 90% of all lung cancers.

hartcjhart

from your link

The study found that there was an estimated 16% increased risk of lung cancer among non-smoking spouses of smokers. For workplace exposure the estimated increase in risk was 17%.


why do they say risk? if they where 100% sure they would state a 16% increase IN cancer

If you stand under a tree in a lightning storm you increase the risk of being hit BUT it doesnt mean you WILL be hit

Volcano

hartcjhart wrote: »

why do they say risk? if they where 100% sure they would state a 16% increase IN cancer

Why indeed? I see two possibilities:

Possibility 1: You are correct. You have single-handedly outwitted the World Health Organisation, showing up their hundreds of medical experts as charlatans, proved that secondhand smoke doesn't cause cancer and set off a cataclysmic reaction that will end smoking bans around the world.

Possibility 2: You don't understand the definition of the word 'risk' in an epidemiological context.

We all have a 'risk' of lung cancer, for those in smoky environments that risk is increased, i.e. more people in smoky environments who don't smoke will develop lung cancer, compared to those non-smokers who do not live/work in smoky environments.

hartcjhart

Risk risk risk no proof proof proof

giantmutantbroccoli

You're right, the so-called "smoking ban" did not go far enough!
Smoking should not be allowed within a 5 metre radius of another person. Not even if that other person is a smoker, because otherwise that would double their intake of smoke and ruin their health even further.
We should also ban people drinking on the streets, it's an offensive habit, bad for their health and mine. Of course there's no such thing as passive drinking, but if you have to walk past drunk people you're aware that they could become aggressive or even violent. Not to mention the fact that seeing people drink encourages people to do so. So we should have a similar ban on drinking.
Cars produce a lot of toxic fumes as well, so we should keep them away from pedestrian areas and people. I think the 5 metre rule would work well there too.
Spray deodorants are another danger, as they can be dangerous if inhaled, as are fabric fresheners like febreeze. And no one likes being attacked by someone's unbearably strong perfume!
Even food can be a danger. I have heard that when you smell something you are actually eating it, as part of your sense of taste is involved with your sense of smell. This would mean that when I walk past McDonalds I am inhaling cholesterol! I'm sure all right-thinking people would agree that is an outrage.
I propose that the " 5 metre rule" be applied to all situations where another person's health may be put at risk. I personally will set fire to anyone who comes within a 5 metre radius of me, or who drives a car within 5 metres of the pavement and thus infringes my personal rights to good health.
[/sarcasm:rolleyes: - aimed at the OP]

janninew

I enjoy reading posts from smokers trying to justify their filthy habit! It smacks of desperation, you know its ruining your health and costing you a fortune! It can't be compared to eating unhealthy food, how does a person in the street eating a burger affect me? You have no idea how unpleasant cigarette smoke is to non smokers, children, animals etc.

Volcano

hartcjhart wrote: »

Risk risk risk no proof proof proof

Glad that's settled then.

Which only leaves this mystery:

hartcjhart wrote:

Jaydde I completely agree with you:mad:

?

giantmutantbroccoli

[janninew;24600003]I enjoy reading posts from smokers trying to justify their filthy habit! It smacks of desperation, you know its ruining your health and costing you a fortune! It can't be compared to eating unhealthy food, how does a person in the street eating a burger affect me? You have no idea how unpleasant cigarette smoke is to non smokers, children, animals etc.

Yo, jannienew, I gotta newsflash for ya - I don't have to justify anything I do or say, especially not on the internet!
Did you not see the [/sarcasm] bit at the end? I am mocking the OP, not because he doesn't like smokers, but because he appears to have forgotten that "smokers" are actually a diverse group. He seems to think of smokers as just one organism with blah million heads and half a lung. As a smoker, I am aware that secondhand smoke smells like bum, so I try not to inflict it on other people. One smoker, or even several smokers, being inconsiderate doesn't mean we all are!