Online Polls

Thank you for participating in our online poll.

Click here to see our previous polls, or go to your main page.

Poll: ASH Ireland has called for a ban on smoking in all motor vehicles. Would you support such a ban?


* Please note that the results of the online poll represent just a snapshot of opinion from the site members who participate. The results of each poll do not necessarily represent the national picture. Participants are only allowed to vote once in each poll.


   ·   26/02/2007 12:06

I'm a lifelong non smoker, but it must be said, this is just an invasion of people's privacy. You should be able to do what you want in your private motor vehicle provided it does not interfere with your driving, like using a mobile does. But it's perfectly possible to smoke and drive, I often start my drive to work in the morning with a bagel in my hand, which I would think is harder to manage than a small cigarette... Should this be banned too?


   ·   26/02/2007 12:37

thats mad. people should be aloud to smoke in their car. next thing they'll stop you trying to drive your car


   ·   26/02/2007 13:05

I am a non-smoker and very much anti-smoking in public places, but I really don't think smoking in cars should be banned. For one thing, its someone's personal space. For another,as far as distractions go, there are many other more distracting thing in a car - young children for instance and there's no way we can ban them!


   ·   26/02/2007 13:29

Suggestions like that make you want to take up smoking just to annoy moral crusading do-gooders, I\'m gonna smoke my cigarettes, eat my red meat and drink my beer and there\'s not a damn thing you can do about it!


   ·   26/02/2007 13:53

I voted no to this. I am a non-smoker, and fully support the ban on smoke in the workplace, but this proposed ban is a step too far. A person's car is an extension of their home and is private. You couldn't ban smoking in your home, so why should you ban it in the car. You generally only share the car with family or friends, so they have to put up with the smoker in the home, so why not the car.


   ·   26/02/2007 17:22

This is totally mad. Modern cars now have cup holders build into them. Is anyone trying to say that smoking a cigerette is more dangerous than drinking a cup of scalding hot coffee/tea? Just typical of this bunch Ash. Laughably this is exactly what most sensible smokers were complaining about with the smoking ban that if they felt the country supported them they would continue with these crazy, unenforceable, infringements of peoples civil rights.


   ·   26/02/2007 18:44

Let\'s start a movement and campaign to get Goivernment set up a team of officials who will inspect every household for health and safety and close down any house that is not clean, neat and tidy and has any hazard either in the house or around the outside. Let\'s make sure that every kitchen is inspected and has reached the high standards for cooking and eating food. Again any found wanting should be closed down as it is a major health hazard, and let\'s examine the sandwiches which workers take to work and the conditions in which they store them. We will only allow proper health food and it must be stored in proper sealed units etc etc We might as well do this because groups like ASH are taking over the planet with their do-goodie ideas. I suggest they have a fag and calm down before they suffer from high blood pressure.


   ·   28/02/2007 14:45

I voted yes, i wish smoking could be banned full stop, the smoking ban in the workplace was a major incentive for people to give up smoking maybe a ban in motor vehicles would help a few more along the way. also fumbling apond your car lighting ciggies and smoking is bound to take your concentration off the road! dont get me wrong its hardly the only thing we do in our cars the causes a lapse in concentration


   ·   28/02/2007 23:33

Ciara, If fumbling around for a cig in your car distracts you enough from driving, I suggest you shouldn't be driving. Have you got cup holders in your car? Have you ever had anyone blow a horn at you because you cut them up on the road or turned without indicating or did you ever eat a chocolate/sweet whilst you were driving? If you answer yes to any of these questions then you will be fully aware that smoking whilst driving is no more of a distraction than is anything else. I would imagine from your posting that you do not even have a full licence if you did you would realise that there are distractions on our roads every single day and being a good driver depends totally on our reactions to such distractions.


   ·   01/03/2007 10:57

what happens when a smoker needs a cigarette? they get edgey, the longer they go without the cigarette the edgier they get, talk to someone giving up smoking and you'll know what I mean, they can have a very short fuse! Now, suppose a smoker is sitting in traffic, getting more and more fustrated as we all do in heavy traffic, it's getting on their nerves, a smoke will help but they can't have one because it's illegal, they'll be more dangerous on the road than anyone smoking a cigarette whilst driving will ever be.


   ·   01/03/2007 11:01

who are these people, this is madness! This would be a total infringement of our rights. I'll be fined for farting next!


   ·   01/03/2007 11:31

Whilst I voted unsure I would like to see it baned but I don't think we would have the right to impose our will on a person who are driving alone in their own vehicle


   ·   01/03/2007 11:41

I'd suggest putting the same energy into 'banning' MRSA from our hospitals. For heaven's sake - PRIORITIES PLEeeeeASE!!


   ·   01/03/2007 12:08

ASH Ireland have a perverted obsessive hatred of smokers. They contribute absolutely nothing to help smokers quit or to encourage a smoke free society. They are parasites whose only purpose is to condemn smokers. Who cares what these idiots say!


   ·   01/03/2007 12:10

I voted yes. I know a lot of people who smoke in cars and it does bother me so I don't get in cars with those people. However, children strapped into seats behind smoking parents do not have this choice and passive smoking is a major killer. I think something has to be done to ensure that children's health and welfare comes first.

   ·   01/03/2007 12:28

I have been a smoker sine my primary school days and I have no intention of quitting or even trying to quit.Over the years I have developed the habit of not smoking while I am driving because the attention I give to the cigarette can interfere with my driving. It was a slight inconvenience at first but I have overcome it and feel much more in control. Jimmy H.

   ·   01/03/2007 12:32

I have never smoked in my life, but I have to say that this is just bizarre. If Ash try to drive the non-smoking to far there will be a backlash. I don't let people smoke if my car, and that is my choice. Equally, if I get into a smokers car, that is also my choice. Lets not go over board on this

   ·   01/03/2007 12:35

What a load of nonsense. I just hope the people from ASH read these comments and get the message that they are making themselves utterly ridiculous. Talk about sanctimonious prats!

   ·   01/03/2007 12:36

I voted no. As a non smoker and supporter of the smoking ban i just believe that this is pushing the boundary a little too far. We cannot legislate for absolutely everything - although our government would like to. However i do believe that somking in a car where there are children is a form of abuse as it is damaging their health against their will and without their knowledge and there should be significant fines for this.


   ·   01/03/2007 12:37

I am now a non-smoker for about 3 years and absolutely hate being around smoke but banning smoking in personal cars in ridiculous. I do however, think that it should be illegal to smoke in a car if a child under the age of 16.


   ·   01/03/2007 12:50

This is crazy, definitely on earth would this be enforced in Ireland? I think we've got bigger problems for our legal and justice systems to tackle first!


   ·   01/03/2007 13:00

Absolute rubbish to ban a person smoking in thier car, the no smoking in the workplace yes, and i am a smoker was it not enough to stop us enjoying a fag in the pub. Can you imagine the conjestion on the hard shoulders of the country if people have to stop and get out of thier cars. Have the people who thought this one up not got anything else to do that may be a little bit more worthwhile like save the teddy bear.

   ·   01/03/2007 13:46

I think anything that distracts a driver from driving should be banned, ie. drinking coffee, fruit juices etc. eating, smoking and using mobile phones. Your full attention should be on the road, not munching, drinking, smoking, phone use, loud music etc. etc.

   ·   01/03/2007 14:00

We are definitely moving towards a nanny state. I cannot understand why the poll has a majority of yes votes. Are there people in favour of this? Crazy!


   ·   01/03/2007 14:13

This is ridiculous. people pay enough for their cars & no one can dictate what they do in them. maybe ASH wd like to pay for smoker\'s car and then they can have the righte to tell people what they can or cannot do in them!


   ·   01/03/2007 14:18

I think they should ban radios in Cars. Its very distracting. And also perhaps ban having ditches less than 2 metres cos the countryside is quite a distraction.... and only one car every 100 metres of road with drab colors so they dont distract too much either.... And no road signs at all...they are the real killer....

   ·   01/03/2007 14:47

There should be no smoking in cars with children as passengers. and Iagree hospitals without filth/bugs would be a more urgent goal .


   ·   01/03/2007 14:54

Here are a few excerpts from the ASH Ireland sites that highlight their hypocrisy and anti-smoker agenda. 1) ASH Ireland is however concerned that Ireland does not lose its focus on tobacco related issues and become complacent. The Government has failed to tackle the price issue and there are indications that this is contributing to the recent upturn in the number of young people commencing to smoke and a fall off in the number of people quitting. So according to Ash Ireland increasing the price of cigarettes is the single most important factor in helping smokers to quit smoking. Not because, again according to ASH, 2) Tobacco smoking can cause cancers of the lung, oral cavity, nasal cavity, pancreas, bladder, kidney, larynx, pharynx, oesophagus, stomach, liver, cervix and myeloid leukaemia No! To the Neanderthal smoker its all about the price????????? 3) The increase in nicotine levels makes it easier to addict young people and makes it much more difficult for smokers to quit which of course is the objective of the tobacco industries involved and Waite for it what do they suggest to help smokers quit.. Smokers looking for advice or help with smoking cessation should contact the National Smokers' Quitline on 1850 201 203 or their General Practitioner or Pharmacist. Where they will sell you nicotine that they have purchased from the same manufacturer as the tobacco companies in gum, patch and nasal form! The same nicotine that according to ASH makes it easier to addict young people and makes it much more difficult for smokers to quit


   ·   01/03/2007 15:03

I voted no even though I don't smoke myself. Driving is stressful, some people find that smoking calms them down, and every stressed out driver on the M50 and other jammed up road in this country should have the right to smoke in their cars if they want to!

   ·   01/03/2007 15:12

i'd rather the Gardai concentrated on reducing the level of carnage on our roads caused by drink,drugs and speed


   ·   01/03/2007 15:36

Why Oh Why do people not read the question and then start answering a different question? This discussion is about BANNING SMOKING IN ALL MOTOR VEHICLES. It is NOT about childrens health. That is a different issue entirely. Nobody will stop me smoking in my car if I choose to smoke in my car. We cannot stop people being murdered on our streets every week whether they are being shot or knifed so how the hell can they stop us smoking. Isn't it time that Crime was dealt with rather than smokers being criminalised constantly and blamed for all the ills in society. It is a classic diversion tactic and it certainly seems to be working with the sheep like flock we call Celtic Tiger Ireland.


   ·   01/03/2007 16:25

I think all children under the age of 4 should be banned from cars. They are a huge distraction and most of the time the parents do not even have them secure in the car!!! If smoking is considered to be worth banning in cars then children are an even bigger issue.


   ·   01/03/2007 16:38

I suppose Ciara is one of those people that never used a mobile phone while driving "Proven in the USA to be more dangerous than being slightly over the limit with drink, 1 Glass over the limit" and of course never checks her appearence in the mirror either. Anon answered her own oppinion, she does not have to get in a car with someone smoking. We are starting to get very much like the USA here now with secular progressives, next thing they will want to do is ban christmas!

   ·   01/03/2007 16:50

This is absolutely ridiculous. I am a non-smoker and delighted with the ban in pubs etc. but if people would like a smoke in their own car, maybe after a stressful day, then so be it.


   ·   01/03/2007 16:57

I agree with Ciara. Anything which contributes to people giving up smoking is worth doing. Remember how the smoking ban in bars caused such a fuss? Bars are safer and more pleasant now, and the ban caused many a smoker to give it up.

   ·   01/03/2007 17:01

Yes on both safety and odour grounds. If you can't use a mobile you shouldn't be allowed to smoke with it's related actions and I have been in the cars of smokers and the stench is disgusting. It must be worse for non smokers and children in the enclosed space of a car if smoking takes place and these laws are made for the inconsiderate part of the population.


   ·   01/03/2007 17:02

As a smoker I do not agree with a ban on smoking in the car - I notice that the voting is 50/50 - lets see more votes disagreeing with Ash.

   ·   01/03/2007 17:08

I am also a non smoker but I disagree that smoking should be banned in motor cars as long as it children are not in the vehicle and other adult passengers have no problem with it. I think that the government have seious more life threatening issues to deal with at the moment rather than putting emphasis on what citizens are doing in thier cars that are not causing danger to others. Deal with the criminals who are out there maliciously targeting children and the elderly and leave ordinary decent people alone.


   ·   01/03/2007 17:26

I would be in favor if no smoking in public transportation as well as private vehicles where there is a child passenger.


   ·   01/03/2007 18:04

I think it should be banned in cars with people other than the smoker present - especially children. Since this would be hard to implement, I recommend banning it altogether. Not to do with driving, but to do with inflicting it on others.


   ·   01/03/2007 19:11

colm (pulsar): So the considerate part of the population are non smokers????????? Dorothy (DGO29669): "and other adult passengers have no problem with it." I have no problem with that either! they can get out. Nor: if no smoking in public transportation! You can't smoke on public transportation. Children, odours, Stench, none of these are what the poll about, and as for making people give up smoking, none of these things help, there has been no study done on this, and for Mary to come out with this ridiculas interpitation of what the ban in bars has done. Show me the proof of that statement.

   ·   01/03/2007 22:35

I smoke in my car and I think it\'s a disgrace to try banning smoking in the car. The goverment should try catching all the criminals first and improving our health services. they\'re making enough money on the tax from smokes.


   ·   01/03/2007 23:09

Another non-smoker here. I voted NO as well. There is a limit... there HAS TO BE a limit to how invasive the government is. If smoking in a car is a problem beyond the carcinogenic and other physical effects, then so is tuning the radio, getting a tissue out of your handbag, reading the newspaper (i watched a man do it this morning!), putting on mascara, fixing your hair, changing gears, etc. As for the health issue: adults have to take responsibility for themselves in their consideration, or lack thereof, of other people, especially children. If the government wants to be really serious about smoking, then cigarettes should be banned altogether. So long as they are allowed to be possessed, people should be allowed to make adult decisions as to their behaviour in their private spaces. I wish ppl wouldn't smoke in cars, because the smoke comes back into my face when I'm in the car behind them. I hate it. But it's going a bit (understatement) far to make it illegal. ASH makes themselves look like eejits when they make ridiculous suggestions like this. I also can't believe that 46% here agree with it. I think the vote must be as valid as when world voters chose "A Nation Once Again" by the Wolf Tones as the greatest song ever.....


   ·   02/03/2007 01:42

Besides the medical dangers, smoking in a car is distracting, and a danger to the driver and other passengers

   ·   02/03/2007 07:44

I think smoking should definately be banned in cars, especially with children on board, the amount of times I see a car full of kids being brought somewhere and the driver smoking their brains out with no window open - that in my opinion is just as much a crime as smoking in a pub, workplace or whatever. Children have no choice in the matter and should be protected, it also annoys me the way smokers thow out their cigarette butts while driving along obliviously!

   ·   02/03/2007 08:38

If peolple choose to smoke in their cars they should use their ash trays and not throw the butt out the window!!!


   ·   02/03/2007 08:45

Thank you to all the non smokers who have said like us smokers, this is an invasion of privacy. We pay for our cars, we pay for insurance & we pay motor tax. What more do they want???


   ·   02/03/2007 08:59

When ASH Ireland buy my car for me and pay my tax and insurance, then maybe they have a right to dictate whether I smoke in the car or not. But for as long as I'm paying these myself there is no way I will stop smoking in my own car. This idea of fumbling around for a lighter or fag is silly, I always have them beside me. Its MY car, I will smoke in it if I want.


   ·   02/03/2007 09:30

Nice one Advance. I'm a non-smoker and I don't like smoking but this notion is unenforceable and definiely going too far. Granted anyone who smokes in a car with children is selfish and irresponsible but for the the most part a private car is like your own home it's your own personal space. If I choose not to let anyone smoke in my car that id my choice but if I choose to take a lift with a smoker that is my choie and I have no right to impose my preferences on them by telling them they can't smoke in their own car and if I don't like it I should simply get a taxi / train / take my own car. As for it causing a distraction, why don't we ban eating, drinking, cd playersm radios, nice secenery - that can be very distracting, oh yes and my son in cars. He's very talkative, never stays quiet - most distracting when I'm giving him a lift. craggyisland and Lousise hav a point. Ban MRSA from hospitals. Incidentally, in my area, the guards have litle or no siccess witht eh mobile phone ban - I see at least one driver on the phone almost every day of the week so i'd hate to see them try and enforce this.

   ·   02/03/2007 10:18

I think it is time people in ASH should get a life. People of this country are under enough pressure without a shower of cranks exerting more restrictions on them. We all have only one life and we should be allowed the odd pleasure of indulgence in vice of our choice.


   ·   02/03/2007 15:15

1950: I wish ppl wouldn't smoke in cars, because the smoke comes back into my face when I'm in the car behind them. Are you all in open top cars where you are 1950 LOL give me a break.


   ·   02/03/2007 18:17

I have been a smoker for years. I have stopped the little socialising I used to enjoy due to the smoking ban in pubs. Am I to give up work too? I need my car to travel the 30mile round trip each day. As with a lot of you I pay for my own car, tax, insurance, petrol etc. It is my space. There is no-one in the car with me. I am harming nobody but myself. I don't throw butts out the window. I have never used a mobile phone while driving. Please ASH....Get a life of your own and leave mine alone.

momof 2

   ·   02/03/2007 18:53

i smoke but i dont in the car because i have kids, if i got into a none smokers car i wouldn't smoke and if i got in a smokers car id still ask them if i can light up. if u dont want people smokin in your car u just say know u dont need a stupid law to tell you the govenment should b focusing on more important issues like their hospitals


   ·   02/03/2007 19:24

Mary, Bars are safer and cleaner alright, thats because they are empty!!


   ·   02/03/2007 20:49

I'll stop smoking in my car the day the government gives everyone free cars. It's an invasions of my private space.

   ·   03/03/2007 10:44

Bear you wrote, colm (pulsar): So the considerate part of the population are non smokers????????? Your interpretation not mine, I refered to the inconsiderate smokers! Also I don't believe smoking should be banned only if children are aboard, what about adults who are getting a lift and might think it impolite to ask the driver to stop his filthy habit for the journey. The issue was highlighted when it was reported how many women drink and smoke while 'inconsiderate' is that?.

   ·   03/03/2007 12:01

Ash Ireland should be taken to task for infringement of human rights of the smoking minority and their extravagent funding withdrawn. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large masses.

   ·   03/03/2007 15:14

i want to call for a ban on children in cars, drinking coffee, tea and all other beverages, talking, listening to loud music, listening to joe duffey, (his comment liners have nearly made me crash the car on more than one occasion) listening to anyone who is funny either in the car or on the radio, driving with a cold, (blowing your nose while driving is extremly dangerous) and listening to serious political types because you might get sick and this would be also very dangerous...........this is a wind up? isnt it? 46% voting yes????

   ·   03/03/2007 17:03

I think driving with a lighted cigarette is far more dangerous than using a mobile phone and should be banned. Drivers should stop if they want to smoke. I feel it is an extremely irresponsible thing to do. Smokers are not being asked to stop smoking, they are just being asked to take the due care they should while driving a vehicle that has the potential to damage, maim or kill others.


   ·   03/03/2007 17:40

Nor, What country exactly are you living in? Smoking has been banned on public transport here for years. What on earth are you on about?


   ·   03/03/2007 19:28

Bear, is it really necessary to be personal and insulting to other posters?? You have my permission to have a break. To explain: in good weather many of us have our car windows down. If the fan is going and set on external air intake, it will bring in air from the outside (ie, from the car in front of me). If someone is smoking in the car ahead, the smoke is sucked into my car. I'm smoke-sensitive. Annoying, but it won't kill me -- not immediately anyway. Sorry if you didn't understand. I still think smokers should be allowed to make their own decisions as to their behaviour in their cars. Until radio tuning, talkative children, air flow adjusting, nice (or even awful!) scenery, etc (excellent points, Kitty!) are banned, leave the poor smokers alone.

   ·   05/03/2007 08:41

This country is turning into a nanny state. I am a non smoker but I think this is going too far, we will soon have no liberties left,


   ·   05/03/2007 09:09

I dont agree that people should be told to stop smoking in their own vehicle i smoked for 18yrs have quit now 6months i never smoked in my car but that was my choice. Stopping smoking in work places is one thing and is a good thing but telling people what to do in their private lives is a bit much next thing people will be told its illegal to smoke in their own homes. Ash Ireland have gone too far this time.


   ·   05/03/2007 10:11

I think this is disgraceful. It is another example of interference in peoples private lives. They will probably want to give you points for smoking. W******


   ·   05/03/2007 14:25

theres nothing that saddens me more than seeing parents sitting in their cars smoking with kids from newborn upwards in the car, with windows up , maybe barely cracked open , even on a good weather day, (who by the way would scream bloody murder supposedly for their child s health care in other circumstances especially if it means they can milk the system).


   ·   05/03/2007 15:20

Smoking while driving IS dangerous and should be banned, as should eating bagels etc. A car is a dangerous weapon if not handled correctly.


   ·   05/03/2007 17:06

I presume Hilda never goes on a plane - it is soo dangerous and does such damage to the environment and the ozone layer and dumping all that extra fuel down on top of us. Hilda you are right - everything dangerous should be banned including cars and especially the garda cars out to catch people smoking in cars


   ·   05/03/2007 21:52

I am a non-smoker for over 3 years now & I voted yes. I never smoked while driving as I think it is even more dangerous than using a mobile while driving, which again I have never done. I do have my faults but it really irritates me when I have to travel with my partner in his car as he is a smoker & does smoke while driving. And I cant ask him not to smoke as its his car....I dont travel with him that often!

   ·   05/03/2007 21:53

I am a non smoker and was delighted when the no smoking ban came in; but I do not think smoking in cars should be banned. These are peoples private places. Gosh we'll soon be banned from blowing our noses in our own cars in case it distracts us. Can sneezing be banned in cars as this is sooo dangerous. A lot of the time the nut behind the wheel is the lethal weapon in a car; is banning smoking going to change this?


   ·   06/03/2007 08:45

I don't smoke, I don't like to have poeple smoiking around me but this latest idea really is taking it too far. How about we ban the following in addition to smoking in cars: Eating radios cd players passengers - they might talk and distract you, expecially childreas they might cry and worry you Billboards are we might get distracted rading what's on them Oh and how about we ban attractive looking pedestrains. Sure I might get distracted lookign at a handsome looking guy or a male driver might be distracted admiring a pretty young lady. Honestly will these poeple ever get a life.


   ·   06/03/2007 10:03

Who do Ash think they are? I find it hard to believe that they would even dare to suggest this draconian suggestion. What people do on their own property is their civil right.


   ·   06/03/2007 17:01

Mary, To add to your list Christmas lights Cars pulling trailors Tractors going slow Oh and wouldn't it be great if driving was banned when it rained because visibility can be reduced making driving dangerous!


   ·   06/03/2007 17:34

Exceellent. Ban the rain, ban tractors or and ban accidents, they cause drivers to slow down and rubberneck which can cause accidents

   ·   07/03/2007 20:30

I have always supported the smoking ban , on , I dont thijnk that smoking will interfere with your driving or is it to with one's health? If there are children in the car that would be a reason not to light up I fear we are going from one extreme to another. we need to draw a line in the sand on this one we have a good system with this ban, BUT it should be left at that. If a person driving his own car and there's no children traveling with him then that person should be able to have a smoke if a passenger did object to his smoking stop the car and tell your passenger to walk. Peace be with smokers / non smokers, From a non smoker.


   ·   08/03/2007 08:53

I dislike when I get the smell of other peoples cigarette smoke through the air vents of my car (yes I have a very sensitive nose) when following a smoking smoker in traffic or passing one going the other way with their windows open - also - far too many smokers chuck their butts out the window littering the place - the ban on smoking in the pubs and restaurants is great but I absolutely detest walking down the public streets nowadays and being unable to avoid inhaling the smoke of the many many people standing in the streets outside pubs and shops, at bus stops and just about every public outdoor space - At least I could avoid the pubs beofre but not we are assaulted by virtually unavoidable passive smoking just about everywhere I go - As an asthmatic whose asthma is triggered by cigarette smoke, amongst other things, I abhor this new development -


   ·   08/03/2007 10:19

Constance, sorry about your "sensitive" nose. Unfortunately some of us are smokers. First the pubs where & restarants which is actually fine by me. And now Ash wish us to stop smoking within our own property. In all honesty, do you really think this would be fair? It would be like someone coming into your home and telling you that you can't watch television.


   ·   08/03/2007 12:06

Some people have very little concerning them, get a life!


   ·   08/03/2007 12:56

to the people who complain about smoke blowing back into their faces or have a "sensitive nose" are ye not more worried about exhaust fumes?


   ·   08/03/2007 14:31

I would call on a ban if there was children in the car. I think its so wrong to see people lighting up when dropping their kids to school or to see very small babies in the cars. Their little lungs dont stand a chance.


   ·   08/03/2007 16:30

If it is not enforceable then it shouldn't be done, there is no point having legislation on the books that cannot be policed so this is a pointless idea. Better to work on education or lobby car manufacturers to develop monitoring systems that can provide readings of harmful substances in cars such as nicotine.

   ·   08/03/2007 17:47

All smokers should be put on an Island on their own & let smoke themselves to death. If I took a whizz on anyone after having a few drinks, I'd be arrested, yet people can exhale their stinking carbon filled breath on top of you. You should all be branded, pointed at & outted ! A dirty, dirty habit and lets all stop being so flipping polictically correct here. It is !


   ·   08/03/2007 21:18

No way would i support this ban.Yes ye have guessed i am a smoker and on wet days when i have my breaks and nowhere to go except the privacy and dryness of my car then Ash should go take a hike.


   ·   09/03/2007 08:48

Anonymous Posted: 08/03/2007 17:47 seems to expect people to stop breathing altogether. But whether you like it or not smoking is perfectly legal even if it is dirty stinking etc etc etc Anonymous how about we get all rude ignorant people and put them on an island and let them be obnxious to one another. I don't smoke so how about I instigate a smoking ban in my own car and when it comes to everyone elses car - I mind my own business. That seems fair to me.

   ·   09/03/2007 15:47

As an idividual ex cigarette smoker who narrowly avoided leg amputation because of the effect of smoking on my arteries,i would suggest that drivers when alone, can smoke,but not when they are in the company of other vechicle occupants,it is quite sad to observe the polarised opinions of for and against individuals,is it not possible to practise good manners and not smoke in the presence of dissenting non smokers,and tolerate their objection on an objective basis,also Iwould be obliged if the most recent evidence,scientifically based on the proven effects of passive smoking could be published by ASH or others,successfull court action was achieved in the USA by one spouse against the other to prohibit smoking within their house,to claim that this is a private matter,might also imply that domestic violance is ok in the privacy of the home ,whereas the violent effects of passive are deemed as some sort of right


   ·   09/03/2007 19:53

Well, That is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, in my opinion. This discussion is about banning smoking in all motor vehicles, not about common courtesy, passive smoking or ill health! Of course, smokers who are in the company of non smokers for the very most part, do not smoke because that is just common courtesy. If you smoked enough to cause problems for your health how can you possibly start trying to put the rest of us to rights? You are responsible for yourself and your own health not ours. Passive smoking will not effect a smoker driving to work in the morning in the solitary comfort of their own car. Why do you anti smoking people constantly blur the issues here which are about civil freedoms and not anything else? Refer to the issue up for discussion because bringing in all these other irrelevant issues is irritating.


   ·   11/03/2007 12:36

This has got to be the most hideous and stupid of notions dreamed up by what we are to believe to be "INTELLIGENT" people... this would be a total invasion of peoples privacy and personal rights too. Cars are peoples own personnal property and no one has a right to tell anyone what to do in them apart from drive with care and caution. What next... We will need guidelines on how often we should breath soon....And this is coming from a non smoker....wouldn't money be much better being pooled into more important issues


   ·   14/03/2007 11:26

i said b4 its a persons choice but as a long time smoker i wish they were banned out of the hole country now as it might help me give them up i am going to an Alan Carr clinic at the end of this month and i am praying it will work instead of worring about stupid laws coming in and descussing where we should smoke and not we should all be trying to give d bloody things up and stop blowing away are money. ps the government prob dont want us giving them up cause they get so much money from the tax of them.


   ·   15/03/2007 14:01

Hello I am wondering are the 54% smokers?, also do they realize whether the driver is a smoker or not, that it does slightly impair the driver ability to remain fully focused on driving safely?IE:Smoke fumes they cannot control getting into their eyes. Is 1 safety issue.


   ·   15/03/2007 15:54

No I am a x smoker of many years but It is not my business to stop others smoking in their own homes or cars. Its getting ridicules when will it stop?. Will we be running up to people in Burger land pulling the food out of their mouths because we think they are getting fat ?? Some people need to get a life of their own and leave others to get on with theirs.

   ·   15/03/2007 21:19

While I support the ban in public places, I am opposed to state interference in private lives - apart obviously in cases of abuse. I do believe people should refrain from smoking around children BUT to make it illegal to smoke in a privately owned car is verging on Health fascism.


   ·   16/03/2007 11:19

I don't have a problem with people smoking in their own cars. What I do have a problem with is having the butts chucked out their windows when they're finished.

   ·   21/03/2007 18:10

We can always do the Michael Jackson thing and wear some thing over our mouth, I can see from the last post to date that this post is concerned about the but end of a cig coming out of a car window, Really? ME, I would be a be more concerned about all the domestic rubbish being discarded around the Country in black sacks Because people do not want to pay for its collection. {Non smoker.}


   ·   23/05/2007 19:40

This is a joke, or maybe notN. ext we will be banned for living.

   ·   23/05/2007 23:15

I am a smoker and feel I should have the right to smoke in my car,and as for been dangerous and could cause accidents,of all the deaths on our roads this year,exactly how many were caused by smokers?


   ·   08/07/2007 11:33

Absolutely. As an ex-smoker and now a chronic asthmatic I believe smoking in cars is as dangerous as using mobile phones. We've all heard of the song "Smoke gets in your eyes " Problem is who is going to enforce the ban.


   ·   17/07/2007 23:58

No, this is totally ridiculous.


   ·   18/07/2007 09:51

Lizzie, I couldn't agree more.


   ·   19/07/2007 16:57

I would definitely support a ban on smoking while driving (and smoking in any work vehicle eg. taxis), but otherwise this smacks too much of the nanny state. And almost impossible to enforce.


   ·   20/07/2007 00:42

The idea is ludicrous. But whilst we are on the subject of ludicrous then lets go one step further.... lets just ban all cars! That will stop the problem there and then. No problem then with people smoking in cars and just think of all the pollution we will remove from the planet?

   ·   26/07/2007 22:41

Its my car i bought it i pay tax on petrol to run it i pay my motor tax to drive on the road i pay for my nct to prove my car is worthy and yes i pay tax for my fags so i can smoke while driving. what do you want blood???????????????????


   ·   04/08/2007 00:57

ASH has to stopped!!! Why listen to these fanatics?


   ·   15/08/2007 09:11

Yes! Ban smoking in all vehicles as another step toward the total ban of this filthy habit. A passenger in my car caused me to crash when he cracked a match and lit a cigarette without warning me. Anything that causes a driver to be distracted should be banned until such time as people are mature enough to do the right thing.

   ·   15/08/2007 10:17

If striking a match causes you to crash, might I suggest you shouldn't be driving in the first place. Anything that causes a driver to be distracted should be banned? Including radios, cd players, kids, pretty scenery and my mother-in-law, I suppose


   ·   15/08/2007 11:50

Anonymous, I am a fully qualified driver (category A,B,C,D and E) for the past 50 years. You missed the point that the person who caused the distraction in my car was a smoker but you conveniently avoided blaming him. I was 'way ahead in banning smoking in any vehicle I drove following that incident. Of course, as driver I assumed full responsibility for the accident and unlike my passenger wound up several hundreds of pounds out of pocket - hence the ban!

   ·   16/08/2007 08:41

Anyone who crashes as a result of someone striking a match in their car, shouldn't have a passenger or radio or even a child in the car with them.


   ·   16/08/2007 13:02

The match was struck in front of my eyes without warning at a critical point in overtaking. If all non-smokers disallowed smoking in their vehicles for the sake of their passengers and themselves, the government would have no need to initiate a ban and that would leave them free to get on with other more important government business. You see, we non-smokers do not want a ban on smoking - we only want smoking banned where intolerant smokers insist on smoking to the detriment of other peoples' health and safety. I'm sure all murderers and rapists would like the ban on such activities lifted too. Sadly, human nature being what it is, that is unlikely to ever be the case.

Betty Humpter

   ·   16/08/2007 14:08

Overtaking tut tut, you could have been seriously hurt or, worse, hurt someone else...... Perhaps you should give up driving if a match is enough to make you crash.

   ·   16/08/2007 15:25

The passenger leaned over from their seat into your and struck the match in front of your eyes??? Really. And when they asked you if they could smoke, you didn't say, wait a moment until I've overtaken. Whether smokers or non-smokers allow smoking in THEIR OWN cars is THEIR own business. So now smoking is the same as rape and murder. Whos' being intolerant I wonder.


   ·   16/08/2007 18:46

We have to take account of the effect our actions have on others. The match incident was used to illustrate what happened to me to cause me to disallow smoking in my car. I think thirty years of driving all vehicles accident free on three continents since then persuades me to continue for a while longer. I await delivery of a new Mondeo which has a special filtering system to allow me to breathe even cleaner air in future. I reiterate my point that, were smokers to be more considerate, legislation would not be necessary. Neither then would this 'discussion'.


   ·   16/08/2007 22:52

Witofire, I have to say, I agree with the previous comments in that you should not be driving. You are a hazard to all on the road. Was the passenger sitting on your lap? If not, and a passenger lighting a cigerette in your car, caused you to crash, then you have more problems than you realise. You know the old saying "A bad workman blames his tools". To say that a smoker caused you to crash is bordering on insanity. When you are driving you should be prepared for all eventualities such as a child running out in front of you etc. Ever hear of emergency stops? Or are you one of those people who got their driving licences without doing a test? As for assuming full responsibility for the accident, well, what choice did you have? You were the driver for Gods sake. Can you imagine telling the Gardai that story about a passenger lighting a match in front of your face? You would have been laughed out of it whilst on route to the nearest Psychiatric A & E!


   ·   17/08/2007 19:41

A car is private property. A house is private property. The call "for the sake of the children" was coined by Adolf Hitler. Wake up and see what these fanatics really want. Your country is destroyed. Its my country too. Stop the ASH fanatics who are turning people's minds. Second hand smoke never harmed anybody. Look at the research, not at the fanatics.

   ·   22/08/2007 09:59

Sooo the passenger leaned over from their seat into your and struck the match in front of your eyes??? And when they asked you if they could smoke, you didn't say, wait a moment until I've overtaken? I wonder did the gardai have a great laugh at your explation back at the station. You seem to have a some serious paranoia about legal adults engaging in a legal habit. Perhaps you are the one who should get help.

Betty Humpter

   ·   22/08/2007 09:59

What makes you think we smoke? Stop getting so defensive - you're a crap driver who should not be on the roads if a flaming match makes you crash. End of story!


   ·   22/08/2007 12:01

If a tax on cigarettes substantial enough to offset the damage caused by smoking were introduced it might negate the neccassity for legislation. This tax should take into account the cost of hospital beds taken up by tobacco induced diseases and other costs to the public purse. Addicts may then think twice about living in total denial about the effects of their habit on others. How about that?

   ·   22/08/2007 13:40

Wit, what are you on about, the very fact that they are addicts means that smokers, even those in the lower socioeconomic groups, have continued to afford their cigarettes despite price hikes by skimping on other things.


   ·   22/08/2007 14:24

Anon, You miss the point! The increased tax is to pay for their, and others, health - not ot get them to give up. I'm outa here now - gotta take a walk in the beautiful clean air. Goodbye all and Happy Puffing to those who must. Be careful of that passenger with lightning strike match!!!


   ·   22/08/2007 16:05

Witofire, I would be interested to know what age you are? Your attitude scares me. You sound like a very intolerant person who cannot take responsibility for your own behaviour and lack of skills in driving. This is not a discussion about smoking. It is about whether people agree that smoking should be banned in cars. By the way, do you drink alcohol?

Mad the Swine

   ·   22/08/2007 19:06

No one is going to tell me to stop smoking in my car, my god what next... a bell around my neck???


   ·   24/08/2007 17:55

Anon, 69 going on seventy. During my life experience I have had occasion to tolerate many individuals and groups from small children to warring tribes in Africa and combatants in the Middle East and Levant. It bewilders me how you can decide from my previous comments that I am intolerant and lacking in a sense of responsibility. My skills in driving - Categories A, B, C, D andE+. I have driven all vehicles from motorcycles to articulated trucks on both left and right. This discussion is about whether we would support the ban on smoking in all motor vehicles (not just cars) called for by ASH. Do I drink alcohol? No but I did twenty years ago. To clarify my position on this - I would support this ban. Finally; "I'm outa here" means I'm outa here. A final goodbye to all.


   ·   26/08/2007 21:14

According to his posts, dear old Witofire must be about seventy (driving for 50 years, I assume taking his test around 18 to 20 years old). I think sneezing would be a more dangerous occurence that someone lighting a match. Wit, give up your licence, you are a danger to fellow drivers. Wit, I think you are making the whole nonsense up! Thank God their are some people on here with basic commonsense.


   ·   27/08/2007 17:19

Witofire, Thank you for your honest reply but my past driving experiences have given me also a licence that covers me to drive in the same categories as yourself including motorbikes. I have driven abroad, right and left (as you have). I have driven motorbikes, large vehicles etc. The licence to drive does not mean competancy at same unfortunately. I find the level of driving in Ireland particularly poor because the level of teaching people to drive is not regularised and they do not even teach new drivers how to be courteous on the roads. In fact, when I returned to Ireland in the mid '80's after living abroad, I regularly encountered people driving around the few roundabouts we had then, the wrong way! (Simply because when those people learned to drive there were no roundabouts in Ireland at all). As suggested, a simple thing like sneezing behind the wheel is far more dangerous. To be competant behind the wheel of a car, a person needs to know how to control a vehicle and they are responsible for that vehicle once they are behind the wheel. If a striking match can cause you to loose control of the car, I don't know how you can drive safely especially if you had kids on board or pets. By the way, a lot of new cars have people in them watching dvd's. How distracting can that be? Why blame a smoker out of all the risk factors that are out there? It truely does not make sense to me.


   ·   05/09/2007 11:19

My God it shocks me that people are so quick to judge and slate a persons character and driving ability after reading a few comments about him. You know nothing about this guy, you don't know any of the circumstances surrounding the accident so give him a bloody break and get off your high horse!! I'm not defending him. It's quite possible that he is a bad driver, but it's also quite possible that he isn't. But we have no way of knowing either way from reading a few bloody words on an internet site. I've been reading alot on this site over the last week or two and some people shock an appall me. You should be ashamed of yourselves that you are so quick to judge and so quick to make assumptions about people! (I'm not referring to smokers or non-smokers here, just a large proportion of users on this site) Anyway, sorry for the digression! As regards the ban, it's a non-runner, stupid idea, but thank God we have groups like ASH in this country. Without them the people of Ireland might run the risk of (God forbid) running out of things to give out and complain about!


   ·   05/09/2007 11:58

Conf101, Its amazing how tolerant you are all of a sudden yet on another thread you make accusations and accuse other people of being too liberal. You can't have it both ways.


   ·   05/09/2007 12:29

Anon 11:58, where are these other accusations? I don't recall making accusations about people being too liberal. I have only commented on very few discussions here and most of them are quite different discussions so I don't think they can be fairly compared. In case it needs clarification, what I'm intolerant of here is the fact that people make immediate and sometimes slamming judgements about a person's character and/or abilities after reading less than 200 words of text. That's hardly fair is it?


   ·   05/09/2007 13:45

conf101 you don't think crashing as a result of a striking match shows incompetence? what exactly would you call an incompetent driver? i'd be very worried if every driver out there would crash cause someone struck a match in their car. there'd be even more carnage on the roads than there is now.


   ·   05/09/2007 16:32

Billybob, I'm not saying that at all. I too would be very worried if every driver on our roads would crash if a match were struck in their car but what I'm saying here is that everyone is all too quick to jump at the chance to ridicule him and to assume that he's a terrible driver when we actually know little or none of the circumstances involved. Let me repeat, I'm not defending witofire or defending his driving abilities, I'm just saying that we can't be so quick to judge something and someone which we know almost nothing about, it's completely not fair and it's just a technique which alot of people use to make themselves feel better than the other person or feel somehow superior.


   ·   05/09/2007 20:48

Phew! Phew! Just had to tell you this one! A bbbb-bus driver with a crowded bus was ssss-smoking on the bus! He had two fags on his journey! Well I never!!


   ·   06/09/2007 20:44

That some here think that any bright light flashed unexpectedly in front of a driver's eyes would not be a distraction is mind-boggling and a great insight to the mind of that person. I wonder if those are the people who never bother to dim their headlights for oncoming traffic. Hmmm. Someone should point out to Puffthemagicdragon that smoking on the bus is illegal - or does he condone breaking the law? I have seen beople smoking near petrol fumes, near a tanker being filled with ethanol, near grain dust (highly explosive when mixing in with the oxygen in air) forming at a grain intake, while fitting gas bottles, in tents without proper containers for stubbing out cigarette ends and so on. On each of those occasions the perpetrators were surprised to be informed of the danger but accepted it when it was explained. I never saw them re-offending. Ignorance of danger does not negate the danger. Passing a law to make it illegal for people to smoke in all vehicles will not end the problem, just help to control it. It does not seem to be working very well with phones. Ridiculing someone you do not know because you do not agree with their opinion is pathetic.


   ·   06/09/2007 21:08

Conf, You should re-read some of your comments on other threads where you, yourself, are very quick to make judgements on people. If someone is silly enough to admit on a public forum that they crashed a car because a passenger lit a match then they are asking for derision. It is clearly an example of someone not taking responsibility for their own actions. Imagine being mad enough to blame a smoker for crashing your car whilst you are the driver? That is like blaming a child for crying in the back seat. Come on, it is obvious that the driver in question is not competent to be on the road. What would he say if a child ran out in front of him suddenly? He wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on and would be laughed out of court (that is.. if the child lived).

   ·   07/09/2007 10:33

So now the passenger leaned over in their seat, extended both arms in front of your face - one holding the match, the other the match box and struck the match??? You must be joking us?


   ·   07/09/2007 10:44

Anon 21:08, I haven't judged anyone on other threads, I have only expressed my opinions on topics! Having looked back over my other posts I still don't see where I have made rash judgements about people I do not know. The only people that I have in anyway judged on these boards are the people in this discussion who themselves are all too quick to judge and condemn someone who they know nothing about!! It must be hard being so perfect!

   ·   07/09/2007 12:55

Smoking is a really horrible habit! Everyone knows this however, banning smoking from private vehicles is just ridiculous. If there are children in the car well then the adults or smokers should be respectful and thoughtful of that matter and not smoke. I don't know it just seems like ASH are getting very personal and controlling about this situation. I was all for the smoking ban in public places and think it has worked fantastic but you can't really be telling people especially adults what they do in their own private personal space! Although I do think smoking whilst driving i.e. the driver can be dangerous on the roads but still if passengers etc wish to smoke well its up to the owner of the car. At the end of the day its the choice of the owner of the vehicle!


   ·   07/09/2007 18:53

Anonmous, Those who read my earlier post "Of course, as driver I assumed full responsibility for the accident" can readly see that you did not or else to deliberately put a completely different slant on it. I also suggest you take the time to read the post: Witofire Posted: 06/09/2007 20:44 above.

   ·   11/09/2007 09:17

Hey Witfire, Yep did read the post - I was just trying to start a fresh with the comments - things were kind of getting personal there. Anyhoo we're all adults here we know what's right and wrong when we drive - I think Ash are fantastic but responsibility and decisions for actions when we drive our ours. No judgement here - I just don't think Ash should ban smoking in vehicles as I personally think its a personal choice that's all! Before people jump to conclusions - please read all the comments!


   ·   11/09/2007 15:44

Hey Anonymous, Fair enough! I think I will just stick to not allowing smoking in my own car and and let the legislating up to the legislators. We seem to have two camps here with a lot of rigidity in both. On reflection, I am not sure that a total ban would be such a good idea. Ah, the power of discussion!


   ·   11/09/2007 23:24

Whatever about smoking in the car the lighter should be taken away. There was a documentary on tonight and a young girl got badly burned and disfigured over letting the lighter fall on the seat in the family car. I must admit that it is a very hot cigarette lighter and would go along way to reducing cigarette smoking in the car as well.


   ·   28/09/2007 06:29

Looks in todays news like the Brits and Germans are to go ahead with a smoking ban for drivers. Wonder what effect this will have on policy here!

   ·   28/09/2007 11:33

The good German citizens will toe the line like robots - as always. It's unenforceable. Good grief, they can't even catch all the drunk / drugged drivers as it is. Enforce the laws we have rather than introducijg new ones you won't be able to enforce anyway.


   ·   30/09/2007 23:03

Crazy! a person should be allowed to smoke in his/her own vehicle.


   ·   03/10/2007 22:01

Bringing in ridiculous laws such as banning smoking in ones own vehicle is just another tactic. It solves nothing. If the Germans, Brits and Irish alone could solve the really serious crimes in their own countries then we would all live in much safer places but they don't even know where to begin. But bringing in laws about smoking in your own car distracts us all from the real issues. Same as the smoking ban in pubs here, solved nothing, creates another uncontrollable monster (that of much more drinking & drug taking in peoples own homes) and distracted us completely from more serious issues. (whilst the rural community spirit is completely dead now) Remember that the smoking ban here was brought in by a Minister of Health. Didn't he have far more serious issues to tackle? We are now only starting to realise how seriously inadequate our health service really is yet he rolled out of his Ministerial position in a halo of great publicity for distracting us all so very well with a stupid smoking ban. And on top of that his other hallmark of fame was to change the health boards to the HSE (wow, what another complete waste of money and time that was). It's time we got real in this country and accepted that we have been completely misled and brainwashed for years, whilst those that we keep in their big jobs are laughing all the way to the bank.


   ·   05/10/2007 16:49

I have smoked since the age of 11 i am now 25 and have never considered stopping, i smoke in my car but, When i have a non smoker with me in the car i dont smoke to be polite. This law must infringe in some way your constitutional rights if we give them the power to stop us smoking in our own cars whats next. If they want to tell us what to do in our cars let them buy the cars for us. It's totally mental as far as i'm concerned and if thats the way this country is going i would rather move to another country that isnt going to tell me what i can do and when i can do it and i dont just mean smoking if we give them this power once what happens next. In effect your own property doesnt belong to you your paying hard earned money for a car that belongs to the government and ASH(ASS). Your basically driving government property, what next they take the words private property out of the dictionary and replace it with the words government property. All i can say is PLEASE PLEASE everyone stand up to this one, smokers and non smokers alike. If we as a country agree to this it will have serious repercussions for everyone in the future.


   ·   10/10/2007 11:34

Yes - and in particular, there should be a complete ban on people smoking in the car if children are present as these children would have no way of escaping the secondary smoke. And having the window down doesn't mean the children are still not being harmed as most of the smoke is blown back into the car.

   ·   10/10/2007 13:01

And this will be enforced how?


   ·   10/10/2007 14:22

Same way as they're enforcing the mobile phone usage ban - the guards can see people smoking in cars and treat this situation much the same as how they deal with people driving while holding a mobile to their ear. The ban should be mainly in relation to people smoking in the car with children - especially babies - in the car.

   ·   10/10/2007 14:31

Same way as they're enforcing the mobile phone usage ban - precisely. Which mans it will not and cannot be enforced. I have seen more people using their phone since that 'ban' than I ever did before. Gardai are not the HSA - it is not up to them to enforce health standards for peoples children. Someone thoughtless and uncaring enough to smoke in front of a child in a car will do so at home anyway.


   ·   10/10/2007 14:42

Ha ha GG that's priceless. I was walking back to work today and a Garda in a marked transit van drove by me with the mobile stuck to her ear waffling away to whomever.


   ·   12/10/2007 02:11

Yes, ban smoking in cars. Do that for our childrens' sake. It is fact that people and especially young children learn by mimicing what they see in everyday situations. They see people smoking and when they get the chance they copy it, rapidly becoming addicted.


   ·   12/10/2007 10:42



   ·   15/12/2007 08:05

Yes - ban it because if you smoke in your car, the smell never ever leaves the car. Then if you sell your car, the next buyer has to put up with the smell, and that should be illegal, as sidestream smoke, smoke residue, is toxic.


   ·   18/12/2007 00:49

Well said Leonine, Glad to see a ray of common sense shining through; keep telling it like it really is! Si

   ·   18/12/2007 08:43

So it should be illegal because second hand car buyers don't like the smell. If that's the best you can come up with -why even post? Some advice: lf you don't like the smell and you aren't prepared to clean the upolostery (this does get rid of the smell - I've done it with a second hand car I bought years ago) then don't buy the car.


   ·   18/12/2007 17:28

Why bother to write anything as 'Anonymous' what a safe way to live your life; be a little braver 'Anonymous' and just pick a name. Setting yourself apart from all the other 'Anonymous' comments means that we the non-'Anonymous' can reply back to you individually. Are the 'Anonymous' afraid of George Orwell's 'Big Brother'? Set you minds free!

   ·   18/12/2007 17:41

Are you a moderator, Anonymous? Is that why you seem to be making decisions as to which posts are permitted? It looks to me as if the owners of the site want any and all opinions, that's why it's called a discussion forum. Cleaning the upholstery does NOT get rid of the smell. If you think that, then your sense of smell isn't very sensitive, but if you're a smoker, that's probably why. There is always a lingering trace of it that never leaves. This would be *one* of the reasons to ban smoking - and I really think that second hand cars should be labelled as being owned by a smoker, to be fair. If you put an asthmatic child in a car that is still leaking smoke odour, it's not very good for their condition, and can cause a reaction. Dust is bad enough, but you don't need old smoke as well.


   ·   18/12/2007 20:13

XRay, Yes you are right. Children learn quicker through mimicry which is why the smoking rates have not decreased in the young. You walk down the street of any city or town and you will see nothing but smokers standing outside of various premises smoking. Children see them doing so. So, before the smoking ban was brought into pubs, the smokers were all inside and unseen. So, using your logic, the smoking ban in pubs will result in more and more children becoming smokers when they are older!! Before you loose the run of yourself, let me take this opportunity to remind you and some others that this thread is about a ban on smoking in motor vehicles. Why do you keep bringing children into it. Nobody is talking about smoking in front of children per se, that is a different issue and cannot be controlled by anyone. It is simply down to the parent.


   ·   19/12/2007 08:30

I'm not a smoker, I never was, my sense of smell is absolutely fine and if the upholstery in the car is cleaned PROPERLY, it certainly does get rid of the smell. I can think of a half a dozen reasons which someone could all for banning smoking in a car - but none as weak as the possibility of a second hand car buyer buying the car and not liking the smell. If you don't like the smell to such a great extent, don't buy the car. After all the minute you sit in a car to test drive it, which was owned by a smoker, you'll know. Whiuch is why they're generally a few hundred cheaper. I suggest tho that you keep your asthmatic child away from whatever triggers attacks - dust, smoke, animal hair etc. Susan, I trust that you are not a moderator either?


   ·   19/12/2007 11:45

No way-it shouldn't be banned. I pay for my car I should be be able to do as I please. Next thing you crazies will suggest smoking should be banned in the home!!! If the smell or the concern of toxins worries you non smokers when considering buying a 2nd hand car, get it valeted.


   ·   19/12/2007 13:48

If that is the best reason you can come up with for banning smoking in cars, then you are just so superficial. If I go to buy a second hand car and I don't like the smell of it, I don't buy it. If you have to be told it was owned by a smoker, then you didn't know by the smell which makes an Irish joke of your theory. I think, any of you that are worrying about smell of anyone elses car should sit yourselves down & have a long hard think about your life. It can't be up to much!


   ·   19/12/2007 15:08

I agree with Martha and Anon there.


   ·   19/12/2007 15:27

Ooops! we really have upset the: 'It's my life and I'll do anything that I want and ... wah! wah! wah!' individuals. Grow up you selfish bunch of addicts. The truth is that every action you take effects someone else; sadly some people only care when they affect someone that they know or care about. Just give up that irrational habit of lighting a stick composed of dead dried leafs and sucking on one end. Maybe you miss suckling and feel insecure without it. There are lots of positive things to do with that time freed up when you quit smoking. Breath the fresh air, live positively, love your life, stop being a slave to tobacco. Think about it: You are more liked more and cherished more and needed more than you think; there is no need to kill yourself. Everyone is needed. You will be missed. That's my last word.


   ·   19/12/2007 15:43

Anon Posted: 19/12/2007 13:48, Good post!!


   ·   19/12/2007 18:11

I can't actually see a ban in vehicles being supported at all, except for public transport. I do think it should be illegal to smoke in enclosed spaces with children, that is car or house, and I think that if anyone asks a smoker to butt out, that they should be legally required to do so. Or haul out a Super Soaker and put it out for them. :) Smoking is an addiction, and it is a physical addiction that is as difficult to quit as heroin is. You can expect smokers to quit in public places, but it's probably not practical to ask them to quit in their own cars. I do think that you should have to declare that your car has been used for smoking in - or else the buyer should be able to get his money back if it's detected later. Banning smoking anywhere isn't going to solve the problem. Nicotine addiction, and alcoholism, and cocaine or other drug addictions are all symptoms of a sick society, along with drinking too much, divorce, abuse, and suicide. All are signs that the country's families are in trouble. The problem has to be addressed at a more basic level. Our families have such demands placed upon them by society, by inhuman institutions such as churches, schools and work places, that they (families) have become unhealthy and bizarre - so families produce people with addictive tendencies - and you see sad smokers, burnt out alcoholics and drug addicts on the road to the grave. No government is going to truly address the problems, because they're in it for the votes and the pensions, but it's a whole-society problem. People don't start out to become addicted to something because they're happy.


   ·   20/12/2007 12:58

"That's my last word" - now who's not being grown up but simply selfish. If a person has bought and [paid for a car then they are entitled to smpoke in it - smoking beign perfectly legal, no matter how disgusted the nanny state sheeple may feel by it. This is not about smoking as an addition (all addictions are irrational) but the whether smokers should be criminalised because they smoke in their own property - which if they are on their own in the car affects no-one else. If you temporaily loose your sense of smell and buy a smokers car second hand - then eget up off you posterior and clean it or have it valeted. "Maybe you miss suckling and feel insecure without it." - what an utterly childish and pathetic little comment.


   ·   20/12/2007 14:40

Something that smoking definitely does impact is the health system, and the cost of maintaining the health of a smoker. I'm living in Canada now, and one of the things that has been discussed is not paying for liver transplants for alcoholics, and not paying for the smoke-related health problems of smokers, like lung cancer and emphysema, various other kinds of cancers. Not to mention the house fires that are started because of smokers.


   ·   20/12/2007 15:09

Yes, people who smoke cost the hgealth service more, as to people who are overweight, eat the wrong foods, don't exercise, have high stress lifestyles and drive recklessly. do we want to criminalise all of them. emember smokers also contribute vastly to the exchequer


   ·   20/12/2007 20:12

I'm not suggesting "criminalizing", since obviously it is not illegal to smoke. I am suggesting that the health services no longer indulge people who willingly destroy their health, and then expect to be looked after. Or destroy the health of their children, and expect them to be looked after. Overweight is easier to take care of than a smoking addiction is, although it's up there in costing the system money.


   ·   21/12/2007 12:20

Xray, not every smoker dies because of the 'fags'.... Any one who does could do without your negative comments!!!! Positive comments and support would be better.


   ·   21/12/2007 12:47

Leonine, That is a very dangerous & discriminating theory of yours. Obesity causes diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure & because of the stress on the skeletal structures - bone/joint problems. Should any country go down the road of deciding who they will treat & who they won't, wait for the legal consequences. How can you say if a lung cancer has been caused solely by smoking & not radon gas and/or asbestos? People who never smoked contract lung cancer. You cannot give a definative diagnosis as to the cause of the cancer until an autopsy is carried out. Do you refuse to treat breast cancer patients who didn't breast feed or who never had babies? Do you refuse to treat babies born of drug addicted mothers? Do you refuse to treat abnormal smears because the female has been overtly sexually active? Indeed, that would also exclude ALL sexually transmitted diseases, as they could all be seen as self inflicted, using that theory? Do you refuse to treat a 20 year old injured in a road traffic accident because he had drugs or drink on board? If they are going down that route in Canada I would be very surprised. Who would make the call to refuse treatment? It is called discrimination & nothing else. Lets face it. Even if I was an OTT alcholic & in need of a liver transplant, if I could afford it, I would get it, regardless, so it would be simply down to treating those that can pay & neglecting those that can't. That is neither ethical nor in keeping with any health service.

   ·   21/12/2007 13:12

One word for that Leonine - FACIST.


   ·   21/12/2007 13:26

Leonine As long as the government is willing to take over 1Billion a year from duty on Cigarettes is it not duty bound to pay for the medical costs that are a result of this revenue stream. I would suspect that the income from smoking exceedes the cost of the medical treatment for smokers. I would have no problem with Smokers or alcoholics being at the lowest priority (or even refused) Liver of Lung transplants but denying care would be leagaly and morally wrong.


   ·   21/12/2007 15:53

Anon, are you a smoker? In Canada, a transplant is paid for by Medicare. I don't know where it's at at the moment, but I do know that it has been discussed, raised for consideration. There have been cases where alcoholics have had a liver transplant, only to continue on with drinking, in spite of knowing what the consequences will be. Should the rest of the country pay for this? You're raising things that I didn't raise in my post. I don't believe I mentioned breast cancer, and of course there is no telling what causes it, so you are being somewhat dishonest in your answer to my post - ie you are exaggerating, and overly dramatizing. Obesity has a pretty obvious cause, and so does lung cancer, if you are a smoker. If you've got lung cancer, have had a paid-for lung transplant, and smoke, then why should the taxpayers continue to pay for your medical care? Lousy health habits can break the system. We like our Medicare in Canada, and we'd like it to continue that way. I do think that if you're going to carry on destructive habits, then you can pay for your own transplants, and hefty medical bills. It's not discrimination, it's common sense.


   ·   30/12/2007 01:18

Leonine, Your logic escapes me completely! Do people have no right any more to do what they think it correct for them? Do you have the right to dictate to others even though they do not agree with you? When is this culture of "control freaks" going to stop? I am now your enemy. I wasn't before this insult to human nature law was brought in. I know what people in the west of Ireland are suffering, you have no clue. Go and find out before offering such ignorant advice. In England smoking in the car is in ninth place fron ten for being a cause of an accident. Here, it doesn't register at all. Having children in the car does very strongly. I think yout thinking is completely confused and you believe the propaganda which is delivered by our corrupt governments. God help you.


   ·   01/01/2008 15:08

like all others letters, this is the laugh new year 2008; what can i say? smokers are banned almost everywhere, but in their own car, no way; happy New year all


   ·   01/01/2008 18:00

Expat, whatever it is you're trying to get across isn't very clear. Are you talking about the fact that transplants might be denied to people who persist in smoking? I also don't know what you're talking about in relation to smoking in cars?? I don't think it's practical to expect people to stop smoking in cars, but I do think it should be illegal to subject children to inhale smoke when they have no say in the matter in the first place. Please stop raving, and be a little more clear in what you're talking about.


   ·   02/01/2008 07:49

Ex-Pat, You state; "In England smoking in the car is in ninth place from ten for being a cause of an accident." Do we therefore agree that in some cases smoking in the car can cause an accident? I certainly think so. Whether this is cause for a ban is doubtful. If all nicotine addicts gave up smoking, chewing and snuffing the case would not arise.


   ·   02/01/2008 18:45

I don't know about causing car accidents, but it certainly is a huge factor in house fires, causing the deaths of thousands of children every year. "From the evidence before your committee the conclusion is inevitable, that [p 1206] the increase of the habit is alarming and that the time has come for radical legislation, . . . . . . "All of which is respectfully submitted "Report accepted and committee discharged." Source: Journal of the House of Representatives, Vol 1, 1889, pp 1204-1206. Copy of Report Obtained, Courtesy of Senator Douglas Carl What was said then in 1889 is still true today. Perhaps they already thought, In 100 years' time the arguments of those promoting smoking, and smokers' freedom, will be seen to be as retrograde and foolish as the arguments of those who once sought to postpone the abolition of slavery, or delay the development of underground pipes for sewage (rather than continue to allow it to run in the streets). Reason eventually prevailed and doubtless will do so also with smoking. Promotion by tobacco companies may then be seen for what it isthe pushing' of a dangerous drug.Beulah R. Bewley, Smoking in Pregnancy, 288 Brit Med J (#6415) 424-426 (11 Feb 1984).


   ·   02/01/2008 21:03

Leonine, You don't seem to have a notion about medical practices or the caring profession. Neither Doctors nor nurses are in their profession to enable them to refuse treatment to anyone. It is against their medical ethics. Smokers do not get lung transplants. By the time a smoking related lung cancer is detected (usually) it is too late and if not too late, there are other treatments that do not involve transplantation. So, you are completely wrong there. You make a claim about not treating patients who smoke or drink because you see smoking & drinking as some sort of cause of the illness but you cannot make the leap to other illnesses that can also come under the bracket of 'self inflicted'. Because of that, you are most definitely being selective in who you believe should not be treated. If you are selective then this is paramount to bigotry and racism. So Sorry Leonine but Ex Pat's postings DO have some logic. Your postings are the ones that are totally illogical and definately not thought out properly alongwith the fact that you do not seem to know what treatments are available for what. Heart and lung transplants are almost exclusively given as the only treatment of choice to many people who have a variety of conditions and have NEVER smoked in their lives.


   ·   03/01/2008 14:48

Leonine, In regard to your post on house fires. Why do you think there are more house fires over Christmas? It has always been linked to extra electrics, fairy lights too near to flammables, badly wired etc. How desperate are you to find scapegoats in society to lay the blame yet again on smokers. In the west of Ireland the predominant heating of choice (especially at this time of year/and all year for some of our elderly) is open fires. I am certainly not promoting smoking but people are people and since time immemorial people have been using addictive substances. This is not going to change.


   ·   03/01/2008 16:24

Anon; You are making an enormous mistake in your thinking. You seem to think I am the one who makes the decisions about who receives what treatment. I'm only bringing you the news - since you don't seem to be connected with the outside world - that yes indeed the possibility of refusing transplants *to people who persist in smoking* has been discussed, at least in Canada. Cancerous lungs are removed, and healthy lungs take their place in a lung transplant. That's how that works. The idea is that you REMOVE the cancer. Double-lung transplants have indeed been performed for people in Canada. In 2003, 1,300 double-lung transplants had been performed in Canada - since 1983. People with cystic fibrosis require double lung transplants in order to live, just for example. Now - if a doctor had a choice between a smoker who has already had a lung transplant, and now needs another one, but hasn't quit smoking -- and a person who has CF; what do you think the choice should be? A pair of lungs doesn't come along every day, and it has to be a match. The CF person can't help his illness, but the smoker can. The system makes the decisions, not the individual doctors and nurses. Hate to break it to you - but it's called bureaucracy, and decisions have to be made. Obviously - you're addicted to nicotine, and you don't want to give it up, and typically of addicts the thinking process is impaired. As for house fires - that's rather lame reasoning as well. Cigarettes have long been a major cause of house fires, and this, in case you don't know it, is a cause that is easily traced after a fire by forensics. Do you actually know what the statistics are for cigarette related house fires in Ireland? From a quick search on the internet, I can see that cigarettes are indeed a factor, and they are one of the worst.


   ·   03/01/2008 17:13

Leonine, You say "the system makes the decision, not Nurses or Doctors" What is this system called? A system cannot make a decision. People make decisions. Unless you mean that when someone needs a transplantation then the decision can only be made by crossing matching the tissue and then the decision is already made. I happen to know a little about transplantation, as I have worked in this field for many years. Strangely enough, if you are in need of a transplant (regardless of what organ it is) you can either have it on the public system or you can have it on the private system. Even if you go private there is no guarantee that an organ that matches your tissue will come on stream before you die. Nobody can tell you that you are not entitled to proper medical care. Anyone who tries to do that would find themselves in Court (and rightly so). You can't refuse treatment to someone who has a habit that you do not personally like otherwise you exclude almost all of the population (see my previous post). Fortunately we must be doing something right here because we do not have 1,000's of children dieing in house fires TG. I suggest that in Canada there must be a lot of other problems that lead to so many house fires. Maybe the Authorities should be looking at that rather than trying to scapegoat smokers all the time who after all, are not 'out of their heads' due to smoking. And by the way, I never said I was a smoker. I just don't see why we should all follow sheep like and blame all of the ills of society on smoking when there are obviously far greater dangers out there that are both illegal/ife threatening & cause a major drain on our health service.


   ·   03/01/2008 22:15

Leonine, You are now resorting to personal insults rather than thought out responses. This is not unusual with antis who have no real arguments, just false propaganda. Anon has no impairment of his/her mental processes which is perfectly obvious from the posts. I am also not "raving" although I do admit that intolerance and bigotry do get me somewhat annoyed. I suppose that those of us who took the trouble to learn Irish history could never quite forgive Cromwell and listening to modern day Cromwellians doesn't sit so well. By the way, check out the Scripp's study on SIDS. This nasty piece of propaganda passed around by various anti groups is already being shown up for what it is, pure rubbish! If you want to understand the reserach into the relation between passive smoking and health, I would suggest that you start with the biggest one of all, the Ekstrom/Kabat research. For your information, the current state of all researches are 6 to 1 AGAINST there being any relationship between passive smoking and ill health. Overwhelming evidence maintain the anti's, my bloody eye. Anon knows and understands what he/she is talking about, you, unfortunately, do not seem to be so well informed. Pity.


   ·   04/01/2008 11:19

Ex-Pat, even EVEN if passive smoking does cause illness the fact remains that if a smoker smokes (which is currently perfectly legal) in their car the are smoking on their own property, just ;like if they smoked at home. Other adults as passengers in their car - just like gurests in their home have the choice not to take lifts or not to call. With children presetn of course that is a different matter but it all depends on how far we want to legislate for individuals.


   ·   04/01/2008 16:12

Anon - are you a smoker, and are you going to be honest in your answer? You are not supplying any proof, any backup for anything you have to say. What role do you play, what is your job in the "transplantation" field? Surgeon? Nurse? I believe the word is "transplant" not "transplantation", and I can't see any medical professional using a word like that. You've just made a lot of statements that have no point in this discussion, and all it shows me is that you're a smoker who's offended by the very idea that smoking is going to be banned. You're feeling persecuted, and it shows. Hysteria, false claims, wild allegations, unfounded statements, uneducated statements -- that's all I can see in your posts, and the same goes for Expat's. You've got to do better than this. You're definitely not convincing me that you know what you're talking about - because you don't. Show me the statistics that state the Ireland has no problems with house fires caused by cigarettes. By the way - smokers might not feel so persecuted if they could find a way to get rid of the stink and the yellow staining.


   ·   04/01/2008 16:24

Expat; I don't see what on earth Cromwell has to do with a modern-day argument about smoking. You really ought to perhaps get your head out of the past. Since I live in Canada, I'm not likely to be a "Cromwellian", and personally I don't give a rat's behind about whatever Cromwell did. You might find it hard to believe, but the rest of the world moved on. We moved on so much, that California has now enacted legislation forbidding people to smoke in cars. Smoking in cars is ten times as harmful as smoking in a building. The fact is that cigarette smoke causes cancer, the most deadly cancer - and that's lung cancer. You might refuse to admit it, because you are addicted - but thinking people know that it's true. If you want to refuse to think, go ahead and do that. But don't inflict your narrowmindedness and lack of common sense upon other people.


   ·   04/01/2008 18:17

You are ALL completely gone off topic here!!! I disagree with a ban on smoking in all motor vehicles. I think its ridiculous. Personally I dont agree with parents smoking in cars with kids in them. However, as I have already said: if you buy a second hand car get it valeted if it smells of fags. I pay for my car, I am paying for my home. Its MY business what I choose to do in them!!


   ·   04/01/2008 18:45

Leonine, you are not debating, merely insulting other people to cover up your own shortcomings. I used "cromwellian" to describe a puritanical state of mind which has certain parallels to the ASH cult started in California by Stanton Glantz. I do not have my head in the past, I am just aware of it and of history repeating itself. I have pointed you in the direction of research, in the most conducted or initiated by the American Cancer Research. Why do you refuse to acknowledge qualified research? The only narrowmindedness that I am reading is in your posts. If you offered me some evidence to support your views then out of respect I would read it before answering. You show no respect whatsoever for other opinions. Only your own seem to count. Check out Dr. Michael Siegal who distanced himself from the anti fanatics as they are making a mockery out of medical science and he is a strong anti smoker himself. Do me one big favour though. Turn your brain back on before answering. Thanks.


   ·   04/01/2008 19:05

Leonine, You are like a child that has just thrown its rattle out of its pram! Calm down. Attack is most certainly not the best form of defence when it is quite clear that you don't know what you are talking about and instead of debating a subject you just get abusive. I wouldn't lower myself to answer any of your abusive questions. Your last tirade was quite frankly, laughable. In fact, if you don't understand the references that Ex Pat made in his last post then I suggest he was obviously correct in his assumption that you don't know much about Irish history. That is fine. You don't seem to know much about Ireland either so I would wonder why you are posting from Canada. We don't live in Canada & we are not terribly pushed about what happens in California either. I will finish by saying that it would be wise that you look up the word 'Transplant' in your dictionary before you put your foot in your mouth by correcting anyone elses english!


   ·   07/01/2008 08:58

Leonine, in order to understand Ex-Pat'S post, you need to learn some history. If you don't understand your past, how can you plan for your future. I believe Cromwellian refered to attitude rather than nationality. Cancer, even lung cancer is multi-factorial and thus cannot be attributed to one cause. You don't need to be an oncologist to know that.


   ·   07/01/2008 15:06

There is nothing abusive about asking you, anon, what you do in the surgical transplant business. I'll have to assume that you don't have an answer. As I have said - I cannot see anyone preventing people from smoking in their own cars if that's what they want to do. You can't protect people from themselves. However, I do think it should be illegal to smoke in a car with children. The poisonous effects of cigarette smoke are ten times worse in a car as in a house. When you put a child in a car where you're smoking, you are forcing them to inhale smoke that's dangerous to their health, and you are violating their civil liberties -- assuming you have those in Ireland for children. I think the Irish government should be commended for being so progressive. And, yes I live in Canada, but my the cottage my grandmother was born in is still occupied by my cousins in the very northern tip of Ireland. I do have an interest in smoking laws in Ireland.


   ·   07/01/2008 17:58

Leonine, Firstly I am not in the habit of saying I do a job I don't do. What on earth would be the point of that? If I said I worked in a certain field, then that is what I do. I was just letting you know that I do know the protocols involved in Transplantation. Secondly there you go, off again on a tirade about children. This discussion is about a ban on smoking in all motor vehicles. No reference to children whatsoever. Why can't you just address the issue and stop making up issues as you go along?


   ·   07/01/2008 21:40

Martha-Stewart, I do agree with you, almost. We got a little off topic as some people tend to forget that in a debate, we need to listen and respect other opinions even when we don't agree. We can always learn something new. To fit the off topic debate back into the current thread, I would to mention that a ban on smoking in cars is nothing new. In the 1930's a certain group of people in Germany also banned smoking in cars after having banned it in the working place and before trying to ban it in the home. Luckily for us many of our forefather fought against this tyranny and saved our freedoms. I think they must be turning in their graves seeing this new form of "health" fascism achieving the enslavement of mankind that guns and tanks couldn't. My home is my castle? For how long? BTW, when I smoke in the car, I just open the bloody window. Where's the problem?


   ·   08/01/2008 18:32

Well, unfortunately for expat and anon, smoking really is becoming socially unacceptable, and you're just going to have to eventually accept it. At the moment of course, you can smoke where you want to, and there will always be places for you to smoke. However, you're going to have more and more people looking down their noses at you and turning their heads away in disgust. That's what the future of smoking in the Western world looks like. I understand that it makes smokers feel persecuted, and I do feel sorry for them, because it is a physical addiction. It is as hard to get off smoking as it is to get off heroin; the body really goes through a lot of pain, and for many people it is impossible to quit. Cigarette companies put 600 chemicals into the tobacco in the interests of increasing addiction and in preserving the cigarette's "freshness". Some of those chemicals are arsenic, rat poison, and the like. Look it up sometime. So, if you're a smoker, it's not a nice world these days because your addiction is supported less and less; much as a drug addict's addiction is not supported by mainstream society.


