Shock findings in Scotland's first smoking in cars study

Jan 20, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Smoking in a car exposes a child passenger to dangerous levels of poisonous particles … and even opening a window doesn't protect them.

These are the stark findings of a study commissioned by leading NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (NHSGGC) health experts, in collaboration with researchers from the University of Aberdeen.

The findings are so stark that NHSGGC has launched a high profile campaign to persuade the thousands of Scots motorists who continue to smoke and endanger non-smoking passengers to make their cars "smoke free".

The study involved a child sized doll child beingfitted in a car seat with the very latest smoke monitoring equipment attached at the doll’s mouth so that precise measurements could be taken. The particles of tobacco poison were so high that they compared with the levels you would expect after being exposed to in a busy smoke filled pub before the smoking ban.

Brenda Friel, NHSGGC Senior Health Improvement Officer, said: "No one would think twice about the dangers of taking a child into a smoke filled environment yet many drivers don’t realise the harm that can be done. Worryingly 15% of UK smokers smoke in the car with children."

Dr. James Y Paton, a Reader in Paediatric Respiratory Medicine, University of Glasgow, said: "This report about the exposure of children to small particles resulting from smoking in cars makes salutary reading and its message is very clear. Do not smoke in cars when your children are present. Do not allow them to travel in a car with anyone who will smoke in the car.  It is potentially damaging to their respiratory health."

NHSGGC is giving away 15,000 car stickers bearing the slogan "Our car is smokefree" in an attempt to get the message across that smoking in cars is dangerous not only for people who smoke and their adult passengers but most importantly for children who have no choice but to be in these cars.

Dr James Cant, Head of the British Lung Foundation, Scotland and Northern Ireland, said: “This is a powerful piece of research and it's great to see Greater Glasgow and Clyde leading the way in this vital area of public health. It also ties in closely with the British Lung Foundation's ongoing "Children's' Charter". Children's lungs are so easily damaged by exposure to second-hand smoke. For some of them the impact will be seen all too soon and results in emergency admissions to hospital. For others the damage emerges over time with higher levels of adult respiratory diseases. We know that people want to look after their children and give them the best start in life. Studies like this are vital because they provide people with hard evidence of how their behaviour impacts directly on their loved ones."

The study also proved that the common misconception of opening the window while you smoke in the car doesn’t actually help. Opening the window will only reduce harmful air levels slightly and crucially it still doesn’t bring it down to a safe level.

Brenda Friel added: "We know that secondhand smoke is very harmful but we wanted to understand in more detail the levels of risk attached to secondhand in smoke in cars with particular emphasis on children. The study has revealed some shocking facts.

"On the back of our findings we believe it is imperative that we raise awareness of the damaging effects of secondhand smoke, especially on children. We are asking people to consider where they smoke and as far as possible take their smoking outside and of course ideally we would encourage them to seek help to give up completely.

"I am sure that there are many people who smoke in a car in which a child is travelling believe that opening the window is enough to protect them from any harmful effects. Our tests prove that this is not the case. I hope very much that through sharing the findings of our study we will help people understand just how damaging secondhand smoke in cars can be."

Children are particularly vulnerable to the effects for a number of reasons including the fact that they breathe faster than adults and therefore inhale more toxins, their respiratory organs are still developing, they have immature immune systems and crucially they cannot remove themselves from the source of the exposure.

The study was carried out on behalf of NHSGGC by the Scottish Centre for Indoor Air, a research collaboration between the University of Aberdeen and the Institute of Occupational Medicine. The study was led by Dr Sean Semple.

Dr Semple said: "The air quality during smoking car journeys is much worse than normal outdoor air pollution levels. The concentration of fine particulate that children would breathe in during these journeys sometimes reaches levels that are similar to those measured in smoky bars prior to Scottish smoke-free legislation. Particulate levels inside these smokers’ cars are also comparable to breathing in air in a large industrial city during a major smog event."

ASH Scotland Chief Executive Sheila Duffy said, "I very much welcome this campaign which will raise awareness of the harmful impact of secondhand smoke which increases the risks of developing a variety of health problems. I am delighted that NHSGGC is highlighting the issue, and carrying out a positive campaign to encourage adults not to smoke when children are present. ASH Scotland wants the public to engage in debating how people, particularly children, can best be protected from the harm caused by secondhand smoke wherever they are, and this campaign will help do just that."

The dangers of secondhand smoke:

Secondhand smoke is smoke that is either breathed out by a smoker or comes from the burning end of a cigarette/cigar/pipe.
It contains over 4,000 chemicals, many of which have been confirmed as causing cancer.
There is no safe level of exposure

Every year in the UK because of exposure to secondhand smoke:

10,000 children are admitted to hospital
300,000 visits to their doctors surgery
Can result in 25,000 children under the age of 16 years starting to smoke
The costs to the health service are significant

Children are at greater risk of:

Cot death
Breathing problems: asthma, pneumonia, bronchitis, lower respiratory infection
Glue ear: can cause deafness

Tips for a smokefree car:

Try to always take outside
Try to make your car a smokefree car at all times for everyone
Have a cigarette before and after your journey
On long car journeys, stop, have a break and smoke outside the car
Remove car cigarette lighters
Clear out car ash trays

Explore further: Gun deaths twice as high among African-Americans as white citizens in US

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

More ear infections in teens with smoker at home

Dec 07, 2010

Family members who smoke are more apt to feel it is OK to smoke indoors as their children get older. But in households with secondhand smoke, children between 12 and 17 are 1.67 times more prone to have recurrent ...

Children unaffected by smoking ban consequences

Nov 24, 2009

The smoking ban in Wales has not displaced secondhand smoke from public places into the home. A study of 3500 children from 75 primary schools in Wales, published in the open access journal BMC Public Health, found that t ...

Recommended for you

Even without kids, couples eat frequent family meals

22 minutes ago

Couples and other adult family members living without minors in the house are just as likely as adults living with young children or adolescents to eat family meals at home on most days of the week, new research suggests.

Health law enrollment now 7.3M

13 hours ago

The Obama administration says 7.3 million people have signed up for subsidized private health insurance under the health care law—down from 8 million reported earlier this year.

ASTRO issues second list of 'Choosing wisely' guidelines

14 hours ago

(HealthDay)—The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has released a second list of five radiation oncology-specific treatments that should be discussed before being prescribed, as part of the ...

Bill Gates says progress made on new super-thin condom

15 hours ago

Billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates said Thursday progress is being made on developing a "next-generation" ultra-thin, skin-like condom that could offer better sexual pleasure, help population control and ...

User comments : 83

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

DaveAtherton
3.6 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2011
Firstly cot deaths have nothing to do with smoking. From 1970 to 1988 cot deaths rose by 500% but smoking dropped from 45% to 30% of the population.

On asthma and atopy generally exposure to SHS actually reduces the incidence. In 2008 the mechanism was discovered how nicotine suppresses asthma and backs up studies that statistically significantly. A Swedish study found the CI intervals 0.6-0.7.

The "10,000 children are admitted to hospital," is based on the Royal College of Physicians paper. As someone who has read it, I can only conclude publication bias. E.g. middle ear disease is quoted but the incidence stays constant including the most exposed to SHS. None of the other factors reached statistical significance, there appeared no moderation for confounders such as smoking is 2x as prevalent in poor(er) households. The only conclusion was that ironically the most exposed had the least illnesses.

