South Yorkshire police [The Star] have been banned from smoking ANYWHERE on their premises , even in their breaks. They now have to take a walk and smoke well away from the police station. No Smoking Shelters and , God Forbid , no Smoking Room. What do they expect ? Dancing girls ?
The S.Y. police are angry about this but that won't bother the bureaucrats , behind their shiny desks. As long as the ordinary copper gets on with his job of catching dangerous villains and hunting down terrorists and attending horrific road accidents , well , thats all that matters.
This will be a wonderful boost for the morale of the police and they'll now be more clear-headed as they do their job , not hanging around , smoking , in their free time ; there are targets to be met and forms to be filled in !

whilst on the topic of the police,does any one know if there is some kind of protocol for interviewing a 14 year old?

was chatting to a friend of mine this morning,he said that at 11.40pm last night he was woken by the police banging on his door,they asked to speak to his son,aged 14. allegedly earlier in the day he was playing with a neighbours child and it got out of hand and ended up in a kids slapping match,all well and good that the police want to calm this down but to call at almost midnight seems a little bit over the top. imho

sorry if this seems like hijacking your post fareast

Oh isn't that just brilliant!

With the amount of armed coppers we've got nowadays the thought of them twitching for a fag while in charge of a loaded gun is really reassuring :suspect:

Fair enough - I think in most jobs you have to exit the building you work in to have a fag wheres the problem there. Does this mean that theyre not allowed to smoke in their panda cars while theyre driving around sorry 'patrolling'. Im always seeing them chugging fags in the car and then chucking their dog ends onto the road. If we get seen doing that we get fined i believe

I think South Yorkshire police officers have been lucky to be able to smoke inside the premises for as long as this, because a lot other large companies (including some supermarkets) banned smoking a long long time ago on health and safety grounds.

Well , from what I've read in the Star , the police now have to keep well away from the premises to have a smoke .
I can't see how a room , specially set aside for smokers , within a building , is going to affect anybody else . Or do the Health Freaks now think that smoke extracted from one room in a building and blown away , will somehow return in such quantities , that people will choke , keel over and die. Well , on second thoughts , I guess this is what they do think.
Similarly with a smoking shelter , outside the building ------isn't it childish and arrogant to suggest that such a shelter is likely to spread pollution all over the place ? Are these Health Freaks complete nincompoops ?
One of them , a police , "spokesperson " said in the report , {paraphrasing } , " police should not be allowed to pollute the atmosphere near a police station. They can go elsewhere and smoke in their own time ". So , it's o.k to smoke , "elsewhere " but not near a police station. !
If it was Alice in Wonderland , you might believe it but surely sane poeple don't believe all this c**p. ?

Maybe the PC C.C. from the GMP has been transferred to S.Y.P. to keep all the non PC P.C.s away from the PC N/S P.C.s. Thereby keeping at least some P.C.s in full view of the G.P.


:help:

I only hope that if one of our policemen arrests a terrorist , that the policeman is not smoking ----or even in the possession of such foul drugs.
Even with terrorists , we don't want to encourage them to kill people with smoke as well as blowing them up.
Also , on a slightly different vein-----isn't it time that police canteens had a complete overall of their canteens. All those chips and plum duffs must slow them up a hell of a lot and dull their reactions.
A good idea would be to ONLY serve salads , muesli and grapefruit water. There would be some silly complaints , I'm sure , but we are talking about health here and if we are to have a body of men , clear headed and bright of eye , these new diets should be introduced AT ONCE.

Sounds like the police are following in the footsteps of the NHS, banning smoking anywhere on their premises.

The DfES building in Darlington banned smoking anywhere on their premises. One of the guys I know was smoking in the grounds - away from anyone and away from the building - but he was given an official warning :loopy:

It's not that long ago when smokers used to have their own ashtrays on their desks and smoked when and where they wanted. If someone wants to smoke shouldn't they be allowed to do it so long as it doesn't 'disturb' anyone else?

Ok, we know smoking is bad for the health, but so is drinking (more so than smoking I believe) what they gonna do next, ban drinking in pubs????

Oh what about squash - how many people end up in A&E with injuries when playing, perhaps that should be banned too. Oh and while we're at it, surely jogging should be banned, how many people have had heart attacks when out jogging? Ski-ing - well you know you're bound to break a leg at somepoint. Oh flying too - DVT you know :thumbsup: Pregnancy is risky, even these days with pre-eclampsia, perhaps everyone should be sterilised? While we're at it, burnt food (BBQ's and Toast) are all carcenogenic - obviously they should be banned. Along with any fatening foods, fish and chips are deadly .....

Originally posted by Hels
Sounds like the police are following in the footsteps of the NHS, banning smoking anywhere on their premises.

The DfES building in Darlington banned smoking anywhere on their premises. One of the guys I know was smoking in the grounds - away from anyone and away from the building - but he was given an official warning :loopy:

It's not that long ago when smokers used to have their own ashtrays on their desks and smoked when and where they wanted. If someone wants to smoke shouldn't they be allowed to do it so long as it doesn't 'disturb' anyone else?

Ok, we know smoking is bad for the health, but so is drinking (more so than smoking I believe) what they gonna do next, ban drinking in pubs????

Oh what about squash - how many people end up in A&E with injuries when playing, perhaps that should be banned too. Oh and while we're at it, surely jogging should be banned, how many people have had heart attacks when out jogging? Ski-ing - well you know you're bound to break a leg at somepoint. Oh flying too - DVT you know :thumbsup: Pregnancy is risky, even these days with pre-eclampsia, perhaps everyone should be sterilised? While we're at it, burnt food (BBQ's and Toast) are all carcenogenic - obviously they should be banned. Along with any fatening foods, fish and chips are deadly .....

I don't really understand why they can't have a room or a shelter. But it's clear that smoking at their desk will have an effect on everyone else in the room. Last time I was in the pub no one forced second hand alcohol down my throat.

My company closed the smoking room (don't know why) then banned smoking around the doors, as there always seem to be smokers who can't use a bin. We still provide a shelter at the end of the car park though.

Without even thinking about health issues (sorry if not wanting to die might make me a "Health Freak" :rolleyes: ), why should their employers (us through our taxes in this case) pay for a room for them to indulge their hobby of smoking? It is voluntary and has nothing to do with their job - go home and do it on your own time.

Originally posted by rich951
Without even thinking about health issues (sorry if not wanting to die might make me a "Health Freak" :rolleyes: ), why should their employers (us through our taxes in this case) pay for a room for them to indulge their hobby of smoking? It is voluntary and has nothing to do with their job - go home and do it on your own time.

by the same argument you might ask why they indulge other peoples habit of drinking coffee, or tea. Or for that matter having a lunch break, i'm sure we could all go 8 hrs without eating if we had too.

Yes you could ask that. I've never had a job where they had a room specially set aside just for tea drinkers though :) Lunch is slightly different, I think most people would agree that asking people not to eat all day would affect their performance on the job - and it's a choice in the same way choosing to smoke is. Although there's room for a poll there - how many people actually get to take the full lunch break they are entitled to?

To be honest, the original point was very tongue in cheek. I don't really care what people do, as long as they don't pollute my air and I'm not subsidising their lifestyle choices. I'm all for putting shelters at the end of the car park too - keep the huddled mass of smelly addicts off the steps and doorways! :)

we have a small kitchen type room on every floor, with kettle, drinks machine, fridge etc... could well be considered a room for the tea and coffee drinkers.

But , Rich , no-one 's asking them not to eat. Cyclone did suggest that they could go without food at the police station for eight hours ------but he meant in a canteen , presumably ?
Why can't people bring their own food and go and eat it at their desks or in the car or in a food shelter ?
Save a hell of a lot more money than a small smoking room.Actually ,I should imagine that most police stations have a small spare room . They usually manage to find space to house the vast number of people dealing with mountains of statistics so that they know if they've reached their targets.
In the particular Sheffield case , the police who smoke , even offered to work an extra thirty minutes a day if they could be given smoking breaks but this was refused----no reason given in the report.
I know you worry about the cost of a smoking room , but there's no need to worry. We smokers pay about eight times in tax what it costs to treat us on the N.H.S. so , maybe a bit of that money could be diverted into smoking rooms ?

Originally posted by Fareast
Why can't people bring their own food and go and eat it at their desks or in the car or in a food shelter ?
To be honest, most people I know do eat their lunch at their desks already :)

I was intrigued by the quote of "eight times as much tax as NHS costs". The figures I found quickly weren't quite that high (£9.6 b vs £1.7 b (http://www.hda.nhs.uk/html/improving/smoking_financial.html)) but are still pretty big! I guess that's why the government lets you smoke while putting out tv adverts telling you to stop :)

Personally, I don't mind people smoking at all if they aren't affecting me. I do think working times should be equalised by either giving non-smokers regular breaks (anyone working on a computer should get this anyway shouldn't they?) or making smokers work longer. I'd be interested to know how many offices or big companies do actually have smoking rooms? I've never seen one, although I've not worked in that many different buildings.

I'm sure you won't be stopped if you head outside every hour for a fresh air break (don't stand with the smokers).
I have no complaints about breaks or lunch hours as I take as many/few as I like.

Originally posted by Cyclone
by the same argument you might ask why they indulge other peoples habit of drinking coffee, or tea. Or for that matter having a lunch break, i'm sure we could all go 8 hrs without eating if we had too.

That is ridiculous! So you're suggesting that to eat and drink during our working day is a habit or some kind of luxury?

Policemen should be allowed and perhaps even encouraged to smoke and drink whisky etc. Doing so makes them appear 'hard' and will thus help to deter scoundrals and ruffians.

Chris 5

Cyclone didn't mention drinking and , yes , a lot of eating IS ,purely habit . Have you looked round you lately and noticed the number of , "wobblers " , waddling along.
If you read all the thread , you'll see that the discussion centred round whether the police should have a small smoking room set aside for smoke breaks in their free break-- times.Someone said that it was not right to waste money on smoke rooms and then it was suggested that we spend far more on police canteens and so the police could bring their own food. You don't HAVE to smoke but neither do you HAVE to eat cooked food at work.
I think the best people to ask would be the police but as usual , these days , the orders that the poloice couldn't smoke IN or AROUND a police station came from above , not from the man on the beat.The smokers in the police force even offered to work 30 minutes a day extra , to cover the time taken for a smoke ------Refused.
I'm sure if the South Yorkshire Police smokers , doing a difficult , tense and often dangerous job , can't be allowed to act sensibly , as regards smoking , then the foodies can't be expected to eat sensibly either. Maybe , we shouldn't take the risk ? ; let them all walk round the building , eating and smoking . [Info. was from a recent 'Star ' report ]

I have a feeling that providing a canteen is not a choice at police stations.
I could'nt say for sure but would it be a requirement to provide some sort of facility due to the hours worked? some jobs are not 9-5 and therefore different rules might apply.
On nightshifts Firefighters have beds and usualy a bar, i belive they work 12 hour shifts.
Personaly i think the policy to stop police smoking at work is just an image thing, someone has decided we don't want to see police smoking.
I don't smoke but can't see why they can't have the same employment rights as the rest of us.

Yeah , if I was in the police force and as part of my job , I had to attend nasty accidents , unnatural deaths , confront stupid , mindless , violent drunks , face up to people wielding weapons , keep a look-out for murderous terrorists.....etc.... , I'd feel a bit put out to return to the police station and be unable to have a comfortable smoke on the say-so of some Health Freak , sitting behind a desk , compiling semi---useless statistics.
You can bet your life that within 10 years there will be moves to stop people smoking at home .