   ·   08/01/2008 23:26

Leonine, You are unbeilevable. Your comment "Some of those chemicals are arsenic, rat poison, and the like. Look it up sometime. " really took the cake. Rat poison is not a chemical. Rat poison usually is made up of chemicals such as arsenic and cyanide among others, please, I think YOU should do some "looking up" before you write. Arsenic is also found in the soil, water etc. In fact a glass of tap water contains far more arsenic that a pack of cigarettes. If you don't believe me, look it up! It all depends on the dosage. The chemicals in second hand smoke are in such small dosages that they are irrelevant to human health. Read the scientific research done on this subject not the propaganda nonsense spouted by ASH and the likes. I have to give you credit though, for someone who seems to have no clue, you do keep trying.

   ·   09/01/2008 08:55

Leonine, it may surprise you but there are tiny tiny amounts of arsenic in the water supplies too and as for rat poison, it's not actually rat poison which is added but a warfarin derivative.


   ·   09/01/2008 14:11

I've never seen such a case of rationalizing and excuse-making and covering-up in my life. I know of course that smokers are nicotine addicts, and any addict will do or say anything to justify their habit, so that's to be expected. But I do know smokers who admit that it's a health problem, and know that they'd be better off without it -- they're smokers who actually think. I don't think I've ever seen anyone try to make rat poison sound like an innocent drug before - this is kind of laughable. Here's a link - since you obviously won't accept anything from anywhere because you're so paranoid that everyone is suspect -- how about the BBC? According to them, it's over 600 drugs added. And keep this in mind when you're having your checkup: " Thirty per cent of all cancer deaths can be attributed to smoking. Cancers other than lung cancer which are linked to smoking include: Cervical cancer, Cancers of the mouth, lip and throat, Pancreatic cancer, Bladder cancer, Kidney cancer, Stomach cancer, Liver cancer, Leukaemia "

   ·   09/01/2008 14:28

Rat poison is made from a derivative of warfarin. This is a medical drug used in blood thining. Any phlebotomy student or medical registrar or chemist can tell you that without even a hint of a laugh. I'm not a smoker, never was. I dislike smoking but I disike lies and the propaganda machine which disseminates them far more. Any oncologist will tell you that cancer is mutifactorial and cannot be attributed to one cause. No doubt smoking is a factor but we are talking about the legal status of smoking in one provate property and misinformation do nothing to further your point.


   ·   09/01/2008 17:49

Anonymous is 100% correct. Leonine, any person who has had heart valves replaced will be on warfarin and everyone knows (it was never a secret) that warfarin is derived from rat poison. What is your problem with the truth? Like Anonymous, we all know the risks of smoking but believe it or not obesity is an even bigger problem & the cause of far more stress on our health services than smokers. You should know that as North America is suffering more than anywhere else with Europe catching up fast in the obesity stakes and the resulting massive increase in type 2 diabetes, heart disease, strokes, cancer etc. etc. Like everything in life, smoking is only 1 factor. Anyone can get any of the illnesses attributed to smoking and have never smoked in their lives or even been subjected to smoke of any kind. As Anonymous says Cancer is multifactorial & the longer you live the higher your risk of getting a cancer of some kind. We will all die of something no matter how healthy we live our lives.


   ·   10/01/2008 07:37

Sorry, but I don't believe either of you are telling the truth about your smoking. You're both scrambling around to find ways to justify everything from the chemicals in the cigarettes to the causes of cancer. This is typical addict behaviour, and you seem to think that if a drug can be used in medicine, then it's okay to put it into a cigarette, where it's going to affect the entire body, be burned, and then take on newly poisonous characteristics. I've stated my position, and in the face of people who have no other reason to be on this forum than to justify their own habit - there's nothing more to say. It's your funeral.

   ·   10/01/2008 11:10

I'm not a smoker never was but I have the intelligence to see propaganda for what it is. Leonine, You refered to toxic chemicals like arsenic and rat poison. I simply pointed out that there is arsenic in our water and that the drug you are referring to is warfarin (a rat poison derivative). I didn't say it as ok to have them in cigarettes or anything else, I simply stated the fact and your imagination did the rest. I have no reason to jusify a habit I never had, I just don't like lies and propaganda.


   ·   10/01/2008 12:14

While I strongly agree with the ordinary smoking ban in the work place, I do not think that it should be applied to cars. Cars are private property so generally only your friends and family will be in the car with you. However, I think that there is an over-zealous attack on Leonine. Firstly at least she has the courage to attribute an alias to her contributions, rather than the cowardly plethora of Anons attacking her. The essence of her message is that smoking is bad for everyone. It has absolutely no positive aspects to it. As smokers anons & expats obviously have great difficulty in dealing with this basic truth, and so lash out irrationally at the messenger. Anon 17.49, of course you are correct obesity is a looming problem for the future. However at present 25% of hospital bed-admissions are smoking related illnesses. Think what the hospital system would be like with 25% less admissions. You are also correct that cancer is multi-factorial. However in the case of lung cancer 90% of victims are smokers. This, even using the simplest of logic shows that smoking is the biggest contributor to lung cancer. There is no medical group in the world that advocates smoking.

   ·   10/01/2008 15:01

I don't think anyone disagrees with smoking being bad, No one nees to subscibe to propaganda in order to prove this.


   ·   10/01/2008 17:02

JamesH, thank you for a clear and balanced post, and I agree that the car is private property. The main objection I have to smoking in cars is smoking with children in them, who have no choice in the matter. Otherwise I agree that people can do what they want to in their cars. Anon, the fact that cigarettes contain toxic chemicals that the tobacco companies use in order to preserve the cigarettes, to increase addictivity?, and also to speed up the "burn time" in cigarettes so that you smoke faster -- is not propaganda, it's the truth. Cigarettes are full of harmful chemicals. If smokers had organically grown tobacco, with no chemical additives, it might not be as harmful for them to use it. The villains in the whole scenario are the tobacco companies, not the people who are trying to do something about smoking. Does anyone know what the average tobacco company CEO makes in a year?


   ·   10/01/2008 19:51

Leonine, One of the most dangerous & addictive constituents of a cigerette is the nicotine so it doesn't matter what type of tobacco you smoke, you are still inhaling nicotine. That is not in dispute. Organically grown tobacco is no safer than any other tobacco. Why are you blaming the tobacco companies now? Smoking is not illegal and surely the Governments who make billions out of taxation on cigerettes are just as questionable? Nevertheless, attempting to ban smoking in private cars/vehicles is just plain daft.


   ·   10/01/2008 23:11

I cannot believe that someone who lives in this world, in this day and age, with access to newspapers, books, TV, films and computers -- does not know that tobacco companies have been making cigarettes more dangerous than they need to be. They have lied time and time again, and been caught at it. Nicotine is what gets you addicted, but the rest of the contents are extremely dangerous to your lungs, and body. For example - "light" cigarettes, are not and never were lighter, they just put tiny holes in the filters to make them taste lighter. In fact - the smoker was getting more tar, more carbon monoxide and more nicotine than they'd be getting from a regular cigarette - and smoking more cigarettes, which is the ultimate aim of the tobacco companies.


   ·   10/01/2008 23:14

Anon, I'm beginning to wonder if you have a less than casual interest in this forum, and whether you are working for or have an interest in parties that do not want to see smoking lessened in Ireland? This is interesting: Cigarettes are one of the most addictive drugs on the planet. Any demographic study of smokers done in North America or Western Europe will show that their income is below average. So, when the price of cigarettes goes up, they have little choice but to pay more, and spend less money on food, clothing, entertainment, and transportation. It's dangerous to stand between an addict and his or her drug. There is also a class of people who have an interest in the well-being of the tobacco industry. Not just stockholders, employees, and tobacco farmers, but also . . . tobacco retailers and employees of charities funded by tobacco companies. One definition of the word "libertarian" is: "Someone who tries to make you believe that what's in his best interest is what's in everyone else's best interest also."


   ·   11/01/2008 00:48

Hello James, I was wondering when either you or Rainy would turn up. I hope you have been keeping well. I found your comment "lash out irrationally" rather out of place as the only one using irrational arguments, was Leonine herself. Glad to see you back so we can at least debate on a more reasonable level even though we will totally disagree on the subject. Also anon and anonymous have been very reasonable and fair in their posts. They, like myself, just have a great deal against downright lies and propaganda. BTW where do you get the 25% smoke related illnesses statistics from, I couldn't find it and what is included under smoking related as that could cover a lot of ground.


   ·   11/01/2008 08:09

Leonine, I've read your posts and agree with most of what you say but when you say; "I agree that people can do what they want to in their cars" that's rich! You cannot break the law whether on private property or not. and if smoking is against the law then you may not smoke in your car. We must not forget the safety aspect of smoking in the car. ASH state; 'I believe that smoking should be banned in cars as it raises issues in relation to health as well as road safety. Smokers must light up, hold the cigarette, deposit the ash and dispose of the cigarette - all whilst driving. If it is not safe to hold a mobile phone while driving its difficult to see how it can be safe to smoke.' At present this ban would be difficult to enforce because the mobile phone ban is being blatantly ignored by some. On the other hand, the ban on smoking in the workplace is a world renowned success story despite all the original prophets of doom. ASH Ireland is focused on reducing the impact of tobacco use in Irish society and this is just another battle in that war. As ASH approaches its goal of a smoke free society only a few pitiful addicts will still furtively smoke in their cars -- and elsewhere. The 7,000 p.a. who die in Ireland from smoking related diseases would be greatly reduced.


   ·   11/01/2008 10:27

You cannot break the law whether on private property or not - but somking is not illegal. If seen smokers take less concentration lighting up that changing the radio station or checking their children. No one is suggesting that these be banned also. If ASH were so concerned they would want to make smokoign banned in all public places but this is not a health issue its a personal and civil liberyty issue. I agree that people should npot smoke around their children but can we really legislate for all parental irresponsibility?


   ·   11/01/2008 16:17

Here we go again.... the nanny state at it's best. I wish to god people like ASH Ireland would get a life of their own and stop poking their oars into other peoples. Who the hell is going to police this idiotic ban? The laws we have can't be enforced because the Garda Siochana don't have the manpower and now we have some numb-skull in ASH deciding to make smoking in your car illegal - I propose we also outlaw picking your nose, or scratching other parts of your anatomy, making rude noises or even eating a bag of crisps [lets give 'em at least five years in the slammer for any of the above] - in the name of God go soak your head. Like doh!!!!!!!!!!!!!


   ·   11/01/2008 18:36

Witofire - I agree, and if it's against the law, then it's illegal and fines should be levied. I think the authorities are interested in getting rid of the use of any substance in any motorized vehicle, and that goes from alcohol and nicotine to cocaine. When you're driving a car, you should be doing nothing but driving a car. The people who have to clean up the bloody messes on the highway know very well how a split second in judgement or visibility, or reflexes, can make all the difference. A cigarette can make that difference. In the long run, the fact that you're constricting all your blood vessels has an effect on the brain, the eyes, and the reflexes, over time. You become a poor driver. If cigarettes were being introduced now, they would never be made legal, and Anon and Anonymous would be in full agreement. The legislating is for the safety of the children. If the parents are irresponsible, then who is going to step in for the children? Someone has to care enough for the children to tell the parents that they cannot indulge in practises that make their children sick. If you want to go back to Victorian England, the way children were abused in Dickens' time, and nobody cared - and Ireland as well; just think about it. It's unfortunate for the smoking parents that someone didn't stop their parents from smoking when they were growing up.


   ·   14/01/2008 11:35

If cigarettes were being introduced now, they would never be made legal, nor would alcohol but we are not debating the dangers of tobacco per say. As for the damage from smoking resulting in you being a bad driver. You are side stepping again. That is not the issue. The issue is smoking in cars. If it is the case that while driving you should not be doing anything else then why are radios, cd players and passengers not banned? This has nothing to do with the safety of children. If it had then the proposal would be to ban cigarettes in the home and in any public place where children are likely to be, even the street. And indeed if it was really about steppign in where parents are iresponsible, the crackdown would be on truancy, alcohol in the home, slapping, junk food, domestic violence and whole host of other issues but that is not what is being proposed. It's unfortunate indeed for the smoking parents that someone didn't stop their parents from smoking when they were growing up but this is not what is being proposed. No one is trying to stop parents from smoking - the proposal is to ban smoking in cars regardless of their parental status or the presence of children.


   ·   14/01/2008 15:00

We ARE debating the dangers of alcohol "per se". " As for the damage from smoking resulting in you being a bad driver. You are side stepping again. That is not the issue. The issue is smoking in cars. " ???????? I really don't know what that's all about. You've contradicted yourself all in one sentence. " This has nothing to do with the safety of children." Sorry to break it to you, and disagree with your lame rationalizations and excuses - but this has everything to do with safety of children - in cars. It also has to do with safety of other motorists, and other adults in cars. It is ludicrous to think that you should be allowed to bring a flame-point, plus smoke - into a vehicle that's capable of travelling at high speeds, brutally killing, and where the air inside is very restricted. But then - it's ludicrous for any thinking human being to even start smoking - knowing what is now known about the habit. I'm just very glad that I don't.


   ·   14/01/2008 16:08

Leonine, Why do you keep missing the point? This discussion is about whether or not people would support a ban on smoking in all motor vehicles. It is NOT about banning smoking in motor vehicles that children are in. What about all the people who have vehicles who do not have children? If you think that smoking is so dangerous in vehicles perhaps you should get on to the vehicle manufacturers who provide cigarette lighters in vehicles. This discussion is also not about whether one agrees with smoking or not. Everyone knows the dangers of smoking. Just as everyone knows the dangers of alcohol, drugs etc but that does not stop people using them. As One says, if smoking in vehicles is so dangerous then so is any distraction such as radios/cd players, DVD players (which are now fitted into modern cars as standard), carrying passengers and particularly carrying children AT ALL. Therefore if we were to apply your logic to this we would all have to agree that children should be banned from all cars (that is, if your driving is sooo bad that any distraction should cause you to loose control of a vehicle). Nobody is capable of concentrating 100% on anything for more than 10 minutes.


   ·   14/01/2008 21:21

Well, One - you might have nothing else to do with your life, but I do. I have said it before, and I'll say it again - I do not think it's practical to expect people to 'not smoke' in their vehicles. I would neither support nor would I activate against a smoking ban in vehicles. I'm neutral on a general ban. If it's proven to be dangerous driving to smoke in a car - then I would support it. So far, no proof of that has been shown. However, I do feel that smoking in cars where children are travelling should be illegal, and punishable by a fine. Period. Where DO you get the idea that nobody can concentrate on anything 100% for more than 10 minutes? Just for starters, I'm an artist, I'm very capable of focusing 100% on what I'm doing, for over an hour. I believe diamond cutters and surgeons are good at concentration, not to mention martial arts experts. If you couldn't concentrate longer than that, let me say, there is help out there.


   ·   15/01/2008 11:03

"I would neither support nor would I activate against a smoking ban in vehicles| "If it's proven to be dangerous driving to smoke in a car - then I would support it. So far, no proof of that has been shown". It would seem Leonine that you have totally switched sides!! If you are against smoking in cars where there are children present, then I take it you would ban and fine smoking anywhere where there are children present, including the street and the private home??


   ·   15/01/2008 18:04

Obviously I have to explain things more clearly for you. Sometimes, one has to spell everything out. Cigarette smoking contracts and damages blood vessels in the brain, as well as everywhere else, which inhibits the distribution of oxygen, impairing thinking processes. As things stand right now, I am neutral, in other words I do not care, one way or the other - on a TOTAL, across the board ban - on smoking in vehicles. I am IN FAVOUR of a ban on smoking in cars with children. If evidence is found that shows smoking contributes to dangerous driving, then I WOULD BE (meaning *in the future*) in favour of a total ban. I would actually be in favour of citizens being outfitted with mini fire-extinguishers with which to spray smokers, if they're being offensive with their cigarettes. Children in particular should have these devices - or little fans for blowing the smoke away from their faces. Hoses work well too.


   ·   16/01/2008 00:51

Leonine, The ignorance you display in your postings is almost laughable if it wasn't for the arrogant tone of your messages. Who exactly to you think you are talking down to? You have not said one thing in any of your postings that was new although you did actually say lots of things that were factually incorrect or were totally irrelevant to this discussion. There is no ban in the world that would prevent parents who wish to smoke in front of their children, doing so, whether they are in a car or in a house. If a parent wishes to smoke in front of their children then regardless of whether we all find that offensive, they will do it anyway. Again using your logic, imagine a parent lighting up in a car and the child putting into use their mini fire extinguishers.... what sort of mayhem would ensue? You don't seem to think your thought processes out at all before you post. Smoking is not illegal! Smoking does not impair your driving just because you smoke. What do you think alcohol or drugs do to the brain? Many people have to take drugs daily for many conditions, in order to maintain a good standard of health. ALL drugs have side effects. Not meaning to sound harsh, instead of feeling the 'urge' to lecture us, I would propose that you do a bit of study on anatomy and physiology before you procrastinate on what goes on between the ears of any other human being. I will omit the next, rather obvious comment.

   ·   16/01/2008 08:52

Considering you are the one Leonine who conveniently misunderstands certain statements, it would seem that it is you who needs things explained and re-explained to you. We all know hte dmage smoking does to the smoker but it sems you do not know the point of this debate - it is about banned smoking in all motor vehicles regardless children. That is the debate.


   ·   16/01/2008 10:15

Dear Leonine - reading the first para of your last post I figure you must have had to put up with an awful awful lot of passive smoking from the second you arrived on this planet... and you know something else? I'm going to give up smoking THIS MINUTE because I now understand how dangerous cigarettes can be - all those millions wasted by the department of health on anti smoking ads - we should put yourself on TV and the Radio immediately, citing you as an example of exactly what happens when too much air oops I mean smoke gets near your brain. Wow!

   ·   29/01/2008 19:03

I would have to say I'd agree with the ban. When they brought out the pub ban i taught it would never work but it has. In fact i now think it was a great idea and i believe it would be a good idea to ban smoking in cars too. I'm a smoker, I have 2 kids and yes I have an odd smoke in the car but really try not to because i feel so guilty that my kids have to breath in my cigarettes too. We can't smoke in pubs anymore and we all survived. What difference is not smoking in your car gonna be?


   ·   30/01/2008 16:56

Lisa, good for you. Your kids will be better for it, not just for their health, but for the example you set for them. Kids do what you do, so if they see you making the commitment to either not smoke around them, or better yet quit altogether, it's going to make a good impression on them. They'll be more likely to commit to something healthy themselves later in life. It's a positive move to make, and a positive attitude.


   ·   31/01/2008 00:52

LISA. Short and sweet Lisa, and I agree. Say to much and some of this lot are trying to tear you apart. Free Speech.........not a hope in ....


   ·   31/01/2008 16:09

mamags i was waiting to be tore apart but so far so good


   ·   01/02/2008 16:50

There's nothing actually stopping you from saying what you want to say. Once you realize that, it's clear sailing. The site administrators watch for anything that could be a legal problem, but you're certainly free to say whatever you want to say. It's only typed words, after all.


   ·   02/02/2008 12:27

Oh my a whole flock of poor deluded sheep are running amok in this group. Wake up people your being conned by smoking patch salespeople. Albert Einstein smoked his entire life what a pity he was only running on 3 cylinders he might have been brilliant. Oh wait he was Brilliant. No safe level of second hand smoke tells you nothing but it sure works well in promoting fear. Catchy ad agency spin gets them every time. PT Barnham; "There is one born every minute" He was referring to us all. Medical charities tell you they are looking for the cure for Cancer? The truth is the management of disease campaign they are sworn to, will eliminate that possibility permanently. We are diverted to fighting against ourselves while Cancer societies protect the industries who hand them the largest donations and do our communities the most harm. Don't fret though, its just business as always, cashing in on their advertising investments.


   ·   04/02/2008 16:10

I made a decision not to get involved in this post as I am a heavy smoker and a fairly heavy drinker. However I have four children who have witnessed my smoking and drinking in the house and in the car but none of them smoke or drink. Why did they not follow my example? I am disappointed as I feel I have no influence on them.


   ·   04/02/2008 16:18

I see that conspiracy theories and paranoia abound among the afflicted. It's part of the "reduced blood flow" problem. Affects all parts of the body, especially the brain.


   ·   05/02/2008 10:25

Leonine; Perhaps your aversion to ad hominid attacks could be self inflicted. The "afflicted" as you refer to a lot of very real people, in an attempt to categorize them into a convenient place in your own consciousness, might be seen as an attack by others, resulting in a predictable response. You are of course, speaking in a tone which supports subjectification and denormalization of close to a quarter of our community. Fear mongering and Bigotry are empowered only by parrots. The myth you fall prey to; smokers are all brain dead zombies intent to eat your own brain, is foolish at best and quite well illustrates your lack of insight leading to what appears to be parroting, the reprisals of others who are equally uninformed. The effect of nicotine which is likely its attraction for most who smoke would be a chemical reality; Nicotine and its derivative cotinine are memory and cognitive enhancing and neural protective. The very reason they use nicotine in drugs to treaty Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Dementia. Further the idea smokers are less productive would of course be deluded. Smoking triggers the production of adreneline at the same time constricting the endothelius and increasing blood flow which in turn increases heart rate, giving the overal effect of increasing energy levels and increased cognitive ability. The reason smokers, when run down are reinvigorated after a smoke. It also explains when working outside in the cold a smoker has a smoke to ward off the effects of the cold. So you see smoking could well be viewed as self medication, allowing benefits. From what you may well despise, if for no other reason than the smell. Your comments do not support a well intended encouragement to help someone quit, rather an exhibition of disdain. I truly hope that was not your intent. And no, I am not speaking as one of the "afflicted" rather, one who just hates to see the medical community and my own government promoting hatred which is everyones business.


   ·   05/02/2008 16:39

That's quite funny - especially when it's read aloud to a group of people.


   ·   05/02/2008 22:02

FXR, All we need here is a conspiracy theorist like you. Your paranoia is a big help to this forum. By the way, P T Barnum's "There's one born every minute" did not refer to all of us - just suckers. You will find it difficult to convince non-smokers, especially those who kicked the filthy habit, that we fall into that category. Your spelling of 'denormalization' prompts me to speculate on which government you mean when you speak of 'my government'. The majority do not believe that a smoking ban in all motor vehicles is a feasible idea at present. More education for nicotine addicts is needed to rid society of this unhealthy and unsafe habit.


   ·   06/02/2008 00:32

FXR, Thank you for your refreshing common sense. As you may have noticed, as soon as ASH start their next round of banning things, we always get a bunch of antis pretending to be smokers who use phrases such as they are "ashamed" to smoke and of how dangerous driving and smoking is "because of that swerve". They are very transparent. The only thing they seem to have in common is a very low IQ. Oh, I forgot, smokers are also brain damaged according to these ASH supporters. You would just never guess that from reading the posts.

   ·   06/02/2008 09:59

The reason smokers, when run down are reinvigorated after a smoke is becuase their addiction to nicoteen has temporarily been satisfied, nothing else. Most I know who despise smoking so so for reasons other than the smell - perhaps the toxicity? How you could call over 100 poisons, which a cigarette contains, "medicine", is beyond any rational thinking. Your statement regarding cancer prevention agencies is totally illogical. Do you have any proof that Cancer societies recieve donations from certain industries which harm communities and protect those industries in return. If so, I suggest you stae it as that is one heck of a defamotory and possibily slanderous statement. Or is it perhaps just a conspiracy theory? And ExPat, I'm not a smoker, I never was. I don't like smoking but I also don't like the kind of hogwash that certain posters come out with.


   ·   06/02/2008 10:01

Baa baa baa ... here we go again. Ok, so Leonine and her like want to ban smoking in cars, right, when we've done that - what'll we ban next... let's see - let's ban critters with IQs you can trip over from taking part in public forums like this one, yeah, mmm... and then let's force 'em all to have a labotomy, yeah let's ban people over a certain weight from flying, and people with blonde hair from drinking alcohol, and then when we've banned everything what'll we do? Do you have any life of your own - you're obviously destined to live on the periphery of others peoples lives jabbing your honk into their business every now and then... mmmmm... makes you think! Oh yeah and worry!!!!! GET A LIFE AND MIND YOUR OWN BEESWAX.

Betty Humpter

   ·   06/02/2008 10:02

Witofire since when does 43% in favour and 54% against make those in favour a majority? Have you been blinded, once again, by a flaming match again that's making it difficult for you to read the poll results on the top of the page?


   ·   06/02/2008 17:01

Betty Humpter, Read my post again and you may just realise what it says. That may save my explaining it all over to you again! Before you make silly remarks about someone you think is not in agreement with you, at least inform yourself of his stand.

Betty Humpter

   ·   06/02/2008 17:39

Oops I see what you mean. I stand corrected and will now apologise to you for my error wit.


   ·   06/02/2008 20:39

Anon; I would have to question if your comments are based on what you believe because your dourrce of information is limited or what you know based on real fact. First the statements I made were not speculative they are based in biological reality, an excellent source of that information is published texts which are freely available to the general public at the British medical journal, Pub Med, JAMA and a number of other medical information highly credible depositories. Your dislike of what I said seems to carry over into your apparent dismissal of my credibility based in denials perhaps or a predictable reaction when internal balances are challenged, [SEE Freud] You agreed the effects are real, when a smoker is reinvigorated after he experiences nicotine. However for some reason, you rejected the explanation of why that reinvigoration happens. Which does not offer any alternate explanation to what the effect of nicotine receptors induces in the adrenal gland and the endothelium, according to the numerous studies I have read and what they clearly state. The anti smoker movement in attempts to sensationalize the effects of endothelial function [which is the body's way of regulating heat, blood flow when exercising and perspiration, along with a number of beneficial effects] has demonstrated on numerous occasions the effects of cigarette smoke both primary and secondary actually afford exactly what I stated. As for poisons considered as medicine? they are used all the time there is actually at present a large controversay brewing considering the effects of Anoline which was developed as a dye and was subsequently banned in many countries because of a significant tendency to produce cancers. Dye from coal tar and oil, is still widely used to color your meat in the stores, egg yolks and salmon. It is also widely used in medicines for close to 100 years now. The ingredient which apparently makes it so dangerous is believed to be Benzine the replacement product added to gasoline when lead was banned, in order to raise octane levels. Known safe level for a carcinogen [Causes cancer] is one part per million for inhalation. In your gas tank one part per hundred is the most common mixture. As for slanderous statements? If you believe my statements are slanderous, by all means tell them, I should be held to account. Or before you waste your time, do a couple of google searches regarding "disease management" as opposed to "finding the cures" you may be shocked in what you find out there. If you dare to look. None of this is my opinion just the biological facts. Nothing personal by the way, just discussion could we keep it at that level? Or at least read through what you post and consider it, before hitting the button. Assesing harm if you want to read an excellent discussion, can be found in a study by an author in the news today who's research demonstrates health costs of so called healthy individuals are much higher than the obese or smokers at the bottom of the list 25 % cheaper than healthy people contrary to what you have been told for over a decade. Should smokers be given a rebate for healthcare over payments? The article evaluating a perspective the public should understand can be found here; 2006 van Baal et al; licensee Bio-Med Central Ltd. Disability weights for co-morbidity and their influence on Health-adjusted Life Expectancy Enjoy, and have a better day. Life is too short, to be wasted managing some one else's


   ·   06/02/2008 20:41

Anon; I would have to question if your comments are based on what you believe because your source of information is limited or what you know based on real fact. First the statements I made were not speculative they are based in biological reality, an excellent source if that information is published texts which are freely available to the general public at the British medical journal, Pub Med, JAMA and a number of other medical information highly credible depositories. Your dislike of what I said seems to carry over into your apparent dismissal of my credibility based in denials perhaps or a predictable reaction when internal balances are challenged, [SEE Freud] You agreed the effects are real, when a smoker is reinvigorated after he experiences nicotine. However for some reason, you rejected the explanation of why that reinvigoration happens. Which does not offer any alternate explanation to what the effect of nicotine receptors induces in the adrenal gland and the endothelium, according to the numerous studies I have read and what they clearly state. The anti smoker movement in attempts to sensationalize the effects of endothelial function [which is the body's way of regulating heat, blood flow when exercising and perspiration, along with a number of beneficial effects] has demonstrated on numerous occasions the effects of cigarette smoke both primary and secondary actually afford exactly what I stated. As for poisons considered as medicine? they are used all the time there is actually at present a large controversy brewing considering the effects of Aniline which was developed as a dye and was subsequently banned in many countries because of a significant tendency to produce cancers. Dye from coal tar and oil, is still widely used to color your meat in the stores, egg yolks and salmon. It is also widely used in medicines for close to 100 years now. The ingredient which apparently makes it so dangerous is believed to be Benzene the replacement product added to gasoline when lead was banned, in order to raise octane levels. Known safe level for a carcinogen [Causes cancer] is one part per million for inhalation. In your gas tank one part per hundred is the most common mixture. As for slanderous statements? If you believe my statements are slanderous, by all means tell them, I should be held to account. Or before you waste your time, do a couple of google searches regarding "disease management" as opposed to "finding the cures" you may be shocked in what you find out there. If you dare to look. None of this is my opinion just the biological facts. Nothing personal by the way, just discussion could we keep it at that level? Or at least read through what you post and consider it, before hitting the button. Assessing harm if you want to read an excellent discussion, can be found in a study by an author in the news today who's research demonstrates health costs of so called healthy individuals are much higher than the obese or smokers at the bottom of the list 25 % cheaper than healthy people contrary to what you have been told for over a decade. Should smokers be given a rebate for healthcare over payments? The article evaluating a perspective the public should understand can be found here; 2006 van Baal et al; licensee Bio-Med Central Ltd. Disability weights for co-morbidity and their influence on Health-adjusted Life Expectancy Enjoy, and have a better day. Life is too short, to be wasted managing some one else's


   ·   06/02/2008 20:52

Witof fire; From a conspiracy nut to another kind of nut. "P T Barnum's "There's one born every minute" did not refer to all of us - just suckers." Little history lesson for you; at the time he stated it the birth rate was one a minute. Don't take my word for it you can look it up. Play nice, intelligence is gained by participation. Not by silencing the views of others and limiting collective intelligence. They call that worship.


   ·   06/02/2008 22:56

Anonymous, I am quite aware that you are a non smoker. I also didn't mention non smokers at all in my last post as I wasn't referring to them. Most of my friends and colleagues are non smokers and we don't have a problem. The poor brainwashed, mindless, hate filled antis are the problem, not the non smokers or the smokers.


   ·   07/02/2008 00:15

Everybody got their ciggie and coffee? lol! I like that . . . "nicoteen". How many here have yellow-stained hands, and yellow teeth? Lots of wrinkles? One advantage is that you don't grow any nasal hair because the cigarette smoke kills it off, if you want to call that an advantage. Apparently men who smoke long-term become somewhat 'feminized', and I think I know what they mean by that - I've seen it. It also makes them impotent - I think the impotence comes first, then the 'feminization' sets in.

   ·   07/02/2008 10:32

Hi all. Hope you're all doing well. I've read nearly every single post on this forum. Some very strong opinions here. I'm a smoker who has just quit. I only started smoking a couple of years ago which was stupid on my part! All smokers don't like smoking they all wish they could give up. Unfortunatley when a smoker needs a cigarette they'll light up. I'm delighted there's a smoking ban in work places and pubs etc, that I definitley support. I'm just very undecided on banning smoking whilst driving. A lot of you are really getting into the ins and outs of it here and to be honest some of you are really going over board with your messages. If a ban comes in well then well and good - no smoking in cars - people would get use to it I'm sure. However, guys its going to be a hard one to enforce. Cars are afterall personal spaces at the end of the day. Like I said I use to smoke but never smoked while driving didn't want my car to smell bad lol but at the end of the day its my car in which I pay thousands of euro for. These are all personal choices people. I think I'm pretty much like all smokers - I wish I never lit my first cigarette and to be honest I wish cigarettes weren't available fo sale but they are which I think is the biggest problem! Off cigarettes 3 weeks and 4 days! its a very hard habit to kick!


   ·   07/02/2008 14:52

FXR, So everybody who disagrees with you is a nut! Little history lesson for you, "There's a sucker born every minute" is a phrase often credited to P.T. Barnum (1810 1891), an American showman. It is generally taken to mean that there are (and always will be) a lot of gullible people in the world." Source; Wikepedia. Before you use a quote to strengthen a feeble argument you should familiarise yourself with its true meaning rather than paraphrase a cliched version. Your reference to the birth rate at the time has nothing to do with the quote.

   ·   07/02/2008 15:10

Oh I have read through all the posts believe me, including your own but you seem to negate the obvious fact that the reinvigoration happens for the addict because their addiction has been temporarily satisfied. What makes you think that the health costs of healthy individuals are much higher than the obese or smokers? Surely you don't believe one study over what we've been told for the last quarter of a century. As for a rebate for healthcare over payments - what are you talking about. We have community rating in all health insurance here. Thank you - am having a very good day, as I do most days.


   ·   07/02/2008 17:47

There are no "over the top" messages on this board, because they're all reviewed by moderators before being posted. Anything "over the top" wouldn't be put on here.

   ·   08/02/2008 11:11

The aversion FXR, is to the fact that some people choose to deliberately disrespect others including their own children by smoking in a confined space and forcing second-hand smoke on them. Grade school, tambourine bangers little gang of pencil necks - can you please explain what you are talking about as it makes no sense other than an attempt to be demeaning. Most heavy smokers will have nicoteen stained fingers and it's not a matter of not allowing fear to dominate their lives but not allowing reality to influence their addiction. Clearly if you thinbk that 30 years or medical fact is merely hype, then this applies to yoiu also. There is a very obvious difference between pretentious children and juvenile delinquents - they're poles apart. Surely you can see that. "moral turpitude" - again what are you talking about. "the tambourines Tobacco Control" upgrade your programing" "mix and match and create a whole new sentence" - perhaps you should take your own advice and read your posts before you submit - or did you intend it to be a nonsensical insulting rant?


   ·   08/02/2008 14:39

Well, there's nothing more to say, really. It's all been said. Anonymous has done a very suspicious and complete about-face; and this isn't a topic that can be debated for very long. I'd say that these most recent posts have been put up there just to keep the argument going. There's no point hitting the ridiculously obvious bait that FXR is putting out there - and the only people who can really do anything about it now are those in government.


   ·   08/02/2008 16:09

FXR, Just call me Chris. Giventhat you are not implying a musical talent, then what are you ON about? I don't hate smokers. My in-laws are smokers, as was my father. But your obnoxious sarcasm really does lower whatever respect one might have left for you. By what confused logic do you infer that I am bigoted? Given that I have no intention of putting a child in a garage with the car running, your point is as itrelvant as it is silly. Just becuase one does not directly die from something does not make it harmless. I would not have thought that needed stating. Children don't "ride" in cars. They are passengers and of course I wouldn't ban that as it is a neccessity. Inhaling the second hand smoke of selfish parents is not. What "true motivations" you really are talking in riddles? Perhaps Leonine is right, you are merely baiting me for some simple amusement.


   ·   10/02/2008 01:30

TORONTO - Ontario can't wait until the end of the year to decide whether to join other provinces in banning smoking in cars that carry kids, health advocates said Tuesday as they called on the Liberals to mark national non-smoking week by moving ahead with the ban. A private member's bill, which would ban drivers from smoking while carrying young passengers, was recently introduced by a Liberal backbencher but isn't scheduled for debate until October. Health groups say that's too late for many youngsters who will be exposed to harmful second-hand smoke and put at risk for infections, asthma and heart disease in the meantime. "Every day that goes by, there are people smoking in cars with kids," said George Habib, president of the Ontario Lung Association. "Every day that goes by, there are kids being exposed to second-hand smoke across the province. The sooner this gets passed, the sooner we can stop that." Nova Scotia recently banned smoking in cars where kids are present, as have jurisdictions in the United States and Australia. New Brunswick has said it is considering a similar ban while a private member's bill banning the practice provincewide has also been introduced in British Columbia. Premier Dalton McGuinty initially dismissed the idea in Ontario a year ago, saying it was a slippery slope. But recently McGuinty called smoking inside a car with a child "reprehensible" and said he welcomed the debate on a ban. "It is gaining momentum in other provinces," said Habib, adding he hopes it's just a matter of time before Ontario follows suit. Janice Willett, head of the Ontario Medical Association, said Ontario can't afford to drag its heels on the issue. While she said it can take some time for legislation to make its way through the necessary bureaucratic channels, Willett said protecting children's health should be a top priority. Children who are exposed to second-hand smoke in a car will suffer from asthma, ear infections and numerous long-term health problems, she added. "Sooner is better for the health of these children that are involved," Willett said. "For the physicians of Ontario, we really think this is a no-brainer . . . It's about protecting the most vulnerable who can't protect themselves." Minister of Health Promotion Margarett Best said she's content to let the legislative process take its course and debate a ban at the end of the year. Ontario already has some of the toughest anti-smoking rules in Canada and parents have to take some responsibility, she said. New Democrat France Gelinas said the Liberals' reluctance to ban smoking around young kids in cars shows they don't understand the importance of health promotion. Making sure people are healthier and smoke less is the best way to take the pressure off the health care system in the long run, she said.


   ·   11/02/2008 01:21

Cris; Your assumption there is a lot of legitimacy in the 4000 deadly ingredients tripe, is a little misplaced, when you realize most of those chemicals are inert and the bulk of what is left are in such small doses they really don't or couldn't have much affect in any realistic way. What the med community and particularly the big pharma industry has been down playing for years, is what may be beneficial. The anti smoking rabble with their pitchfork and lantern parody, have been saying about heart disease, seems to contradict entirely what the effects of vitamin B3; Nicotinic Acid are known to counteract. Also known as niacin, the drug is produced by burning tobacco plants in the oxidization of nicotine. Check Niacin at WIKI and you will be surprised, Big Pharma has been cleaning up for years in multiple drug applications particularly heart and cognitive disease treatments, smokers have been getting the benefits for free. Most who stop smoking are in fact prescribed Niacin or B3 supplements to offset the detrimental effects when you quit smoking. It was once believed smokers get cancers more often because they live long enough for other medical ailments to take place. Look at baby boomers, the longest living healthiest generation to ever walk this planet and consider the fact that most of them smoked. I would vote yes BTW to a total ban in cars, just to demonstrate to the world, who the fanatics really are here. I would then ignore the ban and encourage others to do the same, it would not take too long before the burden of hundreds of thousands of innocents fighting court cases opposing a ridiculous law, would put it off the books. When many people ignore government demands, it gets them to thinking, they are loosing control, after which they get down right reasonable. It works every time.


   ·   11/02/2008 15:25

If people persist in smoking in cars carrying children, (child defined as anyone under the age of 18), then they should receive a hefty fine, and possibly have their licenses suspended. If adults persist in smoking in cars or otherwise, then they should have to pay for any smoking-related illnesses such as lung transplants, treatment of emphysema, cancers of the mouth and throat, lips, nasal passages etc., themselves without any help from the state. If smokers don't want to co-operate with the government in creating a healthier country - then they can look after themselves all the way. If they insist that smoking isn't harmful - then go ahead and pay for your own care. Personally, I don't want to pay taxes to have some idiot who is too brainless to understand how harmful smoking is - treated in hospital when it could be someone more deserving receiving the treatment.

   ·   11/02/2008 17:07

Actually Leonine, a child is defined legally and socally as anyone under the age of 16 but that's just picking a point. To say if adults persist in smoking in then they should have to pay for any smoking-related illnesses such as lung transplants, treatment of emphysema, cancers of the mouth and throat, lips, nasal passages etc., themselves without any help from the state - is not only evidentially inconclusivce and medically unethical but is health facism of the first order (not to mention ludicrous). Next you'll be suggesting that the same apply to people who drink alcohol, eat fatty food, drink soft drinks (which contribute to diabetes) have stressful jobs, don't exercise or play dangerous sports. For you to imagien who you have the right to decide who is "more deserving receiving the treatment" - is sheer arrogance and nothing else.


   ·   11/02/2008 20:03

Leonine, Why don't you lobby for the introduction of concentration camps for smokers? What you are suggesting is fascism. Just because your Government can't find anything better to do with its time does not make it right. It is NEVER right to victimise any group in society just because they do something that you don't do. People who smoke in cars with children on board are obviously irresponsible. Irresponsible people are just plain irresponsible and bringing in a ban will not suddenly make them responsible. You need proof before you can fine someone for anything and that would mean, for smokers, a cigerette butt and/or a photograph. Where does it all stop? It certainly won't just stop at smoking in cars, it will lead to a very nasty society.


   ·   11/02/2008 21:50

Leanne; Adolph Hitler was also health scare advocate who was determined to make a "Healthy" Germany. He actually coined the term "second hand smoke". From a genetic or race based standpoint many of us have genetic variations which are unavoidable impediments to the best classification of "Healthy" which develops much larger statistical numbers in some cultures than in others. How this will devolve, is already seen in Ireland. Where a representative of the international anti smoker group ASH, put out a press release declaring Polish people are smoking at double the rates of the rest of Ireland, which would cost the rest of the country a lot in health care expenses. They have taken a step too far, will you follow them? The anti world, of health scare advocates are in the business of inciting financial punishments which will primarily target racial minorities, the elderly and the poor disproportionately to the rest of us who will not be affected in any way. If you look at the research and the numbers, instead of following the sheep in front, you would not be so quick to be punishing those you only know as "smokers." or the "obese"


   ·   12/02/2008 00:46

In Canada, and in the US, a child is anyone under the age of 18. I would hope the same in Europe. It wouldn't be up to me to restrict health care for people who persist in smoking; it would be dictated by the funds available, and deciding who is the most deserving. I would support it, especially in the face of people who absolutely refuse to quit smoking and come up with inane and backwards arguments like the ones you're coming up with to support their "rights". If you have the right to smoke, you've also got the right to pay for your own medical procedures. If, as you keep insisting, smoking is not hazardous to your health, then why would you get so upset over the idea of smokers being excluded from smoking-related medical care? If it's safe, it shouldn't matter - right? Why should other people's taxes go towards taking care of the medical needs of people who insist on self-destruction?


   ·   12/02/2008 01:00

Leonine, If you and others want a world where everything is decided for you then that is your affair. There are still a great number of people around, non smokers and smokers alike, who feel perfectly capable of making up their own minds about how they live without you or any other nanny telling them what to do. I grew up in a time when many more people smoked than today. I am not in anyway ill, nor are my friends or relations who also travelled in cars with people smoking. This whole subject is complete nonsense as we are still here. We did not have the material side of things which children have today but we were a damn sight happier. We used our imagination and spent our free time playing, getting cut and bruised and generally doing unhealthy things (by todays standards). We learned to be independent and a bit tough. Nobody wrapped us in cotton wool, thank God. The children today are suffering because of this nanny state mentality and they're getting weaker. Think a bit deeper about what you're suggesting, I think you will bitterly regret it.


   ·   12/02/2008 11:20

Heil Leonine! Not sure how it works in Canada but the taxes paid by smokers here are huge. Far more than any other "legal" product. Smokers here contribute far more to the revenue than non smokers.

   ·   12/02/2008 11:22

Leonine, this is not Canada or the U.S. and no it is not the same here. One is a child up to the age of 16 after which one is a minor until 18 - after which one is an adult. France is the same. Here also,the state has a duty to assist with medical care - we pay taxes and health levies for this. Indeed I never insisted that smoking wasn't bad for smokers health - the case is quite the opposite. But it is legal. Fatty foods, poor exercise habits, stressful lifestyles, alcohol and fizzy drinks are also a danger to the health - would you impose the same rules on people who consume those. Or does your opinion only extend to smokers?


   ·   12/02/2008 15:08

Actually yes, there is discussion or has been discussion on withholding certain medical procedures for people who are obese, have heart issues for example - and who insist on eating an unhealthy diet. That's not out of the realm of possibility. It's just too expensive to look after people who refuse to grow up. If you're so against a "nanny state", you're against having the state take care of you in any way -- then you shouldn't be against having to look after your own medical costs. That's independence. There's no argument here from me. If smokers want to continue smoking, after they've been advised of the fact that smoking is dangerous to their health, that's fine. Just don't expect me (or anyone), as a taxpayer who has more sense than to smoke or drink to excess (as liver transplants are another discussed item), to pay for your care. You smoke - you pay for it. Pay for the cigarettes, pay the taxes, pay your hospital costs. There are very high taxes on cigarettes in Canada, but it in no way even comes close to paying for the huge cost to the medical system, the extended care system that is impacted by smokers. Not only does the smoker end up in hospital because of his stupid addiction, the smoker's death throws the smoker's family onto the system as well. Children have to be cared for, grieving spouses end up depressed, etc., etc. Not to mention children with chronic bronchitis and cancer brought on by stupid, unintelligent parents who insist on their "rights" to smoke. So - keep on smoking. You're already a social pariah by doing so - and I trust that Ireland won't be behind the rest of the world in making smokers pay the exorbitant costs of looking after their medical procedures in taking care of their diseases. Why on earth do you think governments are so keen to get rid of smoking? It's because of the medical costs! Nobody cares whether you're sick, dying or whatever you're doing, but they do care that your habit and your care carries massive costs to the country's system. That's the bottom line -- it is just too expensive for ANY country to put up with smokers. You're too expensive, and it's not worth it.


   ·   12/02/2008 15:34

If this forum has demonstrated anything it is the intolerance of the pro-smoking lobby and their complete insensivity to the wellbeing of others. How can anyone indulge in a habit in a way that is offensive to others? It is because of this very attitude that government is considering imposing its laws on all of us. The same people who criticise the 'nanny state' for such legislation are the same ones who scream about its lack of input into the health service. Well, you cannot have it both ways. The job of government is to govern and to do so it must legislate. Human nature being what it is we will not all do the right thing all the time. This may not be the time to have a ban on smoking in all vehicles but it is already in place in public transport and most of us have got used to that. In time this filthy, unhealthy habit will be relegated to that of other drug usage and then we will not have to tolerate it in our faces all the time. Addicts will still use nicotine as other addicts use the other drugs. People who smoke will never admit that their habit is repugnant to society at large. All in denial!


   ·   12/02/2008 15:46

We can be told smoking and its addictive nature is one of the most potent of all addictions, and yet we can moralize the isolation of smokers and the punishing taxation of an addiction so cavalierly, in the thought all they need to do is quit? This would not only minimize the great deal of personal suffering and discomfort required in order to accomplish the task, but greatly exaggerates the difficulty of the effort required, with a daily assault in the media. Accusations ranging from; child abuse, to mass murder, which includes of course the more subtle insults of; impotence, wrinkled skin and yellow stained fingers, or of the disgusting odor. All devised as sound bites, to accentuate the deliberate effort to dehumanize and isolate the targeted group. In Ireland today, anti smoker advocates are promoting the stance Polish people smoke at double the rate of others in Ireland, which as they stated will have devastating consequences for health care finances. Will we now also follow the example? Moving from dehumanizing unnamed individuals targeted simply because they smoke, and now start blaming named ethnic groups for all which is wrong in this world? We are being driven by the drama and fear created in comparing numbers; to deliberately incite the pitch forks and lantern crowd, into hunting for a monster, which is all of us. ENOUGH !!! already.

   ·   12/02/2008 15:58

Leonine, Perhaps in the US, healthcare is becoming like that becuase its not seen as care of the sick but as business. Here our taxes and health insurance entitle, yes ENTITLE us to healthcare as a RIGHT not a priviledge. So your hope in relaiton to making smokers pay the costs of looking after their medical procedures in taking care of their diseases is like whistling in the wind/. Children have to be cared for, grieving spouses end up depressed, etc. - is generalisation to the point of being irrelevant. I'm not a social pariah at all. You are simply making unsubstantiated assumptions. Surely the overweight (all 60% of them) are "are too expensive, and it's not worth it" as are those with type II diabetes due to lifestyle (all 5% of them) and those with heart problems due to stressful jobs - every second one of us and those who done't exercise - 1 in 4. Not to mention women not taking the pill and prtoecting themselves from ovarian cancer or not getting the cervical cancer vaccine or men not having prostate screening. Not many "perfect people' left for your system to deign "desrving of care" is there? P.S. - I've never smoked.

   ·   12/02/2008 16:06

This is just getting RIDICULOUS - governments and people all over the country and the world for that matter keep going on about how bad smoking is yet these governments still import cigarettes and then propose laws in which should be passed to help smokers and others from reducing and stopping people from smoking Its just plain CRAZY! - AGAIN its like alcohol and everything else bad for us! I'm sorry Leonoine and I do get a lot of your points but you're been extremely insulting to people who smoke. At the end of the day smoking is extremely bad but you're just generalising smokers too much. They are people at the end of the day. Lots of my friends smoke and they all have the manners to go out side and smoke when they're in my presence. Stop casting all smokers as unintelligent, selfish indulgent adults - they're not! Leonoine I think I speak for nearly everyone now when I say you're getting ridiculous and petty and I'm a non-smoker!


   ·   12/02/2008 18:38

Anonymous, Since when do governments import cigarettes? You're as good as FXR for picking 'facts' out of the smoky air. I gave up smoking over twenty years ago for health reasons (Chronic Allergic Asthma) and it is nothing like FXR would have you believe. The benefits exceed any initial discomfort. But now FXR would insinuate we who have conquered the habit are in some way racist!!!


   ·   12/02/2008 19:15

Anonymous, I have a hard time believing that you take the time to come onto this forum, as a non-smoker, and speak as vehemently in favour of smoking as you do. I don't live in the US - I live in Canada. We have Medicare. Smokers are too expensive for Medicare. I don't want to see the system destroyed, and it is under attack. One of the ways in which to reduce costs is to encourage or force people to live healthier lives. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Medicine is very, very expensive. Nobody has once suggested that quitting smoking is easy. It is as difficult to quit as heroin is. However, it's also difficult to quit any unhealthy habit. The help is out there - the medical system offers help, the governments offer help. It requires a certain amount of willpower, to be sure, but it can be done, and is being done every single day. On this forum, we're discussing the unhealthy aspects of smoking, and the banning of smoking in cars - not ovarian cancer. If you'd like to find out how cigarette smoking contributes to ovarian cancer, that's another topic. My mother was a heavy smoker, and she died of ovarian cancer -- and she was on the Pill. She also had pyorrhea, which is known now to be caused by smoking. The body generally breaks down from tobacco - it's not just lung cancer. It's going to come down to dollars and cents, or pounds and pence -- medical costs are spiralling out of control. Canada's health system is in trouble and is headed towards two-tier systems. Smokers are now looked at as idiots who don't care. Tobacco companies came into being during a time when there were no regulations and no knowledge of the dangers. Governments made money from the taxes they paid, and that smokers paid. Now it's realized that the medical costs, and yes the social costs (if I have to explain that to you then you really are dense) are far too enormous for the country to bear, no matter how much the taxes accumulate.


   ·   12/02/2008 20:10

Leonine, If Medics refused to treat people who smoke, are obese, (resulting diabetes etc etc.), accidents caused by bad drivers... then there will be a lot of redundent physicians in Canada, draining your welfare system far more than any smokers might do. North America & Canada is the home of fatty fast food. Why is your Government not closing down all the fast food joints, if it is so worried about the health of its nation? You are not thinking out what you are saying at all. As a non smoker myself, I am against this ridiculous ban because it is unenforceable. If Governments are genuinely concerned about smoking and any health care costs from smoking, then they should be banning cigerette sales. It is quite beyond any common sense to have any product on sale legitimately and then tell people that they cannot smoke within the confines of their own personal property. Anyone who thinks otherwise should look at themselves and wonder at what point in time, they will be targeted too. What is the next thing, possibly telling people over the age of 60 or younger,that they will not be treated in any health care facility because they are too old and a drain on our taxes?? Some years ago there was research linking the increase in Alzeimers to the rise in use of aluminium so do we say that people who continue to use aluminium cookware that they will not be treated because they were irresponsible? The worrying thing is that no matter how immature you might be now Leonine, you will, without a doubt, fall into some 'category' at some stage in your life. If you cannot put yourself in another persons shoes then don't be surprised when you find yourself on the receiving end some day because Leonine, you will, with 100% surety, become old one day, that is, if you don't die young.


   ·   12/02/2008 22:07

Leonine, I believe that you have been brainwashed on this issue but the posts that you write show a warped arrogance that is hard to imagine possible. I think you should get informed about taxation. I will take GB as an example. What are called "smoking related deseases" cost 1.7 billion. The government takes in approx. 8 billion from cigarette taxation which goes a long way to allowing the NHS to treat the non smokers as well. The smokers don't cost the government anything and in Canada it will not be much different. Where I live there is also private health care and they just put the price up for smokers although they admitted that smokers DO NOT cost the insurance companies any more than non smokers. You're dead right that it is all about pounds, shillings and pence but not in the twisted way that you report it.


   ·   12/02/2008 23:42

Does anyone know how much money the tobacco companies are making? Or how intertwined they are with the governments? Anti-tobacco lobbies have had a very hard time - we're talking death threats, because of the powerful people involved in tobacco companies who do not want to see such a lucrative source of income disappear! Smokers are suckers - in more than one sense of the word.


   ·   12/02/2008 23:52

Yes Leonine, The cost to health of smoking far outweighs any taxes that the government collect.

   ·   13/02/2008 09:08

Never once did I say I was in favour of smoking. In fact I don't know anyone smoker or non who is "in favour of smoking" The system in Canada is of little or no personal relevance to me or anyone here. Nowhere did I say smoking did not contribute to cancer - the opposite in fact. It comes down to Euro and cents actually, but here we have what is called community rating. We also pay taxes which ENTITLE us to healthcare. In fact - are you actually bothering to read my posts at all - or just typing the first thing that comes into your head? To look at smokers as idiots who don't care really is a hopelessly naive view and an obvious sign that those with that view know nothing about the psychology of addiction. Your comments about being "dense" really show nothing other than your own immaturity.


   ·   13/02/2008 12:16

Wiltofire; "FXR would have you believe. The benefits exceed any initial discomfort. But now FXR would insinuate we who have conquered the habit are in some way racist!!!" I please you give me too much credit what you believe I wrote is in fact far from what I did. I have never stated smoking was good for anyone or that quiting would not afford benefits. If tou quit good for you perhaps you could share the experience with others in a more positive manner. What I said was in plain English so even you can understand it , "It is a reprehensible act, to force someone to quit. Or to change any lifestyle choice which does not effect anyone else. Choices of what one does with their own body are absolutely no one elses business, That would be protected under the laws of autonomy. As other posters who have commented here confirm the ban on smoking in cars, is obviously not supported because they are looking out for questionable effect casual exposures would have on children in comparison to the larger risks of car exhaust and crashes. The fact those risks exist, in respect to legitimate science, would negate any increased risk from the cigarette smoke, because risks are never additive they are comparative. Nor can a risk exceed 100% which would indicate death. Rather we see support because they wish to force their own lifestyle upon others. Making medical choices for others. Abortion is legal because it is a woman's right to choose. The same right applies to smokers. A world without that respect of personal autonomy, for any reason, would be a considerably more dangerous place. What I said in regard to Racism, was that the punishments aimed at smokers by this moralist witch hunt, will have much greater effect on the most disadvantaged groups among us; The aged, Racial minorities and always the poor. That is not taken out of the air, if you took the time to look beyond the sound bites on the evening news, those facts would be abundantly clear to you or anyone else here. There once was a similar campaign against Blacks and the Jews they called it eugenics. It was all the rage internationally, with best babies contests and white only bars. It did so much damage in the public psyche, they wrote thousands of discrimination laws to protect those people from that public, and the effects are still seen today. Will we one day have to write similar laws to protect smokers, the obese or anyone who is not a perfect human specimen? Only time will tell, unfortunately we will have to live through a time of increased hatred and unnecessary damage, before the need to change comes around again. I repeat!!! smokers are people, afford them the same respect you demand from them. Bans were never necessary, when a sign on the door could have served everyone. Please don't repeat the same old ad agency hype they used to sell the bans, It's only effect now is, it exposes the sheep and the posers. It has all been repeated soo often, few can pick out the truth from the lies anymore. BTW "risk" is not "cause" many could start by understanding the wide distinction.


   ·   13/02/2008 15:26

First of all FXR aboriton is certainly not legal so your comment about choices of what one does with their own body being protected under the laws of autonomy is completely incorrect. However, you certainly did tout what you considered to be the benefits of smoking. But alas, your demeaning attempts at sarcasm succeed again in completely overshadowing any point you may have been attempting to make. Of course risks are additive, they are additive becuase they are cumulative. You don't need to be a risk assessor or an actuary to know the completely obvious. Your comparison to black is simply silly. The obvious difference is that one does not choose to be black nor can one give up being black if one wishes. Of course the genetic fact of having black skin is not immediately detrimental to ones health either, aside for the risk of sickle cell anemia. Remember I said genetic fact - not social perception. Your reference to eugenics is a crass as it is laughable. Eugenics refers to an attempt to 'breed out' a particular group in society - be they black skinned or fair-haired. One cannot 'bred out' smokers, becuase smoking is not genetically inherited.


   ·   13/02/2008 15:46

Pixie - speculating on what other posters are "thinking" or making lame attempts to psychoanalyze them especially when you are obviously not a psychologist -- is always a losing game. If you don't stop it, I'm going to complain to the administration. I mentioned something personal, that is no reason for you to run with it and start commenting on my mind, or my motivations for posting here. I could go a step further and talk about how you and other addicts will leap on any excuse to support your own addiction, and what a state of denial you are obviously in. What happened in my life does not negate the fact that you spend a fortune on cigarettes, you smell bad, you're going to be prematurely wrinkled if you aren't already, your teeth are stained, your gums are bleeding easily, and your health is poor. All of that is going to happen regardless of what goes in MY life. Which I might add - is happily smoke-free.


   ·   13/02/2008 15:51

It's amazing how addicts will use verbal embroidery in order to avoid facing up to the facts in their own lives. The evasions would do credit to a coyote on the run. Yes I live in Canada - and yes it is relevant because the world takes notice of what the world does. If you want to remain backwards in Ireland, then you're going to get a reputation for it, which in some cases you already have, such as women's rights. How about making sure your children's rights are up to par? Internationally, people do notice these things. I notice a lot about Ireland, and just for example, I would not want my daughter to grow up there. Live there as an adult, go to school - but not grow up there. If I'm going to run a convention, and I've got a choice between France and Ireland at this point - I'd go for France.


   ·   13/02/2008 15:56

Jane - you are quite badly informed, if you want to call it informed. The highest incidence of heart disease is in Scotland and in Ireland. Possibly north of Ireland, but one of the two. Deep fried mars bars weren't invented over here. And we do eat salads in north America, which I believe you don't eat in Ireland. Don't forget - there's a far larger population base here - so you have very different groups of people; and perhaps because we're more honest about the trouble we get into health-wise, (I have no problem discussing smoking bans with smokers in this country as I have with people on this forum). Ireland apparently has a lot of trouble with drinking problems per capita, and problems with suicide among the young, certainly not in the general population. Please don't try to make me think that Ireland is a healthy place. The ignorance on the forum is beyond belief.


   ·   13/02/2008 16:18

This ban cannot be enforced - we currently have a ban on smoking in the workplace - I've seen some members of the gardai smoking in their patrol cars thus break the law. Mobile phone usage is banned when driving - I've seen guards driving with a mobile stuck to their ear. People driving under the influence of alcohol and/or other drugs is a big problem here - why pick on smokers when this is going on? I'm sorry to say that this thread is gone ridiculous. It's like a catfight now. Can people stick to the topic please instead of hurling insults at one another? Aren't we all "mature" adults?

   ·   13/02/2008 16:21

Leonine, I see Pixie's point completely. You loss is indeed Tragic and it's normnal that it would affect your outlook. As for complaining to the Admin. This is futile as the moderator has already allowed the post. Ehm, you have already posting ad nauseum about what you think of smokers as addicts - I am presuming you read your own posts. As for Irelnad having a reputaiton for being backward - would you like to clarify that or is it as unsubstantiated as so many of your other claims? How exactly has Ireland got a reputation for being backward in the year 2008, as regards womens rights? Eh - in order for your daughter to go to school in Ireland (and we do have an excellent education system) she would actually have to live here, so you seem to be contradicting yourself. If you se Ireland as being so backward as regards womens righs, why would you want your daughter living here as an adult? And what on earth have conventions got to do with it? Clearly the French road network and transport system is superior to our, as is the German, so either place would be a logical alternative for organising a convention. But also irrelevant to a smoking debate - except of course that the participant at the French convention could smoke at will in many venues!


   ·   13/02/2008 20:16

Leonine, There you go again. I never mentioned heart disease but for what its worth, Northern Ireland was considered to have higher than normal incidence of heart disease, and that was not linked to smoking. You seem to have a problem though in that you think you can say what you like about people and indeed the whole nation of Ireland but if anyone says a thing to you, you are threatening to "complain to the administrator". Any postings on here are done so by the "Administrator" so throwing your rattle out of your pram is pointless. You talk about education and ignorance but you display an amazing amount of ignorance about the island of Ireland. Where did you get the idea that we don't eat salads? Where did you get the idea that we have any more problems per head of capita than Canada or anywhere else for that matter? In fact, having travelled extensively, you will find nowhere better than the west of Ireland for bringing up children in a safe and healthy environment. And what are you talking about when you say "if you were going to run a convention.."!! Considering you are so ignorant of life here in Ireland maybe it would be prudent for you to find another forum to express your negativity? If you believe what you posted about Ireland then what on earth is driving you to continue to partake in this topic, considering it does not, nor will ever, affect you?

   ·   14/02/2008 10:42

Now Leonine believes Irish people don't eat salads??? Yes, indeed the ignorance is unbelievable - Leonine's ignorance. I don't know anyone in Ireland who deep-fry mars bars so that concept certainly wasn't invented here. Scotland is of course a completely and entirely seperate country.


   ·   14/02/2008 14:41

On monday i was stopped by the guards. Everything on my car was in order but i was smoking with my kids in the car which i know is wrong, busy morn first of the day,still personal choice i said politely to her. straight away she pulled me in to the side of the road took my details asked if i was a social worker. When i said no she told me she was reporting me to social service for the offence and they would be in touch with me and decide whether to prosecute or not as there is no law yet. i think she abused her position of power


   ·   14/02/2008 15:28

Pixie and Jane, I am inclined to believe that Leonine is very young (probably under 20). She obviously has no knowledge or experience regarding anything outside of her own country and I doubt if she is representative of that country either. She deliberately avoids debating any point whatsoever but reverts to insulting behaviour whenever she has no answer to the points made (which is every time). I myself am fed up trying to discuss anything with her and therefore I will ignore her in future. We now seem to have three Anonymouses which starts getting confusing. Nicknames would help me know who is posting. Thanks Chris for using a name. I think FXR is probably not based in Ireland so his remark about abortion being legal is likely to be quite correct. In fact, FXR makes far more sense than you do Chris.

   ·   14/02/2008 16:03

Mimi, that ban garda was talking thru her hat and abusing her position. Smoking in your car is not illegal and smoking with your kids in the car is not illegal. You commited no "offence" and if you had, she'd be fining / arresting you - not reporting you to a group (social workers) who have no legal power within a jurisdictional framework. She has absolutely no right or power to speculate on - what she thinks social services think about what might become law. She not does she have any right to report you to social services for smoking in front of your kids in the car and social services have no right to prosecute - that is up to t he DPP so she was taking more rubbish there. If anyone sould be reported, she should because frankly I find your whole story quite incredible.


   ·   14/02/2008 16:27

Pixie and Jane, I am inclined to believe that Leonine is very young (probably under 20) and has a mental age of around 13. She obviously has no knowledge or experience regarding anything outside of her own country and I doubt if she is representative of that country either. She deliberately avoids debating any point whatsoever but reverts to insulting behaviour whenever she has no answer to the points made (which is every time). I myself am fed up trying to discuss anything with a petulant child and therefore I will ignore her in future. We now seem to have three Anonymouses which starts getting confusing. Nicknames would help me know who is posting. Thanks Chris for using a name. I think FXR is probably not based in Ireland so his remark about abortion being legal is likely to be quite correct. In fact, FXR makes far more sense than you do Chris.


   ·   14/02/2008 18:27

Mimi, Your attitude is indefensible. How was the Garda 'abusing her position of power'? By caring more about your children than you did? Your 'personal choice' did not give your children a personal choice to breathe unpolluted air. The only abuse in that incident was your abuse of your children - the only mitigating factor is that you admit you knew it was wrong. Maybe this incident with the Garda will cause you to reflect on your actions for the sake of the health and safety of your children. I feel sure there is some law there to prosecute for any abuse of children thus avoiding the use of new laws for smoking in cars as we do not seem to be ready to embrace such legislation (on this forum at any rate).


   ·   14/02/2008 22:04

Wit, you are being overly patronising and are completely wrong. The Garda has to uphold the law. Mimi has not broken any law so the Garda in question is totally out of line. I would suggest that Mimi open the window a bit and the children will not be in any health danger at all. If this danger did exist then all of us who grew up in the 40's to 70's should have keeled over years ago. We haven't at all, and are perfectly healthy. You are just adding to the scaremongering which uses fear to control the people. It's too transparent and the brainwashing is wearing thin.


   ·   14/02/2008 22:05

Anonymous Posted: 14/02/2008 16:03, It is your attitude that will eventually ensure that legislation will be enacted to protect people, especially children, from uncaring smokers. You seem to believe that in the absence of such legislation you can do what you like regardless of the rights of others, even innocent children. At least mimi admitted she did wrong!


   ·   15/02/2008 11:24

I am wondering about the edits to my posts which were evidential to what I wrote, while Leonine is allowed her insensitive comments which do not improve the venue. First, I am also from Canada; however I am fiercely proud of my Irish Heritage. I found her comments entirely unnecessary and not reflective of how the majority of Canadians would acceptably speak of anyone. In Canada we do not have a health system called "Medicare" that is a system for the elderly based in the United States. We have something we like to call Universal Healthcare which is a result of income taxes and is heavily subsidized by the sale of cigarettes [ten dollars for a package of taxes, to punish addiction at the moment], to the tune of ten billion dollars over and above the 2.5 Billion [Health Canada numbers, not a guess] they spend treating so called smoking related diseases by all causes. Her stated fear of destroying the system, in fact could be jaded in her view; it should be; allotted according to who is worthy [an Illegal act at the moment], which kind of makes it; not universal? Leonine despite what she may want to believe, is a product of an education system which is so drowned in bureaucracy and politics [Teaching children; what to think, in place of how], it cannot hold a candle to the Irish model. In my field [which is electronics BTW] an Irish diploma, is among the most sought after on the planet. So much for her stated backward view. Wit on the other hand seems to delight in his Uncaring smokers, ignorant smokers and child abusers classifications which as with Leonine are wrapped in bigotry and insensitivity, having no idea who he is talking about, but confident in painting them all with the tarred brush. I have to ask about the use of the term Child abusers and question, how insensitive by reflection you are being to those who really are abused. One last point, risk percentages are not additive they are comparative. Demonstrated simply; if you exceed 100% you are no longer with us. There are thousands of risk factors you face every day of your life, i.e. there are over 35,000 chemicals in use today in Industry and most of them find their way into our environment, Fewer than 500 have even been investigated for a risk rating as of yet. Some risks are thought to be avoidable, most are not, if you start adding them up it doesnt take much addition [or a risk assessor or an actuary to know the completely obvious.] to wipe our species off the planet, incredibly we are all here speculating about it. That is not called sarcasm it would much more accurately be termed; a logical perspective. If smoking rates have declined and the risk is real, the risk would have to decline along with those decreases in exposures. The fact remains the diseases are rising and for most of them, quite drastically.


   ·   15/02/2008 11:28

Witofire for a man (or woman) in his 60's your posts are like those of a rebellious teenager. Do people not agree that drink/drug driving is a much more serious issue than smoking in a car? If not please explain your logic.


   ·   15/02/2008 14:16

Some of you would turn this country into a police state over night. Get out of my hair.


   ·   15/02/2008 16:42

L.M.A.O.!!! @ FXR's attempts to sound as if he/she knows what goes on in the Canadian medical system!! Yes, we do have Medicare - (or assurance maladie in Quebec). It's been Medicare since before I was born - you can call it what you want to call it. Every government runs on taxes, and to think that cigarette taxes are earmarked to pay for Medicare is laughable. All taxes end up in the same place. Medicare is paid for in each province by provincial revenues, and by transfer payments from the Federal Goverment to each province, and in the case of Alberta - people have to pay a premium. Medicare is a defining characteristic of Canada; but it is not entirely socialist, it is a mix of private and public funding. It's patently obvious that you do not live in Canada. Nice try though. You seem to be labouring under the misconception that Canadians are polite. Have a doughnut and a Molson's. I'd hazard a guess that you live in Ireland, and you know more about the US system than you do about the Canadian system - as is typical for Irish people, North America to them is "America" Evasion is such a hallmark of addiction, but this is absolutely ludicrous. The idea that medical procedures might be refused to people who will not quit smoking, or persist in unhealthy living habits such as indulging in drugs (and never kid yourself, nicotine is an addictive drug just the same as cocaine is - your brain does not differentiate), seems to terrify smokers; and they get all indignant about the very idea of having to take responsibility for what they do. It's interesting. There's nothing illegal about refusing medical procedures, when the consequences of smoking are known to the public. In the US you can be refused treatment if you don't have insurance . . and that's not illegal. Insurance companies can refuse to medically insure people who don't meet their standards -- and that's not illegal. Why then would it be illegal for doctors to refuse certain treatments to smokers? How about if your entire medical system starts working off insurance - and you have to have private insurance in order to get medical care? Then -- if you're a smoker, any insurance company could conceivably refuse to insure you, because of your addiction. It happens. They already refuse to insure people with pre-existing conditions. Don't kid yourself -- this is a possible scenario. If you are a smoker, you may find yourself having to pay for every cent of a proposed medical procedure. It's already out there in the US - and countries tend to follow the examples of other countries. And obviously you can be reported to your Social Services for subjecting children to smoke. There's a good book you need to read. It's called "Who Moved My Cheese?" and it deals with change.

   ·   15/02/2008 17:56

How far can all this go? Do we go after the farmer who feeds antibiotics to his chickens and cattle as we eat them and are therefore taking in too much antibiotic? Do we ban cars altogether as they produce deadly gases which we inhale and which cause cancer? Do we ban all sorts of chemicals which are added to food stuff, fruit, animal products, indeed all food almost. because we are not altogether sure if they are safe? Do we ban aeroplanes as they are causing such damage to the environment and to humans and they even dump fuel over our heads? Do we ban people from congregating in groups of more than two, as this leads to the spread of deadly virus and infections? Do we ban childbirth as there are enough people in the world for the stocks of oxygen left? Do we ban people from using paint to brighten up their homes as paint contains lead, which is very dangerous? Do we ban barbeques as there are many instances of food poisoning, which is very dangerous to children? Lets make it illegal for anyone to have a mobile phone, especially children, as they might cause brain tumours and other health problems? Lets not use nuclear fuel as it is very dangerous? Lets make it compulsory for everyone to build solid bunkers underground and live there and only come out for one week each year. This is getting ridiculous but then so are the suggestions of so many other posters.


   ·   15/02/2008 20:24

Billybob, What do I appear to you to be rebelling against? What a strange inference to take from my posts! For your information: This forum was asked if it would support a ban on smoking in all motor vehicles. There are many more dangerous and unhealthy habits but this is not the forum to debate them. That being the case your request to explain the logic of it is pointless. Heather, We're not in your hair - it probably smells of stale smoke!


   ·   15/02/2008 20:30

FXR, Quote "as is typical for Irish people, North America to them is "America" Evasion is such a hallmark of addiction, but this is absolutely ludicrous. " It would appear that not only the smokers but the Irish in general are mentally challenged according to this post. That Ireland is recognised to have the best standard of education in Europe seems to be beside the point. I just didn't realise that the Irish people don't know where Canada is. Amazing logic!