DaveAtherton
2 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2011
Sorry the Swedish study was statistically significant in that those most exposed to SHS has the least atopy/asthma. CI 0.6-0.7.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (46) Jan 20, 2011
As someone who has read it, I can only conclude publication bias.
This from an unbiased stink addict. For instance:
Firstly cot deaths have nothing to do with smoking. From 1970 to 1988 cot deaths rose by 500% but smoking dropped from 45% to 30% of the population.
-One may or may not have anything to do with the other due to innumerable variables; But the addict, during that brief interval between withdrawal periods when he can think somewhat objectively, still misses the illogic of his conclusion.

Another example:
On asthma and atopy generally exposure to SHS actually reduces the incidence.
I heard that acetone or formaldehyde fumes will do the same thing. And theyre not nearly as dangerous as the products of your disease.

Go peddle your apologetics elsewhere.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Jan 20, 2011
On asthma and atopy generally exposure to SHS actually reduces the incidence.
Actually, did you consider that, since asthma is caused by an overactive immune system, that introducing poisons into the body gives the immune system something real to fight and so it attacks the body less? Using poison to treat illness has many precedents:
http
://health.howstuffworks.com/medicine/modern/poison-as-medicine1.htm

-I mean, people used to drink urine as a tonic, no?
DaveAtherton
5 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2011
"The results unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE."
DaveAtherton
3.3 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2011
This is the result of a 3 generational study in Sweden.

"Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)."

CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.

John_Watson
2.5 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2011
With regard to SIDS (Cot Death) the claim that smoking has anything to do with SIDS is misplaced. The definition of SIDS precludes any causation, if there is a cause of death i.e smoking then it is prohibited to use a finding of SIDS as causation. SIDS is only used as a cause of death where the cause of death is unknown.

If Smoking is proven to be involved then it is Not SIDS but a different causation that means that someone has to invent a new disease to accommodate smoking as causation.

Now that point is made any such new diseases are open to challenge on the grounds that they invented them to circumvent the deaths of babies with no apparent cause.

As for the implication that SIDS parents who smoke kill their babies, this is as reprehensible as Nazi propaganda which depicted Jews as baby eaters, That anyone should sink to this level and indulge in Nazi style propaganda shows clearly their lack of sympathy for the victims and families of SIDS.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (48) Jan 20, 2011
If Smoking is proven to be involved then it is Not SIDS but a different causation that means that someone has to invent a new disease to accommodate smoking as causation.
So in addict logic terms, tobacco actually REDUCES the incidence of SIDS, because it's something else that kills them. Cough hack.
As for the implication that SIDS parents who smoke kill their babies
Smoking parents kill or irrevocably damage their babies. This same willful neglect or just plain stupidity is the sort that enabled German citizens to ignore Nazi atrocities. There I fixed your addict logic for you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (48) Jan 20, 2011
Addict logic goes something like this: I can't give this up because I can't stand the pain when I try (or I'm too scared to try.) So I must WANT to smoke, and since I love my kids, my smoking must not be bad for them. And that miscarriage I had was caused by something else. And something else caused my moms emphysema. And I feel sick and weak today because I must be coming down with something. And I'm out of money because my dumb husband doesn't make enough. Etc.

And ANYBODY who tries to take away my fix will get a LOT of trouble because, like I said, it's MY CHOICE to smoke. Even though it's completely worthless and I'm dying because I can feel it. And I'm scared. I do not want to go like my mom did. But I know I will.

This is how your disease thinks for you in order to maintain itself at all costs.
John_Watson
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2011
So you think then that accusing those who lose their children through no fault of their own and the law acknowledges that it is no fault of their own(otherwise a cause of death would not be SIDS) of murder because a parent smokes is logical?

What habit are you going to accuse non smokers who lose their babies to SIDS of? Having one drink perhaps, I know having a speck of dust in the house, or perhaps keeping the home warm, all these and many more have been cited as causation for SIDS are non smoking SIDS parents guilty of murder too in those cases? Is that what you are claiming cot deaths are caused by parents?

I believe that you are claiming just that.
CharlesIIIX
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2011
""The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is PERCEIVED as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." (Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler)

This disingenuous concern of children's health by anti-tobacco activists is purely another emotive attempt to demonize smokers. Most, if not all, recent 'science' relating to smoking has been corrupted by the anti-smoker movement.
CharlesIIIX
2 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2011
Don't be diverted away from reality by the ‘filthy smelly addict’ propaganda slogan. This merely indicates how truly desperate these tobacco control fanatics are becoming. Realising that ordinary people (other than the really gullible) are beginning to wake up to their hate campaign, they are losing the initiative, their lies are becoming common knowledge and they need to resort to desperate measures; This particular tactic is based on the teachings of the anti-tobacco patron saint:

“I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.” Adolph Hitler

Brevity may be the soul of wit - but none of this is funny!

CharlesIIIX
2 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2011
In general, passive smoke is beneficial to children, particularly relating to the more serious diseases. Most studies show that passive smoking has no effect, or suggests a beneficial effect. eg Boffetta et al. on cancer - ://www.data-yard.net/2/12/1440.pdf

The most likely reason tobacco smoke benefits the future health of children is the 'Hygiene Hypothesis'. It works in a similar way to immunization that uses attenuated viruses etc. ://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=32441

That child asthma has increased 'manifold' during the same period that smoking prevalence has been substantially reduced, is testament to the serious consequences of passively accepting dubious 'expert' advice. ://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12086081
CharlesIIIX
2 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2011
Finally, on a practical note; winding ONE window down by ONE inch in a moving car will clear out 99% of smoke from within … in seconds ... Arguing against this is to deny a basic law of physics! The problem, The cause and The solution have all been INVENTED in order to impose restrictions on public and individual freedoms.

Don’t you think you owe it to your children to question anti-tobacco claims! Their (and your) future health and individual freedoms are seriously threatened by an active campaign being played out right NOW.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (46) Jan 21, 2011
I believe that you are claiming just that.
you believe that because you want to believe that. Your disease will make you want to believe just about anything. Even:
Finally, on a practical note; winding ONE window down by ONE inch in a moving car will clear out 99% of smoke from within in seconds ...
-From Charlie the nuclear physicist who maybe read the article about the study and can still say something like that.

Smoker logic: poison is therapeutic. Smoking is good for children. Miscarriages are never caused by smoking because they may be caused by something else, and so pregnant mothers can- and should- continue to smoke, and who cares if kids are born addicted and damaged? And antismokers are just haters.

All this because you're an addict. You're addicted to a completely worthless drug that ruins everything it touches. Or perhaps... you're someone who also makes a living from this sickness? Why don't you grow something less harmful like opium? Or at least food-
John_Watson
3.2 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2011
I believe that Ghost because it is exactly what you are saying, it is your words quoted exactly as written that this belief is founded on! if your only argument to every case put to you is "you're an addict" then you actually have no case at all!
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (46) Jan 21, 2011
John your post is largely incoherent but it seems that, because I mention addiction, that thats the only argument against your disease? Theres the article above and dozens more at physorg. Then of course theres this:
http
://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/s/smoking/deaths.htm

-Statistics which everybody knows and accepts except addicts. But really, who would willingly breathe dirt if it wasnt addictive?