Originally posted by templeton
Policemen should be allowed and perhaps even encouraged to smoke and drink whisky etc. Doing so makes them appear 'hard' and will thus help to deter scoundrals and ruffians.

no - but water from a cooler should suffice. Why do we (I include myself since I drink a lot of coffee) require or deserve a room and facilities in order to get my fix of (highly addictive) caffeine?

without running the risk of causing uproar here .. i think police should be smoke free and fit .i want a fit copper chasing assailants down the street not one who has to stop for a cough and wheeze on the way.!!:)

Originally posted by Fareast
If you read all the thread , you'll see that the discussion centred round whether the police should have a small smoking room set aside for smoke breaks in their free break-- times.

I did read the thread and maybe the discussion did centre on this but I was responding to a particular comment?!

But it's no use trying to reason with smokers.
Anyone who's all for banning smoking etc are branded PC so what's the use.

Originally posted by chri5
I did read the thread and maybe the discussion did centre on this but I was responding to a particular comment?!

But it's no use trying to reason with smokers.
Anyone who's all for banning smoking etc are branded PC so what's the use.

but you were trying to reason with me Chris and as i'm sure fareast will confirm, I'm pretty strongly anti-smoking.

I just don't see why the habit i've formed for caffeine should be given priority over the one that others form for nicotine.
Sure, those of us who don't smoke should be protected from the cancer spreading fumes they emminate, but coffee rooms are provided (a kitchen generally), so why shouldn't a smoking room be provided?

to all of you out their who would like to see a ban ok smoking (mainly all non smokers) would you please stop your bickering.

its a proven fact that 'Passive Smoking' has been fabricated on a bed of lies and non factual evidence.
no one has died from passive smoking, nor has any scientist, doctor or anyonelse for that matter ever proved that it is a cause of any given illnesses that they like to cause.

its not a proven fact that smoking can kill, or cause illnesses in people who smoke,,but as smokers they know what risk they may be taking, and as long as it dosent harm anyonelse then its ok!
the smokers have the god given right to chose weather they want to smoke or not.

i would like to add that the majority of non smokers who are anti smoking, drive cars that pump out fumes that are a lot more toxic than a ciggarettes and have been proven to be carsnogenic, Think about that he next time you want to bang on about your anti smoking rights and passive smoking,,, you hypocrites!

as for smoking on breaks at work,,well thats down to the individual if he wants a ciggi on his break! isnt it?
if your refering to someone smoking while not on a break then thats down to the employer to stop it if its a problem.

and to add to what someone mentioned erlier about a custom built room for smokers at work, well why not? it will give them all a place to smoke away from from the non smokers.
why do some people feel this is unfair to non smokers that the smokers should have a room to go to? i dont understand!!
if its such a big issue, im sure the smokers wont mind you using the room too?

finally i would just like to say that i do smoke, and i enjoy it.
it is my choice to do so and and will be my choice to stop if and when i choose. so stick that in your pipes and smoke it!!


:thumbsup:

its a proven fact that 'Passive Smoking' has been fabricated on a bed of lies and non factual evidence.


maybe in lala land where you live, but here in the real world it's fairly clear that if smoking causes illness, breathing sidestream and 2nd hand smoke will have exactly the same effect (obviously not as concentrated though).

The main argument against the smoking room seemed to be the 'cost' of providing it. (And don't tell me that rooms are free, someone pays for the building and they have to account for the use of space).

I think smoking rooms are ok, provided they are properly vented outside they cause no trouble for non-smokers, and if their main argument is that they don't want to breath second hand smoke then they must agree this is a good solution ?

Originally posted by nick2
I think smoking rooms are ok, provided they are properly vented outside they cause no trouble for non-smokers, and if their main argument is that they don't want to breath second hand smoke then they must agree this is a good solution ?

Exactly Nick

The arguement from the non-smokers seems to be

1) I dont want you smoking round me (fair enough)
2) But you can't have anywhere else to go and smoke

Seems a bit daft to me like.

maybe in lala land where you live, but here in the real world it's fairly clear that if smoking causes illness, breathing sidestream and 2nd hand smoke will have exactly the same effect (obviously not as concentrated though).

Obviously not the case as no one has ever proved in the Real World that passive smoking causes any illness whatsoever.
and how do you come to the conclusion that a cigarette will have exactly the same effect on a non smoker as it dose on a smoker? have you any evidence? proof? facts to back this argument?

as for The main argument against the smoking room,
its up to the employer if he wants to give smokers a place to go away from the non smokers.

i dont know of any smoker who has approched the boss and said i want a dingey smoke room to sit in as i dont want to be arround those non smokers on my breaks"
this sugests to me that the people who are complaining about the smoke room availability are the ones who promoted to have this facility avalable in the first place. :confused:

so what if they have a room?
whats it to you people?
why do you feel you have to interfeer?
is it because you feel left out in someway?
your not getting something that another employee is?
come on please!!

next you will be telling me that disabled people shouldent have their own parking space at work,
or that companys shouldent have facilitys for working mothers like a creche for the kids for example.

and before someone is quick to say "how can you compare smoking to being disabled" ?
i am not, i am mearly making the point that some employees do have access to facilitys other employees have no use for.

:rolleyes:

Who would Police the smoking Police ?

I think the whole smoking issue has gotten out of hand, we all have a choice to smoke or not to smoke. If someone is smoking next to you MOVE !!! , not that you will instantly die from one breath of 2nd hand ciggie smoke.

Originally posted by RazorSHarp
Who would Police the smoking Police ?

I think the whole smoking issue has gotten out of hand, we all have a choice to smoke or not to smoke. If someone is smoking next to you MOVE !!! , not that you will instantly die from one breath of 2nd hand ciggie smoke.

or force rat poison down their throat. Or stick your arm out repeatedly towards their face.
If they don't like being hit they should just move, it's a free world and I want to be able to stick my arm out whenever and wherever I like.

Nu_Skillz
You're happy to accept that smoking has been proven to be harmful.
The thing that makes it harmful is (wait for it) the smoke, which is inhaled.

Do you think that you magically become immune to the smoke if it wasn't you that lit the cigarette? Or if maybe it's an inch or two from your mouth and you don't actually suck it yourself?

Sidestream smoke (that which escapes from the end of the cigarette) is exactly the same as that which you suck through it. And if you're sat near to it you breathe it in.

How exactly do you imagine that it might not have the same effect on someone as actually smoking the cigarette? I'm intrigued.

Originally posted by Nu_Skillz

so what if they have a room?
whats it to you people?
why do you feel you have to interfeer?
is it because you feel left out in someway?
your not getting something that another employee is?
come on please!!
:rolleyes:

I used to have to sit near a smoking room. You might be surprised to know that in order to enter and leave the room you have to open the door... this lets smoke out.

IMO it is simply selfish to smoke in the workplace because it makes other people cough, gives them cancer and makes them stink almost as bad as you do. It is also unfair to the cleaners who have to work in a stinking environment in order to tidy up your filth. Do it in the privacy of your own home!! :rolleyes:

I mentioned on another thread {General Chat } a few days ago , that the man who claimed to have found a connection between smoking and lung cacer in the '50's had died , aged ninety -something about 2 weeks ago.. I admitted that he was a good advert for the non-smokers amongst us.
However there were a couple of interesting points from his obituary.
First of all , this world-renowned expert on smoking said that there was evidence that there MAY be a link between smoking and cancer.
Secondly , in an interview given in about 1998 he dismayed the Health Freaks by saying that he did not think that passive smoking was dangerous at all. He was quite happy to sit and chat with smokers . There's a big difference in deliberately inhaling into your lungs and smoke passing NEAR your mouth or throat.
In any case all this is irrelevant , and to keep to the topic , the South Yorkshire Police were even being denied a shelter to smoke in , outside the police station , never mind a ventilated room , inside the building. As for cleaning up after the smokers , who cleans up after the eaters of hamburgers and steam puddings ? Surely , if we are concerned about health , the eaters of fatty foods ought to be restricted too ?
A copper can soon get his breath back after running but he can't soon lose half a stone.
If I was a smoking copper , when the police asked for volunteers to do this or that , I'd insist that all the Health Freaks were present first , the ones normally sat behind their desks , and THEN , I might volunteer for whatever they wanted. Or maybe the desk bound rule makers might want to tackle dangerous criminals whilst the smokers and eaters went on Pro-Active Health Courses ?

yeah, the big difference is simply the concentration that is inhaled. If it's carocnogenic (which you all seem to accept) then it's still carconogenic in smaller quantaties, not to mention highly unpleasant and still delivering a quantity of tar and nicotine (highly addictive) to the non smoker.

Cleaners of fatty food areas aren't forced to eat the remains, they put them in the bin.

But anyway, I was 'on your side' I don't see why you shouldn't get a room or at least a shelter. Just not in my face please.

Originally posted by Nu_Skillz
Obviously not the case as no one has ever proved in the Real World that passive smoking causes any illness whatsoever.
and how do you come to the conclusion that a cigarette will have exactly the same effect on a non smoker as it dose on a smoker? have you any evidence? proof? facts to back this argument?


Didn't Roy Castle die from passive smoking? Mind you, he did play the trumpet all his life, which pretty much acted as an enormous passive-smoking amplifier...

I'm asthmatic and I don't like being forced to breathe other people's smoke as it brings on attacks. However, providing a smoking room doesn't cause any problems.

To be honest, I think the whole fuss about smoking has got way out of hand. Of course it has health risks, but that doesn't mean that people should become social outcasts because of it.

Originally posted by Cyclone

But anyway, I was 'on your side' I don't see why you shouldn't get a room or at least a shelter. Just not in my face please.

I think we have a reasonable non-smoker in our midst!

:thumbsup:

Anyone else gonna stick their head over the parapet?

I completely agree with you , Cyclone. It's not so much the inhalhation [ although that is a grey area ] as the fact that smoke , to non-smokers can be extremely aggravating. I honestly think , over the years , that 90% of smokers would either smoke elsewhere , if there was a room , or check first with any non-smokers whether they minded them smoking .
All the detail about cost......etc.....seems a bit irrelevant [ as mentioned by some posters ] when you consider how much the police spend in total , how much the smokers pay in tax and how many other health risks there are in the course of a normal day.

Cyclone
Do you think that you magically become immune to the smoke if it wasn't you that lit the cigarette? Or if maybe it's an inch or two from your mouth and you don't actually suck it yourself?


i dident say that non smokers dont inhale the 'second hand smoke'? or that anyone is in some way immune?
and i havent implied this either? :confused:

CycloneSidestream smoke (that which escapes from the end of the cigarette) is exactly the same as that which you suck through it. And if you're sat near to it you breathe it in.
How exactly do you imagine that it might not have the same effect on someone as actually smoking the cigarette? I'm intrigued.

the smoker is inhaleing smoke directly in to their lungs.
the non smoker is inhaling a minute ammount that is mixed with air in the room.
how you can compare the 2 and say its the same? im intrigued?
People who smoke can die from smoking related diseases.
people who dont smoke dont die from smoking related diseases. thats the difference :rolleyes:
If it had the same effect on non smokers as it dose smokers like you seem to belive dont you think that someone would have died from passive smoking by now:confused:
im just going on the FACTS!! thats all

bully_beef Didn't Roy Castle die from passive smoking? Mind you, he did play the trumpet all his life, which pretty much acted as an enormous passive-smoking amplifier...

Roy Castle died from Lung Cancer, not smoke related!