   ·   16/02/2008 01:50

It is obvious Leonine is not from Ireland, I now suspect she is not from Canada either. My best guess? France or North Korea. Canadians can not opt out of Healthcare neither can the Provinces refuse treatments for political reasons, or for use as coercion in attempts to force what decisions someone will make in respect to their own body. If taxes are used to treat one person in Canada the same treatments are owed to all Canadians. As we paid for the expenses relating to the elderly through our generations the younger generations have an obligation to pay our expenses in later years. If the government of the day wants to change the rules they are free to do so, but only after the obligations at hand are dealt with. You may interpret that any way to want to Leonine but the day doctors start refusing treatments to anyone, the government who supports that decision will signal the end of your precious and quite socialist, healthscare system. Lets both keep our fingers crossed shall we? Personally, although it is convenient to have an OHIP card in my pocket, if the system were privatized or better yet shut down, we would all be getting a much better deal. Insurance without all the Taliban style healthscare bureaucracy on every street corner, it would have to be much cheaper. Tell the feds to leave my money in my pocket, and I will willingly take total responsibility for my medical expenses and for whatever consequences my lifestyle invokes. The trouble is they know a private person would be much better off without the system, or the thousands of 6 and 7 figure vacant seat salaries, afforded in political patronage appointments, sucking the system dry. [Double the cost of treating smoking related diseases at the moment, 5.7 billion annually] FYI; "Put most simply, to be autonomous is to be one's own person, to be directed by considerations, desires, conditions, and characteristics that are not simply imposed externally upon one, but are part of what can somehow be considered one's authentic self. Autonomy in this sense seems an irrefutable value, especially since its opposite being guided by forces external to the self and which one cannot authentically embrace seems to mark the height of oppression. But specifying more precisely the conditions of autonomy inevitably sparks controversy and invites skepticism about the claim that autonomy is an unqualified value for all individuals." "the four principles of bioethics, attempts to describe a set of minimum moral conditions on the behaviour of health care professionals. The first principle, autonomy, entails that health care professionals should respect the autonomous decisions of competent adults. The second principle, beneficence, holds that they should aim to do goodi.e., to promote the interests of their patients. The third principle, nonmaleficence, requires that they should do no harm. Finally, the fourth principle, justice, holds that they should act fairly when the interests of different individuals or groups are in competitione.g., by promoting the fair allocation of health care resources." Just in case no one told you...


   ·   18/02/2008 09:57

FXR , you are incorrect on Medicare. It is not simply for elderly. It is for anyone on reduced income in the US. Whatever your view of the Irish education system, we have illiteracy running at 7% at the moment. Leonine, I believe that FXR was talking about illegal practice in Canada not the U.S. and lets face it, the U.S. healthcare model is an example only of what not to aspire to. Here it is still illegal to refuse medical care to people. Health Insurance companies can NOT refuse to medically insure people who "don't meet their standards". Here we have community rating and it is illegal to refuse people health insurance. That fact is that our entire medical system does NOT work off insurance, we pay taxes, PRSI and a health levy for a public health care - to which we are all entitled. They do NOT refuse to insure people with pre-existing conditions - they impose a once-off waiting period. Interesting - first you claim smokers will be refused procedures, then they obviously won't be, provided they pay for it themselves. Here you cannot be reported to Social Services for subjecting children to smoke - as it is not illegal to smoke.


   ·   18/02/2008 10:18

FXR, I admit I'm a little lost. What do you mean by refusing treatments for political reasons - you are not claiming that smoking is a political decision surely? Why do you think that if the system were privatized or shut down, we would all be getting a much better deal? Surely you only have to look at the exhorbitant cost of private healthcare in the US - Where a routine surgery can run to tens of thousands of dollars, to see that, that is not the case. What Taliban style healthscare bureaucracy on every street corner, are you talking about? Also, what political patronage appointments, sucking the system dry do you mean? Actually anonymous, I thought it was illegal to pump antibiotics into farm animals - perhaps I'm wrong. Suggest in banning cars is simply silly. Chemicals used in food are tested for food safety and certain chemicals are banned for use in food. Lead-based paint has been banned in this country for decades. Your suggestion about living in bunkers would cause far more problems than they'd solve - which is possibly the reason no one has come up with this idea.


   ·   18/02/2008 13:09

Michael wrote; "Leonine makes an interesting statement there. According to the American College of Chest Physicians lungs from people who've smoked for more than 20 years can be used in lung transplants. Doctors found that patients receiving such lungs did just as well as those receiving nonsmokers lungs. I guess she would consider such lungs healthy then? And if so, would she consider it ethical to be willing to take lungs from smokers but at the same time refuse to give them lungs?" Unfortunately Leonine would like to promote a myth that because you smoke you will automatically be unhealthy implying all smoking leads to disease. Clearly a lack of understanding on her part. The vote enabling a smoking ban, could more correctly be described as a vote on the public acceptance of bigotry. The same people who propose such laws ignore the fact they wear deodorants and perfumes rich in much higher concentrations of toxins than a cigarette could ever contain. The fresh air they covet is ripe with their choice of what they willingly inhale. Someone who calls themself a smoker, are living the created lie which was necessary in separating them from the rest of the community, with widely brushed perspectives. You are a person with free will, who uses a product on the shelf along side deodorants deodorizers and perfumes all of which we all accept in life as a civil respect, and understanding of the choices others may make. Second hand smoke as a significant health risk, is no more real than the monster under your bed. A creation to sell fear; promoting irresponsibility, by coercive process. A reality which will reflect on all of us, in what other protections we will accept as moral and justified. In 1975 Sir George Goober, British delegate to the World Health organization presented his blueprint for eliminating tobacco use worldwide by changing social attitudes. " would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their families and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to EST.." Tobacco Control at the British Medical Journal in an article [linked] by the editor; S. Chapman, indicates the hatred of the "spoiled identity" has grown beyond all control. "The litmus test of a society is still, as Jefferson said, that the rights of the majority stop at the doorstep of the minority." ~ Beryl Wajsman; the last angry man.


   ·   18/02/2008 13:27

Michael J. McFadden, If you are the Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains I suggest that you have a go at proving that the Earth is flat as you would be a great consolation to the number of people out there who still believe that it is. You know, Michael, even smokers here agree that smoking is bad for you. That being the case smoking in cars is no good either. Are we prepared to accept a ban? Not right now it seems. Just leave it at that - smoking bad, earth a spheroid.


   ·   18/02/2008 15:11

Pat; FXR, I admit I'm a little lost. What do you mean by refusing treatments for political reasons - you are not claiming that smoking is a political decision surely? Smoking no, smoking bans are, certainly a political campaign. With the signing of the international treaty at the World health Organization and the adoption of HIA health interventions, large corporate interests which also financially promoted the political parties at hand, found a way to get a little closer to complete government control. We are told by the major charities they are accepting funds to find the cures yet the bulk of the money collected internationally is being wasted in media expenditures promoting the ideal; illness is all self imposed and never caused by infections or exposures to chemical hazards. They call that disease management. The diversion of the bulk of funds from physical research to spirited theoretic research aimed at controlling our perspectives, at this critical time is lunacy. With the mapping of the human genome and with so many real biological discoveries within our grasp. The discoveries of what causes the bulk of cancers and a number of other ailments, along with allotting the legitimate blame, might find some embarrassing realities, both for the industries involved and the so called charities who protect them. Disease management as we are seeing with the anti smoker campaigns assign the blame where it will best protect those industries, on the people. Smoking is only the start, many workers compensation boards are now promoting the ideal there are no accidents which will severely limit their obligations as well as the obligations of insurance companies. I see smoking bans as they evolved, starting as a campaign against smoking now a decidedly campaign against smokers. The kind of people attracted are in the majority now, are the repressed bigots who have been silenced by hate crime legislation, who now have a safe outlet to display their hateful ways, under government sanction no less. The governments who promoted the campaigns are now loosing control of the hatred they inspired, leading us to such things as exclusions from; security of the person, housing, employment and now medical treatments. The simple solution of quitting will never be sufficient for these imbeciles, because former smokers are being denormalized as well. Why do you think that if the system were privatized or shut down, we would all be getting a much better deal? Surely you only have to look at the exorbitant cost of private healthcare in the US - Where a routine surgery can run to tens of thousands of dollars, to see that, that is not the case. What Taliban style healthscare bureaucracy on every street corner, are you talking about? Also, what political patronage appointments, sucking the system dry do you mean? In Canada at least we pay more than half of our earnings in taxes the largest item those taxes pay for would be public health with medical treatments running a close second.. With the dedicated healthscare reforms being implemented across the country new layers of bureaucracy are being invented at all levels of government at an accelerated pace, deceptively known to most as simply, public health. in Ontario we have a new one call the ministry of public health information what do you surmise would be their job?. This invented layer of propaganda agencies serve no one but the institution itself and the promotion of one sided opinion making. Politics to jour, If we look at the cost of public health as opposed to medical treatments the costs are decidedly reduced and if the government allowed the funds they pay for both, to remain in my pocket the savings, on average would exceed 10,000 per year, which buys a lot of private insurance as well as improving, with what is left, basic socioeconomic conditions and quality of life. Flowing cash is always good for stimulating an economy which creates lots of jobs and allows many more opportunities. I can not see a downside to private competition, building more modern care facilities and people actually being served in a competent manner, which will save lives by business efficiencies versus bureaucracies designed to complicate, what should be pretty basic services.


   ·   18/02/2008 15:57

I live in Calgary, Alberta -- and I'm definitely not under 20. Korea?? We're a little different here than the rest of Canada when it comes to Medicare. Verging on a two-tier system, and yes the thought of refusing certain procedures to certain types of people has been floated around - not outright refusal, of course, but you're going to have to pay for it. If there's any misunderstanding there - I didn't ever say that a patient would be refused outright, but that (the idea is) they would not be covered.


   ·   18/02/2008 16:05

There's quite a level of hysteria among the smokers; which just indicates either they need to get life, or they're sucking on 2 cigarettes at once. Try growing your own tobacco - organic cigarettes are said not to be as harmful. Am I to assume that the poster who said she was questined by the Garda for smoking in the car with children, and that a social worker was going to be called -- was - um - not telling the truth? In the immortal words of Merle Travis - Smoke, Smoke, Smoke That Cigarette: Now I'm a feller with a heart of gold And the ways of a gentleman I've been told The kind of guy that wouldn't even harm a flea But if me and a certain character met The guy that invented the cigarette I'd murder that son-of-a-gun in the first degree It ain't cuz I don't smoke myself And I don't reckon that it'll harm your health Smoked all my life and I ain't dead yet But nicotine slaves are all the same At a pettin' party or a poker game Everything gotta stop while they have a cigarette Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette Puff, puff, puff and if you smoke yourself to death Tell St. Peter at the Golden Gate That you hate to make him wait But you just gotta have another cigarette Now in a game of chance the other night Old Dame Fortune was a-doin' me right The kings and the queens just kept on comin' round And I got a full and I bet 'em high But my bluff didn't work on a certain guy He just kept on raisin' and layin' that money down Now he'd raise me and I'd raise him I sweated blood, gotta sink or swim He finally called and didn't even raise the bet So I said "aces full Pops how 'bout you?" He said "I'll tell you in a minute or two But right now, I gotta have me a cigarette" Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette Puff, puff, puff and if you smoke yourself to death Tell St. Peter at the Golden Gate That you hates to make him wait But you just gotta have another cigarette (Ah, smoke it! Hah! Yes! Yes! Yes!) The other night I had a date With the cutest little girl in the United States A high-bred, uptown, fancy little dame She loved me and it seemed to me That things were 'bout like they oughta be So hand in hand we strolled down lover's lane She was oh so far from a cake of ice And our smoochin' party was goin' nice So help me cats I believe I'd be there yet But I give her a kiss and a little squeeze And she said, "ah, Marty, excuse me please I just gotta have me another, cigarette" And she said, smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette Puff, puff, puff and if you smoke yourself to death Tell St. Peter at the Golden Gate That you hate to make him wait But you just gotta have another cigarette Merle Travis and Tex Williams


   ·   18/02/2008 18:13

Leonine your cards are visible; "yes the thought of refusing certain procedures to certain types of people has been floated around" What certain types of people would you be referring too? The largest proportions of those who use cigarettes are racial minorities and the poor. Did you mean, Those type of people? The WHO has observed and commented on many times, the incidence of people living in garbage dumps in the third world who share the largest prevalence among children on the planet. There is a biological reason this is true because, in spite of other observations smoking defeats hunger pains and cigarettes are much cheaper than food. There is a deliberate campaign underway to instil the idea smoking causes social consequences among those in the lowest in socioeconomic standing, setting aside what should be much more obvious; smoking is just another factor caused by a reduced standing in financial and access to higher education. In other words smoking does not cause health deficits nearly as much as poverty causes more people to smoke, in addition to reducing health prospects and ability in avoiding disease. The promotion of cigarette taxes and fines for smoking will have a much more resounding affect among those types of people you refer to. Let them eat cake?


   ·   19/02/2008 00:02

I don't think you understand the "let them eat cake" comment at all. Marie Antoinette said it about the poor in Paris when told that they had no bread . . she said "let them eat cake", and thereby demonstrated that she had no idea what they were going through. Food is a basic necessity of life. Cigarettes are not. If you want to find more money, quit smoking. If you want to become less poor, and more positive about life, quit smoking.


   ·   19/02/2008 08:27

Organic tobacco - in Ieland. You really are on the realms of the amusing now Leonine. No idea who Merle Travis is. Leonine - this is Ireland where the health system is totally different. You are either on the public system - in which case you wait for treatment. In the private system - where either you or your insurer pay for the treatment which you can access much faster - your smioking/drinking/parental/driving status being immaterial. Under the community rating system, your insurer cannot refuse to insure you and thus cannot refuse to cover treatment.This is how the system works here - regardless of what the Canadian system is like. FXR, when Leonine said 'refusing certain procedures to certain types of people',clearly s/he meant smokers - which of course insurers cannot do here. But why try to turn it into some sort of political statement, referring to ethnic or social groups? I ask not to make the thread argumentative but because I actually want to know - perhaps it is different where you are but people pull the 'race' card so often here, it becomes tiresome. Perhaps cigarettes are much cheaper than food in the deveoping world but that is patently not the case either here or in Canada. In the developed world, from what I have studied and observed, it is much more relvent to say that smoking does not cause health deficits nearly as much as poverty causes health deficits.


   ·   19/02/2008 11:08

Good grief Leonine - your very first comment shows that you have not comprehended even the first detail of FXRs post. While I can't say I agreed with all of it, I did at least try reading it.


   ·   19/02/2008 13:40

Pat let me explain this; I was speaking to Leonine in the context of the universality of health care in Canada. Although the system can be topped up with such private plans as blue cross, which will allow you a private room or medications not covered under the universal plan, everyone is covered and owed equal treatments under the federal law which enables it. Her reference to "those people" obviously referring to smokers, is entirely ignorant of who smokers actually are. Not a sub species, just people. As I stated the highest percentage of smokers are in the lowest of socio-economic standing. The disparities of the targeted group can't be ignored for the greater good, or for any other reason, bigotry is not selective it is also universal no matter how it is applied. If, as they state nicotene is addictive how do you justify taxing a medical dependency they state is more addictive than heroin or cocaine? Something about the human rights commission stating smoking is not recognized by them as an addiction, which would offer human rights protections, is a little out of focus, when we hear the cheering in the streets for that very abuse and for specifically that reason. To simply limit yourself to discussing a class who can all be blamed for any individual indiscretion is foolish, every so called smoker as an individual is unique, as we all are, there will always be disrespectful people and not all of them smoke believe it or not. My point; smokers drinkers, bird watchers or hypochondriacs are all people first and are deserving of the same respect you would expect or offer everyone else. Clearly Leonine [or Marie] will need more of life's teachings to understand the errors of her ways. We all can benefit here, in understanding each other in respectful discussions. The divisive attitudes playing populations against themselves are a planned tactic of Public Health and Tobacco Control. Empathy is used as a selective perspective as we are asked to step into the shoes of someone who is asthmatic we are seldom asked to step into the shoes of a smoker, who for all intents and purposes is only doing what has always been considered normal. Need I remind anyone here, while the Tobacco companies are painted as the dastardly villains, ASH focuses their efforts in punishing only smokers, while the Tobacco companies costs and expenditures even any lost sales, are all passed along to the consumers, while their profits continue to grow? In North America this is a familiar movie theme in police investigation know as good cop bad cop. In the larger perspective whether you smoke or not we are all being conned and played against each other. How hypocritical is it to ignore the highly carcinogenic nature of deodorizers perfumes and deodorants while pinning for smoke free air? The sticky nature of cigarette smoke likely reduces the duration of the lingering chemicals before they can have a maximum effect. Should we be banning those products as well? Would the arguments applied to sell the dangers of cigarette smoke, not demand we all ban the other preferred choices of what others willingly inhale, which are known to be much more toxic and carcinogenic? Clearly smoking bans have little to do with protecting asthmatics or the children, they are an effort to punish the free will choices of those who have a different perspective of fear than others. Do smoke free lobbyists stink up the room with equally offensive body odors, or are they simply motivated hypocrites selling hatred and fear?


   ·   19/02/2008 14:03

Pat; I found her support of organic tobacco amusing as well. In Canada additives have been banned in cigarettes for decades. Regulations of growing conditions barring the use of phosphorous chemicals and fertilizers and the flue curring process, all of which resulted in a much safer product, with more than 90% of the histamines and suspect carcinogenic nitrates removed, were all put aside with the acceptance of the federal government of the "no safe cigarette" credo. This in effect nullified all product regulation and opened the flood gates to cheaper imported tobacco products, grown without restriction to compete on the Canadian market, putting most of the domestic growers producing perhaps the safest product on the planet out of business. Today smokers in Canada have an increased health risk by "protective" ad agency promotions. "No safe cigarette" does not offer any useful information, it is a term devised solely to promote fear. To rub salt in the wound, new regulations making fire safe cigarettes mandatory; for the first time in decades added chemicals to Canadian cigarettes. In effect; human experimentation without informed consent, by federal decry, with no idea of what the effect will be to the users of the new mandatory ingredients added to the mix.


   ·   19/02/2008 14:22

Ah yes, and I was speaking in the Irish context as that is the country we are in and the country we are debating. I believe I have explained how the Irish system works also. No, rather than medical dependance - which is a different matter, smoking like alcoholism is an addiction - a chemical dependancy. Of course alcoholis also taxed. Other addictions are not because they are not legal. I dispute the idea that we are asked to step into the shoes of someone who is asthmatic but we are seldom asked to step into the shoes of a smoker. Thats certainly not the case here. Of course the difference is that someone does not choose to be athsmatic. They do choose to hve that first cigarette - up to the point where it became an addiction. What you explain as being the highly carcinogenic nature of deodorants is certainly disputable considering they have been passed for sale, are sold freely, carry no warnings and are not regarded by the medical community as being dangerous. The smoking ban in pubs (it being banned in other woirkplaces for many years) here was introduced yto protectthe health of bar workers - or possibly to prevent them suing the state for the health damage domne by passive smoke in years to come if the state had failed to legislatively protect them.


   ·   19/02/2008 15:37

This discussion has passed the point of making any kind of sense. I will just restate my position: 1. I am in favour of smokers smoking in their cars or their houses, and do not care if they smoke the worst brand out there - provided there are no children in these spaces who would then be forced to breathe in the sidestream smoke. 2. I give credit and kudos to the Irish government for having the courage to address the problem, and to protect those citizens who cannot protect themselves. 3. I believe that the time is going to come when if you want to use any paid-for medical system, you're going to have to show that your lifestyle does not endanger your health, in other words, prove that you're doing your best to keep yourself healthy. I am neither in favour of nor against such an eventuality, but I do believe it will come about. 4. I think to try to stretch this discussion to the point that smokers are now an oppressed race of people is hysterically funny. Monty Python could have a field day with it. Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette Puff, puff, puff and if you smoke yourself to death Tell St. Peter at the Golden Gate That you hate to make him wait But you just gotta have another cigarette


   ·   19/02/2008 22:33

i am the poster that was questioned by the ban guard and am no way telling lies. both my windows were open no one was in danger it was one cigerette not heroin. my main issue with this was that there is no law about this she was just a busy body anti smoker. i have taken legal advice about this issue and she has over stepped the mark and was abusing her position. i have been to the station and made the first attempt to get an apology in front of my children as she didn't mind making an example of me in front of them. both guards that i spoke to were most helpful in telling me where to go from here. this whole smoking ban is just out of control, i have no problem with no smoking in the workplace etc... but for god sake our private lives are our private lives. what next will they take from us?


   ·   20/02/2008 08:52

Leonine - perhaps you are not aware of it. The Irish government has not addressed it at all - smoking is not banned in cars or private houses whether or not children are present. The Irish government don't even have the wherewithall to deal with the actual health crisis - which is actually their job - as most of the public are aware. On point 3. Leonine - as I have already explained, it is unconstitutional not to mention unethical to disbar someone from using a service which they have already paid for - i.e. the public health system which we are all entitled to the services of, through the taxes we pay. Under private healthcare - we pay for the service either through the insurance we pay or out if our own pockets. As for having to show that your lifestyle does not endanger your health and prove that you're doing your best to keep yourself healthy - how far do you want this ludicrous ideology to go? Should this extend to following people around to make sure they don't consume transfats, sweets, alcohol, fizzy drinks; that they exercise enough, take enough vitamins, eat their fruit and veg, that they don't drive in accident blackspot areas. And who would decide all these criteria as the qualification of whats healthy and whats not seems to change on a regular basis. Just think about it Leonine and it becomes almost comedic.


   ·   20/02/2008 10:59

Leonine - are you here still? How many more times are you gonna subject us to your "restated position". Surely there's at least one other thing on this planet you can do besides boring us with restating your already restated position...


   ·   20/02/2008 13:05

mimi, Why should the female Garda apologise to you for pointing out to you that you were doing something wrong when you admit, "i was smoking with my kids in the car which i know is wrong"? If you have "no problem with no smoking in the workplace etc..." how could you have a problem with smoking in the confines of a car with children - windows open or not? Maybe you ought to reflect on the long-term effects on your children that dragging them to a Garda station to witness an apology for being cautioned for doing something wrong. We often comment on the lack of self-discipline and respect for authority in young people today. Maybe it is not confined to young people.

   ·   20/02/2008 15:29

respect for authority is not an automatic - it has to be earned. While Mimi might have done something which is wrong, ethically, she did not do anythign wrong legally and thus the ban garda did not have the right to caution her - so she was entitled to an apology, and yes her children were entitled to witness this just as they witness the caution which was given in the wrong.


   ·   20/02/2008 16:30

Pat - I didn't invent the idea, (restricting medical care in western countries), it has been discussed, and in regards to obesity as well, although I don't remember the details. The fact is that insurance companies already restrict who can get coverage from them - I think it wouldn't be a stretch to have public funding restricted for people who say for instance get a lung transplant, continue smoking, and then need another one -- they're not going to be keen on giving them a second one. The discussion came up here over a liver transplant for an alcoholic who persisted in drinking. I am aware that it isn't law in Ireland, but there must be something serious in the works or this website wouldn't be here, would it?

   ·   20/02/2008 16:53

The Garda was wrong in this case and the woman deserves an apology. I think it is time this Government passed a law stating that when there is a child in a car there must be two adults present. One person cannot look after a child and drive at the same time. No one can concentrate on both at the same time.


   ·   20/02/2008 18:22

Anonymous, The Female Garda did not officially caution mimi she informed her that she was reporting her to social services - which she was perfectly entitled to do and certainly should not have to apologise for. Who could possibly think that it is harmless to subject children to smoke in a confined space. Or is it just tobacco smoke that is OK for some people to puff out where they like. We should have more Garda on the force to advise silly uncaring people when they are blind to the consequences of their actions especially when they impact on innocent children. You make the case for the ban by your attitude.

   ·   20/02/2008 18:30

Witofire, you must be a brilliant person, who puts the care of others before your own and are so conscious of everything and everybody around you. If we could all be like you we would have no need for laws at all. You must find it very frustrating to live with us.


   ·   20/02/2008 18:43

Anonymous, You say, "respect for authority is not an automatic - it has to be earned." I would use the word 'learned'. I wonder what those children learned that day in the Garda station - maybe that it was a no smoking zone?


   ·   20/02/2008 18:58

"Who could possibly think that it is harmless to subject children to smoke in a confined space." Likely the hundreds of millions who experienced it, and had no ill effects would tend to question the currently popular propaganda bandwagon. Confined is no longer confined when the window is opened a crack. The research ASH hung it's hat on, which concluded there might be a concern, found the state level would be on average 25 micro grams per cubic meter of air and did not make any attempt to distinguish the particulate measured from the pre-existing amounts in the ambient air. Which was measured at a higher level 26.7 micro grams in that year, was the annual average. The most strict regulations in effect in respect to outdoor air is currently 60micrograms per cubic meter [Millionths of a gram] the stated risk remains, as always, a matter of opinion. Smoking is within the rights of the parent to decide. No one has the right [although a lot seem to have the unmitigated gaul] to interfere with a parents absolute right of autonomy, especially when discussing such a marginal risk, or the decisions they may make in this case. Simply voicing the word "smoker" does not demonstrate a similarity outside of the one common personal characteristic. Parents make much better decisions on average than paid lobby hacks ever could. The proof of that observation is seen in all the centuries past they have been consistently proving it. Who tells you how to raise your kids BTW? Mind if I come by and let you know, what I think you might be doing wrong? How about if I demanded some changes, so I could sell more smoking patches. Should child molesters now also be handed 50.00 fines as stated being identical crimes to smoking parents, accused of child abuse, are to receive? Clearly a lot of overblown high drama is attached to these mindless lobby fanatics.


   ·   21/02/2008 08:44

Leonine, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, health insurance companies do NOT and can NOT by law restrict who can get coverage from them. Public funding as the name should suggest to you is for the Public - all the public becuadse we all ay into it and are therefore legally and ehtically entitled to the services from them. Another poster has already deat with the issue of transplkants. I suggest you go back and read that post if you haven't done so. This website is here - and has been for some years, to discuss all manner of Irish health and welfare considerations - including the impractical or downright daft ideas that all manner of people come up with.

   ·   21/02/2008 08:48

Anonymous posted 16.53 has come out with the funniest suggestion yet? That is about as practical as baning sunshine - or banning smiling. Apart from it being next to impossible for every lone parent in the country, it is also next to impoissible for every working parent of small children in the country - unless you plan on accompanying all of them of course!

   ·   21/02/2008 08:49

Wit of ire, in order to report someone to the social services, they must actually have done something wrong - the fact is that mimi did nothing illegal.


   ·   21/02/2008 09:10

Anonymous, I sincerely hope you're joking about 2 adults in a car with children. The country would rapidly grind to a halt if a mother couldn't bring her children to school, sports, music lessons, doctors appointments, visit relatives, go shopping and dozens of other normal activities on a daily basis. Or maybe you keep a spare adult around the house for just these eventualities?


   ·   21/02/2008 12:18

Anonymous Posted: 20/02/2008 18:30, Thank you. Michael J. McFadden Posted: 21/02/2008 04:56, If smoking in cars is bad how come you agree with it? How is it some of us would have to be frightened into not doing it? I don't think we here in Ireland are worried about the anti-smoking terrorists - that's hilarious. Jane Posted: 21/02/2008 01:18, So you would ban former smokers from posting on this forum! Would you not agree that they have more to offer than those who never smoked or those who cannot kick the addiction? You need not worry about my being refused treatment (presumably you mean medical treatment) as I have VHI (costs about the same as three packs of cancer sticks per week).


   ·   21/02/2008 15:47

Brilliant idea Marti - Anonymous is going to provide us all with spare adults for the purpose. Nannies perhaps. I think the 'silly season ' is truly upon us


   ·   21/02/2008 15:57

See what I mean... ban this ban that and some numbskull just might run with it... I know... lets ban banning things.... as for the "police officer" who reprimanded the driver... there was I thinking you only found "nuts" on forums like this... Jees Louise

   ·   21/02/2008 16:26

Yes, it would be a tough law for some if it was a requirement that there be two adults in a car when there is one or more children under 10 present. However in the interest of safety for the driver and the child it would be important that the driver is not distracted from driving or has his/her concentration disturbed. It is at times like that that accidents occur. It should be made wholly unacceptable and irresponsible for an adult to drive alone with a child in the car/van/lorry.

   ·   21/02/2008 16:58

Anonymous are you mad? First of all a child should be in a work vehicle like a lorry but with regard to kids in proviuae cars - your suggestion would make it impossible for every parent in this country to get to work and most of the children to get to schoo, or any extra-curricular activity. If you can't see this as the 'loony-tune' idea that it is, you are are not tuned in reality at all. Now tell me, how ae you going to pay for all these 'spare people' to attend in all the cars of all the parents and moreover, where are they going to come from?


   ·   21/02/2008 18:14

Anonymous, You say, "in order to report someone to the social services, they must actually have done something wrong" I say, read mimi's post. She admits she was doing wrong.

   ·   21/02/2008 18:42

I never suggested having all these extra people but in a family there can be both parents, or for single parents they would need to get a friend or other family member. After all this is about child safety. Are you prepared to compromise that for the sake of inconvenience to parents? I also know this is getting to where many of the posters on this site wishes it to go. Lets be consistent across the board.


   ·   22/02/2008 00:24

Do you have many small towns in Ireland, where people don't get TV or newspapers? lol!!

   ·   22/02/2008 09:11

And I suggest you tead the rest of my post Wit, the fact is that mimi did nothing illegal

   ·   22/02/2008 09:44

"Do you have many small towns in Ireland, where people don't get TV or newspapers" Leonine, what ARE you talking about now??

   ·   22/02/2008 09:52

Ah come off it. Yes in a family there can be both parents - both parents who need to go to work in different places and therefore one is not always available 24 X 7. And as anyone in the real world knows, single parents do not have friends and family members available 24 x7 - thus making this charade of a an idea a form of delusion. You could wrap a kid in cotton wool and say it was for safety but like this idea it wouldn't be an inconvenience, it would be a sheer impossibiliy as well as downright idiocy. You can talk when you can send someone to my house to accompany me in the car with my kids at 6am and then perhaps have them take a bus and train across Dublin and do the same for my sister - but no, that would leave them to late to accompany her, so we would have to get up at 4.30 am, leaving me far too exhausted to drive safely and risking my life and that of my children with an increased risk of falling asleep at the wheel. A safety measure? I think not.


   ·   22/02/2008 13:54

Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette. Puff, puff, puff, and when you smoke yourself to death, tell St. Peter at the Pearly Gates that he's gonna have to wait, 'cause you've got to have another cigarette. I hope you all know the tune. I actually lent money to a friend last night to buy a pack of cigarettes and because I pay no attention to the price of smokes, was shocked that they're $12 (CDN) a pack. At one pack a day minimum . . . that is $360.00 a month!!! That is $4,326.00 a year!! Minimum. If you're a 2-pack a day smoker, it's then almost $10,000.00 a year. Multiply that by 10 years, which is far less time than anyone here has been smoking - and you've got $100,000.00. How much are cigarettes in Ireland? How long do you want to keep burning money?

   ·   22/02/2008 15:16

It is amazing how child safety becomes less important when one is asked to inconvenience oneself or make alternative arrangements or do without. I thnik this is the centre of the topic - parents selfishness.


   ·   22/02/2008 16:45

Yes i fully support the no smoking ban .it been pushed down our throats for years . Now a lot cant get away with it . As the tobacco companies have added so mant harm full chemicals to tobacco to still get you hooked they are on about food additives tobacco is as bad but the Government wont ban them . to much money in it for them.


   ·   22/02/2008 17:25

Yes, parents' selfishness is at the center of this discussion. I'm glad someone finally clarified that in two words. Selfishness of the addict.

   ·   22/02/2008 17:45

When you come to understand health risks are not additive, but comparative, in this perspective the total lifetime risk or immediate risk can not exceed the highest risk at hand. Cigarette smoke is dwarfed in respect to other toxins within the vehicle which are being deliberately avoided in this discussion. Risk exists within the confines of zero or 0% and death or 100% if we took the additive approach we could easily exceed 100%. Health risks are a factor of toxicity and duration without an understanding of the essential combination in estimating or even imagining the total effect, it is difficult for some to truly understand what is really being promoted here. When we observe in the same perspective the risks of inhalants available such as; off gassing of carpets and plastics, deodorizers, brake fluids, a host of petrochemicals, widow washer fluids, Overflow of anti freeze from the radiator, Brake dust, evaporating asphalt, and last but not least the exhaust fumes from the truck or bus in front of you on the road. None of which, a cars ventilation system is designed to filter out, and all stand to demonstrate real risk factors, which can be weighed to understand the real absolute or maximum risk which takes precedence. The highest risk at hand by far would be the risk of collisions which is substantial by comparison, exceeding the highest risks in all categories when viewed by exposure rates and the severity of all effects observed. Place a child in a garage for 10 minutes with a running car or bus and place a child in an identical garage with 50 smokers which child is at greater risk? Is the risk of child number one increased, if we add the 50 smokers to their predicament? I would say not.


   ·   22/02/2008 18:03

Anonymous who posted: 22/02/2008 09:11, So mimi did nothing illegal in subjecting her children to harmful smoke despite admitting it was wrong to do so. Your logic seems to be that if something is wrong but not against the law it is OK to do it. Now you can see why ASH is looking for a ban on smoking in all vehicles. When parents are responsible and put the welfare of their children before their short-term gratification from cigarette smoking there will be no need for a ban. By the way, why do all you anonymous posters not use a nickname so we can differentiate one from the other. Anonymous who posted: 22/02/2008 15:16, I agree wholeheartedly. You hit the nail on the head!!!


   ·   25/02/2008 09:57

No Leonine, I don't know the tune. Cigarettes are around 5 per packet. In or around the same price as a pint. I'm sure smokers and non-smokers alike can figure out the maths. "inconvenience oneself or make alternative arrangements or do without" - Ah would you ever wake up to the real world Anonymous. As someone else, said - not inconvenience but impossibility. The vast majority of the time "alternative arrangements" simply are not available. As for the advice to "do without" - will you explain it to my children when they have to do without things like food and clothes becuase I have had to "do without" my job.


   ·   25/02/2008 11:02

Do children not have legs anymore? Can they no longer walk to school like we all used to?


   ·   25/02/2008 14:02

Kevin, I believe it is already illegal to put a child in a garage with a vehicle running. This forum is about a ban on smoking in all motor vehicles. No amount of hogwash or pseudo-science will hide the fact that smoking is bad for health and safety in or out of vehicles. Once we can see through this there will be no need for a ban as all smoking will be relegated to the realm of other addictive drugs.


   ·   25/02/2008 14:06

Anonymous, I cannot belive you are actually defending your idea of having two adults in a car with children. My neighbours husband goes out to work at about 7.30 each day and quite often works late. She has three children, one in primary school, one toddler and a baby. The primary school her daughter goes to (the one we are in the catchment area for) is at least 40 minutes walk away (especially with little legs)and getting there involves walking on a path along a main road (dual carriage) for most of the journey. If walking, she would then have to walk the toddler to play school which is not in the same place as the primary school. In addition to this, the toddler starts and finishes at play school at different times to her daughter, so she would have to do this 6 times a day. None of her family live in the area, friends all have young children and are not within walking distance, so your absolutely ridiculous suggestion would be impossible for her. Not to mention the potential danger involved in walking a 6 year old and a toddler along a main road while pushing a buggy! If your idea is so good and worth it for the safety of the children (as you see it), I would very much like you to explain how she should get her children to school. She would also have to do all shopping, etc. in this way, as she would, of course, have the baby with her at all times, so you should include this in your explanation.


   ·   25/02/2008 14:35

It is amusing the anti smoking groups latch on to criminality as yet one more way they can attack the character and reputation of anyone who smokes. If as many of the lobbies suggest smoking around a child can be defined as abuse why are we not consistent in application of the law? Shouldnt we be demanding jail sentences and removing the child from the home as prescribed in all cases of legitimate abuse? Perhaps the inconsistency can be found in the level of credibility of the charge, which is obviously low. On the other side of the ledger the State and its hires in the anti smoker lobby might also be asked to defend criminal charges in connection with their campaign to defame and harm those who smoke by reducing their security and the respect of rights unequally applied, as a deliberate act with full knowledge of the effect. The lobby against any personal characteristic when individuals are identified as a group, with unfounded broad brushed accusations, coupled with the intent to destroy reputation and their public acceptance, is likely illegal for a number of reasons; "The spoiled Identity" admitted, is cause, to seek legal action, on behalf of those who are the targets of organized and deliberate state bigotry. Complaints could include any or all of the following; Invasion of privacy, Intrusion of solitude, Intrusion upon seclusion, Public disclosure of private facts, False light, Slander and callous indifference causing harm. If we look further at human rights abuse we can consider the torturous nature of stigmatizing and isolating someone who is believed to be suffering an addiction, which would be described as a medical dependency more severe than the most obvious of illegal drugs. I cant see how any community can expect unity and peaceful enjoyment, when the exclusion and torment of close to a quarter of its self, is prescribed and expected as a duty to the state. The recent arguments of necessary versus non necessary hinge around a child riding in a car, which was never necessary 200 years ago we had no cars and people survived just fine. In use of "modern conveniences" we have to accept certain drawbacks known as acceptable risks, which explains why we use cars in spite of the knowledge they may bang into each other, or may involve toxic chemical exposures in their use, not the least of which we could discuss; the fuel or cleaning products, long before the possible short term exposures to second hand smoke, offering extremely minor chance any harm would ever occur. Fear driven is by ignorance and denials of the ultimate strengths of a human body, to defend itself as an automatic process, which is learned and strengthened within the body when you are a child.


   ·   25/02/2008 15:07

Where I live in Calgary it isn't feasible to have children walk to school most of the time. Even if the distance were not a problem, it is not always safe to do so. Studies have been done that show that children do not have the development in place before age 12 that enables them to determine speed and distance of oncoming cars. We live right on the school's soccer fields, so our daughter could always walk to school, but most other kids can't. Another poster mentioned the unsafe conditions for pushing a buggy through traffic, and I agree; it's not very safe at all. To suggest that children shouldn't be in their parents' cars so their parents can smoke in it is rationalization of the most insane type. E5 a day (I don't have a Euro symbol on the keyboard that I know of) for a one-pack a day smoker - that's E150 a month - that's a lot of money that could be spent on clothes, food, education. Assuming the Euro is double the dollar, it's as expensive there as it is here. The discussion seems now to be more balanced than it was in the beginning.

   ·   25/02/2008 15:10

Wilt; No amount of hogwash or pseudo-science will hide the fact??? Hogwash and pseudo science is more correctly assigned to the true danger found in casual exposures to second hand smoke. It all comes down to the type of world we wish to live in to be discretely micro-managed by the state, in a world of snitches and laws to suit Industrial needs. To live as slaves? If the smoke is the most compelling detractor from your lifes enjoyment, I must commend you because you live in a much more comfortable place than the rest of us. Quality of life once had a much higher standard, for many defeatists today, accepting what you can preserve of what used to be freedom is all they can ever hope for. Getting even by taking it out on your neighbors with such foolish restrictions only makes your own situation much worse. Obsessive compulsive communities or mass hypochondria is the place you seek. We already have places to suit your needs, they are called mental health facilities, where your needs will be met and all the cares of discomfort can be relieved with a daily injection. For the majority of people on this planet life is full of risks that is the essence of what makes it interesting and enjoyable. All life has an ultimate end, and a time none of us will ever be able to predict. Focusing on the minor worries in your life, makes my life more dangerous because it reduces our larger strength as a whole community, which far outnumbers our government oppressors, who play us against each other simply so they can avoid their duty to us and what we really pay them to do. The coalitions of science Industry and governments puts us at a great disadvantage in expressing our needs to our public servants, smoking bans for them are nothing more than a line of defense to serve their masters needs or to pose for the cameras while declaring worthiness. Once you mature enough to understand those realities we can really start to talk, until that time, stop putting words into my mouth in order to defend your own weak position. It really can be seen as foolish and accentuates the reality; you really have nothing to say.


   ·   25/02/2008 16:32

If this discussion is mainly about child safety I still claim that it is extremely dangerous for one person to drive a car with a child on board. However we all take chances but if the law is to be changed to protect the child in one instance then it must be consistent and look at all dangers. And Witofire - do you include alcohol in your addictive drugs?

   ·   26/02/2008 10:41

Kevin, your statement that 200 years ago we had no cars and people survived just fine is an irrelevancy given that we don't live 200 years ago. 200 years ago there weren't many children in school either - many were workign in fctorires at the age of 9 and 10 and we didn't have motorways and juggernauts either. Smoking is not a medical dependancy, it is a chemical dependancy. There is a difference. Leonine, The first part however I agree with - isn't feasible to have children walk to school most of the time. Even if the distance were not a problem, it is not always safe to do so. Children do not have the development in place before age 12 that enables them to determine speed and distance of oncoming cars. However, if you think that Anonymous in his/her nonsensical point about having two parents in a car with children, made the point to suggest that children shouldn't be in their parents' cars so their parents can smoke, you clearly haven't read or understood his/her point AT ALL. There is approx 1.5 US dollars to the Euro, I don't imagine the Canadian dollar is much differnent. However, education here is free for all children at 1st, 2nd and 3rd level.

   ·   26/02/2008 11:05

Kevin, your statement "We already have places to suit your needs, they are called mental health facilities, where your needs will be met and all the cares of discomfort can be relieved with a daily injection" not only displays astounding ignorance but gross insult. Anonymous, if it is extremely dangerous for you to drive a car with a child on board. then I suggest youn either: Improve your driving skills to bring it up the level where you an do so. And tens of thouands do so every day., Hold off on driving until you can afford to have a nanny or childminder sit in the car with you every time you drive somewhere with children.


   ·   26/02/2008 12:12

Cigarettes offer people only a multitude of smoking-related diseases and ultimately death. this is the list of additives in cigarettes The List Acetanisole Acetic Acid Acetoin Acetophenone 6-Acetoxydihydrotheaspirane 2-Acetyl-3- Ethylpyrazine 2-Acetyl-5-Methylfuran Acetylpyrazine 2-Acetylpyridine 3-Acetylpyridine 2-Acetylthiazole Aconitic Acid dl-Alanine Alfalfa Extract Allspice Extract,Oleoresin, and Oil Allyl Hexanoate Allyl Ionone Almond Bitter Oil Ambergris Tincture Ammonia Ammonium Bicarbonate Ammonium Hydroxide Ammonium Phosphate Dibasic Ammonium Sulfide Amyl Alcohol Amyl Butyrate Amyl Formate Amyl Octanoate alpha-Amylcinnamaldehyde Amyris Oil trans-Anethole Angelica Root Extract, Oil and Seed Oil Anise Anise Star, Extract and Oils Anisyl Acetate Anisyl Alcohol Anisyl Formate Anisyl Phenylacetate Apple Juice Concentrate, Extract, and Skins Apricot Extract and Juice Concentrate 1-Arginine Asafetida Fluid Extract And Oil Ascorbic Acid 1-Asparagine Monohydrate 1-Aspartic Acid Balsam Peru and Oil Basil Oil Bay Leaf, Oil and Sweet Oil Beeswax White Beet Juice Concentrate Benzaldehyde Benzaldehyde Glyceryl Acetal Benzoic Acid, Benzoin Benzoin Resin Benzophenone Benzyl Alcohol Benzyl Benzoate Benzyl Butyrate Benzyl Cinnamate Benzyl Propionate Benzyl Salicylate Bergamot Oil Bisabolene Black Currant Buds Absolute Borneol Bornyl Acetate Buchu Leaf Oil 1,3-Butanediol 2,3-Butanedione 1-Butanol 2-Butanone 4(2-Butenylidene)-3,5,5-Trimethyl-2-Cyclohexen-1-One Butter, Butter Esters, and Butter Oil Butyl Acetate Butyl Butyrate Butyl Butyryl Lactate Butyl Isovalerate Butyl Phenylacetate Butyl Undecylenate 3-Butylidenephthalide Butyric Acid] Cadinene Caffeine Calcium Carbonate Camphene Cananga Oil Capsicum Oleoresin Caramel Color Caraway Oil Carbon Dioxide Cardamom Oleoresin, Extract, Seed Oil, and Powder Carob Bean and Extract beta-Carotene Carrot Oil Carvacrol 4-Carvomenthenol 1-Carvone beta-Caryophyllene beta-Caryophyllene Oxide Cascarilla Oil and Bark Extract Cassia Bark Oil Cassie Absolute and Oil Castoreum Extract, Tincture and Absolute Cedar Leaf Oil Cedarwood Oil Terpenes and Virginiana Cedrol Celery Seed Extract, Solid, Oil, And Oleoresin Cellulose Fiber Chamomile Flower Oil And Extract Chicory Extract Chocolate Cinnamaldehyde Cinnamic Acid Cinnamon Leaf Oil, Bark Oil, and Extract Cinnamyl Acetate Cinnamyl Alcohol Cinnamyl Cinnamate Cinnamyl Isovalerate Cinnamyl Propionate Citral Citric Acid Citronella Oil dl-Citronellol Citronellyl Butyrate itronellyl Isobutyrate Civet Absolute Clary Oil Clover Tops, Red Solid Extract Cocoa Cocoa Shells, Extract, Distillate And Powder Coconut Oil Coffee Cognac White and Green Oil Copaiba Oil Coriander Extract and Oil Corn Oil Corn Silk Costus Root Oil Cubeb Oil Cuminaldehyde para-Cymene 1-Cysteine


   ·   26/02/2008 13:06

Cigarettes offer people only a multitude of smoking-related diseases and ultimately death. this is the list of additives in cigarettes The List Acetanisole Acetic Acid Acetoin Acetophenone 6-Acetoxydihydrotheaspirane 2-Acetyl-3- Ethylpyrazine 2-Acetyl-5-Methylfuran Acetylpyrazine 2-Acetylpyridine 3-Acetylpyridine 2-Acetylthiazole Aconitic Acid dl-Alanine Alfalfa Extract Allspice Extract,Oleoresin, and Oil Allyl Hexanoate Allyl Ionone Almond Bitter Oil Ambergris Tincture Ammonia Ammonium Bicarbonate Ammonium Hydroxide Ammonium Phosphate Dibasic Ammonium Sulfide Amyl Alcohol Amyl Butyrate Amyl Formate Amyl Octanoate alpha-Amylcinnamaldehyde Amyris Oil trans-Anethole Angelica Root Extract, Oil and Seed Oil Anise Anise Star, Extract and Oils Anisyl Acetate Anisyl Alcohol Anisyl Formate Anisyl Phenylacetate Apple Juice Concentrate, Extract, and Skins Apricot Extract and Juice Concentrate 1-Arginine Asafetida Fluid Extract And Oil Ascorbic Acid 1-Asparagine Monohydrate 1-Aspartic Acid Balsam Peru and Oil Basil Oil Bay Leaf, Oil and Sweet Oil Beeswax White Beet Juice Concentrate Benzaldehyde Benzaldehyde Glyceryl Acetal Benzoic Acid, Benzoin Benzoin Resin Benzophenone Benzyl Alcohol Benzyl Benzoate Benzyl Butyrate Benzyl Cinnamate Benzyl Propionate Benzyl Salicylate Bergamot Oil Bisabolene Black Currant Buds Absolute Borneol Bornyl Acetate Buchu Leaf Oil 1,3-Butanediol 2,3-Butanedione 1-Butanol 2-Butanone 4(2-Butenylidene)-3,5,5-Trimethyl-2-Cyclohexen-1-One Butter, Butter Esters, and Butter Oil Butyl Acetate Butyl Butyrate Butyl Butyryl Lactate Butyl Isovalerate Butyl Phenylacetate Butyl Undecylenate 3-Butylidenephthalide Butyric Acid] Cadinene Caffeine Calcium Carbonate Camphene Cananga Oil Capsicum Oleoresin Caramel Color Caraway Oil Carbon Dioxide Cardamom Oleoresin, Extract, Seed Oil, and Powder Carob Bean and Extract beta-Carotene Carrot Oil Carvacrol 4-Carvomenthenol 1-Carvone beta-Caryophyllene beta-Caryophyllene Oxide Cascarilla Oil and Bark Extract Cassia Bark Oil Cassie Absolute and Oil Castoreum Extract, Tincture and Absolute Cedar Leaf Oil Cedarwood Oil Terpenes and Virginiana Cedrol Celery Seed Extract, Solid, Oil, And Oleoresin Cellulose Fiber Chamomile Flower Oil And Extract Chicory Extract Chocolate Cinnamaldehyde Cinnamic Acid Cinnamon Leaf Oil, Bark Oil, and Extract Cinnamyl Acetate Cinnamyl Alcohol Cinnamyl Cinnamate Cinnamyl Isovalerate Cinnamyl Propionate Citral Citric Acid Citronella Oil dl-Citronellol Citronellyl Butyrate itronellyl Isobutyrate Civet Absolute Clary Oil Clover Tops, Red Solid Extract Cocoa Cocoa Shells, Extract, Distillate And Powder Coconut Oil Coffee Cognac White and Green Oil Copaiba Oil Coriander Extract and Oil Corn Oil Corn Silk Costus Root Oil Cubeb Oil Cuminaldehyde para-Cymene 1-Cysteine


   ·   26/02/2008 13:44

Kevin (XUX68460), When you talk of freedom you mean your freedom and take no account of the freedom of others to breathe clean air. Your paranoid comment, "Getting even by taking it out on your neighbors with such foolish restrictions" makes you a much more likely candidate for 'mental health facilities, where your needs will be met and all the cares of discomfort can be relieved with a daily injection' - your quote! The risks I once took in Africa and the Middle East while serving with United Nations I would gladly take again before subjecting myself to the filthy smoke exhaled by you and other addicts.


   ·   26/02/2008 13:57

Michael J. McFadden, I am glad to hear that you are not willing to go so far as to say that smoking is good for you. Your statement about the lies and social engineering tricks used by the antismoking lobby to frighten people into supporting smoking bans was read with amusement. I became a chronic allergic asthmatic at age fifty because of smoking and by immediately giving up smoking I am trouble free since. I do not need any other statistics beyond that fact. People who smoke in vehicles without consideration for others are asking for legislation to force them to do the right thing.


   ·   26/02/2008 15:29

Witofire what's worse than the anti smoking lobby? A: The ex smoker who thinks he is morally superior just because he quit. I also quit many years ago but I don't refer to smokers with the same hostility that you do. If anything you should be understanding of "addicts" and "addiction". That is what I meant by acting like a teenager in my previous post - rebellious was the wrong word to use I admit.


   ·   26/02/2008 15:29

Children are also at greater risk of developing health problems because first of all, they are still growing, their organs (like lungs, hearts and brains) are still developing. Therefore, more harm is going to be done by secondhand smoke. Secondly, their rate of breathing is faster, so they're taking in more smoke. This forum has been an education in the total selfishness of many people who do not care about others. It takes courage to quit smoking. It takes more courage to fight for laws that protect children. The RSPCA was formed for the protection of animals -- before there were any laws protecting children. It was because of the RSPCA that any laws protecting children were ever brought into being. Nice to realize that people considered dogs more important than children, and that's probably still the case. From Doctors Push Ban On Smoking With Kids Cite study showing second-hand smoke toxin levels could be more than twice as high as suspected Feb 15, 2008 04:30 AM Joseph Hall Health Reporter Ontario's doctors are stepping up efforts to force a provincial ban on smoking in cars with children on board. Citing a California study that showed second-hand smoke in cars could reach levels more than twice those previously suspected, the Ontario Medical Association says subjecting kids to such toxic fumes is no longer acceptable. "The doctors of Ontario think we shouldn't be waiting any longer to get this legislation in place," said OMA president Dr. Janice Willett. Willett said the association "stumbled upon" the 2005 California data, used by that state to help enact a similar ban last October. The study, conducted by the state's air resources board, showed second-hand smoke toxins can reach levels in unventilated cars that are 60 times greater than those found in smoke-free homes. It also suggested the tobacco fumes would reach levels 27 times greater than those found in a smoker's home. Even with all windows down, second-hand smoke levels could be 13 times greater inside a car than in the surrounding air. "We didn't need to strengthen evidence much (because) previous data already showed it was 23 times more toxic (than in smokeless homes)," said Willett, whose group has been pursuing a ban for several years. "But this tells us we need to move quicker than we are at this point." A health ministry spokesperson said Queen's Park could well consider extending its existing smoking bans to cars containing children. "The matter is being very seriously considered. ... Anything around tobacco consumption is a serious issue," said ministry spokesperson Rick Byun. A private member's bill to enact such a ban is currently making its way through the Legislature. The B.C. government promised to introduce a similar ban in its most recent throne speech. Willett said there is now irrefutable evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke in childhood can exacerbate asthmatic conditions and cause increased risks for childhood infections.


   ·   26/02/2008 15:31

New Evidence Shows Vehicles Most Dangerous Space for Second-Hand Smoke Levels Children can be exposed to 60 times the concentration of second-hand smoke in cars than indoors TORONTO, Feb. 15 /CNW/ - New research shows that the concentration of second-hand smoke (SHS) particles in a car can be up to 60 times higher than concentrations indoors, more than double previous findings. Ontario doctors believe this research and other recent findings on in-car smoke concentrations will aid the government in moving quickly to implement a provincial ban on smoking in vehicles when children are present. "We now have new evidence showing the harmful levels of second-hand smoke in a car are even more potent than we once believed," said Dr. Janice Willett, President of the Ontario Medical Association (OMA). "These important findings should be heard by both caregivers who smoke and our lawmakers so that children can be protected." Since the release of the OMA policy paper, Exposure to Second-Hand Smoke: Are we protecting our kids? in 2004, new research has been undertaken resulting in even more compelling evidence about the concentrations of second-hand smoke in vehicles. As a result, the OMA is urging provincial leaders to review this new information and act immediately to protect the health of children. Studies show that even under the best-case ventilation scenario, with windows open and the fan on high, SHS concentrations in a vehicle are far greater than any other children's environment. Tests reveal that with no ventilation, which is typical of winter driving in Ontario, SHS particle levels can be up to 60 times higher than in a smoke-free home. "As doctors we have to diagnose and treat so many preventable illnesses and diseases due to second-hand smoke," said Dr. Willett. "Our government has the power to protect children from a highly toxic environment and we hope they take action soon." Studies have also shown that within tobacco smoke there are a number of well known poisons including, carbon monoxide (CO), which can reach concentrations more than double Health Canada's acceptable exposure range. There is also evidence that CO blood levels can rise more than four-fold in a non-smoker, when someone else in the car is smoking. For children, the risks associated with SHS include respiratory illnesses (asthma, bronchitis and pneumonia), middle ear disease, lower respiratory tract infections, as well as sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and increased incidences of cancer and heart disease in adulthood. In December 2007, Nova Scotia became the first province in Canada to pass legislation banning smoking in cars with children. Most recently, British Columbia announced that it will be introducing similar legislation. This follows on the heals of a growing list of U.S. jurisdictions that have already implemented bans including California; Arkansas; Louisiana; Bangor, Maine; Keyport, New Jersey; and Rockland County. South Australia has also taken action to protect children from the dangers of SHS in vehicles. "The provincial government has shown tremendous leadership in protecting the public and workers from second-hand smoke, now it is time that our political leaders work together to further protect the health of Ontario's children," said Dr. Willett. "In addition to protecting children, it is also necessary to ensure that those who smoke have access to the medications necessary to curb their tobacco cravings while driving with children, and ultimately quit altogether." Backgrounder - Tobacco Smoke Concentrations in Cars Since the release of the 2004 OMA paper, Exposure to Second-Hand Smoke: Are We Protecting Our Kids? significant research has been undertaken and there is now more compelling evidence to present about comparative concentrations of second-hand smoke (SHS) in vehicles. There have been numerous studies that have tested in-car SHS concentrations in virtually every conceivable smoking scenario - windows open, partially open, closed, one window partially open, vents on or off, heat, air conditioning, recirculation, the speed of the vehicle, the number of cigarettes, the smoker, etc. One study looked at 100 different air change rate measurements on four vehicles.(1) These in-car smoking experiments have been compared with similar air quality tests in smoker's homes, smoke-free homes, smoke-filled bars and ambient outdoor air. The findings are clear. Under all ventilation circumstances, even with windows open and the fan on high, SHS concentrations in a vehicle are greater than in any other micro-environment. >


   ·   26/02/2008 15:33

If the rest of the world is any indication - Ireland is on its way to banning smoking in vehicles.

   ·   26/02/2008 16:17

Leonine, I'm not sure what all that stuff is about referring to the RSPCA - worthy and all as it is. We have had the ISPCA here for years. But like the mobile phone ban. It simply make a mockery of all other laws if you create a law which is impossible to police and impossible to enforce.


   ·   26/02/2008 16:36

Billybob, So if I have an opinion about smoking in vehicles that makes me appear morally superior? That's your assumption. The general trend here is for the smoking lobby to denigrate all who disagree with them. My position is simply that smokers can smoke away to their hearts' content as long as others are not forced to breathe the smoke from their addictive habit. Where there are passengers in a vehicle who do not wish to inhale second-hand smoke they should not be forced to do so. Common politeness prevents most people from smoking in vehicles expecially where children are concerned. Read my previous posts and you will see that I am against the ban at this time. It would be completely unneccessary if the majority of people on this forum were more considerate.


   ·   26/02/2008 16:47

Leonine, I do not agree with you that a ban here is imminent. Passengers in private vehicles can always ask smokers to decline. Young children are the exception. There is already a smoking ban in public vehicles. Your prior post is enlightening and a great counter-attack on those who would bamboozle us with pseudo-science and false or selective statistics. The reality is that while a smoking ban in all vehicles is probably unlikely at present it is worth noting that children and old or timid people are not subject to the detrimental effects of tobacco smoke in public vehicles while they may be while travelling with their own families.


   ·   26/02/2008 20:10

Witofire, I think the ban is going to happen; just by seeing what's happening in other parts of the world. Ireland cannot ignore that, and expect to keep up as a civilized country. We'll see who's right. It's not going to happen next month, certainly, but I'd say within 5 years. The references to the RSPCA are there because people are often more concerned about abuse towards and cruelty to animals than they are to children. The RSPCA came into existence BEFORE laws protecting children did, and the battle to protect children is ongoing - still. People are just as ignorant now as they were in the 1800s.


   ·   27/02/2008 08:39

Having an opinion - no that is not what makes you come across as "morally superior". It's when you speak of PEOPLE as filthy, uncaring, silly and all the other stuff you've come out with. At the end of the day these are still PEOPLE who are suffering from an ADDICTION which, as an ex smoker, you should understand and be more considerate of IMO. For the record, as a smoker I never smoked in a motor vehicle. I never even smoked in my non smoking friends house - even when they told me too I would step outside. The majority of smokers I know are the same, ie they are considerate towards non smokers. Tit for tat and all that. Still it's good to see that this thread has returned to an ON TOPIC discussion rather than the Leonine bashing that had occurred earlier. Even though Leonine did sort of insult the Irish nation as a whole that sort of flaming was not necessary. Best wishes to all. Billybob

   ·   27/02/2008 09:12

Wit, you say ' Where there are passengers in a vehicle who do not wish to inhale second-hand smoke they should not be forced to do so. ' but surely where there are passengers in a vehicle who do not wish to inhale second-hand smoke they can quite obviously decline to be passengers if they wish. No one presumably, is forcing any adult to be a passenger in another adults car. Children are of course a different matter.

   ·   27/02/2008 10:13

Leonine, what are you talking about now. The RSPCA is UK based - nothign to do with here. We have had the ISPCC here for years. think you are becoming confused. The RSPCA is is a concern / lobby groups for animal protections. Laws - THAT IS LEGISLATION., concerning children or anything else is an entirely differnet thing from caring charities. You need to compare like with like

   ·   27/02/2008 12:29

Wilt, As I said; when you peel away the personal attacks, you really have nothing intelligent to say, now do you? Chasa; As a risk, how many on your list could credibly be described as deadly or toxic in the duration and amounts you would experience in normal life? In the United States 320 million population in a study focusing on the much lowered number of all theoretical bartenders over a 40 year lifetime, 40 hours a week in the most smoky bar imaginable. The risk was 220 dead bartenders after 40 years, according to long time anti smoking advocate Dr. Michael Siegal. If you believe you will ever come close to that level of exposure, perhaps you have a minuscule reason to worry, for the rest of the world no risk is apparent or credible. How would your list compare to the 37 thousand chemicals used in industry today most are also found in high quantities in the so called "clean air" the lobbies cry for. Should we be banning breathing next? because those so called toxins, most of which are also on your list are known to be found in your "clean air" sources, irregardless of tobacco smoke which is 90% water in most cases. The list is meant to scare people and has no relevance when we understand, few of them are not also found in the smoke of any burned organic material. There are very few ingredients found in tobacco smoke not found at a campfire in tremendously higher volumes. As for tobacco industry additives, in most countries the practice is not allowed. So you see the international claims made by ASH and other fanatical followings, do not apply universally in risk assesment and that fact alone, extinguishes any assesment or predictions when we haven't even defined what is being discussed, which could be a combination of millions of different products, created in vastly different methods and as common sense should tell you, some would be more or less harmful than others, if they are harmful at all. Putting the statistical propaganda and bigotry aside, in a population study of actual workers compensation claims, it was found only 1.5 lung cancers by all causes per million employed within the population is the actual observation. Despite the claims of hundreds of thousands of hospitality workers dying every time someone lights up. Workers who supposedly desperately require our protections, amounts to simply fear mongering by the well paid lobbies who don't really care about public safety or the risks they increase, with their irresponsible babblings. They do it only because that is their job. They find the numbers most times by applying a health risk of those exposed, deceptively applied to an entire population, regardless of exposures or levels, finding numbers which don't actually exist.

   ·   27/02/2008 12:48

Leonine where on earth did you copy that exaggerated drivel from. The OMA is nothing more functionally, than a union hall for Doctors they are not mechanical engineers or do they have any capacity or staff qualified to make such assessments, beyond their publicists or to evaluate the data if such measurements were ever made. I noticed again no source or cited research is mentioned or any way the public could scrutinize the claims being made a peculiarity of OMA news releases for years. Nine months ago they stated the levels were five times higher than in the smokiest bar they subsequently raised the number to 10 then 20, 30, 37 and now although I have not seen it, you say 60 times. The important focal point in all this is the use of the words "could be" The temperature inside the car could be as high as 8000 degrees although it is not very likely. Live by fear if you must, but keep the emotional blackmail in your own yard will you. I don't believe the EBS hype because I took the time to investigate the claims made, have you?" Next time your out cherry picking your facts before cutting and pasting your arguments, consider the source and follow the money it helps in weeding out the credible from the in or discredible. Current full smoking ban laws actualy treat anyone who smokes with less regard than a dog funny you mentioned it; you can be fined in Canada for not providing shelter from the elements where a dog is concerned, the bans demand punishment if shelter is supplied to a person. Consider this one significant error, from a neutral source, in all of the so called cannon of statistically surmised evidence the anti smoker bigots rely on so heavily. 2006 Van Baal Et Al; ""Disability weights reflect the relative severity and impact of a disease and theoretically range from 0 (no disability) to 1 (death)" "Making no adjustment for comorbidity is equivalent to assuming that effects of comorbidity on disability are additive. Thus, if a person has more than one disease his total disability weight equals the sum of the disability weights for those diseases. However, in this interpretation individual disability weights may add up to more than one. This cannot be interpreted in a plausible way because it would imply that more than one year of health is lost when living for one year with those diseases." Comorbidity complicates estimations of health-adjusted life expectancy (HALE) using disease prevalences and disability weights from Burden of Disease studies. Usually, the exact amount of comorbidity is unknown and no disability weights are defined for comorbidity. Comorbidity, defined as the presence of two or more diseases in one person, complicates HALE calculations for two reasons. The first one is that the exact amount of comorbidity is unknown since all data on disease incidence, prevalence and mortality gathered in Burden of Disease (BOD) studies are disease specific [6]. The second reason is that there are no disability weights defined for comorbidity"

   ·   27/02/2008 13:57

A post from another blog I thought entirely descriptive of the anti smoker anti obese anti people campaigns being devised in public health in understanding the cult like following. "The Legacy of Eric Hoffer Thomas Sowell --June 18, 2003 The twentieth anniversary of the death of Eric Hoffer, in May 1983, passed with very little notice of one of the most incisive thinkers of his time -- a man whose writings continue to have great relevance to our times. How many people today even know of this remarkable man with no formal schooling, who spent his life in manual labor -- most of it as a longshoreman -- and who wrote some of the most insightful commentary on our society and trends in the world? You need only read one of his classics like The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements to realize that you are seeing the work of an intellectual giant." "Among Hoffer's insights about mass movements was that they are an outlet for people whose individual significance is meager in the eyes of the world and -- more important -- in their own eyes. He pointed out that the leaders of the Nazi movement were men whose artistic and intellectual aspirations were wholly frustrated. Hoffer said: "The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause." People who are fulfilled in their own lives and careers are not the ones attracted to mass movements: "A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding," Hoffer said. "When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business." What Hoffer was describing was the political busybody, the zealot for a cause -- the "true believer," who filled the ranks of ideological movements that created the totalitarian tyrannies of the 20th century."

   ·   27/02/2008 14:30

"Hoffer's strongest words were for the intellectuals -- or rather, against the intellectuals. "Intellectuals," he said, "cannot operate at room temperature." Hype, moral melodrama, and sweeping visions were the way that intellectuals approached the problems of the world. But that was not the way progress was usually achieved in America. "Nothing so offends the doctrinaire intellectual as our ability to achieve the momentous in a matter-of-fact way, unblessed by words." Since the American economy and society advanced with little or no role for the intelligentsia, it is hardly surprising that anti-Americanism flourishes among intellectuals. "


   ·   27/02/2008 14:59

Anonymous. I'll try to reframe or clarify what I've already said. I am using the RSPCA formation preceding the formation of child protection laws . . . . as an EXAMPLE of people's attitudes towards children, and an EXAMPLE of how children's rights have to be protected by the state. Nobody thought about protecting children's health and well-being until the RSPCA came along. Someone then observed that "children are like small animals", and so child protection laws began to come into being. It doesn't matter WHERE the RSPCA is based -- we have the SPCA in North America. It was not until the formation of the RSPCA that anyone thought about protecting children. The tradition is continuing with the anti-smoking ban. My point was that people will get more upset about the suffering of animals before they get upset about the suffering of children. That is the way it was in the 1800s, and that's the way it is still - governments and state institutions have to be constantly on the watch, on behalf of children, because there are too many people in charge of children who should not be in charge of children, because they're either irresponsible or abusive. Smoking in cars with children is one of the latest installments of the government attempting to protect children when nobody else will protect them. This is somewhat aside from the main point of the discussion, so that attempt to clarify it for you is my last mention of the topic. BillyBob, I apologize for any slagging of the Irish nation. I can't really do it, because I've got about 100 cousins in Malin Head, apparently.

   ·   27/02/2008 15:57

Nobody thought about protecting children's health and well-being until the RSPCA came along?? Someone then observed that "children are like small animals", - Where on earth did you dream that nonsense up from. As explained - the RSPCA is not in operation here. This is very much relevant. We have both the ISPCA here and the ISPCC - which has been operation for years. The smoking ban was introduced for the protection of workers - not children. And if the think the latest attempt from ASH to ban smoking in cars has anything to do with child protection, you are mistaken. This country has learned more about the abuse (real actual abuse as distinct from smoking in cars) of chldren in the care of those who shouldn't have been let near tham, in the last 60 or 80 years so we don't need any further lessons, thank you.

   ·   27/02/2008 16:40

Leonine you seem to elaborate with every observation, you have very little regard for humanity in general in your cult like beliefs that anti smoker broad brushing and slander or it's advocacy is so desperately crucial, or for that matter, a positive view of the world, is a serious issue you really should consider. From your latest posts "BillyBob, I apologize for any slagging of the Irish nation. I can't really do it, because I've got about 100 cousins in Malin Head, apparently." This apology fails to elaborate regardless of your ancestry, why you would be making such insensitive statements to begin with. Your observation of children described as; little animals!!! is too much for words. Please try to inject a modicum of humanity or compassion into your self, before telling the rest of the world, how they should be subservient to your disrespectful and disingenuous, emotional blackmail attempts.


   ·   27/02/2008 21:26

Kevin and Anonymous, do either of you manage reading comprehension at all? If you want to research the topic, you'll find that someone indeed did make that statement - basically that if animals were to be protected, then children deserved protection as well Try reading a Dickens book - you might gain some understanding of the topic. Then go to a university library, and look it up!! Child protection laws. If I ever needed convincing that smoking should be cut out just to aid in thinking processes, improve blood circulation to the brain - this forum would do it.


   ·   27/02/2008 23:56

Unfortunately this discussion has been repeatably interrupted by some of the more absurd observations by certain antis. I have five healthy children who are doing fine and do not need the state to tell their parents what to do. Kevin, thank for your sensible comments. A breath of fresh air after some of the more ridiculous and insulting anti posts.

   ·   28/02/2008 04:29

It is really amazing no one has ever considered how anti Tobacco "industry" was replaced with anti smoker advocacy. The tremendous growth of anti smoking efforts were actually largely financed by their own nemesis. The purchase of Kraft foods by Philip Morris was likely the coup of our era. It took them out of the position of being the most hated brand to virtual branding darlings, as the competitors in processed foods, are always painted as the champions of public health. Competitors could never attack the continued and identical underhanded tobacco industry sales strategies, in connection with processed food, without attacking themselves. Groups at the forefront of advising us in the pandemics being curred by ingesting their so called healthy eating, by encouraging us to eat anything but healthy foods. Processed food had a new bed partner. And the great health pandemic crusades began. The Tobacco industry was able to maintain long time media and government relationships, simply financing ther perks out of a different corporate pocket. Tobacco settlement money and markups coinciding with tax increases only served to increase the value of the product and increased their bottom line while distributing less products, with production moved to cheaper offshore labor in South America and Asia. No safe cigarette chants eliminated all restrictions of growing conditions and additives because no cigarette is safe no cigarette is safer. This opened up the boarders of countries who had restrictions in place, to products originating from countries described as toxic nightmares, with no regulations. Product standard are no longer even possible to enforce. Is it any wonder the tobacco companies are parroting the same things ASH is telling us daily? Tobacco Control is a realization of the Tobacco Industries most recurrent wet dream. Diversification into processed food was just pure gravy and a reputation they took full advantage of. Give the smokers another kick but include one for yourself because you earned it, in falling for the industrial and political scams. While the people fight among themselves the crooks who conned us all are laughing all the way to the bank as always. Add Michael Pollen's book; In defense of food, to your reading list. He may help you understand advertising strategies which define why you are being encouraged to hate your neighbors. You can do a google search and see how relevant his observations are here. He is entirely anti smoking, however he is not anti smoker.

   ·   28/02/2008 12:14

Kevin, if you weren't so busy insulting people and read the posts you would realise that I'm not a smoker. " Competitors could never attack the continued and identical underhanded tobacco industry sales strategies, in connection with processed food, without attacking themselves" - what on earth are you talking about?

   ·   28/02/2008 12:50

Leonine stated "Kevin and Anonymous, do either of you manage reading comprehension at all?" Comprehension would require understanding what you read in the context of what was intended, which requires reading between the lines. You understanding of the "Little animals" quote is misplaced because it has little to do with the view children are actually animals to be managed. You certainly would not call for a cull [or perhaps you would] as a compassionate act, if over population became an issue. Your claims to be intimate with Dickens writings along with a self belief of strong comprehension skills, falls into disarray, as it seems his messages, between the lines, seem to have left little impression, or do you always cheer for the villain? Kevin el al; "Witches don't really exist, so you can pack up the pitchforks and lanterns and go home." What does that say to you Leonine? To most it would entail the avoidance of incited Bigotry. Your comprehension example, just like Wilt, would have you following instinct and personal denials, by telling me, I am nuts because you don't even own a pitch fork. Try to elaborate on why, because you have relatives in Ireland your comments were wrong, and if you had not made that discovery, your insults against another culture or population group could be justified? If you had not been fortunate in early years and fell in with a group of street kids who encouraged you to smoke when you were younger in order to avoid hunger pains. Would you be so quick to promote your bigotry against others, with your predictable slanders and definitive comments? A little more sensitivity could tell you the true meaning of the phrase "There, but for the grace of God, go I" Beyond the first impulse to attack organized religion, what does that statement actually say to you? Smokers notwithstanding of how you prefer to paint them in your minds eye, are still people, as with your "little animals", compassion if it truly exists, beyond a promotional convenience, should understand that reality first. Which leads us to my claim of disingenuous "emotional black mail" do you understand the concept now?


