I see the latest wheeze by the bansturbators in parliament is to ban “smoking in cars with children”.
They just can’t help themselves can they? However I fail to see how they can enforce a ban with so many loopholes in it. Here’s a couple.
What if the car has tinted windows like mine. How will they know if there are children in the car? Will they set up roadblocks?
How will they know if someone has actually smoked while the kiddies were in the car? The smell could have lingered from a previous journey?
Why is there a need for this anyway as:
‘Smoking in cars with children has been in decline for years. Today very few people do it because the overwhelming majority of smokers accept that it’s inconsiderate.’ (Simon Clarke from Forest).
I suspect that is the slippery slope to banning smoking elsewhere. If they can start banning it in your own private car, why stop there?
Ban it in peoples own homes will be next. Don’t believe me. just wait.
True fascism. Have cross-posted and linked to this page.
ReplyDeleteSmokerloonies reckon SHS is harmless and any suggestion of it being harmful is all lies and propagander by puritan monsters, so smoking in cars with kids is perfectly ok.
ReplyDeleteSimon Clark uses the word "inconsiderate"..I would say its harmful , unpleasant and the number 1 reason the public overwhelmingly support the smoking ban to avoid SHS.
I would still not ban smoking in cars with kids because its a bloody mess to enforce and overkill, selfish smokers will have to answer to their children one day why they were so ignorant and unpleasant.
Although the smoking ban had to be introduced because of inconsiderate smokers and SHS.....it just shows how much the smoking ban has educated smokers that the overwhelming majority of smokers accept that SHS in cars is inconsiderate.....perhaps they should ban it to stop selfish smokerloonie denialists carry on smoking in cars with kids, because everyone else who smokes has been educated about SHS and has enforced a ban voluntary.
DeleteThis pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16741714-lungs-from-pack-a-day-smokers-safe-for-transplant-study-finds?lite
Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.
By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.
Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.
What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.
“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...........................
Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!
The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:
Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.
146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.
A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.
Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!
OSHA also took on the passive smoking fraud and this is what came of it:
DeleteReference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition
nap.edu
This sorta says it all
These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.
So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''
OSHA SAFE LEVELS
All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.
For Benzo[a]pyrene, 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.
Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!
Even the Governor of Kentucky and all the Anti-smoking Activists were at Fancy Farm for the big Political Cook Off Cook Out yet they too survived Inhaling 10S OF BILLIONS worth of equal cigarette smoke.
DeleteEven there own Human exhaled Breath creates hundreds of the same chemicals found in tobacco smoke yet we arent outlawing HUMANS FROM INDOOR SPACES.........
Human Exhaled Air Analytics…” Buszewski et al, Biomed. Chromatogr. 21: 553–566 (2007) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
Congratulations cookout fans you've just survived being around second hand smoke for 120,000 years of equivalent exposure! YOU SURVIVED CONGRADULATIONS!
DeleteBarbecues poison the air with toxins and could cause cancer, research suggests. A study by the French environmental campaigning group Robin des Bois found that a typical two-hour barbecue can release the same level of dioxins as up to 220,000 cigarettes.
Dioxins are a group of chemicals known to increase the likelihood of cancer. The figures were based on grilling four large steaks, four turkey cuts and eight large sausages."
Even the CANCER SOCIETY has benefit cookouts yet they push for smoking bans! Talk about being Hipocrits! Heres a real sweety pie of a special hype The Dumbest Fundraising Event Ever? American Cancer Society Joins BBQ Meat "Cook Off" to Raise Money for Cancer Research NaturalNews)
Texans living in Navarro County are about to win a collective award for being the dumbest people in the world when it comes to diet and nutrition: They are hosting a BBQ meat cook-off to raise money for — get this — cancer research!
Message above
ReplyDeleteRegards Rickie
What about SHS making your clothes stink, the eye stinging, the wheezing....this unpleasant fog like CS gas is why the smoking ban is so popular and being introduced throughout the world.
ReplyDeleteThe public hate SHS because of its immediate effects on them.....of course smokeloonies know that the immediate unpleasant effects of being subjected to SHS are the main reasons for supporting the smoking ban....its just they ignore the no brainer truth and try and convince themselves the public are scared of dying as if someone is putting a gun to their heads.
The effects of SHS are real, widely known and hated and that aint going to change. inconsiderate smokers enjoyed the right to be inconsiderate for decades over SHS, self regulation or common sense didn't work.
Smokers you brought about the ban by yourselves.
Rickie
Smokers never brought anything on themselves PC zealots brought it on back in 1975 at the first world anti-tobacco summit where Sir George Godber said:
DeleteLeave smokers alone
The real tragedy here is smokers that have been beaten down for the sole reason of being smokers, thanks to a top-down campaign to cast them aside for the crime of enjoying something some people object to
by Richard White on 8 January 2014 06:54
When George Godber spoke at the 3rd World Conference on Smoking and Health in 1975, he gave his vision of the future: “our target must be, in the long-term, the elimination of cigarette smoking…”, he said.