Zamo it makes other people cough, gives them cancer and makes them stink

got any evidence to back your claim that smoking gives non smokers cancer?

There are over 38,000 new cases of lung cancer each year in the UK and less than a third is smoke related.
Lung cancer is the second most common cancer in the UK after breast cancer.
Cancer can be caused by many things and inhaling exhaust fumes is one of them, if you live in the city, built up areas your increasing your chances, eating some foods can increase your chances.
will this stop you driving? or make you move to the Country in search of cleaner air?
or make you watch every ingrediant you eat?

im going for a ciggy :D

I personally think it's a good idea. I work at the hospital and when I finally finish a shift there is nothing I hate more than walking outside to get a breath of air and having to breathe in the staff and visitors second hand smoke because they are doing it in the doorway. I think it's rude and inconsiderate to smoke just outside entrances and exits. So stopping people smoking on site will stop this

Originally posted by Fareast
...unable to have a comfortable smoke on the say-so of some Health Freak , sitting behind a desk , compiling semi---useless statistics.

I'm gonna have to take issue with the statistics thing at this point. Police statistics are used where they're needed. If someone needs to know how well they're doing, they need numbers. No numbers, no idea of performance, therefore no way of knowing what areas need to improve. You really think people create jobs to make statistics up for the sake of it?


I'm a smoker myself and I fully support SYP's actions. Why should any company provide a space for their employees to smoke? It's a stupid habit and I'd love to quit. Policies like SYP's are just another factor that contribute to a desire to quit. Make it harder to smoke, people smoke less and get healthier. A reductionist view, but it makes sense for me.

I'm a smoker myself and I fully support SYP's actions. Why should any company provide a space for their employees to smoke? It's a stupid habit and I'd love to quit. Policies like SYP's are just another factor that contribute to a desire to quit. Make it harder to smoke, people smoke less and get healthier. A reductionist view, but it makes sense for me.

this will make sense to you as you want to quit the habit, and you think this may help you stop if it was restricted or banned at work, you couldent be more wrong!
if you cant stop with your own will power then it dosent matter what laws are in place,
people break laws,,look at drugs like LSD, Speed, E's, Heroin ect they are banned compleatly not just restricted or at work and thousands of people still take them? why would cigarettes be any different?

i enjoy smokeing and have no intention of stopping, and think that employer should have a smoke room
and the cost of the room should be devided by the non smoking employees and taken directly from their wages, afterall the room is for their benefit, not the smokers who are happy to smoke wherever :hihi:

Originally posted by Nu_Skillz
this will make sense to you as you want to quit the habit, and you think this may help you stop if it was restricted or banned at work, you couldent be more wrong!
if you cant stop with your own will power then it dosent matter what laws are in place,
people break laws,,look at drugs like LSD, Speed, E's, Heroin ect they are banned compleatly not just restricted or at work and thousands of people still take them? why would cigarettes be any different?

i enjoy smokeing and have no intention of stopping, and think that employer should have a smoke room
and the cost of the room should be devided by the non smoking employees and taken directly from their wages, afterall the room is for their benefit, not the smokers who are happy to smoke wherever :hihi:

I could be more wrong- I could be as wrong as you are to suggest that I am wrong about my own opinions. :loopy: How on earth do you know if work banning smoking makes it easier for me to quit or not?

Of course it'll help me to stop. If I can't smoke at work apart from in lunch break, then that's several fewer cigarettes I already do without when it comes to quitting. From personal experience (which you cannot possibly think I'm wrong about) it's easier for me to quit when I only have one or two cigarettes to cut out during the day rather than seven or eight.

Your comparison to illegal drugs is nonsensical. People don't periodically pop out for a pill while they're at work.

As for enjoying smoking, it's just an illusion. It feels good because when you smoke you're satisfying a need for nicotine, not because it feels good per se. The pleasure from smoking is equivalent to stopping banging your head against a wall. It only feels good because your body is so relieved that it isn't suffering any more.

could be more wrong- I could be as wrong as you are to suggest that I am wrong about my own opinions. How on earth do you know if work banning smoking makes it easier for me to quit or not?
i apologise Herbaliser for my assumption, i did miss read your last post as to why i was relating it to yourself when if i would have read it carefully i would have seen you was just genralising. :thumbsup:


Your comparison to illegal drugs is nonsensical. People don't periodically pop out for a pill while they're at work.

i wasent Implying that periodically pop out for a pill while they're at work?
what i was saying here is that those drugs are illegal and it hasent stoped people still doing them, weather or not they chose to do drugs at work or not, is irrelevent, to the point i was making and that If it is banned at work and no smoke room is available the smokers will simply go outside for a fag.
the bans/restrictions just move the issue elswhere.

As for enjoying smoking, it's just an illusion. It feels good because when you smoke you're satisfying a need for nicotine, not because it feels good per se. The pleasure from smoking is equivalent to stopping banging your head against a wall. It only feels good because your body is so relieved that it isn't suffering any more.

i agree with your reasoning for why you think people smoke.
its called addiction, but its not a big issue to me, im quite happy with who i am and what i do, the desire to quit is not something that bothers me personally.



noone likes a quitter!! :hihi:

Herbaliser ,

Is it important why people feel good when they smoke ? They feel good and that's it . I'm sure when most people smoke they don't think , " Oh , I'm not really enjoying this . I only think I'm enjoying it. "
As to statistics -----apparently the pollce themselves feel that they waste a lot of time gathering statistics and storing them and checking them and comparing them. It doesn't SEEM to have had much effect on crime , does it ?In fact crime seems to have risen at about the same rate as Red Tape.Maybe if half of those sitting at a desk were to be actually out on the streets with their colleagues , crime might go down a bit. Obviously we need to know the basics but what are we going to do with all the masses of statistics ?
By the time it's all been analysed and gone up and down the bureaucratic chain for action , the circumstances will have probably changed. A classic example is the Yorkshire Ripper case. Masses and literally tons of paperwork and he got caught by a copper on the streets.
If you take organised crime , like the Krays , they weren't caught by statistics but by coppers beavering away in real life at their organisation. Will computers change the situation ?Well , perhaps you could give some examples of how crime has been reduced by statistic gathering or some major criminal caught by statistics ?

Originally posted by Nu_Skillz
i apologise Herbaliser for my assumption, i did miss read your last post as to why i was relating it to yourself when if i would have read it carefully i would have seen you was just genralising. :thumbsup:

Yeah- it works for me but I don't expect it would be the same for everyone.


Originally posted by Nu_Skillz
i wasent Implying that periodically pop out for a pill while they're at work?what i was saying here is that those drugs are illegal and it hasent stoped people still doing them, weather or not they chose to do drugs at work or not, is irrelevent, to the point i was making and that If it is banned at work and no smoke room is available the smokers will simply go outside for a fag.
the bans/restrictions just move the issue elswhere.

You said that bans on other drugs (than nicotine) didn't stop people taking them. I agree, but you compared this to the effect of the smoking ban. My point was that they were incomparable because they are illegal. Cigarettes are legal so a smoker could easily sustain a habit whilst holding down a job.

I think the smoking ban is likely to help some people (like me) to quit rather than move the issue elsewhere. The ban on other drugs is unlikely to have much effect as regards habits at work because people are much less likely to try to sustain an illegal habit whilst holding down a job in the first place.


Originally posted by Nu_Skillz
i agree with your reasoning for why you think people smoke.
its called addiction, but its not a big issue to me, im quite happy with who i am and what i do, the desire to quit is not something that bothers me personally.

noone likes a quitter!! :hihi:

Fair point. I won't fall into my own trap and tell you that you're wrong not to have the desire to quit. :)

I just think the bans are a good idea, however inconvenient they've been to me recently. It's hard to accept but smoking is a daft habit. It's something I'm only just fully accepting, but the more I do, the more I'm grateful of initiatives to assist quitting.

Heard they'd introduced a ban on smoking whilst driving in a state in the US. That'd certainly one that'd be hardest to swallow if they ever did that over here!

Herbaliser ,

Let's say that too much coffeee is bad for a person and that I've found myself drinking miles too much at work because it's so easy to get from a machine.
Is it a good idea to ban coffee drinking for everyone just because I can't control it ? Or ban certain types of food at work because I 'm overweight ?
Why should my problem affect everyone else's way of doing things ?
The problem with banning everything that certain people disapprove of is that there are "good " reasons to just about ban everything and that leads to a childish , dependent society where everything is decided for you. Real adulthood is about choice.

Originally posted by Fareast
Is it important why people feel good when they smoke ?

Yes, because for me it's helped to understand the process and so increases my willpower. If I feel that I'm doing something damaging to my health, that only feels good because of addiction, then I'd rather not do it and have my health.

Originally posted by Fareast
They feel good and that's it . I'm sure when most people smoke they don't think , " Oh , I'm not really enjoying this . I only think I'm enjoying it. "

I agree. It's not something that I ever used to think until it was pointed out to me. Now I'm aware of it, I do actually think that I'm not really enjoying it, but it's only because I'm aware of it that that's possible.

As to statistics -----apparently the pollce themselves feel that they waste a lot of time gathering statistics and storing them and checking them and comparing them. [/B]

Yes, perhaps, but the ones who actually use the statisics are not the ones who do the donkey work, i.e. the ones who are most likely to complain.


It doesn't SEEM to have had much effect on crime , does it ?In fact crime seems to have risen at about the same rate as Red Tape.Maybe if half of those sitting at a desk were to be actually out on the streets with their colleagues , crime might go down a bit. Obviously we need to know the basics but what are we going to do with all the masses of statistics ? [/B]

Crime has fallen recently, fact (whichever stats you use, and despite the widespread misuse of statistics by the media and opposition politicians).

I won't argue your point about bureacracy rising, but production of statistics isn't a massive problem in itself. The paperwork involved has to be produced anyway for accoutability purposes. There'd be uproar if it didn't exist because then corruption could go undetected. That's what officers complain about, not that their pen-hours are for producing stats.

Maybe if half of those sitting at a desk were to be actually out on the streets with their colleagues , crime might go down a bit. Obviously we need to know the basics but what are we going to do with all the masses of statistics ?[/B]

Virtually no police officers are employed to deal with statistics.
Those who deal with the statistics are civillians.

Statistics are only used in policing if they are of use to the senior management or government in making decisions. They can't be expected to make decisions in the dark. Imagine the public reaction if they got it wrong... "Why didn't the police monitor their performance...?"



By the time it's all been analysed and gone up and down the bureaucratic chain for action , the circumstances will have probably changed.[/B]

Not true. Police forces are competent enough to automate statistical reports which are refreshed daily and used in meetings before 9am. This is fact.


A classic example is the Yorkshire Ripper case. Masses and literally tons of paperwork and he got caught by a copper on the streets.
If you take organised crime , like the Krays , they weren't caught by statistics but by coppers beavering away in real life at their organisation. Will computers change the situation ?Well , perhaps you could give some examples of how crime has been reduced by statistic gathering or some major criminal caught by statistics ? [/B]

Statistics aren't used to solve individual cases. Detectives exist because they look into cases where statistics don't help.

Statistics are used (see above) to inform decision making regarding where patrols are required. Resources are limited so there has to be prioritisation, which can only be achieved with the use of statistics. Without them there could be a pattern developing in a particular area and the police wouldn't know. Example: The public report lots of crime. The police look at the numbers to see where crime has increased most. The police deal with the most pertinent issue (e.g. a one-man crime wave). Crime goes down (hopefully!).