   ·   28/02/2008 15:01

Ex-Pat, Sorry for interrupting your one-sided discussion with my opposing views on smoking in cars. It was a pity to spoil the cosy chat you were having with your pro-smoking peers. I trust that your five healthy children will not be subject to the smoke pollution you advocate for others. Hey Kevin, What do you mean by the following gobbeldy-gook? "Your comprehension example, just like Wilt, would have you following instinct and personal denials, by telling me, I am nuts because you don't even own a pitch fork." Do you believe that those of us who do not follow your pseudo-intellectual drivel suffer from incomprehension of the English language. By the way, I suggest you refer to our proper nicknames and spell them correctly. No Smoke Witofire (Geddit)!


   ·   28/02/2008 15:59

Kevin, obviously when you learned to type and got a keyboard, you became convinced that you're a fine orator. I've got news for you. None of it makes any sense. It's idiocy in print. There's nothing more to say. There are just certain types of people on the internet who are enamoured of their own typing, and you're one of them. It doesn't matter that it makes no sense, it just looks great, in their eyes. When you're ready to discuss properly, then we'll talk. Maybe. I've got other things to do.

   ·   28/02/2008 16:20

eonine, I am well versed in Dickens - have been for many years, just as I experienced in University research. Tho you don't need to be in a University library to look up child protection laws. Your statement in relation to cutting smokingto improve brain circulation really has the maturity of a 10 year old. That is not a level at which most people, pro or anti the ban, on this site, debate.

   ·   28/02/2008 17:06

The complaints here are getting confused, both seem to indicate you don't understand what I wrote yet it is I who fails in comprehension skills? Let me put this in terms you seem to agree with. Equating a child to a small animal, followed to its logical conclusion would have you protecting animals from every insignificant risk factor, animals I might note, who seem to be surviving quite well without your protections. Animal husbandry and what is taught to children in elementary school is clear and for most children not that difficult to understand. If you interfere with a small animal, more often than not will result in the parent detecting your scent and of course in that small animal being orphaned. Which obligates you to take responsibility for the orphaned animal. After that animal reaches maturity, releasing it back into its natural habitant creates a larger problem, because lacking the teachings of their parent the chances that animal will survive in the wild are slim. The parallels are difficult to not see or understand, with interference in parental autonomy which also obligates the state to much more responsibility than they have ever traditionally accepted. The stories of child abuse in State run institutions leave it questionable if protection could realistically describe what is being prescribed by the all knowing ASH antagonists. Should children be taken away from smoking parents who continue to smoke, when all other punishments fail? Taken supposedly in order to secure their protections? Where will you house the first million children and who pays the bill? Every person is an individual and the result of a unique life's experience playing your games in cheering on the punishments in order to force coercive controls by wide brush, openly and in full view, is truly enlightening of how sick society is becoming. You both understand the meaning of the word Bigot despite your denials. Perhaps a comparison to your own writings and that definition could find for you a little comprehension in understanding what I wrote. Understand this, if it is at all within your ability to do so; you will eventually harvest exactly what you plant. Happy gardening. {{{smiling}}}


   ·   28/02/2008 21:33

Wit, It is good that you are sorry for interrupting. Also I haven't advocated anything except allowing children to grow in a healthy mental state without the brainwashing which appears to have severely damaged the ability for independent thought or even plain commonsense among some of the antis. I also do not want my seven Grandchildren to grow up in a hate filled society. This hate did not arise by itself, it has been deliberately nurtured. It is sad that some people cannot see that they are being used.


   ·   28/02/2008 22:50

Kevin Do you honestly think you can impress people with all that waffle? If this forum has shown anything it is just how ridiculous some of the anti-smoking lobby are. Do any of you honestly believe it is right to subject anyone to secondary smoke against their will? Do you really think it is right to have children in a car with somebody smoking? If people would just be a little considerate there would be no need for a ban. Why not stick with that thought.


   ·   28/02/2008 23:05

Kevin, You say, "Understand this, if it is at all within your ability to do so; you will eventually harvest exactly what you plant". Plant tobacco smoke in your lungs and harvest emphysema. See:


   ·   29/02/2008 05:51

KEVIN! The term "small animal" was used by someone AT THAT TIME!! That means, it was said by someone in the 1800's!! Someone at that time, during the time WHEN THE RSPCA was being formed, decided that children needed protection, as well as animals -- BECAUSE that is pretty much that state that child care was in AT THAT TIME. I did not originate that phrase. Someone who was an activist trying to bring in laws for decent child care was saying that if there are going to be laws to protect animals, then there ought to be laws to protect children, since TO THAT PERSON DURING THOSE TIMES children were like small animals. Probably meaning that they were as helpless, and without a voice. Is that clear? I'm not going to look up the procedure that was going on at the time, because I don't have the time. That's what I recall reading about it several years ago. Child protection laws were not brought into being UNTIL and BECAUSE the RSPCA was formed. At that time, I believe Ireland was under the control of England, was it not? Correct me if I'm wrong. It would have taken some time I suppose for this type of progressive thinking to spread to Ireland, and to the Colonies. I don't know for a fact, I'm just surmising. My suggestion to use a university library was made because I use one. We do have the most active public library in Canada just down the street, but often the university or college libraries are better, more focused. The reason I brought up Dickens is because Dickens' books are part of the reason, if not most of the reason that child protection laws were brought about in England, and horrible institutions like debtors' prisons were either improved or abolished. This was in England but what happened in England affected Ireland and the rest of the world.

   ·   29/02/2008 10:31

Kevin, so tou think that 1 million parents (in excess of the entire parental smoking population) despite fines, court appearances and jail will continue to smoke in cars (the ban will be for everyone not just parents) - what utter rubbish. As for who will pay - the parents will pay. Yes, the was abuse in state institutions here for yrears but if you think the same abuse didn't take place int eh community you really haven't a notion what you're on about. Animal husbandy is not taught to childrne in primary (we don't have "elementary" schools here) school so that particular piece of nonsense is irrelevant. interference in parental autonomy obligates the state to much more responsibility than they have ever traditionally accepted - but where abuse is present nterference in parental autonomy is required becsuse parental autonomy is not omnipotent. As for what is 'traditionally accepted'. It was "traditionally accepted" for children to work at 9 and 10 . It was "traditionally accepted" for children to be routinely beaten. It was "traditionally accepted" for women to be the husbands of fathers property - tradition is defined as what you do when you know no better.


   ·   29/02/2008 11:57

I agree if a driver is to smoke in his car its his choice, but as a parent and driver.Its our responsibility. Do we want to pass on cancer and other smoking related heath problems to our friends and family? I would hate to have to do deal with sutch a problem.Im a none smoker and I agree with the ban. Cars are even smaller spaces then pubs.The goverment must make more money on the cigarrets tax then spending on cancer treatment otherwise cigarrets were totaly banned.

   ·   29/02/2008 12:31

My Recently published opinion, in the Toronto Globe and Mail sums up the situation; Is this mustard gas, or just a lot of harmless smoke blown up your Deucester? In response to yet another tale of woe, remembering a childhood experience of narrowly avoiding certain death. Even the sight of an unlit cigarette back in the old days could be deadly apparently. " Joe from Darkville should be visiting the pope a walking miracle to be sure. A wonder in trusting the fact he survived to tell the tale. Personally I don't believe his story is credible in the least, no one lives after being exposed to smoke in the back seat of a car, everyone knows that. Parents are always a better judge of what is safe for their own children. Centuries of consistent evidence has always demonstrated they deserve to be trusted. Moral Busybodies and paid smoking patch lobby groups, will never replace the loving relationships which exist between parents and their children. It is reprehensible for government paid advocates armed only with wide brush accusations, to claim; because someone smokes they have no compassion for their own children. Hasn't the fear mongering and state promoted bigotry gone far enough? What ever happened to the trust between the people and the State? Apparently the people are no longer worthy of trust or compassion. Are we or are we not talking about addiction here? Since when did we start punishing people in hopes of forcing them to quit? Do we start loading smokers into boxcars next. McCarthyism ended with the word enough, There is no such thing as a witch so those with the lanterns and pitchforks can all go home. ENOUGH ALREADY!!!"

   ·   29/02/2008 14:59

Whoa Leonine - first you are talking about what "someone" said in relation to child protection. Then you are talking about decent child care?? Now provision of child care was DEFINiTELY not a concept thought of in 1800. Both the ISPCA and the ISPCC has been in existence here for some time - look it up, seeing as you use a university library. You think that Dickens books were the reason child protection laws were brought in and debtors prisons abolished??? You seriously need a social history lesson. Ex-pat, children should not only grow in a a healthy mentalstate but a healthy physical stgate. How is being brought up being forced to inhale second hand smoke either healthy physically or mentally?


   ·   29/02/2008 15:53

Good post, Anonymous! Kevin, are you telling us that you write an opinion column for the Globe and Mail? And are you based in Canada?


   ·   29/02/2008 18:26

Kevin, It is not about forcing anyone to quit, it is about banning smoking in all vehicles in Ireland. See top of page. You've become bamboozled by the exuberence of your own verbosity. You've lost your way in the debate. Stick to the point and stop talking through your ash!


   ·   29/02/2008 18:39

Regarding Anonymous Posted: 29/02/2008 14:59 Are your children brought up in a car? (If so, I would think you have far bigger problems than smoke)

   ·   01/03/2008 01:09

I would wholeheartedly agree; If someone was siting on someone's chest and forcing them to inhale smoke which according to extremely coached ignorance, is seen by some to be more noxious than mustard gas. I would certainly feel obligated to protect that child. Of course I would also stop someone from tickling them to death as well. How many children or adults are in reality being forced to do anything? Anyone being forced into anything has yet to be demonstrated. What I see is an extreme level of high drama and exaggerations beyond an embarrassing level. A child when uncomfortable would be the first to complain. As they grow older they can even figure out how to open a window unassisted. A parent if they love their children would never do anything to harm them, which you can see every day with no bans in place, smokers restrict their own smoking entirely around babies and even going so far as complete abstinence in their own homes with children of any age. That is the norm, despite what the fanatics told you. I would like a few answers from the experts; however as cowards will and always do, they have always avoided the obviously uncomfortable questions, predictably attacking anyone even their own partners who don't support the cult or goose step in double time. 1]What makes a lobby group more qualified in parenting than absolutely everyone who smokes? Yet anyone in the much larger majority who doesn't smoke, are without the same deficits? 2] If second hand smoke is anywhere close to the dangers being claimed, realizing smokers are far more exposed than anyone else, with a permanence of damages also being claimed, what reason would anyone have in going through the trouble of quiting with little to gain physically. 3] If the toxins in second hand smoke in normal life are at a level they can cause extreme harm. Addiction is always the first effect seen. Why does no one get addicted to second hand smoke? Go ahead take your best shot. Just read what you post so as to not sound completely ridiculous. Taking shots at me doesn't score any points, it just proves me right; you have nothing intelligent to say, that wasn't coached or brainwashed into you and your not nearly as well informed, as you might believe you are.

   ·   03/03/2008 09:27

"Parents are always a better judge of what is safe for their own children". If that were the case, there would never be child abuse. "What ever happened to the trust between the people and the State? " - Ah you have me laughing now. Whatever was in your letter to your local paper or whoever this 'Joe' was is irrelevant, perhaps when you stop waffling about lanterns and pitchforks you'll realise this.


   ·   03/03/2008 10:34

Kevin, What is "extremely coached ignorance". Is that not a contradiction in terms? Who thinks inhaled smoke (presumably tobacco) is more noxious than mustard gas? After all, we all know that the one causes a rapid and horrible death while the other offers a much slower and insidious one. Are you suggesting that parents should subject their children to secondhand smoke in motor vehicles until such time as they complain? That is monstrous! "smokers restrict their own smoking entirely around babies and even going so far as complete abstinence in their own homes with children of any age." So smokers are the only ones who do not subject their children to harm! What about smokers in cars with children? It's becoming extremely difficult to follow your train of thought. Best not to take too much notice of what you have to say as your opinion differs from post to post.

   ·   03/03/2008 12:56

How many children are in reality being forced to do anything? All those children sitting in cars with smoking parents - unless you are suggesting that the children open the door and jump out of a speeding car?? Not exactly a choice there. A child when uncomfortable would be the first to complain. - SO WHAT? Imagine a parent beign so callous that they have to wait for their children to complain and lets face it any parent so uncarign as to wait for that to happen it not exactly going to listne to them are they? Well if its the case that a parent if they love their children would never do anything to harm them realy says that every parent who smokes in a car with their kids doesn't love them - which may well be the truth. "smokers restrict their own smoking entirely around babies and even going so far as complete abstinence in their own homes with children of any age" WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON?. That is is most certianly NOT the norm as anyone living in Ireland in 2008 can attest to. The qurestion is What makes a health-protection lobby group more qualified in health-protection than absolutely everyone who smokes - and you really don't need an answer to that I hope. And if you call smoking in a car with a child "parenting" then that is EXACTly why we need a ban. No-one gets addicted to the second hand smoke because the addictive properties (nicoteen) are inhaled by the smoker, leaving the toxins to be inhaled by those around them as well as themselves.

   ·   03/03/2008 13:21

As Cathy demonstrated with this quote; "Smokers are people who do not care about their health nor of others." The Health scare astro-turfers really have nothing intelligent to say. The promotions of stereotyping is accepted, with absolutely no consideration of who is being discussed, or even the reality of actually knowing anyone in real life who would fit this description, smoker or not. The Drama queens and Posers Will never answer the tough questions. Many are hoping to be seen as "the experts" many who actively seek out these discussions, yet can't survive with another opinion present and will always hope to win by attacking the individual, who shows them where they are wrong. Smoking bans in cars with or without children is just another ratcheting down of a hateful and divisive stereotype, describing the exception and selling it as the rule. Three questions are too difficult? How about just one? If second hand smoke can create an effect equal to 8% of the smoking related mortalities of primary smoking, wouldn't at least 1% of those exposed; be addicted to the smoke? .01%?, .0001%?, .0000001%? None of them???? None of the so called smoking related diseases are universal or even substantially seen among most smokers. Only the addiction or dependency seems to be a consistent effect. Strange the one and only consistent characteristic is the only effect we have never seen. Or has it ever been found to be statistically or realistically related, like all the other theoretic claims, not to any persons exposed at any level. Think about the bars and bingo halls where they say the air is blue, where workers and patrons alike have sat for years inhaling the highest levels seen anywhere yet no one suffers from withdrawal? Let the fear mongers explain it, its their fairy tale. How many cigarettes do they tell us, it takes for a child to become addicted? I heard recently, it only took one. So how much is actually inhaled and how much chance is there, you might be harmed? Do hospitality workers and children really need protection from the smoke, or from the mirrors?

   ·   03/03/2008 14:19

I've no idea who the Health scare astro-turfers ARE - except that they exist in your mind. I have already explained why second hand smoke is not addicitve. It is not the addictive properties we are discussing but the dangerous ones.

   ·   04/03/2008 02:28

Anon; "No-one gets addicted to the second hand smoke because the addictive properties (nicoteen) are inhaled by the smoker, leaving the toxins to be inhaled by those around them as well as themselves." Again you are only making excesses for propaganda and thoughtless drivel. This is not a; what goes in stays in, perspective, otherwise no one would be complaining aboutt the smoke. Take a good long look, when some one smokes they exhale smoke, Take a look at the cigarette in the ashtray more smoke. An average inhalation is only a cubic liter of air, the room does not get cloudy by the filtered and in your description; purified smoke apparently, being exhaled alone. If you remember the much repeated reasons ASH and their stooges, have been saying it is possible for ETS to create much more damage in a minuscule amount of time and with much smaller volumes by comparison, with casual exposures than it does with smokers inhalations, half of whom are not even affected after smoking for 50 years. The reason? because the temperature of burn is lower at the front end than what a smoker inhales [Sound familiar?] If the toxins survive the burning process at the front end much more than they do at the back end, leading to the fear fest, your guess has a few problems. A person who smokes a cigarette, they go on to say actually inhales much less than half of the total smoke produced. On average 5 inhalations per cigarette. In order to make and maintain visible smoke in an average bar, it takes many more than a single cigarette even with a low ventilation rate. I know you will attack this, but I will offer it in any case and you can verify it biologically without any contraversial calculations involved just physical scinece which is well documented. What is being inhaled by a smoker is actually very little nicotine in its original form. After it is burned Nicotine's structure changes into Nicotinic acid, more commonly known as Niacin or vitamin B3, a vital element in forming your DNA and a key component in the regulation of the endothelium, which maintains body temperature, damage control and a variety of vital functions within the body. The anti smoker cheerleaders are deliberately pushing any smokers who do want to quit, toward an entirely poor substitute, containing pure Nicotine, which through dermal application enters the bloodstream directly, to closely replicate the regenerative effect of smoking. No one knows what the long term effect will be of injecting a very toxic poison directly into the bloodstream, not that anyone really cares, They are only smokers after all, right? If we can agree, addiction is the issue which keeps smokers, smoking, how on earth does anyone believe making their lives more difficult, will ever be helpful if they do want to quit? Now with all the exagerations of permanent ETS damage they are given a subliminal excuse to continue, because nothing is to be gained by quiting? I have a hard time believing helping others to quit, is the goal at all, any more than substantiating an immoral excuse for taxing addiction. If Doctors were honest and acting responsibly, would the safer solution, to you, seem to be a fortified regimen of Vitamin B complex which could reduce the cravings while keeping the pounds off, [an advantage of Vitamin B3 is a lowering of bad cholesterol and an increase of good cholesterol], or a smoking patch which is really only a crutch, leading back to smoking. The rate of success with a patch or gum, is very low especially when compared to the success rates by cold turkey. It was always just about the money despite what you may have read in the funny papers. If you don't like the smell of smoke there is nothing wrong with saying so, however it gives you no license to attack others with smear and trash talk, any more than it would be acceptable if you didn't like the smell of sweat or curry and insulted other groups in society, because you don't like those smells either. The kind of protections being sold with smoking bans will never stop with smoking, Public health profiteers are just getting started on you. keep cheering, I can guarantee, you wont be happy for long.


   ·   04/03/2008 07:22

I'd say Kevin is only bringing up pointless arguments in order to prolong the discussion.

   ·   04/03/2008 10:36

Because the properties of nicoteen and the other elements of cigarettes are different. Nice suggestion with the VitB. But if the goal is not to assist the smoker to quit then what is the goal (without any conspiracy theories or persecution mania please) in your mind? The obvious difference between passive smokign and curry is that curry does not cause cancer and other illnesses. As for sweat - we have a great device for dealing with sweaty smells - it's called a shower. You can also use a bath.

   ·   04/03/2008 12:46

Second hand smoke technology is defeated by its claim to the selective effects of EBS, dependency is not seen in non smokers, while all the other effects they claim, are highly probable??? Dependency is after all the one universal effect, which is much more likely to occur [by all the numbers and calculations] By observation we see it is almost a certainty to occur by long term and significant exposures to tobacco smoke. If the smoke can have any other effect, the primary effect should be seen first and consistently, if the other effects which are not consistent, are even remotely possible to occur. Are non smokers physically different than smokers allowing the obvious contradiction? Or is the craving managed by lowered exposures? They tell us a child smoking a single cigarette is hooked immediately, yet a bar tender inhales; what was it at last count, 16 per shift? Non smokers should be seen, as having amazingly strong will compared to smokers, considering the situation at hand as they demonstrate they are totally unaware of any signs of withdrawal, resisting the fact of course its all just smoke, mirrors and EBS. Is dependency real at all, or just a psychological conditioning making smokers believe they are addicted? The alternative is just too hard to imagine for most of us whether you smoke or not; no one is addicted by EBS alone because it is largely harmless or ineffective by short term or casual exposures, which are consistently offset by the mechanisms within the body designed to [very efficiently I might add] normalize body functions. Leading us to an obvious confirmation it is simply and logically the applied mathematics, [[[the theory]]] which is flawed.

   ·   04/03/2008 13:11

Anon wrote; "But if the goal is not to assist the smoker to quit then what is the goal (without any conspiracy theories or persecution mania please) in your mind?" The fact of the matter is regardless of the proof provided and the source of that proof; whatever is stated will always be attacked as conspiracy jargon. That in itself should be concerning to most. Defending science by committee is not science, it is cult theology. Science is about unbiased discovery, otherwise it is just politics. When the focus today is exclusively on harms caused by individuals, when logically it should be focussed on the harms of Industry, we have to assume the balance is tilted and we have to question why. Its just self preservation. The ability for Industry to be held harmless in all that they do is amplified when they can legitimately claim we do ourselves much more harm than they ever could.


   ·   04/03/2008 13:19

anonymous 10.36: Are you quite sure that there are no dangerous ingredients in Curry Powder? What additives are in it? We do not get the real curry but processed powder with additives.

   ·   04/03/2008 14:39

A big long post from Kevin which doesn't answer my question. But if the goal is not to assist the smoker to quit then what is the goal (without any conspiracy theories or persecution mania please) in your mind

   ·   04/03/2008 15:31

If the most likely effect is dependency, most believe it is unavoidable, if any of this fear of the smoke is at all realistic, you have to understand first, it would have to occur much more often than any other effect. This fact is so obviously confirmed with smokers and the comparative instances of the individual smoking related diseases, which occur much less often. Statistically; if it does not occur at all, how likely would it be the other effects actually occur either? This is a point the so called experts should have realized long ago. The fact in all these years they have chosen to ignore it, or even develop a theory to explain it, should say a lot in respect to the level of expertise involved here. Second Hand Smoke is a political creation to serve a political need, nothing more.


   ·   04/03/2008 16:16

I think if you buy your curry powder from a reputable source, and check the ingredients, you're not likely to get fillers. Fillers I think (but you have to check) are usually hydrolized vegetable protein, which isn't harmful per se, but if you have wheat allergies, that is if you are a celiac, it is a problem. I won't eat anything with hydrolized vegetable protein in it, because I believe that if you have too much of the stuff you can raise your risk of becoming celiac. If you're trying to quit smoking, it is too much stress on the body to quit cold turkey - the patch is the best way to go, it sounds like. You also need to really pay attention to your nutrition, stay away from sugar, eat loads of vegetables and anti-oxidants - such as blueberries, any berries, fruits and so on. Superfoods like chlorella, and the pseudo-grains like buckwheat and amaranth are loaded with nutrition too, and chlorella (one brand name is Chloressence) is very good at clearing toxins from the body. Toxins from smoking that accumulate in your body also accumulate in the brain, so that makes it more difficult to quit, because as the stuff is leaving your system if makes you irritable and gives the typical withdrawal symptoms. It would not be a bad idea to start changing the diet before for a month or so before attempting to quit smoking, so that the clearing process starts ahead of time. "Foods" that stress the body, the adrenal glands especially are sugar, alcohol, hydogenated fats, and so on. . there's loads of info out there.


   ·   04/03/2008 18:48

Leonine, You can't develop Coeliac disease. You either have it or you have not got it. It is something inherent that you are born with. The problem in the past is that it took some time for it to be detected. Nowadays diagnosis is occuring much earlier.


   ·   04/03/2008 19:28

Nicotine is a mood-altering addictive drug. Does not smoking while driving constitute driving while under the influence of a drug? Why is there so much opposition to those of us who believe that it is wrong to smoke while driving whatever our position with regard to banning it?


   ·   04/03/2008 22:52

Smoking acts as a friend to most people. I think smokers are lonely people and need constant company if they are to stop smoking. When I am having a good conversation I don't think about smoking much at all. Having said that though, the conversation must be very interesting. I smoke more when I am alone and I think the reason for this is that I can have a 'conversation' with my cigarettes.

   ·   05/03/2008 09:18

The remark about curry powder was clearly tongue-in-cheek. However, one does not become a coeliac - one is either coeliac or is not coeliac. As for clearign toxins from the body - the body has some excelent excretory organs just for that - kidneys, skin and liver with the lungs and bowels being secondary. As for foods "stressing the adrenal glands" this sounds like pure quackery - recognisable from certain "alternative" internet sites. sugar, alcohol, hydogenated fats should be taken in moderation simply becuase excesses of them are not good for us and all sugars when unused bythe body are stored as fat. that said, the rest of your advice re: nutrition sounds like good common sense. Yes Wit, Nicotine is a mood-altering addictive drug - and so is caffiene. But both are LEGAL thereby not constituting an offence. I think maybe impossible has a point. A good conversation may help to distract someone tryign to quit, from thinking about cigarettes.

   ·   05/03/2008 13:24

It is not all that surprising to see a lobby mindset selling smoking patches, however glad handing MSG[Filler] is surprising. Philip Morris or Altera is a major distributor of processed foods [marketing to children once again] which is a major source of MSG in your diet. Smoking patches as with spit tobacco products are not a reasonable alternative to just quitting cold turkey. Anyone who tells you any different is just doing a sales job. What ever happened to the original anti tobacco Industry organizations? Since big business took over the lobby, few good ideas are even discussed any more and no cooperative community efforts or discussions are even allowed. The idea of moderation seems to be the most significant casualty. If a smoker cuts down the effects are less and it becomes much easier to quit. That to me makes perfect sense. According to ASH that idea is pure heresy as obviously counter productive to selling patched poison. It dispels the idea in a smoker's motivation of having an curative ability, to decrease the effects and health risks after quiting, people might begin to think, so does anyone exposed to the mustard gas like smoke they describe, also have the same curative ability with much less exposure. The observed research tells us in a study of 75,000 women, patches increase significantly the chances of having deformed babies when used while pregnant, yet very little is said by those who are trying to protect children from an insignificant increased risk in the back seat of a car. The hypocrisies are starting to be seen through the cracks. If Governments wish to travel into private domains moving from socialists to national socialist ideals the people who promote it, will one day bear the responsibility, some of us did not or will ever forget.

   ·   05/03/2008 15:09

Yes, the instance of foetal deformitires may increase with the use of pathces but it is also the case that smokign while pregnant harms the foetal development. What ever happened to the original anti tobacco Industry organizations - what original anti-smoking organizations?? As for good ideas and cooperative community efforts or discussions, I would say please do feel free to discuss, that is what a discussion forum is for and it may well help those tryign to quit. As for cutting down making it easier to quit - I see two examples. My MIL - on 10 a day and cutting down for the last 15 years. Still on 10 a day. My FIL on the other hand was on 60 a day and quit cold-turkey nearly nine years ago. Yes, he was irritable and moody for weeks but he is still a non-smoker.


   ·   05/03/2008 16:54

Alison - I don't agree with that, because I know there are differing opinions on that. You would be born with a sensitivity, but it takes some time to develop the disease. You're not born with flattened villi. A Norwegian study has found that there are more young children developing Celiac disease and they're attributing it to the fact that hydrolized vegetable protein is being used more and more as a filler in baby food.


   ·   05/03/2008 16:56

I say let them all smoke. If people want to be lemmings, who are we to stop them? Just protect the children.

   ·   05/03/2008 17:31

As for the cars? Both specific gravity and physical gravity would confirm how infinitely small the risk to a child actually is; in specific gravity which is the rise of smoke in buoyancy toward the roof, And Physical gravity which as a plane is able to fly because of the air flowing over the wings, or with a car requiring a foil to hold the back of the car down for improved traction. Even if you have ever owned a convertible and wondered why your hair is sucked toward the windshield and not toward the back of the car as you see in the advertisements. The air flowing above the roof will elevate the smoke, as will air flowing over the windshield move the smoke toward the front of the vehicle. Therefore the smoke at a smokers eye level and particularly, at the front of the vehicle, is much more concentrated than in the breathing spaces of a child in the back seat. When a smoker's eyes begin to burn making it difficult to see the road. Self preservation would have them opening the window. Which in combination with the positive air pressure; inside, compared with the pressure outside; applied by the heater or the air conditioner fan, draws the smoke out of the vehicle quite efficiently. Long before a child in the back seat is affected. Certainly long before they would be addicted to smoking, or other effect by any of the much much lesser risks. Risks which hardly seem likely to occur at all, in the absence of nicotine addiction.


   ·   05/03/2008 18:57

Anonymous, My question was is it wrong - not is it illegal? The point is some people are doing something which is wrong forcing the authorities to consider making it illegal. Some people find patches helpful in quitting. I quit cold turkey and found that best for me. Kevin's paranoia about powerful patch lobbies does not make sense. It would hardly be a self-perpetuating industry. The ultimate success of its product would lead to industrial demise. Their stocks and shares would not be a good buy!!!

   ·   06/03/2008 14:59

Leonine - coeliac disease is an auto-immune condition. It is not an allegy or 'sensitivity'. The fact that one is either born with it or they are not is accepted medical fact. Niether your opinion nor mine change its medical validity.

   ·   06/03/2008 15:11

Again another long waffle from Kevin about gravity and convertibles but no answers.Of course what an you expct from soeonewho tinks the only danger from smoking - active or passive - is addiction.

   ·   06/03/2008 15:15

Wit, rights and wrongs along with moral points of view are merely subjectove opinions. This discussion is in relation to banning - which is a legislative act, not a moral judgement. As for the ultimate success of patches leading to its industrial demise - unlikely considering that in developing countries smoking is not the rise and its fairly predictable that the sale of patches will follow.


   ·   06/03/2008 15:18

Since when are ASH an "authority" witofire?


   ·   06/03/2008 16:26

Anonymous, this is basically what I've just said - that it is not a disease until you start eating the offending substance. One is susceptible, but the disease disappears when the substance is removed. To think that oneself as 'forever' sick, is to think of oneself as a victim, which isn't healthy. Diabetes can also be eradicated (type II that is) by changing diet and exercise.


   ·   06/03/2008 16:54

Leonine, Coeliac Disease is a chronic digestive disorder that is caused by a hereditary intolerance to gluten. Nobody is born with "flattened vilii" as you so graphically stated. When a coeliac consumes gluten, the gluten damages the villi, impeding them from absorbing vital nutrients. Depending on the severity and of course the diet, the damage to the villi can go on for a very long time in some people before it is detected & diagnosed. You cannot be born with a sensitivity to anything. You become sensitive to something through being in contact with that agent. You can also be sensitive to something for a temporary time ie. the body learns to deal with it. Unfortunately, this is not the case for coeliacs who will be intolerant to gluten for their lifetime. It is not that Coeliac disease is increasing, it is that more 'real' coeliacs are being diagnosed with the disease rather than living their lifetimes with a condition that was mis-diagnosed.

   ·   06/03/2008 17:04

FYI; Presented in Codex discussions at the WHO; "The Codex Alimentarius lists Monosodium Glutamate (ref #621) as a flavor enhancer approved with no daily limit to be added to a broad range of food categories. (17th Report of JECFA, 1974) Monosodium Glutamate is an amino acid that affects on almost every major system and organ in the body. Glutamate receptors trigger many different responses and can be over stimulated to cause cell death and other systemic problems. For thirty years, scientists and researchers have used MSG in their experiments to purposely create obese and pre-diabetic test subjects, trigger epileptic seizures, create ischemic strokes, and destroy cell tissues in vivo and in vitro. The amount of studies that use MSG to cause negative effects in test subjects numbers over one thousand, published in a variety of medical and scientific journals in over a dozen different countries. Monosodium Glutamate added to the diet has been shown to increase the test subjects desire to eat more food faster and more frequently. There is mounting evidence that not only the rise in human obesity and diabetes is linked to the ingestion of Monosodium Glutamate, but the increase in Autism and Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder as well. In light of the overwhelming evidence showing the detrimental effects of the food additive Monosodium Glutamate, it is requested that the Joint Food and Agriculture Committee/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives remove Monosodium Glutamate (and ingredients that contain MSG) from the allowable additives list of the Codex Alimentarius, and have it banned from vaccines as well."


   ·   06/03/2008 17:35

Interesting that there are more deaths in North America due to prescription drugs than to cancer or heart disease. There lies the root of a lot of our health problems. This topic is about whether there should be a ban on smoking in all motor vehicles. I don't see any mention of children and I don't see the obsession of people with smokers compared to all the other, far more serious problems we have to deal with. It is not a moral issue at all. It is a personal issue and therefore what people do that is legal, in their own 'space' is completely down to them and is none of anyone elses business.


   ·   06/03/2008 17:43

Despite Kevin's diatribe on aerodynamics and physics I can assure him from first hand experience that the effect of secondary smoke on a back seat non-smoking passenger is suffocating. The child is relying on adults like him to protect him/her and look at what's happening. Some people just do not care for the rights of others.

   ·   06/03/2008 18:26

Anon wrote; "Yes, the instance of fetal deformities may increase with the use of patches but it is also the case that smoking while pregnant harms the fetal development." I would like to respectfully submit; being born with a low birth weight hardly compares to the horrors of being born with no limbs or half a face and no eye lids. Which are the common effects being discussed in relation to smoking patches being worn during pregnancy. The statistical numbers are an increase of 2.0-2.5 or in popular media terms 200 to 250% increased risk, compared to the birth weight studies in the .1-.3 ranges. The associations to SIDS are equally insignificant possibilities, which are also found in the low decimal ranges. In a recent report by the SIDS Foundation the very successful; back to sleep program saw a decrease of SIDS mortalities in the 70% range among those who were aware of it. Unfortunately anti smoker advocacy is deflating the message, in trying to associate smoke as a significant risk factor, which it never was, otherwise the number of children saved could very likely be much higher.


   ·   06/03/2008 21:27

Anon2, Who said ASH were an authority. ASH called for a ban. It would be up to the government (authority) to implement such a ban if necessary as was the case with the smoking ban in the workplace.


   ·   06/03/2008 21:32

Anonymous, Are you suggesting that we decide wether or not to support such a ban without considering the "rights and wrongs along with moral points of view"?


   ·   06/03/2008 21:41

Kevin, What has MSG, monosodium glutamate (C5H8NNaO4) which incidently occurs naturally in tomatoes, Parmesan cheese, and seaweed got to do with smoking in cars.

   ·   06/03/2008 22:12

Wilt said; "Despite Kevin's diatribe on aerodynamics and physics I can assure him from first hand experience that the effect of secondary smoke on a back seat non-smoking passenger is suffocating." It's amusing that first hand with experience would never have cleaned the car windows or opened a window when your eyes were affected by the smoke and realized almost instant relief. A Gossip with no experience, would never have asked someone in the back seat numerous times if the smoke bothers them only to be told numerous times not at all or that they were not aware you were smoking. First hand gossip would describe the situation as suffocating, without mentioning the eye irritation which is the first thing you would notice. Cleaning the sediment off the windows would tend to demonstrate the concentration is far from equally distributed and far from extreme in the back compared to the front which would in sum and total, tend to confirm aerodynamic principles are well beyond the credibility of your gossip principles.


   ·   07/03/2008 02:52

Celiac disease - the moderators removed the information I posted, so my post doesn't make much sense. Is there something wrong with stating someting "graphically"? Would you prefer more vague terminology? Flattened villi is exactly what it's about - find a doctor who will say that in two words, that's not accurate. The villi are flattened and unable to perform their function. More and more people are being found to have celiac disease, and they think it's because more and more hydrolized vegetable protein is being used in the food chain, among other things. No doubt every human alive can develop celiac disease if they're stuffed with enough gluten over time. The best diet for all of us is more of a hunter-gatherer style, with seeds, nuts, roots, berries, and plants. Some fish and meat, not too much dairy. We can live without grains like wheat and instead have buckwheat, amaranth, quinoa and the like. I know ALL ABOUT detecting celiac disease, since I thought I had it myself, and I have family members who have it. I've read tons of literature on it. You most certainly can be born with a sensitivity. What do you think allergies are about? Some people have a genetic predisposition to certain kinds of diseases. DNA testing and gene science is proving that to be more the case all the time. Some people are more susceptible to certain diseases than others - and if you put them in the way of acquiring that disease, that is, if they're involved in the right conditions for the disease to develop. You dont' have celiac disease it if you never have grain products - it's not acquired. IE, Tarzan wouldn't have had celiac disease even if both his parents had it. It's a disease of civilization - don't eat refined grains and you won't acquire the disease. You may always be susceptible, but it doesn't mean you have to get it. There is a difference.


   ·   07/03/2008 02:55

Kevin, where are you getting your information from, particularly about SIDS and low birth weight, and birth deformities? What is your authority - because it sounds pretty fishy to me. Unfortunately, the moderators don't want cut and pasted material, or URLS to be posted - but how on earth is an argument to be supported, if you cannot cite your sources? If you can't, then anyone can post whatever info he likes, and claim that it's true. If you want a good discussion forum, that has to be recognized.


   ·   07/03/2008 07:14

I find it just amazing how Annie can say that this is only a personal issue, and not a moral issue. What other safety issues for children do you think are unimportant, and only a "personal" issue, Annie? How about making sure that your children eat properly, would that be a personal issue, or a moral issue? What about protecting them from toxic fumes in the house say from paint and solvents - would that be a personal issue or a moral issue? Why would the protection of children in ANY way be merely a "personal" issue? At what point do you suggest someone should step in and protect the children? Addicts - they're the same the world over.

   ·   07/03/2008 09:57

Leonine, another outdated medical approach. Coeliac sprue is not a "disease" any more than hypothyroidism is a "disease". It is is a condition which must be managed. As so very clearly explained by Alison. More waffle however from Kevin, this time about MSG rather than plane trains and automobiles. I agree with Wit their tho - the effect of secondary smoke on a back seat non-smoking passenger IS suffocating, this I know for a FACT as do so many children who were subject to it and anyone claiming eye irritation to bge noticeable first eithetr hasn't a clue (obviously) what they are talking about or are talking, frankly, a load of crap. Children, being human, have human rights also. Kevin however clearly has no notion of the kind of feotal deformities that can occur as a result of smoking while pregnant nor does he seem to know the effect of being underweight on a newborn. Why don't you research that instead of the msg waffle. But what on earth have cleaning car windows to do with it - or is that just more irrelevant waffle. As for opening the window - is a young child supposed to reach in from the back and doww the side of a door in the front to open the window? Talk about stupidiy. And do you think parents ignorant or uncaring enough to smoke with their children in the car are going to ask if the smoke bothers. if that worried them so much they wouldn't be smoking.

   ·   07/03/2008 11:59

Leonine, for somneone who has read all about coeliac sprue, you seem to know remarkably little about it. More and more people are being found to have celiac sprue, becuase the rate of DETECTION is higher NOT becuase the instance is higher. Medical science has advaced and detection rates for many conditions have astly improved. So if you mean 'they' as in the medical profession then you are quite wrong. "No doubt every human alive can develop celiac disease if they're stuffed with enough gluten over time". What complete and utter rubbish. As explained before, you either have it or you don't. You don't develop it. Of course if you don't eat gluten, you will never show any symptoms - just like Tarzan. Indeed The best diet for all of us is one with seeds, nuts, roots, berries, and plants. Some fish and meat, enough dairy to fulfill your calcium requirements and healthy grains such as the ones you mention. But not every needs to avoid wheat. As also explained, a sensitivity - acquired by exposure is NOT the same as an allergy - which in the case of shellfish and peanuts can be fatal. Nor is it the same as a plain ol' dislike. So again, you DON'T "acquire coeliac sprue the way you might acquire and sensitivity or have a dislike.


   ·   07/03/2008 13:42

Now Kevin is an expert on how smoke effects me! At least he inadvertantly finds himself admitting that the filth on the windows is caused by smoking. Would his overactive imagination now see that some of this filth gets into lungs. Opening windows does not give instant relief to eyes iritated by smoke. "A gossip with no experience", "first hand gossip". What are you talking about? Do you invent a new meaningless term for each person who disagrees with you? Anyone endeavouring to glean anything from this forum would be advised to discount your pointless waffle.

   ·   07/03/2008 13:53

So if I am to understand this correctly Anon and Wilt feel they were raised by abusive parents, who should be convicted for their crimes? Is there a statute of limitations at play here? Why haven't either of you had them arrested? Surely the current laws could suffice in putting away these inhuman deviants. Facing your abusers and participating in their conviction could help put the emotional scaring behind, so you can go on to be productive and happy rather than passing on their abuse to your own offspring. At least that is what I have heard from the experts. Rat them out, it will make you feel so much better.


   ·   07/03/2008 17:28

Anonymous, your posts are identifiable by the use of "what complete and utter rubbish". It's like a tag. Celiac disease is BOTH inherited, and it is caused by environmental issues, such as diet. Celiac disease is a digestive disorder that is triggered, triggered by the protein gluten, found in grains. It causes a variety of gastrointestinal problems, leading to poor absorption of nutrients, which causes a variety of health problems. A normal, healthy life can be followed if one does not eat gluten products. I know very well that the incidence has become higher due to detection methods, but it is ALSO because we are more and more exposed to the gluten in the food chain, which appears in innocuous looking items like salad dressing. This has nothing to do with smoking.

   ·   07/03/2008 18:59

The most frequent effect of smoking is dependency hands down, most believe if you smoke regularly the frequency is 100% many other effects are calculated to occur in smokers although to a much lesser frequency some develop the other effects according to their calculated frequency rates among those exposed. The majority exposed to regular smoking through a lifetime, do not develop them at all. Among all the effects believed to be caused by smoking by demonstrating levels of associated risk, none of them has been demonstrated to ever occur in the absence of dependency. In drawing a theory that second hand smoke could cause the same secondary effects by much less exposure to the smoke, further causing harm beyond a persons ability to purge those effects which is also not proven here. All factors need to be measured and considered. In expressing risks we are stating a belief; a named effect could be occurring in a population at a specified rate or frequency among those exposed to second hand smoke. The risks such as we hear constantly "increasing your risk by 30%" etc, what is expressed is an increased frequency. Starting at a point of balance said to be one, which has eliminated all other factors. After calculations we end up with 1.3 or; what is deceptively and irresponsibly referred to in media reports, as a personal increased risk of 30% which has obviously had its effects in promoting absolutely unnecessary fears. If the starting point excluded the dependency factor which could be equal to the balance point or 100% the increase of .3 is not credible or even possible. because the final result would now demonstrate a 70% decreased chance of any risk. None of those associated risks to non smokers can exist without first proving they occur in smokers who are not dependent. Naturally; in this sense, this should be the first warning sign someone who does not smoke is at risk. In the same way a measure of cotinine in the blood, can be an indicator someone smokes. With no dependency noted, we have to assume the exposure rates are below a level they could have any effect of dependency, therefore they must also be below a level they could cause the other less likely effects either. If you would like to debate this fine, but please refrain from the consistent and, what appears to be quite childish pick and choose snipes attacking the messenger, because you haven't the maturity or the courage to deal with what I am proposing. All the nonsensical twisting of facts does not make them less credible you only make yourself less credible.


   ·   07/03/2008 21:45

Kevin, You have reached a new low. You now take it upon yourself to call the parents of posters child abusers and inhuman deviants. Beware, smokers, see what can happen to your brains! Now if this is an effect of smoking - what about smoking and driving.

   ·   10/03/2008 09:14

Kevin, How could anyone be convisted for theoir crimes when smokign was not illegal - somethign the proposed ban would change. The stayture of limitation on any crime is 25 years - but as we are not talkign about a crime, then it doesn't apply, and nor does arresting. Current laws dpo not apply to past crimes. I'm quite productive and perfectly happy thank you - and that, along with education may be thre reason why I haven't passed the abuse of enforced passive smoking onto my own offspring or anyone elses.


   ·   10/03/2008 13:19

Kevin (XUX68460) Posted: 07/03/2008 18:59, Your quote, the final sentence of the above-mentioned post, "All the nonsensical twisting of facts does not make them less credible you only make yourself less credible", so aptly applies to you and your ridiculous waffle. I believe the administrators should now close the forum down as it is no longer relevent because of the deviations of Kevin and some others.

   ·   10/03/2008 16:17

Wilt Your'e getting confused again. "You have reached a new low. You now take it upon yourself to call the parents of posters child abusers and inhuman deviants" It was not me who made those accusations. Read the posts the statements were made by those who feel they were abused as children due to exposures to second hand smoke. If any child is being abused crying for more legislation which will only deflate the power of existing regulations is counter productive. If abuse is happening when ever you see it it becomes your responsibility to report it lest you are accused of allowing a child to be abused. BTW I like loads of butter and maple syrup on my waffles. try it you might find waffles are not as bad as you were taught to believe

   ·   10/03/2008 16:41

Kevin - who is 'Wilt'?


   ·   10/03/2008 20:09

Kevin (XUX68460) You should read your post of: 07/03/2008 13:53 in which you say; "So if I am to understand this correctly Anon and Wilt feel they were raised by abusive parents, who should be convicted for their crimes?" It now seems your wild ramblings are forgotten as soon as posted. Smoking in vehicles is a bad idea and when people are considerate of others there is no need for legislation. It is when addicts think only of themselves that they feel the need to indulge in places where their habit is at the very least a nuisance to others, or worse a danger to health and safety.


   ·   10/03/2008 20:18

Anonymous, I think he uses Wilt as a derogatory form of Witofire. He's totally lost the plot! While we here in Ireland welcome contributions from around the world I cannot help being suspicious of the motives of someone like Kevin who attacks the legitimate opinions of others so vehemently when he does not even live in this country and therefore would not be effected by any legislation here. Who are his benefactors?

   ·   11/03/2008 11:14

Perhaps if you took the time to understand where all the cash [Billions of dollars], came from to promote and train smoking bans internationally, you would not be asking who is funding my blog entries which are free. The old knee jerk reaction claiming it must be a Tobacco industry funding thing is laughable The tobacco industry is making huge profits growing every day since the anti smoker scam went into business. Tobacco Control has never done any thing to hurt the Tobacco industry. Regardless of the impression you might have. Your little group of crusaders attack smokers instead. It is more correct to say anti smokers are shills to big tobacco than it could ever be seen as a promotion by anyone else. If you buy into the idea smoking causes every serious health problem on the planet, and later discover your boss poisoned you at work by unsafe exposures to toxins in the workplace. how will you ever prove it in court. Can you afford to deal with; medical treatments, being off work, and a huge lawsuit arguing the fine details separating smoke damages from those caused by asbestos for instance, all at the same time?


   ·   11/03/2008 11:16

Wit/Anonymous, Kevin is so far in front of you people that it is almost sad. I will give you a gentle helping hand. Read some Tom Sharpe satire and you might start to catch up, it might not be a bad idea if you were to extend your horizons anyway.

   ·   11/03/2008 11:32

ExPat, I am perfectly aware of the Tom Sharpe humour. However substatuting one name for a fictional character from a book read mainly by teenage boys, is simply substituting humour for childishness. Kevin smoking has been banned in the workplace for many years so my employer exposing me to toxins is a moot point. If a person is genuinely ill, regardless of the cause then medical treatments will either be paid for by their health insurer or (heaven help them) the public health system and their being off work will be paid for by either their employer or the social wefare system. Surely you don't need me to explain this to you. As for separating smoke damages from those caused by asbestos - the Irish medicla and legal system has already been through this - but as I said, seeing as smoking is banned in the workplace it's an irrelevancy.


   ·   11/03/2008 12:47

Ex-Pat, If Kevin is using Tom Sharpe satire (which I doubt) as a model for his posts here he should say so. It is dishonest to continue otherwise. Your attempt to categorise those who disagree with your buddy as "you people" is what is really sad. How could you possibly form an opinion of my horizons from my postings? Offer something constructive to this debate or stop vilifying "us people". People should not smoke in confined spaces where it is a nuisance to others. We have accepted smoking bans in all workplaces (almost) and public transport etc. and non-smokers are for the most part happy with this.


   ·   11/03/2008 13:25

Yes Kevin is of course, right on the nail. Its just amazing and frightening how sheep like some people can be.


   ·   11/03/2008 15:12

Kevin, I am not amember of any crusade. I am a member of the public who was asked if I would support a ban on smoking in all motor vehicles (in Ireland). My position is that there would be no need for a ban if people would not smoke where it causes problems to others. Ex-Pat says you are so far in front of "us people" that it is almost sad. Why don't you keep going - we're fed up of your paranoia and insulting drivel. Get it into your head that I have nothing against smokers as long as they do not infringe on my right, and the rights of thers, to breathe clean air. You and Ex-Pat should learn to differentiate between Tom Sharpe satire and reality - then your posts would have some relevance to the issue at hand. In my immediate circle of friends no one allows smoking in cars or in our homes. It's easy once you have the will to do the right thing!


   ·   11/03/2008 15:33

i personally think it is a brilliant idea because 80% of the smoke goes into the atmosphere whilst the other 20% is inhaled by the smoker if there is other people in the car then they are going to recieve as much of the smoke if not more!but really its not going to work,its the same with the mobile phones. i stil see plenty of people using mobiles in their cars!so basically i think it is a good idea but don't think it will be to affective!


   ·   11/03/2008 16:14

Wit, You dish out insults well enough yourself so you have to be 'man' enough to take them especially when you were once a smoker yourself and have now got the audacity to attempt to take the high moral ground. My last post was cut because it made reference to the instigation of the smoking ban by a Minister for Health when said same Minister should have been taking care of health in Ireland instead of trying to distract the public from the real health issues. Obviously he was very successful as there are so many of you that fell for it. I wouldn't be too happy about it though if I was a victim of misdiagnosis by our so called health system. What issues are most important in society? Smoking (anywhere) is way down the list of health concerns for anyone who is serious about health reforms. If you watch TV you will have seen the ad that tells us that 1/4 of all our cancers in Ireland are breast and bowel (neither attributed to smoking). Think about it.


   ·   11/03/2008 18:17

Alison, I felt entitled to retaliate when Kevin insinuated I was raised by abusive parents, who should be convicted for their crimes, and inhuman deviants. All of us who hate smoking are said to be sheep by you, yet you seem to follow the disjointed ramblings of Kevin who cannot even follow his own train of thought. Smokers who denigrate our health system should give up smoking three packs per week and that would give them ample VHI cover for a couple. Imagine how that would free up our overburdened health system. Much better than mouthing off about it, eh! For you to suggest that former smokers should not have an opinion is surely unfair. Maybe we have experienced the best, and worst, of both worlds! I will always maintain that smokers should not infringe on the rights of others.

   ·   11/03/2008 20:12

OK Witofire; One point with no malice and no insult. You stated "I felt entitled to retaliate when Kevin insinuated I was raised by abusive parents, who should be convicted for their crimes," Could you think about that point, If you are comfortable with smoking bans where children are present and agree with the statements made by ASH in promoting them, are you not saying precisely that, about any parent who smokes? If you use your own personal experience to promote the bans you have to realize it is you who are speaking against your parents not me. Can you follow what I am saying here. I wish your parents all the best. As with most parents I am sure they did their best and would never hurt their own child. Just because someone smokes does not make them less than you or me. I have no reason to speak ill of people I have never met, That was not what I stated, please go back and re-examine what I did say. The name thing? nothing serious, just teasing you. Anon should stop and think about this one; Tobacco smoke is by far, one of the lowest toxic risks you will ever face in the workplace. If you get sick because you are exposed to ammonia fumes as a normal part of your workday. For the next 20 years Compensation boards and insurance companies will now have the right to refuse your claim, by suggesting you were likely exposed to tobacco smoke and if you agree and believe it was also job related, you can not prove it happened at work or in the pub 10 years ago. Your siding with a protective policy which will not work to your advantage or anyone else's who works for a living. Your cheering for the hawks.


   ·   11/03/2008 20:49

Wit, Your statement: "It's easy once you have the will to do the right thing!" left me with an uncomfortable feeling. I believe you mean "the right thing according to Wit". My ideas of "the right thing" are different to yours. I do not like having you and your ASH friends forcing your Cromwellian ideas down my throat even if you consider this to be a "right thing". My car and my house are my property and once you infringe on my property rights then do not expect me to respect your's. Think long and hard about the road you're going down.


   ·   11/03/2008 21:23

Wit, You don't have to be a smoker. I'm not a smoker but I still disagree with bringing in a smoking ban in public houses and in peoples own personal cars. As I said, if you want to worry about your health and our health system then the smoking issue is way down the line. There are FAR MORE pressing issues to be dealt with before we start being consumed by the smoking issue. Its just another distraction to keep the heat off the main issues that are being highlighted every day. Whilst people like you get carried away about the smoking issues, other people are dying from mis diagnosis of illnesses that are not related to smoking in any way. Does that make sense to you Wit?


   ·   12/03/2008 08:58

I smoke and have VHI cover. What's your point wit? Do you think VHI don't provide cover to smokers? Oh how wrong you are.

   ·   12/03/2008 13:46

Kia said; "i personally think it is a brilliant idea because 80% of the smoke goes into the atmosphere whilst the other 20% is inhaled by the smoker if there is other people in the car then they are going to receive as much of the smoke if not more" The amount of smoke actually inhaled has to be considered when understanding the overall effect. If a smoker only smokes 15 or less cigarettes a day the lifetime effect according to Sir Richard Doll's fifty year study of doctors who smoke, would be very little if any effect detectable in the vast majority of cases. The amount of second hand smoke you actually inhale in the most extreme situations, is very little in comparison to a single draw from a cigarette. You have to keep in mind the amount of air which dilutes the smoke in addition to how little it is actually possible to inhale. Your lungs are like ballons which hold more air than actually moves in and out of them. They areheld inflated by a valve you use subconsciously. When drinking water and it goes down the wrong way, you choke when you inadvertently open the valve causing you to choke ,which is the body's way of removing the water from your airway. What you inhale in a breath is about a liter there are a thousand liters in a cubic meter of air and two to six thousand in the average car. if you inhale six times a minute for and hour you inhale 360 liters per hour which sounds like a lot, however in that air, there are less than ten millionths of a gram of actual particulate matter, and the supposed toxic ingredients are measured in the range of one thousands to one billionths of what you actually inhaled. Do you seriously believe it comes any where close to what a smoker inhales? If you were exposed at the highest level of a smoky car every day of your lifetime or for 100 years, it would not amount to a single days smoking at 15 per day. The ASH crowd don't like dealing in real numbers they create their own, by projections of estimations of statistical snapshots. If you can believe your body can not deal with what you inhale and it may cause you great risk. I would suggest never toasting marshmallows at a campfire with the kids which could give you a heart attack in seconds by all acounts, thinking about the levels in wood smoke of the same chemical ingredients, only millions of times more concentrated. The main chemical they point to which is different in cigarette smoke would be nicotine which after it is burned, transforms to Nicotinic acid also known as Niacin or vitamin B3 Which after processing in the body forms a vital component without which none of us would exist, the "N" in DNA. There is, if anyone cares to look, a huge amount of ASH connected planning documentation out there which shows how they developed the second hand delusion. Most who dont smoke or dont like the smell dont recognize the second hand emperor has no clothes because it is a lie which enhances their comfort.


   ·   12/03/2008 14:59

kevin, i can see ur very big into ur statistics but to honest i got lost after the hole choking on water!im sure there was a valid point to that whole rig morole you mentioned but to be honest i don't care if i inhale more, the same or less smoke than the smoker,i don't want to inhale ANY full stop!why should i get any of that smoke when i dont have that disgusting filthy habit!!i cant stand been in a car when somebody is smoking an this is no exageration but i have to literally stick my head out the window till they finish!an to be honest id rather do that than sit there in the smoke!!so you might know all these fancy statistics but lets go back to basics,u inhale passive smoke from smokers around u!!!


   ·   12/03/2008 22:04

Kia, That is complete rubbish. You don't inhale anything that is damaging to you if you are in the company of smokers. That is the point you keep missing. It is a complete myth that passive smoking is dangerous. Yes, it is not very pleasant to be in a very smoky atmosphere with no ventilation because it makes your eyes run but it does not do you any more harm that being out in the open air breathing in the crap that is poured out from industrial plants, car exhausts etc. By all means be anti smoking but do so with real facts and information and not just because you have been brainwashed by Ash and pro-Ash sheep.

   ·   12/03/2008 23:32

Ah but there lays the difference Kia you mind so you can choose not to enter. A bar with a sign on the door is similar. You can drive past me on the highway and never know if I am smoking or not and everyone is content. I might think women pumping toxins into their lips or backsides is disgusting behavior too, but I would not be supporting a law to ban something which is none of my business. Especially if those laws are based on lies and exaggeration beyond belief. If the smoke where as dangerous as they make out, it wouldn't take billions of dollars to find the proof and ten years of ever growing daily reminders everywhere you turn, we wouldn't need to be lied to and exaggerations woukld not be necessary, we would know what was most smokers would not need to be forced by petty laws to quit. They likely wouldn't have started. If a tobacco warehouse burned down, the firefighters would not evacuate the neighborhood as they do when plastic is burning or ammonia is leaking. They wouldn't need respirators and airtight suits, They would see it as we all do; just another fire and no reason exists for anyone to believe any significant harm is done to the neighbors by the smoke. When the world trade center burned down they knew the levels of Dioxin and asbestos in the air where well above known safe levels they didn't evacuate the city because they knew the situation was only temporary and people have an ability to heal after short term exposures with no lasting effects. Tobacco smoke works the same way, regardless of what you may have heard. Second hand smoke pleese give me a break it is a convenient lie which suits your needs today, however it is only one of many ways the government is dealing with an unfunded liability, in countries with aging populations. The elderly paid more than their fair share of taxes their entire lives, while politicians wasted it on election promises buying votes and running up huge deficits while growing magnificent adorned but absolutely wasteful bureaucracys. Today we get propaganda in place of reliable health information and huge tax dollars which should be spent in hospitals treating people, are going to the mercenaries who sell the lies and to calculator operators calling themselves professionals, who grow even bigger lies. You can sit back and accept the nonsense because it suits you personal preferences today but don't count on those you turn your back on to be in your corner when you need them for support, when in the near future the Gov unveils plans your not likely going to find, so comfortable to live with. Now the time to pay the piper has arrived and they are setting the mood by getting us fighting among ourselves. Setting the table for how they will run away from their own responsibilities. In place of dealing with it. Speaking frankly; Every day I see people in the papers and online defaming anyone who smokes as "disgusting" yet in real life, I have yet to meet anyone, who is legitimately afraid of tobacco smoke. If I blew smoke in your face and you tried to have me arrested for attempted murder, it would be more likely you than me, they would haul away, to a nice rubber room.


   ·   13/03/2008 11:27

wel alison the point you are missing is that i dont want to inhale any smoke whether its harmful or just unpleasent! and i do find my throat to be quite sore after been around people who are smoking and find it harder to breath and their is a disgusting smell of my clothes so its more than jus makes my eyes run!so why should i suffer from somebody elses filthy habit!!

   ·   13/03/2008 11:28

Ah yes, Kevin but if I drive past you on the motorway and you are smokign with childrne inthe car - it is not just your own business, becuase child welfare is not only the concern of parents. Witha fire the situation is temporary but with smoking parents it is mnot so unless they quit. "in the near future the Gov unveils plans your not likely going to find, so comfortable to live with" - and what little piece of conspiracy theory is this now Kevin? "If I blew smoke in your face (presumably against my will) and you tried to have me arrested for attempted murder" - but thius is very silly Kevin becuase it is not murder but wilfull health damage. As for your reference to "a nice rubber room" - either grow up or quit being derogatory.


   ·   13/03/2008 12:09

well said anonymous,kevin you tend to exagerate slightly i wouldn't call it murder if you blew smoke in my face and nowhere does it say if you recieve passive smoke once you will die...its constantly been subject to it that does the damage. an yes it is filthy, i don't see anything nice about inhaling tar and 4000 other chemicals into your body never mind the smell!oh an woman who "pump toxins in their lips or backsides" won't leave a horrible smell on your clothes or give u a sore throat!


   ·   13/03/2008 12:36

I take your point Kia but yet again, you have a choice. Don't travel in a car with a smoker!

   ·   13/03/2008 13:46

With regard to adult passengers - I agree Alison but you don't have much choice if you are a child in a car with parents who smoke.


   ·   13/03/2008 14:20

easier said dan done im afraid seen as the majority of my friends smoke and some of my family but thankfully i have my own car also and it is 100% smoke free,i wudn care if the pope was in the car with me, i will let no1 smoke in my car!

   ·   13/03/2008 14:38

Kia; Are you seriously going to use an "I don't understand what your saying" So it is foolishness "but you must understand what I am saying" argument? Nope doesn't get my sympathies. You agree a tobacco factory burning is not a cause for concern, yet walking past someone smoking is more than just dangerous in your opinion, it is insulting to you. Perhaps your perfume or deodorant insults me. Civility prevents me from saying so to your face much less stating child abuse if you expose your child to it. Even that reality is changing soon. With a list of deadly toxins which would put cigarette smoke to shame in the argument; Tobacco is organic a nice word when buying food. Perfume is entirely comprised of manufactured chemicals which require respirators to handle. So now I can say I don't understand what your saying please clarify your babble. And we could do the same for weeks on end when clearly some people here are quite convinced nothing beyond their opinion makes any sense, or should be heard at all. Just like Santa Clause cigarette smoke is a comfortable lie. It just suits your self important needs, lets not try to make more of it than what reality can bear.


   ·   13/03/2008 15:01

Kevin, What kind of convoluted nonsense is the following quote from your post? Did you think it would justify your previous insulting remarks? Not a hope! "...If you are comfortable with smoking bans where children are present and agree with the statements made by ASH in promoting them, are you not saying precisely that, about any parent who smokes?" I have nothing to do with ASH. I just detest smoking not smokers as long as they do not interfere with others.


   ·   13/03/2008 15:11

Ex-Pat, Your car and you house may be your property but you property rights also carry obligations. People who shout most about rights often mean their own rights to the exclusion of the rights of others. You do not have property rights over the air that I breathe or the safety that I am entitled to on the public road. I wonder if you have ever owned a firearm. I dread to think of those who say, "It's my car and I can do what I like with it" owning a firearm.

   ·   13/03/2008 15:16

The issue Kevin is not walking past someone smoking - it is smoking in cars where children are present. If I do not like to inhale your smoke, I simply decide not to walk with you while you smoke. Children however to do not have the choice in cars. The difference of curse wiht deodorant or perfume is that I don't use either because I am addicted to them and others cannot passive smoke either one. "Tobacco is organic a nice word when buying food" - that series of words makes no sense. What are you trying to say? Respirators, rather like support machines are used in hospitals when someone cannot breathe for themselves. Exaggeration lends nothing to your argument.


   ·   13/03/2008 15:27

Alison, Your disagreement about the smoking ban in public houses is irrelevant here - the ban is in force and here to stay! I respect your opinion about the proposed ban in all motor vehicles. I don't worry about my health - I care about it. Your suggestion that nothing should be done while there are more pressing issues to be dealt with is a great excuse to do nothing about anything. I don't get "carried away about the smoking issues". I just detest having to put up with the consequences of other peoples' smoking. Does that make sense to you?

   ·   14/03/2008 00:21

"Second hand smoking" is comical use of a "poor me" "I am a bigger victim than you are" mindset. Have any of you second hand smokers learned how to blow smoke rings yet? Grow up and stop talking ridiculous nonsense Protect your own children and keep you nose out of other peoples affairs, it's as simple as that. If you don't want "your air" polluted prove you own it, label it and keep it out of my way. I do agree you have every right and I would encourage that right, you can play in the roadway anytime you like and I won't stop you.

   ·   14/03/2008 10:25

If your kids are in your car breathing in your smoke, it IS their air you are pulluting. What is all this waffle about playing in a roadway?


   ·   14/03/2008 10:48

And where (pray tell) are you having to put up with others people's smoke now Witless ire....


   ·   14/03/2008 14:41

I don't and never have smoked, but I completely agree with Kevins last point here. The anti-smoking brigade want to make me take up smoking just to pss them off, they're such a bunch of whinging self-righteous knobs.

   ·   14/03/2008 17:20

ASH exhibits a great love of themselves as a moral authority. Judges of what may be considered normal, yet they display a propensity toward cowardice, Not because they fear a little harmless smoke and not even because they fear discussions in a fair and open forum which is not first polluted by propaganda, fear mongering, and exaggerations beyond all levels of credibility. They are cowards because they have always attacked the little guy, without the courage to fight an industry as they claim is their target, who can fight back in a fair fight on leveled ground.


   ·   14/03/2008 18:13

Kevin, The frivolous content of your posts make a joke out of your contribution to this whole debate. But your statement, "keep your nose out of other peoples affairs, it's as simple as that" is a bit rich coming from someone living in Canada who would not be effected by this proposed ban. I continue to suspect your motives in posting to this forum. Those who hang on your every word should ponder this!


   ·   14/03/2008 18:19

Papa, "The anti-smoking brigade want to make me take up smoking just to pss them off". Read what you just posted! Does it makes sense to you? If you ain't smoking what are you on?


   ·   16/03/2008 06:38

Because some of the most aggressive comments here came from posters outside our jurisdiction (Canada - one can only wonder at their motives) I decided to look up ASH in Canada. I found the following article quite enlightening. Maybe it will prompt out alien posters to enlighten us as to their thus far hidden agenda! ASH NEWS RELEASE Tuesday, March 25, 2003 ASH DEMANDS THAT TOBACCO COMPANIES DISCLOSE THEIR PROVINCIAL LOBBYISTS Edmonton - ASH is delivering registered letters to the CEOs of Canada's largest tobacco companies urging them to reveal their provincial lobbyists following a CBC television investigation into the sudden demise of proposed tobacco legislation last fall. The story revealed that the tobacco lobby was working secretly behind the scenes to derail a tough tobacco bill that was championed by health minister Gary Mar. The CBC reported that Premier Klein's former executive assistant and chief of staff, Rod Love, has been working as a consultant for Canada's largest tobacco company, Imperial Tobacco. The CBC also reported that Hal Danchilla, a former communications director for the Alberta government, has been working on behalf of cigar retailers in the province. "The tobacco companies have a long track record of working deviously behind the scenes at the highest levels of power to undermine public health" said Dr. Roger Hodkinson, honorary chairman. "We demand that these companies reveal all of their provincial lobbyists if they are truly committed to reforming their image as corporate pariahs" he added. "The public deserves to know who is working on behalf of tobacco companies and their connections to key policy makers within the Alberta government". In the CBC investigation, Dave Laundy, the western vice-president for the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council admitted that the tobacco industry "employs people in every provincial capital to keep them abreast of what's going on in provincial government" and to collect "political intelligence". "Why does the Alberta government feel the need to protect an out-of-province industry whose products kill 3,400 Albertans annually?" Hodkinson asked. "Instead, the government should be protecting Alberta youth from the predatory marketing practices of the tobacco industry" he added. "Resident Alberta industries like energy and agriculture are subject to far more provincial regulation than the tobacco companies" Hodkinson stated. "This deadly double standard requires a full explanation". Alberta is the only province without any legislation to control tobacco sales and marketing. Alberta has no province-wide restrictions on smoking in public establishments and workplaces, apart from government offices. Eight provinces, excluding Alberta and New Brunswick, have banned smoking in various workplaces and public establishments. The Premier's Advisory Council on Health recommended that the Alberta government adopt strong new tobacco laws to improve the health of Albertans and to reduce demands on the health care system. The government promised on repeated occasions to adopt all of the recommendations of the Mazankowski report. However at this time, provincial tobacco legislation appears to be nowhere on the horizon.


   ·   16/03/2008 10:11

the fundamental flaw with all off the arguments on this thread is as follows - You suggest that people should not be allowed to smoke in cars as they are polluting the air inside. Do you walk everywhere or do you ignore your own sins while vocally pointing out others? However as a person who lives in a small town and walks the streets every day you hypocritical people are posioning my air with carbon dioxide carbon monoxide and many other dangerous by products from the burning of fossil fuels Lets get real here


   ·   17/03/2008 18:39


   ·   17/03/2008 21:19

In response to the lack of confidence exhibited by the medical community in their own science. Falling instead to a campaign of junk science, personal abuse and propaganda. I have to wonder if smoking was ever hazardous to anyone. When we see the Tobacco Industry's stock values have tripled since we started blaming smokers for every rain drop. Something tells me smoker abuse is more closely related to the protections of industry, who are all well served and protected from blame, in all that they do to us when we are all responsible for all the ills that befall us. Its Funny no one seemed to mind when Philip Morris simply doubled the smoker settlements and passed them along to consumers, profiting a tidy 150 Billion in the process. Similarly every cigarette tax is accompanied by an increase in the manufacturers share. The Industry is no longer the problem, targeted by anti smoking groups.

   ·   18/03/2008 18:39

Wit you might notice if you look a little closer, I am not in the habit of cheering for the Tobacco industry or even for smoking for that matter, so your attempt at "attack the integrity of the messenger" which is the first response of all anti smoker advocates, does not fit well here, The evidence seems to indicate by following the money and donations of Big tobacco's other businesses, Kraft foods for instance, Public Health and TC are the only legitimate, directly funded front groups for big tobacco. Their efforts in turning anti smoking into anti smoker Via the legend of second hand smoke, was the best thing that could of ever happened to the tobacco industry considering the faltering position they were in, a mere 8 years ago. The tobacco industry have now successfully shifted the burden and the blame to smokers and made a tidy profit in the process, while making absolute asses of their one time opponents the so called "professionals" in Public health. Who are no longer providing ad agency sound bites against the industry, rather focussed accusations designed to make us fight amongst ourselves. Please avoid the conspiracy stuff as your next argument. I am speaking in evaluation of the public record you can verify it yourself.


   ·   19/03/2008 17:55

Kevin, For someone who professes not to cheer for the tobacco industry you come down fairly strongly on those who oppose them and their products. You keep accusing ASH and those who would agree with a smoking ban in motor vehicles of being anti-smoker. Well the ASH Ireland site states: ASH Ireland focuses on smoke-free campaigns ASH Ireland has campaigned on many issues including: Smokefree workplaces for all Legal age of cigarette purchase raised from 16 to 18 years Detection of smuggled, contraband tobacco and prevention of illegal street sales Abolition of promotions for tobacco products Abolition of smoking in RTE television programmes Abolition of tobacco advertising in the print media Ban on smoking in cars containing children This would indicate a bias against the product rather than the smoker. What is "the legend of second hand smoke"? Surely second hand smoke is a fact!

   ·   21/03/2008 00:37

Wit; Take a look at your list. How many campaigns are anti Industry, and how many are anti people? The advertising thing is a joke ASH does enough advertising, especially with younger audiences, than two tobacco industries could ever need. Its all a scam ASH and the tobacco industries serve each other's needs. No smoking reductions have been seen anywhere bans went into force. You should note though; violence increased everywhere Bans were approved. The taxation throughout North America and a good portion of the EU only gave the black market another popular product. After decades of declines in smoking rates what do we see now? Kids smoking is on the rise, and at alarming rates.


   ·   21/03/2008 11:28

Wit, Reading your posts you are taking the exact view that Kevin is trying to explain. You say "What is "the legend of second hand smoke"? Surely second hand smoke is a fact! " Where do you get that idea? The perceived dangers of second hand smoke are just that - perceived. There are no facts. It doesn't even make sense but is it scary how many people have fallen for that one. Smoking in excess of 10-15 per day damages the smoker, nobody else. It can cause some discomfort to others but it will not cause any serious illness and there are no facts to say that it will. You have obviously been totally taken in by the Ash propaganda. Cigerette advertising was banned on RTE and the press in the 70's. Increasing the legal age to buy cigerettes did not prevent smoking. Detection of smuggled, contraband tobacco and prevention of illegal street sales has nothing whatsoever to do with Ash and is a Customs/Police issue just as smuggling and contraband of any other substance is. The whole smoking issue was a huge distraction and didn't it work a treat? Meanwhile the health service went even further down the swanny whilst people exercised themselves with the biggest evil in society ie. smoking at the expense of real issues that have yet to be tackled.


   ·   24/03/2008 21:34

Ann, You wonder where I got the idea that secondhand smoke is a fact! Well, if I got it nowhere else I may construe it from your statement, "It can cause some discomfort to others but it will not cause any serious illness and there are no facts to say that it will". I am amused that you can go on to discuss something which you state does not exist. Your ridiculous assumptions and self-deluding comments cannot alter the fact that smoking in a car is a bad idea from a health and safety standpoint and no amount of denial by the addict can alter that fact.


   ·   24/03/2008 21:38

Kevin, The list is not mine - it is ASH Ireland's. ASH Ireland is trying to help people avoid the perils of smoking. That is their agenda. What is yours? I have asked you this before. Will you tell us now?