“We may not have eliminated cigarette smoking completely by the end of this century, but we ought to have reached a position where a relatively few addicts still use cigarettes, but only in private at most in the company of consenting adults... The practice ought to be an enclosed one, not to be endured by the non-smoker in ordinary social intercourse; and no one should be allowed to use advertisement or any indirect means to suggest otherwise.”
In 1975, the general public would have scoffed at such a notion, but it was the apparent threat of secondhand smoke to non-smokers that gave anti-smokers the golden key to legislation restricting smoking from any indoor area.
It didn’t matter that the 1992 EPA report first demonstrating harm only managed to do so by cherry-picking studies and lowering the confidence interval – and even then, finding that for every 40,000 worker-years of exposure to omnipresent smoke as in the 1960s, there would be approximately one extra instance of lung cancer – nor that only 15 percent of the studies done on secondhand smoke and lung cancer managed to find any scientifically significant result at all – and even then the results were less “deadly” than wearing a bra.
With the 2007 blanket smoking ban in the UK, anti-smokers have become ever bolder – pushing for smoking bans in cars, hospital grounds, care homes, even talking about private homes.
All of this is based on the harm posed from passive smoking, despite the statistically insignificant relative risk only existing for those living or working with smokers for hours on end, day after day, for decades.
The mantra that secondhand smoke kills thousands a year has continued even though the large prospective studies show otherwise – Enstrom and Kabat found no risk, the WHO found no risk, and now, a new study examined in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute has found no risk, despite the researchers expecting to find one.
DeleteWithin the study article, though, comes the admission of its roots in Godber’s 1975 comments – Jyoti Patel, MD, explained that there is only a borderline risk of lung cancer from secondhand smoke, but that “[t]he strongest reason to avoid passive cigarette smoke is to change societal behavior: to not live in a society where smoking is a norm”.
And therein lies a chilling message: puritans, with the full backing of the medical establishment, will fabricate health risks to make sure we aren’t doing what they don’t think we should be doing – regardless of the consequences for families and businesses.
It was a given that smoking bans would not pass on that basis, though – health needed to be put at risk to get people to listen. The fabrication is based on distorting science and using weak study models that produce biased results.
Case-control studies depend on people’s recall of smoking exposure 30 or 40 years in the past and are so unreliable they were rejected in the original 1964 Surgeon General’s Report. To lift an excerpt from my own book: “remembering how many cigarettes someone smoked thirty years ago is not an easy task and there is no way the response can be accurate.
In fact, in the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report the authors rejected the retrospective studies and focused on the remaining studies; it speaks volumes that forty years on the medical establishment now accepts flawed methodologies that were rejected in the past for being unreliable.”
Knowing that the real purpose of showing harm from secondhand smoke was to push forward an agenda to marginalise smoking, it stands to reason that retrospective studies were so fervently conducted – while prospective studies take many years to do, retrospective studies can be conducted quickly, frequently and show anything the researchers want them to.
In no time at all, then, a large body of so-called evidence can be amassed, before the first prospective study comes in – so by the time the first, second and third turn up to show the risk of harm has been blown up out of all proportion, anti-smokers are popping the corks in their (presumably non-alcoholic) champagne in celebration of the bans they’ve succeeded in passing.
Yet amidst all this, no one bothered to ask what secondhand smoke actually is. Sure, the smoke on one end is the same as the smoke on the other, but dilution was never considered.
We know that ‘the poison makes the dose’ and that’s why there are safe limits to anything (including water, as anyone who has observed the amusing Dihydrogen Monoxide satire can attest, as even something as necessary as water can be painted to be a societal burden and mass killer), but few cared about the effects of dilution on smoke.
It’s a crucial point though, not least because a non-smoker with long-term exposure to a smoker’s passive smoke will consume only in the region of five cigarettes per year.
Michael McFadden devoted his attention to the properties of secondhand smoke in his book Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains: “about 90 percent of secondary smoke is composed of water and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide.
Another 4 perecent is carbon monoxide, a gas that can act as a poison when in sufficient quantity by reducing the amount of oxygen your red blood cells can carry. The last 6 percent contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities.
“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!”
DeleteHad the public (or politicians, perhaps) known such information it is doubtful that smoking bans would have passed on the basis of risk to health – after all, if a spouse living with a smoker is consuming five cigarettes in an entire year, how many are (or in the British case, were) being consumed by a person sitting in a bar for a few hours?
It’s the families that have suffered huge rifts through fear, the businesses that have shut down, the elderly and terminally ill pushed outside in the depth of winter.
All of which happened while we were watching X-Factor and celebrating what a civilised country we live in.