Originally posted by Fareast
Herbaliser ,

Let's say that too much coffeee is bad for a person and that I've found myself drinking miles too much at work because it's so easy to get from a machine.
Is it a good idea to ban coffee drinking for everyone just because I can't control it ? Or ban certain types of food at work because I 'm overweight ?
Why should my problem affect everyone else's way of doing things ?
The problem with banning everything that certain people disapprove of is that there are "good " reasons to just about ban everything and that leads to a childish , dependent society where everything is decided for you. Real adulthood is about choice.

Since when did hundreds of thousands of people die each year because they drank too much coffee?

Obesity is a different issue of course, but a ban at work on food would affect every single person, not just that ones that eat too much. The cigarette ban only affects those who smoke. A ban on some food types would affect those who don't damage their health excessively through eating.

I don't think the negative effects of smoking are debatable. I feel it in myself. When I don't exercise my chest hurts more. That never happened when I didn't smoke.

How can you suggest that smoking is something only certain people dissaprove of? I'm pretty sure it's a tiny minority who deep down think smoking is a positive thing.

Real adulthood might be about choice, but until smoking becomes illegal, then it's a mute point. We can choose to smoke if we want. Thing is, we don't have a choice about whether our employers choose to allow us to smoke at work. They are under no obligation to allow it, and legally, it's not discrimination, precisely because we choose to smoke.

I'm all for choice, but I'd really rather The Man helps me as much as he can to quit something as pointless as smoking.

I think the Police who do smoke should be encouraged not to smoke, and given all the help needed to quit their nicotine addiction. I’d like to see all our Police minds focussed on the job and not twitching for a cigarette.

On the subject of smoking rooms.

The place I work for only allowed smoking in the coffee bar. Every 45 minutes or so, the smokers would drift down to the coffee bar, leaving the non-smokers to carry on working. Last year a complete ban on smoking in the building was brought in. If the smokers want to smoke now, they have to stand outside. On cold or rainy days only the most needy will go for a smoke. This has resulted in a marked improvement in production.

Originally posted by Fareast
apparently the pollce themselves feel that they waste a lot of time gathering statistics and storing them and checking them and comparing them. It doesn't SEEM to have had much effect on crime , does it ? In fact crime seems to have risen at about the same rate as Red Tape

Good statistic that! :P

Originally posted by Nu_Skillz
i dident say that non smokers dont inhale the 'second hand smoke'? or that anyone is in some way immune?
and i havent implied this either? :confused:


You most certainly have implied it. If you accept that non smokers do inhale 2nd hand and sidestream smoke, and that smoking causes cancer, I can't see how you make the logical twist into 2nd hand smoke not being a cause of cancer.

Of course there's no FACT to prove it. That's because FACT doesn't exist. You can only prove that something is the most likely cause.
Since there's no way to actually prove what caused lung cancer you have to base an assumption on the evidence.
The increased incidence of lung cancer amongst smokers and lab tests with mice indicates that the smoke from cigarettes is highly carcinogenic. You seem to accept this.

Carcinogens do not have to be present in a given quantity to have an effect, in the unlukiest case 1 molecule of the carcinogen could trigger a cancer.

So whilst the incidence of cancer caused by passive smoking will certainly be lower than by smoking directly, it isn't as you keep trying to suggest something that doesn't exist.



the smoker is inhaleing smoke directly in to their lungs.
the non smoker is inhaling a minute ammount that is mixed with air in the room.
how you can compare the 2 and say its the same? im intrigued?


I didn't say it was the same. I said both could cause cancer, smoking will make it more likely than passive smoking. And passive smoking makes it more likely than not passive smoking.


People who smoke can die from smoking related diseases.
people who dont smoke dont die from smoking related diseases. thats the difference :rolleyes:


and where's your proof for that nonsense?


If it had the same effect on non smokers as it dose smokers like you seem to belive dont you think that someone would have died from passive smoking by now:confused:
im just going on the FACTS!! thats all
/[quote]
Prove that no one has, you can't.
Since lung cancer can't be attributed to a direct cause there is no proof either way, all there is are statistics to back it up.
You aren't going by facts, you're going by your own warped view which is carefully constructed to support your own selfish behaviour.

[quote]



Roy Castle died from Lung Cancer, not smoke related!



is that one of your FACTS? Nonesense.




got any evidence to back your claim that smoking gives non smokers cancer?



Not having done a study myself I only have reasoning and common sense to back me up, what have you got?



There are over 38,000 new cases of lung cancer each year in the UK and less than a third is smoke related.
Lung cancer is the second most common cancer in the UK after breast cancer.
Cancer can be caused by many things and inhaling exhaust fumes is one of them, if you live in the city, built up areas your increasing your chances, eating some foods can increase your chances.



So what, does that mean I should pile extra risk factors on top because i'm already exposed to some? Crossing the road is dangerous, does that mean you'll go and run across the M1?


will this stop you driving? or make you move to the Country in search of cleaner air?
or make you watch every ingrediant you eat?

im going for a ciggy :D

To cover some of the points raised.
The efficiency of police officers who smoke , vis-a vis those who don't : I can't think of one single case , off-hand , where smoking has resulted in a crime being overlooked , ignored or neglected. If a police officer could smoke in peace at H.Q. they presumably wouldn't twitch so much when they were actually on patrol.
I haven't said anywhere that statistics should be abandoned altogether but over the years the emphasis has moved towrds talking about crime , analysing it and away from actually solving it. The police have themselves complained over and over again that they're bogged down by Red Tape ----a form of 40 questions , for example , whenever thet stop someone ------ to feed the statistics , presumably ?
Surely , it doesn't take all these statistics to know where the most crime is taking place . Common sense , local knowledge and the police , "on the ground" , if there are any ,would tell them that.How on earth did they suss it out in the past ? Did they send loads of squad cars to Fulwood to stop punch -ups because a computer wasn't there to tell them that most punch-ups were in Town ?
It's not only opposition politicians who are concerned about rising crime. Didn't Blair recently voice his concern about the situation ? There are occasional , 'blips ' in the figures but the fact remains that almost all types have crime have risen in the past 30 years and the vast amount we spend on computers and/or statistic gathering has certainly not reduced crime.
A few years ago , a survey showed that the police officer , "on the street " spent about 2/5ths . of their time at H.Q. , filling in forms ....etc....presumably that's why we don't see hardly any walking around.
In the Sheffield case , the officers offered to work half an hour extra each shift to make up for their smoking breaks and this was rejected. All they want is one room where they can go for a smoke in their free time. When we consider all the billions of pounds that the police spend and the billions that smokers pay in tax , it seems unbelievable to me that people should moan about the cost. I'm sure , too , that a copper who smokes is just as efficient health-wise as an overweight one.
Herbaliser says that he would be helped to stop smoking if rules stopped everybody smoking ! Well , maybe so ! That's really saying , " I'm too weak-willed to give up smoking on my own , so I want everyone at my place of work to be stopped whether they want to or not , as it will help me ".Well , that's one point of view , I suppose . I guess people on diets don't like to see people stuffing themselves with cream cakes or alcoholics don't like to see people drinking......etc....etc....It's almost begging for a Nanny to dictate to us what we should do in our free time.
I agree with Cyclone that smoke must be very annoying for the non-smoker and that there is probably a slight risk that passive smokers take in enough smoke to cause problems but we did cover that before , I believe. All these police officers wanted to do was smoke in comfort , just as coffee drinkers drink in comfort at work and pork pie eaters eat their pork pies in comfort . They would be away from everybody and promised to make up the time. The almost hysterical reaction to that is an illustration just how far the Control Freaks will go to monitor everybody and everything.

Originally posted by Fareast
I haven't said anywhere that statistics should be abandoned altogether but over the years the emphasis has moved towrds talking about crime , analysing it and away from actually solving it. The police have themselves complained over and over again that they're bogged down by Red Tape ----a form of 40 questions , for example , whenever thet stop someone ------ to feed the statistics , presumably ?

You're completely missing the point, as are officers who moan about paperwork in the context of statistics. Statistics are essential to modern policing, no doubt. This enigmatic red tape you refer to is mostly to ensure the police are beyond reproach from issues like instituational racism. Paperwork has to be in place so accusations of corruption cannot be justified. It is public pressure that has forced this bureaucratic burden.

Originally posted by Fareast
Surely , it doesn't take all these statistics to know where the most crime is taking place . Common sense , local knowledge and the police , "on the ground" , if there are any ,would tell them that.How on earth did they suss it out in the past ? Did they send loads of squad cars to Fulwood to stop punch -ups because a computer wasn't there to tell them that most punch-ups were in Town ?

Of course it takes statistics to know where most crime is taking place. SYP employs over 3000 officers. It just isn't possible to form a picture of the level of crime from 3000 individual opinions on how much crime there is and where it's happening without a statistical overview.



Originally posted by Fareast
but the fact remains that almost all types have crime have risen in the past 30 years and the vast amount we spend on computers and/or statistic gathering has certainly not reduced crime.

You are making associations that have no evidence. The apparent 'vast' amount that is spent on statistic gathering is virtually nothing compared to the cost of policing a city like Sheffield. You do not know what you are talking about.

No-one in their right minds would compare current levels of crime to levels of crime 30 years ago. Too many other factors (e.g. population) have changed.

Fact: crime has fallen since Labour came to power (BTW, I have no allegiance to the Labour party).


Originally posted by Fareast
Herbaliser says that he would be helped to stop smoking if rules stopped everybody smoking ! Well , maybe so ! That's really saying , " I'm too weak-willed to give up smoking on my own , so I want everyone at my place of work to be stopped whether they want to or not , as it will help me "

Not it's not. All I said was that it helps me to quit, not that I'm too weak-willed to quit without a smoking ban at work. As for your hint towards selfishness- get a grip. I didn't implement the policy, nor did I ask for it. I was annoyed with it at first, but through actual experience dealing with the ban's effects, I now think it's a positive move.

Originally posted by Fareast
All these police officers wanted to do was smoke in comfort , just as coffee drinkers drink in comfort at work and pork pie eaters eat their pork pies in comfort . They would be away from everybody and promised to make up the time. The almost hysterical reaction to that is an illustration just how far the Control Freaks will go to monitor everybody and everything.

Your analogies are ridiculous. Have you read what I posted previously? How can you compare coffee drinking with smoking?
It's not about control freaks. It's about organisations having the balls to limit the amount people can indulge in stupid habits like smoking. Why should they make allowances for it? I'm a smoker don't forget, and I think it's a stupid habit. I'm just glad for the help that's all. Nothing more.