Youre out in the backyard burning leaves and the wind shifts your way. What do you do? Do you stand there and breathe a lungful of dirt or do you move, instinctively? I suppose you would move and light up a cigarette because now youre a little annoyed.

You and most all addicts like yourself know and accept all the arguments but you still continue to smoke, and your addicted brain has all these clever tricks to justify it for you. And if youre actually making money by growing, processing, or selling the crud then you SHOULD feel as guilty as the smoker who just lost her unborn child.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (46) Jan 21, 2011
You want to play the hitler game? Antismokers want smokers to stop because smoking kills millions. The people who earn a living off tobacco dont care if the stuff they sell kills millions. Nazis didnt care if they killed millions. Do you guys see a similarity here?

People who work in the industry are complicit in the carnage it creates. Yeah I know you have to feed your kids and you dont want to move. So you continue to work at Buchenwald because its a short commute. And after all your grandfather killed jews and his father before him killed jews, so it cant be wrong can it?

OK otto is done playing nazi. But you can see it is so much more applicable to drug pushers and users isnt it? Goddamn the pusher man, he's a monster, lord he's not a natural man.
John_Watson
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
Stupid Boy!
Fact: the Health Act 2006 is directly comparable to the Nuremberg Decrees in that sections of society are being restricted to where they may pursue legitimate practices, Jews were not allowed into most shops and smokers are not allowed to smoke in pubs, Smokers are herded into shelters in which the English law says are not fit for swine, jews were confined to ghettos.

Smokers are demonised have all manner of false allegations laid against them through the media and from certain charities as were the jews.

Smokers are being portrayed as second class citizens, Jews, Gypsies Eastern Europeans, the disabled, the mentally ill all were considered to be second class citizens in Nazi Germany do you see the pattern here Otto!

All done in the name of the health of the people in both cases! Anti smoking is National Socialism in the 21st century, same methods, same mentality.
CharlesIIIX
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
You must remember John, that Otto, the stupid gullible boy, (who seems to be a throw-back from 1930's Germany), is only required to write what he is told to write for his 30 pieces of silver. Thinking is not required by his masters from the tobacco control industry (same with all the other shills). At the moment the order is 'addiction', 'smell' and to try to justify the 1930's German jew-esque nazi campaign. Note that he has said very little else.

At times like these John, I feel like I am part of the movie 'Sixth sense' - I see dumb people
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Jan 21, 2011
sections of society are being restricted to where they may pursue legitimate practices
Endangering other peoples health and well being is not a legitimate practice is it Herr Stinkmann? Germans learned that jews were people too- the hard way. We have since learned that 2nd hand smoke was killing everybody and so we passed laws to prevent that.

But smoker nazi-types could care less about other peoples health. They only care about maintaining their affliction. They would FORCE people to endure their smell and suffer sickness, because admitting that their disease is killing others would only be admitting that its killing them too. And that they need to stop NOW and not tomorrow which never comes.

FACT: Legions of smokers FORCED their addiction into homes, businesses, restaurants, etc. The people, armed with medical evidence, passed laws to reclaim the air in the name of the right to breathe free.

This oppression was ended much like nazism was, with the death of millions.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Jan 21, 2011
Smokers are herded into shelters in which the English law says are not fit for swine, jews were confined to ghettos.
Nazis rose to power by claiming to be the victims, when it was in fact they who were victimizing others. Poor pouty smokers dont want to stand out in the snow to get their fix, they want to sit at their desks and smoke and victimize everybody else. But they dont care about that.

They want everybody else to pay their medical insurance costs. They want everybody else to suffer because THEY themselves just cant quit; and so they must not want to. And so it is everybody elses fault if they cant stand smokers. Something must be wrong with THEM, not us, smokers say. We're not sick TODAY, they think. Johnny Depp smokes and he's certainly got much more to lose than we do, they think.
Thinking is not required by his masters
I am reading this as written from a blind, sickened, weakened addict. "A man has as many masters as he has addictions." -aristotle
CharlesIIIX
2 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2011
Bloody hell - what an imagination Otto - I think you need to see a psychiatrist - not only are you unbelieveably gullible Otto - you have a delusional personality disorder too!

"Germans learned that jews were people too- the hard way."

There is a lesson here for you and your colleagues methinks. Note this lesson well Otto!

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 21, 2011
- you have a delusional personality disorder too!

"Germans learned that jews were people too- the hard way."

There is a lesson here for you and your colleagues methinks. Note this lesson well Otto!

Yet more addict logic. You all were comparing antismokers to Nazis. I showed you you had it backwards. So you take my metaphor literally and try to vilify me with it?
you have a delusional personality disorder too!
I'm not the one who thinks breathing dirt is good for him. I'm not the one who thinks poisons are good for kids. I'm not the one who thinks that showing valid concerns for childrens health is exploiting them.

I'm not the one who thinks I'm a shill for some antismoker 'tobacco control industry'. I know what I DON'T LIKE. I don't like having to suffer YOUR disease. Nobody has to pay me to think that or to express it here. It's from the heart. Millions are sick of what you've done to the world. We want it to END.
John_Watson
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2011
All that rhetoric Otto yet not one single word of rebuttle just a half baked theory that Nazis were victims well I suppose with that quality of debate It is pretty clear that you have not got a clue at all, no doubt you are one of those Holocaust deniers that are around.

So how do you propose to end smoking then Otto?

I bet that any solution you come with the Nazis thought of it first just like second hand smoke! by the way who is we? Am I debating with more than one Otto? Split personality perhaps? or do you claim to speak for the whole world? If so you a liar because i count at least three disidents!I know you that you don't speak for every non smoker too, there are many non smokers who as much against this legislation as I am. you say you are sick of what smokers have done to the world, yes I'd agree you are sick.

So now you can prove that there is no comparison between the Health Act 2006 and the Nuremberg decrees or continue to look like the fool you are.
CarolAST
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2011
The EPA's Sorry Status Report on Children and Asthma
"America's Children and the Environment. Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses," Second Edition, US EPA, Feb. 2003. EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman boasts that "This report marks the progress we have made as a nation to reduce environmental risks faced by childen," including "Implementing the Smoke-Free Home Pledge campaign, designed to protect millions of children from the risks of tobacco smoke at home." On pdf p. 75, "Between 1980 and 1995, the percentage of children with asthma doubled, from 3.6 percent in 1980 to 7.5 percent in 1995." The graph on pdf page 67 boasts of declines in cotinine levels during this same period.

epa.gov/opeedweb/children/publications/ace_2003.pdf
CarolAST
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2011
The anti-smokers commit flagrant scientific fraud by ignoring more than 50 studies which show that human papillomaviruses cause at least 1/4 of non-small cell lung cancers. Smokers and passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus for socioeconomic reasons. And the anti-smokers' studies are all based on lifestyle questionnaires, so they're cynically DESIGNED to blame tobacco for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV. And they commit the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on tobacco.

smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm
smokershistory.com/etsheart.html

For the government to commit fraud to deprive us of our liberties is automatically a violation of our Constitutional rights to the equal protection of the laws, just as much as if it purposely threw innocent people in prison. And for the government to spread lies about phony smoking dangers is terrorism, no different from calling in phony bomb threats.
CarolAST
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2011
REAL scientists don't need to be told to consider all the evidence. Only "creation scientists" need to be told something as basic as that! And "creation science" is exactly what every one of your beloved Surgeon General reports is based upon.

