Wales stubs out smoking in public places

[bigboab]

You missed out the number of people killed in house fires by people trying to smoke or falling asleep while smoking.

You are excused.

[JPaul]

Imagine how long that took me to type as it is. I had to just do the most important bits.

[lynx]

As always the point is being missed. Smoking isn't a right, so why should any compromise be needed.
I didn't miss it, smoking is a legal activity, there are rights regarding the ability to perform legal acts. Once again you are ignoring what I said, and at the same time trying to twist the truth on other people's rights.

We don't want hundreds of poisons in enclosed public places. So ban it, sorted. Nothing complicated there, simple 100% effective solution.
I can think of lots of things that I don't like to experience in public places, I'm sure you can too. Banning everything that someone does not like is not the solution if there is no harm to those not involved in the activity.

A VAT inspector is entitled to inspect all of a set of premises at any reasonable time. "People smoke there" is not an aceeptable reason to prevent that.
A VAT inspector is also entitled to inspect a private dwelling, and does NOT have the right to ask the occupants to stop smoking. It could easily be made one of the conditions that in the case of a lawful inspection that smoking would have to cease. Remember that the air cleaners are very effective. In any case, what are the chances of that happening while the place is open to the public? When was the last time YOU saw a VAT inspection where they wanted to see the whole of the premises?

Why should firemen have to inhale other people's poisons. Yes if there's a reason they have to go into dangerous areas they do it, after balancing the risks, that's a given. However why should they have to do it because other people chose to inhale noxious fumes.
Jeez, you are clutching at straws now. For a start firemen often wear breathing apparatus, and in any case the smoke from a fire is thousands of times more toxic than tobacco smoke, get a sense of proportion.

Policemen, see above. The fact that people have a dangerous job already does not make them fair game for the self imposed lunacy of others.
See the part above about VAT inspectors.

The emergency services have to deal with all sorts of situations which they may find unpleasant and even life threatening. It is part of life, we have to get on with it. Many of these relate to motor vehicles, I haven't heard you calling for cars to be banned. Next week perhaps.

As previously discussed cars have a reason. However there are risks so we compromise. Remember, that was the analogy you didn't understand.
If you remember, it was about speed, and as I recall it was you who tried to twist the analogy because it hurt your argument. Nice try, but no cigar.

Whoopee, you spotted a typo. Is that the line you propose to pursue next?

It wasn't the typo, it was the fact that you posted "Where possible I expose there mendacity ...". Who the fuck do you think you are.

I think I'm someone who points out when people are lying bastards. Not necessarily in a big way, but I often make a comment about it somewhere. Why do you ask? I didn't have you down as one of those people who are willing to let them get away with spouting nonsense. Maybe I got that wrong.

[lynx]

Careful with all those references JP, they might just be lying to you.

For instance, smoking does NOT cause

Influenza (twice) - caused by a virus
Tuberculosis (twice) - caused by a mucobacterium
Ocular Histoplasmosis (fungal eye infection) - caused by a fungus (there's a surprise)


I can't be bothered to check any more. Was it the same for you when you did your C&P, or did you just not understand it?

[JPaul]

"Where possible I expose there mendacity ..."

Oh come on, that just sounds so far up your own arse it's unbelievable. You must see that.

"I can think of lots of things that I don't like to experience in public places, I'm sure you can too. Banning everything that someone does not like is not the solution if there is no harm to those not involved in the activity."

How many of them have such a detrimental effect on people's health though. Don't tell me we can have smoking rooms. Why should we, it's just a bad thing, why should we make allowances for it.

I'm not dealing with the rest, because I really can't be bothered. Other than to ask when VAT inspectors were given the power to inspect private dwellings. Where did you get that from. It's not something I know about, however it seems unlikely to me.

[vidcc]

Careful with all those references JP, they might just be lying to you.

For instance, smoking does NOT cause

Influenza (twice) - caused by a virus
Tuberculosis (twice) - caused by a mucobacterium
Ocular Histoplasmosis (fungal eye infection) - caused by a fungus (there's a surprise)


I can't be bothered to check any more. Was it the same for you when you did your C&P, or did you just not understand it?

I can't be bothered reading the whole thing but does it actually say smoking is the cause

Increased risk for smokers

To me this says that a smoker is more susceptible because of the habit, not that the habit will cause it. In short smoking lowers efficiency of the bodies defense systems

[JPaul]

Careful with all those references JP, they might just be lying to you.

For instance, smoking does NOT cause

Influenza (twice) - caused by a virus
Tuberculosis (twice) - caused by a mucobacterium
Ocular Histoplasmosis (fungal eye infection) - caused by a fungus (there's a surprise)


I can't be bothered to check any more. Was it the same for you when you did your C&P, or did you just not understand it?

Did someone say smoking caused these things. I thought they said that smoking increased their likelihood.

Perhaps you should expose their mendacity.

[lynx]

"Where possible I expose there mendacity ..."

Oh come on, that just sounds so far up your own arse it's unbelievable. You must see that.

"I can think of lots of things that I don't like to experience in public places, I'm sure you can too. Banning everything that someone does not like is not the solution if there is no harm to those not involved in the activity."

How many of them have such a detrimental effect on people's health though. Don't tell me we can have smoking rooms. Why should we, it's just a bad thing, why should we make allowances for it.

I'm not dealing with the rest, because I really can't be bothered. Other than to ask when VAT inspectors were given the power to inspect private dwellings. Where did you get that from. It's not something I know about, however it seems unlikely to me.