I think , Herbalist that you're grasping at straws with a few of your arguments.
I didnt say that the cost of computers was anywhere near the cost of policing Sheffield . I did say that the cost of computers plus all the red tape was extremely high when compared to putting aside one room for smokers ---or even a half decent shelter near the police station----but in the Sheffield case the Powers -that -be rejected that idea.
I know that you're quite correct in what you say in that these days statistics are compiled by orders from above to check on institutionalised racism ......etc.....I never mentioned WHY statistics were being collected , only the possible uselessness of doing so in the urgent fight against crime.
The population has not gone up all that much in 30years , mainly due to quite a few emigrating . The population now is about 58 million for the U.K. and about 48 million for England .
The crime rate has doubled or even trebled since 1975 and I'm sure the pop.wasn't 24 million in 1975 ! The prison population has soared too in that time . Is that because judges send more and more people to prison as a percentage and for longer and longer ? Quite the opposite , I should have thought.
Your comment about 3,000 police all acting anarchically without statistics is a bit disingenuous , I think. Were the police like that before the advent of computers and such. ? Of course they weren't. They got their information by the methods I mentioned before but you chose to ignore that aspect.
I did hesitate to mention your personal situation as regards smoking but you brought the matter up. It's a moot point how many people die due to being overweight [ and its by-products ] vis-a vis smoking and its by-products. Lots of habits are stupid. You still seem to be saying that it would help you to give up smoking if your bosses at work made it more difficult for you and indeed everyone to give up. But , why should other people have their private habits , in their free time curtailed or stopped , just because YOU think it's a stupid habit ? I wonder why the S.P police protested at the recent decision ? As I said it's exactly the same as forbdding the sale of all fatty foods in police canteens [or any workplace ] so it will help people on a diet. ["If you want to eat that cream cake , get out of police station and eat it "]
I'm sure most of the trouble that individual policemen get into is down to drink or natural aggression. Police officers with hangovers will perhaps not be at their best and brightest. So , let's look , what else can we ban ?

as long as it doesn't impact on their work people should be free to do whatever they like (also as long as it doesn't impact anyone else).
If people want to eat unhealthy food, that's up to them, so long as a healthy selection is also available.

It's a free world at the end of the day, kill yourself with the poison of your choice, just don't take anyone else with you.

Anyway , there might not be time , soon , for police officers to eat , smoke or drink at the police station.
In today's Telegraph it reports how judges are extremely conerned about , "round the clock " drinking laws. The judges describe the situation NOW as grave [despite all the computers and other paraphenalia ]. They say there's a danger of the situation becoming catastrophic. If it does get worse and if I was a copper , after a shift confronting some of the animals on our streets , I don't know about a smoke or a cream cake , I think some crack cocaine would be needed , back at the Nick..
Incidentally , I wonder how many public disorder offences , assults , obscene language offences and obstructions of the police are overlooked by force of necessity , by the police as they try to arrest the very worst cases every Friday and Saturday night in our city centres ? The numbers must run into thousands every weekend . These , apparently never appear on statistics or crime figures which would indicate , if anything that crime is getting more pervasive right through society and is causing a lot of concern for those who have to face it head-on or deal directly with its consequences .

Originally posted by Fareast
I think , Herbalist that you're grasping at straws with a few of your arguments.

Let's keep this short, Fairiest. I know what I'm talking about from a professional capacity. Your arguments suggest you believe every word the tabloids print.


Originally posted by Fareast

I know that you're quite correct in what you say in that these days statistics are compiled by orders from above to check on institutionalised racism.

I didn't say that. Please read my post properly.

Originally posted by Fareast
I never mentioned WHY statistics were being collected , only the possible uselessness of doing so in the urgent fight against crime..

Because you apparently don't know?



Originally posted by Fareast
The population has not gone up all that much in 30years , mainly due to quite a few emigrating . The population now is about 58 million for the U.K. and about 48 million for England .
The crime rate has doubled or even trebled since 1975 and I'm sure the pop.wasn't 24 million in 1975 ! The prison population has soared too in that time . Is that because judges send more and more people to prison as a percentage and for longer and longer ? Quite the opposite , I should have thought.


Fatuous and irrelevant.



Originally posted by Fareast
Your comment about 3,000 police all acting anarchically without statistics is a bit disingenuous , I think. Were the police like that before the advent of computers and such. ? Of course they weren't.

My point was that statistics allow 3000 police officers to know what's going on without spending days phoning each other to find out what each other thinks.

Before the advent of computers, statistics were still used, but much, much less efficiently.



Originally posted by Fareast
They got their information by the methods I mentioned before but you chose to ignore that aspect.

I didn't ignore that aspect. I think if you re-read my post you'll find that I suggested why these 'other methods' you sugguest are impractical.

Originally posted by Fareast
I did hesitate to mention your personal situation as regards smoking but you brought the matter up..

You were the one to question my will-power for no reason.



Originally posted by Fareast
You still seem to be saying that it would help you to give up smoking if your bosses at work made it more difficult for you and indeed everyone to give up...

Why would you disagree with that?!




Originally posted by Fareast
But , why should other people have their private habits , in their free time curtailed or stopped , just because YOU think it's a stupid habit ? ...

We're not talking about private habits in free time- we're talking habits during working hours. Have you followed any of this discussion?



Originally posted by Fareast
I wonder why the S.P police protested at the recent decision ? As I said it's exactly the same as forbdding the sale of all fatty foods in police canteens ...

No it's not. Please refer to my earlier post about inclusivity of food bans.

Fairy, please read my posts carefully and then go back and edit yours as appropriate.

Originally posted by Fareast
Incidentally , I wonder how many public disorder offences , assults , obscene language offences and obstructions of the police are overlooked by force of necessity , by the police as they try to arrest the very worst cases every Friday and Saturday night in our city centres ? The numbers must run into thousands every weekend . These , apparently never appear on statistics or crime figures which would indicate , if anything that crime is getting more pervasive right through society and is causing a lot of concern for those who have to face it head-on or deal directly with its consequences .

This issue is precisely why the British Crime Survey exists. It examines actual levels of experience of crime, rather than just looking at what people deem serious enough to report.

Incidentally, the British Crime Survey results indicate that crime has fallen over recent years, and continues to fall.

Herbaliser

Well , if a decision is made to collect statistics about ,whatever , is made , where does it come from ? It must come from higher up. Surely the ordinary p.c. doesn't make policy decisions ?
I don't know what you'd call it if you are trying to give up smoking but can't ? If someone needs help or encouragement to give up an addiction , surely it's because they haven't got thewillpower to do it on their own ?I've tried to give up smoking once or twice but I hadn't got the willpower but it's not the worst addiction anyone can have or theonly one but I hadn't got the will to do it . What else can you call it ?
I'd no idea of your battle with the weed . How could I have ? You were the one who first brought your personal concerns into the discussion. Why don't you deal with the problem of overeating if you're so concerned about health ? Surely one bad habit is as bad as another ?That's the whole point of Cyclone's argument and mine -----why single out a particular addiction ?
I think it's you who didn't read the topic properly . This is about police officers who wanted to smoke in their official break times , either in a smoking room or in a shelter outside the building . I keep repeating that they even offered to work half an hour extra a day to cover any extra time they may take . This was refused. Strangely enough , in the original report , the S.Y.P. reported that at a new police station , recently completed in S.Yorks. [The Star ] the authorities had attached a smoker's shelter to the building. A few weeks later the new rule comes in . Brilliant ! they obviously need computers in some areas of police management .
It's not only the tabloids who report an increase in crime over the past 30 years. You mentioned population and I said it wasn't true but what other evidence do you give ? From what I can gather ALL serious sources say that crime has risen in the past 30 years. The unfortunate thing is that it has risen most in the type of crime which affects people most acutely-----crimes of violence , break-ins ....etc.....I don't know , to be honest , if you're right that , "crime " has fallen since 1997. Perhaps if you include every single type of crime , it may be so. However the type of crime that people are most concerned about is the type whereyou need police officers there as quickly as possible and for most people there seems to be less police officers on the streets than ever before .We've got more police officers , so where are they ? They , themselves complain about the pettifogging details they have to deal with , which keeps them away from actual policing.
The idea of 3,000 police officers phoning each other up every morning is your own invention.Police had a better clear-up rate before computers were ever thought of . There were less police then and less crime but they seemed to cope quite well with far fewer statistics to get them by.

Let me clarify for you given that you seem not to want to listen.

Smoking:

Where I work they have banned smoking during working hours on or around the premises. I welcome this move. I find it aids my lack of willpower (which I never denied I lacked) so see this as a good thing, despite my frustration when the ban was first implemented. I now smoke less during the day than I did before. To me that is a good thing.

I only intended to highlight the positives of a smoking ban from a smoker's perspective. I think this is relevant to the topic, despite your protestations.

Statistics:

Senior police management need statistics. How else would they form an overview of what is happening in the area they are responsible for? Anecdotes? If you disagree, please can you tell me what a better way would be?

Regardless of your views on the level of crime over the last 30 years, where is your evidence to suggest that increased use of statistics has any relationship to rising crime? I'm sorry, but it is illogical to suggest that is the case. What methodology would you use to show a link between the two?

Police had a better clear up rate before computers were ever thought of? What, in 1856?!
see here (http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/When_was_the_first_computer_invented_and_by_whom)


So, please answer these questions:

1. Why would you want to oppose a smoking ban when it would help some people to quit?

2. What is your reasoning for thinking more statistics results in a
less efficient police force?

3. Why did you bring statistics into a discussion about smoking bans on police premises?

(clue: I've already argued against your previous reasoning for questions 1 and 2, so please refer to previous posts before repeating yourself)

1) Whilst it might help those who want to quit. It interferes in the lives of those who don't.

Work isn't about controlling every aspect of what you do, it's about you doing your job. As long as a given habit doesn't interfere with that it should certainly be allowed. When the habit offends some of the people on site, there is no reason not to provide a means for those with the habbit to go out of the way of those without.

Originally posted by Cyclone
there is no reason not to provide a means for those with the habbit to go out of the way of those without.

Fair enough. Like I said, I was ****** off at first when the ban was introduced, but the hassle of leaving the premises for a smoke meant I've gradually cut it out and now only smoke in my lunch break.

I plan to quit on Monday and I know that by not having to deal with the 3 or 4 morning and afternoon cigarettes, I've got a better chance of quitting. That's the only reason I think the ban is a good idea.

I realise not every smoker wants to quit, but a majority do. If the ban has the potential to be positive for the majority of those it affects, then isn't it a good thing, despite the nanny-state issue?

Herbaliser ,

May I say to begin with that I may have given the impression that I ' m in some way anti-police. If I have , I'm sorry about that because that's exactly the opposite from the truth. I think no body of men or women in the country do a more difficult or demanding job. { just one example ----attending nasty deaths would debar most people from ever being police officers , never mind all the other jobs they get put on them }
In fact that's what made me re-act as I did when I first spotted the article about the ban-----like your initial reaction , in fact ----" Well ,what miserable b*****s , the management are !"
Then , later someone mentioned the cost of providing a room or a shelter and that led me to compare the amount spent on computers ....etc.....to the cost of a room or a shelter.I don't think that computers or statistics have increased crime , per se , but I don't think they've given , "value for money ". I love statistics , personally , and I know they and computers can be useful , it's just that I think there's too much emphasis been put on them in the last couple of decades or so.I know things can never get back to the , 'Dixon of Dock Green ' era but the optimum time for policing seems to me to have been in the 1960's-----a nice balance between technology and police officers actually out on the streets , establishing personal contacts with people and getting to know who to watch out for and where to look for it. The police SEEMED happier then and the public seemed happier with the police.It's only an impression and I may be wrong about that.
I don't know really what to say about smoking at work. The police do such a tense , demanding job , as I mentioned before that , personally , I'd be inclined to give them a lot of leeway , in general. I really don't know how they keep a cool head when confronted with some of the, "people " they have to deal with, so I guess that's why , I feel easy about their break time activities.
I don't know whether I've answered everything but could I just finish with one genuine comment and one genuine question. First , really , good luck with your task of giving up . I know from bitter experience [and failure ] how difficult it can be.
Secondly , just as a matter of pure interest [or nosyness ! ]do the C.I.D. come under the same rules too , as uniformed officers ?
Somehow , it's difficult to imagine some detectives without a fag -----but maybe I've been influenced too much by fiction !