   ·   25/03/2008 11:28

So No Kevin is blaming violence on the smoking ban? The mind boggles. Ann if you are saying that only in excess of 10-15 does damage then this is contrary to every piece of medical advice provided by medical professionals over the last 20 - 30 odd years.

   ·   25/03/2008 14:23

Wit; I don't have an agenda as you put it. I have an opinion which includes as a result of education and evaluation of the facts, two basic problems above many others, surface with ASH anti smoker agendas. First and foremost the tobacco industry is well served financially by shifting the anger people had for the industry, to punishing it's victims, by creating ""the myth of second hand smoke as a significant danger"", with slander and fear in the public. Denoting smokers almost as a non human species, which makes it fair to say anything you like about them, with no regard to who you are talking about in a real world sense. If you look at your own personal stance as a non smoker, you are promoting a significant harm exists due to second hand smoke, which will defeat your own ability to prosecute an industry which pollutes and causes you harm. If you went to court with good biological proof your employer caused you physical harm by exposing you to deadly chemicals, in defence you would be told to prove second hand smoke was not the cause of your ailments. Now that Public Health and your own government states "the proof is irrefutable" what chance do you have of prosecution of an industry polluter, for harming the public? According to ash smoking causes all smoking related diseases and second hand smoke is just as deadly. According to a University of Toronto Professor of science quoted in the press recently; "it is likely smoking causes all cancers". The exaggerations grow and scientific credibility dwindles as the offset. The public is not being protected, only the entitled financiers of large media campaigns are being protected. Do you seriously believe if everyone on the planet quit smoking today, we would not still see cancers heart attacks and the growing list of multi factorial events they gratuitously attached to their caused list?


   ·   25/03/2008 16:36

Smoking in a car lowers its resale value so is not a good idea. Smoking is also dangerous as if the fire falls off the end of the cigarette and lands on the drivers lap an accident is likely. By the way I did hear of a man being killed by a lit cigarette end. The cigarette butt was flicked out of a potato lorry in Cyprus. It landed in the eye of a man driving in the opposite direction causing him to lose control of his vehicle. The vehicle crashed killing the man. OK it was a freak accident that needed hot weather in order to get people to drive with their windows open but Sod's law is always there ready and waiting to get you. Take care, there are a lot of potato lorries in Cyprus.


   ·   25/03/2008 22:37

Wit, As I stated earlier, smoking in excess, is dangerous for the smoker, not for anyone else. Rather than get up on your high horse, you could at least tell us where you get your facts from regarding the illnesses that passive smoking causes? I don't mean insinuation, I mean, point us to the independent research that backs this up please.


   ·   25/03/2008 22:41

If the driver in Cyprus was not killed and if he later posted here the pro smoking brigade would want him banned from driving. (Shades of the lighted match in my earlier post!!!!)


   ·   26/03/2008 01:23

I have a message for all those associated with ASH Ireland.Get a real job.Stop issuing your idiotic edicts.Just think of all that money that could be used to fund what's left of the HSE if you were immediately dismissed.You stopped me smoking in pubs.Fair enough.The benefit to public health is undeniable.You stopped me smoking in my own office(which,if you read my previous posts you will realise no-one but me uses it),I still can't see the logic behind that one but I still go outside to smoke.There are warning labels plastered all over tobacco products telling us SMOKING KILLS in massive capital letters.Yet I continue to do so.Why?Because I want to.I don't have children,so no harm can come to them.The only people I allow in my car are my friends(all of them smoke),and in case you're wondering I maintain and service my car MYSELF.No-one else is involved.I welcome any coherent rebuttal.Email me at P.S. :To all the mechanically minded smokers,I have this advice.Buy a workshop manual for your car and some tools.It will save you money in the long run.For those of you who are not well versed in car maintenance,learn.It's difficult,but worth it.


   ·   26/03/2008 16:48

mytwocents, If "the benefit to public health is undeniable" is not the smoking ban in pubs already having a positive effect on public health? Why not continue the good work? With regard to your P.S. Modern cars do not lend themselves to home servicing as the equipment needed would be too costly. I too always serviced my older cars but would not dream of attempting to do so today.


   ·   26/03/2008 16:51

Ann, Insert 'second-hand smoke' in your search engine and you will soon learn that "smoking in excess, is dangerous for the smoker, not for anyone else" is an assumption that is not substantiated. I know from personal experience that second-hand smoke is a dangerous irritant to me.


   ·   26/03/2008 18:42

Kevin, I do seriously believe if everyone on the planet quit smoking today, we would not still see cancers, heart attacks and the other diseases caused by smoking. However I believe we would still see such diseases as are not caused by smoking. That seems like simple logic to me!


   ·   26/03/2008 23:14

With regard to Witofire,their "good work" is already done.We know the dangers of smoking.And have a look at Car Mechanics magazine.Fault code readers and diagnostic equipment is rather affordable these days.Certainly cheaper than paying 100 an hour plus parts every 10000 km!


   ·   28/03/2008 00:06

Wit, Your lack of logic is a bit hard to take. Smoking has been in decline for the past 20 years (except for increases after smoking bans) and you would therefore expect to see a corresponding decline in cancer and heart desease. This is not the case at all. Cancer and heart desease are still increasing in some areas and remaining fairly constant in others. Why? Maybe other causes are also at work which are not being properly researched because you and like minded have decided on the culprit already. The rate of asthma in children has increase greatly at the same time as smoking has decreased. I think that other causes also have to be looked at, far more than is being done at present.


   ·   28/03/2008 16:09

Ex-Pat, Let's hear some of your logic! Are you saying that smoking does NOT cause any disease?


   ·   28/03/2008 20:15

Smoking declined in Ireland after the smoking ban in the workplace. Signficantly, the health of workers such as bar workers improved in the period since the ban. I am prevented by the moderator of this forum from posting a link to the URLs bearing out these facts. Use "Smoking in decline in Ireland after ban" and Google to Ireland to see for yourself.


   ·   30/03/2008 05:15

i would not support the smoking ban in cars,as far as i am concerned i brought the car ,tax it pay dearly for any mechanical needs etc without any discount from the government. its just another way for them to bully us. i will continue to smoke in my car regardless. what gives anyone the right to tell an individual what he/she can or cant do within their own property. thats just taking it to far and if we are stupid enough to take what is thrown at us more the egits we are.this government are out of their trees

   ·   31/03/2008 11:50

what gives anyone the right to tell an individual what he/she can or cant do within their own property? - The LAW does Florance.


   ·   31/03/2008 12:28

So smoking has declined then??? Not according to the news it hasn't. Only last week it was reported that 50 teenagers a day were taking up the habit and that is after they banned the 10 packs. Banning something does not make it go away. When will this stupid Gov think about what they are doing before they bring in these really silly laws.


   ·   31/03/2008 14:35

florance, It is ASH Ireland, not the government, who called for the smoking ban in all vehicles. Just because you own your car does not mean you should do what you like with it without due consideration for other members of the public. If that is your attitude I hope you are never issued with a firearm.


   ·   31/03/2008 20:58

Annie, If you Googled as I suggested in a previous post you must have been very selective your reading of the results if you continue to insist that smoking is on the increase after the ban. Of course banning something does not make it go away - it regulates it. That is the job of government even when those who disagree call them stupid.


   ·   31/03/2008 23:59

A steam locomotive is a vehicle isn't it? What about a motorbike? OK what about a quad bike? Now what about a quad bike with a canopy? How about a motorbike and sidecar (enclosed type). Would it be illegal to smoke in the sidecar but not illegal on the bike? What about sports cars? Would it be illegal with the hood up but not with the hood down? There are enough daft laws already, for example it is illegal for a publican to serve a drunk but perfectly OK for a Chinese take-away to serve a 25 stone customer who really doesn't need that extra meal!


   ·   01/04/2008 00:33

Ya ash ireland may call 4 the ban but its the gov that implements it in the end true?and we all know the state of the country because of this gov.and as far as the members of the puplic being affected by me smoking in my car, this doesent make can u compare a firearm to a ciggerette, i'd like to see you try to shoot with a ciggerette,and any way i dont have any use for fire arms.i agree with annies comment.i know teenagers who buy packs of 20 ciggs and split them,which in fact works out cheaper for them to buy.

   ·   01/04/2008 11:05

Which members of the public are being affected by you smoking in your car? Any of your children are. They are members of society too.

   ·   01/04/2008 11:22

Davey it is illegal for a publican to serve a drunk person because of the immediate danger that the drunken state poses to public order. However, the reason a server does not asses a persons weight (and are not trained or expect to do so) and make a judgement call is that obesity poses no danger to said public order. If take aways were to sell only to people who needed an extra meal they really would go out of business just as a pub would if it were to sell only to the dehydrated!

Dear Homey

   ·   01/04/2008 13:40

Oh but hang on.......this thread is about a ban on smoking in ALL motor vehicles. What about those who don't have, or want, children?


   ·   01/04/2008 13:56

florance, Of course we know the state of the country - we've never had it so good in spite of what all you moaners would have us believe. A car can be a weapon too. In the hands of a careless driver it can be as deadly as a firearm. If people were more considerate of others there would be no need for those bans.


   ·   01/04/2008 15:46

Yeah, in the hands of a careless driver it can be a deadly weapon. The type of drivers that crash because someone lights a match beside them! Matches should be banned, not smoking

   ·   01/04/2008 16:27

Never had it so good Wit? waiting list of literally years to even see a consultant. House prices at 1000% what they were 20 years ago without a similar increase in salary or anything near it. Commutes of 3 to 4 hours a day over 30 and 40 miles each way, stuck in traffic. Parents who have literally no option but to rear their kids in the car. You need a reality check Wit


   ·   01/04/2008 16:49

Papa, Yes, or lighting a match unexpectedly in front of a driver would be even more of a distraction. Of course if people did not smoke while driving it would be hard to visualise the need for lighting matches in a car. My own experience has thought me that a careless driver would be one who allowed smoking in his car knowing the possible consequences. Read Davey's Post: 25/03/2008 16:36 for a deadly consequence of smoking while driving.


   ·   01/04/2008 17:19

This forum prompted me to look up the ASH Ireland site. I noticed that they stated they called for a *Ban on smoking in cars containing children*. This forum states ASH Ireland has called for a *ban on smoking in all motor vehicles*. I asked ASH by email to clarify. Their reply is as follows: "There was just one call - a ban on smoking in cars carrying children but some aspect of the media reported otherwise." Big difference! Maybe we can now be spared the comments about steam engines and quad bikes (a misnomer) etc.


   ·   01/04/2008 21:20

Anonymous, It is you who needs the reality check. 'Rear their kids in the car' - what gross exageration! People are flooding into this country to share the good life. Take out health insurance for the price of a few packs of cigarettes per week and see how fast you get your consultant. Stop moaning and make a life change. Start by giving up the filthy weed. See how quickly your pessimism turns to optimism.


   ·   01/04/2008 23:09

anonymous,get real,i dont smoke with my children in the car.therefore i am not affecting the public.and as long as iam driving ive never had an accident,and still smoke. Wit,what plannet do you live on, this country is in a shambles and sinking as long as this gov persists to be greedy.i agree with homey,the gov will start with this ban and may well inforce it to all vehicles if they get away with it.

   ·   02/04/2008 08:50

Wit, why on earth would a passenger light a match for their cigarette and then lean over a wave it in front of the drivers face? Either the driver is giving lifts to pyromaniacs or inconsiderate idiots.


   ·   02/04/2008 09:47

In fairness, if someone leans across and strikes a match in front of you while you're overtaking, it's nothing to do with smoking, it's a ban of idiots in cars. And changing a radio station or eating when driving are just as bad


   ·   02/04/2008 09:50

Just read Davey's pose, littering is already banned.


   ·   02/04/2008 11:13

Wit, Ash started out trying to propose a ban in ALL motor vehicles but because of the resistance to this idea, even from non-smokers, they changed their proposal to include children. It worked. The mention of children gets everyone up in arms and is very emotive. Its called a Strategy Wit. Ask for more than you want and you will get perhaps half of that! As for the dangers of smoking whilst driving, please don't start telling us all again about your bad driving skills. You as the driver are supposed to be able to control your vehicle at all times. To keep bringing up the posting regarding an accident, then what about the poor man who had his window rolled down whilst driving on a west of Ireland road a few years back, and was hit by a stone from the wheel of a passing lorry? The man was killed outright. Do you think that opening the windows of cars whilst driving should be banned? As for the guy in Cyprus, why would you drive around in an open top car without glasses on? Absolutely anything can get in your eye, including flies etc which would be just as dangerous.

   ·   02/04/2008 12:53

In addition to being insulting, you are being condescending. I never said I didn't have health insurance, nor did I say I was a smoker. But your remarks don't do much to help a pensioner or struggling single parent who cannot afford the higher tier of our two tier system. But regardlss, with only 16 or 17 neurologists in the country, it doesn't matter how much insurance you have, you will still have a wait. As for people flooding to this country to share the good life. Try talking to some of them - they are flooding out of their own country becuase circumstances are dire. If you think rearing kids in the car is an exaggeration, talk to some young parents who do the long long commute. In case your naeivity hasn't informed you - life change costs money - which so many caught in these traps can NOT afford. There are plenty of pessimistic non-smokers and there are plenty of smokers who are optimists.

   ·   02/04/2008 12:54

Florence, if you don't smoke in the car with your kids and the ban was in relation to smoking in the car with children, then what's the problem? The ban won't affect you. Besides, it is unenforceable


   ·   02/04/2008 13:55

Witofire will you ever get down off your high horse. You are but one drag away of being hooked again. Just one puff! And don't tell me you never get cravings now. Every person I know who quit still gets cravings (some particularly bad ones) some of whom are off the smokes over 20 years. I know of people who were off them that length of time and went back on them. This could very easily be you. Would you be so quick to insult smokers then? I think not.


   ·   02/04/2008 17:28

Anonymous Posted: 02/04/2008 08:50, So you believe people who smoke in cars are 'pyromaniacs or inconsiderate idiots'. I am not sure I agree. Annie, Pity you did not bother to tell this forum sooner about ASH's so called strategic change of proposal. Would have saved us all a lot of unnecessary nonsense. Anon2, How did I insult smokers? Was it by saying that I do not like to inhale their smoke? If your friends with the cravings came close to death from cigarette smoke their cravings may become more manageable. Anonymous, Glad you admit there are countries worse than Ireland.


   ·   03/04/2008 00:21

Wit, I am beginning to wonder if you are directly funded by ASH. Some kind of PR job perhaps. I cannot explain your extreme lack of logic and totally bigoted stance any other way.


   ·   03/04/2008 11:48

When did you insult smokers? Are you having a laugh? Check your posting history.

   ·   03/04/2008 11:53

No Wit, you are failing to read posts properly methinks - I said that people who light a match and then lean over a wave it in front of the drivers face are pyromaniacs or inconsiderate idiots. This does not include all smokers In fact I know of no other smoker who would ever do that except the passenger that was in your car.


   ·   03/04/2008 16:06

Ex-Pat, Yeah! I'm funded by ASH because you 'cannot explain my extreme lack of logic and totally bigoted stance any other way'!!! Bet that makes sense to your kind of logic. Anon2, I have nothing against smokers as long as they do not force me to inhale their toxic fumes against my will. You are the one who should check my posting history. You would have gathered that I am against the ban as stated on this forum. Anonymous, Your post about the 'pyromaniacs or inconsiderate idiots' is a bit extreme to say the least though someone who smokes in a car without the permission of the other occupants would surely be classified as inconsiderate. In the light of recent information this whole discussion is somewhat irrelevant as we were asked to vote on a misconception. I would certainly vote for any legislation that would protect children or other vulnerable people from the inconsiderate use of tobacco by smokers. However, the whole exercise was useful to me as I was introduced to ASH by Irish Health and am now on their email list. Also, the extremism of some posters could not but be noted. This would be of interest to legislators as some people will insist on being a nuisance to others without legislation. Sad but true, I'm afraid.


   ·   04/04/2008 00:14

Wit, Thank you for your explanations, I think you will feel right at home with your new (old) ASH friends. It also shows the power of brainwashing, Tavistock will be pleased. I prefer to stay with the people who can think for themselves and are not fooled by the propaganda.


   ·   04/04/2008 08:43

Wit, you originally wanted them banned cos someone leaned across in front of you while you were overtaking someone, struck a match in your face! By that logic knives and screwdrivers should be banned because people are stabbed with them every week. And someone could have slapped you in the head while you were driving, so passengers should be strapped down. Also overtaking should be banned, because it's dangerous. Actually cars should be banned too.

   ·   04/04/2008 10:39

Indeed Papa, along with other distractions: radios, casette and CD players, children, the mother-in-law, in fact passengers in general, pretty scenery, eye-cathcing billboards, pretty ladies, attractive men. . . . .


   ·   04/04/2008 16:27

ExPat, I agree with you that I am more at home in the company of non-smokers though smokers (the considerate kind) are also numbered among my friends. Papa, I voted for the ban, but on reflection and as a result of the more sensible posts realised that it would be unenforcible. (I hope this does not mean that I have been brainwashed by nicotine fanatics - I don't think I could take that). Knives and screwdrivers are banned on certain transport. Slapping a driver on the head is against the law already. I believe passenger are already strapped in their safety belts (now that all the antis in that department are silent). Overtaking in many circumstances is against the law. And cars are not allowed in certain areas. So, what's your point? Anonymous, Your list of distractions are only so if you allow yourself to be distracted by them. Competent drivers arn't. Just don't smoke in the car with children.


   ·   05/04/2008 10:31

Christmas lights! Don't forget them. They also have to be on the list of 'banned' items. Oh, and neon signs, billboards and jaywalkers too. Wit, Just for sake of educating me, can you tell me what forms of transport in Ireland ban knives and screwdrivers? Also, slapping a driver on the head is against the law? Although seatbelts are now compulsory it is amazing how many people drive without belting up. It is also amazing and frightening to see the amount of people who transport their young (under 12 year olds) children in the front seat of cars which is also supposedly against the law. That is the problem with all these laws. You can bring in a plethora of laws but there cannot be 100% compliance as there is no way of enforcing them.


   ·   05/04/2008 22:06

Annie, As requested just for the sake of educating you (were you serious?) knives and screwdrivers are not allowed on aircraft. Assaulting anyone is against the law, if the victim is driving at the time I must assume it is much more serious. By the way, is jaywalking not already a gainst the law? I agree with you about the law on belting up being flouted but that must never be a reason for rescinding the said law. Even if it cannot be fully enforced there will be always the danger of prosecution.

   ·   06/04/2008 03:57

The interesting paradox which results from the ever increasing "risk?" of second hand smoke; as that risk increases, the risk of smoking decreases. Smokers are more exposed than anyone by a large margin, it may eventually be proven by the daily increases; smoking is actually harmless, its the second hand smoke mixed with what is claimed to be "clean air" which is the actual health risk. Which is starting to sound more reasonable all the time, considering what is also contained in that "clean air" the stuff they are all too shy and timid to complain about. "For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible."

   ·   06/04/2008 13:23

The presumption of "Clean air" and the risk factor realities promoted by the insult of being exposed to a little second hand smoke, is grossly deluded or sadly misguided by the irresponsible acts of the Public Health community. For the actual percentage of your life exposed to second hand smoke either in a building or outdoors what you inhale by other sources is by far a much larger quantity not even being discussed in evaluating the health risk of the demon smoke. A building acts as a vacuum cleaner, although air is filtered to some degree on the way in, ultimately a significant proportion of particulate and gaseous toxins find their way in, Add the contributions of your own skin creating dust, the millions of spores and contributions of the sick who cough and sneeze the fungal materials floating in the air and many other little nasties few of the ASH crowd are willing to discuss, and you start to realize what you inhale inside a building is highly concentrated with a lot of things, the benign tar content in cigarettes have been trapping like fly paper for centuries. If you follow the ASH assessment of the situation; all other similar or identical toxin exposures resulting from any burning of identical organic matter has no effect? All disease and mortalities in any category which smoking or second hand smoke might even possibly play a small part, are now absolutely caused by smoking and second hand smoke. A situation which is not only unlikely but quite impossible according to reproducible physical science which should be more credible than targeted calculations derived from also entirely conflicted funding. One can only imagine how much more of that so called clean air will be inhaled and what will be the actual effect of the human experiment relying on smoke free environments. We are all driven to fear by the microgram measurements in the most smoke filled environments they could find, without being properly informed of how much lower levels of particulate in the air the smoke is diluted with and the air outdoors it would require, to create a much larger panic situation among the so called experts. As a band leader or Pom Pom girl for ASH or the medical charities, what is your cut? Most of them rely on volunteers, which speaks volumes.


   ·   06/04/2008 19:19

Kevin is back from his extensive study of his gobbledygook book. The passage, "The presumption of "Clean air" and the risk factor realities promoted by the insult of being exposed to a little second hand smoke, is grossly deluded or sadly misguided by the irresponsible acts of the Public Health community" puts a strain on even the most lunatic fringes. I wonder is this guy telling us that smoke is good for us? "A building acts as a vacuum cleaner"? How come it does not vacuum itself? Hilarious!!! Kev, you need help.


   ·   06/04/2008 20:25

Well said Kevin but I'm sure it will go right over the heads of most of the 'flock'. Wit, There is nothing illegal about taking a screwdriver or a knife onto an aircraft. Anyone can and many do, transport such items. There is just a civil aviation ruling about carrying such items in your hand luggage. Just as you cannot carry more than 100 mls of liquid in your hand luggage. They are not 'banned' and they can be carried in the hold luggage, no problem. Jaywalking is not a crime here either. Assaulting someone is not the same as slapping them. Slapping as used to chastise a child (rightly or wrongly) is not against any law on the statute books (though some think it should be). Assaulting a driver would endanger lives. Slapping or indeed, touching a driver in any way, is not against any law either. The 'danger of prosecution' you talk about is totally diminished by bringing in unenforceble laws. You need proof to prosecute someone, otherwise the law is there to be flouted which in my opinion totally undermines law and order.


   ·   07/04/2008 00:02

Ever been agressively overtaken on a dangerous bend then had a cig-stub tossed out so it hits your windscreen? I'd like to ban smoking for this reason alone. Smoking all too often is used as a way of showing off. By the way the discarded butt is slowed rapidly by the still air so it hits quite hard as one drives into it.

   ·   07/04/2008 09:36

No Wit, jaywalking (crossing against the lights)is certainly not already against the law in Ireland. However, Kevin's assertion that smoking is actually harmless but its the second hand smoke mixed with what is claimed to be "clean air" which is the actual health risk, is truly funny.


   ·   07/04/2008 10:27

Wit, I can't decide if you're taking the mick, or if you're an idiot. Did you even read my post? Obviously not

   ·   07/04/2008 14:18

Annie, there are circumstances where you could be charged having brought a screwdriver or a knife onto an aircraft. As for slapping used to chastise a child - I would sincerely hope that anyone in their right mind would not slap a child across the head. However, it is to be presumed that you don't allow your children to drive cars so the issue doesn't arise. However, assualt is in fact the same as slapping if it is an unwanted touch and not in self defence - which is some of what defines assault, which is in fact against the law, regardless of whether the person is driving or not.


   ·   07/04/2008 17:19

Annie, Slapping is assaulting.


   ·   07/04/2008 17:21

Papa, I must be an idiot - I'm reading you posts.

   ·   08/04/2008 01:28

There seems to be a problem with comprehension among a couple here who continue to embarrass themselves. Obviously they just read the parts they want to, and ignore the rest. Kind of like second hand smoke research selective reading is the largest enabler of the creative writing comprising the majority of the promotions of the anti smoker cult movement. I read today C Everett Coup stated in his American Surgeon General's report Plutonium 210 is supposedly found in cigarettes and comprises 90% of the lung cancers among smokers. So where is the proportionate risk of all the 5000 deadly poisons they talk about? Come to think of it, where is that ever elusive and seemingly mythical list? If those 5000 poisons comprise only 10% of the lung cancers among smokers, it leaves little room that non smokers who are inhaling thousands of times less, could be at risk at all. Poisons are funny like that, the more you are exposed to the greater the risk and conversely the less you are exposed to, the lower the risk. That would be unless those poisons are not among the known list of poisons, which have all been assessed for known safe levels well beyond what you could possibly inhale off either end of a thousand cigarettes combined. The stories are all over the map and they change from day to day. Never consistent or credible in relation to real world observations, or real time line observations. As long as they score well with shocking the focus groups, off they go to the tabloids. I hear in the UK and Australia second hand smoke is supposed to cause loads of amputations. Yet on the other side of the pond, no concern has been promoted yet. Maybe some of the ASH clergy should chastise their American underlings and tell them to get with the program and adjust the ads, before someone notices and becomes suspicious. I repeat, "For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible." According to the responses; my point is proven to be accurate.


   ·   08/04/2008 16:19

Kevin, It's your senseless ramblings that are beyond our comprehension. What we do understand is that smoke inhalation is unnatural and harmful. So-called secondhand smoke is still smoke and still harmful. All the misinformation in the world cannot change that simple fact. Smoke all you want but do not subject me to it. If there are children in your car refrain from smoking. That too much to ask any decent considerate adult?


   ·   08/04/2008 16:47

Wit, You are the one that is rambling. Read up on the "scientific" research and even you will see that passive smoke is not going to harm you or anyone else. It's all there in black and white but you allow yourself to be conned by ASH. Manipulated data and downright lies will not fool everyone for ever.


   ·   08/04/2008 17:56

Papa, I think its the latter.... You know the old saying "There is no fool, like an old fool"

   ·   09/04/2008 13:12

Thank You Wit, once again you have demonstrated my point admirably. From your reply to Papa you shouldn't be so hard on yourself with a little more understanding of the situation, you would likely not view yourself as an idiot. Education is the key, and life will educate you in time as long as you keep an open mind and avoid being conned by political band wagons. Advertising campaigns are meant to profit the corporations purchasing them, by taking advantage of unsuspecting people like yourself, to do their bidding and at times to do their dirty work. ASH are in my opinion the Tobacco Industries wet dream come true they have done more to lower the costs of production, Advertising and liability than the Industry [by shifting the blame to individuals] could have ever accomplished on their own. The creation of second hand smoke as a Health factor grown to such proportions as we see today, will go a long way to assuring the future huge unearned profitability of; the Tobacco industry, Insurance companies and a most significantly, alternative startup markets selling smoking patches and the like, who were able to establish huge businesses selling products which otherwise would never have been allowed to enter the market. ASH will no doubt be a legend in the advertising game for decades to come, unfortunately for people like you and me they will have set the new standard for not only advertising but for lobbying. Where that is headed considering the tactics employed, is not a friendly comfortable place to raise your children. Assuming children really are your major concern here. Children should be allowed to develop without political interference, in the trust and confidence of their parents good judgments. That trust should be allowed and demanded in a right to raise them, without the emotional blackmail and wide brushing being promoted, so obviously for profiting self interest, in purely opportunistic sales benefits.

   ·   09/04/2008 13:47

From the World Health Organizations own research and I quote "The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." Despite their own findings they have worked tirelessly since that time, promoting advertising campaigns internationally to counter what their own research demonstrated. I am more concerned currently with the immediate effects of smoking Bans and the way a new problem is solved. Bans did not produce the desired effects in the bars as suggested resulting in clean air. People immediately noticed the increased smell of rotting wood, mold, personal odors and bathroom smells, which the smoke likely was responsible for masking if not diluting to a large degree. A problem which of course was countered by increased use of air fresheners and deodorizers. No one has done a perspective study into the population risk increase, due to the large increased exposures to the many carcinogens and toxins found in those chemical alternatives, which likely well exceeds the health risk of tobacco smoke exposures.


   ·   09/04/2008 17:14

ExPat, I don't have to read any of your "scientific" research to know for certain that smoke is harmful to me. My personal experience demonstrates the fact immediately. If I pour boiling water on my hand I do not have to read scientific research to tell me it scalds. Kevin, Likewise. Also your first sentence about WHO makes no sense in isolation. Annie, I would consider myself a fool indeed were I to take notice of the arguments of a few of you on this forum who advocate the use of harmful drugs.


   ·   09/04/2008 21:51

I am an ex smoker and happily so, but cigarettes are still in my life. I drive a motor scooter and when car drivers smoke they forget they have ash trays in their cars, what do they do! they flash the ash out of the window and who does it affect, bike riders of all sorts. Last year a car driver flicked a lighted butt out of his car window and it got stuck in between my collar and helmet, I didn't know until my collar melted and stuck to my skin, SORE! On Another occasion it was a rainy day so I had to leave my visor open because it can fog up. I got a cigarette butt into my helmet. Every car had an ash tray so, who are they fooling the car stinks of smoke, they are on the way to developing cancer so why do they need to keep their ash trays clean?


   ·   10/04/2008 11:53

Baa baa baa........ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


   ·   10/04/2008 14:28

I agree with you there Kieran, if i were you i would kick the door of the car as i drove past them at the lights. But they are littering, which is against the law anyway. I know it's not realistic to take their reg and report them, but a boot to the door will teach them. Last post from me on this subject, after all the arguments here, it'll never be brought into law.


   ·   10/04/2008 15:15

Hi Kieran, sorry to read of your bad luck but just be thankful that the lit butt didn't get you in the eye. As to why do they do it I have a theory that they are no different from dogs who go around "marking" lamp posts. Litterbugs, vandals and graffiti artists are the same, they are marking territory.


   ·   10/04/2008 21:19

Thanks Davey and Papa, I have done that sort of think but only got the finger, but thanks for your support, what I can't figure is, how the hell can they see the road when they have their heads stuck out the half rolled down window, their cars are going forward, unless they think they are f..... crabs they walk sideways but these drivers are backward so what do I expect.


   ·   10/04/2008 23:21

Wit, Why do you wish to remain uneducated? Just as an example, The American Cancer Society anounced in it's statistics that lung cancer is increasing dramatically in California. As smoking has been reduced heavily there we should expect quite the opposite. Many people (especially medical people) have noticed this lack of correlation and are asking what is really causing lung cancer as it is obvious that here smoking is not the culprit. ACS has withdrawn it's statistics link! It is also interesting that lung cancer only became noticeable since the 1930's, before that it was a very rare desease although smoking has been going on for far longer. The rise in lung cancer was first noticed in Germany which coincided nicely with the increased industialisation to support the build up of it's armies (e.g. Krupps). For the sake of our children it would be far more worthwhile to find the real cause(s) of lung cancer and use the billions wasted in persecuting a group of people and pushing dubious NTR products for something real. BTW, scalding your hand in hot water is a scientific fact, passive smoking causing ill health isn't.


   ·   10/04/2008 23:35

Kieran, This is quite amazing. I belong to a bike club and we have our regular get togethers now for over 30 years. Some of the lads still wear scarves instead on helmets on their Harleys so are not so well protected. In all this time I have never heard one of them experiencing an injury from a cigarette butt and neither have any of ever heard of it happening (I asked). Please take a look next time you see someone throwing a cigarette out the window, the downdraft forces it almost vertically down to the road. This is now the fourth anti post I have read stating this strange occurance. Does this only happen to antis? I do not approve of throwing a cigarette or anything else out the window but please stay within beleiveable bounds.

   ·   11/04/2008 09:15

So, now Kevin thinks that ASH is a major advertising campaigner for the Tobacco industry!!!!!!!!!! . Yes, Children should be allowed to develop in the trust and confidence of their parents good judgments. But sometimes parents do not make good judgements and where that borders on neglect or abuse, the parents loose that right. Yes, smoke might have concealed other unpleasant smells but two wrong do not make a right. And Papa's suggestion for curing the ignorance of a smoker in risking a bikers safety - i.e. to be just as ignorant says just as much about Papa as it does about the smoker.

   ·   11/04/2008 12:01

We often hear the phrases "measures which reduce tobacco use", Those who wish to harm children and defenders of the Tobacco industry as empowerment to legitimize smoking bans all in a stated effort to Help smokers to quit It is highly offensive and blatantly opportunistic to state anyone who wishes to defend their own freedom. Or in fact their own personal economy, in challenging the efforts of Paternalist Lobby groups, to inflate the value and cost of a product they know a smoker will use every day. If the truth is recognized Public Health is actually the true defender of the Tobacco Industrys interests. They have reduced the costs of advertising and research, the cost of the raw tobacco through "no safe cigarette" campaigns, The costs of litigation and responsibility, Increased the value of the product through deals like the MSA agreement and surrendered them stability long term; in both market share and cash flow analysis. Most significantly they have shifted the blame for costs to society associated to smoking, from the industry to the consumer, who gets to not only pay double those costs, but gets to wear the Yellow Star in community perspectives, as a result of what appear to be public Health efforts to defend Tobacco Industry interests. All the while violent confrontations which were once rare, in resolving disputes concerning smoking are increasing, at an alarming rate within communities. As for the statement "measures which reduce tobacco use"; in theory the denormalizing strategies of making smokers not normal, might be believed to reduce tobacco use, however even a short term analysis indicates this has not been the case. The recent and as yet unexplained increases we see in young people starting to smoke is alarming . Public health statements in the media grow more outrageous and demanding by the day, eventually [if not already] young people will be starting to smoke, just to spite the anti freedom attitude associated with these regressive and paternalistic campaigns. Just like the last time prohibition was deemed a noble human experiment. Can anyone imagine the coercive value of a single cigarette for those confined inside a prison or a mental institution, where smoking is banned? What consequences from human rights violations in torturing prisoners, will we all have to bear eventually? If tobacco dependency is a medical reality it constitutes a disability. Dehumanization through public health is then, actually seen as a criminal act, which is an activity which could eventually require punishment, at a huge cost to society when compensation is eventually assessed and paid. How does anyone moralize punishing an addiction, in order to force compliance to "prohibitionist normality"? "Helping someone to quit" is nothing more than a convenient lie, to quell the discomfort of conscience. Medical treatments which demand punishment, are not "tough love or in any way justifiable, they are simply the stepping stones to legitimize the intolerant few among us. Those very individuals who society used to believe were not normal" "Erosion of Civil Liberties is the genesis of Genocide." Elizabeth Kirkley Best PHD; Et Al Author of the Shoa education project.


   ·   11/04/2008 13:22

Anon, how is kicking a door ignorant? If i was on a bike, and someone almost made me crash by burning me, a kick to their door is too good for them. Bikers have a tough time on the road, high percentage are killed by drivers that don't look. If you're a biker and you choose to potter around and just accept it fine. A fall at slow speed can cause a nasty injury. Even a burn is a lot worse than a slightly damaged door. You're the ignorant one for not knowing the dangers bikers face every day.


   ·   11/04/2008 17:25

Ex Pat, WHY would I want to lie about flying cigarette ends, and more important why are you so angry about it, you sound guilty to me. I am an ex smoker and the reason I stopped smoking is I like my life and I don't want Cancer, but I have no problem with you killing yourself.


   ·   12/04/2008 07:16

ExPat, Your comment about my wishing to remain uneducated would seem to be based on the assumption that the only education available is that which would agree with your posts. I am afraid your dubious sources disallow that. There are many causes of lung cancer, smoking being but one. The people being persecuted are those who are being forced against their will to inhale others smoke. Passive smoking is an immediate irritant for me. You just dont get it! I dont need your pseudo-scientific facts to know that. As I have said previously the arrogance and inconsideration of some smokers in forcing others to inhale smoke is the main reason for the call by bodies such as ASH for legislation to protect children from you. You are your own worst enemies. Why do you not indulge your filthy, unhealthy unsocial addiction in private or in the company of other consenting adults and spare the rest of us?

   ·   14/04/2008 09:56

Papa, when someone throws a cigarette out the window the downdraft forces it almost vertically downwards - now if you are so close to their window, that it blows into your helmet before the downdraft catches it - that is not only stupid but downright dangerous. However, if I you need somneone to explain why vandalism and damage to property is ignorant, then posibily you won't understand the concept of keeping a safe distance either. Incidentally it is illegal for bikers not to wear helmets in this country, so your remark about those wearing only scarves is irrelevant.


   ·   14/04/2008 12:04

Before Kevin (a Canadian living in Canada) pesters us any more with his continuous waffle he may want to aquaint himself with our laws in this country. That's if it is any business of his in the first place! His statement, "Can anyone imagine the coercive value of a single cigarette for those confined inside a prison or a mental institution, where smoking is banned? What consequences from human rights violations in torturing prisoners, will we all have to bear eventually?" proves he does not know that smoking is not banned in Irish prisons.

   ·   14/04/2008 23:13

Whats the matter Wilt am I saying things you don't understand, or can't deny? Why don't you go ask your new parents at ASH how they feel about smoking in prisons and Mental health institutions? Because they haven't gotten around to it don't count them out yet, they will get there.


   ·   15/04/2008 00:11

Wit, I was refering to your remark that you don't have to read any of my "scientific" research. First of all, it is not mine. It is mainly from various cancer research societies. For example,Read the Kabat/Enstrom research which was the largest (118'000 people observed for 38 years) and used the data from the ACS. This is not "my" science research, it's your's as well. Why are you afraid of it?


   ·   15/04/2008 00:18

Kieran, I am not in the slightest bit angry. I just explained that what you suggested is very unlikely and quite unheard of outside anti circles. I also stated that I do not approve of throwing anything out of a car window. I hope that is clear. I have also noted that if one disagrees with anything an anti says then there an immediate accusation of "calling him a liar" in some form, usually fairly aggresive. I am not calling you a liar, I am merely stating that due to a great deal of biking experience and an understanding of aerodynamics, I just don't beleive you.


   ·   15/04/2008 11:04

Anon, again, you're clearly don't have a clue about bikes. First, cigarettes aren't forced down. "Downforces"!! don't make me laugh! The wind from a car swirls around, did you ever see a car drive over a crisp bag, or plastic bag? Did it just stick to the ground? Fair enough if you're driving very slow, but on a main road a cigarette goes all over the place. And it's acceptable to be close enough to a car when you're overtaking. And where did I say anything about scarves? Helmets have visors, often kept slightly or fully open, so the cigarette can easily go in there. Also, open face helmets are perfectly legal, so plenty of room for a cigarette to get wedged between your helmet and face. Still don't know how someone that almost kills or seriously injures you shouldn't get a kick to their car door. Do you have to fall off the bike and break a leg, get road rash, or be confined to a wheelchair for it to be considered to be ok by you? I'll continue to be "ignorant" and boot the car door of anyone that almost kills me.

   ·   15/04/2008 11:11

Ah well Papa, bikers ignorance will only breed further ignorance by drivers.


   ·   15/04/2008 15:55

Kabat/Enstrom research suffers from bias towards reducing the estimated effect of passive smoking. It is a flawed research and should not be used to validate argument.

   ·   15/04/2008 16:26

Close enough to a car when overtaking to have a cigarrete end up in your helmet before the downdraft catches it? Sheer lunacy., Perhaps now we are seeing why bikers are in so many accidents. And wearing scarves instead of helmets was indeed mentioned. Kevin, the reason smoking is not banned in prisons or mental health facilities is because the smoker is considered to be domiciled there - it is the equivalent of their home.


   ·   15/04/2008 19:44

Ex Pat, As I read the postings each day I still can't help noticing that you are angry. Your reply to me on 10/04/08 states that you are a member of a bikers club for 30+ years so you are not a child well. On the other forum relating to smoking, you have visited every pub in Ireland! I don't advise drinking while in charge of a bike. Now with regard to being burnt by a flying cigarette end, I have scars to prove it. I think you will have to think twice about aerodynamics or not say anything further on the subject.


   ·   15/04/2008 22:37

Wit, Your statement "Kabat/Enstrom research suffers from bias towards reducing the estimated effect of passive smoking. It is a flawed research and should not be used to validate argument." could possibly be one of the most rediculous I have heard in a long time. It was correctly peer reviewed and because it didn't give the results that the ACS wanted they stopped funding AFTER the results were known. It was published in the BMJ and was hit by various anti rapid responses which were NOT peer reviewed. This policy has been changed by the BMJ since then. Enstrom was very vindictively personally attacked by some well known anti groups who tried to malign him. He was completely exonerated by the ULCA board after a thorough investigation. Your facts are totally wrong! Please read it first before making such false and misleading comments, it is considered the ethical and honest approach which, it would appear, is sadly missing on your part.


   ·   16/04/2008 11:16

I'm with Kevin here, no point in arguing with anyone who thinks these "downdrafts" exist.


   ·   16/04/2008 12:22

If you want to convince your self that tobacco smoke is harmless by all means read the paper by Enstrom and Kabat, sponsored as it is from tobacco-industry related funds. I, however, will also read opposing views as I feel no need to delude myself that tobacco smoke is harmless to me. If you want to think that is 'rediculous' then do so. Many smokers know that it is bad for them and for their children but because it is addictive continue to indulge. Those people are not being helped by selective, or downright false, information. Many who die in house fires die from smoke inhalation. Some who survive have damaged lungs. The lesser quantities of tobacco smoke but over a longer period cannot have a positive effect on the health of the inhaler.

   ·   16/04/2008 13:57

Wilt; "The lesser quantities of tobacco smoke but over a longer period cannot have a positive effect on the health of the inhaler." If you take the time to really look at the research you can clearly see your statement could not be farther from the truth. The larger second hand smoke studies are all consistent in demonstrating a reduced healtrh risk as a result of minor exposures which has a real association to biological health effects. Smokers do not inhale nicotine they burn it first. This forms Nicotinic acid. You might know it as Niacin or Vitamin B3. B3 although it is one of the most vital components of bodily functions, it is not stored in the body and needs to be replenished constantly. It has the effect of lowering LDL [Bad cholesterol] While increasing HDL [Good Cholesterol] which is beneficial in avoiding atherosclerosis [Heart disease] As a non smoker your most likely and most efficient source of B3 could well be second hand smoke. The predictable effects you can see for yourself in the stories of an "obesity epidemic" reflect what was revealed recently; the boats are bottoming out in Disneyland because when they were built the clients were noticeably lighter. I can't say all obesity is caused by a large reduction in smoking levels however if you look at the stats a decline of .7% which occurred for many years since the 60s paralleled exactly an increase in obesity levels, a reduction of 50% in smokers mirrors the 50% increase of those dangerously overweight. What is shameful is groups like ASH and the medical charities who thrive on propaganda campaigns, are pushing people to switch to alternative products rather than replacing the loss of B3 by increasing their daily intake of vitamin B complex supplements, which could save them and a lot of those around them the predictable effects, of irresponsible fear mongering campaigns, in place of sound medical advice. Once people get past the stigma and fears associated with groups like ASH, we could likely get rid of the Statin damages being forced upon us, and tell the drug companies to start using Nicotene which they know by far is the most efficient way to reduce bad cholesterol without the large list of Statin side effects. They don't use Nicotene today, only because they cant get patent protections, and can't control the distribution. They hate competition obviously. When you start taking a second look at where the money is flowing, you start to realize ASH has a voice which is purchased, and who has the money to purchase that voice? Do you?


   ·   16/04/2008 16:12

Kevin, As an example of being selective your comment, "your most likely and most efficient source of B3 could well be second hand smoke" takes the biscuit. I have become a healthy septuagenarian by eating a healthy diet and exercising and I never heard that gem. How can someone ignore all the numerous toxic ingredients in tobacco smoke and praise one. Typical of the anti fresh air lobby!


   ·   16/04/2008 16:21

Kevin, You are losing all credibility, when you now are almost claiming that smoking is good at preventing heart disease and obesity. Get real Kevin.

   ·   16/04/2008 17:15

Perfect example of attacking the messenger, while ignoring the message. I did not say smoking or the smoke was good for you or that we should ignore the other factors at play. What I said was; it makes absolutely no sense to push people into using alternatives to what you deem to be dangerous, while absolutely ignoring the effects of what the fear mongering is actually producing. What I said, and you can check, It makes much more sense to avoid the effects of limiting the normal intake of B3, taken away when you avoid smoking workplaces and smoking in general, by prescribing a B complex regimen. Than it will ever make sense to tell people it is better to use smokeless tobacco or worse smoking patches or gum, which do not supplement the B3, which is a limiter of LDL and a great source [the B3 not the smoke] of HDL.


   ·   16/04/2008 17:17

Actually my hubby has been a biker for over 30 years. He is a non-smoker. He has never experienced a cigerette in the face even when riding without a helmet (when that was legal). He says exactly the same thing as Anonymous. He also says that the biggest hazard when biking are bees/flies. If cigarettes 'flew' around in the air as Papa states then it would not only be bikers who would be at risk. And if (and personally I just don't believe it) Papa did have this problem with a cigarette, he must have been literally riding within inches of the car window, otherwise what he says, would be impossible.

   ·   17/04/2008 08:01

The component lost somewhere in this whole controversy is a balancing of respect. When you can slander and slur a whole group of people making broad statements claiming to understand how they feel and what they will all do, as though we were discussing some mass produced packed product on a shelf somewhere. You speak so courageously with no respect for those you rail against. Yet demand at the same time respect from them, should be a law and a god given right. How do you separate yourself from the word Bigot? It is one thing to make smoking not normal however making smokers not normal is an act of ignorance and hatred. It is too bad so many have missed the distinction, to their own peril.


   ·   17/04/2008 09:12

Kevin, Your last paragraph is like something from Alice in Wonderland, with the most confuluted use of language. The second sentence has a quadruple negative, making is virutally impossible to decipher. It still seems like you are claiming some health benefits for cigerette smoke and vit B3 relating to cholestrol. Funny how we never hear any medical group advocating this.


   ·   17/04/2008 11:39

I work in the motorcycle industry, commute on one about 25km a day, and usually go on weekend rideouts. I have heard of this problem before from a lot of people. Bees flies birds road debris rubbish falling from trucks are also a problem. I am surprised that expat has not come across this problem if he is a biker and knows a lot of bikers. Maybe not hit directly but close calls are not uncommon. I once got hit in the foot from a lump of brick from a van and trailer and almost broke my foot. A fag end in the helmet or up the sleeve could cause someone to panic and lose control. No reason to ban smoking in cars but drivers could be more considerate.


   ·   17/04/2008 13:18

AMAZED, If you were to read all the postings it was I who had the cigarette end blow in between my helmet and jacket, also a year or two later I had my visor half open because of condensation, I was behind a car ready to overtake, so naturally near enough to the driver when the driver decided to flick the butt out of half open window. I will repeat again I smoked for years and enjoyed them however when driving my car I always used my ash tray. I cannot understand a person filling the car with toxic smoke and then making sure that their ash tray is clean. By the way I gave up cigarettes because I don't want cancer so I can understand how difficult it is , JUST DON'T THROW ANYTHING OUT OF CAR WINDOW IT IS AGAINST THE LAW IF NOTHING ELSE.


   ·   17/04/2008 13:40

People who flick cig ends out the window are more than likely the same people who throw other rubbish out of their window. These people have no respect for our environment. The majority of smokers DO NOT do this, they have ashtrays and use them.


   ·   17/04/2008 17:20

Firstly apologies for getting the name wrong. Secondly Kieran, if you have to be on top of the drivers side of the car before you can overtake safely then you need to re-train. Overtaking whether in a car or a bike, means that you plan the manoevre in advance. Perhaps you should do some training in proper road use before you take a motorised vehicle of any kind, out on the road. Billybob, People who throw butts out of their windows are not any more likely to throw any other rubbish out their windows. The point is that it is safer to throw a butt out the window that it is to try stubbing it out with your left hand whilst driving the vehicle.


   ·   17/04/2008 20:05

Kevin, "It is one thing to make smoking not normal however making smokers not normal is an act of ignorance and hatred." Don't you get it. Smoking is NOT NORMAL - only breathing fresh air is normal. The human body is designed to abhor smoke. Only addiction can overcome this.


   ·   18/04/2008 12:19

Amazed if you can't put out a cigarette out while driving you should do as you said and take training. If you think thats too difficult to do maybe you should not drive. are you able to change radio station or turn on your lights while driving or do you have to pull over to do that? All us bikers ask is that you don't flick fag butt out the window not to difficult to do.


   ·   18/04/2008 12:46

To AMAZED. You remind me of a tailor "you cut the material to suit size your size" where do you think I should overtake from, two counties away. You said I shouldn't be so near overtaking on the DRIVERS SIDE do you suggest I overtake on the INSIDE i.e the footpath. And, as for planning MANOEUVRES the moves were correct however, the car driver breaking the law by throwing a cigarette end out of his window, NOW! why didn't I think of that!!! Regarding using the ash tray, why do you think it is there so near to the steering wheel???

   ·   18/04/2008 14:39

JamesH; If you pick on my grammar, I can pick on your spelling if it really served a point; "It still seems like you are claiming some health benefits for cigerette smoke and vit B3 relating to cholesterol. Funny how we never hear any medical group advocating this." Finding a narrow focus in "anti smoker" advocacy allows you a defined field of expertise. Contrary to what you may [or may want to] believe, there is enough public domain information within a simple web search for "Niacin" and it's history, to amply substantiate everything I have stated. As for Wit; "only breathing fresh air is normal. The human body is designed to abhor smoke. Only addiction can overcome this." Only the human mind can abhor anything, your outlook and dedication to an invented illusion, is so pathetic it is almost sad to witness. In 1975 Sir George Gober, British delegate to the World Health organization presented his blueprint for eliminating tobacco use worldwide by changing social attitudes. " would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their families and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to EST..." Where on this planet are you going to find that "fresh air" your craving? The amounts cigarettes add, to that so called fresh air are so incredibly small, compared to Nox and Sox or particulate emissions measured in mega tons. Eliminating smoking today will not likely have much of an effect in the real world, clean air or health wise. Related to, does not find a cause only a suspect target. Unfortunately many missed the point and believe people are to blame, and not the victims of tobacco and the alternatives industries. Industries being protected and promoted, by purchased tabloid and advertising illusions designed to shift the blame.


   ·   18/04/2008 16:38

Amazed, If it is safer to do something as dangerous as throw a lighted cigarette end out the window of a moving vehicle than it is to try stubbing it out with your left hand whilst driving the vehicle, then you make the case for not smoking while driving.


   ·   19/04/2008 14:15

Kevin, "Finding a narrow focus in "anti smoker" advocacy allows you a defined field of expertise." I am not at all making a criticism of your grammar. But grammar aside I have no idea what your sentence above is saying. So to keep it simple, can I ask does any significant portion of the medical community support your views that smoking could be good for cholestrol, vit b3 etc. Are the medical community encouraging people to smoke? How come we don't hear it anywhere? If not, I am afraid that your argument falls flat on its face, as it is the medical community that have to pick up the pieces when smokers fall seriously ill due to their smoking. As I have said your line of debating only loses you credibility due to the ridiculus health claims that you make for smoking. Having said all that I would not support a ban in cars, due to the fact that this is private property equivalent to a persons home.


   ·   20/04/2008 05:50

The statement that, "Only the human mind can abhor anything" is false. In his efforts to stifle the opinions of those with opposing views Kevin constantly resorts to such comments. Check your dictionary, Kevin before you make such foolish and outrageous statements. Sir George Gober's comments are being used worldwide by anti-smoking ban militants. Those of us who detest tobacco smoke have nothing against smokers who do not impact on our health and safety. Some, however, are not satisfied to indulge in their addiction in private but insist on polluting the air that others breathe. You have the right to kill yourself with your habit but do not impose it on me. You also have the right to defecate and urinate but do not dump that on me either. Do it in private, please. The comment, "your outlook and dedication to an invented illusion" is incomprehensible. What exactly do you mean? Do you think smoke is an illusion?

   ·   21/04/2008 13:21

JamesH asked; "So to keep it simple, can I ask does any significant portion of the medical community support your views that smoking could be good for cholestrol, vit b3 etc. Are the medical community encouraging people to smoke? How come we don't hear it anywhere?" Yes, lets keep it simple. I can only imagine the ruckus which would ensue if a medical agency or representative suggested anyone should smoke. As for your statements you clearly are making much more of what I said then what was presented. I am not advocating anyone should smoke. Is that clear enough for you? What I was pointing out is; groups like ASH are no more credible than the Tobacco Industry and are not elected officials. They are simply opportunists making a fine living in the hate promotion business. The point being, if anyone's health whether they smoke or not was being considered, above political power, which rests in the myth of second hand smoke; we would not see elected officials and medical institutions shilling for smokeless tobacco products or human testing with the gratuitously over priced chemical substitutes. What we would see if a patient's needs were important; B complex vitamins to replace cigarettes when you quit along with exercise and a healthy diet which could never include smoking patched poison or addictive chewing gum. Vitamin B3 has known biological implications which would avoid the predictable effects of quitting. Quiting when someone is ready by the way, should be also in consistency with the numbers and that person be instructed to quit cold turkey, which has the highest long term success rate hands down. As for Wit Who stated; "Sir George Gober's comments are being used worldwide by anti-smoking ban militants. Those of us who detest tobacco smoke have nothing against smokers who do not impact on our health and safety." Can I take this as an admission of who you really are and what you are selling? Also are you denying the statement was made, prior to groups like ASH being formed, with that purpose in mind? Poison is in the dose, that is the one flaw in the plan which is starting to be the defeat of that plan. If second hand smoke is as deadly and the effects are as permanent, as you say they are, what reason would anyone have to quit? Smokers inhale more second hand smoke in one day than most non smokers inhale in a year, primary smoking aside. With the damage done and every smokers fate already sealed, why would they quit? You are loosing the argument of "moderation" Poison is in the dose" and those who smoke more have more effect. If a smoker cuts down and eliminates the unconscious smokes, it then becomes easier to quit when they are ready. Moderation is also the primary proof of any and all smoking related health risk, without which, your just talking into the wind. OK I am ready for the next round of insults and personal attacks, in place of discussion, go for it.


   ·   21/04/2008 15:24

this disscusion seems to be gone off the topic a bit, however i have been reading over previous comments, and i dont like this generalisation of "the anti's" esp. when people are quick to give out when smokers are generalised. i am against smoking myself but realistically i dont think this ban can be enforced. in relation to comments made, kevin, after reading 1 of your comments, well half of it anyway, i could not undersatnd what you were saying, its lik you read through a dictionary an picked certain words and put them together, an by the looks of things im not the only 1 who doesnt understand you. an i see some people are trying to put forward the benefits of smoking!?now thats just plain stupidity!

   ·   21/04/2008 15:59

Another jumble of words in a four line sentence which makes no sense.

   ·   27/04/2008 15:26

The high carcinogenic risk of diesel exhaust which set the record for growing tumors in a Petri dish is well known. Cigarette smoke has never been seen to grow a tumor at all. Do we ban trains and buses from public spaces and not allow them ten feet from any place a person would go? Public transit should be banned? According to recent Health Canada research; an airline pilots lifetime cancer risk above the average population risk, from radiation at high altitudes was found to be a 75% increased risk, compared to a 17% increased risk from second hand smoke. The pilots were told "they should feel comforted the risk was so low it could hardly be considered significant". What are the radiation cancer risks to an airline passenger? Stanton Glanz of NSRA recently put the lifetime risk of smoking and Cancer at 60% that could serve as a yardstick for comparison. Get off your high horse of majority rules perspectives; the majority of people fart, burp, perspire, and use the facilities. All of which present the same effect of repulsive smell and a higher risk of toxic effect than a little cigarette smoke, it is only through tolerance and respect we live together in communities as one, your stance of targeted hatred is what should be banned if anything.

   ·   28/04/2008 11:33

Transport is neccessary, smoking, particularly second hand smoke is not. No one forces you to be a pilot. You however think it's only to force second hand smoke on people. farts, burps, perspiration are unavoidable. Smoking is not. If your perspiration results in a repulsive smell for those around you., become familiar with deodorant. If your perspiration is toxic, then clearly you may be suffering from a severe but highly unusual medical problem - see a specialist.


   ·   28/04/2008 14:00

Kevin finally admits that secondhand smoke is NOT an illusion but a fact that causes 17% increased risk of cancer. We're getting there! Maybe soon now he'll see that if I don't want to subject myself to that risk I have a right not to. Certainly, children in cars should have that right. His accusations of 'targeted hatred' apply more to his own stance than to those of us who love clean air.

   ·   29/04/2008 00:00

Wit; If you considered what a .17 increase actually means, especially in such a complex calculation as is necessary to estimate the risk of second hand smoke. Your jubilation would be short lived I can assure you. To find a starting point considering the thousands or hundreds of thousands of other factors while ignoring the unknown factors, which is represented by one in ten thousand, not at all precision, just an estimate mind you and after the calculations comparing exposed to non exposed groups of people largely trusting their memory to find the numbers. You wind up with a paltry .17 increased risk? How many people do you know who don't know what cigarette smoke smells like? So much for unexposed group. Hardly convincing, you have found anything at all. Conveniently you picked the 17% increase [a claim by the anti smoker movement, not my claim] out of my post while completely ignoring the rest of the facts in how a 75% increase was assessed; as nothing to be concerned with. Unless of course you are in the tabloid media business, in which case 17% means the world. By demanding smoking bans as opposed to a sign on the door which would demonstrate respect for those whom would be uncomfortable, outright bans are demanded for health reasons, which ASH claims are perilous risks being avoided. Is it all right with everyone for pilots not to have the same level of public health protections demanded for bartenders? Considering the risks are almost five hundred percent higher for a pilot with a fifty percent shorter working lifetime. As the numbers show being a passenger on an airplane [necessary or not] the risk of flying is higher than the lifetime risk of second hand smoke exposure and if health is the determining factor allowing politicians to beat their chests and declare how many they have saved, it stands to reason a lot more people would be saved by banning commercial air flights. It could be argued, if someone did suffer from cancer, now that smoking is banned in public places, the airlines might well be blamed for the continued rise in cancers. Even though polluting industries and drug companies are more likely suspects. Smoking reductions over the past fifty years certainly didn't result in declines in cancers or heart disease. So if you take your children on an airline are you also considered a child abuser?

   ·   29/04/2008 10:53

The obvious facts are that banning flying is neither feasible nor possible (nor anything other than a very silly suggestion) nor can the radiation exposure be removed from flying. Smoking can however be removed from workplaces - and that is what has been done, removing it from workplaces not an outright ban which some sectors of paranoia imagine to be the case. Why you would imagine that bar workers are somehow not as entitled to the same health regulations as every other worker in the industry, is bizarre to say the least. Why also do you imagine that pharcueutical manufactureres/ drug companies are responsible for an increase in cancer? Anything to back that up at all?

   ·   29/04/2008 13:28

Anon; Answering a question with a nonsensical question just seems detached. I will ask you again. Is it all right with everyone for pilots not to have the same level of public health protections demanded for bartenders? Considering the risks are almost five hundred percent higher for a pilot with a fifty percent shorter working lifetime. You claim "banning air flights is not possible" that sounds strikingly familiar to what was said ten years ago in reference to banning smoking in a bar. The suggestion was ridiculed unanimously in all sectors. Have you read? they banned smoking in bars to "protect the workers health" [not the public who were never considered at risk from casual exposures] and they got away with it. Surprised? Hate is a powerful tool in the ad rackets and if you have the funds you can rally a lot of hatred.

   ·   29/04/2008 13:57

Kevin try reading my response and answering the questions. It is impossible to remove the radiation risk from air flight. It is not impossible to remove the smoke of bars. As has been proven. As for banning air flight world wide? That is a nonsense. Nothing less. Bars weren't banned, smoking in them was. You are not comparing like with like.

   ·   29/04/2008 19:31

OK anon I understand what your saying is bartenders are worth saving and Pilots are expendable because there is no hope of saving them. Since it is impossible to remove radiation from airplanes it makes it OK to be exposed to radiation? With a much higher health risk than a bartender who rarely are seen to work an entire 50 year 40 hours a week whereas Pilots would tend to be the norm, to remain in the same job for 25 years. As for removing any toxic effect from the bar and considering the measured levels those so called toxins actually occur in tobacco smoke, until you remove the alcohol the fire pit and the air fresheners, you have really accomplished nothing in reference to any diminished health risk. Now that the smell of smoke is gone, many bars have already lowered their air exchanges in the filtration systems so the actual toxic levels are likely higher after a ban than before.

Blond but not stupid

   ·   29/04/2008 20:46

Guys What game are you playing here soccer or tennis, because there are balls flying back and forwards but no score. Guys, you cannot smoke in public motor vehicles now, get used to it and move on, I had to!

   ·   30/04/2008 10:26

Kevin, stop putting words in my mouth as you know right well that is not what I mean. Do you have any proof whatsoever that the smell of alcohol causes cancer or is just another of your notions? Ditto for air fresheners. the air exchanges in the filtration systems?? In an Irish pub?? Are you mad?

   ·   30/04/2008 11:58

Anon I am not putting words in your mouth because logically that is exactly what your saying. If you move beyond the sound bites you have to realize the so called deadly ingredients in tobacco smoke are substantially common to any smoke derived from burning organic materials. Your exposures to the so called 4000 or 5000 deadly ingredients are also common to many other sources of exposures most are found on the short list I gave you in much higher volumes. A tree lives for over a hundred years and a tobacco plant less than one. During their lives they serve to clean the air while producing oxygen trapping toxins in their bark and cross sectional rings. When you burn a log you release those stored toxins in huge volumes compared to the burning of tobacco leaves. Other toxins we are being encouraged to fear in tobacco smoke are found volumously in air fresheners which require protective environmental suits during the manufacturing process and we have no problem dosing our indoor air liberally with them to mask other odors. You should really read up on the effects of fragrance and Musk which are commonly used ingredients banned in many countries because of the known carcinogenic effects. The fumes from alcoholic drinks and the lifetime exposure risks to bartenders, is a new scare campaign already being produced, with focus groups and ad agencies hard at work producing the next round of ban fans targeting alcohol and fast foods. Have you never heard of ethyl alcohol? You should see the levels measured in an average Pub. If there ever was cause for concern of what you inhale in a pub, you should be very afraid, if cigarette smoke concerns you. The trapping effect of tobacco tar likely reduced the toxic levels. Now you will get to experience the full force of toxic effect. Don't take my word for it, you will be reading about the deadly effects of alcohol in the tabloids very soon. One of the few things found in cigarette smoke not found in other sources would be Niacin which is the primary ingredient in a recently release drug approved in the UK known as Cordaptive other inclusions add Niacin to dangerous Statin drugs such as the combination found in Simcor. Their purpose is of course to lower bad cholesterol and increase good cholesterol which reduces the risk of heart diseases such as atherosclerosis. Not my words or selective reading, simply some of the other factors not discussed from atop the anti smoker cult band wagon.

   ·   30/04/2008 13:54

More Hogwash. The alcohol one drinks and ethyl alcohol are two different things. You cannot drink ethyl alcohol - it is not for human consumption. You can read about the deadly effect of alcohol - its overconsumption, in any newspaper. Personally, I have no need to read the tabloids. Your piece about cholesterol drugs is irrelevant to this discussion.


   ·   30/04/2008 18:12

Anonymous, You are incorrect in your statement that, "You cannot drink ethyl alcohol - it is not for human consumption." Ethyl alcohol, Ethanol, also called grain alcohol, or drinking alcohol is the alcohol that we can drink. All this is irrelevant to this discussion about ASH's call for a smoking ban in cars with children. People who do not wish to inhale smoke should not be forced to do so. That is their right.

   ·   30/04/2008 21:27

I might add in the fumes of those drinks are contained 2-propanol, together with methanol or benzene coincidentally some of the more dangerous contents said to originate from second hand smoke. BTW Benzine is carcinogenic. You can also find Benzine in unhealthy proportions in your gas tank and evaporating from the vents of gasoline storage tanks. The known safe level of benzine is one part per million or 360 Micro grams per cubic meter of air. In your gas tank after the lead was removed they allowed an unsafe level of benzine in order to maintain octane measures. In gasoline one part per hundred is the normal mixture. Making the poison the cure for lead which although dangerous never caused cancer. Self serve gas stations were never allowed due to insurance considerations years ago. Knowing the higher likelihood gas attendants would be getting cancer, they allowed the public to pump their own, avoiding the liability of worker related injuries. Do you know what gasoline smells like? I could also mention Diesel exhaust with an even larger risk of cancer from inhalation, all part and parcel of that good clean air your protecting in the bars. Are you Into chasing windmills or are you getting a paycheck derived from the anti smoker campaign? nothing else makes any sense at all in the real world.


   ·   01/05/2008 00:29

Wit, Thank you for ackowledging that Anon is talking rubbish (again!). Kevin is offering facts that can be checked, you normally do not and say that you don't require research. Now you suddenly pick up an obvious error. BTW, from Slan, smoking is up to 29%. Brilliant ban this! I would be quite happy with separate areas for smokers and anti's so you wouldn't be at all affected by smoke. We would have a great time and all three of you would have planty of room.


   ·   01/05/2008 16:28

ExPat, The reason I do not require research, sic. to tell me that smoke immediately causes an asthma attack is that I have the misfortune to have that personal experience and that is a fact! You may choose to ignore that and accuse me of ignoring your research you avoid the obvious reality that I personally do not need it. Of course you would be quite happy with separate areas for smokers and non-smokers with no regard for the people who would service the smoking areas. That is what the ban is all about - no smoke in the work place. Kevin is in a world of his own and the fact that you are able to agree with his facts!!! speaks for itself. Of course the ban is a success - it was not about smokers killing themselves, it was to prevent you from from bringing us down with you.


   ·   01/05/2008 22:23

Wit, You are really outdoing yourself in complete nonsense. You have shown yourself to understand scientific research and then pretend that you do not need it. You also have "grown" a new affiction to meet the needs of your wierd arguement. Give it a break.


   ·   02/05/2008 00:09

Wit, I forgot to mention that my brother in law is also an asthmatic and finds tobacco smoke an irritant. We got round this very easily by talking about it and I happily refrained from smoking in areas where he would have been affected. This was already before the stupid smoking ban. There was no problem as we smokers are very tolerant. He has now problems with the likes of yourself as he appreciates my considerations but doesn't understand the idiocies of the antis like yourself.

   ·   02/05/2008 01:29

Wit do you understand how ridiculous this sounds? "Of course the ban is a success - it was not about smokers killing themselves, it was to prevent you from from bringing us down with you." Show me the science that suggests anyone would be harmed by tobacco smoke from casual exposures. If you are, as you claim hyper sensitive to cigarette smoke are you without other triggers? Are you saying you are completely comfortable in a world without cigarette smoke? Nothing else in a bar or traveling to and from makes you uncomfortable? The bans were planned to make smokers uncomfortable along with a number of other planned treats. There was never a health issue. If the editor would stop editing my posts that would be absolutely clear even to the most determined closed mind. Tobacco control is the basis for the ban nothing more The U N treaty spelled out what they wanted done, and your government did as they were told.


   ·   02/05/2008 15:26

ExPat, Your last post is a perfect example of how a ban works, except in microcosm. It is a pity you cannot expand your thinking to offer the larger community the same 'tolerance' you so readily afford to your brother-in-law. Or do you suggst that asthmatics be barred from the workplace? And more to the point on this forum - from motor vehicles. Your comment, 'we smokers are very tolerant' was good for a laugh! By the way, I'm sorry if your brother-in-law is upset because I don't want to breathe your smoke. Maybe you could get round this very easily by talking about it too. It would make more sense to him than to you, I'll bet!


   ·   02/05/2008 23:51

Kevin, I have also been suffering from having parts of my posts "edited out", which spoils a few of the points I was trying to make. I am wondering about the so-called "independence" of this site. Wit has now descended to the ridiculous to support his unsupportable stand. He is like a chameleon changing colours. I wonder who is paying him, big pharma? The control freaks have lost completely on the Continent so who is going to support Ireland anymore? The damage done cannot be undone.


   ·   03/05/2008 22:43

Kevin, The ban is not about stopping smokers from smoking it is about protecting workers in their workplace. Why is it that this fact sounds ridiculous to you? Why is it so difficult for you to grasp this? All smoke is harmful to the human lung. Other triggers affecting me have nothing to do with being unwilling to inhale unwanted smoke. Dont always try to confuse the issue. You should ask yourself why the forum moderator finds it necessary to edit your posts. So the United Nations of this world are in favour of the smoking ban and Ireland as a member of that illustrious body is in agreement. Im glad to discover you acknowledge this.


   ·   05/05/2008 22:28

Wit, I was referring to your intolerant approach which annoys a lot of people including non smokers. Also you do not speak for them only for yourself and a small group of intolerant people.


   ·   06/05/2008 22:00

Yes. Smoking is bad for everyone, and if the person who smokes could realise this, they would want to give up smoking themselves.


   ·   07/05/2008 18:28

ExPat, I presume the intolerance you refer to is my refusal to breathe smokers fumes. I believe that people who can drive without being distracted by smoking should be allowed to do so unless there are children or vulnerable adults in the vehicle. That was the actual call from ASH. I don't think you understand the content of your own posts. Big pharma paying me? I wish! I pay them.


   ·   11/05/2008 23:41

WIt, I understand perfectly well thank you. If you are so concerned about children then why are you not campaigning for a better health service or against the crime rate in Limerick or hard drugs in school playgrounds which should be a far more serious concern. It appears to me that you are using children to further your own aims. This is not the first time this has been done.

   ·   12/05/2008 13:03

I haven't looked in on this discussion for a couple of weeks and the same people are still trying to score points against eachother. You have covered every topic under the sun. I am now of the opinion that you have become addicted to eachother. Have you all nothing better to do? To me it seems you are each fulfilling a void in the other, maybe its loneliness? Give up smoking and get out there and make friends.


   ·   12/05/2008 21:42

Ex-Pat, How do you know I am not?


   ·   13/05/2008 21:09

Colette, Frequently anti's use the phrase "score points" in some fashion to break up a discussion when the anti's are losing it. It always causes me to chuckle when I see it. Anyway, your last line gave you away completely. All the best in your brave new world.

   ·   14/05/2008 12:35

"The ban is not about stopping smokers from smoking it is about protecting workers in their workplace. Why is it that this fact sounds ridiculous to you? Why is it so difficult for you to grasp this?" Really since when? The tobacco control conferences chaired and financed by the Big pharma industry, the industrial socialist who sell those delicious addictive chewing gums the kids love so much, laid it all out clearly; "making smokers lives as difficult as possible" is the plan, non smokers weren't actually mentioned. Or is anyone rallying in a non smokers or a smmokers favor here. Paternalist governments are the most repressive form of socializm. If people could only learn to ignore what they are conned into by advertisements, to see a rose as only a rose, and not some media spun alternate reality. Common sense could return to this chaotic oppression being formed "For the greater good"


   ·   14/05/2008 15:35

Ex Pat, Check how many times the word "antis" has been used by you, you seem to protest a lot and you know what that means! in your subconscious you yearn to be a non smoker but alas, you feel you cannot back down now. Nonsense, I have just given up a 20 year smoking habit and I know you can do it too, we will help you, and then you won't have to be so angry anymore because you will be an anti OR you are an anti, anti non smokers! there goes that word again! All joking aside it is not easy to stop smoking but I know you can do it, o.k.! Love and NO Kisses Colette


   ·   14/05/2008 22:25

Colette, I use the word antis as it is the politest term I can think of to describe them. The antiism seems to grow and grow. Do they have secret meeting to see what can be banned next as they seem to be against a lot of things, none of which is any of their damn business. You should definitely brush up on your psychology, I think Jung's "The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious" would give you some insights into the brainwashing techniques used on the Irish public. Kurt Lewin together with the Tavistock institute laid the foundations for controlling the minds of the masses and the propaganda needed to implement it. When you get a bit further we can discuss the subconscious, it is a fascinating subject. Your assumptions concerning my subconscious are totally wrong, but nevermind, since when has an anti ever bothered about truth or research? Love AND kisses, ExPat

   ·   15/05/2008 12:21

I would not give an anti so much credit. You are assuming they actually accomplished something worth mention, when in fact most ride on the accomplishments and words of others. they are much too shallow to attach any deep consideration to their actions. I see them more akin to the Pavlovian test subjects simply following the crowd in hopes of finding sameness, in fear of the notoriety required to be an individual. Basically fearful people who can't cut the maternal apron strings and move on to adulthood.