smokershistory.com/SGHDlies.html
CarolAST
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2011
All your so-called "independent" reports were written by the same guy, Jonathan M. Samet, including the Surgeon General Reports, the EPA report, the IARC report, and the ASHRAE report, and he's now the chairman of the FDA Committee on Tobacco. He and his politically privileged clique excluded all the REAL scientists from their echo chamber. That's why they're unanimous!

smokershistory.com/SGlies.htm
CarolAST
3 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923 - Your pseudo-science of using lifestyle questionnaires that ignore the role of infection was invented in Nazi Germany. The only difference is that the Nazis could hide behind the excuse of ignorance, WHILE YOU CANNOT.
CarolAST
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923 - I presume you're named for anti-smoker Otto Heinrich Warburg, who was Adolph Hitler's favorite quack, who was funded by the Rockefeller Institute. Rockefeller's puppet, Sen. Royal S. Copeland, introduced the bill creating the National Cancer Institute in 1937. Anti-smoker Richard Doll attended lectures in Frankfurt in 1936, and their putrid movement enthusiastically embraced Nazi pseudo-science and has used it for its intended purpose ever since.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 22, 2011
Gentlemen,
We can all do science. I suggest you smokers try a few experiments yourselves: ask others to tell you honestly if you wheeze or not; count how many times you cough in 12 hours; challenge any non-smoker, including your little old grandmother, to hold their breath longer than you; do not smoke for a week and tell me honestly you are happy about it. That last one is a behavioral analysis. So is this: tell me honestly that you don't believe your disease is slowly killing you. Naw, just tell yourself. Can you do that?

Science can be very informative. That's why most people choose to believe it and discount the bullshit addicts try to sell as being unavoidably tainted by desperate addict-thinking.
So how do you propose to end smoking then Otto?
Most rational, reasonable people are tired of the hassle and expense, sick and tired of being sick and tired, and are finding ways to quit. Dumbfucks will continue to smoke until their insides are all grey mush. Like you guys.
CarolAST
3 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923 - nothing you've ever said bears the slightest resemblance to honesty.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Jan 22, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923 - Your pseudo-science of using lifestyle questionnaires that ignore the role of infection was invented in Nazi Germany. The only difference is that the Nazis could hide behind the excuse of ignorance, WHILE YOU CANNOT.
Poisons like nicotine, CO, and all the others in tobacco smoke, compromise the immune system's ability to fight infection. Is this what you're talking about?

Other examples of addict-think: 'People who threaten my right to trash myself and those around me are NAZIS' (and then they list all the bad things Nazis did, and then say antismokers are just like them, to prove it's obviously true.) Let's see, Nazis used poison gas to kill people and smokers use poison gas to kill themselves and those around them. Therefore smokers are the Nazis. See, I win again.
CarolAST
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923 - Poisons like nicotine, CO, and all the others in tobacco smoke, compromise the immune system's ability to fight infection. Is this what you're talking about?

No, THIS is what I'm talking about.

smokershistory.com/CMVHD.htm#CMV_and_Immunity

You deliberately commit scientific fraud by blaming tobacco for immune deficiencies that are really caused by cytomegalovirus. And you're not content merely to neglect the patients while you smugly observe the disease process, like the Tuskegee Experimenters. No, you turned their illness into a pretext to abuse, degrade and humiliate them. Even the Tuskegee Experimenters had more class than that.
CarolAST
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923 - Other examples of addict-think: 'People who threaten my right to trash myself and those around me are NAZIS' (and then they list all the bad things Nazis did, and then say antismokers are just like them, to prove it's obviously true.) Let's see, Nazis used poison gas to kill people and smokers use poison gas to kill themselves and those around them. Therefore smokers are the Nazis. See, I win again.

No, you don't. All your claims are deliberate lies. Plus, you shove them down the public's throat by repeating them over and over again, just like Goebbels, and suppress the truth.
John_Watson
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2011
So Otto your solution is an abusive comment then? Mine is simple Set aside pubs for smokers with smoking staff! Then there would be real choice both for smokers and non smokers alike. Done, as the now famous Meerkats say Simples!

Why do you mention the camps Otto could it be because you would approve of their usage for smokers? The camps have no meaning relative to the smoing bans, no one has suggested that except you!
Unless your point is that the Nuremberg Decrees led to directly to the camps in which case thanks for making the point for me as I certainly had no intention of raising that issue, It would have been extremely derogatory to compare smoking with Gassing Jews or any one else for that matter, but I note that you have just done that.

The difference is I compared two laws you compared the pain and suffering of 6.000.000 people with a legal habit. Yes you win, the Nazi of the week award, congratulations!
John_Watson
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2011
Now with cars, Private car owners buy their cars, they pay tax and insurance, they ensure they are roadworthy to a legal specification, they are their cars!
Anyone who chooses to travel in them does so at their own risk, the risk of be hit by another car, the risk of the driver making an mistake and crashing the car. The roads are a dangerous place full of risks of which smoking is not one, drivers are in more danger using phones, arguing with the spouse or children, even watching the opposite sex instead of the road!

Despite those dangers cars are still permitted, despite the fact they also spew out thousands of times more pollutants and carcinagens than smokers ever will but they are still private property where the owners choice is king. Now the law says that you may not drive while incapacitated, drunk or on drugs, oddly enough driving while overtired or on medication is not yet illegal but is a source of death on our roads. Smoking is not in that category.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Jan 23, 2011
Despite those dangers cars are still permitted, despite the fact they also spew out thousands of times more pollutants and carcinagens than smokers ever will
I suppose, but smokers do the equivalent if wrapping their lips around a tailpipe and sucking willfully. Because they have no choice, because they're addicted.

Cars are necessary to many people. Tobacco is necessary only to addicts who are too weak to quit. You do make a living off the crap don't you? That would explain your tenacity.
Mine is simple Set aside pubs for smokers with smoking staf
They would just go out of business. Only 20% of potential clients smoke, and all the cool people would be over at the non-smoking places. Plus they would be crippled by lawsuits from clients and staff with cancer and emphysema due to smoke.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 23, 2011
And, critically, your smoker pubs could not afford insurance for patrons or employees. Sorry.

It would have been extremely derogatory to compare smoking with Gassing Jews or any one else for that matter
Most anybody reading my posts could see I was making fun of your idiot naatzi analogy. Anybody without a damaged smoker brain that is.
You deliberately commit scientific fraud
Immune deficiencies are caused by any number of things, including the ingestion and aspiration of toxins. No, otto is no scientist, he only believes the opinions of scientists when they tell him that breathing DIRT and POISON will make you SICK and DEAD. He also believes all the statistics on sick and dead people caused by smoking. 400k/yr... That's a lot, no?

This only makes sense doesn't it? Desperate addict- and pusher-types tend to scramble for science that tells them smoke is good for kids, nicotine is a vitamin, etc. I tend to believe more rational evidence.
John_Watson
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2011
Like heck they'd go out of business they'd make a real killing.