Fareast,

You're probably right about policing in the 60s. I'm not going to pretend to know anything about it though, having not been alive then! What I do know though is that recent changes in the police are leading to a return to the style of policing you mentioned. There's an increasing emphasis on visibility of officers on the streets. Although PCSOs have been criticised, they're part of the plan- use them to interact with the public more and leave the more difficult policing to the fully trained officers. Also, local policing teams are being introduced in an attempt to return to the days when people knew the name of their local bobby. The thing to remember is that the level of technology doesn't affect the number of police on the streets. Those dealing with stats and the computer side of things are mostly civilians (which I admit was not so much the case maybe 10 years ago).

Not being a police officer, I can't comment on the stress of policing and the effect of the smoking ban. Your comment about giving them leeway- if anyone deserves some leeway, it's police officers. Then again, if it ever occurred that the police had missed some opportunity to do their job properly because they were taking a cigarette break...

Not sure about CID. The rules will apply when they're on premises, but I'm not sure about policy for when they're out and about. Think the days of turning up to an investigation with a cigar in hand are gone though. :)

Thanks for the good luck re quitting. I'll need it. Fingers crossed...

You most certainly have implied it. If you accept that non smokers do inhale 2nd hand and sidestream smoke, and that smoking causes cancer, I can't see how you make the logical twist into 2nd hand smoke not being a cause of cancer.

Of course there's no FACT to prove it. That's because FACT doesn't exist. You can only prove that something is the most likely cause.
Since there's no way to actually prove what caused lung cancer you have to base an assumption on the evidence.
The increased incidence of lung cancer amongst smokers and lab tests with mice indicates that the smoke from cigarettes is highly carcinogenic. You seem to accept this.

Carcinogens do not have to be present in a given quantity to have an effect, in the unlukiest case 1 molecule of the carcinogen could trigger a cancer.

So whilst the incidence of cancer caused by passive smoking will certainly be lower than by smoking directly, it isn't as you keep trying to suggest something that doesn't exist.



i agree, that anything floating about in the air is obviously going to be inhaled ,
so the "Passive Smokeing" eliment dose exist in that respect.
however what i am saying dosent exist is any risk to your health from ,ETS (environmental tobacco smoke)
what i mean by this is that, if every smoker stopped smoking, it would not make a dent on the ammount of chemicals floating around allready,and would not reduce anyones chance of contracting, any of the illnesses people seem to associate with smoking.
as the ammount of chemicals produced by a ciggarette are tiny in comparison.

Industrial organisations, Transport, Homes and Offices to name a few contribute to MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF TONNES of chemicals each year being put into the atmosphere.
Dose smoking have any relative significance when compared to the 3-4 tonnes of ETS (environmental tobacco smoke)
produced arround the world each year?

while it is true that Cigarettes contain formaldehyde, carbon monoxide, radioactive chemical, ethanol, arsenic and cyanide, among other toxic substances,the ammounts are so minute, that you would have to burn hundreds of thousands of cigaretts all in 1 go to produce enough of any given chemicle to be of any risk.
for the least and most number of cigarettes required to reach their danger levels
Hydroquinone would require 1,250 cigarettes
Benzo(a)pyrene would require 222,000 cigarettes
and Toluene would require 1,000,000 cigarettes
Just because these chemicals are in ETS (environmental tobacco smoke),
does not make ETS dangerous to others.

as you have pointed out yourself their is no FACT's to back up any claim or that smoking has anything to do with cancer or passive smoking.
cigarettes have some carsnogenic chemicals in them and for this reason its easy to assume that they are the cause of cancer in people, but seen as the ammounts of chemicals found are so minute and are well below any harmfull ammount it seems highly unlikely given all the other factors.
all the reasearch carried out that link smoking with breast cancer, lung cancer, heart desiese and other 'smoking related!' desease is inconsistent and results in many cases their no relationship between the two whatsoever.

the main reason that smokers are seen to be more at risk from health problems is that smokers immune systems can be weakend trough heavy or long term smoking, increasing the risks of infections and desiese or even cancer, prosumably.

Coffee in moderation dosent pause any risk, but heavy consumption can lead to Pancreatic cancer.
same can be said about most foods & drinks we consume.
(allmost all) of the 4000 chemicles you find in a cigarette are to also be found in everyday foods and often in higher doses than cigarettes, but the ammount is still so tiny that according to health experts dose not pause any risk to the consumer.

Did you know the relative risk factor of lung cancer from consuming MILK is 2.4 - or 140% More - or 8 Times the risk factor of Second Hand Smoke!
milk is just 1 example and is found in a vast ammount of our food products.

everyone is exposed to to the atmosphere we live in that is heavily poluted
from Wars, Industrial organisations, Transport, Home and Office ammounting to MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF TONNES of chemicals each year
to claim smoking has any relative significance when compared to the 3-4 tonnes of ETS produced arround the world each year is nit picking to say the least.

im not saying that just because you have all of these bad chemicals in the air allready
its in some way justifys smokers adding to it by smokeing.
the point is that by stopping people smoking arround you would not make an ounce of difference to your health as you would still consume all the same nasty chemicals through food & drink consumption,
and thats before you add the chemicals you would find in the air we breath caused by fule polution and thee likes.


Nu_Skillz
People who smoke can die from smoking related diseases.
people who dont smoke dont die from smoking related diseases. thats the difference
Cyclone
and where's your proof for that nonsense?


i agree it is nonsence! :) ,,i thought someone would pick up on this

as smoking has never been proven to have killed anyone likewise can be said for passive smoking.
just because a ciggarette contain thousands of chemicles of only a few of wich have been proved to have carsnogenic properties
the ammounts are so tiny it would be highly unlikely that it had any connection with any desiese or illness.


the reason that a lot of smokers have died in previous years with so called 'smoking related' deseases and illnesses compared to the ammount of non smokers who died is due to the fact that their was a hell of a lot more people who smoked when the studys were being carried out. remember smoking did used to be in fassion not so many years ago.
recent studys in america acctually show that Tobacco consumption has been on the decline for the last 10 years, but death rates from 'allegedly associated' diseases are on the increase!
not to mention all those life long smokers who live well above 80 years of age and show no sighns whatsoever of any illness that could be caused by them smoking.

i appologise if i sound like i am being argumentative, i dont mean to be, im just tired of listening to this anti smoking bull s**t by brainwashed individuals who havent reasearched any of the allogations they throw arround concerning smoking,
i myself being a smoker dont appreciate being made to feel bad or selfish for smoking a cigarette.
and made to feel like i am in some way harming others by smoking. this compleate nonsence.
if you do your reasearch and view the many arguments this topic has raised you would be supprised at the level of inconsistancies relating any illnesses to smoking.

if you would like to educate yourself more about the myths sourrounding smoking rather than listening to someon elses bias anti-smoking views or false claims, the information is on the net for you to read if you care to look for it.

here are a couple of interesting places to start :clap:

www.davehitt.com (http://www.davehitt.com/facts/agendas.html)

Not 1 Death!! (http://168.144.6.51/src//NOT-1-DEATH.htm are a good source of information)

I really can't be bothered to argue a point with you so ridiculous.
If you want to believe that you just go ahead. Don't expect anyone with any sense to give it credence though.

Your comparisons with environmental toxins are disingenous to say the least. Cars might put out many tons of dangerous gases, but when was the last time you sat in a bar with 100 cars running their engines? Your comparison is clearly flawed on that point alone.

The rest of your post could be taken directly from a tobbaco company PR brochure. Unsurprisingly they have a vested interest in saying that smoking doesn't kill. On the other hand, no one had a vested interest in saying that it does, so why would scientists have made it up?

Just to correct a final point, coffee in any quantity increases the risk of pancreatic cancer, at the same time it reduces the risk of about 8 other types of cancer. There is no minimum safe dose for a carcinogen, 1 molecule could be enough to trigger the cancer that kills you.

Your comparisons with environmental toxins are disingenous to say the least. Cars might put out many tons of dangerous gases, but when was the last time you sat in a bar with 100 cars running their engines? Your comparison is clearly flawed on that point alone.

so now your stating that in some way the poisonus gasses from vheicles dont mix with the air arround us?
it is the same air in resturants as it is outside belive it or not?
so it may not be as concentrated,
and like you seem to enjoy pointing out ' 1 molecule could be enough to trigger the cancer that kills you'
so to state that my point is flawed is somewhat crazy!


The rest of your post could be taken directly from a tobbaco company PR brochure. Unsurprisingly they have a vested interest in saying that smoking doesn't kill. On the other hand, no one had a vested interest in saying that it does, so why would scientists have made it up?

why a scientist would make it up,,well due to not having any evidence or proof as you know dosent exist is the only information i need to know that it is indeed 'made up'

if you do a little reasearch you will find the answers that go to explain why they have made this up. its not for the good of the people, that is a fact. just like the war with iraq wasent instigated for the good of the people. it is all to do with Money!

Just to correct a final point, coffee in any quantity increases the risk of pancreatic cancer, at the same time it reduces the risk of about 8 other types of cancer. There is no minimum safe dose for a carcinogen, 1 molecule could be enough to trigger the cancer that kills you.

as you are quick to point out on 2 occasions, 1 molecule could be enough to trigger the cancer that kills you,
seen as 1000's of products we eat on daily basis and the ammount of gasses inhaled from car exaust, contain carsnagens
dont you think that having a pop at smokers it a little harsh
for their extreamly low contribution to it all?

if not you could argue that that breathing in general is putting others at risk as they are forced to breath in your exhailed breath, that contains toxins?
or that by break wind or burping contributes in some way?
sounds silly hu?
well the levels of toxins that are found in a cigarette are so small that it is almost the same in comparrison.


:(

Originally posted by Nu_Skillz
so now your stating that in some way the poisonus gasses from vheicles dont mix with the air arround us?
it is the same air in resturants as it is outside belive it or not?
so it may not be as concentrated,
and like you seem to enjoy pointing out ' 1 molecule could be enough to trigger the cancer that kills you'
so to state that my point is flawed is somewhat crazy!

:(

what are you on.

No, I haven't stated that. I don't think you really understand what i'm trying to say, or any basic biology, physics or chemistry.

It's the same air inside as out yes, so it contains the same environmental pollution, yes, i'm agreeing so far.
Then you can add 100 people smoking cigarettes and suddenly the air inside is far more polluted than the air outside. The smoke inside isn't dispersing into a city full of air, it's trapped, the concentration of the smoke pollution is now far higher than the rest of the environmental pollution in the air.

So you've gone from some small risk due to environmental pollution, to that same risk, plus a much bigger one.

Are you following me?

why a scientist would make it up,,well due to not having any evidence or proof as you know dosent exist is the only information i need to know that it is indeed 'made up'

if you do a little reasearch you will find the answers that go to explain why they have made this up. its not for the good of the people, that is a fact. just like the war with iraq wasent instigated for the good of the people. it is all to do with Money!

Prove to me that the world is made up of atoms and molecules. Oh, you can't, because it's just a theory. Does that mean that you won't believe it?

Ermm, right, scientists said that cigarettes are bad for you, for money, where's the magic proof you love so much?


seen as 1000's of products we eat on daily basis and the ammount of gasses inhaled from car exaust, contain carsnagens
dont you think that having a pop at smokers it a little harsh
for their extreamly low contribution to it all?

It isn't low, it's high, very high, compared to the other low risk items.
And even if it were just 1 more low item, why they hell should you be able to force even a low risk on me?


if not you could argue that that breathing in general is putting others at risk as they are forced to breath in your exhailed breath, that contains toxins?
or that by break wind or burping contributes in some way?
sounds silly hu?
well the levels of toxins that are found in a cigarette are so small that it is almost the same in comparrison.