   ·   15/05/2008 13:13

To ExPat; No need to go researching psychology sites on my behalf, anybody can do that ( if they have time to spare!! ) If you were familiar with the subject you wouldn't be posting such revealing letters to a public forum! I notice you are avoiding the offer of help to quit smoking. A mentally "strong" guy like you should have no problem, or, would you? Alas! I have spent enough time on the subject of cigarettes, so Guys give up the cancer sticks, then the guilt and ANGER will disappear and you can start living amongst the Happy People! The very Best of Luck (no kisses until you quit smoking) Colette


   ·   15/05/2008 22:45

Colette, You need to be set straight on a few things. I do not research psychology on your behalf and the books on the subject have been in my posession long before the smoking ban. I have no feelings of guilt or anger, why should I? I did not react to your offer of help as I make my own mind up and the last thing I need is your dubious help. Your use of "we" rather than "I" did also not pass unnoticed. If you are so happy with your "we" then good for you. I would not like to remain in such ignorant bliss for so long. Be careful about giving advice, you might be held responsible for the results. Love ExPat


   ·   16/05/2008 11:21

TALK ABOUT BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU! They said it would come to pass the next thing they will want to ban is breathing in public! Why are we allowing a bunch of people to tell us what to do. If I want to smoke in my car I will, I paid for it, I paid for the road tax and the insurance also the petrol so don't tell me what to do. There is enough repression all over this world without this.

Anon 2

   ·   16/05/2008 13:32

Hi Emma, You haven't paid for the oxygen in the air that you pollute so smoke in your car but, don't forget to keep the doors and windows closed tightly


   ·   16/05/2008 13:55

ExPat,(a) Why are you so annoyed, resulting in anger. (b) why are you scrutinising my letters - I didn't use the word we. (c)and, did I detect a threat in your last sentence - Back to Anger yet again! I know that somewhere deep inside you are a happy non smoker like the day you were born. Now no need to answer this posting just Good Luck! Colette (x)


   ·   16/05/2008 20:40

Emma, Would you smoke in your car if there were children or vulnerable people aboard? A greater danger to breathing is not from a government ban but from tobacco smoke. Don't make ridiculous comments.


   ·   17/05/2008 01:04

ExPAT, Again! Why are you so angry! I didn't use the word "WE" and my offer of help is not dubious, have faith we are not all bad, and if I am held accountable for managing to have at least one person not kill themselves by cigs. I will be happy to account for my deeds. Now take a Chill pill and, At least I have managed to stop you agonising about cigarette ban and the antis. Colette Over-and-Out.....

   ·   17/05/2008 17:26

Doesn't it strike anyone in the news game as peculiar, the largest industries and charities on the planet, who are motivated solely by monetary gain and who purchase their reputations [few of them deserve] from advertising agencies, are afforded the ambiguity of self regulation, while individuals with a lot more at stake than just money, are not worthy of that same respect by governments. The applauding of drunk driving laws, seat belt laws helmet laws and now incredibly parental punishment for smoking a cigarette in a car? All require exquisite micro management, demanding higher enforcement and financial penance, to augment the failing management, of far too much of the publics own money. It is no largely held secret when you increase poverty you increase crime. When your only reaction is to ramp up punishments with financial penalties and unequal treaties that cause a significant portion of the problem, you ramp up the results. Does it not fall within anyones realm of common sense or logical assessment that; being in the company of a smoker by comparison, comes no where near the inhalation health risk of sitting in a public transit bus or train station? How far down this protectionist road will we allow elected officials to travel, before we understand; industrial socialism was done before and it cost us dearly. Adolph Hitler is the inspiration of the modern day health care reform movement.He was once nominated for a Nobel peace prize, and he would have gotten it, had he not invaded Poland when he did. People need to grow a new backbone and that can only be inspired by a partnered media, who are currently engrossed in cheering on what we know is self destruction.

   ·   19/05/2008 14:33

The air is not owned by the government or the short sighted hypocrites who wish to impose new rules on the lifestyles of others, despite what many here have contended. So there is no need to pay for air which can never be owned by anyone. Second hand smoke is a ridiculous platform to use as a weapon or sounding board because as we all know aside from the convenience of the lie and the breadth of the exaggerations second hand tobacco smoke is virtually harmless. If it were not inconsequential, the majority of those living today would demonstrate that harm, as an effect of populations of whom the majority smoked and virtually all were already exposed to the so called dangerous smoke. Get a half an ounce of common sense in your corner because time line and biological plausibility are certainly not with anyone who claims second hand smoke is a significant or even a minor health risk. We have seen in the past fifty years the longest living healthiest generations to ever walk this planet the norm in the 60s was a life expectancy of 65 years, today we call premature death a death that occurs before what, 100? Empowering paternalists was always a recipe for disaster look to our past before considering going down that road again. If anyone believes supporting industrial socialism is a viable course, our education systems are failing us badly, as are the medical groups supporting this irresponsible bandwagon, failing us as well. Professionals are selling positions and reputations for just money that does not bode well for a claim to "the greater good" it is more akin to the mindset which inspired best babies contests and protecting the fine Aryan race. A .3 increased health risk factor, represents a risk increase [not a cause] of 3 in 100,000 and not the three in ten as believed by many in the public. Represented in a pronouncement of 30% increased risk. Is it now high time some "professionals" among the many, stepped forward and set the perception straight or is everyone comfortable with convenient lies being purchased from the public purse? Confident also, that will be the end of the practice your currently endorsing "for the greater good".


   ·   19/05/2008 20:57

Colette, You wrote "Nonsense, I have just given up a 20 year smoking habit and I know you can do it too, we will help you," hence the "we". I am not angry, just slightly amused. ExPat


   ·   19/05/2008 21:45

Kevin, Who suggested that the Irish government claimed ownership of our air? Does your Canadian government make such a claim over your air? Where do you get 'em? If non-smokers do not want to inhale smokers fumes they should not have to. Adults may be able to take evasive action but children in a car need to be protected. Your paranoid meanderings cannot change that.

   ·   20/05/2008 12:18

Wilt; I mentioned short sighted hypocrites and you piped right in, is that an admission of sorts? Where did you get the idea, either you or the government need to protect children from their own parents? All parents are guilty by proclamation of the parenting experts at ASH? The problem is so widespread it requires legislation? That ridiculous drivel is both short sighted and paranoid. Tell me what you read that was not factual. I formed my assessments from knowledge and research, your whimsical opinions seem to be formed of too much focus on the proclamations of radical lobbies and scandal rag headlines. Stories and fairy tales, which you rarely read beyond the first sentence as you demonstrate here consistently. As for paid air look a few posts back under anon2.


   ·   20/05/2008 16:44

Kevin, I ignore your first sentence as it rings of the pique of someone losing the argument. I probably feel that adults should not smoke in cars with children because at present some do. Have you any evidence to support your accusation that anyone at ASH ever made the statement that ALL parents are guilty? Please produce it here for our information. Or, is it like the rest of your knowledge and research a product of your own imagination. The negative contribution of one self-delusional Canadian on a smoking ban in cars containing children in Ireland is irrelevant. It will have no effect on legislation here. You should confine your input to your local problems.


   ·   20/05/2008 18:28

Ex Pat, I had better watch my postings you are word picking again scary! You still smoke and I don't, Sorry!


   ·   20/05/2008 22:44

Kevin, I think Wit is losing it completely and resorting to personal insults. He doesn't research anything and probably resents you as you obviously do. His main points seem to come from an ASH propaganda pamphlet. It is amazing what power these brainwashing techniques have.

   ·   21/05/2008 12:40

Wit, ASH is an international lobby group who spread their irresponsible and quite hateful advice to any venue who will sell them the air time. In response to your request, here is a letter I sent to a local news editor recently. BTW in Canada we still allow alternative opinions without assuming the writer is somehow inferior and needs to be silenced. Leave your personal attacks aside in the next response. In response to; "Most smokers don't light up in cars when young kids are present. Only a small minority do. And the harm caused to those kids is far more important than the perceived right someone has to smoke with their kids in the back seat." "I think the kids win hands-down." Legislation is an admission society has failed to find inclusive resolutions to a problem, requiring a law enforced with the full police powers of society. Your belief there is a significant risk to children which requires government and society to intervene in the private relationships between parents and their children is misguided at best. To assume parents are not worthy of autonomy while accepting the same industries who promoted the anti smoker bandwagon, should be allowed self regulation is also misguided. Corporations who sell ineffective smoking cessation products and their competitors in the tobacco industry have done an excellent job of shifting the burden of responsibility from their products to the consumers who use them. Anti smoking has evolved to "anti smoker" with all the familiar caveats of bigotry and invasion of personal rights and freedoms which always accompany the media stereotype building industry. An industry toying with the meaning of "security of the person" while walking a thin line of human rights legality. Take a look at the value of Phillip Morris stock in reaction to the shift of health care to disease management over the past six - eight years. The sight of a process called Social marketing at Health Canada is enough to make someone sick. The description seems to plagiarize the WIKI definition of propaganda.. Is this the new standard of "informed consent"? What ever happened to the media taking out the trash? They are now acting as full stakeholder partners; both in promoting hatred and poverty. Affecting primarily the highest number of smokers, the obese and the diseased; being those among the lowest of socioeconomic scale. And as life would have it, those least able to defend themselves against the billions spent promoting the ballooning health scare industry. A process which now increases taxes solely to purchase more promotions, to the point peoples lives are endangered by the re-routing of needed infrastructure and health care dollars. Money which should be used to treat illness is now being used primarily to establish blame for illnesses. Second hand smoke, in spite of what you may have heard is quite harmless and in comparison to sitting in a public transit bus or train station absolutely harmless by comparison. Isn't it time for a reality check? Paternalism which put Hitlers levels of protections to shame, is a line crossed in your smoking in cars promotions. Perhaps a refresher course of where it lead in 1930s Germany, is where your head should be focussed.. Industrial socialism was and is a mistake which will always lead to a greater health risk than the sum of irresponsible health scares being promoted today. IMHO; The kids loose hands down, in comparing the freedom we enjoyed 30 or more years ago, to the paternalist limits they face today. I am not impressed, nor am I cheering along with the lemmings. The emperor has no clothes.

   ·   21/05/2008 19:52

Kevin; you are completely absorbed with cigarettes and words, you are contributing a few of your own words with a lot of "cutting and pasting", Stop! Wit; forgive this man, he is existing in a fog! a fog of ignorance. ExPat; Kevin seems to be influencing you, wake up. C.U. Us men enjoy this type of thing but only when our competitors have something worthwhile to say, leave us to it


   ·   22/05/2008 12:09

To Colette; I know your posting was directed to Kevin but I can't help but notice when you mentioned me you said "leave it to US men, sorry but I have never known of any man with the name Colette! ??? I think you are slightly confused or maybe on the wrong site!! Sighed: Colette-Female


   ·   22/05/2008 13:28

Kevin, Do you realise that your statements, "BTW in Canada we still allow alternative opinions without assuming the writer is somehow inferior and needs to be silenced. Leave your personal attacks aside in the next response" are mutually contradictory. Like all your posts! You can't have it both ways. Your long diatribes are harmlessly ridiculous except that a minority of people like ExPat are over-impressed by your pseudo-intellectualiism. Maybe reading your long-winded posts is his idea of 'research'.

   ·   22/05/2008 15:07

Colette [I noticed a small c and is that the right spelling?] are you accusing me of plagiarizing someone here? Who or where would the source of this cutting and pasting originate from? If cut and pasting as you put it was a fact, could you make the next claim, and say I am living in a fog after assuming others are stating facts which agree with my own? No it would be you, who are living in the fog. One inspired by the medical and family counseling experts at ASH, who publicly dispense medical advice and most of them, without a license to do so [whoops]. Motivating fear and apprehension in order to sell their products and product branding. They have a name for that too. Always attack the individual and avoid the necessity of discussion? Sounds familiar, cult members, [just prior to the fit of anger] go the same route, every time they have nothing to say. Here is a citation which seems to fit the health scare crisis and the epidemiological evidence to a "t" and from WIKI no less. "Religious dogmata, when properly conceived, reach back to proofs other than themselves, and ultimately to faith. Perhaps the pinnacle of organized exposition of theological dogma is the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas, who proposed this relationship between faith and objection: "If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections if he has any against faith"" Keep the faith Colette; it is a good sign of character, even when that faith is misguided.


   ·   22/05/2008 17:32

Kevin, just what products are ASH Ireland selling?


   ·   22/05/2008 19:33

I notice you haven't replied to my posting Colette or is it Colin or maybe Paddy, Pauline etc. etc. Men! Are you a smoker or, maybe you are an actual cigarette! Can you hear the Sirens! you will see the white coats coming into view any second, go with them its for Our Good. Colette-Female


   ·   22/05/2008 20:10

Colette you are fortunate to share the lovely name with my girlfriend and no I am in no confusion about my sexuality or my name, you will notice I did not sign my last entry. Kevin what has religion got to do with cigarettes or my entry for that matter. I still think you love to see words in print signed by you, your partner must never get a word in.

   ·   23/05/2008 13:05

J...? "Colette you are fortunate to share the lovely name with my girlfriend and no I am in no confusion about my sexuality or my name, you will notice I did not sign my last entry. Kevin what has religion got to do with cigarettes or my entry for that matter." What entry would that be? You seem to change names every time you change your socks. Your questioning my credibility and you can't settle on whether you are a man or woman and what name you feel comfortable with today. It makes me wonder how many people are actually attacking me here. four as it appears, or just one overactive tambourine banger.

   ·   24/05/2008 12:53

Lets all buy into the new level of protections for a few seconds just to play devils advocate. Reality check; for generations we have seen billions being donated to medical charities to find cures. It was only after an anti smoking treaty was signed at the UN seven years ago, they began to make numerous and significant discoveries in relation to second hand smoke. Redefining smoking and second hand smoke as the most dangerous elements known to man. The mortality figures they cite as caused by smoking are far and beyond any natural or man made disaster in human history. From what they tell us the level of carnage over 500,000 American deaths alone every year, has been seen for hundreds of years, while escaping detection all that time? The question which is begging an answer; if the smoke is such an obvious risk; what the hell have medical charities been doing with all that money for all these years? and why, if the process is effective at all, did it take so many decades to make these realizations, which with minimalist, statistical calculations are seemingly, falling into our laps on a daily basis. What other hazards are they missing and how many will die before they make their systems of discovery at least efficient enough to spot the major hazards in less than say fifty to seventy years of so called dedicated research.


   ·   26/05/2008 11:21

I cannot disagree with anything you say in your letter and in fact I will admit you have given me something to think about. Keep posting, even though I am a non smoker, I am for honesty and clarity. Colette


   ·   26/05/2008 11:43

Kevin, I don't know what planet you are living on. All my adult life I have known the harmful effects of smoking. It is not a recent discovery of the last 7 years. I have been an adult for a number of decades now and have always known the dangers.

   ·   26/05/2008 16:04

"I don't know what planet you are living on. All my adult life I have known the harmful effects of smoking. It is not a recent discovery of the last 7 years. I have been an adult for a number of decades now and have always known the dangers." Context James, Context... The deadly risks of second hand smoke in proper context can be demonstrated in a room full of anti smoking advocates by simply lighting one up. How many would run fir the door in terror and how many would stay to attack the smoker with verbal and quite likely physical attacks. Belief systems are all we have to substantiate our claims when physical proof is lacking. How many actually believe they are at risk from casual contact with second hand smoke and how many are just playing dress up in front of the cameras? Think about it, can you honestly say the current discussions at the UN which are questioning industry influences, would not include those who are profiting from anti smoker campaigns, which began in earnest with the signing of the UN treaty. In your adult wisdom do you believe second hand smoke is more dangerous than the air in a bus or train station of at a self serve gas bar for that matter? WTO rules clearly state any interventions which will restrict trade and commerce should be in the least intrusive possible. A sign on the door warning of a possible health hazard would be sufficient to achieve those ends. Smoking bans serve only one substantial purpose, that being to make a smoker uncomfortable and coerce their legal human right to self determination and autonomy decisions. The rights respected in many of the same countries which make abortion "a woman's right to choose" are ignored in respect to self medication with a growing trend of highly questionable science to rely upon to make those decisions. Although many will deny it in promoting its bad reputation Nicotine [Niacin, vitamin B3 or Nicotinic acid] is actually one of the most promising of beneficial natural drugs on the market today. "Without even realizing it, the majority of us actually consume nicotine daily in common foods in vegetables such as bell peppers, tomatoes, potatoes, eggplant, cauliflower, chili peppers and some teas. One could well consider that nicotine merely has a bad reputation because it is connected to smoking. In much the same way as many judge their neighbors. "The fact is, the substance can improve ones mood as it switches on the receptors on the brain cells surface causing them to release dopamine which is a chemical neuron-transmitter that instigates feelings of pleasure and happiness. Other than this, nicotine is also helpful when it comes to alleviating or treating some serious illnesses. Findings in researches indicated that the element helps improve memory and concentration, and due to this, more studies have been conducted concerning the positive effects of nicotine in diseases like schizophrenia and depression." When interpreting why people smoke why is the judgment always portrayed as deficit behavior? When for many, it is simply self medication. For the poor and starving, smoking fulfills a basic need of alleviating hunger pains. How cruel are we, when we make arbitrary decisions in judging others or their behavior in wide brushed summations? Lobbies can afford that cruelty because they are focussed on a higher power; in the generation of money.


   ·   26/05/2008 17:16

Kevin, Even if all the crepe you post here were true the simple fact you seem to be incapable of grasping is that a great number of people do not want to breathe smoke. It is their right not to have to. "For the poor and starving, smoking fulfills a basic need of alleviating hunger pains". It must be all those vitamins in the cigarette smoke you wanted us to believe in earlier! I suppose your cure for world hunger is give them plenty of cigarettes. More to the point people should not smoke in vehicles with children.


   ·   27/05/2008 08:59

Kevin, Your arguments get more farcical. Your previous message said you only heard smoking was bad for you in the last 7 years. Now you are back trying to convince us of the benefits of smoking.


   ·   27/05/2008 14:39

Kevin, I am asking once again, just what products are ASH Ireland selling? Can you substantiate your statement?

   ·   28/05/2008 04:55

Wit; among other products they are doing an excellent job of reinvigorating the youth smoking numbers. James; Asked and answered, remember the suggestion of reading past the first sentence? Now both of you owe me an answer take your pick; If I light a cigarette will you run away in terror? I'm smoking one now, are you afraid? Or are you concerned about my health? LOL


   ·   28/05/2008 09:29

Kevin, To answer your question, of course I won't run away in terror if you light one cigerette in my presence. However, were I a worker who had to work in a smoke filled environment for my 40 hour working week, that is a different question. I might feel obliged to work under this conditions, but would fear for my health. This is no longer an issue since the smoking ban.


   ·   28/05/2008 09:41

Kevin, I am asking you for the third time, just what products are ASH Ireland selling? Answer the simple question truthfully (if you can). Do not attempt to fudge your answer with such ridiculous statements as, "among other products they are doing an excellent job of reinvigorating the youth smoking numbers".


   ·   28/05/2008 19:31

A month or so ago I wrote in about people throwing lighted cigarette ends out of the window of moving cars and, I was told it couldn't happen. Well, what couldn't happen! Happened yet again. This time it it burnt a hole in my luminous waistcoat. I am fed up with people who think they are above the law. My one regret is I didn't get the registration. Smoke if you have to but keep your rubbish to yourselves!


   ·   29/05/2008 12:16

Jeez aren't you the unlucky one Kieran? These things happen to you on a regular basis. Poor you....

   ·   29/05/2008 15:44

Wit; "I am asking you for the third time, just what products are ASH Ireland selling? " Your level of selective reading is admirable if promoting fanatisisms are indeed admirable. Take a look at ASH advice in methods to quit smoking. If you look you will find the ad agency term "Doubles your chance of success". This term is also stated in commercials by the same company who sponsors anti smoking bandwagons internationally. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has been heavily involved with the production of campaign friendly research, Sponsoring anti smoker medical conferences and SAMMEC costing revisions which attribute cost to a risk as though a risk were a sole caused of all named diseases. They are one of the largest stockholders of Johnson and Johnson who are; one of, if not the largest marketer of products which supposedly double your chances of quiting. Independent research is not well aligned although it is conclusive; in not agreeing with the false and misleading claim. In fact Smoking patches and Gum reduce your chances of successfully quiting when compared to quiting without using thier overpriced and opportunistic products. 90% of long term quitters did so cold turkey.


   ·   29/05/2008 16:02

Kieran, It is the inability of some people to comprehend that such accidents do happen that makes them a danger to others. In the unlikely event that the above-mentioned legislation ever comes about, it will be because of the stupidity of those people. However, in the meantime it is difficult to understand why some people would want to smoke in a vehicle containing children. This is what ASH really want to address.


   ·   29/05/2008 16:22

for Anontoudear = Anon- to- U -Dear; I can just see you now, driving your micra, fluffy dice and a smelly cardboard tree to cover the b.o. Your arm stuck out the window and the fag between fingers, yes, your the type to throw that cigarette! and you say, poor me, you couldn't finish the sentence had to go off and cough your guts up, You smokers.


   ·   29/05/2008 20:14

Witofire, Thanks for your support, it seems there are some very frustrated people on this site with a touch of paranoia. A drug addict (cigarette smoker) will always be defensive because they know that the day is coming soon when cigarettes will be a thing of the past and it must be very frightening for them to know That one day soon they will no longer have their crutch. They have to face the fact that smokers are no longer welcome in most places. I personally would like to travel without the fear of airborne butt ends landing in my protective gear while on my motorbike ASH Ireland keep up the good work. I never thought I would see the day when trying to improve the environment and make it safe for everybody to live in would be considered an offense worthy of attack.


   ·   29/05/2008 20:51

Kevin, As I thought, you cannot substantiate your statement, "Motivating fear and apprehension in order to sell their products". We just get more incomprehensible garbage. Don't make statements which you are unable to qualify.


   ·   29/05/2008 22:53

It is strange that such people as Kieran and Wit always turn to personal insults when they have no argument at all. As a small help to Wit's lack of understanding. Kevin was talking about "Marketing and Sales" as in any company. ASH are very forward in promoting nicontine patches which are making a fortune for Pharma companies. ASH are in turn receiving funds from said companies.


   ·   30/05/2008 09:41

Kevin, You asked and question and insisted on an answer. Yet when I give you a reasonable answer, you do not bother to respond. Could it be that there is no response possible. Here's my answer again. "To answer your question, of course I won't run away in terror if you light one cigerette in my presence. However, were I a worker who had to work in a smoke filled environment for my 40 hour working week, that is a different question. I might feel obliged to work under this conditions, but would fear for my health. This is no longer an issue since the smoking ban."


   ·   30/05/2008 10:28

ExPat, Kevin was NOT talking about "Marketing and Sales" as in any company. I'll refresh your memory. He said, "Motivating fear and apprehension in order to SELL THEIR PRODUCTS". Like you he comes out with wild statements which he cannot substantiate and then you both take it as an insult when challenged. People here are not as stupid as you think. We understand you both all too well by now!


   ·   30/05/2008 12:00

ex pat; Why do you feel the need to attack, did my comments apply to you? you are too transparent for your own good. Also both yourself and Kevin have a cosy relationship, why do you feel the need to answer his questions for him, again, very transparent. A week or so ago a female dealt with you and kept you off this site up until now, that sums up what type of Man you are. If you take the time to read the reply I got when I wrote in a few days ago you will see i was reacting to same, I didn't initiate this sarcasm. Would you please read the postings carefully less confusion that way.

   ·   30/05/2008 12:23

Wit; Industries pay lobbies to sell products, which improves their bottom line profits after the expenditures. For grassroots advocacies most of the time if not all of the time those accepted funds come with a price. The Lobby is obliged to protect the funder's interests in order to keep the cash or increased cash flowing. The more a lobby does for a corporate sponsor the more they are rewarded. This arrangement often transcends to a personal payoff routine rewarding the individuals who contribute the most.

   ·   30/05/2008 12:48

Sorry James your right "You asked and question and insisted on an answer. Yet when I give you a reasonable answer, you do not bother to respond. " In responding you made my point; if second hand smoke is so deadly, people should be running away in terror if they really believed what is being promoted that is. The risk to bartenders was the over emphasized reason for promoting smoking bans. An insignificant risk in normal terms, also known as an acceptable risk by traditional standards [1x10,000]. A risk which only exists in the extreme scenario of a bartender who is exposed to the highest levels of smoke imaginable [regardless if the levels exist for all bartenders or not] through an entire working lifetime 40 hours a week for 45 years. How that evolves to a significant risk to children in a car for a few minutes a day, is only by any logical assesment; extreme exaggeration by a pretty dedicated source. A source with an exceptional ability to find a news camera whenever they need one. [Try it some time] The risk to anyone drinking in a smoking allowed bar is equally amusing.


   ·   30/05/2008 13:55

Not only does Kieran come on here with the utmost contradictory waffle, he also descends to the type of arrogant condescending, presumptuous insults beneath the dignity of SOME of the intelligent contributers on this site. A couple of decades of growing up are in order for him to be able to engage in anything approaching respectful discussion.


   ·   30/05/2008 13:58

Ha ha kieran very funny post. I don't drive, sorry. Don't worry about the BO either, twice daily showers and Christian Dior deodorants take care of that. You should try it. So who burned you today?


   ·   30/05/2008 15:41

The latest from Kieran: "a female dealt with you and kept you off this site up until now, that sums up what type of Man you are" - what an utterly contemptible statement. Well that really shows up what type of a man YOU are.


   ·   30/05/2008 16:41

anon 2 you dear; Don't be sorry you do not drive, I am delighted, I wonder what type of mentality you must possess with the type of answer you gave to my first posting Anon2Udear Posted: 29/05/2008 12:16 [" Jeez aren't you the unlucky one Kieran? These things happen to you on a regular basis. Poor you...."] I have to believe you when you say you do not drive, probably to young but I still say you have the pink fluffy dice! By the way, if you don't drive why was your cage rattled reading my posting.


   ·   30/05/2008 18:51

Kevin, I gave you ample opportunity to answer a simple question, "What products does ASH Ireland sell". It was not a request for a lecture in industrial financial practices. The fact that you fail to answer this simple question indicates to me that you acknowledge your accusation about ASH Ireland to be untrue. Why is that no surprise? This, of course, vindicates those of us who treat all your posts with disbelief.

   ·   31/05/2008 11:45

holding a cigarette while driving is just as bad as holding a phone to you while driving, it should be banned you can always stop for a fag break or wait till you reach your destination.


   ·   31/05/2008 20:18

Kevin /ex pat /anon 3 (3 into one won't go) Who do you want to be today, I would just HATE to think that there could be more than one because you just go on and on and on, and you have the arrogance to ignore a fellow poster while continuing to fill the page with line upon line of rubbish. I honestly do not know why these lovely people from, or who support good health = ASH could be bothered conversing with you. I heard recently they are banning cigarettes completely!


   ·   03/06/2008 11:26

Kieran you're in cuckoo land if you think this govt will ban cigarettes completely. Think of the lost revenue. Who will foot the bill one wonders? That's correct, the tax payer. Time to get your head back to earth I think.

   ·   03/06/2008 12:42

"I heard recently they are banning cigarettes completely!" LOL That will be the day, A leech without a host will starve. The cash is far too important. ASH will defend the sales of cigarettes just as vigorously as they defend their continual demands for more funding. One has to wonder if the medical repositories partnered in all the WHO scare campaigns have a way of separating the political science from legitimate research, after their political agendas are achieved. The WHO are flooding us with so much of the political agenda driven science we are becoming endangered in not knowing what is real. They are all loosing a lot of credibility in the process. Designer facts and figures discredit anyone in the field regardless if they participate or not.


   ·   03/06/2008 15:35

BillyBob, I was joking about cigarettes being banned, sure how would the politicians line their pockets with these big salary increases they give themselves. I imagine, (and that is all we can do ) if all the Taxes collected on cigarettes and alcohol were put in to solving The Health Services, we wouldnt have the waiting lists etc. No BillyBob a cigarette ban is not likely to happen!

   ·   03/06/2008 16:57

"This, of course, vindicates those of us who treat all your posts with disbelief. " Unfortunately moderation on the site does not allow links or references in naming names. I can only try again in the hopes of a greater good being accomplished, some latitude will be allowed. A larger problem exists and can be explained quite well in a Medical journalists assessment of the situation the Moderator might just this once allow the reference to be passed along, in respect of balanced discussion. Before the fingers start pointing; I don't believe the author is conflicted or is she a member of one of the dreaded Tobacco front groups. She is simply challenging a flawed initiative. The article is in Junk food science written by Sandy Szwarc, BSN, RN, CCP, May 31 2008 you can look it up with a web search. It really is well balanced and defines a very real danger in replacing science with political agendas. It also showcases the all too common complaint of "conflicted funding" in establishing; what is good for the goose should be good for the ganders at ASH. As for your believed vindication of bigotry and exclusions, sorry there is no excuse and no forgiveness, before you get past the denials stage and move on to acknowledgment and genuine apologies occur. Somehow it brings me back to a movie I believe was titled Evil this way comes. and the phrase; "Kill them all and let God sort them out"


   ·   03/06/2008 18:14

If everyone gave up smoking (for whatever reason) the loss in revenue to the government would be more than made up for in the decreased cost in smoke related illnesses to the Health Services. "ASH will defend the sales of cigarettes". Kevin, are you mad? How do you come up with them? That one certainly does not apply to ASH Ireland. You're making it up as you go along! Get real!

   ·   03/06/2008 18:52

The Public Health Community will never get it right, until they stop promoting smoking, obesity, drinking or violence are diseases as opposed to symptoms of sub standard environments which are more realistically associated as inversely proportional to depreciated standards of living. That lifestyle depreciation is significantly inflated by smoking bans limiting the comfort levels of leisure activities, community associations and interactions. Lifestyles are further depreciated by Job restrictions and calls for higher taxation. The same health conscious public health crusaders who demanded a smoking ban in Ontario also pulled funding for soft tissue injuries under universal healthcare? Can anyone name a medical condition more life depreciating than a back injury in view of; longevity, decreased capacity and the long list of other health defects which result from a back injury particularly at a young age? Think of the list of resulting health factors which arise such as increased smoking, drinking, Obesity, Heart disease, Diabetes and so called sedentary lifestyles as a result of an injury which was not deliberately self imposed. All the factors being vilified as "self imposed" and "preventable" can be explained as self medication or reactions which offer comfort, in an attempt to improve a difficult life situation while avoiding reliance on addictive pain killers. Having a bad back has always carried an association to slacker and laziness, now with the new calls to end sedentary lifestyles a back patient is faced with a new list of depreciating factors to add to a torturous life, which can now add chronic depression to the list while wide brushed bandwagons are all the rage and people are forced into widely inclusive descriptive categories.


   ·   04/06/2008 12:20

Kevin (XUX68460), So your prescription for back problems is nicotine addiction. Mine would be fresh air and as much exercise as possible. Generally speaking, back injury is not the worst medical condition as you suggest. In most cases it is better to get on with it as best you can and not wallow in self-pity or use it as an excuse for inactivity or addiction or any other bad life-style habits.

   ·   04/06/2008 14:16

""ASH will defend the sales of cigarettes". Kevin, are you mad? How do you come up with them? That one certainly does not apply to ASH Ireland. You're making it up as you go along! Get real" You need to take your head out of the sand Wit. If they ever intended to lobby for the ban of cigarette sales don't you think they would have made that a pitch after all the years they have been at it? All they have ever demanded of elected officials is restrictions and punishments aimed at the consumers, while inflating the value of the Tobacco industry's legitimacy in the shift of blame. ASH has always been the Tobacco Industries best asset. No safe cigarette deflated the regulations on growing and production. Bans on advertising and sponsoring community events saved them hundreds of millions of dollars and promoting cigarettes as an adult choice promotes almost a mandate for a child to prove maturity by smoking. A challenge inflated by the protecting the children mantra. Scolding children vigorously and constantly drives them to smoke just to spite you. ASH and many of the most affluent charities would have to close their doors if a cure for cancers and heart disease were ever found. That would be a major loss of power and finances none of them will give up willingly. With the mapping of the human genome those discoveries had to be stalled so healthcare reform shifted to disease management essentially giving up the search in maintaining the status quo. Blaming disease is much more profitable than eliminating them and much easier to maintain perpetually. In the United States a proposal was tried to ban the sales of cigarettes the opponents who killed the bill were the cancer society and the lung association. Similarly the Campaign for Tobacco free kids amended FDA regulation proposals in the states seeking FDA regulation of tobacco to keep Menthol in while eliminating all other flavorings. Why? Because they contended the majority of Black smokers smoke menthol and the didn't want to ban a product people actually use, explaining they feared the shift to other products or other unspecified actions. The Black advocacy groups distanced themselves from the proposal because of severe dissension among their own group questioning if they really were interested in protecting blacks or if the campaign was only in aid of white smokers. You can read about the controversy in the online New York Times. There have been a number of articles lately discussing the dispute.

   ·   04/06/2008 19:52

This comment speaks volumes. No reply is even required. Ignorance must be bliss, because so many gravitate toward it willingly. "So your prescription for back problems is nicotine addiction. Mine would be fresh air and as much exercise as possible. Generally speaking, back injury is not the worst medical condition as you suggest. In most cases it is better to get on with it as best you can and not wallow in self-pity or use it as an excuse for inactivity or addiction or any other bad life-style habits. "


   ·   04/06/2008 22:34

[You] who writes page upon page upon page etc. etc., please stop taking up space with your continuous babble. Try being brief, concise and to the point I would greatly appreciate it. By the way, when replying to a contributor, have the manners to use the persons name, instead of copying their entry I didn't address you Kevin, how does it feel.

   ·   05/06/2008 14:53

"I didn't address you Kevin, how does it feel. " Didn't notice until you mentioned it to be honest. "Page after page" or "concise" both have the distinction inviting further personal attacks by those who dismiss or ignore what ever I wrote anyway. If I am concise and discussing what should be obvious to anyone with the integrity to weigh the arguments without bias, I am told I am supporting or stating things which I in fact did not state. If I provide detail to avoid the consistent confusion by some, again I am criticized for the expanse of my postings. Apparently the word limit is something new which can discredit an opinion, a cause for extreme anguish among those who cant bear to look at the words. The only thing missing here would be the rational discussion of those words, being replaced by the constant contributions expressing aversion to my person. How does it make me feel? More determined than ever to move the discussion away from childish bantering of who has a right to an opinion. Leading by example. How does that make you feel?


   ·   05/06/2008 16:17

Kevin (XUX68460). If "ASH has always been the Tobacco Industries best asset" how is it that you, who so defend the indiscriminate use of the latter's product, hate ASH so much? ASH Ireland is jointly funded by the Irish Cancer Society and the Irish Heart Foundation. Do you not think they and ASH Ireland would be glad of a cure for Cancer. That being the case can you see how unbelievable your post of 04/06/2008 14:16 must seem to all.


   ·   05/06/2008 20:20

You are boring me now, I lost you after you quoting my last sentence.


   ·   06/06/2008 12:09

Kieran, You clearly are not as clever as you think you are, if you cannot understand Witofire's last post. You have more-or-less claimed that charities such as the Irish Cancer Society are sitting on a cure for cancer, just so that they can retain their power. Witofire is merely pointing our how ludicrous this claim is. Simple really; do you understand now? It must be the short concise points that trip you up.


   ·   06/06/2008 14:46

James H I think you may be chastising the wrong person, don't you mean KEVIN the wrong" K" I am surprised you made that mistake Kevin takes over the whole page! I think it is the K's that trip you up.

   ·   06/06/2008 15:05

JamesH wrote; "You have more-or-less claimed that charities such as the Irish Cancer Society are sitting on a cure for cancer, just so that they can retain their power. Witofire is merely pointing our how ludicrous this claim is." I can't say I can disagree entirely with Kieran in her assessment. Although I can not understand why the moderator would allow her to make such a controversial claim. LOL


   ·   06/06/2008 15:45

Kieran, You are correct, I did get the Ks mixed up. Apologies.


   ·   06/06/2008 15:50

Kevin, To quote you exactly from 04/06/2008 14:16 "ASH and many of the most affluent charities would have to close their doors if a cure for cancers and heart disease were ever found. That would be a major loss of power and finances none of them will give up willingly. With the mapping of the human genome those discoveries had to be stalled so healthcare reform shifted to disease management essentially giving up the search in maintaining the status quo.". I believe my translation sums up in layman's term what you are trying to imply; i.e that the charities are sitting on the cure for cancer for their own power-driven motives. I would agree with you that your claim is controversial (at a minimum) and outlandish when you think about it at all. Just like most of your claims.

   ·   06/06/2008 20:37

James; Senator Edward Kennedy was diagnosed with life threatening brain cancer last week everyone began immediately believing he was already doomed and his time was short. He received treatment and walked out of the hospital cured with his full capacities intact, no worse for the wear, in what 3 days? With the best medical coverage on the planet could you be so fortunate? What are the odds? In Toronto last year experimental surgery was conducted at Toronto General Hospital. A probe was inserted into the tumor and heated to 350 degrees for 3 minutes. Afterward there was no trace of cancer a complete success. Multiple similar treatments have produced a 97% success rate. Despite this apparent miracle, it is a treatment we will not likely see employed any time soon. No one will fund further research of the treatment because patent rights are not possible. The physical research funding is tightly controlled by a small group and if you work outside the parameters they set you get no support. If you walk in with a calculator in hand, swear allegiance to the gods of epidemiology and theoretic justice systems; full steam ahead and here is your new American Express air miles card. Start to open your eyes and lighten up on the denials. Just as there are different laws for us and them, so to is there a depreciated value of "human capitol" [slaves] compared to the entitled. Unless you are one of the entitled your collaborating with oppressors, cheering for the wrong team while depreciating the standard of living affecting all of the rest of us. Did you bring an apple for the teacher?

   ·   06/06/2008 20:38 " On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories." PREAMBLE Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations, Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge, Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction." Unless you smoke, in which case your fair game and all rights have been suspended under revised WHO mandates, to allow and promote maximum profits among their stakeholder partners....


   ·   07/06/2008 08:33



   ·   09/06/2008 12:13

Kevin, Not sure what your point is about Ted Kennedy; seems to be that for some reason he is receiving this secret cure that the cancer charities are keeping to themselves. Why is he so special? How come all rich people do not get the secret cure? What is the criteria for selection to be given the secret cure for cancer? I am afraid that you are showing your true delusional colours now. Your ascertion that the experimental surgery will not get funded because patent rights are not possible are similarly delusional. How does any new surgery technique ever get perfected? In the same paragraph you talk about multiple similar treatments with 97% success. So on the one hand you are saying it will never get developed and on the other you are saying that multiple-experiments are ongoing with 97% success. Which is it; you cant have it both ways. If what you say is true the experiments will be published in credible peer-reviewed journals and it will spread in the surgery world. You refer to the gods of epidemiology. Epidemiology is actually a science studying the progress of disease through a population. It is invaluable to objectively measure the success of medical treatment versus any side-effects, to help determine whether the positive aspects of the treatment outweigh the negative side-effects. For example it is very easy to kill cancer cells, the trick is to kill them in such a way as to not kill the healthy cells. I have absolutely no idea what your last two paragraphs are saying. Similarly I have no idea what the UN charter message is about. Are you sure it is ordinary cigarettes that you are smoking?


   ·   09/06/2008 12:28

Roadrunner, I agree with everything that you said and I too do not support a ban in cars and feel it is a step too far. Thank you for your consideration in all aspects of your life.


   ·   09/06/2008 13:30

Roadrunner, You are the perfect example of why the ban as stated in this forum should be unnecessary. Sadly not all motorists are as considerate as you proclaim to be. A point to note is that ASH Ireland called for a ban in cars containing children. Sadly, some posters here have stated that there is nothing wrong with smoking in a car with children. One, Kevin, states that secondary smoke is good as it is full of vitamins! By the way, for your info, using capitals in your post is akin to shouting online and should be avoided. No offence intended.

   ·   09/06/2008 18:05

"Your assertion that the experimental surgery will not get funded because patient rights are not possible are similarly delusional." Actually the news report describing the situation as I did and interviewed the researcher himself, who made the statements you assessed as delusional. Perhaps if you could just find a way to get past the denials stage, invigorating your desperate need to discredit in and out of context, every word I present, let alone your own imagination creating statements in your mind, you are attributing to me. Some form of adult discussion could occur. I don't hold much hope the immature and closed mind of a Bigot, is worth the time or the effort.


   ·   09/06/2008 18:48

Hello to JamesH for the reply, with or without the ban (hope it does not come in), i hold and carry out all i said in my post, thank you again for the reply. Hello to Witefire, thank you for the reply,sorry about the capital letters did not realise it could be taken as shouting, i stand corrected. i get the jist now, have not posted much on here but will learn quickly. cheers, Roadrunner.


   ·   09/06/2008 19:16

Kevin, just because, I have an opinion that is different to you does not make me an immature, closed minded bigot. I am as entitled to argue my opinion as you are. Did the researcher in question get his/her work published in a peer-reviewed journal or not? If they did and the success rate was 97%, there is no doubt that other surgeons will follow suit; that is how the world of surgery works. However, if he/she didnt get the work published, there is the possibility of sour grapes. By the way you didnt elaborate of your insinuation re Ted Kennedy and the wonder secret cancer cure. You also did not elaborate on you contention of epidemiology being a religion versus my contention of it being a valuable science. It is not my imagination that has in recent post attributed all sorts of health benefits to smoking from vitamin b12 to cholesterol control. It was not my imagination that made outlandish claims of cancer charities sitting on wonder-cures for cancer and for some obscure reason giving it to Ted Kennedy but not to other high-profile famous people who have died from cancer. It was not my imagination that claimed that a surgeon with a new experimental technique with 97% success rate, could not get funding while at the same time paradoxically carrying out multiple similar treatments, with no explanation regarding why other surgeons would not use the technique. (Surgeons by their nature want to be at the cutting edge of successful new treatments). No; these are all claims from your posts, not as you say statements created by my mind. Maybe the fact that I have translated your obscure use of the English language to a laymans version that is comprehensible just highlights the absurdity of your claims. I am afraid that it is yourself that is in denial, hooked on an addictive cancer causing product and hoping against hope that if you say it often enough it might be true that cigarettes are not harmful, and that some generous cancer charity might give you the secret wonder-cure (that they are keeping from most of us except Ted Kennedy) if you are ever unfortunate enough to need it.


   ·   09/06/2008 19:54

Kevin, "Perhaps if you could just find a way to get past the denials stage, invigorating your desperate need to discredit in and out of context, every word I present, let alone your own imagination creating statements in your mind, you are attributing to me. Some form of adult discussion could occur. I don't hold much hope the immature and closed mind of a Bigot, is worth the time or the effort." YOU HAVE FINALLY LOOKED IN THE MIRROR, there is hope for you yet.


   ·   09/06/2008 23:41

Kevin (XUX68460), What does this mean? "Actually the news report describing the situation as I did and interviewed the researcher himself, who made the statements you assessed as delusional". If you can tell me what this means then we may be able to have some form of adult discussion as you suggest. First we have to know what you mean - if you do yourself!


   ·   25/06/2008 22:05

There are very few smokers willing not to smoke while driving with children in their car anyone doubting this take a look at the mum's/dad's driving their kids to school most of them have a butt in their gob, windows closed and thats all before they dump their car in the middle of the road to leave the kids to school with no regard for the traffic coming behind them.


   ·   07/07/2008 21:29

Hello, there are approx eight of you ranting and bitching at each other , There's no point in posting any more at the moment on this subject


   ·   10/08/2008 22:22

1984 is here already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


   ·   11/08/2008 13:22

The World health Organization did the research which somehow has been forgotten by the ban wagon cult. "Epidemiology the way it should be done" according to Neil Collishaw who oversaw the research. The results showed a slight .17 above a one in ten thousand risk, a starting point with confounders eliminated, a point were it was believed was equivalent to no increased risk, .17. The result was widely reported as a lifetime increased risk for those expossed "every day" all day, for forty years or longer, both at work and at home to second hand smoke. For those who understand these things, the difference between association and proportion would never be a point of confusion and the true value of what was found would find it's place and fade away while looking elsewhere for something of meaning. For others this was thought to be ammunition for advocacy, despite the ignorance in it's deceitful employ. What was not widely reported was the fact they saw in the same research a larger .22 decreased risk for children [known as a curative effect] who lived with smoking parents. One would have to presume those children were expossed in the car as well as in the home and appeared to find benefit. Anyone who now dismisses the findings and claims a child casually expossed in a car to second hand smoke faces an extreme health risk, has to acknowledge they are also denying the other finding in the same study which if we give any credibility to larger studies having more significance, was the essential basis for smoking bans to protect bartenders. The acts of compounded exaggerations now bring us to the new conclusions, with no large studies to verify a child could be harmed due to casual exposures, this suggests the proof and the emphasis amounts to nothing more than a political healthism driving once proud and independent people to the confines of paternalism and a belief governments need to act, not as employees of the people, but as a mothering scold. You get the kind of government you deserve. Anyone promoting this ridiculous stance that there is a significant health risk in second hand smoke in comparison to the thousands of potentially much more dangerous exposures you will see in your life, is either in the camp of shills to big pharma hoping to pay the rent with the proceeds, or simply small minded people hoping to promote hatred with a government seal of approval attached to what can only be seen as bigotry. If smoking is finally outlawed and every person on the planet quits smoking. Where will you go next to quench your thirst? and who will be the next victim?


   ·   12/08/2008 06:09

Did Kevin write that for you? Same bad spelling, bad grammer and hopeless argument put forward as facts! "Smoke is good for children." nobody believes that! Look around. The world is coming to grips with this evil addiction.


   ·   12/08/2008 12:49

I have to say I agree with you on your point Wit; The World Health Organization and its "worst case" epidemiology studies are indeed a poor representation of credible health relevant information. The truth of the matter is, people who don't smoke don't like the smell. And that is the basis of smoking bans in a nutshell. There is no panic in the streets every time someone lights up, because people, even those being protected from it, don't really believe the ad agency produced lies and euphemisms declaring harm from second hand smoke. People love the lie because it makes them comfortable. The promotion of the lies allow people to vent their frustrations and express their primal instincts against others, in a politically correct and acceptable form of hatred. There has only been one government system which based its power in paternalism, teaching people to believe they are helpless children, who need to be mothered and protected. Promoting the prissy and the weak beyond their true stature as cowards. The competition of the complainers, to be established the victim of the week has been going along splendidly, as is the promotion of the remote elevated to the norm in search of action, also become a normal way of life. Just as it was in 1930s Germany when the Jew had to be denounced in any publicly acceptable, dinner party compliant language, hatred could devise. So too we can teach ourselves to look away and feign blindness, just as we do when encountering someone sleeping on the street, we cant see them, so we dont have to get involved. The bigotry Isnt real if we ignore it, or at minimum as it serves our personal comfort, we can look away and pretend it isnt happening, so no one could accuse us of being the hypocrites we are becoming. How many times do we have to promise ourselves, never again before we put it in stone and try to remember why the promise was made? Hatred is not a noble cause or a feel good position; it is just the promotion of the majority to believe themselves superior to others. It is particularly perverse when promoted for just money. Just as many authors hope to present in their overdone vilifying of smokers and praising of the self important paternalists they identify as "public health authorities", which incredibly is seen as acceptable enough to publish today, this offers illuminating insight into where the rest of us stand. Or what we refuse to see.


   ·   12/08/2008 17:29

I'm glad you agree with me, Kevin, although I cannot say I agree with your usual longwinded post.

   ·   13/08/2008 14:19

There seems to be a lot in denial, that in fact nicotinic acid produced by burning tobacco, is in fact vitamin B3, the chemical description is C6H6N2O and its molecular weight is 122.13 daltons. Nicotinic acid is processed by the human body to produce among other things, NAD+. The world is your oyster, and Google searches are readily available to find the proof if I am wrong. Go for it. However after you discover I am not wrong, go one step further and do a search at Pub Med or any of the popular medical journals for "NAD+" At PubMed alone you will see over 38,000 references to NAD+ and by examining even a sampling of those references, try to find any, which describe, in the prescribed dosage of one milligram of nicotine as you find in a cigarette, which equates to a delivery from each cigarette of 35 micrograms of nicotinic acid, find any adverse effects which come close to the reality, NAD+ reduces bad cholesterol and increases good cholesterol or the fact NAD+ has been shown to identify and separate the damaged cells from a DNA strand, so that they can be replaced in a normal and daily bodily function, which in effect reduces or eliminates the risk of cancerous growth. Nicotinic acid is water souble and is not storred in any quantities in the body so it requires constant replacement as smokers do. If you are determined to force people to quit smoking doctors should be following a more ethically consistent path. advising smokers to ease the transition with high dosages of vitamin B compounds, not over priced smoking patches, which release nicotine directly into the blood stream and can never produce a small proportion of the beneficial effects a smoker experiences by inhaling oxidized nicotine. You don't get high on cigarettes your body just gets more efficient, which to some, may seem like a high. Instead of simply throwing out the usual denials why don't even just one of you, look for yourself, the proof of the claims is out there and in many venues all you have to do is find the courage to look at it with an open mind. Niacin is a member of the B-vitamin family. It is sometimes referred to as vitamin B3. Nicotinic acid was first discovered as an oxidation product of nicotine and thus, the origin of its name. In fact, much of the confusion caused by the use of the term niacin for both nicotinic acid and nicotinamide, as well as for nicotinic acid alone, was created by the attempt to dissociate nicotinic acid from its nicotine origins. Niacin, via its metabolites, is involved in a wide range of biological processes, including the production of energy, the synthesis of fatty acids, cholesterol and steroids, signal transduction, the regulation of gene expression and the maintenance of genomic integrity.


   ·   13/08/2008 16:25

i agree with alo. this topic is getting out of hand. the online poll disagrees with ASH and it should be left at that. finito

Dr. Michael Siegal

   ·   14/08/2008 04:15

Even the Surgeon General's office has had plenty of time and opportunity to correct or clarify the Surgeon General's claim that a brief exposure to secondhand smoke is sufficient to cause atherosclerosis and lung cancer. No clarification was forthcoming, and the claim remains on the web site to this day, without any note of correction. In my opinion, this means we are not just exaggerating or distorting the science - we are lying to the public. And we're doing so knowingly and intentionally. And I don't think the tobacco control movement can remain as a legitimate and viable one within public health if it continues to do so.

   ·   14/08/2008 10:41

"Promoting the prissy and the weak beyond their true stature as cowards." - if anything sounded like the pre-1940 Germany , that did

   ·   14/08/2008 13:04

""Promoting the prissy and the weak beyond their true stature as cowards." - if anything sounded like the pre-1940 Germany , that did" You have nothing to fear but fear itself. Sound familiar? "The prissy and weak" referred to, are the participating actors, Promoting fear by claiming to have experienced the described and quite obviously exaggerated claims, to give them validity. We have seen those people here, lamenting the smell on their clothes or the "blue smoke". Supposedly toxic within minutes yet they don't leave or don gas masks as a normal reaction to a life threatening situation, they don't leave, knowing second hand smoke is a convenient lie, as we all do, they continue to sit in a smoke allowed bar, while their clothes acquire the smell. Instead of going somewhere which suits their personal comfort, to a place where, if of course; "having a good time" was their actual intent, [as opposed to making sure no one else would be enjoying themselves] they would be much more likely to find it.


   ·   14/08/2008 13:22

When Vitamin B was first discovered we did not realise that it was a complex group of different but related vitamins. We thought that it was a single chemical. This chemical was given the name "Nicotinic Acid" but some people might think that it was not good for you (nicotine from cigarette smoke is not good for you) so we decided to call it "Niacin". It is also referred to as PP factor (Pellagra Preventing). Even if there are elements in cigarette smoke that, if isolated may be of benefit to humans, introducing them to the human body in a toxic carrier such as cigarette smoke would obviously not be advisable. There are many ways of taking vitamins such as healthy eating without the ridiculous asumption that sucking them into the lungs in a cloud of smoke is a good idea. If smokers want to do so - fine! Don't force the rest of us to do the same!


   ·   14/08/2008 16:19

I presume the poster calling himself 'Dr. Michael Siegal' is referring to the Surgeon General's office of the United States of America though he does not make this clear to us on this Irish forum. I would like to ask him if he is of the opinion that tobacco smoke is good for human beings to breathe.

   ·   14/08/2008 22:51

"Even if there are elements in cigarette smoke that, if isolated may be of benefit to humans, introducing them to the human body in a toxic carrier such as cigarette smoke would obviously not be advisable" If burned nicotine is so beneficial to human health, don't you find it curious, no one is trying to find a cleaner way of administering it? Further the one product we use, with the potential to cure cancers and lower heart attack risk, is the one product said to produce both as well? Diet and artificial supplements at best are only somewhat less than 10% as efficient in delivering NAD+. The body does produce [abet much less] NAD+ from red meat and a few other sources. The B vitamins you purchase in the store are an artificial route even less effective than red meat [Nicotinamide] Pills require the daily intake controlled, because dosages above 50 milligrams of the artificial varieties, results in dangerous side effects which diminish their usefulness. To be most effective; Vitamin B3 requires B6 and B12 as well. If a fraction of the effort was invested in extracting the potentials from tobacco based nicotine instead of creating fear to drive science away, the potential for discoveries and cures grows tremendously. Unfortunately unless they can secure a patent, few drug makers will be investing in tobacco medical research. BTW The quote from Michael Siegal, looks like a quote he made at Reason Magazine this week, you should check out the article.


   ·   15/08/2008 17:48

Kevin, you seem to have misread my post. I am not advocating the use of dietary supplements - good diet suffices. You are the one expounding the theory that cigarette smoke contains vitamins - not I. Also, you must not confuse Nicotinic Acid with Nicotine.


   ·   15/08/2008 18:21

i think people have got fed up with two people hogging this topic with their own agendas. at least i have, its getting boring.

   ·   15/08/2008 22:54

I am not advocating anything. I am simply presenting established facts. Not theories, chemical realities you can see with your own eyes. Not to be confused with the anti smoker movement's theoretic calculations, which represent the highest and most remote of worst case percentage ranges, traditionally presented deceptively as true proportions, to deliberately confuse people. I didn't confuse nicotinic acid or Niacin or B3. for nicotine, Oxidized or burned nicotine, creates the most efficient form of biologically essential nicotinic acid known to man, as I believe I have already demonstrated with the posted quote.


   ·   17/08/2008 13:49

Witofire you have a very unhealthy obsession with smoking. Cn fth?


   ·   18/08/2008 12:41

I haven't looked in on this site for sometime and I notice the same names with the same arguments trying to convince eachother their views are wrong. In the meantime the deaths associated with cigarettes, cigarette smoking in cars, cigarette ends being thrown out the windows, young children being affected by passive smoking, its all continuing and you people don't even notice the seasons have changed! Do any of you have family and lives to live, Think About What I Say.


   ·   18/08/2008 16:01

Why dont some of your contributors get back to basics, instead of having complex postings. The basic cause of cancer is a mutating gene which is triggered off by a various outside factors i.e smoking, raydon gas, water treatments etc. I dont think smoking is the major factor in causing cancer although its one of them. i have being smoking for 47 years yet i got an all clear from the hospital recently, so why dont i have cancer? simple--- the gene has not mutated. answer that you wise owls[ no offence intended]. regards


   ·   18/08/2008 16:26

Hello Lisann, You are so brave gambling as you do, I managed to quit after the same period of time and I am praying that I am not too late because I have a family that I love so much I wouldn't want to cause grief and pain to them. But, as I said I am not brave enough to continue and hope that I do not go the way my dear brother went on July 20th. no cancer but also no breath left to survive. Four months in hospital and every day his lungs were closing and filling a little more. I held him as he took his last breath and he fought for that believe me. My brother wouldn't mind me telling you about his last days because he said shortly before he died if he had known this was going to happen he never would have smoked. I hope this helps somebody.


   ·   18/08/2008 17:20

hello anne, i am sorry the for trouble re your brother r.i.p. and thank you for the letter. you seemed to suggest he had not got cancer but he had wished to have up giving smoking. i just wondered was his illness workrelated or any other. i am not making an excuse for smoking cos i know it causes major breathing problems. once again thank you.


   ·   18/08/2008 22:25

Hello again Lisann, Thank you for your kind words. I didn't intend to go into such detail in my last posting but you will appreciate it is still quite fresh in my memory, and when I came upon this forum I felt compelled to tell all about my dear brother because, as I said he would want to help others. Anyway, enough about my loss. other than the Doctor told me he had advanced Emphysema (I hope my spelling is correct) he was 67 and had been smoking since he was about 13, the Doctor reminded me of that fact. Lisann take care of yourself and again thank you for your kind words of sympathy. -Anne


   ·   19/08/2008 08:52

Lisann, Just because you have been lucky and havent got cancer after 47 years of smoking is meaningless. The facts are that 90% of lung cancer victims are smokers. Yes you are correct that all smokers do not get lung cancer, the reverse of that coin is that almost all lung cancer victims are smokers. The link is obvious. Just because you have been lucky is no scientific basis for a young teenager to gamble the risk of whether they will be one of the lucky ones or not. You didnt know 47 years ago whether you would be one of the lucky ones or not. It is naivety in the extreme to say that smoking causes major breathing problems but not be able to accept the link with lung cancer that the entire medical world accepts.


   ·   19/08/2008 11:29

Anon2, I believe you are confusing a healthy interest with an unhealthy obsession. Having given up the habit over twenty years ago smoking gives me little reason to become obsessed. The only difference is other peoples smoke and this is becoming less and less of a problem. Thank you ASH Ireland!


   ·   19/08/2008 16:37

to jamesH, i dont wish to argue with you but i did point out on a previous posting that smoking is one the high factors for getting cancer, so i am not naive. regarding your figures, then the odds were stacked very high on me for getting cancer and i had worked with asbestos and toxic chemicals [without protection] so answer this question: why did i not get cancer of some form? sometimes people cant see the wood for the trees.


   ·   19/08/2008 21:29

Lisann, I dont think smoking is the major factor in causing cancer although its one of them. I dont wish to argue either, but this quote of yours seems to clearly indicate that you do not think smoking is a major factor in causing cancer. Wonder why you would have great difficulty in finding a doctor to agree with you? You keep going on about how you havent got cancer. The answer is obvious; as I have already said you were lucky. Not everyone gets cancer and as you correctly point out not all smokers get lung cancer. The point that eludes you is that very few non-smokers get lung cancer and almost all lung cancer victims are smokers; have you worked that out yet? They are the facts no matter how uncomfortable they make you feel. My point was that there was no way 47 years ago that you could have known you would be so lucky. So what advice would you give a teenager contemplating starting smoking? Would you say; go on take a chance you might be lucky?


   ·   19/08/2008 22:21

yes, smoking in a car or what ever you travel in should be banned


   ·   20/08/2008 10:53

hi jamesH, luck has nothing to do with it. it has to be something else. by the way, i do not advocate smoking to anybody and particularly to teens. because it is legal i should have a choice. what is the proper definition of CANCER? we all talk about it but we dont know what it actually is, but we know the things that cause it. in the end i hope we agree to differ. the topic, was should smoking be banned in cars? yes,if there are kids or nonsmokers in it . no if you are alone and a smoker. regards

   ·   20/08/2008 22:44

Letter to the World Health Organization; To whom it may concern Please protect someone else, I enjoy smoking and eating fried foods and have no delusions about living to one hundred years of age, or would I ever look forward to spending much of that time, waiting for a diaper change, while essentially surviving only to provide a need for more medical treatments, at the expense and burden of those around me. It is no largely held secret second hand smoke is an invention of advocacy. Smoking bans are empowered only by the fact; most non-smokers do not like the smell of tobacco smoke; sum and total. A political win by the majority rules, although most don't care, they never did, beyond the perspective of what brings them comfort as the ruling perspective. The truth in respect to the legitimate "fear" can be seen by how many actually run away from what is said to be a mortal danger with no safe level? How many have been prosecuted, or could be, for attempt murder or common assault with a deadly weapon by smoking in the presence of others? There is no legitimate danger or fear, the lie supports comfort, nothing more. In search of personal comfort and equal time, I will leave it in your more than capable hands to explain to my government that; for most of us death is inevitable. The ways and means of that eventuality becomes unimportant once that fact is established. There is no moral justification to legitimise cigarette taxation, in essence taxing an addiction or medical dependency which creates poverty by prescription. Your own research indicates half of those who smoke will not die of smoking related diseases, which is essentially consistent with the rest of the population numbers. This would indicate a large number of the population are paying for a sin they will never commit. There is also no way to justify a dictation through risk perspectives that death by one route in old age or premature death [whatever that means], would be more virtuous than another. Relation or risk assessment has no bearing on an absolute outcome, which encompasses all of us, or even in your view, most of us. Therefore lives saved by restrictions and oppressive laws, as described in your advertisements, are actually not possible at all. As I explained earlier smoking bans promote comfort for the majority to the exclusion of a large minority who are targeted being by a moralist campaign with no clear scientific basis beyond the glad handing of those involved.


   ·   21/08/2008 16:10

Kevin, If secondhand smoke is an illusion what are those fumes emanating from the end of the cigarette? In your desparate attempt to justify smoking in cars with children you would have us deny the sight of our eyes. I bet WHO will be very impressed with your paranoid ramblings and persecution complex. It is morally wrong for anyone to smoke in a car with children. The fact that people like you advocate it is why ASH called for the legislation and remember it was for cars with children and not as stated above.


   ·   23/08/2008 12:53

Science as it is being used to promote smoking bans is a dogma or belief system, which does not allow common sense or any variation of perspectives. They denounce the Tobacco industry as the devil. Opponents as devils advocates. They declare death and disease as a reward for your sins. They demand the devout apply strict adherence to the prophesies and the prophets while they declare all other perspectives as the result of denials in the one true belief. Religious order or secular scientific opinions, should be easy to determine. By the application of the test; is the knowledge they claim to posses; a measure of belief enhanced by popularity or power among the following, or of verifiable facts they can demonstrate with no margin of error? The cult following is inspired by theoretic calculations not of known events or absolute measures, but of believed measures, which could vary, however will not be allowed to vary, based in the citation methods of research depositories, collecting like minded conclusions. Conclusions of limited observational projects and statements which suit the old boys network and its continued dominance of the process. Many among them reveal obvious bias in the statements made, forming their conclusions, which include the wording "science has established" this or that, as an empowering argument, seemingly attempting to be seen as part or subservient to the culture, which will allow only certain statements to be published which meet with predetermined beliefs, equally with few exceptions. In spite of actual observations. [See Enstrom and Kobot] The truth of the validity in what is being presented to the public as "irrefutable proof", it has a foundation in very loose terms of precision.

   ·   18/09/2008 13:35

Well said Alo: "There are very few smokers willing not to smoke while driving with children in their car anyone doubting this take a look at the mum's/dad's driving their kids to school most of them have a butt in their gob, windows closed and thats all before they dump their car in the middle of the road to leave the kids to school with no regard for the traffic coming behind them. " I agree that a ban would probably be useless. Besides it should not even be necessary, if parents behaved responsibly and did not smoke in their car while their children are with them.


   ·   19/09/2008 02:39

To Kevin In your letter to World Health Organisation. Your first paragraph describes exactly how you are cared for before you leave this life as a result of smoking, I promise you this is difficult for me to write because my brother died recently as a result of smoking. Four months in St. James's Hospital in the condition you describe in your first paragraph. I love and miss cigarettes but I promised my brother that I would never smoke again. I would never want to be present when a person is suffocating when he cant breathe. God rest him. If this note reaches just one person I will be happy and my brothers demise won't be in vane.

   ·   19/09/2008 13:00

For Anonymous who posted at 02.39. First of all I am sorry to hear your brother died, and yes, it must have been harrowing to see him in that state. I fully endorse what you say in your post. All the best.


   ·   19/09/2008 21:30

in all motor cars, yes. even though the person owns the car, as some people hate smoke and the smell on their clothes.


   ·   22/09/2008 11:40

even if a law came out banning smoking in cars, i can not see it being enforced properly by the gardai. how many times has any of you seen people using mobile phones in their cars [which is against the law]?

   ·   22/09/2008 14:41

What is really sad when seeing the tragedy of death especially a painful death, how others see a political advantage. If only more people stopped following what is promoted in the media by large scale industrial ad campaigns and started to think for themselves how many of those tragedies could be avoided. In a real sense the proposal of preventable mortality is the postulation of an impossibility. All you would do if you eliminated all smoking related disease today would be to expand mortality numbers from another cause. Enabling the next big crusade paternalising ourselves into oppressive oblivion. Chasing windmills we are conned relentlessly by charities who traditionally afford less than 5% of what is donated to research, even that so called "research" is limited to epidemiological studies for the most part, which represent the crudest form of research available in population studies, with the highest reliability in producing political agreements. Has anyone ever heard of RMS or standard deviation? Pure mathematics with precise results. When seeking exactly those numbers which are already available, why would you rely on comparative group questionnaires unless the target would be found in sensation driven and irresponsible media releases. If people relied on their own common sense and sought out the word NSAIDs studying content in comparison of products on the market for instance. Hundreds of studies published in the journals already concur by simply eliminating roots and stems and utilizing flu curing processes well over 95% of the toxic content in tobacco smoke could be eliminated. Public health has consistently opposed that simple regulation because they could not tolerate smokers believing one cigarette could actually be safer than another. "No safe cigarette" or "no safe level of tobacco smoke" affords no useful information or any promotion of change. The terms only afford legitimacy to a moralist indoctrination or following. This would tend to expose the true political nature of the anti smoker campaign, as more of a prejudicial and hateful moralist following, than any concern for others. If the general population was allowed to understood that andeocarcinoma of the lung was rare among smokers prior to 1960 [when additives and reconstituted tobacco was allowed to enter the marketplace] and today it is the number one killer among cancers, research would lead you to the political truth of the situation. Many are dying, and those deaths are very likely preventable in relation to what causes them, only callous indifference among an immoral following, stands as the only legitimate reason to satisfy why.

   ·   22/09/2008 15:24

We all know the dangers of passive smoking, particularly for children. I would like to see legislation rather than a complete ban that would prevent people from smoking in a car if there are children travelling at the same time. I dont think it is unreasonable to smoke in your own car if you are travelling with someone, for example if you are giving a neighour a lift etc. If the person you are transporting is an adult and in their full faculty, then it is THEIR responsibility to either ask you politley not to smoke or to seek another form of transport. Re the effects on children, I would like to see legislation brought in, and perhaps also people could look at bringing in new ligislation for parents who feed their children on greasy junk food and allow them to sit in from of the tv/computer all day - thus increasing the chances of the child developing diabetes. As well as being a good health initiative, perhaps it would also help to tip the scales a little more towards the side that isn't constantly looking for a stick to beat the smoker with!

   ·   20/10/2008 13:55

According to Anthony J. Alberg, PhD, MPH and Jonathan M. Samet, MD, MS et al, Lung Cancer mortality in 1960 was close to 38 per hundred thousand, or roughly 38,000 in a 100 million population. If 90% of those were in fact caused by smoking as the research indicates; we arrive with 34,200 smoking caused cancers. The 90% figure is controversial as we know from the bulk of Public Health media statements and published research papers; the figure resides in a range between 70% and 85%, however, in establishing a worst case scenario, and as we must, in erring on the side of caution we will calculate the mortality risk with the larger figure. Carrying forward with the same number of smokers [B. Godshall et al] fifty years down the road, we should understandably expect, [all things remaining the same] that the lung cancer mortalities figure would not change. Today we can conclude the same 34,200 mortalities believed to be caused by smoking in 1960 still remain, among the 220,000 lung cancer mortalities which occur today, although the 90% associated figure has declined significantly, along with smoker prevalence within the general population, as we would naturally expect would be the case. Logic and common sense tells us; if 90% was applied to the current figures, the percentage of cigarette related Cancers in 1960 by comparison would be five times the number of those we know actually occurred. One can only conclude from the evidence; five out of six Lung cancers are not caused by smoking; but are in fact, caused by the Tobacco Control [TC] lobby groups. Figures they cite in respect to heart disease or any other so called smoking related disease, can be proven to be similar. Making TC and Public Health [who all rely heavily on the American Cancer Society for the figures cited] the planet's leading source of "preventable mortality". You can quote me on that, any time you like. The facts speak for themselves. Citations; Anthony J. Alberg, PhD, MPH and Jonathan M. Samet, MD, MS et al; Lung Cancers proportional to the population total have doubled since 1960. In actual numbers they have risen sixfold while the true number of smokers remained consistent throughout, for over 50 years. Lung Cancers can be developed in a laboratory in a matter of days. There has never been a reliable explanation of why it would take cigarettes 30 or more years to culture the same cancers. The reliance on Clara cells and their benefit in protecting the lungs of smokers for so many years, diminishes the claims made in respect to the more immediate effects of second hand smoke. Figure 1.. Lung cancer mortality rates for the United States from 1930 to 1998, age-standardized to the 1970 US population. Adapted from Gordon et al,19 and Mckay et al,20 and Ries et al.21 ; W. Godshall et al; "But declining prevalence overshadows the fact that, with population growth, the absolute number of smokers in the U.S. remained relatively constant at 45 to 50 million over the entire period." Sheldon Ungar Et Al; The results suggest that the public consensus about the negative effects of passive smoke is so strong that it has become part of a regime of truth that cannot be intelligibly questioned. James E Enstrom, researcher1, Geoffrey C Kabat, associate professor Et Al; The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed. While we romanced the idea that smoking causes everything, what have we neglected? and how many died as a circumstance, of embracing high drama and calling it science?

   ·   29/10/2008 22:00

all non smokers rant and rave about smokers. i smoke in my home and i have kids who are perfectly healthly. as for trying to ban smoking in cars get a life will you what about all the drink drivers out there killing people on the roads next thing people will be trying to get people banned from turnin on radios in cars. its always the non smokers that are giving out. im not going to have anyone tell me i cant smoke in my house or my car. i choose to smoke. everyone has to die sometime whether you smoke or not.


   ·   01/11/2008 08:48

Those idiots who maintained that lighting a cigarette in a car could never cause an accident should read today's (1/11/08) Daily Mail. "Businessman cheats death after his car explodes in a ball of flames when he lights a cigarette". Hopefully their penchant for denial will not prevent them from accepting such a blatant truth at this late stage.

   ·   01/11/2008 12:03

Public health alone authorizes themselves as authorities. The claims and demands they make, are only as real as people allow them to be. No one elects them they can't be fired and take absolutely no responsibility for their actions, because they empower themselves to believe they are always right. Thus they only represent a downside cost and depreciation in all of their perspectives. They create drama and anguish out of any minor inconvenience. They make their largest profits from the tragedies of others, and people keep letting them do it. Fear is the product shame is the motivator and bigotry is the end result. Anyone exhibiting diversity, creativity or common sense, is always their denounced enemy, claimed to be the stuff of fools. The media sells them franchise to spread their gloom, simply put; because people keep buying it. Advertising is always purchased to make a profit and there are no saints behind the ads, giving anything away for free. It all has a cost and if it requires convincing with TV commercials and focused ad campaigns to get you to buy it, it is always over valued. Science is not found with focus groups or popularity polls. Science is its own master and it is for us to understand its rules, not to invent them ourselves, to suit political expediencies and profits. Only when people start to question and denounce public health authority and opinions, will the problem right itself. You will see that happen when comedians become more popular in poking fun at health scare and its self appointed authority, placing the proper perspective on these people as politicians pretending to be scientists, or as the ignorant pretending to be educators. A bad joke or seriously damaged, they certainly are not the people who should be defining what is normal or should they be allowed to create hatred or divisions in otherwise peaceful communities.

   ·   03/11/2008 19:51

Wit; "Hopefully their penchant for denial will not prevent them from accepting such a blatant truth at this late stage." Yes I see your point, and I concur; It is an absolute disgrace car manufacturers are selling such flammable products. Someone should do something before someone is seriously injured.


   ·   04/11/2008 10:57

In reply to Mary, I am a woman who has children so we are on par so far, however when you say you smoke in the presence of your precious children that is where we part. You well know that cigarettes are cancer invoking and yet you let your children inhale your smoke from your cigarette. The trouble is you have been smoking for so long you do not realise what damage you are causing, is that how little your children mean to you? As for drinking and driving, two wrongs do not make a right so don't go there please this site is about SMOKING. You mentioned that you have to "die" of something, again, are you selfish enough to take the chance of making yourself sick and expecting your children to take care of you. I would understand if you were dying of age related ailment but if you care for the people around you, give up the fags, or is that the problem, you can't!