Thank you for clarifying the camps thing sadly your sense of fun about 6.000.000 dead human beings leaves a lot to be desired in fact it just is not funny! you mention law suits how about tpotential law suits under the Health and Safety Act when patrons are atacked outside pubs because the landlords thrown them after the first few councils will beg for a law change! They have a legal responsibility under that act to ensure the safety of people on the street do they not?

Wether or not a publican can or cannot afford insurance is a matter for that landlord not you! they have that insurance for years with far fewrer pubs closing than since the ban! 20% of the population may indeed smoke but that 20% made up 70% of the pubs patrons! wheres the economical sense there then?

Your addicts argument, is bust its all you have and its moot! no good to man nor beast.
CarolAST
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923 They would just go out of business. Only 20% of potential clients smoke, and all the cool people would be over at the non-smoking places. Plus they would be crippled by lawsuits from clients and staff with cancer and emphysema due to smoke.

You anti-smokers KNOW that those bars that allow smoking didn't go out of business, but your smoke-free ones DID! That's why you passed those bans! And, those bat and restaurant owners should have filed a lawsuit against you anti-smokers for conspiracy, fraud and racketeering (in the US, under the same RICO law the anti-smokers mis-used against the tobacco companies), for their scientific fraud.

smokershistory.com/definitn.htm
CarolAST
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923 - Cars are necessary to many people. Tobacco is necessary only to addicts who are too weak to quit. You do make a living off the crap don't you? That would explain your tenacity.

This garbage is sophistry. Nobody has any obligation to justify their choices by being "necessary." YOU are the ones who need to justify your arbitrary desire to deprive them of their liberty. And you don't have any legitimate justifications, so your charlatans deliberately committed scientific fraud to falsely pretend that secondhand smoke is dangerous, so that you could jam your smoking bans down the public's throat under the false pretext of "public health."
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 23, 2011
You anti-smokers KNOW that those bars that allow smoking didn't go out of business, but your smoke-free ones DID! That's why you passed those bans! And, those bat and restaurant owners should have filed a lawsuit against you anti-smokers for conspiracy, fraud and racketeering (in the US, under the same RICO law the anti-smokers mis-used against the tobacco companies), for their scientific fraud.

smokershistory.com/definitn.htm
Yappayappayappa. More desperate addict/pusher spin. Gangsters do sell drugs, but they are far less harmful than tobacco. 400k dead per year. Makes the mafia look like the Red Cross.
6.000.000 dead human beings
-Are you talking about the number of people smoking kills in 10 years? Natzees were only a little more efficient than tobacco peddlers, yes?
That's why you
Otto does nothing but applaud each victory. And point out the obvious nonsense in most everything you guys have to say. Not hard but fun. >wheeze
CarolAST
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923 - Immune deficiencies are caused by any number of things, including the ingestion and aspiration of toxins. No, otto is no scientist, he only believes the opinions of scientists when they tell him that breathing DIRT and POISON will make you SICK and DEAD. He also believes all the statistics on sick and dead people caused by smoking. 400k/yr... That's a lot, no?

No, that's a pile of lies spread by criminal charlatans funded by corrupt politicians. And, the immune deficiencies that they blame on smoking are actually caused by cytomegalovirus, and they are guilty of scientific fraud for concealing this fact. That's true that you're no scientist, and neither are the quacks that you believe in.
John_Watson
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2011
Ok Otto, defile 6.000.000 dead human beings murdered in the camps, the same camps you raised very early in the debate if you must, after all it fits nicely with your philosophy anti smokers like you and your mentors in a well known charity would not hesitate to repeat such an atrocity, perhaps then I am mistaken, It's not just the laws that are comparable but those who support those laws too. Lets face it anyone who jokes about the holocaust, who publically states SIDS parents murder their children has a lot in common with the Nazis. Your dream is dead Otto, the anti smokers dream is dying as more people take up smoking, as more people buy tobacco abroad or on the black. Less revenue is collected by the government, so taxation is raised for the non smokers as well.

Then theres the children thrown on the poverty line when the pub their struggling parent works at closes because you don't like smokers yet the anti smoking lobby claims its for the children! Hypocrasy of the worst kind
CarolAST
not rated yet Jan 23, 2011
[TheGhostofOtto1923 - Otto does nothing but applaud each victory. And point out the obvious nonsense in most everything you guys have to say. Not hard but fun. >wheeze

You haven't answered a single allegation yet. All you've done is attempt to evade them, appeal to the say-so of authority, and spew insults, smears and defamations. Furthermore, your charlatans have harmed the public's health by suppressing research on the role of infection, while wasting the public's resources on your charlatanism.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 23, 2011


And, the immune deficiencies that they blame on smoking are actually caused by cytomegalovirus
Huh. I spend 2 minutes on the internet and find references to many smoking-related immunodeficiency effects. For instance:
"There is a growing body of evidence
that smoking tobacco increases the risk and severity
of tuberculosis (TB) and bacterial pneumonia,
both of which are common human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV) related illnesses in Africa."
http
://www.brti.co.zw/Downloads/Human immunodeficieny virus.pdf

-Lets try again... ok heres 3 more:
vulvar lichen sclerosus
Bronchopneumonia
HUMORAL IMMUNE RESPONSE IN
INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETIC PREGNANCY

-8 minutes. You see, the introduction of dirt and poisons into the body can stress and damage all sorts of vital stuff. While the immune system is busy flushing all that crud, it cannot do its job of fighting normal infection effectively. A person with one disease will be more susceptible to others, wont they?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 23, 2011
Ok Otto, defile 6.000.000 dead human beings murdered in the camps, the same camps you raised very early in the debate if you must
No you guys 'defile' them by bringing nazis up in the first place, and comparing nazis to others who clearly do not deserve it. YOU defile the holocaust smoker.
Lets face it anyone who jokes about the holocaust, who publically states SIDS parents murder their children has a lot in common with the Nazis.
No, anyone who participates in a current holocaust of 400,000 dead smokers a year, or is implicit in the SIDS murder of children, have everything in common with nazis.
Then theres the children thrown on the poverty line when the pub their struggling parent works at closes because you don't like smokers
-Another nazi-type argument. 'We deserve to do what we do because our children will starve if we dont. We deserve Lebensraum.' Lots of people are out of work. Times change. Find yourselves jobs your kids can be proud of.
John_Watson
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2011
Absolute rubbish, Propaganda statements don't work especially when put out about countries where the who ban the means of controlling Malaria which is one of several lethal killers in Africa, Aids is definately not smoking related, it is the result of the Pappilus Virus, another lie, Neither is SIDS by definition is by cause unknown! once a cause is known by law it is no longer SIDS! Did you check what the Nuremberg Decrees state as law? of course you did and found that I am right it is comparable, it's why you cannot rebutt it!

One could conn the USS Nimitz through the holes in your argument and at approximately 1200 feet long and 350 wide that's some hole! No civil court in Europe has upheld a claim against second hand smoke either, the courts rejected your science, if they don't believe it why should anyone else?

CarolAST
3 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923
Huh. I spend 2 minutes on the internet and find references to many smoking-related immunodeficiency effects....
http
://www.brti.co.zw/Downloads/Human immunodeficieny virus.pdf
The reason you think you "find" so much supposed "evidence" is because you're so stupid you'll believe anything. Your first garbage is based on nothing but the assertion rhat "Smoking was significantly more common..." Under that moronic pretense of "reasoning," it's unnecessary to consider the elementary fact that smokers are more likely to have been EXPOSED to the pathogens in the first place.