Errmm, no you couldn't. You don't breath out anything you didn't breath in except for CO2, which isn't a carcinogen.
Same for other bodily functions.
There are over 4000 carcinogenic compounds in cigarette smoke, not to mention vaporised tar and highly addictive nicotine. There are 0 carcinogenic compounds created and expelled by bodily functions. So a cigarette is infinitely more likely to cause cancer than the worst smell you can create with a natural function.

Wow.

Do you guys not have other things to do?

:hihi:

I began smoking when I was 13. By the time I was 25 or so, I was up to 2 packs a day. I have seen smoking going from being a symbol of masculinity, with Humphrey Bogart and others on film with a permanent fag dangling, to being pariah bait.
When the bans began I was appalled. The prospect of six hours in a plane on my frequent Atlantic crossings seemed endless.
However, an attack of cancer of the larynx, and emphysema changed my thinking quickly, so with the aid of Nicorette I quit.
and haven't smoked for a while. I swear I can smell a cigarette being smoked from a quarter mile away, but here's the point
I find it hard to believe that your cigarette is going to be any more harmful to me secondhand than that diesel truck which just went up the hill, that paper mill down the river that spits sulphur into the air in volumes. Some people like Cyclone seem to want to be wrapped up in cotton wool so that no harm may befall them. When the cigarette is finally banned totaly to their satisfaction they will find something else to moan about.

I think that's unfair on Cyclone.

i would love to be able to prove the points i make just like the anti-smokers would like to be able to prove the points they have.
so for this reason this will be my last post here, no use me fighting a cause about something that dosent exist,,or dose it? :D

There are over 4000 carcinogenic compounds in cigarette smoke,

is that so? hmmm not even the anti smoking organisations are bold enough to make such a claim, thats a good 1.
your best yet by far. Fact or Fiction,,,hmm ill let the audience decide

again, whats the point in me telling you different, you have allready convinced yourself that your right, it dosent matter what i say, it is good to see the 1000's dollers in anti-smoking
advertising is working on some people and is not just a compleate waste of money. if only you knew the real reasons for the anti-smoking campaigne!!

It isn't low, it's high, very high, compared to the other low risk items. And even if it were just 1 more low item, why they hell should you be able to force even a low risk on me?

without evidence you dont know what the risks are
experts have been trying to link smoking to illnesses for well over 40 years now and failed to find anything conclusive
im assuming you dident mean me personally when you say why i should be able to force even a low risk on yourself.
but the answer to this is easy,,noone is forceing anyone, are they? you can always walk away, tell the smoker that hes invading your space, whaterer,,but to say that your forced is a bit harsh!!
it would be interesting to know if you drive Cyclone, as the ammount of toxins a car produces in a year is 10.000 x
that of a 40 a day smoker, could produce in a life time.
so using your methology anyone who drives is also forceing risks on you? but at a much higher risk!
anyhow its time for me to take a fag break.
it has been good to read your oppinions Cyclone, and everyon else's for that matter, i and wish you all the best with trying to quit the habit
here is a
link (http://www.ourlittleplace.com/nontoxic.html) for those of you who think smoking is anything to worry about!
beware this site contains FACTS!!!

Originally posted by buck
I began smoking when I was 13. By the time I was 25 or so, I was up to 2 packs a day. I have seen smoking going from being a symbol of masculinity, with Humphrey Bogart and others on film with a permanent fag dangling, to being pariah bait.
When the bans began I was appalled. The prospect of six hours in a plane on my frequent Atlantic crossings seemed endless.
However, an attack of cancer of the larynx, and emphysema changed my thinking quickly, so with the aid of Nicorette I quit.
and haven't smoked for a while. I swear I can smell a cigarette being smoked from a quarter mile away, but here's the point
I find it hard to believe that your cigarette is going to be any more harmful to me secondhand than that diesel truck which just went up the hill, that paper mill down the river that spits sulphur into the air in volumes. Some people like Cyclone seem to want to be wrapped up in cotton wool so that no harm may befall them. When the cigarette is finally banned totaly to their satisfaction they will find something else to moan about.

I've never said that it's going to be 'more' harmful, where does more come into it?

Although to be fair, it probably is, diesel doesn't produce nearly so many toxins, nor will I sit in a room with a diesel truck running whilst having a beer.

But the point isn't about whether it's more or less. It's not a worst case thing, we have to put up with the risk from diesel trucks, they are necessary to society, why add another uneccessary risk on top of that just to satisfy someone elses addiction?

NS - it's a good one is it? Would you like to check out the following claims by cancer research uk.
How does smoking cause cancer?
Cigarette smoke is packed full of roughly 4000 compounds, many of which are toxic and can cause damage to our cells. Some are carcinogenic (cancer-causing). The three main ingredients of cigarette smoke are:


full article here if you want to check - link. (http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/aboutcancer/reducingyourrisk/smoking)

Are you done making yourself look silly?

hahaha,
its like i say you have been brain washed,,you dont kow if your comming or going m8,
1 min u agree their is no evidence to link smoking to cancer , the next, posting links to one of the biggest anti-smoking organisations on the planet, who have bias views like yourself.
claiming ,,
Smoking causes cancer, heart disease and chronic lung disease. It kills 120,000 people in the UK every year and is the single most preventable cause of early death in the world. Passive smoking is responsible for several hundred deaths in the UK each year.

cancer reasearch site is full of fabricated lies about smoking
how can they make such claims without any evidence?

i ask you this,
name just 1 of the 120,000 people who died last year, this year, or any year you care to choose?

what about naming 1 of the several hundred they claim die as a result of passive smoking?

Are when you done making yourself look silly? :clap:

You merely do not understand what I said about proof.

Nothing can be proven, all that can be done is that a model is made that fits the facts and makes accurate predictions about the future.
This has been done, and the model is that smoking causes those diseases, and that passive smoking will also cause them but to a far smaller degree.

There's plenty of evidence to support those models, and I don't really see why anyone would try to fabricate that evidence, there's nothing to gain by pretending that smoking is harmful, but obviously plenty to gain by pretending it's not.

The way the evidence is gathered is this.
Take two random samples, one of smokers, one of non smokers. The bigger the groups the better.
Stay in touch with them for years, collect data about their lifestyles and habbits, and particularly their illnesses and causes of death (ie cancer, heart disease, etc...).

Model these things statistically.

If smoking is not harmful (which now seems to be your position) then the smokers will show the same distribution of illness as the non-smokers.
We know that it isn't the case, the smokers have far higher incidences of the diseases that the cancer research organisation mentions.

Repeat the experiment a few times....

if the result keep coming out like that (which they do) then you've got fairly conclusive evidence that smoking causes those diseases.

I'm not entirely sure how your challenge to me to name someone is relevant. The evidence is gathered from a single person, it's gathered from large sample groups, and people have already done the work, i don't need too.

Originally posted by Nu_Skillz
if only you knew the real reasons for the anti-smoking campaigne!!...

...it has been good to read your oppinions Cyclone, and everyon else's for that matter, i and wish you all the best with trying to quit the habit
here is a
link (http://www.ourlittleplace.com/nontoxic.html) for those of you who think smoking is anything to worry about!
beware this site contains FACTS!!!

WTF is this link all about?!

"this site contains FACTS!!!" - eh?! One of the main menu buttons is 'Our Christian Faith'...

Faith, that well known concept based on facts.
:loopy:

So, what are the real reasons for the anti-smoking campaign? Somehow those trying to reduce the number of smokers have a subversive agenda?

a lot of what you say makes sence, untill you look at the 'Model' evidence you are talking about.

This has been done, and the model is that smoking causes those diseases, and that passive smoking will also cause them but to a far smaller degree.

their is no foundation for this.
the evidence gathering that you are talking about,,

The way the evidence is gathered is this.
Take two random samples, one of smokers, one of non smokers. The bigger the groups the better.
Stay in touch with them for years, collect data about their lifestyles and habbits, and particularly their illnesses and causes of death (ie cancer, heart disease, etc...).

the data gathered is not true science, and is highly unnacurate having taking everything in to concideration, like heredetry conditions, metabolisms, imune systems and allergys ect:
to mention but a few all have a part in this sort of data anaylisis, makeing the foundations of the modle you speak of a little 'wobbley' to say the least. :rolleyes:
besides if you look at the data you would see that they have prooven nothing to support any claims that smoking is of any relevence, people die, we all die, and studys show that people who smoke live longer than those who dont,,,where are your 'Model Foundations now!!

-- SMOKING "VICTIMS" LIVE LONGER THAN NON-SMOKERS --,
-- 60 % DIE "PREMATURELY" AT AGES GREATER THAN 70 --
-- 45 % DIE "PREMATURELY" AT AGES GREATER THAN 75 --
-- 17% DIE "PREMATURELY" AT AGES GREATER THAN 85 --
-- FEWER THAN O.5 % OF SMOKERS DIE AT AGES LESS THAN 35,
-- WHEREAS 8% OF NON-SMOKERS DIE AT AGES LESS THAN 35 --

i can find a lot of data myself that would give my arguments a good foundation but not based on fabricated truth's like the anti-smokers do!

If smoking is not harmful (which now seems to be your position) then the smokers will show the same distribution of illness as the non-smokers.
We know that it isn't the case, the smokers have far higher incidences of the diseases that the cancer research organisation mentions.

Repeat the experiment a few times....


i havent claimed smoking is not harmfull or that is is!!
what i am saying is their is no real evidence to support the arguments either way.
it is my right to smoke ,it is not something that is illegal and it is not something thats is putting others at risk.
we live in a democracy, and people who are trying to stop smoking on the baisis of 'Second Hand Smoke'
they have no evidence whatsoever, and are trying to dictate and tell us how to live our lives.
you only have to allow them to stop smoking , then it will be alchol and so forth,, :help:
did you know that 'Sunshine' is a class A Carsnogenic?
what will they do next, stop us from going out doors,?
:gag:

Herbaliser
WTF is this link all about?!

it was my idea of a joke ,,i was just trying to point out that their is a lot worse things to worry about than second hand smoke.

as for the hidden agenda, its all about money,,

i can go into it but i wont,,the info is on the net if you look

Originally posted by Nu_Skillz
it was my idea of a joke ,,i was just trying to point out that their is a lot worse things to worry about than second hand smoke.

as for the hidden agenda, its all about money,,

i can go into it but i wont,,the info is on the net if you look

Fair enough. Good joke, if a little obscure.

Still don't understand how the anti-smoking agenda is about money. Google here we go...

Originally posted by Nu_Skillz
if you look at the data you would see that they have prooven nothing to support any claims that smoking is of any relevence, people die, we all die, and studys show that people who smoke live longer than those who dont

Are you bonkers in the nut? Have you not read what Cyclone said about proof? Science is not about proving anything.

You say '...prooven nothing to support any claims...' - since when was proof about support? Proof is something beyond doubt, not about supporting a claim.

Whadda y'know. First Google result:

see 7 lines down... (http://www.kkk.bz/shocking.htm)

You say look it up on the net. I look it up on the net (google search: anti-smoking hidden agenda). Guess what? Even the hidden agenda types admit the link between smoking and illness.

See last few lines of line 8. :hihi:

I'll keep reading...

Findings so far:

The anti-smoking agenda focuses of second-hand smoke as a means of forcing everyone to quit.

The hidden agenda is to line the pockets of nicotine replacement therapy companies.