Maybe – just maybe – this study, combined with those before it, and the justified attention on the issue, can mark the start of the tide turning to an inclusive society, where we don’t bully and ostracise people for not behaving exactly how we want them to.
The real tragedy here is smokers that have been beaten down for the sole reason of being smokers, thanks to a top-down campaign to cast them aside for the crime of enjoying something some people object to.
Richard White is the author of Smoke Screens: The Truth About Tobacco and owner of Word Edit: Professional Literary Services
Read more on: anti-smoking lobby, Action on Smoking and Health, and denormalisation of smokers and smoking
http://www.thecommentator.com/...
Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.
Delete1901: 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.
Well a little history lesson is now needed I can see:
DeleteLook who first invented the Passive smoking Fraud
Hitler's Anti-Tobacco Campaign
One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel -- upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast -- liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.
That's fine company are so called public health depts. keep with ehh!
History can shed so much lite on todays own movement it just amazes the mind...........
Hitler Youth had anti-smoking patrols all over Germany, outside movie houses and in entertainment areas, sports fields etc., and smoking was strictly forbidden to these millions of German youth growing up under Hitler.”
Rickie, where's the evidence that the public overwhelmingly support smoking bans in the UK?
DeleteDon't even bother trying to engage in any sensible conversation with that cretin. He spouts so much cack its unreal.
DeleteRickie is just a troll that regurgitates the crap that tobacco control has made up. He's just a brainwashed, low IQ, idiot.
DeleteI think he's probably impotent too, after years of being abused by his mother. Hence his impotent rage....
DeleteMuch like the ban in pubs was not supposed to be all pubs any ban on smoking in cars will be all cars with or without children. However if I smoke in my camper van while stationary will I be breaking the law?
ReplyDeleteThe true science is obscure, the liars have the stage. Same old, same old.
ReplyDeleteScientists scour the genomes of people who live past 110
DeleteKim said the 17 supercentenarians did not report obvious health habits that explain their longevity. As a group, he said, they did not have especially healthy eating or exercise habits.
“About half of them were smokers,” Kim added.
http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-scour-genomes-people-live-past-110-194749114.html
Heres one we all deserve to hear about…………….
DeleteHearing on 1st-in-nation tobacco ban ended early
WESTMINSTER, Mass. (AP) — A public meeting on a central Massachusetts town’s proposed first-in-the-nation ban on tobacco and nicotine sales has ended early because officials say the crowd was getting too unruly to continue.
Photo – Brian Vincent poses in front of a large display of tobacco products at Vincent’s Country Store in Westminster, Mass., Thursday, Nov. 6, 2014. Local officials are contemplating what could be a first: a blanket ban on all forms of tobacco and e-cigarettes, leaving some shop owners fuming. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola) + caption
The three-member Westminster Board of Health, which proposed the ban, was escorted out by police Wednesday night. The board had asked the crowd to calm down to hear dozens signed up to speak.
Hundreds of people, many opposed to the ban, packed a school auditorium for the hearing. Some, carrying flags and protest signs, had taken part in a rally earlier.
The board says the ban would make it easier to keep tobacco and related products away from young people.
Many businesses oppose it, saying it won’t stop tobacco use, but only drive away customers.
Read more at http://gazette.com/hearing-on-1st-in-nation-tobacco-ban-ended-early/article/feed/178058#UYPRGcOA5i3KPupi.99
The three-member Westminster Board of Health, which proposed the ban, was escorted out by police Wednesday night
Pooor Pooor Nazis I hope some Patriot gets a few shots in………….
Schuman's Expert Witnesses Testify in Secondhand Smoke Trial
DeleteThe plaintiff's expert witnesses spoke up on day three of David Schuman's case against his housing cooperative, Greenbelt Homes, Inc. (GHI), for its failure to prohibit the nuisance created by his townhome neighbors, the Popovics', secondhand smoke.
Courtroom and Plaintiff's Townhome Register Similar Carcinogen Levels
But, an incident from Repace’s testimony Thursday came back into play Friday during cross examination. Goecke pointed out that on Thursday, while demonstrating the carcinogen monitor, Repace had measured the concentration of carcinogens in the court room — which is in a smoke-free building — and the amount he recorded there was similar to what Repace had reported recording in Schuman’s townhome in July of 2011.
greenbelt.patch.com/articles/schumans-expert-witnesses-testify-in-secondhand-smoke-trial
Epidemiologists Vote to Keep Doing Junk Science
DeleteEpidemiology Monitor (October 1997)
An estimated 300 attendees a recent meeting of the American College of
Epidemiology voted approximately 2 to 1 to keep doing junk science!
Specifically, the attending epidemiologists voted against a motion
proposed in an Oxford-style debate that “risk factor” epidemiology is
placing the field of epidemiology at risk of losing its credibility.