In the other two, WHERE'S THE CYTOMEGALOVIRUS? They just ignore it. Smokers and passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to infections in the first place, for socioeconomic reasons. And you are again guilty of fraud.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 23, 2011
Aids is definately not smoking related
You didnt even read the quote right. Smoking exacerbates these diseases in AIDS patients by further compromising their ability to resist. Do you see just how willfully BLIND you are?
Neither is SIDS by definition is by cause unknown!
And you argue semantics. Many deaths formally in the SIDS category can now definitely be attributed to smoking. The woman who knows this and still smokes while pregnant is risking the life of her child. And some day this sort of reckless disregard for unborn children WILL be detectable, interruptable, and punished by law.

No one will need to suffer a lifetime of disability due to the thoughtless brutality of smoking, drinking, addicted mothers. No matter what people like you have to say.
CarolAST
3 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2011
[TheGhostofOtto1923Otto -

The bottom line is that your pseudo-science of lifestyle questionnaires that ignore the role of infection was invented in Nazi Germany. Those studies are inherently incapable of doing anything other than blaming peoples' lifestyles, not discovering the real cause of diseases. They're designed to cynically exploit the fact that the privileged class is less likely to have been exposed to the real causes of those diseases. The privileged classes adore that corrupt and dishonest trash because it supplies them with a pretext to engage in a war of cultural genocide against the less privileged. And this is exactly what your heros in the American Cancer Society et al, and their puppets in the National Cancer Institute et al, have used them for, for the last six decades.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 23, 2011
Perhaps we should look at what might normally cause immunodeficiency.

"Common causes for secondary immunodeficiency are malnutrition, aging and particular medications (e.g. chemotherapy, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, immunosuppressive drugs after organ transplants, glucocorticoids)." wiki

-All things which stress or damage the body in some way. They create a weakened, unhealthy state where the body is less capable of protecting itself. Like tobacco does.

"Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States. Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million have a serious illness caused by smoking" CDC

-Disease and disability are weakened states of various degrees, where the body is less able to protect itself. Because it is overburdened in trying to defeat the primary pollution of dirt and poison... or fighting seconday smoking diseases.
CarolAST
1 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923 - And you argue semantics. Many deaths formally in the SIDS category can now definitely be attributed to smoking. The woman who knows this and still smokes while pregnant is risking the life of her child. And some day this sort of reckless disregard for unborn children WILL be detectable, interruptable, and punished by law.

No one will need to suffer a lifetime of disability due to the thoughtless brutality of smoking, drinking, addicted mothers. No matter what people like you have to say.

And your quacks are guilty of scientific fraud for deliberately using studies that ignore the role of chorioamnionitis in order to falsely blame smoking. Studies that don't have placental pathological examinations miss 90% of cases. And smokers and passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to the pathogens for socioeconomic reasons, so your quack lifestylw questionnaire studies are DESIGNED to falsely blame smoking.

smokershistory.com/perimata.htm
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (43) Jan 23, 2011
pseudo-science of lifestyle questionnaires
Questionaires?
The privileged classes adore that corrupt and dishonest trash because it supplies them with a pretext to engage in a war of cultural genocide against the less privileged.
If anyone is engaging in 'genocide' against smokers it is the people who make and sell tobacco products to them, knowing full well that "Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of disease, disability, and death" most anywhere.

Tobacco pushers are exploiting addicts solely for monetary gain by selling them poison which they become hopelessly addicted to and cannot live without. They are destroyers of culture. They sicken and cripple people, destroy healthy recognition between mother and child by ruining the sense of smell. They steal money out of the pockets of families who can ill afford to spare it. They rob children of parents and grandparents before their time. They damage brains.

You all are culture destroyers- just like natzees.
CarolAST
3 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923 -
"Common causes for secondary immunodeficiency are malnutrition, aging and particular medications (e.g. chemotherapy, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, immunosuppressive drugs after organ transplants, glucocorticoids)." wiki


Your wiki article is pathetically incomplete. The only infection it specifically mentions is HIV. It ignores an infectious burden that affects a vastly larger proportion of the population.

"We further documented that total HCMV-specific T cell responses in seropositive subjects were enormous, comprising on average ∼10% of both the CD4+ and CD8+ memory compartments in blood, whereas cross-reactive recognition of HCMV proteins in seronegative individuals was limited to CD8+ T cells and was rare."

tinyurl.com/4ub43ee

It just goes to prove that the reason you think you have so much supposed "evidence" is because you're profoundly ignorant and credulous.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 23, 2011
And your quacks are guilty of scientific fraud for deliberately using studies that ignore the role of chorioamnionitis in order to falsely blame smoking. Studies that don't have placental pathological examinations
I'm just guessing but could this be because the connection with tobacco smoke, laced with toxins the effects of which they are very familiar with, was overwhelming and incontrovertable?

CRUD KILLS. Isnt that clear enough for you? Anyone who has had to live with (now horribly dead) hacking, coughing smokers who couldnt walk up a flight of stairs knows full well what makes them sick.

Inflammation is a major percursor of diseases like cancer. Tobacco smoke inflames everything because it is full of toxins and irritants.

Nicotine is a dandy pesticide because it is a POISON. Each year many children end up in hospitals from eating tobacco products. Smokers get there a little slower.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 23, 2011
Your wiki article is pathetically incomplete. The only infection it specifically mentions is HIV. It ignores an infectious burden that affects a vastly larger proportion of the population.
AGAIN you disregard the obvious. There are MANY things which compromise the immune system, mostly by damaging it. As the poisons in tobacco are known with a high degree of certainty to do. Which was my point.

And its not my article. Even you can add your pro-tobacco nonsense if you like. See how long it stays there. No- I wont take it down- wiki probably will though. Am I right? Tried that already eh?

Nicotine may even be killing off the bees:
http
://news.injuryboard.com/nicotine-based-pesticide-may-explain-bee-colony-collapse.aspx?googleid=249590

-Its may even be too dangerous to use in the environment.
CarolAST
3 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923 CRUD KILLS. Isnt that clear enough for you? Anyone who has had to live with (now horribly dead) hacking, coughing smokers who couldnt walk up a flight of stairs knows full well what makes them sick.

Inflammation is a major percursor of diseases like cancer. Tobacco smoke inflames everything because it is full of toxins and irritants.

Nicotine is a dandy pesticide because it is a POISON. Each year many children end up in hospitals from eating tobacco products. Smokers get there a little slower.


Your quacks are guilty of scientific fraud for using studies that ignore infection in order to falsely blame tobacco, and spewing mentally retarded garbage like that.
CarolAST
2 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923 Even you can add your pro-tobacco nonsense if you like. See how long it stays there. No- I wont take it down- wiki probably will though. Am I right? Tried that already eh?


WHO is ignoring the obvious? Seroprevalence of CMV is 40-100%, depending on region and socioeconomic status. Your lifestyle questionnaire studies are designed to blame completely irrelevant things, and you're so clueless you think they're real. And your inane "reasoning" is laughably circular. You claim that smoking damages the immune system by damaging the immune system, and pretend that this statement is scientific proof.