   ·   05/11/2008 02:37

"There is no safe level of tobacco smoke" is a given, because the consensus of medical authorities world wide agree. But what are they really saying? Next time you are in a crowd; ask that everyone who does not know what tobacco smoke smells like, to please raise their hands. I have yet to see anyone raise their hands, so I am forced to assume they have all been expossed to second hand smoke. If there is no safe level, all have also been expossed to the maximum level of risk. If increased risk is determined, [as all measurements are] the variance or potential difference, between point A and point B. As we can see there is no measurable difference between those two points; I must also conclude, there can be no increased risk if there is no safe level of exposure. Second hand smoke is therefore believed to be harmless. So how did they conclude ETS could possibly cause one death much less thousands? It certainly was never in scientific evaluation, beyond the power of imagination. Autonomy is about personal choice and management over your own body. Cigarettes are self medication which allows one to avoid many more expensive products including anti depressant and cognitive enhancing drugs. As we see in the third world, they can also replace food in an ability to suppress hunger pains [Tax the poor?]. A human right to choose is exactly described in a choice to use cigarettes and alternative nicotine products being promoted shamelessly, by the very people we thought we could trust. Non smokers have no right to breathe clean air, because non means nothing and affords no basis to establish a right, for people who don't actually exist.

   ·   05/11/2008 09:31

Angry, this thread is not about trying to bully or guilt people into quitting smoking - it is whether or not it should be banned in motor vehicles. The reason why smokers will sometimes come across as arrogant and defensive is exactly because of people like you who act all high and mighty because you don't smoke. Smoking is a personal choice, as are many other things that people do "wrong" - but it is smokers who are targeted time and time again.

   ·   05/11/2008 14:07

Non smokers have no right to breathe clean air, because non means nothing and affords no basis to establish a right, for people who don't actually exist. Another completely and bafflingly meaningless sentence. As for using cigarettes for hunger pangs - given the price of cigarettes vs the price even if cheap food this is as illogical as you can get. People smoke because they are addicted and there are as many smoking patients on anti depressant and cognitive drugs so there's that little theory out the window.


   ·   05/11/2008 14:29

Kevin, Your recent posts have become so garbled that I can only conclude that you are smoking much more than just tobacco. Your attempts at logical argument are reminiscint of "Alice in Wonderland" and contain huge illogical leaps leading to your huge illogical conclusions.

   ·   05/11/2008 15:08

Anonymous what you fail to grasp is the obvious. There is no such thing as a smoker or a non smoker if we are all recognized as humans. A non smoker as the logic goes; can change their DNA and species by picking up a fork or a cigarette or failing to report to the gym. The classifications are only real if you believe bigotry should be defining the law or that autonomy is just an inconvenience. We made that mistake in the past they called it eugenics. Others called it protecting the fine Aryan race. BTW for the poor in the third world as I described; cigarettes are easier to get and cheaper than food. Many among the poor find the price of a package of cigarettes is far cheaper than three squares a day and anti depressants or other drugs to cure what ails you, right here in the developed world. Think before painting nasty pictures in your head, which allow you to condemn others, who are just trying to get by like the rest of us. Because if you think about it you will realize, they are the rest of us.


   ·   05/11/2008 15:24

Louise, Is your name Mary, I was replying to her posting, I didn't see your name or, maybe you use two names. In reply to Louise/Mary if you didn't smoke there would be no need for this forum so it certainly has to do with SMOKING AND NOT SMOKING.


   ·   05/11/2008 16:17

to jamesh--you are close to slander re kevin with your conclusions.regards

   ·   05/11/2008 16:23

What nonsense.If someone smokes - they are a smoker. If someone doesn't smoke they are a non-smoker. To cpompare it to Eugenics is a travesty. You can change your status as a smoker or non-smoker. You cannot, if it were not obvious, change being black, being disabled, being a woman or being froma certain ethnic origin such as gypsy or Roma

   ·   05/11/2008 16:34

Angry wow you really do live up to your username dont you! :) Actually the TITLE is "ASH Ireland has called for a ban on smoking in all motor vehicles. Would you support such a ban?" You are not actually responding to this motion, you are attempting to make people guilty because if they smoke their children may end up looking after them - so tell me exactly how THAT relates to the thread title....? If you would like a private discussion with someone else exchange emails, otherwise you are accountable for the messages that you post here, and we are all within our rights to read and challenge them - HENCE it is a "discussion board"! :)

   ·   05/11/2008 17:31

"To coompare it to Eugenics is a travesty. You can change your status as a smoker or non-smoker. You cannot, if it were not obvious, change being black, being disabled, being a woman or being froma certain ethnic origin such as gypsy or Roma " To not recognize it as bigotry is sheer ignorance. Does someone by the power of the size of their group alone, have a right to decide for others what they may be allowed to do in the management of their own body or life? Your contention that cultural groups are protected and cultural choices can be condemned is somehow confused. Perhaps that is what you should think about. We all did evolve out of the same primordial ooze, or so I am told and the only differences between people are environmental. The definitions used in the past to divide us, can not be justified again, by simply refocusing our targeted identifiable group, we are discussing real people with the same rights as anyone else. Including the right to be left alone. If I spoke about you the same way you talk about "smokers" versus "Non smokers" you would be insulted and for good reason. Would you like to be on the receiving end of defending yourself against the accusations of being murderers child abusers and any amount of charges a self serving or diseased mind can muster and joyfully bring to the stakeholder group. A group which declares smokers as helpless to fight against an addiction, yet fair game for the abuse, which should be seen as an effort to help them quit?


   ·   05/11/2008 21:33

Louise, Is your name Mary, I was replying to her posting, I didn't see your name or, maybe you use two names. In reply to Louise/Mary if you didn't smoke there would be no need for this forum so it certainly has to do with SMOKING AND NOT SMOKING. You say that I am not saying on the point, regarding Ash Ireland calling for a ban on smoking in all motor vehicles would I support it, I certainly would even if it only helped your own children watching you smoking, by smoking in front of them you are saying with your actions, IT IS OK TO SMOKE IN OR OUT OF VEHICLES, LOOK AT MAMMY I AM A HAPPY SMOKER. Just one more word about not staying with the thread, you mentioned in one of your postings about a ban being put on food, just remember people in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones. Do us all a favour but most of all the children, give up smoking in or out of VEHICLES

   ·   05/11/2008 22:46

Anon; "What nonsense.If someone smokes - they are a smoker. If someone doesn't smoke they are a non-smoker. To cpompare it to Eugenics is a travesty. You can change your status as a smoker or non-smoker. You cannot, if it were not obvious, change being black, being disabled, being a woman or being froma certain ethnic origin such as gypsy or Roma " No if someone smokes, they are just a person who chooses to smoke and if they don't they are just a person who chooses not to. That does not imply superiority or license to speak down to or about either by either. Neither does it give a right to make judgments about millions of people you don't know and couldn't possibly define so simplistically as; smokers and non smokers. Or any of the other categories which exist only in the mind. You are talking hatred and bigotry as your only claim to intelligence and to be honest it doesn't look all that impressive in fact you come across as quite intolerant. When UNESCO was being formed in 1945 they asked for a definition to argue against those still supporting the Nazis and I hope the moderator will allow this link be posted. If you read it, and understand what it says, you might understand why I define the divisions you are protecting and the way they are being used as Bigotry. Helping someone to quit or protecting someone else is not usually a mean spirited aggressive act, unless it is more accurately described as "any excuse will do". / / If you find it too difficult to read it all, your answers may be found in the second half of page three. All the best to you and yours.

   ·   06/11/2008 14:22

Yes, a smoker is a person - who choses to smoke and becoems addicted and continuws to do so and a non-smoker is a person who chooses not to smoke. No judgement, implied superiority or downtalk at all. As for "categories which exist only in the mind" - how on earht could the distinciton exist inonly in someonees mind whne it is perfectly obvious and plainfor all to see that someone who smokes is a smokes and someone who doesn't smoke is a non-smoker. I am not talking hatred and bigotry as my only claim to intelligence - there are many many form of intelligence. However as someone wo had parents who were smokers, has smokers among my inlaws and who has friends who used to smoke, if you think I am intolerant thne maybe you've nver met an anti-smoker. All the best to you also.

   ·   07/11/2008 04:50

The practice of "managing diseases", the strategy adopted recently in public health partnerships, has now been accepted internationally in place of a legitimate search for medical cures, which could allay all fears. It is entirely curious at a time when those cures are finally coming within our grasp, they will be delayed once again. Disease Management as a strategy, can not avoid the underlying reality; you have to micro-manage the personal lives of individuals and promote segregation, hatred and bigotry within communities in order to make it effective. Ignorance of human rights and personal freedom can never be overlooked or simply ignored in hopes they will just go away. The vote enabling a smoking ban, could more correctly be described as a vote on the public acceptance of bigotry. The same people who propose such laws ignore the fact they wear deodorants and perfumes rich in much higher concentrations of toxins than a cigarette could ever contain. The fresh air they covet is ripe with their choice of what they willingly inhale. Someone who calls themselves a smoker, is living the created lie which was necessary in separating them from the rest of the community, with widely brushed perspectives. You are a person with free will, who uses a product on the shelf along side deodorants deodorizers and perfumes all of which we all accept in life as a civil respect, and understanding of the choices others may make.


   ·   07/11/2008 11:04

The original question was: ASH Ireland has called for a ban on smoking in all motor vehicles. Would you support such a ban? No way! Why would anyone support such a ban? People can smoke away in their cars if they want. It won't change anyway, the government would be laughed at if they tried it.

   ·   07/11/2008 15:39

Kevin, I mean no disrespect when I say this but the last part of your post makes no sense. If someone calls themselves a smoker how are they living any created lie, when they do actually smoke?? If they smoke, then thus are a smoker. My mother has the old age pension and so is an old pensioner. Despite the fact that she doesn't feel old she is neverthelessover 66 and in recieptof the state old age pension. I am a driver. Some days I don't fel like driving or want to drive but nevertheless I am a driver. Deodorant is rather different as you say because we ALL use it and using one forms part of civil respect and also, one does not spray it liberally at others whereby they have to inhale it. Smoking however is not done by all nor is it neccessary for any form of civil respect.

   ·   08/11/2008 12:08

Anon; In context what I was describing Smoker was in fact the word smoker as we would describe the word propaganda has a universally promoted negative connotation, being deliberately attached to people by wide brush. In this blog we see many examples of wide brushed statements referring to people as only smokers which assumes all who smoke are guilty of any stated allegation, regardless of how often it would actually occur in real life. As little as 15 years ago, Doctors smoked in the waiting rooms right along side fathers to be. There was no great concern as to any damage being done to children then, and the those same Doctors being specialists should have known if children including new born babies would be affected. So what really changed in the past fifteen years? There was no medical breakthrough or new science extravaganza. What changed was the institutions management boards started demanding doctors smoke outdoors to satisfy a visible perspective. The anti smoker lobbies; who we had until that point ignored for years, because they suffered from a lack of credibility, partnered with the smoking patch manufacturers and through their influence with the World health Organization and the stakeholders went to work; demonizing smokers, all the while denying they were in fact demonizing people, as opposed to demonizing the habit, as they will continue to claim despite the obvious. As it is used especially by lobbyists who say smokers cause everything negative that could possibly afflict a human body. The exaggerations of science fiction has grown to a point people automatically hear the word smoker and almost instinctively they sense an enemy, and the defenses go up. When you use the word pensioner you do not have a similar response, most people have warm thoughts, despite the reality when smoking was much more prevalent years ago, the now pensioners who also contribute the largest expense to medical costs, would more likely than not be also described as smokers. Smoking related disease does not describe a cause but a factor and there are many factors age, poverty and ethnicity being the most significant. These groups contain the majority of smokers; so are we actually railing against an enemy or against the most defenseless among us? What the medical profession has stood by and watched happen is heartless and below what we expect of them. It is no large secret and only common sense if you paint a group [and for whatever reason] that stands as a minority in a large population, you are in fact promoting violence and mistrust, because even if it has a very small percentage of effect in the total population it results in very large number of occurrences of conflict and tragedy. Smoker is therefore no less a display of bigotry as it is being used by medical institutions today, than the many ignorant words we denounce in the way other groups [including the groups you mentioned previously] were also described. I find it inexcusable more of the so called experts are not speaking out, if to no one beyond each other, to caution against further proliferation of what is being created by disease management strategies, which are developing in other areas of lobby promotions who believe anti smoker advocacy can be applied similarly to all others at risk.

   ·   10/11/2008 12:02

For the most part I see what you mean Kevin - your objection is to what you see as the universal perception of the word "smoker" rather than its use to describe a person who smokes. Yes, some people use the word smoker in the same tone of voice I might reserve for a dangerous variant of flur - or a particularly dangerous bacteria. But when I refer to a smoker, I am simply referring to someone who smokes - just as a golfer is someone who plays golf and my mother is a pensioner


   ·   10/11/2008 14:40

Dear Jamie, With regard to banning smoking in ones car or automobile of any sort. You said they would be laughed at, I thought that when they mentioned that they were banning smoking in pubs and look at it now. I think if they intend banning smoking in vehicles it will work purely because at any time they can stop you and when you wind down the window or, the window is usually down anyway the man in uniform will smell the smoke believe me a non smoker will smell smoke.


   ·   10/11/2008 15:57

to anonymous[10/11] i said it once and i will say it again,the gardai cannot enforce the law re mobile phones. how many people have you seeing using mobile phones in cars? i have seen plenty and thats against the law. to be honest this state is turning into a nanny state with ASH pushing their agenda and other groups as well. as regards to banning smoking in pubs, most of them have "outdoor" smoking areas [in my eye]


   ·   10/11/2008 20:16

Dear Lisann, I am sorry I seem to have annoyed you somewhat, this is only my second entry to this blog and I certainly did not think that I would have such an affect. I am neither for nor against smoking, if I am exasperated by anyone/anything it is the Government, they create laws that they cannot enforce. As for Ash Ireland calling for a ban on smoking in motor vehicles, would I support such a ban, no I wouldn't. The reason being if that was allowed it would be setting a precedent.


   ·   11/11/2008 11:04

Anon, the ban in the pubs and bars was to protect workers in the workplace. There's no way they can ban you smoking in your car. You're not harming anyone. They would have a better reason to ban smoking while walking down a street.

Michael J. McFadden

   ·   13/11/2008 02:37

Lisanne's comment about mobile phone enforcement got me thinking a bit about phones and smoking in cars. A ban such as the one ASH is proposing may very well result in killing far more people far more immediately than it would ever theoretically "save." When the Antismokers first began blathering about smoking while driving ten or fifteen years ago (before they even thought about playing the "save the children" propaganda card for it) they focused on smoking causing car accidents. Unfortunately for them their attempts to prove the dangers backfired: it turned out that smoking ranked right at the bottom of accident causes, theoretically causing about one tenth or less the number of accidents caused by mobile phone use, fiddling with the radio, talking to a passenger, or having kids in the car in the first place. This law would create conditions in which the unstable segment of the population that worries so much about other people smoking would begin spending a significant portion of their driving time trying to peer into the cars around them on the road to spot any adults smoking in cars with children. Immediately and on its own this will present a distraction from safe driving that will cost lives. This will then be compounded by instances where an Antismoker will spot such an instance and then begin driving erratically in order to get behind the suspect's vehicle while searching for their cell phone or a paper or pencil to write down the offender's licence plate. Once that number is obtained then the Informer will engage in the far more dangerous activity of using their own cell phone while driving in order to make the report and this will again cost lives. Even if the law is structured in such a way that reports from Informers are not accepted, there will still be a number of citizens unaware of that who will be trying to make such calls while driving, and among those citizens who ARE aware that such calls are useless there will still be a number who will attempt to drive up next to the car with the smoker and yell across to them that they're breaking the law... resulting in yet more erratic driving and lost lives. Smoking bans in general are bad laws based on lies, and this law, despite its superficial appeal and innocence, may be among the worst in its immediate effects on loss of life.

   ·   13/11/2008 12:46

Michael - I don't think that adults - at least I HOPE that adults aren't so obsessed and anal about things that they spend their drivign time peering into cars wonders who's smoking and who's on the phone. I understand why a ban on smoking in cars where children are present would be proposed but I don't think - like the mobile phone ban, it's workable. As for smokign in cars where only the driver or other adults are present, it comes down to common sense. I have been a passenger with a smoker and they could light their cigarette and smoke it without even taking thier eyes off the road and with as much distraction as changing gears but I don't think I could do that - reason being long before the mobile phone ban, I wasn't confident talking on the phoen while driving, so I simply didn't do it. I pulled in if and where it as safe, otherwise I let the call go to voicemail. It's a matter of common sense.


   ·   13/11/2008 12:53

to anonymous[10/11--20.16] of course you do not have to say sorry to have a right of opinion and i respect that.i was just pointing out a fact. you say whatever you like and i honestly dont mind.regards

   ·   13/11/2008 13:15

There appears to be a conceptual and advocacy moral divide on this ban issue. The promoters of the bans need to exaggerate to the largest degree available the risk of secondary smoke. While those who are focused in reducing or eliminating entirely the number of those who choose to smoke, are being minimized by ignoring the effects of smoking, in the appearance the entire population [cigarette users included] are affected by secondary smoke. Thus inventing higher numbers in a larger population group dilutes an ability to prove the true effects of smoking versus the effects of exposure to secondary smoke. Cigarette smoke is now believed according to the numbers, to cause more heart attacks when inhaled the second time around. If the effects are as permanent and devastating as described where does the motivation to quit smoking arise, with their fate already sealed? If there is no safe level of secondary smoke and we have all obviously been exposed, how do you develop comparative numbers to illustrate harm? Life gets awfully complicated when you start with a deceitful foundation and make it into a lifestyle career choice. Common sense tells us secondary smoke as the worst kept secret in world history Secondary smoke is simply a useful political tool; in forcing those who choose to smoke, to stop.

   ·   13/11/2008 17:48

It is disingenuous to claim; smoking bans are being promoted to protect anyone, beyond protecting those who smoke cigarettes from making their own decisions. Secondary smoke was a fraud from the moment the notion was developed, by deliberated choice, not by scientific discovery or evaluation, one of a number of tools suggested, to abuse anyone who smokes "Making their lives as difficult as possible, in order to convince them to quit". This would conform to the legal definition of coercion and an act in defiance of the international laws of autonomy. It has evolved to what can only be described today as slander as a mean spirited defamation of character and identity. As long as there is no safe level admitted and divulged it will always remain a statistical fraud. With no boundaries, it will only grow as a perceived risk, as measured by the same dedicated fanatics who invented it. A lie as they all do, requires constant maintenance lest its value and credibility is lost. Just like UFOs, real only because people believe they are real. Not because we can prove they exist. Thus we can identify it as a perceptual reality, with no basis in science or in fact. The irresponsible kind of beliefs, deliberately driven by promoting cult values, bolstered only with fear, by those we believe we can trust. Today that risk was claimed to be higher by proportions of those at risk, than the total of all who die annually, and far beyond the bounds of possibility when observing the ratio of many fewer people, who were exposed to much higher levels and duration in the past, who demonstrated much less effect. Super beings it seemed who survived with lowered efficiencies of medical intervention. Next week the risk will grow even higher, as the promotions of fear will require expansion to meet a declining interest, among an audience growing bored and sidetracked by other mirrored campaigns. Sooner or later someone is going to become famous throughout our future history; remembered, just as we remember Einstein or Aristotle, famous in an instant, by simply demonstrating, it was all a self perpetuated lie, as a convenient means to suit a desired end. Those who promoted it will gain a place in history as well, as the useful idiots of our time.

Michael J. McFadden

   ·   15/11/2008 10:41

Anonymous wrote, "Michael - I don't think that adults - at least I HOPE that adults aren't so obsessed and anal about things that they spend their drivign time peering into cars wonders who's smoking and who's on the phone" . . . . . Anonymous, I don't think it's a problem as far as the cell phone ban goes, but in terms of the smoking ban... yes, I'm afraid there will indeed be a significant, although small, portion of the population who would be so obsessed. See: for a brief summary of antismoking personality types and motivations. Sad to say, but it's quite true that a smoking ban in cars with children will probably end up killing far more chlidren than it would ever save... even according to ASH and their funny numbers. . . . . .

   ·   17/11/2008 09:44

smoking bans are being promoted to protect smokers from making their own decisions - does that even make sense?

   ·   17/11/2008 11:46

I read quite a bit of that site of yours. It was very funny indeed. Thank you Michael. But really, any adult, in face of a ban, checking cars of lone drivers or where there are only adults in the car, to see if someone is smoking really needs to either grow up, get a hobby or get out more to try and keep their obsession in check.

   ·   17/11/2008 15:28

It is no largely held secret, if full disclosure were available and people fully understood what was being done to them. The ability of Tobacco companies to promote smoking among children would be crippled absolutely. The problem rests in the "Disease management" process, if that full disclosure every happened; Social Marketing would also be crippled. The claims to integrity would be lost for all time and all the propagated, gains to date, would be rejected soundly by the majority of it's victims, in reference to those who choose not to smoke and to a large degree even among those who detest the smell of tobacco smoke. Smoking is an act which restricts the ability of advertisers to invent truisms within the subconscious. People who choose to smoke "Smokers" if you will, whether they know it or not; incubate solutions during their relaxation break, in the same way "sleeping on it" finds difficult solutions. This is a problem for advertisers if we think for ourselves, rather than allowing them to do that for us. If we utilize conscious thoughts applied deliberately to problem solving, because of less processing power at the conscious level, we are often led to a state of confusions and low memory recall. Often this results in turmoil; some refer to as a memory burp, during which time recalling things you should pull up easily is not possible without a short pause. Smoking allows relaxation and a break from the turmoil and often leads to the solutions rising up from the subconscious level, when the turmoil subsides. "Automatic thought" has an increased ability to find solutions faster almost by instinct, because we have a much larger memory capacity at that level of the brain, however when we supplant deliberately, false information into our internal data banks. People who rely on that instinct are deliberately led astray. WE mistrust other ethnic groups because we are taught from birth to protect our turf. Subconscious thought also has turf to protect, in order to maintain balance and processing abilities. Freud discusses the internal balance and identifies projections as part of that defense mechanism. Bigotry is much more effective when we demonstrate a threat and "smokers" by the promotions in a single word, presents a subconscious threat. When we are constantly reminded of a possible threat, even if no real threat ever existed, we subconsciously respond and perceive that word negatively. Like the claim "tell a lie long enough and everyone will believe it." They will only believe it, up to the point others understand your tactics and motivations. The foundation of repeating good thoughts and upbeat suggestions in commercials [repeated over and over again] results in larger profits in the market place, when you ignore the restriction of price in place of the positive implant of another identical product, which sells for more money. The positive projection equates larger value, when in fact no advantage exists. Product branding in merchandise and charities even in the way you perceive a doctor, is a matter of advertising much more than anything they do to promote that wisdom. Obama has no accomplishments to instill confidence, he simply bought more advertising to promote his brand. "Social Marketing" once it is understood, carries a negative connotation over to all who will promote it. Bush is currently described in the media as "the worst President ever" I would predict; media aside, Obama is already a strong contender for the tittle, dependent on his abilities to back up some pretty large promises, as opposed to being branded a con or a product of false advertising. That is the problem groups like ASH have to consider and the reason they will only discuss some issues and not others which contradict their claims; If they hope to keep the anti-smoker brand on the market, they have to control the promotions and always attach a positive to every health scare comment they make.

   ·   17/11/2008 17:40

"smoking bans are being promoted to protect smokers from making their own decisions - does that even make sense? " Think of it in terms of undermining another person's authority or autonomy over their own body. Parents make decisions for their children, as do paternalists make decisions for adults they mother as dictators "Protecting" the helpless. Most correctly helpless to respond in protest, without punishment, just like children. With social marketing and disease management strategies; just like public health interventions. It no longer matters if the made for media research has any validity at all, the press release alone can now be used by legislators in spite of public opinion, with a built in plausible denyability feature, to pass whatever legislation they like. Based in any truths they create. Never forget it was the public service who started the anti smoker propaganda parade, to compliment the government signatures and obligations found in an anti smoker agreement at the World Health Organization. The "timely" studies are being created specifically to promote the propaganda campaign. Which vests a true insight into those who produce them, the prostitutes.


   ·   17/11/2008 21:09

Kevin, Really what does a sentence like the following mean? The claims to integrity would be lost for all time and all the propagated, gains to date, would be rejected soundly by the majority of it's victims, in reference to those who choose not to smoke and to a large degree even among those who detest the smell of tobacco smoke. Or indeed People who choose to smoke "Smokers" if you will, whether they know it or not; incubate solutions during their relaxation break, in the same way "sleeping on it" finds difficult solutions. Total rambling meaningless nonsense. Really as well as the great anti-cholesterol benefits that you have already claimed for smoking, we are now to believe that you are better thinkers!!! Aside from the psycho-babble you are fundamentally incorrect on one key aspect of smoking. Smoking does not relax you, unless you count an increased heartbeat as evidence of relaxation. The feeling of relaxation that you refer to is of course your body being sated in its cravings for its hit of nicotine. i.e. the addict gets their hit of drugs. Hardly relaxation in the true sense of the words; if the craving was not there in the first place there would be no feeling of relaxation.

   ·   18/11/2008 20:30

James H; Unfortunately the moderator [no disrespect or complaint intended] decided to cut out the link to a study which explains the functional; deliberate thought, versus involuntary memory storage systems, within your brain. Two distinct systems we take for granted, to a degree most dont realize the separation exists. A link which I believe is a key to understanding what was being said. I agree you might well take a small section out of the entire post, to represent incoherence to a casual observer, however in context there was a legitimate argument being made. You just didnt understand it, as a result of fight or flight responses in your adrenal gland your denials system kicked in, causing you to be enraged as an automatic response, in place of a more cognitive approach. If you dont understand the way I explained it, or if it disrupts your internal reasoning balances, I would be more than happy to phrase it differently in hopes I can help you to understand the process. In short; if people realized they were being duped they would quickly reject all which was presented by the anti smoker lobbies. Likely resulting in the bans being repealed or ignored and smoking rates increasing. Those who had quit, [in hopes of doing the right thing]start again as an act of defiance. In addition to the young people, with no more need to be mothered, starting smoking because they too, are in defiance of those, they also no longer trust. As for your disbelief of one of the effects of Nicotine; it does calm the cognitive process and allow more free flow of stored memory information. I leave it to you to investigate and find the truth for yourself, beyond the promotions of Lobby groups and prophets. The effect stems from ion channel stimulation at the receptor, see [nicotine receptor AKA acetylcholine receptor or nAChRs] not as you perceive; a physical need to get high, as we see with traditional drug abuse. A deliberate return to a more clear and cognitive enhanced state, is the desired effect, which depreciates over time, and despite your denials this does enhance both physical reactions and cognitive abilities. Not as an opinion gained by speculative study research, as we see with case control and Meta analysis, but consistent biological observations. Someone who has never smoked could assume, the effect is similar to the stimulant effects you see with coffee, I can assure you it is not. The negative physical effects of smoking in the later years of life, makes it a difficult choice to be sure, but for some the trade is equitable in light of other compounding factors. For others who use cigarettes yet dont understand why; because of the type of information we receive, that choice has never been considered in a reasonable sense, beyond it makes them feel more comfortable. People smoke for reasons much more complex, than the simplistic ignorance of simply calling it drug abuse. If it were that simple we likely would have taken it off the market decades ago and a lot fewer people would be using it, even if we didnt. How attractive could advertising ever make heroin addiction? Or Crack use? Nicotinic acetylcholine receptors are present in many tissues in the body, and are the best-studied of the ionotropic receptors.[1] The neuronal receptors are found in the central nervous system and the peripheral nervous system. The neuromuscular receptors are found in the neuromuscular junctions of somatic muscles; stimulation of these receptors causes muscular contraction." NO nitric oxide was recently found to be the anti contraction factor. The effects of endothelial contractions and expansions include regulation of blood quality, body temperature, Blood pressure and heart rate. Nothing to be afraid of. Vasiodilatation perhaps? or endothelial dysfunction? Predictable natural responses confirmed for decades, well before the "NEW" shocking research hit the news stands, declaring they are important in the development of atherosclerosis The same response you get when you eat lunch. Remember what mom said; dont go swimming too soon after eating you might get a cramp? Same thing applies after having a smoke, if it is a very large smoke with 260 times the tobacco in an average smoke, which would be the amount required to find the same effect. No one is smarter because they smoke that is ridiculous, intelligence is primarily a product of what you learn and what you are exposed to. Tobacco smoke for most of those who use it, simply enhances your ability to access the information more efficiently. Further the process of nicotinic acid [burned nicotine] derived from tobacco reducing harmful cholesterol, is well documented in the journals ask your doctor or do a search for yourself at PubMed, it is open access information and there are literally hundreds of studies to choose from. People who choose to smoke deserve the same respect as anyone else in the community it is too bad the anti smoker groups have gone so far beyond the line of controlling smoking, into the realm of controlling and punishing people. They call that bigotry and discrimination. If smokers were involved as partners in place of radicals who are not affected beyond the level of their perceived profits, how much of a problem would smoking really be? For a perspective view the largest longest smoking research ever done, was by Sir Richard Doll; it was a recently published study of doctors who smoked. A study which included, at the time, the majority of doctors? The very people who should have known better, they are trained and fired immediately, if they self prescribe medication and become addicted. Is smoking a drug addiction? Again ask your Doctor.


   ·   20/11/2008 00:38

All Kevin's nonsensical waffle cannot alter the fact that smoking in motor vehicles containing children is wrong. ASH Ireland called for a ban on this. What sane person would object to this?


   ·   20/11/2008 07:58

Michael J. McFadden,

‘Sad to say, but it's quite true that a smoking ban in cars with children will probably end up killing far more chlidren than it would ever save’.

Good to see that you admit that a smoking ban in all vehicles containing children would save lives.  However, how would the ban end up killing others?


   ·   21/11/2008 03:54

Over 800 postings and you are still quacking on about whether you should smoke in motorised vehicles or not, do you not have anything better to do. You would be surprised to find how many other interesting discussions there are on this site.  I can imagine you all ten years from now still discussing whether to smoke or not to smoke in or out of cars.

Since this discussion started I have quit smoking, saved a lot of money and am able to breathe a little better, what have all ye smokers achieved!

Break away from eachother, go on you can do it!Kiss

From a Happy ex Smoker.


   ·   21/11/2008 04:11

Wit; Now that you have voiced your opinion, as the official spokesperson for the cavemen in the room. Put down you fork, your waffles can wait a bit. I am going to ask you to dig way down, and do some deep thinking here. I know you don't feel comfortable thinking for yourself much, and prefer to find your thoughts in the headlines. This will be difficult but I have faith you can do it if you really try.

Your government is encouraging you, to hate your neighbors.

Who's side are you on man.


When the day comes there are none of us left, who believe the people are in charge and not the government. We are all done for. Do you understand that much?


   ·   21/11/2008 13:34


With respect Kevin May I say, if a posting is too long winded people are inclined not to bother reading it so you are wasting your time, concise and to the point please but I still think over 800 postings and nobody has got the point I personally would give up this is becoming an obsession with all concerned, as I said in my last posting there are some fab discussions that could do with your input!




   ·   24/11/2008 04:41

Here is the logic presented; If salt were carcinogenic there was only one source of exposures and the known safe level is one granule as a lifetime constant level of exposure limit. Which could cause cancers; 10% of the time if you are exposed every day for the rest of your life to one grain a day.

A risk of one in ten thousand. Or 100 in a million people [32,000 annually in a 320 million population?] but only if they also, were all exposed in similar amounts, to one grain per day for every day of their lives.

WE take a grain of salt and mix it with one hundred kernels of corn and declare the entire mixture as a class one carcinogen.

WE then equally distribute the mixture in one hundred gallons of water, leaving a single kernel in each gallon. If we examine the water we can say it is polluted because we see the corn, however "by a class one carcinogen", is now debatable because, corn is not toxic and by the level of dilution, it is no longer possible to detect the salt.

Now we take the water and divide each gallon into 10,000 separate glasses and serve them to one million people and declare the risk to be 100 in one million.

Is it real or even important? Not unless you are selling fear and irresponsible nonsense to gain a political advantage.

Ignorance and the level of junk science is so easily exposed; especially when you consider all they have to do, is place a sign on any tap dispensing the so called carcinogen, allowing people the choice of avoiding it. As they could have done prior to banning smoking within a bar or an underground parking lot with diesel engines still running.

That is how they developed the secondary smoke scandal.

Incredibly most of them are still clinging to this designed for the tabloids farce and attempt to exaggerate it further.


   ·   24/11/2008 18:00


You must not assume that because I voice an opinion which you disagree with that I am a spokesman for anybody other than myself – I am not, your paranoia and persecution complex notwithstanding.

Your derogatory comment about my inability to think for myself (presumably because I do not think the same as you) is as insulting as alluding to other posters here as ‘cavemen’.

My government is NOT encouraging me to hate my neighbours. During my decades of service to this state I have always found the opposite to be true. I resent the comment especially coming from a foreigner. I believe it is grounds for barring you from this site. To my knowledge, your government does not have a policy of hatred either. My experience with your countrymen would lead me to that conclusion. It’s all in your confused mind.


Your final comment was too patronising to warrant response.


Smoking is a confined space with childrern is a crime against the innocent.


   ·   24/11/2008 19:39

The great majority of people who do not smoke refrain because they do not want to suck smoke into their lungs. Some smokers also wish they could give them up. This vast number of people will never be swayed by the self-justification of nicotine addicts or the tobacco industry.


   ·   25/11/2008 09:05

Calling Wit a cave man, forks and waffles? What on earth was all that about.

Your post about diluting 10 parts of this and 100 parts of that is not really relevant with regards to bannign smoking in pubs considering that this was not done to protects customrs but under the auspices of protecting workers just as workers in every other sector - offices, shops, cinemas etc are protected.


   ·   25/11/2008 14:31

Wilt; I knew if we worked together, the real you, would surface eventually. I take note of your entirely cognisant and coherent arguments in presenting a case to have me banned are impressive to say the least. I much prefer this version of yourself was maintained, in place of the former caveman act you have presented throughout. A dialog might even be possible at this level, in which you could refute my claims, with your own evidence, which would serve the interests of all and raise the level of civility and reasonable discussion by example. Setting aside, the personal attacks and as you describe them, the waffles.

Anon although you failed to connect the parallels, presented in my synopsis, you are correct in your observation; originally [the harms of an as of yet undefined product; we know simplistically as “the smoke”] were used in a fractured case, which claimed to protect wait staff, regardless if they wanted protection or would ever benefit from those protections. The claims of protection are now grossly exaggerated and incredibly move outdoors, to a point people actually believe they would be at the same level of exposures as the wait staff, and would suffer the same prediction risks, which is folly incarnate. The “abuse of children” from casual exposure to tobacco smoke, is nothing short of outrageous proliferations of emotional blackmail, to undermine the values of parental autonomy. It is an insult to those children, who actually were abused, in that it undermines the severity of those crimes, with a small fine as the punishment for those acts. If abuse is believed to have taken place, would legislators be under assessing the nature of the crimes, or is it more reasonable to presume, no abuse occurred and they are simply rolling with the rhetoric they purchased, as an immoral excuse to introduce new taxation. The lobbies are declaring parents are never mature enough to decide what is best for their own child. Do you believe Industry funded lobby groups really make the best parents?

You see the level of tobacco smoke exposure is not a legitimate biomarker of disease genesis, The PM2.5 levels in a room without specific investigation of what is contained could well be a measure simply of a number of non-related substances. A biomarker has to reflect both a level of exposure and a measure of adverse health effect equitably. A PM 2.5 measurement does neither even loosely. Does it make any reasonable sense one substance could generate parallel and predictable levels of a number of diseases in such a consistent manner when the constituents of; tobacco smoke plus ambient air, plus foreign particulate which comprise the feared “environmental tobacco smoke” and the individual’s levels of exposures to the product vary so adversely? When used as it was, to predict cancers or cardiovascular effects with irresponsible statements made in press releases. The information provided resulted largely from phrases read to focus groups, in search of the strongest reaction. We have nothing available in the public realm with which to make reasonable considered choices. What we have instead is invention and provocation, which targets individuals, in place of investigations of; the product at hand, which could make it safer, cures and treatments. Hardly a positive progression from a scientific standpoint. Although it does serve to invent some excellent old wives tales and seeds the paternalist movements quite well.


   ·   25/11/2008 16:45

Ah but Kevin, was it really to protect staff??

Or was it a move to prevent the possibility of them suing government in years to come for not protecting them should they get cancer or any other illness associated with ETS.


   ·   25/11/2008 18:32

Anon there is no more responsibility available to support a lawsuit. Now that we accept the new age sciences.

The Tobacco companies are singing along "There is no safe level of tobacco smoke" They are using this sucessfully as a defense, because people now know the risks they have to accept the responsibility for their own actions. So there is no legal liability obligation to protect anyone.

In the construction trade this ploy is serving insurance companies and compensation boards well too. They now maintain "there are no such thing as accidents".

Personal responsibility avoids their obligation to pay.


   ·   26/11/2008 16:16

GravatarHere is another point, which comes close to Dave Hitt's "name three" In asking to name three people killed by environmental tobacco smoke [ETS] which always leaves them speechless. I have asked a question a number of times and in a number of venues asking the "experts" it is always the same; either I am treated to the insolent pup style of ad hominid attack, or simply afforded silence with no answer available. They either change the subject or pretend they did not hear it at all. The little big man complex is pretty well set in the field of public health and any dissenters should beware. The public health industrial complex, are not people you should trifle with, yet they leave themselves so open to criticisms and obvious contradictions it is getting very hard to ignore.

The question is very simple;

"Describe environmental tobacco smoke in a physical way so that we can distinguish it from ambient air." They can't, because in the way it is described; IT IS AMBIENT AIR!!!

The multiple sources of tobacco products which produce it and the number of those who may partake in one place compared to another leaves the recipe absolutely astounding in the number and volume of combinations of ingredients it may contain. So how do you find such confident numbers, which predict disease and death so precisely found internationally with such a wide range of products and such a diversity of lifestyles? The truth is you cannot, so we did the next best thing, we simply estimated how many could be caused by inhalations of any substance, we defined them as “smoking related” and the ad agency talking points, flowed like a river into the public domain.

Ambient air works splendidly as a promoter of an intangible fear; Ventilation as a solution doesn't work any more, because you are only increasing the volume. "There is no safe level" because it can never be diluted by itself. If you declare it a hazard, the hazard still exists outdoors, where there is more of it. It can seep through light sockets into neighbour’s homes. It can never be avoided, and most importantly, ETS cannot be eliminated as a legitimate term, which exists in all environments, as long as smoking exists. The problem comes when we consider what it is, they have been telling us to fear, Breathing!!!

Is 5000 deadly ingredients really an official scientific term? There are 43,000 unresolved chemicals in use by industry today most of them are also found in ambient air. What are the effects and health risks of breathing them, compared to ETS? There is no increased risk, because as one product the risks are now the same. Ripley's believe it or not, needs to resolve the largest hoax in world history; DDT, Ulcers, Freon, ETS or Global warming and indeed the term “Public health”.

Dr. Michael Siegal a long time anti-smoker advocate, recently use a term which forms the major part of that river of “new study” information, when describing "Organized complaining"; To deliberately create an appearance of public mood which does not otherwise exist; for the rest of us, it is known as "Astro-Turfing" which is really a pitiful form of self flagellation.

"While activists dedicated to eradicating smoking in children’s movies engage in organised complaining about such closely monitored incidents, it seems improbable that many ordinary citizens would spontaneously rise up in community protest about such minor usage". When you over act, while pretending something does exist, while everyone else who know better, pities your state of denial and try very hard [out of pity or embarrassment for you] not to see it. It is effective as a lobby tool, only in a sense; most tend to ignore it, so without opposition the deliberately dumbed down politicians, are allowed to present a new age reality or theological rule. Remember the term “politically correct”? By who’s politics? Make anything up you like, and they can sell it as a gang to any co-operating politician who employs them, no one argues with the more deliberate imbeciles, because it is like arguing with a five year old and that lowers you to their level. As a political activity, it seeks to rule and form ideology by those standards and talking points, devised among the imbeciles. It simply makes anything possible, no matter how morally perverse it may sound today.



   ·   27/11/2008 09:18

Actually Kevin, it is becuase there is no safe level, as accepted by the experts, that the goivenment needed to make moves to protect staff - not out of any love of them but beucase 1) other staff in other industries were protected and 2)they would otherwise leave themselves open to lawsuit in years to come, as happened in other industries, if they failed to take measures to protect. However if you now imagine ulcers don't exist there is probably no talking to you


   ·   27/11/2008 15:48

I may be naive but why not ask ASH for ALL available evdience to support their call for a ban?


   ·   27/11/2008 18:41

I was greatly amused when called a caveman by someone who cannot string a simple sentence together!

How could anyone believe that the vast majority of the Irish people, who are in total agreement with the smoking ban in the workplace, would be swayed by the ramblings of an incoherent Canadian whose letters to his own newspapers have been refused publication and an American addict who had to publish his own book to have something to refer to in an effort to legitimise what is after all a mind altering addiction?

Kev and McFad, I don’t think so! The ban is a done deal. We’re getting on with our lives here as we have with all other legislation to improve our conditions.



   ·   27/11/2008 19:19


Most intelligent adults would perceive that a child in a smoke-filled car would suffer immediate discomfort - to say the least.

The following extracts are from the booklet 'Take Control of your Asthma' by the Asthma Society of Ireland

At least 75% of people with asthma become wheezy in a smoky room. It has been shown that children with asthma whose parents smoke have more asthma episodes than children whose parents don't smoke.

If you smoke or are exposed to passive smoke you increase the risk of asthma attack and may permanently damage your airways

If you smoke as a teenager you increase the risk of your asthma persisting.

You put your children at risk of asthma if you smoke around them or during pregnancy.

You also increase the risk of developing Chronic Pulmonary Disease (COPD). COPD is a term used to describe any one of a combination of chronic bronchitis, emphysema and chronic asthma.


As an asthmatic I am only too aware of this. You can imagine what I think of those who would attempt to convince me that tobacco smoke is harmless or even non-existent.


This society also recognises that one of the triggers for an asthma attack is smoking. Who would want to subject anyone to this risk, let alone young children?


BTW have you visited the ASH Ireland website?




   ·   28/11/2008 05:57

Wilt I can’t honestly decide if what you wrote was a deliberate attack against another cultural group, as a racist remark, or just or ignorance for another reason. Primarily because you fail to realize; Canada has among us; as the largest ethnic group representing our diversity, descendants of Irish immigrants of whom I am proud to say, I would be included. In the second note, I might remind you; this is the internet, it is not confined by geographical boundaries. Any discussion should be known to benefit by the diversity of the participants. After all, the anti smoker lobby originates within a UN agency and what is discussed in this forum is the same discussion being expanded around the planet. It never was an “Ireland only” issue, because if the Lobbies succeed in promoting their cause in one area, they use it to brag in another, as they do time and time again. I am obviously on the other side of the discussion and I understand you may feel uncomfortable seeing my opinions. Yet my views are equally as valuable as yours are, I have every right to express them. So let’s put this talking down to people nonsense aside, and discus as adults, where we believe this should go. Alternatively, what we can do to find reasonable and lasting common ground. Beyond accepting unrestricted ad agency spin verbatim. The views of paid lobbies who are simply doing what they are paid to do promoting positions, which benefit themselves but not necessarily the rest of us.

"Organized complaining" To deliberately create an appearance of public mood, which does not otherwise exist. for the rest of us, it is known as "Astro-Turfing" which in a real sense; is simply a co-ordinated form of self flagellation, which hopes to find support among those believed to be; less educated, more numerous and more likely to join in, with any campaign which legitimizes picking on someone else.


   ·   28/11/2008 06:27


In 2001 Simon Chapman one of the most brilliant minds of our age, in the field of medical research, published an article in the International Journal of Epidemiology. In the article he lamented that although many startling discoveries have been made in the field of epidemiology, providing very useful links to aid the physical discovery process. In terms of public notice, most are rarely aware of any knowledge produced in the field, unless it is first presented with a broad advertising campaign, in front of a demand for self interests, that governments institute change as a demand of the lobby which that research supports. Of all the medical knowledge stored in the archives of medical journals after of thousands of hours of work and tremendous resources many times in each individual article, less than 60% of the articles published, are cited in other research papers even once within two years of publication.

He suggested although most clinicians preferred to refrain from the politicising of their work as Lobbies tend to do. If presented to media groups in strictly scientific terms they are much less dramatic than the more well known and choreographed made for TV releases, which inspire interest in the public and supplement tacit belief. His terms defining “epistemology evidence” seemed to support the not so well defined line between the types of science you know, by the simple rules of scientific evaluation; “reproducible consistently” and the other kind of science consisting of, what you can make others believe, tacit as a result of inspired confidence the political brand. He seemed to be unwillingly handing the sword of scientific integrity, over to the lobby preparations as a short cut to move ambitions where he believed they needed to be, as opposed to the traditional methods of slow yet deliberate change, with certainty and purpose as the marker for societal evolutions.

It is with little wonder when you hand a project over to the same people who sell you fancy new cars and light bulbs, who are well versed in knowing before you do how you will react to what is presented, most will be swayed. The largest corporations on the planet do not throw money into advertising foolishly, they invest because it is a tried and true method they know works.

Groups like ASH and many others internationally are simply the motivators or cheerleaders of social marketing strategies or propaganda if you will, who provide an element of fear or aprehensions to motivate you, to do as your government wishes. When those efforts run afoul most often, is when people are targeted and communities are divided. In this case as part of a UN agreement at the world health organization described in a legal and binding agreement; to reduce the number of people who smoke. It could be seen as an act of purchasing politics and collusion between willing and profiting partners, or we could see it as simply the government doing what is best, depending on What you believe, what you really know and what you believe to be epistemology or legitimate knowledge. What you receive in the media largely in what I describe as pre-packaged drama, on a daily basis, should never be confused with observational science. If people really did believe it, we would be in a lot of trouble as a consequence. It is largely a result of prepared press releases, which are combinations of partial truths and phrases meant to inspire you, in a political way. Presentations which are produced with focus group testing, to find the strongest reaction, thereby creating the larger dramatic appeal. You are free to support whatever politics serves your life and situation, but please don’t try to confuse other people; who deserve and have every right to know the truth, by describing a press release originating from a group like ASH as traditional science. Even they would be hard pressed to make that claim, for fear of liability reprisals.


   ·   28/11/2008 11:43

Wilt the "Smoke filled car" is more a product of invention than reality, it brings to mind the old Cheech and Chong car trips with smoke so thick you couldn't see through the windows. It was a comedy act, it didn't really happen.

Do you senses of reality, not have the capacity to understand if a child were uncomfortable they would be the first to let you know it? Or would it make the slightest bit of sense if a child were uncomfortable in the back seat the driver would also be uncomfortable as well? It seems once this mushroom cloud you describe had formed, it might be getting awfully difficult to see the road with your eyes tearing up.

As anyone who has been in a car while a person smokes will tell you; opening the window just a crack, works quite well as does all ventalation in diluting smoke and a number of other gas phase substances, to non perceptable levels. In spite of the waffles the lobby group fanatics have been feeding you.

Wilt If you were an asthmatic as a child, did your parents get their jollies blowing smoke in your face and waiting for a reaction? Or were your parents normal people just like everyone else, who would never harm thier children intentionally?

Would a normal parent require a law which demanded they protect thier children? Are there no laws sufficient already to deal with those who don't?

And do you really believe Lobby groups or politicians make the best parents, of someone elses kids?

It sounds more realistic by your many statements which tend to confirm; you hate people because they smoke, [All of them]and it really is as simple as that. That is just as vicious and mean spirited as your claims that all people who smoke would endanger their children intentionally, making them different or less caring than other parents? Endangered now even by the smell of cigarette smoke? Your hopes of encoraging others to share your vicious attitude is self serving bigotry nothing more.


   ·   28/11/2008 13:51

WITOFIRE perhaps you missed one of my earlier posts in which i said i certainly do not smoke in front of children but i cannot honestly see how the ban can be enforced when the gardai cannot even enforce the mobile phone the way i brought up a child suffering from asthma, so i know the problems it entails. regards


   ·   28/11/2008 16:42

I would never have believed, so much could be said about so little!

Have you no jobs to go to? Laughing           Families and Dog to be fed 

"So much to do, So little time" Frown      And Peace to me Made  Innocent


           Children! it is time to go back to your families and

                        and resume your duties Money mouth


   ·   28/11/2008 18:32


Of course you can’t honestly decide if what I wrote was a deliberate attack against another cultural group (Canadians as a cultural group?), as a racist remark, or just or ignorance for another reason. That is simply because it was not! Your unnecessary history lesson notwithstanding, the smoking bans in Ireland will not be influenced to any great extent by non-Irish citizens.



   ·   28/11/2008 18:48


You cannot keep to your own rules as the following two conflicting comments from recent posts will prove;

“So let’s put this talking down to people nonsense aside and discus as adults” and “Wilt If you were an asthmatic as a child, did your parents get their jollies blowing smoke in your face and waiting for a reaction?”

I will ignore your pathetic efforts to insult my parents. We’ve been there before.

I developed asthma (COPD) as an adult as a result of smoking.

Your comments about children in cars with smoke just demonstrate your dearth of knowledge about children’s health. The health of children must never be left up to people like you. Nor will it!


puzzle master

   ·   01/12/2008 11:07

Yes, but mainly for thr reasons that smokers are not paying full attention to their driving while reaching for smokes etc. and for the reason that as a motercyclist, I am frequently used as an ash tray by scruffy natured smokers who seem to consider it a god given right to toss their litter out the window of their car.

What makes butts a non litter item?


   ·   01/12/2008 13:53

i know this has nothing to do with ASH,but please read the dioxins report about plastic and cancers from JOHN HOPKINS HOSPITAL [USA]. it has more implications than ash call for smoking in cars. regards


   ·   01/12/2008 16:57

Monday has arrived and Wilt has reverted to his ad hominid, dumbed down acting once more. Creating an accusation from a question, is quite the feat. Extending that to making an accusation attrributing that lie to me, requires an apology.

Or are you in fact stating; you believe your parents did abuse you and acted insensitive to your condition [asthma]?

That would not be the act of a normal parent, and should be judged acordingly. As opposed to wide brushed acusations against all parents. In declaring a presumption of guilt without an oportunity for defence. You see it is you and not myself, making acusations against innocent people without proof to substantiate your slander.

Answer the question and stop pandering. [Or should I mention waffles?]

This comment makes no sense.

"I am frequently used as an ash tray by scruffy natured smokers who seem to consider it a god given right to toss their litter out the window of their car. "

Are we to belive from the comments, no one who rides a motorcycle, choose to use cigarettes as well??? That would be a stretch.

Have you ever stopped to consider anyone flicking a cigarette at you, might be attacking you personally and your perceptions about all who drive, while using tobacco products might be jaded as a result.

Perhaps your own driving habits are a possible explanation, illiciting a negative response or what is commonly refered to as road rage?

And no, I do not condone assault with a cigarette or otherwise, for any reason. In anticipation of the distinct possibility, anyone suggests I would.


   ·   01/12/2008 17:12

Apologies, the dioxin report did not come from Johns Hopkins and he denies this, but if you type dioxin in google search ,you find it is a dangerous and toxic chemical and where it mostly comes from. I pity the people that live around Ringsend and Sandymount areas.


   ·   01/12/2008 20:20


It is a general rule in Ireland, in the circles I move in, that debating opponents refrain from insulting members of their opponents families. You would not last long here!

Read my recent post about the cause of my asthma before making a fool of yourself once again.

You do not condone assault with a cigarette or otherwise yet you would assault an innocent child in a car with your cigarette smoke. You really are confused! It is because of unreasonable people like you that the ban on smoking in all vehicles with children is being considered by ASH Ireland.



   ·   02/12/2008 11:35

i agree with you Witofire. i had that problem with another poster on another topic. regards


   ·   02/12/2008 13:18

Wilt Your reading and comprehesion style, [cherry picking] provides one of the most significant and basic clues as to how; the so called "science" is produced, Or how these theorized children or anyone else for that matter, could possibly be believed to be harmed. transposing as desired or when conenient, the other term, as they use "At Risk" [which requires even less scrutiny], by casual exposures to a little bit of smoke. Thank you for your demonstration.

Most people simply believe the whole world has gone mad, when comparisons are made, to years gone by. It is usually only the selected few, who really want to believe it, for an assortement of reasons. Or the hired "professional complainers" [Quoting smoke lobby advocate Dr. Michael Siegal] describing; those paid directly, or those padding their pillow indirectly.


   ·   03/12/2008 19:02

Thank you for your supportive comments, lisann. A breath of fresh air in this smoke-filled forum.Laughing



   ·   04/12/2008 07:25


My reading and comprehesion style (whatever that means) is most unlikely to provide any input into science. The children I am concerned about are real children and not ‘theorized’. They are as real as secondhand smoke which in your mind does not exist or if it does it is good for you.

I do not agree with you that ‘Most people simply believe the whole world has gone mad’. Most people are quite sane. One only gets the impression when being subjected to the wild ramblings on some discussion groups where some disgruntled misfits congregate to whinge about their pet hates regardless of the impact to society as a whole.


   ·   04/12/2008 22:27

Wilt; Your apology seems to be rambling a bit. Can you see if you can gather your thoughts and express them in a more concise manner? I know you are embarrased so I wont press your apology although the people you targeted might not be as forgiving.

The reality of the smoking ban scandal resides in the scientific couruption, of a top down process claimng to have a grass roots steming from under a rock. Acting as dictatorship impossed with hired fanatics [the professional complainers] being well compensated with tax funds, in what has digressed to a promotion of hatred as you have demonstrated clearly.

Any disbelief of that indesputable truth, can be demonstrated by looking at groups like ASH, it's membership and it's management. Simply in asking, who they truly represent as their funding will answer convincingly.


   ·   05/12/2008 00:47

Yes i would. I used to smoke and to light up going along takes your concentration away and I always would get smoke in my eyes  and it's easy to miss a situation on the road.

Michael J. McFadden

   ·   05/12/2008 02:33

Wit's response to me was interesting, "an American addict who had to publish his own book to have something to refer to in an effort to legitimise what is after all a mind altering addiction?"  but completely failed to address the simple questions I addressed to him/her/. Wit had asked, "how would the ban end up killing others?"  I'll repeat my comment and question for clarity and invite Wit to have another, and perhaps more insightful, reply.


Lisanne's comment about mobile phone enforcement got me thinking a bit about phones and smoking in cars. A ban such as the one ASH is proposing may very well result in killing far more people far more immediately than it would ever theoretically "save."When the Antismokers first began blathering about smoking while driving ten or fifteen years ago (before they even thought about playing the "save the children" propaganda card for it) they focused on smoking causing car accidents. Unfortunately for them their attempts to prove the dangers backfired: it turned out that smoking ranked right at the bottom of accident causes, theoretically causing about one tenth or less the number of accidents caused by mobile phone use, fiddling with the radio, talking to a passenger, or having kids in the car in the first place.This law would create conditions in which the unstable segment of the population that worries so much about other people smoking would begin spending a significant portion of their driving time trying to peer into the cars around them on the road to spot any adults smoking in cars with children. Immediately and on its own this will present a distraction from safe driving that will cost lives. This will then be compounded by instances where an Antismoker will spot such an instance and then begin driving erratically in order to get behind the suspect's vehicle while searching for their cell phone or a paper or pencil to write down the offender's licence plate. Once that number is obtained then the Informer will engage in the far more dangerous activity of using their own cell phone while driving in order to make the report and this will again cost lives.Even if the law is structured in such a way that reports from Informers are not accepted, there will still be a number of citizens unaware of that who will be trying to make such calls while driving, and among those citizens who ARE aware that such calls are useless there will still be a number who will attempt to drive up next to the car with the smoker and yell across to them that they're breaking the law... resulting in yet more erratic driving and lost lives.Smoking bans in general are bad laws based on lies, and this law, despite its superficial appeal and innocence, may be among the worst in its immediate effects on loss of life.

Wit, if that does not answer your question, please explain where it is lacking.  Thank you.

Michael J. McFadden

Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"


   ·   05/12/2008 22:20



   ·   06/12/2008 09:19

All too often the Health scare industry relies on the word "protection" to sell their wares by introducing anxiety on large population groups with predictable and likely devastating effects, where logically there is no substantial reason for concern. "We have an obligation to protect future generations" the expense of the current generations as fodder for the tank treads of the common good. In economics "protectionist" refers to the introduction of trade barriers to protect jobs and the industries within a country, from the industries outside, who may have specific advantages, such as cheaper wages, which would place a unionized and well compensated job within a protected country at risk, if free trade was ever allowed to happen. Going all the way back to Honest Abe Lincoln; his promotion of 44% import duties was likely responsible for the notable success of America because of the control they held over their own economy protecting it from others. This worked well with the exception of the great depression, which many claim, was a result of taking those duties too high and promoting a crippling and stagnating inability to sell products elsewhere. The balance is in protection to elevate the standard of living, without getting so comfortable by excessive protections, you earn a reputation of over charging for your products. The modern economists believe trade restrictions are too high or should not exist at all. The catch 22 today is; in order for exporters to compete, they have to oppose any effort to increase worker comfort or any increased standard of living in their own country. Free trade is sold with the claims; in order for the third world to rise out of poverty, the industrialized nations need to loose a little and eventually all nations will befit in equal and accommodated balance, but only after a significant amount of short term pain. The trouble is; the politicians have to convince people to accept that pain, while the decades pass which will allow that equality to happen, if it ever will. Greed and a position which represents anything but unity, among competing nations is the largest impediment. Regardless the dreamers proceede, determined all "problems" will work themselves out as acceptable colateral damage. The lives lost will be worth the benifit or common good which could emerge. Today the Globalists are arguing against protectionist policies and promoting free trade policies. While their best case of demonstrating "balance" is being destroyed by protectionists in the health scare industry. Applying their free trade restrictions to destroy a balance which always existed in traditional acceptance of mutual accommodation in peaceful communities. Denormalization is an appropriate term to describe a policy which for all intents and purposes; is not normal, which explains why the large number of those who never used cigarettes in their life, oppose smoking bans. Simply put, they understand the loss of freedom to moralist imperatives spells loss of freedom in total. People who did not like the smell of smoke always found a way of accommodating others, who used tobacco. Most times offering an ashtray to friends when they visited. Today so much hatred has been inspired, it is rare to see someone enjoying a cigarette inside the home of anyone who chooses not to partake. The economic impact of this is seen in that self imposed pain, which resides in the escalation of Health care protectionism. The new breed of restrictions being applied covertly which seek, to imposed a lowering of living standards by exaggerating protectionist policies within, to tip the trade barrier in favor of other countries. This reduces employment and drives the average wage downward. There is no safe cigarette, we must reduce the level of renewable resources in the landfill, we must eliminate all traces of bacteria in food and water, We must make poluters pay, We must find pay equity in employment and discrimination needs to be eliminated by imposing employment quotas, and of course "there is no such thing as an accident". All these urgent standards sound great, something to strive for Now elevated an urgency to impose laws to protect the children as always. Add in some plastic sorter bins for your garbage, carbon taxes and a host of other "great ideas" all at the same time and eventually you will promote such a large expense on society, no society could possibly afford to sustain itself without eventually finding bankruptcy, because no one could possibly afford to purchase what you sell. Pretty much what you have been reading about in the papers reporting record job losses this week. Globalists like Morris Strong once stated in order to right the world, we have to endure another great depression and start over from scratch. Strong also wrote the Kyoto trading schema and is an avid supporter of the global warming scam. "Mr UN" is currently hiding out in China avoiding American prosecution for his part in the oil for food scandal at the UN. Many may recall his name because up until he got caught taking money from Saddam, he was referred to as Mr. UN, and was believed to be the front runner to replace Anan at the head of the nepotistic and corrupted UN, which inspires the WHO and Health care protectionist interventions. Universal health care programs which claim; all are included and all will be treated as equals, is destroyed by targeting groups within the protected population, who are not being treated equally. Hilary is trying to sell Universal healthcare not as a universal benefit, but as with all protectionist policies, as a method of increased cost and control. This tips the balance of power from the individual in the favor of an oppressive state. Is TC or any of the Health scare campaigns grassroots or top down? Who is paying for them and who is gaining advantages by them? The Dictatorship. From Wiki way down at the bottom of the page; Yea cherry picking, so what...It is relevant. Protectionism "Administrative Barriers: Countries are sometimes accused of using their various administrative rules (eg. regarding food safety, environmental standards, electrical safety, etc.) as a way to introduce barriers to imports." It is now being used in reverse, to promote globalization by destroying the larger economies of the world from within.


   ·   07/12/2008 12:46

Wilt stated;

"The children I am concerned about are real children and not ‘theorized’. They are as real as secondhand smoke which in your mind does not exist or if it does it is good for you."

Although you twisted what I asked, to reflect an insult against your own parents, my question was meant to determine wether you were speaking from personal experience. You honestly believe; all parents or even most would normally ignore their own child's medical condition. Since you do not claim to have experienced this yourself or witnessed it, you statement is purely political in nature.

If you and your frends at ASH are telling us; there is a significant problem in community norms, which requires legislation to correct. Are you not also saying that all parents [every person who has a child] are ignorant, and need to be controlled, "To protect the children"?

That is quite the mouthful. Can you back it up?


   ·   08/12/2008 18:39

Michael J. McFadden,

Ash Ireland called for a ban on smoking in all vehicles containing children. However, you agree that smoking can cause accidents albeit at the bottom of the scale. The remainder of your post is material for another book – a comedy! The unstable segment of the population trying to peer into the cars around them on the road to spot any adults smoking in cars with children etc., etc. Hilarious!

That is what a police force is for.



   ·   09/12/2008 15:07

A more sober view? ed54bb97e489 A rare find, someone with the guts to tell it like it is.


   ·   15/12/2008 01:07

After All These Years, it is good news Folks,

Close sources to the Minister for Health has informed me that the Government is removing cigarettes and tobacco items from the shelves as they "think" they may damage your health BUT, they are replacing said tobacco with Smoked Ham because last week it was cleared and passed as safe to eat! "Ar ya comin out for a quick smoke rasher Paddy" ! Laughing

The bad news is they are taxing the pigs on feed!


   ·   15/12/2008 11:47

Anonmyous, dont' hold your breath! pigs can fly too! regards


   ·   15/12/2008 13:05

Hi Kevin,

Your postings are making me yawn they are so long but, your last one was brief concise and to the point so naturally I checked the site ed54bb97e489

and all I got was advice from a Bad Debt Management Agency! please what has that got to do with rasher (bacon) smoking sorry cigarette smoking? You are confusing me now Kevin LoL


   ·   15/12/2008 16:29

are they trying to turn the country into a communist/socialist state??? if one chooses to smoke in their own vehicle, which they have bought and paid for and pay tax and insurance on to the govt, a person can do what they like in it. what is this country turning into??? russia - where everything and everyone is state run!! I would absolitely not support this ban and i am a non-smoker!!!!


   ·   15/12/2008 22:22


Well said, Don't Hold my Breath AND take cover! (Pigs flying etc.)Laughing


   ·   16/12/2008 17:30


How would banning smoking in vehicles containing children turn the country into a communist/socialist state?

If you own a gun, bought and paid for and pay a license fee to the government, does that mean you can do what you like with that too?

As a non-smoker travelling in a car do you mind the other occupants smoking?


   ·   17/12/2008 10:12

The discussion is entitled " a ban on smoking in all motor vehicles", where does it say anything about children in the title of this discussion. yes, i agree people should not smoke in the vicinity of children but that is the parents responsibility.but i was merely making a point about the govt dictating what people can and cannot do in their own motor vehicles. no, i dont mind if people smoke in my car as long as they dispose of their cig butts and ash appropriately and open a window. i find the people that are the most militant on smoking are the people who are ex-smokers themselves.


   ·   17/12/2008 14:40


While the discussion is entitled “a ban on smoking in all motor vehicles”, the actual call by ASH Ireland was for a ban on smoking in all motor vehicles containing children.

If parents were responsible enough to refrain from smoking near children there would be no need for a ban. Sadly, such is not always the case!

If you do not mind people smoking in your car you obviously do not mind breathing in second-hand smoke with all of its health issues.

I presume that the reason ex-smokers are so set against smoking is that many of us are now suffering the health problems brought about by years of nicotine abuse.



   ·   17/12/2008 22:44


You never needed Nicotine, if you want to abuse yourself go right ahead the rest of us are not indoctrinated into the communist "protections" theology, so I can't see you having too many complaints. As long as your doing it in the privacy of your own home, I certainly don't want the kids to watch.

Anon you were obviously confussed by the commercial and didn't get to the discussion, go back to the link and ignore the commercials [unless of course you do need debt advice]. It is a radio show and the message is pretty clear, even though many in this discussion are anything but.


In case I don't get a chance to say it, politics and all kidding aside; I hope you all have a great Christmas and all the best to you and yours.


   ·   18/12/2008 17:22


Your first paragraph made no sense to me until I noticed LMAO in your misspelt greeting. I suppose if someone laughs their @$$ off it only indicates what I suspected all along – that you talk through your @$$ too.



   ·   18/12/2008 19:41

At Last!

Somebody has brought a sense of humour on to this forum! I love your posting.


   ·   18/12/2008 20:02


If your Mommy didn't tell you ASH surely will; If you don't stop that you're going to go blind.


   ·   19/12/2008 11:40

if all the slagging goes on ,this thread will come to a full stop. grow up or else i will take my football home and there will be no match. get the point?


   ·   27/12/2008 08:01


You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel with your last irrelevant deviation from the subject. Your low comments just prove once again that you and your ilk are the last type of people we should look to for an opinion about whether or not to legislate on subjecting our children to smoke in vehicles. I will say this for you though – you provided a great example of the lunatic fringe of society who are against all innovations on public health when they impact on the nicotine addict. Anyone should read through your garbled comments to see what ASH is up against. Thanks for providing us with this insight!



   ·   27/12/2008 16:18

Wilt would you care to elaborate on you "Ilk" designation? Or on you widebrush bigotry of those you refer to as smokers in an attempt to negate my right to an opinion?

You serve my opionions and interests, more desisively, than I ever could, with such uncivil and hateful rants.

Who are these people you refer to as "ASH" anyway and why should I or anyone for that matter, serve a duty to them, because they face obsticles in dictating moral and autonomous values? It seems the most deliberate and consistent message they represent has to do with hate and divisions. They seek, through discrimination, to represent the best interests of children or society? I do hope that never comes to pass.

The question has to be; would they feel as confident as they do, in categorizing and discriminating against others, had the Government and the medical institutions not given their blessing and deliberately promoted an encouragement to divide us? When Industry through their lobooists [fear mongering] advertising, dictates the rules of morality, in turn industry rules over governments by moralist coercions and the medical community dictates morality issues over their patients, we are in real trouble, both as a community and as a civilization. Of late it is harder to dismiss, than to believe, that all three relationships do not exist. Cult over State.

Just as the moralist crusades, of Industrialists and conflicted interests, work to their advantage currently, they can also be made into their worst nightmare when the tables turn. It really wouldn't take a large number of people to accomplish change, with such a heavy burden focused on moralities today. If Politicians grow to realize they are threatened with carrying the tittle of bigot and Nazi they will be forced by process "best practices" to act quickly and start shifting the blame. The convictions will come fast and furious by those who can not take the risk of paying the political price should they delay. Y2K for the masses. Leadership in a democracy does not fit well with the designation of promoting hatred violence and bigotry. It does make you a fine target, for any opposition parties, who denounce such actions and ask for the people's forgiveness. Placing democracy back on track, as a buyers market.

The recent eulogy by the Archbishop of Canturbury spells out a call for just a change. Although I am not a follower of his religeous beliefs, the message of relaxed principles coming from a Church deligate seems to be quite profound.

Lest we forget; you really have nothing to fear but fear itself.

   ·   29/12/2008 12:11

Can anybody answer my question.  Smokers usually open their window when they light a cigarette and then many throw the ends out of the window when finished, Why don't they put it in the ash tray ?


   ·   29/12/2008 15:59


I have questioned most of the prominent “Professionals” for a few years now, asking; if we have the same number of people using cigarettes today, as we had fifty years ago, how is it; the smoking related, or smoking caused, disease figures continue to grow so substantially? Lung cancers for instance which are believed to be primarily caused by tobacco use, have increased six fold and heart diseases have grown in similar proportions. There is an obvious reluctance to answer, because an explanation would reveal their slight of hand, when making other more insidious claims.

The number of those who use cigarettes and that consistency can be confirmed by calculating prevalence versus total population periodically quite easily. In the United States close to 55 Million people, using cigarettes has been almost consistent for well over fifty years. Despite what the lobbyists [fear mongers] claiming to represent the medical community have been telling you for years. A deliberate use of prevalence figures, to create a numeric decline misconception, a tactic they have so obviously taken every advantage of. When discussing actual disease numbers.

They are conning the politicians and the general public into believing disease management reduces the cost of healthcare, when we all should understand it never could.


The full text of my comments can be found here;

I really hope the moderator allows my full explanation by including the link, to end the constant back and forth of snip and snipe, by out of context accusations.


   ·   29/12/2008 18:36



“Ilk” is a village in the Northern Great Plain region of eastern Hungary while “ilk” (my word) is another word for like. The people I refer to as smokers are people who smoke.

I was amazed to see that you need to be reminded who ASH (ASH = Action on Smoking and Health) are.


“Why should you serve a duty to them?” I am sure ASH Ireland has no such plans for Canadian citizens.


The Archbishop of Canterbury would have no more influence than our own clergy in Ireland on public health issues such as the proposed ban on smoking in all vehicles containing children.


The message ASH Ireland represent has nothing to do with hate and divisions - look to your ilk for that one.


   ·   03/01/2009 04:07


The way you used the term “Ilk” it obviously had little to do with a small village in Hungary. Wiki didn't help you find a way to backtrack from what you have been saying. "Your Ilk" is moralist delineation, or an insult to those you believe are below you.

In some twisted way you somehow believe because someone uses cigarettes, they are deficient or unworthy. That belief would be entitlement for you and others, to make elitist claims, based in nothing more than the fact that some people may choose to use cigarettes?

A self-entitlement, which allows you guilt free permission, to deliver insults and indignity. To rant against millions of people you don't know, yet somehow in your view they are all the same and all below you. The term "helping people to quit" has always been an excuse for a guilty conscience, allowing bigotry to take root and grow. Thank you for demonstrating that point and its accuracy.

What really defines the foolishness, in your self proclaimed entitlements as a bigot and a hypocrite, is the fact; if the same people chose to switch to other products, such as nicotine gum, patches or even chewing tobacco; miraculously the so called "smokers" in your minds eye are reborn, wholy redeemed and morally acceptable once again.

So what are we to believe from all of this?

Cigarettes are the root of all evil and only the use of other nicotine products puts you back on blessed ground, according to the high priests of ASH and Public Health. Sounds like Cult followings to me. You can paint it any way you like; “protecting the children” has a sting of emotional blackmail, with no historic or biological basis. Hitler used the term daily, as does China claim to be protecting Tibet. The baby boomer generation primarily used cigarettes in the range of 60% of the population and they smoked everywhere as people always had. So few children could avoid being exposed [No safe level???]. Yet they grew to be the longest living healthiest generation to ever walk this earth. This may sound like heresy to you, but I fail to see the power of your protectionist gods or any integrity in their prophecies.

You are again proving my point ASH is dealing in hatred and violence in hopes of serving the sales figures of the alternatives markets. Making one product evil or the people who use it reprehensible, unless of course they bow to the demands of Public Health, and use only the products they are told to use, regardless of rights or opinions. Snake oil used to be marketed with the same sales pitch.

A moralist crusade protecting people from themselves.


   ·   17/01/2009 21:58

if ash ban smoking in all vehicles, there will be a lot of trucks parked at the side of the road.


   ·   19/01/2009 14:38

ASH and their partners are now selling the next twist in this tale of Woe. Are we ready for third hand smoke? LOL

An anti-smoking advocate who was a local co-ordinator of a state-funded anti-smoking group has communicated to the public, through a letter published in the Jamestown Post-Journal, that thirdhand smoke - the remnants of smoking that remain around smokers and on on surfaces - is just as lethal as active smoking or secondhand smoke exposure.