So you don't think liars should be exposed? That explains a lot.

You really haven't got a proper handle on this rights thing have you. It isn't about taking things away because you don't like them, or even because there is a potential for doing someone else harm, whether you see any purpose or not. The whole point about protecting people's rights is to see if there is a way that they can be accommodated. The use of mob mentality to alienate sections of society is a common trick of fascism, but communism has often employed the same tactics.

As to whether VAT inspectors can inspect private dwellings, they were initially part of the Customs service, and as such have the power to enter any premises without warrant. Now that the Customs service is merged with the Inland Revenue, I wonder if that same power now applies to tax inspectors.

Edit: The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. ASH provides none. What a shame you don't require the same standards from them as you seem to do from everyone else.

[Chip Monk]

So you don't think liars should be exposed? That explains a lot.

Not even sure what you mean by that, unless it's intended as some form of personal insult.

You really haven't got a proper handle on this rights thing have you. It isn't about taking things away because you don't like them, or even because there is a potential for doing someone else harm, whether you see any purpose or not. The whole point about protecting people's rights is to see if there is a way that they can be accommodated. The use of mob mentality to alienate sections of society is a common trick of fascism, but communism has often employed the same tactics.

My handle on rights is just fine. It's just that you seem to think that because something is legal it is a right. Life is a right, freedom from torture is a right, privacy of home and family life is a right. There are others, inhaling a cocktail of noxious fumes isn't one of them.

As to whether VAT inspectors can inspect private dwellings, they were initially part of the Customs service, and as such have the power to enter any premises without warrant. Now that the Customs service is merged with the Inland Revenue, I wonder if that same power now applies to tax inspectors.

That's simply not true. HMCE had a thing called a "Writ of Assistance" which they could execute when they had reasonable grounds to suspect that there were goods liable to forfeiture on a set of premises. In practice they only used this if it was impractical to get a Warrant. For example if the goods were likely to be moved in the near future. They couldn't use it for the collection of tax and certainly not to gain access to private dwelling places.

Edit: The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. ASH provides none. What a shame you don't require the same standards from them as you seem to do from everyone else.

You would have thought they would list their references at the end of the article, or something like that.

Are you suggesting that it hasn't been proven just how detrimental to health smoking is, to both smokers and non-smokers. Exposing the mendacity of the entire medical profession are you.

[lynx]

So you don't think liars should be exposed? That explains a lot.

Not even sure what you mean by that, unless it's intended as some form of personal insult.
You comment was that exposing menacity "sounds so far up your own arse it's unbelievable". The logical conclusion of your own statement is that you don't agree with making such exposures.

You really haven't got a proper handle on this rights thing have you. It isn't about taking things away because you don't like them, or even because there is a potential for doing someone else harm, whether you see any purpose or not. The whole point about protecting people's rights is to see if there is a way that they can be accommodated. The use of mob mentality to alienate sections of society is a common trick of fascism, but communism has often employed the same tactics.

My handle on rights is just fine. It's just that you seem to think that because something is legal it is a right. Life is a right, freedom from torture is a right, privacy of home and family life is a right. There are others, inhaling a cocktail of noxious fumes isn't one of them.
Ah, the narrow definition that people resort to when they want to deny rights, exactly the opposite of the definition the same people use when they want to claim rights. But you are quite right, inhaling a cocktail of noxious fumes isn't a right, the freedom to do so is though.

As to whether VAT inspectors can inspect private dwellings, they were initially part of the Customs service, and as such have the power to enter any premises without warrant. Now that the Customs service is merged with the Inland Revenue, I wonder if that same power now applies to tax inspectors.

That's simply not true. HMCE had a thing called a "Writ of Assistance" which they could execute when they had reasonable grounds to suspect that there were goods liable to forfeiture on a set of premises. In practice they only used this if it was impractical to get a Warrant. For example if the goods were likely to be moved in the near future. They couldn't use it for the collection of tax and certainly not to gain access to private dwelling places.
It is a shame you haven't watched the recent factual series on the actions of HMCE - Undercover Customs. They entered premises, including private dwellings, on several occasions without a warrant. I only mention it because you were the one who said that they have the right to inspect all premises.

Edit: The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. ASH provides none. What a shame you don't require the same standards from them as you seem to do from everyone else.

You would have thought they would list their references at the end of the article, or something like that.

Are you suggesting that it hasn't been proven just how detrimental to health smoking is, to both smokers and non-smokers. Exposing the mendacity of the entire medical profession are you.

Please indicate where I have claimed that smoking is not detrimental to health.

The point is that some people try to attribute all manner of conditions to smoking, when all they have is hearsay, anecdote and assumption. But there is absolutely no way that smoking is a contributive cause of diseases like influenza, tuberculosis.

Imagine putting you hand in a meat grinder. You'll probably lose a few fingers. If it is the hand you write with there's quite a good chance your handwriting will suffer. Using the same standards used by ASH the equivalent statement might be to say that a meat grinder contributes to poor handwriting.

Putting your hand in a meat grinder is bad for your health.
Smoking is bad for your health.
In neither case can the conclusions drawn be justified.

Ask yourself why they thought to put many of the diseases down twice. It is simply because they wanted to pad out the list, on the assumption that many people will look at the quantity not the quality of the article. Hence padding it out with bits that simply aren't true.

It is sloppy, untruthful use of science.