And you're so morally depraved you pretend that anti-smoker censorship is proof of scientific refutation! What about all those REAL scientific journals, which are far more reputable than Wikipedia, that publish the studies proving the role of infection in the diseases you blame on smoking?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 23, 2011
Seroprevalence of CMV is 40-100%, depending on region and socioeconomic status. Your lifestyle questionnaire studies
Ah, now I get it. You're a tobacco company researcher. Of course. And you talk about morally depraved. Antismokers want to save peoples lives while the people who pay you to say what you say want to save tobacco companies.
publish the studies
You mean the Journals that publish far more peer-reviewed studies which clearly implicate smoking in many fatal diseases and disabilities? Those journals? The ones which publish the conclusive studies which cause all the laws to be passed restricting tobacco use as well as insurance companies to price smoker policies through the roof?

Because insurance companies know that sick, dying smokers will be costing them far more in their later years than anyone else. Those studies are conclusive. Most people believe yours are tainted. One more way your companies drain the pockets of innocent people.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 23, 2011
You claim that smoking damages the immune system by damaging the immune system, and pretend that this statement is scientific proof.
Naw what I say is only opinion but I provided links to valid sources which state that smoking damages the immune system in many ways.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 23, 2011
This garbage is sophistry. Nobody has any obligation to justify their choices by being "necessary." YOU are the ones who need to justify your arbitrary desire to deprive them of their liberty. And you don't have any legitimate justifications
It sounds like youve been through all this before so you know what the obvious answers are. We nonsmokers desire to live in a world stink-free. We are tired of being oppressed by unthinking, uncaring smokers who still befoul the air and make us sick, both immediately and longterm.

We dont want to have to see your droppings lining the gutters, stuck to our soles, and littering the beaches. We are tired of losing friends and relatives to your disease and we don't want our kids to have to suffer similar loss.

These are all ample reasons to ban smoking from anywhere and everywhere nonsmokers may encounter it or it's residue. This includes CHILDREN.
John_Watson
1 / 5 (1) Jan 24, 2011
Awww the poor oppressed anti smokers! you want a stink free world ban Diesel, perfumes (which are a major cause of Astma)don't like the smell of bacon, or curry ban them then problem solved Otto!

I'm not fond of chewing gum dumped on pavements, half eaten kebabs, burgers, pizzas accompanied by piles of vomit littering our towns and cities! You clearly have no objections to these and rodent population that flock to clear up a handy food supply!

Since 75% of the population are non smokers and smokers tend to stay at home more have a guess at where the blame will fall, logic dictates then that the majority of rubbish on our streets is dropped by non smokers!

Now I dont don't say that it is definately the case but it would appear to be the case.

Banning something because you don't like it is a violation of civil liberties pure and simple and you have made it clear that it is your sole reason for the ban. As ASH admitted, its a con job!

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 24, 2011
Stink was only one reason. Disease and death were also listed. Laws are being Passed. Smokers will be legislated, taxed, and uninsured into oblivion. This despite the fact that you seem to think that you can offend people with aplomb and still retain sympathy. Whine all you want about civil liberty. Aw poor oppressed smokers, nobody likes you any more.

The only reason you don't think it stinks is because you're addicted to it. To others it's foul.

Smokers- either theyre too dense to realize they're annoying you, the know but they don't care, or they actually enjoy annoying you. Any way you look at it, they're assholes.
John_Watson
5 / 5 (1) Jan 24, 2011
a very childish reason Otto not for serious use in an adult debate, abuse will go along way to ensure the reasonable non smokers will tire of the anti smokers tirades will be ignored so calling smokers assholes really will drum up support from those with childlike mentalities but no one else as is already happening!

If your case is so weak that you have to resort to abuse and child like tantrums no one will take you seriously. you have not rebutted any comparisons btween current law and the Nuremberg decrees, to have accused caring parents of murder when their children died from natural causes, you present child like arguments in an adult debate, good god man do you really expect to be taken seriously? So it is with all who support this legislation some of whom are MPs which makes them clearly unfit for purpose! you do not rebutt the simplest fact that the majority of litter is not even the fault of smokers!
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 24, 2011
If your case is so weak that
-Smokers are constantly being driven out of businesses, public places, apartment bldgs... Not so weak.
you have to resort to abuse and child like tantrums
No tantrum sir- perhaps you're overly sensitive. Need a smoke perhaps.
no one will take you seriously.
-And yet diseased smokers continue to lose. MANY people take this very seriously indeed.
you have not rebutted
I've rebutted all your arguments in fact or in spirit.
any comparisons btween current law and the Nuremberg decrees,
Idiot smokers have to resort to comparing antismokers to naazzis even though anyone can see the comparison is ludicrous.
Cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 24, 2011
to have accused caring parents of murder when their children died from natural causes
Studies conlusively prove there is a causal link between smoking and miscarriage, stillbirth, SIDS, and cocaine-like neurological damage to children. Any woman who subjects born or unborn children to her disease is risking their lives. It is already illegal in britain for a pregnant woman to smoke, no?

Eventually all addiction-prone women will first have to prove they are clean before being allowed to conceive, and thereafter remotely monitored throughout the pregnancy. Any slip-up will mean immediate incarceration until the child is born.

Reducing prenatal neurological damage to children caused by tobacco and other poisons will drastically reduce the crime rate. People will be more sane, more productive, happier, and will lead much more rewarding lives without having to suffer the damage caused by their smoking mothers when they were young. All of society will benefit.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 24, 2011
you present child like arguments in an adult debate
-Which is obviously not true either.
you do not rebutt the simplest fact that the majority of litter is not even the fault of smokers!
SO WHAT? You think you're making a valid point with that?? 'Its ok for smokers to leave their droppings all over because people litter anyways.' -Is that actually the point you're trying to make, brain-dead smoker?

More fractured smoker-logic: 'Its ok for pregnant mothers to smoke because miscarriages, stillbirth, and SIDS may be caused by other things besides tobacco.' 'Its ok for people to smoke and get cancer or emphysema because these things might also be caused by something else.'

Well we know that tobacco does cause these things, and so it's continued use should be curtailed. Greatly. And punished by law when applicable.
John_Watson
1 / 5 (1) Jan 24, 2011
More abuse! You have really have lost the plot! which part of SIDS is diagnosed only where no cause of death can be established do you not understand?

which part of a comparison are you incapable of understanding?

which part of you stink is a childs argument do you not understand?

Which part of separate pubs for smokers and non smokers will benefit both communities do you not understand?

Do you even understand English?

More fractured smoker-logic: 'Its ok for pregnant mothers to smoke because miscarriages, stillbirth, and SIDS may be caused by other things besides tobacco.' 'Its ok for people to smoke and get cancer or emphysema because these things might also be caused by something else.'

these complaints are caused by other things beside smoking so why is it just smoking is targetted? the use of chemicals in cot matresses for example are not legislated, neither is their legal temperature for babies rooms, dust is not illegal either,
John_Watson
1 / 5 (1) Jan 24, 2011
That is it? Your idea of rebuttal? Abuse is not rebuttal it is abuse no more no less.

Abuse is all the anti smoking lobby are capable of, its why ASH will not debate with real people in pubs, it's why they rely on press releases and not debate. All you have presented is cold blooded accusations of murder, science that is just paid opinion for the anti smoking lobby, you cannot even dispute an comparison between two laws without debasing a miinority who were murdered in cold blood!