Of course I had to tell them, in response;

I believe the man is absolutely right, third hand smoke is just as deadly as second hand smoke, because neither are deadly at all. And if smoking is just as deadly, why force anyone to quit? I am also in agreement with the World Health Organization when they predict huge increases in "Smoking related diseases" by the year 2020. Along with a long list of other mortality and morbidity figures, which are predicted by the drama queens and misleading lobby groups. Delivered to news agencies daily in press releases; misfortune and misery [Insert blame category] to rise sharply "by the year 2020". Although those predictions will happen as a matter of logic, rather than an increase in unhealthy behaviors. Simply because if the average age of death is 70 years [half will die after and half will die "prematurely" before. Irregardless of healthy lifestyle issues]2020 is the date the majority of the baby boomer generation is predicted to die. Combine that fact with the realization close to 60% of the baby boomer generation are ever smokers and you have an excellent number set, to scare the children with. What is not explained to the general public is why the UN allows it's agencies to loan their names to such deceptive advertising tactics and publicity stunts, which aim to undermine by lobby, duly elected governments by openly coercive and illegal means. AS we should already realize; there is no greater mortality or morbidity risk factor than old age. In spite of what the chicken little science, which ignores reality and common sense has concluded. Governments who treat the adults as if they were children, with a host of new paternalist laws, have managed to steal a lot of new fines and penalties, from traditionally unhealthy pockets. By pretending to believe the children's version of campfire tales, presented today as science. Third hand smoke is just another in a long list of tall tales which support the pretense of ignorance as an excuse for dictatorship, by governments treating their people like delinquent children, with no minds or morals of their own. Think of that, when you see smokers being forced to the street like unruly children, being told to stand in the corner. As similar mommy rules [do as I say not as I do] styled logic, has them standing outside of the bars? and parking lots? with much higher health risks [See; medical malpractice] residing in most of the smoker banned areas "leveling the playing field" as they say, by allowing only the non-smokers to endure the highest duration of the higher risks.


   ·   19/01/2009 16:54

I really should add;

The author represents a lobby group who declare in public statements;

"Reality Check is a youth-led action program that seeks to expose the manipulative and deceptive marketing tactics of the tobacco industry and to educate the community though civic action, engaging community members and leaders. It is part of a comprehensive tobacco control program developed by the New York State Department of Health."

This is a bit confusing; are the department of health and the tobacco control agencies really; led by children?

Deception as a lobby tactic, is a matter of conscience and integrity. Promotion by it's power is a matter for the courts. Society and science loose all integrity, when we are duped into abandoning our autonomous rights, by divisive mob rule and hateful promotions of bandwagon politics.

I give you McCarthyism, Witch Burnings, Eugenics and Hitler's Germany as proof.

The ban promoters have little to say, in the way of reality or observations, their proof is found exclusively in cherry picked theoretic calculations.

According to long time Tobacco control researcher Dr. Michael Siegal as stated in his blog yesturday.

"The studies which purport to show a dramatic effect of the smoking bans are based on compiled data that are not publicly available. The studies conducted using publicly available data have failed to demonstrate any significant effect. The fact that the anti-smoking researchers have not even looked at the population-based data is problematic, and suggests that there is a severe investigator bias present.

The Scotland study is a perfect example. Privately collected data from a partial sample of hospitals was reported to have shown a dramatic effect, but population-based, publicly available data for all hospitals in Scotland clearly showed no effect. Plus, the anti-smoking researchers never even acknowledged that the population-based data existed, much less analyze and present that data.

I would be lying if I said that I didn't think there was a severe bias present in the research on smoking bans and heart attacks by tobacco control researchers."

So in reference to dirty money; realizing Tobacco control lobby groups are every bit as conflicted and deceptive, in their prose. The conflicting studies judged irrelevant because they are claimed to all be produced with dirtyTobacco money carry exactly the same weight as any conflicted research. Is money gained by deceptions and exagerations AKA propoganda not also dirty in connectrion with the way it was gained?

Fighting fire with fire? By utilizing the tactics of the tobacco industry, as described by the lobby group above. Does the same taint of tobacco industry disdain, not also follow the employ of their advertising methods?


   ·   20/01/2009 18:26


On February 26th. 2007 this discussion started and neither side have got any further in convincing the other side that they are wrong. I am amazed at how many work hours have been spent at computers and I am wondering if the letters were composed and sent in on private time or employers time. If each correspondent had those two years back would they spend it in the same way, I hope your answer is no as life is precious.

I suggest you all get out and make friends, join a Club, socialise, divorce your computers, you can do it, if not get in touch with the nearest addiction help association.Wink Anne


   ·   20/01/2009 21:27


Smoke leaves a residue. Just get a cloth and some surgical alcohol, wipe the inside of the windows of a car in which people smoke and see what you get. Only an addict confused by the effects of his nicotine could pretend that there is no such thing as third-hand (residual) smoke. The same type of person could convince himself that this third-hand smoke contained beneficial content such as vitamins and nourishment for starving people in the third world. Of course, despite all his efforts, the majority of intelligent people will see through his ridiculous arguments.



   ·   21/01/2009 21:15


Do you think that a few moments discussing an important topic is an addiction? In any case does your argument not apply to yourself? Nobody is forced to post here - or read others posts!


   ·   22/01/2009 00:00

Third hand smoke, declaring people as toxic?

Oppression, Coersion, Security of the person...

Ring any bells? How about this one?

foetor judaicus

Look it up, education is always benificial.

With only a telephone opinion poll from 2005 as the evidence of harm? I guess it is getting a lot easier to get away with anything lately. Some people fall for anything, others just lay down on command.

Deception as a lobby tactic, is a matter of conscience and integrity. Promotion by it's power is a matter for the courts. Society and science loose all integrity, when we are duped into abandoning our autonomous rights, by divisive mob rule and hateful promotions of bandwagon politics.

I give you McCarthyism, Witch Burnings, Eugenics and Hitler's Germany as proof.

The ban promoters have little to say, in the way of reality or observations, their proof is found exclusively in cherry picked theoretic calculations. OR LESS...

What can you add, in the way of evidence that third hand smoke is harmful to anyone ? It seems your opinions are all drawn from following others, have you any references to support your opinions at all?

I and many others would be interested to see the evidence you believe exists.


   ·   22/01/2009 00:03

I wonder, if you tried the the surgical alcohol application on the inside of the lungs maybe that would solve the problem and we could move on.

Cigarettes smoking is damaging the lungs and body in general of those who smoke, those who are in the company of people smoking and pregnant women who smoke and maybe the father of the unborn baby is affecting the baby.

I smoked for most of my life and I still love the smell of smoke and I miss the smoking groups I was in but I KNOW the damage they have done to my lungs, I could hardly breathe. I now love every breath of clean air I can get, and I really mean that. With a bit of luck I will die of old age.

Seriously Guys there is nothing to beat clean air, and I thank the Alan Carr organisation for helping me quit smoking.


   ·   22/01/2009 15:55


Look at the amount of letters written 883 at my last count, do you call that a few moments of letter writing x 883. The addiction is to each other actually, every day you sit in front of a computer and discuss a piece of tobacco wrapped up in a white piece of paper, there has to be more to it Ha! I think it is a man thing. Each of ye are so wrapped up in scoring points against eachother you haven't noticed the years pass.

As for me checking in to the site now and again, I could be your score keeper if you want. Ha!



   ·   29/01/2009 04:24

In an article published in the British Medical Journal “Not a slippery slope or sudden subversion: German medicine and National Socialism in 1933.”H. M. Hanauske-Abel et al; Writes;“In 1933 the convergence of political, Scientific and economic forces dramatically changed the relationship between the medical community and the government. That same convergence is occurring again and must be approached with great caution if medicine is to remain focused on the preservation of physical and medical integrity.”“Representatives of German medicine were indicted for war crimes at Nuremberg for crimes against Humanity. Among them were assistant and tenured professors; Clinical directors and the personal physician of the chancellor; The head of the red cross; the highest ranking physician of the army and of the air force; biomedical researchers employed by the pharmaceutical industry, the military, and universities. Some of Germany’s top physicians killed themselves before interrogation or indictment.”It should be obvious; an enlightened world ashamed of itself, judged the language and abuse exhibited by the Public Health community was abhorrent and not to be accepted again.In a recent press release from one of the largest anti smoker groups, a Lawyer, representing the group, made the following statements;“"Smokers pollute the air the public and their children are forced to breathe with toxic carcinogenic fumes, inflate taxes and the costs of health insurance, start the blazes which are the major cause of residential fire deaths, kill thousands of their own children every year, and are a major contributor to litter on beaches, streets, and elsewhere. Isn't it time we stopped tolerating if not encouraging this outrageous behavior and harm to the public," suggests Banzhaf.You can’t simply make this stuff up, and it is hard to imagine this is happening in plain sight, and no one sees the problem here. Mr. Banzhaf [The man is a Lawyer! Hello...] fails to recognize, the people he describes as “smokers” are the community. Vital and responsible law-abiding members of society. Who deserve beyond equal respect, to be assumed as innocent, before being declarred as guilty, they have every right to a trial in a court of law. Before being punished and only then if it is waranted.

Not a trial by vigilante justice with parroted bandwagon euphemisms, inciting the crowd, by half-truths and innuendo. The very essence of bigotry.   

It was not acceptable to speak this way in 1930s Germany and it is no more acceptable today, for any reason.

This statement declares people do not deserve individual respect, jurisprudence, and that they are somehow not a part of the communities deserving to be protected, by Mr. Vanzams version of street justice. Justice by provocation, he declares is more significant that the laws developed and measured by the courts. A form of advocacy which undermines his own profession and the security we used to enjoy by the protection of the courts. The pure hatred he is promoting as an officer of the court should be understood and generally is by his attached credentials, as the justice system providing approval, for what can only be described as promoted bigotry. What people should demand is that He should be disbarred and made an example of, because above the public he councils; he should know better. If the tables were reversed he would complain with all the passion in his soul, that no one has the right ot take the law into their own hands. Just as he does with his vile and disgusting comments describing law abiding citizens, who acting within their rights, choose to use a legal product on the shelf.






   ·   29/01/2009 12:49


Re your quoted statement.

"Smokers pollute the air the public and their children are forced to breathe with toxic carcinogenic fumes, inflate taxes and the costs of health insurance, start the blazes which are the major cause of residential fire deaths, kill thousands of their own children every year, and are a major contributor to litter on beaches, streets, and elsewhere. Isn't it time we stopped tolerating if not encouraging this outrageous behavior and harm to the public," suggests Banzhaf

Kevin, could you point out which parts of this statement you have a problem with and why. It seems to me simply a statement of fact although I am not sure about the “kill thousands of their own children” bit. The only issue may be it is a little blunt,.but sometimes the truth hurts.


   ·   29/01/2009 15:28

James asked;

"Kevin, could you point out which parts of this statement you have a problem with and why. It seems to me simply a statement of fact although I am not sure about the “kill thousands of their own children” bit. The only issue may be it is a little blunt,.but sometimes the truth hurts. "

I could throw a penny into the cup of a homeless person once and forever be able to say without a word of a lie, I supprt the poor with financial aid, while most just walk past and ignore them.

I may be presenting the facts acurately, however I am not being truthful or do the statements represent the whole truth, this is called lying by ommission the same could be a perfect fit to the entirety of the cited statements made.

The list in question proports to describe all smokers and affords no credible reality in describing how it could possibly represent everyone or even a majority of anyone who chooses to smoke. Or does it represent the whole truth of any of the items in that list. The newly elected president in the United States, is a smoker and from what I see he is a pretty popular guy internationally at the moment, do you ascribe the same charges to him without reservation?

Would he be among those claimed to be killing his own children?

I have a problem with the street justice approach taken by someone schooled in the law, and acting as an officer of the court. Who is dabling with promotions which seek to entice hatred. Which directly affects the article seven "security of the person" human rights of his victims.

He constantly reminds us he is a professor of Law, which leaves the impression he represents the opinion of the American justice system and not just his own. There is in the same discussion, an acknowlegement that "the public is growing more intolerant of smokers" which is then, rather than being dealt with in distancing themselves from such an attitude, makes further statements to encourage that increasing level of intollerance and violence.

Lets get back to what Tobacco control is supposed to be about. Encouraging people to take better care of themselves and hopefully they will quit smoking. It is only the smoker who has a right to decide if or when they will quit and it is a crime to try to force people by coercive means to quit. It is plainly no one's business but their own. As to the charges they are harming others that is a pretense formed and resting on political grounds alone because there is absolutely no science, which could demonstrate a normal healthy person could possibly be harmed by casual exposures to tobacco smoke alone, such as a patron in a bar would experience. If we are going to set standards based in the hazards to the rare situation of people with a pre-existing medical condition demanding protection, then you will have to park your cars, buses and trains,  ground all the airplanes and shut down the coal burning hydro plants. Which all contribute much more of the identical polution to our air, in addition to 45,000 aditional ingredients we know of so far, in masively higher volumes in one hour [measured in megatons], than all the cigarettes smoked in the history of the earth have ever produced.

If you take a relaxing drive in your car would you accept the same statements made in the citation to apply to yourself as well? No I wouldn't expect you would, it would be crazy for someone to say such a thing. Which is a hypocritical statement, because the exhaust coming out of that car, is much higher in volume and if examined in equal measures much more toxic, than the tobacco smoke you hope to avoid.

Take a look again at the vicious rant I outlined, and try to look at it objectively, you will quickly discover it is not the truth, unless you really want it to be the truth. That want, if it exists, is what should be examined, by self reflection and understanding your view and respect of others.

The obvious no one has a right to polute the air is only judged by the person throwing the stone who does not refrain from all use of internal combustion engines and all coal generated electricity because such an act polutes a lot more. Claiming necessity versus non necessity, I would argue smoking for those who choose to use them, as a legal product should be banned and taken off the shelf, if it can not be made safe enough to represent an acceptable risk, the same could be said for cars with much more public health damage done; Respiratory effects, Collisions, Obesity, financial cost resulting in higher poverty rates, I could go on.

Life is a risk and some of us live on the edge, while others live in constant fear. There is room for all of us.


   ·   29/01/2009 16:33


I did actually say the only part of the statement that I was unsure of was about the killing of children, so let’s leave that to one side.

Yes Obama is a popular guy and I would be among the many supporters world-wide. But yes, when he smokes he does pollute the air; that is a self-evident truth. There are very few sitting rooms or bars that I know of that have cars or airplanes in them polluting the air. So your comparison to the pollution from cars or airplanes is not a reasonable comparison.

Yes he does increase the cost of health care, simply because smokers in general more unhealthy and are more prone to illnesses of all sorts. Were smoking to be eliminated lung cancer for one would virtually be non-existent. Again a medical fact.

Yes he is amongst the group who cause house fires and litter beaches. Of course he personally has not yet been the cause of house fires, but presumably we would both hope that no-smoker consciously sets out to accidently set fire to their house, but the fact is that it does happen. Therefore someday he might inadvertently set fire to a house by accidently being careless with his butt. As regards litter, the streets of our cities are littered with literally 100s of thousands of butts everyday, that cost the corporations and councils a fortune from tax-payers money to clean up. Where do they come from?

Of course because I do not like the fact that he smokes, does not mean that I do not like and respect him as a whole person. I do have great admiration for him. I do not spend my day saying there is Obama the smoker, I wish he would stop. You are just being too paranoid there.


   ·   29/01/2009 20:45

James how could I possibly argue with your logic. I am happy to hear when smoking is eliminated; so to will cancer be eliminated. I had no idea that was a fact until this very moment.

Shouldn't someone tell the thousands of people in treatment who were expossed to asbestos and a long list of carcinogens and diesel exhaust, they can discontinue treatments because; if they dont smoke and were not expossed to second or third hand smoke, the doctors are lying to them because, they are not really sick.

It is hard to figure the six fold increase of lung cancers and pretty much all the smoking related diseases over the past 50 years. With substantially the same number of smokers, however if you say so, well thats good enough for me.

It is really disapointing to hear Obama is a litterbug and he will likely kill his children, but as you suggest, we can put that killing kids thing aside, we can forgive the little things I guess. I wouldn't have pegged him as such a miscreant who will at some point burn down the Whitehouse That hasn't happened since the Canadians invaded and torched it a hundred years back. Although I can't say for sure, if they used cigarettes to start the fire.

Your comment;

"There are very few sitting rooms or bars that I know of that have cars or airplanes in them polluting the air. So your comparison to the pollution from cars or airplanes is not a reasonable comparison. "

This one was really confusing, until I realized if smokers are a different species, from everyone else, obviously we are talking about different air as well, so I guess you have me.

Just a few more points to clarify if you would be so kind.

"Yes he does increase the cost of health care, simply because smokers in general more unhealthy and are more prone to illnesses of all sorts"

When groups like ASH talk about these things they usually are quite confusing. They tell me half of smokers die of smoking related diseases, and ten years before everyone else. Which if you look those events occur beyond the age of 70 in both cases. So if 90% of the population lives 10 years longer than 10% of the population, and the lions share of health costs are acumulated beyond the age of 65 how would extending the lives of half of the smokers by 10 years help the situation?

More elderly people usually means more expense, the way I read it. As for smoking or sin taxation? I guess that should be used to purchase golf courses and daycare centers as the spoils of war, and should never be considered when counting up the costs of smokers which is also aside from the share they have paid into the common socialist pot either.

Universal healthcare remains universal if targeted groups are ignorred, I guess that could make sense to some people.

And then there was this;

" As regards litter, the streets of our cities are littered with literally 100s of thousands of butts everyday, that cost the corporations and councils a fortune from tax-payers money to clean up. Where do they come from?"

I guess the fast food containers and the empty water bottles I notice far before looking close enough to see the butts should be assumed to be the work of mischevous smokers again. With the other 80% of society being much more respectful. Why do you focus on the little things? Butts, are almost nothing comparred to the rest of the trash we see. Why don't you start calling them out for the bulk of the trash they throw around too?

James; please reconsider, is this stuff all true? Or do you want it to be true, so badly you can twist what you see with your own eyes, to match the superstitions and fears guarding your beliefs?


   ·   29/01/2009 21:21

Absolutely not, have we gone totally mad....I absolutely hate smoking and side stream smoke but if a smoker wants to pollute his personal space in his personal car that is entirely his personal decision, and let them keep the windows up while they are at it. I have often sat on the Navan Road in a traffic jam for 40 mins to an hour and watched smokers 'enjoying' their weed, almost felt jealous, well slightly almost. I hate people that impose their values on the individual in his own space.


   ·   30/01/2009 15:37

Hi Kevin,


No I didn’t say cancer would be eliminated if there was no smoking, I said lung cancer would be virtually eliminated. (Note the word “virtually”) Yes this is a fact, well recognised in the medical world, seeing as 90% of lung cancer victims are smokers.


Just to spell out the sitting room thing. I have never been in a sitting room where the air is being polluted by car fumes. I have been in a sitting room with cigerette smoke polluting the air. Is that simple enough for you?


Referring to health cost I was not just talking about end of life issues. Smokers in general throughout their live are more unhealthy and so therefore cost more to get back to some semblance of health.


I never suggested targeted health-care to exclude smokers. Of course everyone should be treated for their illness. The point is that because smokers are generally sicker they cost more. In Ireland it is estimated that 25% of hospital admissions are due to smoking-related illness. Quiet a saving to be made there I would suggest, if there was no smoking. But no I am not suggesting that this 25% should not be admitted.


I accept your point re litter to a certain degree.


   ·   31/01/2009 08:03

James, obviously the prophesies are much more animated, in your press than mine. I have considered the research and if you insist, I can provide a long list of citations from both biased and unbiased sources. The number of Lung cancers attributed to smokers [not smoking] is generally believed to be 80% of Lung Cancers and at first glance this number sounds pretty extreme until you consider what is being said and you do the math, which more clearly demonstrates the number seems to be expressing that there is no increase above what you would expect to see, by the division of people alone, and representative of the number in the group more so than any increase of mortality. The same can be said of the “50% of smokers will die prematurely” and further the always popular “will die of smoking related diseases”. The truth of the first is an observation of average age of mortality some die prematurely and some live longer than average the same as everyone else. The will die of smoking related diseases is a reflection of the fact those diseases exist more than people gain immunity by not smoking because non smokers die of smoking related diseases in identical percentage numbers.



Such terms are clever crafting of the language and simply admit what we knew all along smokers are roughly the same as everyone else. As for the added 25% that is a new one on me. I have never heard of research or any poll which suggested the 25% increase in undefined sickness because the effects of smoking are not evident in younger years and only occur consistent with older age. Reasonably how could we expect to see anything different? Clearly, your being had with that one. Do you personally know anyone who smokes, and is this something you have seen yourself? Generally I don’t see “smokers” visiting doctors any more than anyone else. If you really need to test the numbers go to the local emergency room and witness first hand, the number in similar age groupings, standing outdoors waiting to be served, compared to those waiting inside, is divided 3- 4 to one [25%-20% respectively] representing exactly the number of “smokers” in the population, compared to “non smokers”. Many of the anti-smoker [not anti-smoking] groups, tend to exaggerate because, that is what they get paid to do generally, and we have to assume a certain amount of what we hear and read, has a degree of bias attached to it.



Personally I get a kick out of some of the preamble and its parroted consistency internationally and often have to wonder, if they have a rating system to define what parts of the chants are worthy of repeating. The ones you mentioned [aside from the 25% one] seem to be all time favourites. They are moving well beyond harmless numbers and cheating the language of late. Which is not so amusing and some of it gets down right offensive. Looking to find rewards in use of the larger print, many are now moving into some pretty hateful accusations. Obviously we need to challenge some of the more direct enunciations, that people, simply because they choose to use cigarettes, or they have a beer with friends at weeks end, are somehow a separate species, and worthy of contempt, by those who frown on such activities. The obvious self-important, presumptuous, the philosophical, and superstitious scolds of the world seem to have joined forces and working as a cult, seem to be in the media favour of late, however these things tend to move along, as fads come and go.


We always have to guard ourselves [more vigorously at times]and listen to both sides, before getting caught up in twisted ideals and judgements, which truly have little merit, no matter how spit and polished the sources [media darlings]appear to be. In politics of late "leaders" so rarely are.



   ·   31/01/2009 20:53

When I hear the more popular rants, for the most part, they are self serving and self exclusionary and reflect only the ignorance of those who are encouraged to repeat them. "No one has a right to smoke" fails to recognize; if that is true no one has a right not to smoke. If smokers rights can be ignored because they are not a recognized "Class" it should be agreed that no right exists because of smoking status alone, or should it ever. Smoking status describes us all, in one way or another. Meaning you either defile or afford rights equally. Rights should be recognized as equal and afforded to everyone; regardless of, or in conjunction with, named rights we support for other named groups or "class" designates, who, both have nothing to do and everything to do, with the discussion at hand. "Children need to be protected" ignores the same protections which should be afforded equally to all adults, in a purely hollow emotional plea. You can go on and say "non-smokers need to be protected from the dangers of second hand smoke" which ignores the cause of that risk entirely and proposes that smokers should not also be equally protected from the greater risk of first hand smoke in addition to second hand smoke, of which they would be the group most expossed. If it is agreed smoking presents an unacceptable risk to everyone, why is it still on the shelf and considered legal? Does a duty to protect non-smokers not also demand a protection equally urgent to all? So why did we need smoking bans, which only serve the interests of one segment of society? The arguments that "prohibition doesn't work" are based in the fear that many would not respect such laws. That reality is only based in the fundamental belief, people might weight the effects of smoking and find them to balance on the side of gains over losses. Which suggests personal choices and respecting the ultimate domain over their own bodies. A requirement found in the eugenics mistakes in the past and a formation of rights, that smokers and everyone else share, the right of choices afforded by autonomy. Similarly the so called "leveling of the playing field" which offers no even ground or respect of personal rights to choose, which is the principle argument against simply designating smoking and non smoking properties, governed by a sign. This sign compromise it is argued tends to afford an unfair advantage to smoking allowed facilities. Which only recognizes the negative effect of bigotry, and the majority preference in the ultimate test, vying for choice. Which is seen and abhorred by the lobbies, recognized in the gains of increased revenues and expanded trade. Opportunities and agreed advantages that would survive over the losses of absolutes and dictatorship in search of "tobacco smoke" free air. Prosperity which would be only limited to those places the public freely chose to go. This can go on indefinitely, with poorly considered and short sighted arguments, which defeat themselves and only support self interests and bigotry. In time, all of those arguments fail, because they have no foundation in equality by equal comparisons. Alternatively we can accept that no one is truly protected, without the elimination of bigotry and the support of mutual respect [and respect of autonomy choices], which in time, finds a unified accommodation for everyone. The promotion seems to survive, but only by the bias of statistical proofs, that cigarette smoke and second hand smoke are more toxic short term and long term, than the multitude of pollutants which already exist in "clean air" That impression can be measured outside of statistics by observations and physical measurements alone. And of course by measuring the effects of equal exposures directly in the garage test, any volunteers?


   ·   02/02/2009 12:13



even using your lower figure of 80%, still showing lung cancer vastly disproportionate to the 25-30% of the population that smoke.


Just to get this straight. My reading of your mail suggests that you believe that smoking has little or no health related issues. Could you point the significant medical group that supports this view.


The view that smoking is unhealthy is not a passing fad as you suggest. It has been on the go for more than 50 years since Dr Doll first noticed the link of lung cancer to smoking and has grown in strength with each decade.


   ·   02/02/2009 14:17

Hi Kevin,

And they say women Talk! all I can say is Thank God I don't have to listen to 

you go on and on and on, even if I do agree with you (I think!)



   ·   02/02/2009 16:11

The anti-smoker group ASH, has told us a number of times smoking is not a right. I tend to agree insomuch as to say; smoking status does not imply rights to anyone, it is simply a quite legal choice; to, or to not, smoke.

This carries forward by logical conclusion. ASH promotes employment restrictions based in smoking status, it would be logical, if those restrictions are legal and reasonable. It is also legal and reasonable by the same reason of protecting someone's health; to restrict employment to thoise who dont smoke, so they would not be harmed or feel they could be harmed in an environment which allowed smoking.

Accepting equality of reason. Smoking bans are predicated upon false and discriminatory logic, which force a non existent safer environment on smokers, who obviously see no protective benefit, beyond the claims to a coerrcive benifit driving them to a forced demand with no choice, to quit, or continue enduring the regressive restrictions, impossed unfairly upon them by the state, with no recognition of personal autonomy rights or opinion.

Banzamph of ASH reports smokers are not a recognized legal class under the law, it has to be recognized and agreed also, that smoking status is not recognized as a matter of discrimination.

Therefore allowing smoker only employment, just as non-smoker only employment is equally legal. How could anyone suggest in a court of law, a health risk to employees was evident or required legislation, within a bar in which all employees smoked? And how could it be argued in a court of law; 100% smoke free workplaces represent anything more than coercion, to undermine personal autonomy. Or that they serve more than an unfair restriction of free trade impossed on an industry, providing hospitality and comfort?

A sign was the only protection anyone ever needed, the rest is simply divisive and hypocritical dictatorship, with no legal or logical foundation.


   ·   02/02/2009 19:59



You seem to rather stand up and give vent to a rant, rather than engage in debate.


So I will repeat again in the hope of a rational response. Your overall message seems to be that smoking involves no significant health and that we are all worrying about nothing. You then ignore the point that 80-90% of lung cancer victims are smokers even though only 25-30% of population smokes.


You also say that this anti-smoking is only a passing fad, despite it being pointed out that Dr Richard Doll observed the link from lung cancer to smoking over 50 years ago and the evidence has mounted up ever since.


   ·   02/02/2009 21:47


It is good to see you finally agreeing with ASH Ireland that smoking is not a right. Smoking is not a legal choice in all circumstances either. ASH Ireland are progressively preventing smokers from imposing the residue of their unhealthy habit on others and in this instance, children. If you finally agree that smoking is not a right how can it be right to smoke in a car with children? Answer that!



   ·   04/02/2009 00:04

Wilt it is good to see as well, your agreeing with what I said.

Your admission is appreciated. It takes a mature and admirable person to admit when they are wrong.

James you are mistaken it was Hitler’s scientists, who first connected smoking and cancer. Doll simply put his stamp of approval on the same calculations. If you look to Doll he made a number of statements which included there is no increased risk of cancer due to diesel exhaust or asbestos. As you stated the evidence continues to mount. If you agree with his opinion he constantly enraged groups like ASH with his opinion considering second hand smoke.


“I would feel perfectly comfortable in the company of others smoking”


As for the Lung cancer numbers, if you look at the timeline beyond the current claims, it becomes apparent the vast majority of lung cancers occur among smokers beyond the age of 65 years of age. Those most at risk are the people most exposed to a number of other confounders no longer evident, as well being the largest population group and the lowest on the socioeconomic scale. Cancer is much more a factor of age than any personal behavioural cause, and of that, there is little dispute among legitimate scientists, second only to socioeconomic standing.



If you read the headlines in 1960 there should have been an open and shut case if smoking indeed causes 80% of lung cancers, the long standing cancer societies, would have known of this 80% number and substantiated it then or a least since, which would have removed tobacco from every shelf decades ago. Even back then, the increased risk was known to be marginal and the so called evidence has indeed grown since, as a product of promoted belief, much more than actual observational numbers.

As I suggested do the math. If you truly believe 8 of 10 lung cancers are caused by smoking, you have been victimized by an ad campaign, designed to do just that. Of the hospital admissions for Lung Cancers you should [with a 95% confidence interval], expect to see 70 to 75% at minimum, among smokers. By their numbers in the grouping alone.

You see 60% of potential lung cancer patients are ever smokers, because of their age group, and by their numbers and pure logic, this is only a representation of their population numbers. 67% [2/3] of lung Cancers should be representative of their group, plus any cancers not associated to smoking, as a starting point before placing any blame.

You should take some of your own advice and look at the numbers Doll reported; they were no where near 8 or more incredibly 9 of 10. At the most, before the contemporary sciences by consensus and industry partnerships took over at the UN, all that was ever claimed was a 20% increased risk, not 60% which is urgent cause to take the smokes off the shelves.

A percentage which should not have changed over the years, as a result of a stable real number of smokers declining in population percentages at .7% per year against a growing population. During the same time span Lung Cancers increased 1.3% almost doubling the pace of increased population, to a six fold increase, which has stalled and declined slightly since 1998.

67% or 2/3 of lung cancers are normal and expected along with 33% among non smokers totalling 100%, in the same perspective. If you assert there is an increased risk of 13% to move now, from 67% to the stated 80% you add 13% to the smoker group and subtract 13% from the other group to represent the believed 20% among non smokers.

Similarly; if you attribute risk to other causes such as, the 20% which are known to be caused by other agents. As irrefutable because they occur among non smokers. It would be logical to assume 20% would also be caused by other agents among smokers as well, if you still consider them human that is.

20% of 40% non smokers in 1960 is 8%

20% of 60% smokers in 1960 is 12%

Which should tell you by the numbers we see a 50% increase by sorting the groups out alone. With no science involved to predict any risk.

You should also see 40/60 is .667 so 67% of all lung cancers regardless of cause are expected among smokers, as a representation of their group numbers alone.

Now consider the 20% of Lung cancers seen among non smokers which could not possibly be attributed to primary smoking?

For equal distribution we have to add the number represented by each group and divide in half, to find the average increased risk distribution, which in this case would be 10%, add 10% to 67% to find the total expected Lung Cancers among the smoking group, regardless of smoking and it would be fair to say 77% of lung cancers are seen among smokers and 23% among non smokers, as a starting point prior to assessing the risk of smoking. Which with the 80% figure, asserts only an additional 3% could actually be attributed to smoking directly? And 10% triple that amount to other causes? Which brings us back to the range, Doll calculated and predicted at 2—20% increased mortality risk; according to how many were smoked per day, and for how many years they smoked.

Today they assert the percentages are still the same, with much changed population numbers of smokers at only 20% and non smokers at 80%? If the increased risk was only 3% in 1960, it should be understood that the risk increase caused by smoking, has already declined significantly.

Now you start to see a picture emerging which defies everything you have been told of late and you can consider for the first time how credible was the source? This might kind of burst your bubble in the superstition by eliminating smoking short of executing all smokers; we can eliminate 80% of lung cancers and should give cause to refocus on what is really causing the other 90%.


   ·   04/02/2009 15:17


Thanks for that. I haven't got a clue what you are talking about except that in summary you disagree with the entire medcial world and that you believe smoking does little or no harm and certainly has no links with lung cancer. I was just checking to be sure that we understand how credible you are.

On the one side the entire educated medical world, or the other side our pal Kevin. I think that it clear who has the most credibility in this debate.


   ·   05/02/2009 00:24

No Kevin I don't agree with you, using all those fancy words an all you're 

confusing me now!  

It is nearly Spring ! anybody taking a tea break.


   ·   05/02/2009 01:39


Your being had, and I can assure you, not by me.

Go ahead and ask the so called "entire medical community"  If I am wrong. Sorry if the facts don't sit well, but they remain the facts just the same.

The population risk which existed due to smoking as a product of the number of smokers in total population 50 years ago, is not still an equal population risk today. I believe it is less, you believe more?

1-3% increased population risk then, is .02- .06% today.

77 of the 80% of lung cancer patients in the hospital today are not sick because they smoked, they are simply sick for the same reasons the rest of an equal number of people with identical lung cancer risks are also sick.

A 20% lung cancer prevalence in non smokers compared to between 1% and 3% increased risk among smokers, suggests if there are no other causes to consider as you believe, smoking is a cure not a cause. I can't honestly believe you on that one.

If the drop in smoker prevalence from 60% to 20% saw no benefit, the efforts today to force everyone to quit, is still a waste of time.

If 1/3 of the smokers, still produces 80% of the lung cancers; Eliminating asbestos and coal burning furnaces was  a waste of time, environmental protections including the elimination of lead in gasoline and catalitic converters on the cars, or eliminating nuclear testing all for naught.

The numbers continue to grow as smoking rates decline? in 1960 they saw nothing close to 80% of smokers with lung cancers, And even the most sheltered soul on the planet doesn't believe smoking didn't exist prior to the 30s.  So should everyone be smoking to guard against lung cancers in your opinion?

Pardon me if I don't take your advice on that one, won't you?

To believe you can eliminate 80-90% of lung cancers tomorrow by stoping everyone on the planet from smoking today, is a work of fiction so absurd, it is amazing anyone would actually believe it.

Don't you have the sense to understand, the people with lung Cancers today are esentially the elderly. Lung cancers and heart disease do not just happen the day after you smoke your first cigarette. The most popular medical theory states it takes 30 or more years. Doll in one of the largest longest duration studies ever completed of Doctors who smoked, predicted people could smoke for 35 years from 15 to 50, quit, and after 10 years the risks of heart disease and Cancer, would be equal to someone who had never smoked at all.

How is that even possible unless your body is a lot less delicate than you give it credit for? Further if half of smokers die of smoking related diseases, should we consider it a miracle the other half dont? or is it more sensible to look at the entire picture before making judgements, seemingly as an obedient sheep to the ad agencies, who get paid a lot of money, to control what you will believe.

If half of the malarkey, the bigots and the lobbys attribute to the "risks of second hand smoke" were true, there would be no reason for anyone to quit smoking, because their fate is already sealed obviously.

So why ask anyone to quit? Call a priest give them their last rights and within a week, they will be all gone, problem solved.

Surely the education systems today produce more than this?


   ·   05/02/2009 12:19


You believe that you can stand there are disagree with the entire medical community world-wide and you believe that you can have credibility doing so. Being honest that just shows an unbelievable amount of arrogance. Who exactly are you and what are your qualifications?


   ·   05/02/2009 12:27

Smoking bans are an ignorant act of imposition, an insult and indignity to all of us, regardless of your smoking status. Promoted by top down policies in line with an undisclosed agreement, at the World Health Organization without public notice or debate. Conspiracy to deliberately divide communities [Bush style and Bush league], by politically deceptive means. Bans equate an unnecessary burden on businesses and the employment losses are staggering. When a sign on the door was all that was ever required. If the Lobbies were held to account to provide honest and informative “health reliant information” in accordance with the law, in place of their focus group tested fear mongering; smoking bans would never be an issue, because the public would understand the value of the risks, in comparison to the many unavoidable risks we see every day and judge the opportunists and profiteers appropriately. The insult to us all is an obligation to pay taxes to fund Billions in false and misleading presentations, promoting only hatred and indignity. Judging by the posts here they were successful in achieving those ends. When is enough really enough? Third and fourth hand smoke are on the way, the bill is in the mail.


   ·   05/02/2009 21:52


When your back is to the wall and it is put to you to answer a simple question you demonstrate a masterpiece of self-delusion. You pretend that I agree with you.

Read my last post again!



   ·   06/02/2009 01:55

James stated;

"You believe that you can stand there are disagree with the entire medical community world-wide"

Was it me who cried about a rant in place of debate? When in fact My post preceded your innitial request.

Your only reply in the form of the debate you advertised? Groundless accusation and ad homid attack? Can you do more than attack the messenger? At very least offer a little less snarling, when your opinion or denials are at risk.

I did not disagree with the entire medical community, I simply added to what was originally; deceptive and misleading language, in the scandal rags and gossip columns, to clarify what was originally stated.

Your personal sources; by inventing and exagerating the truth are at fault, or possibly yourself judging by your response to the actual facts, might simply be lacking comprehension skills, suitable to understand what was actually said. The rhetoeic you claimed does not represent "the entire medical community" who would know better than to state such nonsense. Such as your statements indicating "90% of lung cancers" or any significant amount of them, are caused by smoking alone, or "lung cancers would not exist at all without smoking".

Those statements are seriously delusional and I can assure you; they are not the opinion of the entire medical community, just your own. There are thousands of causes and suspected causes of Lung cancers. Where do they fit into your conceptual theory?

Your browser has a search engine, if you dare, you might learn how to use it. You might then identify even just a few of them and their relative weight, on your own, without my assistance and patience. Certainly without all the wails of "Liar liar", when I simply provided what you asked for.


   ·   06/02/2009 14:14


Whether you realise it or not you are in disagreement with the entire medical community when you think the smoking has little or no health issues and when you think it is not the leading cause of lung cancer. Can you show me the medical groups that advocate smoking or advocate not to worry about the risks of smoking as they are so minimal to be not worth worrying about.

Again I need to correct your misquoting of me for the second time. I never said that by eliminating smoking, you would eliminate lung cancer. I said that you would VIRTUALLY eliminate lung cancer. Obviously the approx 10% that is due to asbestos, randon etc would not be eliminated.

I am reasonably intelligent and competent with figures. I did not get into debate with you on those, because your logic was so wandering and full of outlandish leaps that it was virtually incomprehensible. We therefore could not have debated them in a logical way on a message thread like this. Such a debate would have been equally incomprehensible.


   ·   06/02/2009 22:52

James, Kevin is debating and offering a great deal of common sense into the bargain. Unfortunately you are not. I checked through your recent posts and you haven't offered one argument or fact. You call on the "entire medical community world wide" as stating something different. I know a few Doctors here who agree with Kevin so your "entire" is wrong from the start. Check out Dr. Kitty Little who had some quite enlightening comments to make about this subject. Please consider that while smoking has reduced drastically in California over the past two decades, lung cancer hasn't, if fact, it is rising in some statistics. Burying your head in the sand for the sake of your beliefs isn't going to change anything.


   ·   07/02/2009 15:56


"Obviously the approx 10% that is due to asbestos, randon etc would not be eliminated."

Well that simplifies the problem tremendously. If all other causes of lung cancers are only in total a 10% risk factor, we can easily solve a number of other perplexing issues. Metastasised cancers which originate in other areas of the body and invariably infect the lungs in a majority of cases are also simplified.

Particulate from organic smoke is nine times more deadly that smoke from chemical derivatives and radiation combined. An argument which protects many of the industries falsely accused of tremendous crimes, apparently as you demonstrate; without justification.

By your simplistic formulae we can now move on to assess the cause of breast cancers. Published studies have found an increased risk of 25,000% among women with breast cancers who also wear bras [no joke an actual epidemiology measurement]. We know now, and as you assert by “agreement with the entire medical community” bras obviously cause breast cancers.

Now we have to move to plausible explanations. As the act of compression as the only possible suspect, we realize the deadly effects of “second hand compression devices” wrought upon us, by the evil garment industry. Control top panty hose, Girdles, Athletic cups and tummy tuck devices, all need to be banned from all public places to protect a public not trustworthy enough to make the right choices on their own. Sure there will be those die hard denialists, helplessly addicted to physical appearances, afforded deceptively by these devices. Social marketing programs can be developed, to shame them into shedding instead of firming up by artificial means.

The advancement of medicine of late affords then no excuses than to employ the alternatives just like smokers who reject their purchase options. Breasts and testicles can be removed. Invetro-fertilization and artificial breast milk have rendered both un-necessary and self indulgent. Acts which fail to respect the rights of Uniks working within public health, as a community we are forced to subsidize their poor health choices and endue the smell of perspiration and all of its thousands of toxic deadly ingredients, while trying to enjoy a meal. Tummy tucks for delinquent over eating children and the sagging elderly, could be made mandatory; to end the sight and smell of hanging flesh. The fat pandemic is a tremendous cost on the healthcare system and is likely to increase taxation significantly; some say, as “the new tobacco” the true costs likely exceed the healthcare costs of smoking by a wide degree. If you do a search for “new tobacco” you will find a long list of other risk factors, claimed to be much more deadly than smoking and every one of them backed by “scientific research” every bit as opinionated as the anti smoker lobby.

James you appear to be a fairly intelligent guy, being used by people you likely afford far too much trust in. It is hard to realize when you are being used because no one likes to admit to vulnerability.

Does it make sense to you by direct comparison to what you are saying? If 90% of women wear bras and also have breast cancer, Bras cause 90% of breast cancers, case closed? Not quite? Your 90% dreamscape, is suffering from the identical weakness.

The guilt by association approach, fails to take into consideration even if we stretched it to 90%, there is still a large degree of Lung cancer among those who don’t smoke and an equal measure, should be assumed among those who do, if you are looking at a 50% larger group you have to assume 50% more would be expected, for identical reasons. Further the majority of those who smoke differ largely from the grouping that don't. Earnings, ethnicity and environments create a long list of factors which act in deficit, which invests other confounders, to explain some of the numbers which also have to be considered.

If the group of non smokers is larger today, that number of non smoking cancers will only increase into the future, it is simple common sense; the numbers have to grow. Sorting people into groups to draw self serving temporal assumptions, does not change a medical prognosis. No matter how you present them eventually physical reality uncovers the deceit. A simple look backward in our recent past, already demonstrates that very deceit.


   ·   09/02/2009 12:22


Your simplistic example of the bra causing breast cancer is just that; simplistic. As you know in epidemiology this is known as a confounder and is a well recognised risk in over-simplistic analysis of such data. Epidemiologists spend a lot of time attempting to identify such confounders. However 50 years of study of the lung cancer data has given loads of time to removing the risk of smoking being merely a confounder. Yet to this day the entire medical community is in agreement on the dangers of smoking. (NOTE TO EXPAT the odd individual example like Dr Kitty Little doesn’t count. Dr Little has the opportunity to post her findings in reputable peer-reviewed journals and gain acceptance. So can you point to the medical organisations that accept her findings and advocate that smoking does little or no harm)

Metastastic cancer in the lungs clearly is the cancer spreading from the primary source and so isn’t directly linked to smoking

Kevin, you are of course correct that smoking in the western world is predominantly an addiction in the lower socio-economic groups and less educated groups. While I know that sentence may look derogatory, I genuinely do not mean it to be; it is a simple statement of fact. This naturally leads to lung cancer being more common in this group of people. It is not due to the fact that someone in my area of the city is poorer or less educated that makes them more likely to get lung cancer. However, if they smoke they will be more likely to get lung cancer than me.


   ·   09/02/2009 19:06

As recently as five years ago we could define as a conspiracy nut; any of those people who continually insisted the government had spy satellites in space powerful enough to follow you where ever you went, "monitoring your every move". We all rolled our eyes and attributed everything else they presented with an appropriate weight applied. It became customary as a necessary part of ad hominid attacks, to attach the reference to conspiracy nuts the spy satellites watching your every move. Today with the use of a free download they call Google World the proof of those nutty and absurd ideologies were not as nutty as we thought. Opinions form without any recognition of what is actually possible. Do we really represent consensus or simply formed belief systems, tailored by our information sources? If Industry controls our information sources, who forms our beliefs? Bill Gates said a few years ago "who ever controls the information will eventually control the earth." Bill is now a listed as a proud invested stakeholder, at the World Health Organization. A UN agency with an expansion plan, more energetic and openly received by politicians internationally, than any religious movement in history. Bill has retired from the company which made him the richest man on the planet. His thoughts are probably much more well known to the WHO by now and I have no doubt, he has explained in detail exactly what he meant. Is he a conspiracy nut? What are the possibilities?


   ·   11/02/2009 18:42


Do you believe that there are spy satellites in space powerful enough to follow you where ever you went, "monitoring your every move"?

Do you believe that the WHO is conspiring against you, everyone or just smokers?



   ·   14/02/2009 09:42

Wilt I have no worries, Why would I garner so much attention? AS James points out; no one who is anyone takes me seriously. Gotcha...

From USA stats;

320 million people 2.24 million mortalities occur annually, As a result of all causes and none more desicive than old age. The average age of death is 70 indicating half die before and half after. The total mortyality rate is equal to .7% [.007]This demonstrates the normal effect of mortality in the total population affecting everyone, regardless of smoking status. in order to achieve population growth numbers have to exceede .7% currently they are seeing 1.4% which has half as many dying as being born combined with immagration numbers. To better understand the effect; with a stable pattern, over 50 years the American population rose from 100 to 320 million.AS did the number of those dying from 700,000 to 2.4 million. The number of those who smoke did not actually change only thier number comparred to a rising population changed from 60% to now 20% of total population. It is curious to hear 448,000 die today because of smoking alone today that represents 19% of all mortyalities wheras in 1958 it would represent a lot more 64% of all mortalities? This sounds similar to James, claiming 90% of lung cancers caused by smoking alone?

The mortality rate pattern is similar throughout the developed world.

Assuming no one lives forever the claim of "saved lives" or "premature mortality" can be quickly demonstrated to be false advertising.

If there are 20% smokers and 80% non smokers

or 30% smokers and 70% non smokers.

The numbers work out as follows;

For smokers 20% of population x .007 = 64 million x .007 = 448,000 30% of population x .007 = 96 million x .007 = 672,000

For non smokers 70% of population x .007

= 224 million x .007 = 1.568 million

Now add add 30% for smokers = 2.24 million

80% of population x .007 = 256 million x .007 = 1.792 million Now add 20% for smokers = 2.24 million. If smoking results in all those lost years what is providing the identical effect among non-smokers?

Say it again; 448,000 preventable moralities???

Only Half of smokers die of smoking related diseases??? Do the rest live forever? Are the numbers really so scary, or is it the people chanting them?


   ·   16/02/2009 20:39


Again with all the complicated numbers. As best as I can determine it you seem to be saying that approx 20-30% of the deaths are smokers which equates to their proportion of the population. Without any complicated figures I think that everyone would agree with that, seeing as we all die eventually, so therefore roughly the breakdown of deaths should mirror the living population. So what?

Is you point that we shouldn't bother trying to have a healthy lifestyle because it doesn't matter as we are all going to die in the end anyway. If you take that absurd logic to its natural conclusion you wouldn't bother taking any medicine or decent food. There is no point we are just postponing the inevitable. Crazy thinking Kevin.


   ·   28/02/2009 18:24

James in numbers I can illustrate what I am suggesting by observation in old math class perspectives. The pie chart method.

Think about it; 160,000 lung cancer deaths annually in a 320 million populace or .0005 and .0025 among those classed as ever smokers with a .7% mortality rate today, however the observations are squed because the effects today are results of lifestyles yesterday when the majority of the population smoked.

The numbers affecting the cause and effect?

100 million population 60 % ever smokers 40% never smokers. Divide a pie into 10 pieces each representing 10 million people Smokers get 8 pieces [80%] and non smokers get 2 pieces [20%]. Take away 2 from the non smokers to represent cancers from other causes take away 3 from the smokers to reflect their 50% larger population. What do you have left? 5 pieces and by comparison we concluded 50% will be affected by smoking and among non smokers 50% will be affected by not smoking, as represented in the two pieces they were allotted in addition to the number you took away from the smokers believed to be not caused by smoking. As a risk you have a balance, and no conclusive evidence of increased risk despite how it originally seemed.



   ·   02/03/2009 19:32

Kevin's Pie-in-the-Sky chart is a masterpiece of delusion - the delusion of the addict who will go to any lengths to convince himself and others that toxic tobacco is not harmful to human lungs.

It is encouraging to note that States in the USA are rolling out legislation to ban smoking in vehicles with children.


   ·   05/03/2009 20:49



   ·   06/03/2009 06:18

no all bans on smoking should be stopped then the there would be more jobs as people would go out and air travel would be on the rise people in the bars in the work area people would do more overtime heance the good old days would be backMoney mouth


   ·   07/03/2009 15:52




You and your figures. Believe it or not I have a degree in maths and your use of figures is totally incomprehensible to me. Your last paragraph is total gobbltey-gook. I have no idea what it is you are saying or trying to prove.


Examples of your total illogicality in your last paragraph.


1. You say that 60% of pop ever smokers and then proceed to give them 10 pieces of your pie representing 80%.


2. Then you proceed to take all the non-smokers 2 pieces away to represent cancers from other causes. This implies that all non-smokers die from some cause of cancer. Not at all the case in the real world.


3. As for the sentence “5 pieces and by comparison we concluded 50% will be affected by smoking and among non smokers 50% will be affected by not smoking, as represented in the two pieces they were allotted in addition to the number you took away from the smokers believed to be not caused by smoking.” I have read it five times and cannot make head nor tail or it.


So Kevin the best thing is to leave the maths to the experts and stick with the day job. The experts tell us that 90% of lung cancer is caused by smoking. As you yourself know unfortunately lung cancer has a very high mortality rate of 70%.


   ·   11/03/2009 20:08

James; your degree certainly didn't help your comprehension skills in the least. Did you use your shirt cuffs to copy the answers or look over someone's shoulder ((Wink}} or do you simply deliberately refuse to look?

In the pie chart I explained the pie represents all lung cancers. The distribution as you present it is; an astronomical 80% attributed to smoking alone and the remaining 20% is represented in only 20% as seen among non smokers. One has to assume Lung cancers are caused by a number of things which explains your 20% found among 40% of the population legitamately at risk.

As I explained the vast majority of lung cancers occur beyond the age of 65, meaning the people dying today who represent your [oh my gosh] 80% figure, [plus 20% seen in non smokers] are of course people who ever smoked in the past 50 years?

I do hope I havent lost you yet. Now if we break a cancer pie representing all lung cancers into 10 equal pieces and distribute them as you presented 2 for non smokers and 8 for smokers and follow the logic as I presented, you might find it past those foggy glasses and understand what I did present in place of your nonsense.

Here is a professor in a three part video to explain the fear on your side of the fence, in clean and logical terms; Almost anyone can understand. Can you?

Do you dare watch it all the way through? I know this kind of thinking scares you, but standing up to your fears makes them less impossing and improves your stake in life.

For suplimentary support, in conceeding you are the one with the math degree, could you explain to everyone else; what this world renowned statistician is trying to explain with his charts? Fisher et al;

"Should not these workers have let the world know, not only that they had discovered the cause of lung cancer (cigarettes), but also that they had discovered the means of its prevention (inhaling cigarette smoke)? How had the M.R.C. the heart to withhold this information from the thousands who would otherwise die of lung cancer?

Those who refuse the jump from association to causation in the case of cigarette smoking will not be tempted to take it in the case of inhaling; but the M.R.C. and its Statistical Research Unit think this argument is valid in the first case. Can they refuse to admit it in the second?"



   ·   23/03/2009 10:58




Well done that is a much better explanation of your little thesis. I now understand your concept. The basic concept does in fact hold some water. The basic idea seems to be that if a portion of non-smokers get lung cancer, therefore an equivalent portion of the smokers should be considered to be at risk of getting lung cancer regardless of their smoking. Say we agreed on the figures that you use, your thesis still shows that 50% of lung cancers are caused directly by smoking.


   ·   14/04/2009 16:49

Sorry for the delay James; I was not notified you had replied. You asked 

"Say we agreed on the figures that you use, your thesis still shows that 50% of lung cancers are caused directly by smoking. "

Even if 50% appear to be caused by smoking and 50% are not where do you find an increased risk, to demonstrate that causation, in a legitamate population research paper, one that allows for both alternatives?

If half of smokers die of smoking related diseases, that would make them exactly the same as everyone else, with no increased risk and no increased mortality. So "preventable" is a crock. As for second hand smoke, with no safe levels of exposure; where do you find the non expossed comparison group, when so many know what cigarette smoke smells like?

In the States they claim half of smokers will die of smoking related diseases and that acounts for 450,000 mortalities anually.

Yet when we look at the real numbers we see 26% of the population are children and most are too young to smoke so they are not legitamately at risk of smoking related diseases by smoking. Of the remaining 74% of the population, the adults, 40% smoke and 60% do not.

29%/74% = 40%

Of the 2.4 million deaths that occur each year, regardless of cause the proportion who smoke should be expected to produce 40% of the total mortalities if all things are equal, and the non smokers 60%. Now do the math. 960,000 smokers versus 1.44 million non smokers. half of the smokers would be 480,000 that would be 30,000 more than the stated "450,000". Does this mean smoking saved 30,000 lives a year?

I think not, what it says is that you cant believe everything you read in the papers, especially when it originates from financially conflicted lobby sources by press release, not unlike the now infamous tobacco lobby.

The question to be asked of the lobbies and the numerous  Public health partners would be;

Is smoking a Disease which requires treatment, fitting with the "pandemic" description, or a personal habit that requires correction. The answer hangs them, and absolutely destroys their credibility, no matter how they respond.

Are they challenging your right to personal autonomy or do they operate as a moralist cult?


   ·   16/04/2009 04:44

As a non smoker, I would not agree with this suggestion. People have to have freedom of choice!


   ·   20/04/2009 16:20

no. what would the next step be? ban 'men wearing pink t-shirts' from driving after dark? FREEWILL!!


   ·   21/04/2009 09:24



In the scale of the figures that you are talking about the difference between 450k & 480k is fairly insignificant. Basically your last post is saying that somewhere between 450k and 480k deaths each year in the US are caused by smoking!!! I am just confused as to how you think that supports your stance that smoking is not harmful!!!


   ·   21/04/2009 09:29

mykids,mylife, hoew utterlyirrelevant can you get. Since when did men wearing pink t-shirts result in carcinogens endangering the health of their child passengers??


   ·   05/05/2009 10:38

Since when did men wearing pink t-shirts result in carcinogens endangering the health of their child passengers??

The amount of people who do not understand the definition of an analogy. Honestly.


   ·   05/05/2009 18:35

I agree with buzz. Some people are so blind to read posts properly. sSpare me! regards.


   ·   06/05/2009 01:03

As a non-smoker, I would not agree with such a ban. We are already a "NANNY" state!


   ·   06/05/2009 14:12

Buzz, it is only an analogy if it is actually relevant. 'Mylife,mykids' post was not in fact relevant - hence my point.


   ·   06/05/2009 18:55

my point was if this smoking ban is enforced we will be officially living in a state that wants to take away our freewill.the next step could well be a ban preventing men wearing pink tshirts driving at night......we are adults. if we value our kids health we will be sensible enough to make the decision not to smoke near them.what is the point of banning drivers from smoking with their kids in the car if they are still going to smoke in their homes. inform people,dont try to control every aspect of their lives


   ·   07/05/2009 10:41

Lisann I have had that problem here so many times! I find I am constantly watching what I type because some people may not "get it" if I use an analogy or humour etc etc.


   ·   07/05/2009 15:36

But the ery point magpie is that some selfish and ignorant people do not value their kids health and thus are not sensible enough to make the decision not to smoke near them


   ·   07/05/2009 16:08

yes and selfish and ignorant people also fill their childrens plates with fatty greasy disgusting food every day, encourage them to sit on their arses playing computer games instead of going out to kick a ball - we dont ban fatty foods or computers. There are people who have unwanted children and abort them or bring them into environments of abuse - do we stop these people having sex? NO we EDUCATE THEM. The SMOKERS ARE ALWAYS THE EASY TARGETS.


   ·   07/05/2009 17:53

The children of the 50's and 60's are doing rather well today even though there was nobody calling the smokers 'selfish and ignorant' at that time. It seems to me that this term is being applied to the wrong group of people entirely. I wonder what group would really be a candidate for this? TC perhaps?


   ·   08/05/2009 09:46


In the 50s & 60s the links to lung cancer were only being discovered. So hardly a fair comparison to today. Today it is a well accepted fact that smoking causes lung cancer and in general causes all sorts of other illnesses and has absolutely zero benefits. Keep up Expat it is the year 2009 and we know a lot more now.


   ·   08/05/2009 13:59

buzz, a small amount of computer games are not harmful and small amount of fat in the diet are beneficial but ANY amount of secondary smoke is harmful. No-one is talking about banning smoking just banning it in cars with children. As far as banning people having sex in order to prevent unwanted children. what a silly silly thing to say - ever heard of contraception?


   ·   08/05/2009 15:34

Not silly at all actually, and you are obviously completely BLIND to the fact that smokers are continually being persecuted and yes there WILL come a time when we wont be allowed to smoke full stop. You may not see it but our nanny state will have its way eventually.

Of course I have heard of contraception "dont be silly" - but if it was that effective then why so many unplanned pregnancies? It was an ANALOGY, COMPARISON if you can get your head around that.

Of course I am aware that a certain amount of good fats are beneficial, however I doubt you shall find these in chicken nuggets, chips and happy meals! Looking at some of the kids around these days, there are obviously a lot of parents happy to give their kids more than their fair share of good fats.


   ·   08/05/2009 16:47

If I'm driving a vehicle...and I'm alone....I can't see what possible harm to others I could perhaps the question should be altered.

I am a smoker for years, unfortunately....and, logically....I know that my lungs weren't 'designed' to ingest smoke...of any it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination be 'good' for me; however....I recently had a lung x-ray...totally clear of cancer, while.....a relation of mine died (very rapidly) a few years ago from lung cancer.  This chap was a non-smoker.....'fit as a fiddle'...cycled miles to work every day for years etc etc.  I suspect now that what he may have been subjected to was the fumes from the traffic....thing is....I can never be certain.....and it cannot be proven!

I can categorically state that the above chap never smoked....but he was undoubtedly subject to traffic fumes, since he never wore a does that mean we should call upon an immediate ban on traffic?

I do not/would not....smoke in a vehicle/restaurant or any other place....where others would be ingesting that smoke.....  I do think it strange though...that the focus has not been on the pollution to all that is being perpetrated on many more innocents....outside the vehicles!  Makes you wonder what's going on re priorities.....or is it just down to money....yet again!


   ·   08/05/2009 22:07


The question has been altered – on this forum. The call by ASH was for a ban on smoking in all vehicles containing children. So, much of the debate on this forum is not relevant to this original proposal.

Exhaust fumes are very harmful and I wonder if your unfortunate friend was ever subjected to secondhand smoke as well! Much is being done about traffic fumes but that does not cause the same outrage as interfering with the smokers 'fix'. But, not all people are affected to the same degree by tobacco smoke or other toxic fumes.

To say that the focus has not been on other pollution is to ignore all that is being done world-wide on global warming etc. The catalytic converter and the move towards the electric car are other examples.




   ·   11/05/2009 09:17

Buzz, an analogy is IRRELEVANT if it doesn't make a comparison as yours doesn't. Brandy, my condolences about your relation and you may well be absolutely right - breathing in carcinogens from traffic fumes as he wore no mask, may well have had an awful effect on his health but again the comparison is not relative. First of all no-one is talking about banning smoking entirely. Second, banning traffic is not remotely possible as driving is neccessary - smoking is not.


   ·   11/05/2009 15:09

Easy for a  non smoker to say of course. If driving was needed then surely we, as a species, would have died out before the invention of the car?


   ·   11/05/2009 15:16

Anonymous: an analogy does not HAVE to describe two things which are similar in their being or have the same properties (that would be a metaphor). An analogy can, in its simplest form describe a like RELATIONSHIP between two entirely SEPERATE scenarios, a set of reasoning ie; it does not claim total identification - it claims a "similarity of relationships".


   ·   11/05/2009 16:07

Ireland has a very high cancer rate worldwide--no 5 for females and about no 12 for men. it cant be all due to smoking so it must be something else.i think its in our [irish] genetic make-up. regards


   ·   14/05/2009 21:00

No I would not support it, and I am not a smoker.


   ·   15/05/2009 23:10


It may be 'in our [irish] genetic make-up' to be more susceptible to the toxins in tobacco smoke!!!


   ·   18/05/2009 14:11

Yes WITOFIRE, you could be right but is smoking the major trigger cause of cancer in Ireland? I think not. regards


   ·   18/05/2009 22:38

Maybe not, lisann, but that is not a reason to subject anyone, especially children, to the dangers.


   ·   19/05/2009 15:49

I agree with you WITOFIRE. i dont smoke in front of kids,but using your logic then we should not force them to drink our contaminated water either which contains lots of toxins.but to get back to the topic in hand,i like to have a choice to smoke or not in cars.ASH are looking in the wrong direction to try to cut down cancer related deaths. afterall only 30% of us smoke.regards


   ·   20/05/2009 22:28


Of course we should not force children to drink contaminated water. Who does?


   ·   21/05/2009 11:26

Agreed. I dont think I could smoke in front of a child, even in the unlikely event that I was provided with unrefutable evidence that it caused them no harm, I think it just FEELS wrong at this point, goes against the grain. I do still think people should be allowed to smoke in their cars if they wish. People buy their cars and pay tax and insurance, not to mention fuel, so if these cars are their property then people should not be able to commandeer what one does in their own car.


   ·   21/05/2009 19:07

WITOFIRE, did you see Philip-Boucher Hayes investigation into water supplies re toxins put in them without people knowing about it? thats what I mean by children drinking contaminated water.


   ·   22/05/2009 06:14

Yes I am aware of the scandalous incident of the introduction of toxins into some water supplies in Monaghan and Cavan. I am also aware of the normal introduction of toxins such as chlorine, fluoride, alum and lime in the treatment of water for human consumption. While this important treatment of water is essential to public heath, many people, me included, are not happy with the final product. Some people use bottled water – often more polluted than tap water. I use filter jugs. I would not subject children to bottled or unfiltered tap water - just as I would not subject them to toxic tobacco smoke.



   ·   22/05/2009 12:57

Hi WITOFIRE, as we seem to be diviating from the topic i have really nothing more to say on the subject[i said it all before]. i am doing nothing illegal and i feel i should not be scapegoated by ASH to make me feel like a pariah.i respect your view and i hope you respect mine. regards


   ·   23/05/2009 07:40

US tobacco companies lose landmark ruling

A US federal appeals court today agreed with the major elements of a 2006 landmark ruling that found the nation's top tobacco companies guilty of racketeering and fraud for deceiving the public about the dangers of smoking. The US Court of Appeals in Washington upheld requirements that manufacturers change the way they market cigarettes, which have been on hold pending appeal. The ruling bans labels such as low tar, light, ultra light or mild, since such cigarettes have been found to be no safer than others because of how people smoke them. It also says the companies must publish "corrective statements" in newspapers and on their websites on the adverse health effects and addictiveness of smoking and nicotine.



   ·   26/05/2009 10:36

There is nothing more annoying than people who smoke and then sue for damages. Anyone who started smoking since the 70's has been fully aware of the dangers posed.


   ·   26/05/2009 10:40

The ruling bans labels such as low tar, light, ultra light or mild, since such cigarettes have been found to be no safer than others because of how people smoke them

Less than 10 cm away from such labels one will also find a label which quite clearly tells them the milligram content of tobacc, tar and nicoteine. For Gods sake what kind of ridiculous claim culture do we have here now? Where will it all end? I think anyone who smokes and then tries to sue is just a blatant hypocrite to be honest, akin to throwing yourself in front of a bus and suing because the bus was deceptively heavy and did more damage than you anticipated. GET REAL PEOPLE. SMOKING CAUSES HARM.


   ·   26/05/2009 13:09

I hate cigarette smoke, it makes me gag! It should be banned except in designated places i.e. not outside the shopping centre where I have to hold my breath until I can make it past all the smokers huddled outside! It's disgusting! My husband recently went into a pub/off licence and had to walk past a group of smokers on his way in and out. When he came home i could smell the smoke off his clothes and hair! It's vile!


   ·   26/05/2009 15:44

The only reason people are congregated outside in the FIRST place is because they are not allowed INSIDE. The smoking nazis really irritate me they are NEVER happy perhaps you would like all smokers shipped to the moon to save smelling out your partners hair? I am in support of the smoking ban, but outside is outside and you cannot dictate where smokers are allowed to huddle if they are outdoors. Can I dictate where SUV's belching out fumes can stop in traffic? can I tell the farmer across the road not to place quite so many cows in his field because collectively they are contributing to holes in our ozone through the volumes of methane they produce? What about houses outside of Dublin who do not burn smokeless fuel? Shoudl they be built x miles apart? The problem with smoking nazis is that they ONLY see the smokers. They do not see anyone else.


   ·   28/05/2009 13:41

To Joeyjojo ,Buzz is only pointing out a fact. are you so blind not to see his/her point. LOL to you. regards


   ·   28/05/2009 14:56

Cheap shot. Yes a lot of smokers DO think about you, and are not concerned with taking away your right to do what you want to do, as you are of theirs. Of course it is easy to pretend that other pollutants do not affect you when in actual fact they do, if you think a little further than just what is before your eyes. The fact remains that smokers are huddled outside because they are not allowed inside (quite rightly too) but they should not have to bend to the very whim and will of every smoking nazi who choses to have a go at them when in fact, they are keeping within the law.


   ·   28/05/2009 15:51

Joeyjoejoe, Maybe us smokers should wear bells around our necks????Tongue out

There are far more 'vile' things going on in society nowadays. Grow up.


   ·   28/05/2009 23:26

We must stop persecuting smokers and other addicts! Let smokers huddle at the doorways and do not ask them to move a few yards away to prevent smoke entering premises or to avoid contaminating other citizens.

Make it illegal for SUVs to stop at traffic lights and belch out fumes. Make farmers reduce their dairy stock numbers to avoid damage to the ozone layer. Demolish houses built too close together in the countryside to somehow thus reduce the effects of burning smoky fuel but this type of law must not apply to Dublin as everybody there burns only smokeless fuel. Fit blinkers when approaching smokers so as not to see them. Make buzz happy or you’re a smoking Nazi.



   ·   29/05/2009 13:58

Witofire it is not about making ME happy (believe it or not these arguments are simply amusement - my HAPPINESS is determined by more important issues such as health, financial stability, fulfilling work, family, friends) In actual fact, despite your attempt at sarcasm, it would seem that it is the anti smokers who are the most unhappy lot! Regarding your other points if they were not laced with cyncism and sarcasm then they would actually be quite valid. Why persecute ONE group and not another?


   ·   29/05/2009 23:16


Have you forgotten your previous post so soon? Those were your points!


   ·   02/06/2009 10:09

Yes I am aware of that and may I thank you for judging me by your standards and feeling the need to poitn out the obvious. My point of course (had you read the post properly) was that your post was laced with sarcasm and cynicism. Of COURSE I believe my points to be valid - whats wrong with you?! Are you here for a discussion on a smoking ban or the last word???


   ·   04/06/2009 00:57


You made an interesting comment that even if it was proved that passive smoking was harmless, you would not FEEL right smoking in front of a child.

The whole point of the millions spent on propaganda is to make you FEEL bad about smoking, especially in front of children (who are misused as a form of emotional pressure).

This is brainwashing and it is very effective and very deliberate.

Just consider the fact that for years and years no mother would ever consider blowing smoke in the direction of a child but TV commercials were made to show exactly that with an actress impersonating a mother. Many people saw this as "reality" and felt justified in demonising mothers who smoke. Their emotions were deliberately tampered with.

BTW, just because Wit spouts a lot of rubbish he is is not stupid. He prefers not to get involved in any sensible discussion as he would lose. By just spouting ASH propaganda he can avoid this. He aims for the emotional level not the intellectual and this is, of course, quite deliberate.


   ·   04/06/2009 22:32


You said 'for years and years no mother would ever consider blowing smoke in the direction of a child.

What planet were you living on? Whoever brainwashed you made a great job of it.

Whose direction do you think the smoke goes in a car containing children?

What sensible discussions am I not getting involved in? Those where all agree with you. Do you honestly think smoke is good for the human lung?


   ·   05/06/2009 11:19


It is a well established fact in the medical world that smoking causes the majority of lung cancer plus countless other ill health affects. This is not brain washing, this is medical fact. In addition there are absolutely zero benefits to smoking.


   ·   05/06/2009 12:04

This topic is turning into a slagging match and has now nothing to do with the subject. I am off for a smoke! regards. ps. ASH is not going to me tell what to do. regards


   ·   05/06/2009 13:44

Hi ExPat I agree with you to a certain extent. I mean it feels wrong to smoke in front of a child, and I think thats just because I KNOW its bad for me so it has to be abd for them. Then again who is to say that I haven't been affected by propaganda...the whole point is to make you THINK you are making these decisions for yourself when in fact you're not. I ahve to say the anti-smoking ads really annoy me. They actually make me want a cigarette to combat the annoyance...hmm maybe these are actually designed by tobacco companies to stress out the smokers and make then reach for the box of fags.....?!


   ·   06/06/2009 17:07

Yes I would, The least places people can smoke the better for them and others..


   ·   29/06/2009 09:50

Saying the least places people can smoke the better for them is not actually 100% true. Smoking rates have not dropped at all since the workplace ban.


   ·   29/06/2009 18:08

The workplace smoking ban in Ireland has reduced air pollution in pubs by 83 per cent and airborne carcinogens by 80 per cent for both patrons and staff since the ban was introduced three years ago.

It can protect workers and others from exposure to the harmful particles, chemicals and gases in secondhand smoke and result in immediate and significant health gain.”


   ·   02/07/2009 14:32

"the least places these people can smoke the better for them" - these people are still smoking, despite the ban. I was not aware this comment expaned to include non-smokers.


   ·   02/07/2009 14:33

Certainly OTHERS ie non -smokers benefit as they are not subjected to passive smoking but we are talking about smoking in our own PRIVATELY OWNED vehicles, not pubs. If I own a car and I want to smoke in it I will.


   ·   03/07/2009 19:50

Buzz, would you smoke if you had passengers in your car?


   ·   03/07/2009 20:30

Buzz,  Point taken!  Just wondering though do you smoke if you have passengers in your car?


   ·   06/07/2009 17:47

Hi Ange, that would depend on Buzz,afterall its his/her car. if others dont like it then they can walk! [the excercise would do them good in this obese society].take this post in the spirit its written.regards


   ·   08/07/2009 13:50

Hi Ange I do not wish to get into a stupid argument here and the answer to your question is if I had a child in my car I would not smoke, regardless of whose child it was be it my own or someone else's, I would not smoke in front of a child in a confined space. If there was someone else in my car it would depend on the circumstances. For example if it was a colleague or friend and they also smoked then I would smoke. If it was my parents or Grandparent then I would not smoke out of RESPECT for them. If it was someone I was just giving a lift to and doing a favour for then I would try not to but if I really had a craving I would ask them if it is ok and smoke. All of the above would be done with open windows.

The POINT IS that it should be MY CHOICE. If someone decides not to smoke when they have passengers thats fine. If somebody smokes when they have passengers that is fine too (except children of course).

Whether or not I smoke in my own car does not change the fact that the CHOICE to do so should be available to anyone who does own a car.


   ·   08/07/2009 14:34

Hi lisann, ha ha! I suppose you're right.. I'm out!  No more to say! lol...


   ·   13/07/2009 09:16

Very good points Lisann (though its a pity they are laced with sarcasm) but yes it is true that MY CAR = MY RIGHT TO SMOKE IN IT and YES there ARE far too many obese people today. Goodbye Ange or will you be back????????


   ·   13/07/2009 20:40

Final Encore!!!  I'm sure we'll cross paths again!! lol ..  Toodleoo!!!!


   ·   14/07/2009 13:50

I knew you would not be able to resist ha ha :) Regards


   ·   02/10/2009 00:21


  To join the discussion, register by clicking here