Risk factor epidemiology focuses on specific cause-and-effect
relationships–like heavy coffee drinking increases heart attack risk. A
different approach to epidemiology might take a broader
perspective–placing heart attack risk in the context of more than just
one risk factor, including social factors.
Risk factor epidemiology is nothing more than a perpetual junk science machine.
But as NIEHS epidemiologist Marilyn Tseng said “It’s hard to be an
epidemiologist and vote that what most of us are doing is actually harmful
to epidemiology.”
But who really cares about what they’re doing to epidemiology. I thought
it was public health that mattered!
we have seen the “SELECTIVE” blindness disease that
Scientist have practiced over the past ten years. Seems the only color they
see is GREEN BACKS, it’s a very infectious disease that has spread through
the Scientific community with the same speed that any infectious disease
would spread. And has affected the T(thinking) Cells as well as sight.
Seems their eyes see only what their paid to see. To be honest, I feel
after the Agent Orange Ranch Hand Study, and the Sl-utz and Nutz Implant
Study, they have cast a dark shadow over their profession of being anything
other than traveling professional witnesses for corporate hire with a lack
of moral concern to their obligation of science and truth.
The true “Risk Factor” is a question of ; will they ever be able to earn
back the respect of their profession as an Oath to Science, instead of
corporate paid witnesses with selective vision?
Oh, if this seems way harsh, it’s nothing compared to the damage of peoples
lives that selective blindness has caused!
@copy and paste denialist....the immediate hated effects of SHS are real and are the number 1 reason the world is banning smoking....copy and paste more riddles if you like but it won't change the publics view on SHS.
ReplyDelete@Proglodyte.. the evidence of the public overwhelming support for the ban is seen by the complete absence of any real anti smoking ban lobby...12 million smokers are represented by Simon Clark and a couple of others and he does exactly the same thing on every issue..agree with ASH but he wants it done another way.... its same old same old again...his use of the word "inconsiderate" both agrees with the idea behind the car ban but he doesn't think its needed.
His piss poor lobbying is all smokers have got and thats paid by big tobacco...nothing has ever been done, will be done and the ban is never challenged in day to day life.
The big issue within the pro smoke lobby is "plain packs"...what the fuck has that to with anything? its a complete waste of time for smokers...I have never heard one word muttered about plain packs...nobody gives a fuck, but its a needed campaign for tobacco companies only.
the other issue is E-CIGS....again nothing to do with the smoking ban.
Thats the evidence ,surely someone would have done something since 2007.....total acceptance by smokers who in my opinion know full well sSHS is at least unpleasant and agree with the ban as much as non smokers.
A tiny clique of bloggers in hiding under false names is a fucking joke....even copy and paste denialist has to remain hidden in response to me......lol.
Whatever...if you're that cocksure why the fuck do your bother trolling and boring the tits off normal people?
DeleteBTW - the ONLY reason for the success of the ban is that property owners/tenants face a two grand fine for allowing smoking inside their premises. If it was popular with the non smoking public it'd be smokers facing huge fines...as for perpetrators of most other offences.
Having a view about smoking isnt trolling ,...but I can see how having an opposite view to the host blogger when they only ever have agreement on their blogs can make me an easy target to be called a troll.
ReplyDeleteThe "yes men" bloggers who tour blogland want more pen pals, more followers and more friends....the topic of the thread really dosen't matter as long as you get another friend....its fucking stupid really that a topic like smoking never ever gets a negative view to smokerloonies denial rants.
The worldwide success of the smoking ban is because it ensures avoidance of SHS,,,,ah yes its nothing to do with ASH what happens in the rest of the world......i know smokerloonies think its a puritanical conspiracy led by Debs Arnott to control the world....unfortuantely the truth is a lot more boring.
Second hand smoke is detested for the immediate effects it has on people.
Rickie
You should be grateful that there are bloggers that allow free speech, even for tossers. After all, anti-smoker mutual masturbation blogs are pretty thin on the ground. Thank God.
DeleteI allow anti smokers to post here because it shows how nasty the antismoker really is.
DeleteYep, free speech apart, the stupid pillocks actually help to demolish their own agenda. They just can't see it.
DeleteThought you might appreciate this. We have our share of nannies trying to make society perfect (as only they define it) on this side of the pond also. The response to a hearing on the matter . . . . was the right one. Search Fox New Yor for hearing-on-1st-in-nation-tobacco-ban-ended-early
ReplyDeleteYou are lucky filthy to find anti smoking views.....there is only me on all the smokerloonie blogs.....blogland and pro smoke blogs are virtually ignored except for pen pals touring around blogs agreeing about everything.
ReplyDeleteHave you ever had somebody disagree with you?
50 million non smokers just in the UK on a hot topic which attract strong views completely ignore blogs and just a few dozen out of 12 million smokers bother.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder I get called a troll....lol