You present arguments that are better suited to an Infant school playground than an adult debate and when all of this fails you resort to name calling which is also prevailent in infant school playground arguments.

All you have suceeded in doing is strengthening the smokers case, it is all you are capable of, every word you write undermines your cause, every word speaks volumes about what kind of people anti smokers are and decent people will judge that for themselves.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 24, 2011
which part of SIDS is diagnosed only where no cause of death can be established do you not understand?
We can definitely attribute some SIDS deaths to smoking mothers. Therefore preventing them from smoking will save lives. You agree?
which part of you stink is a childs argument do you not understand?
Nonsmokers think smokers smell like dogshit. That is their opinion. You agree?
these complaints are caused by other things beside smoking so why is it just smoking is
These 'complaints' as you call them are people DYING. 400,000 per year. We KNOW that at least some of them are directly caused by smoking, and that will continue to be the case even if additional causes are eventually found. What- you want to wait to start saving lives until ALL causes are found? Is your addiction that important to you??

We can start saving lives NOW by restricting smoking. You agree?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 24, 2011
Jeez talk about a tantrum...
All you have suceeded in doing is strengthening the smokers case, it is all you are capable of, every word you write undermines your cause, every word speaks volumes about what kind of people anti smokers are and decent people will judge that for themselves.
-Maybe to another lonely, homebound smoker desperately seeking support. Thanks for the opportunity to make you and your buddies look like idiots. You may have just saved some lives despite your efforts to defend your disease.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 24, 2011
Which part of separate pubs for smokers and non smokers will benefit both communities do you not understand?
Like I said, they could never get insurance for workers or patrons because being there would still make them SICK, just as it does now. You agree?

Hey I had a constructive idea for ya. Why don't those tobacco scientists spend their time taking the stink out of tobacco? Then we could tolerate the few who are left. It would still kill you, and would still be banned though. Just a thought.
John_Watson
1 / 5 (1) Jan 24, 2011
No you cannot Otto the legal definition of SIDS prohibits that, the law says it cannot be done!

Pubs have carried such insurance for years your notion is moot. Its called National Insurance and everyone pays it. Since smoking is not a cause of death, see box 1 on the death certificate which is the lawful cause of death in fact the the only lawful causes of death are as follows, Murder by person or persons unknown, death by misadventure, suicide and natural causes anything else in box two is mere opinion and has no legal standing. therofore smoking is not a causation of death.

Funny that because a number of non smokers agree that your case is weak! perhaps they are secret smokers eh Otto?

what you mean like SIDS victims the ones that die of natural causes the one you maliciously claim as murdered, of course if you are so convinced you are duty bound to report such crime to the police, failure to do so is in itself an offense, its called perverting the course of justice!
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 24, 2011
Pubs have carried such insurance for years your notion is moot. Its called National Insurance and everyone pays it. Since smoking is not a cause of death
You should read real news more. People can and do sue businesses for illness caused by 2nd hand smoke. When people smoked in every pub, insurers had no choice but to insure. With your sick-only pubs, insurers now have a choice. Doctors do choose not to treat smokers with smoking-caused illness, if they refuse to quit. What do you think insurers would do?

Smoking IS a cause of many diseases which result in death. The CDC, Cancer Society, and many others say so. Insurance companies and doctors do not need a legal anything to deny coverage.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (43) Jan 24, 2011
what you mean like SIDS victims the ones that die of natural causes the one you maliciously claim as murdered, of course if you are so convinced you are duty bound to report such crime to the police, failure to do so is in itself an offense, its called perverting the course of justice!
I don't know if it could be considered murder. Manslaughter, depraved indifference, gross negligence, reckless endangerment resulting in injury or death, something to that effect. It will some day be a law. It will some day be enforceable. The people will some day DEMAND it, because, when something can finally be done about it, it will be proven beyond a shadow of doubt that tobacco use by adults damages their childs brains. For life.

The people, the insurance companies, and the govt will make it so. Who knows, we may even see a great reduction in the number of substance abusers like yourself. Less compulsion to self-medicate.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 24, 2011
Even before then, research is going to be able to determine the exact markers for neurological damage caused by smoking. You realize what that means? Brain scans will be able to determine complicity of smoking parents in their childs injury or death, much like the bruises or broken bones indicative of child abuse. It will be considered equivalent. Tests will become mandatory for both parent and child. Residual tobacco products in a parents system at certain levels will be evidence of guilt.

A childs brain will be considered just as valuable to them as any other part of their body, and thus we will have a mechanism to ascribe abuse and punitive action.

You think this is a GAME? You think that ruining peoples lives can be measured against the inconvenience of you giving up your addiction? Doesn't matter if you see it or not. This is the way it will be. Suffer now or suffer more later. You all quit eventually, one way or another.
John_Watson
not rated yet Jan 25, 2011
It was you who stated it was murder early on in the debate Otto are now saying you lied? manslaughter is still a criminal offense so why have you not reported that to the police as is your duty? As for reckless endangerment and depraved indifference you've been watching too much Law and Order!

So you lied about insurance as well Otto what other statement have you blatently lied about?

As for legal compensation won't happen, see Labbat v EU, where the courts decided that Second hand smoke was not worth paying compensation for!

Peoples lives Otto? My job used to involve taking peoples lives come back and talk to me about the sanctity of life when you decide who lives and who dies.

In life there are only two certainties, you are born and one day you will die you have no say in where or when and little say in how, Have you not realised that? As for quitting one day your body will quit, possibly before mine!
John_Watson
not rated yet Jan 25, 2011
As for your vision of the future I remind you that it was a similsr puritanical government that brought about a constitutional monarchy in the UK, After Cromwells death it was that or civil war for the second time in one century! Given that the civil war started partly because of excessive taxation and the arrogance of King Charles I it is possible that the arrogance of Parliament, the EU and the anti smoking lobby in presuming they can run everyones lives for them may yet start another.

Be afraid Otto be very afraid for it will be the likes of you that will be the cause.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (43) Jan 25, 2011
So you lied about insurance as well Otto what other statement have you blatently lied about?
How so, self-deceiving addict smoker?
where the courts decided that Second hand smoke was not worth paying compensation for!
They'll keep trying until they get it right. Will be much easier in your exclusive hack dens.
come back and talk to me about the sanctity of life when you decide who lives and who dies.
But tobacco companies don't care who dies- only who buys.
you have no say in where or when and little say in how
Sure you do. You can take care of yourself as a responsible adult or you can continue to trash yourself with the ruinous behavior you adopted as an adolescent. Time to grow up or bear the responsibility of an early and miserable and pointless death.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (41) Jan 25, 2011
arrogance of King Charles I it is possible that the arrogance of Parliament, the EU and the anti smoking lobby
blahblah. Revolutionaries fight for freedom. You guys fight to maintain your addictions. Addiction is the antithesis of freedom. It is slavery. Society has consistently improved the quality of life for it's members by outlawing and regulating damaging behaviors, as it does and will continue to do with tobacco.

Smoking degrades the quality of life for everybody. It improves nothing. It sickens and kills. It befouls the air and litters the streets. It makes the people weak, stupid, and poor. Everyone suffers. Need I continue?