Right.

So, whoever is behind this wants to reduce the number of people paying indefinitely for cigarettes in favour of a product that is designed to have a limited lifespan. Eh? Doesn't that mean that eventually all profit from smoking will be erased. Once everyone has quit, no money from cigarettes and eventually no money from NRT products (hypothetically).

Hmm. I think the hidden agenda is stupid.

strangley enough NS - scientists also spotted that many factors can affect the affect the data. So what the do is isolate those factors and normalise the data.
They also use very big groups such that the natural variations between the two groups even out and don't affect the overall results.
It's a pretty standard way of analysing things. If you've convinced yourself that it's only psuedo science then the discussion is over, god knows what you would accept as proof. Maybe you'll reconsider when you personally are having cancer treatment or a lung removed at the age of 40.

There is no comparison to alcohol or sunlight. Go and drink yourself to death, it won't hurt me. Smoking near me might (I say might because otherwise you'll want PROOF and FACTS). That risk is not acceptable, I will not accept that your habit might compromise my health. Smoke yourself to death as well if you like, just don't do it in a public space or near me.

As to it all being a conspiracy theory for the companies that produce nicorette products. You need to stop buying those cheap cigarettes, they're obviously affecting your mind.

Herbaliser
So, what are the real reasons for the anti-smoking campaign? Somehow those trying to reduce the number of smokers have a subversive agenda?


I wish i knew?
what i do know is that the reasons we are told smoking is so bad is based arround speculation and unreliable evidence!
constant tests to link to any illness or desease to smoking have all failed, and their is no proven risk to health issues concernig second hand smoke. the only link they have is the same link you could use to connect food products, and other materials on our planet we encounter everyday and that is they all contains traces of carsnagens, and carsnagens are what are belived to cause cancers and illnesses in people.

Dust produced from car break shoes contains carsnagens, why not protest to have them banned, we have the technology to produce ceramic breaks that dont produce nasty dust that polutes the air we breath?

why dont they put money into transport that dosent burn fosil fule and produce leathel gasses that are pummped into the air?
we have the technology for enviromentaly friendly transport allready, this would cut down on thousands of tonns of carsnagenic toxins, as oppose to the few tonne's smoking apparantly produces, surely making a bigger impact on global health.

Foods we eat all contain nasty chemicals to add flavour, coulour, texture, and because the ammounts of toxins even carsnagens they contain are so tiny (much like tobacco smoke) the 'Healt officials' seem to think the levels they contain are not a concern to public health.everybody eats, not everybody smokes, why concentrate on the lesser problem?

why dont we see labels on food products like,,
"food consumption clogs the arteries and causes obesity, heart attacks and strokes" or "eating may cause death" ?
This issue dose not get the kind of funding smoking gets to promoth its unhealty side effects. why?
it could be that everybody will continue to eat reguardless, and they dont have an alternative product to profit from if they did stop this mass poisoning.

Fat that is used to cook in 90% of resturants & take aways contains what health experts claim 'unhealthy levels of toxins'
and you would only need to eat 2 meals a week cooked in this stuff to be putting your health at risk.
Why are we allowing this rubbish to be sold to us, and not trying to stop this?
think about it everybody eats, not everyone smokes!

Milk, as i mentioned before has a higher risk factor than second hand smoke when consumed,
The relative risk factor of lung cancer from MILK consumption is 2.4 - or 140 Per Cent More - or 8 Times the risk factor
of Second Hand Smoke. but this is acceptable too!.

The sun's rays are highly carsnagenic causing skin cancer and other illnesses, but we allow 'health & beauty' shops to use tanning equipment that produces the same risks to those who choose to use them, if the goverment was so concerned about our health wouldent you expect this kind of thing to be banned or regulated?

i can find many more statistics, like this the more i find the more i belive their is a hidden agendas,
why arent they tackling the other obviously more toxic problems with the same vigour and power as the anti-smoking campaigns, adverts and banns they are imposing on us?
i would have thought if your going to fight a cause you would be better fighting one that has some hard evdence behind it..

the ammount of money that has gone into anti smokng campaigns,TV advertising, billboard's anti smoking products like , nicotene chewing gum, patches and the likes all sugests that their is a real danger from smoking,
but no one has yet found any new evidence that one would expect would be needed, to have forced this kind of anti-smoking movement?

its reverse advertising, to sell more products, they will get a huge return on the monies that its cost to go into this advertising and secures the tobacco industrys future.

i would be as knieve has Cyclone to think that their is not a hidden agenda behind this anti-smoking movement
their is just too much smoke surrounding it all.

their is a lot of stigma behind smoking and its health risks and are all contriversal the anti-smokers will have you belive its a highly dangerous habbit, and that it is affecting others arround them, smokers will try to argue that as no evidence has been found to back any claim that smoking has not been linked directly to someones illness or death, and the risk is minimal to themselfs and non existant to those arround them.

reguarding the all smoking issue i myself am sat in the middle, i can agree with bothe sides of the argument, however i am a smoker myself,its something i choose to do and will continue to do untill i decide otherwise.
we all have a choice to eat what we like, drink what we like and drive what we like or even go to the salon and get a fake tan if we like, its called 'freedom of choice', do we really want the goverment controlling us more than they allready are? telling us what we can and cannot do?

strangley enough NS - scientists also spotted that many factors can affect the affect the data. So what the do is isolate those factors and normalise the data.

how do they do that sherlock?
if they could they would have proven without doubt that smoking has a direct link to peoples illnesses, but they havent and its because of the possabilitys that the illness someone has could have easily been caused by 1 of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected to contribute – of which smoking can be one.

i think all the smoking cops should go on strike and shout out loud DISCRIMINATION.

they can't get enough recruits for the police force as it is, and then they dictate what they can intake in their breaks - RIDICULOUS AND DISCRIMINATRY!

AND :when they've done with the smokers.........

"Police chief's '£7 a pint' call

Clive Wolfendale said he got the idea from Scandinavia
The cost of alcohol should be trebled to discourage binge drinking, according to a top policeman. "

As to it all being a conspiracy theory for the companies that produce nicorette products. You need to stop buying those cheap cigarettes, they're obviously affecting your mind.

igrnoence must be bliss, if you cant be bothered to look for the truth about issues yourself and want to continue through life beliving everything the government, papers and big money organisations tell you thats your choice.

Drink yourself to death, it won't hurt me

i wont drink myself to death as i dont drink.
but its proven that drink is a killer, i know quite a few people who have lost their life to drink.
As for Thinking Drinking could not hurt you,, I hope that you never get hit by a drunk driver, or beaten up by drunken thugs, or you loose a family member through such an event!! come back then and tell me its not hurting you.

Smoke yourself to death as well if you like, just don't do it in a public space or near me.

i wont smoke myself to death either, as their is STILL no evidence to support the claims it dose kill.
and studys have shown smokers do live longer, not that the studys were in anyway accurate, well, they are as accurate as the the study of second hand smoke is a health riisk.
and finally if i was to get any so called 'smoking related deseases' it wouldent change my views on this issue in any way shape or form, im not that shallow :rolleyes:

Yes , Teeb , I'm afraid you're right.
If the Health and Safety Exec. managed to get smokimng completely outlawed , I feel sure they would turn their attention elsewhere , full blast ! As you point out , the process [against drinking] has already begun.
We are already advised about how much drink is , "good" for us and how much is harmful.Advice on healthy food has increased in volume too in the past few years. After ,'advice' will come the regulations and then the punishing price increases and so it goes on.
I'm sure there is a puritanical streak in a lot of British people and a good number too of , "fellow travellers ". To take one example only. In about 1917 the then government stopped all-day drinking as they thought it was adversely affecting the War effort. When the war ended , they kept the rule in force for the next-----what ?...80 years ? There we all were , every afternoon , at 3 p.m , thousands , perhaps millions of people all over the country , in the rain and snow and whatever , would be turfed out of the pub whether they liked it or not or whether the landlord liked it or not . We couldn't have people drinking all day in Britain ! Visiting foreigners thought we were potty. A few brave souls beat the ban by drinking illegally or joining clubs and so on but not much more than a squeak was heard from the vast majority of the population.
A similar history can be seen with pornography , with all the confusion caused by regulations. We can't watch that , we can watch this and so on.
I'm not sure where this puritanical attitude came from , possibly from the Calvinistic -Methodist influence of the Church or from our remote , gloomy . Scandinavian past. It certainly came from somewhere.We have never seemed able to relax and enjoy ourselves as many other countries do , in terms of sex , smoking , eating and drinking. We also have a fair number of people who love telling others what's good for them and a lot who love to be told .
The combination of those two threads in our national life brings about the situations we are talking about.It's a possible explanation , too , why so many British people go mad when they go on holiday-----like letting a child loose in a sweet shop !

Mods! Mods!

Shouldn't this be merged with the 'Most Boring Thread Ever' in the I'm Bored section?

Aww...go on! Pleeease! Let them fight it out there...

it's the victorian influence.

At least drinking laws are finally being relaxed, after nearly 80 years as you say.

Yes , you're right Cyclone about the drinking laws. I only hope the yobs don't spoil it for everyone , after all this time !!
I'm sure the Victorians had some very strange hang-ups about sex but they seemed surprisingly free when it came to eating , drinking and smoking. I think you mentioned at one point that your grandfather [?] was a miner. My uncles were too at Treeton and Orgreave and I remember my mother saying that pre-W.W.1 , they used to buy a rum before they went on the morning shift-----imagine that happening ,in the 1970's , for example !
The Victorians were also perhaps responsible for giving us the , "these rules must be obeyed " syndrome----perhaps partly because of industrial developement and maybe as a reaction against the laissez-faire life of the 18th. century.
B*****ds ! [joking]

Originally posted by Fareast
Yes , you're right Cyclone about the drinking laws. I only hope the yobs don't spoil it for everyone , after all this time !!
I'm sure the Victorians had some very strange hang-ups about sex but they seemed surprisingly free when it came to eating , drinking and smoking. I think you mentioned at one point that your grandfather [?] was a miner. My uncles were too at Treeton and Orgreave and I remember my mother saying that pre-W.W.1 , they used to buy a rum before they went on the morning shift-----imagine that happening ,in the 1970's , for example !
The Victorians were also perhaps responsible for giving us the , "these rules must be obeyed " syndrome----perhaps partly because of industrial developement and maybe as a reaction against the laissez-faire life of the 18th. century.
B*****ds ! [joking]

Fareast,

Its funny you should mention the pre-shift tinctures imbibed by your miner ancestors. I was speaking to a very old relative at the weekend and he was saying that his father used to walk several miles to the coal mine in which he worked and he always had a stiff drink before the morning shift. This was in a coal mine in the Midlands, so it must have been a widespread practice.

The remarkable films shown on TV recently of life in the UK at the turn of the century showed beer stalls outside factory gates.

Lord Chaverly-----thanks for reassuring me that I didnt imagine it. ! I'm almost sure that my mother said that the miners used to buy their tots at a a sort of "hole in the wall " place in Catcliffe , where they lived . Maybe it was an , "offshoot " of the local pub. It would have been at the the junction of Treeton Lane and Orgreave Road [?] ----at any rate , just where you go under the railway bridge to climb the little hill towards Brinsworth.
This all may seem trivial but it does touch upon one of the most important questions of our age ------whether we're talking about terrorism , crime , smoking or drinking i.e how do we get that fine balance between freedom of the individual on one hand and safety and security on the other ?' My guess is that there IS no perfect answer , just a sort of , "make do or mend " .