Britain makes the old East Germany look like free state.

[Verum]

So if I meet a pretty black woman and say, "wow you are one beautiful nigger" i'll be ok then?........or not, because I'm white and not allowed to say that?

Depends if she can prove you intended it as a racial slur. Which in your case would be quite easy since why would you use a word so open to misinterpretation to a stranger?

[Cannydc]

It's only a guess on my part, but from previous conversations I would surmise that those who support far-right ideology want a version of 'freedom of speech' not to openly criticise policy of government etc, but instead to allow them to openly villify, insult, demean and bully any minority or individual that crosses them.

And at that point, calling a person 'Nigger' in the street would be the least of the black person's worries.

[Trapper John]

Here's another one for the 'More Laws the Merrier' Ali, the BMA are once again harrying the government to make it 'ILLEGAL' to smoke in your own car.

They are saying that smoking in a confined and enclosed space makes it 60% more likely to ingest deadly chemicals, children and old people are in particular danger from this.

So, lets look at this sensibly before we just accept another law that a small group of people want to force upon all of us.

Firstly, again I say that there is no 'proof' that secondary tobacco smoke causes any disease.

Secondly, who in their right mind smokes in a car with the windows wound up?........forget the health issue for a moment, it's just downright uncomfortable. I smoke in my car, but only when I'm on my own or with another smoker, it is something I have always done, long before the witch hunt against smokers. On short journeys, I wait until I arrive before lighting up.

I suggest that 99% of smokers, who drive, do as I do....don't smoke with children or non smokers in their cars, smoke with the window down - and if you care to notice, virtually all the smoke is sucked out almost immediately.

Of course, this thread is not just about smoking, but it is another example of how a small group of people want to force their wishes upon all of us and enshrine it in law to create yet another class of criminal.

It is about time these busybody, interfering meddlers found better things to do with their time, instead of looking for ways of criminalising the general public and leave the rest of us to decide what we do in our own property.

[Guest]

Here's another one for the 'More Laws the Merrier' Ali, the BMA are once again harrying the government to make it 'ILLEGAL' to smoke in your own car.

They are saying that smoking in a confined and enclosed space makes it 60% more likely to ingest deadly chemicals, children and old people are in particular danger from this.

So, lets look at this sensibly before we just accept another law that a small group of people want to force upon all of us.

Firstly, again I say that there is no 'proof' that secondary tobacco smoke causes any disease.

Secondly, who in their right mind smokes in a car with the windows wound up?........forget the health issue for a moment, it's just downright uncomfortable. I smoke in my car, but only when I'm on my own or with another smoker, it is something I have always done, long before the witch hunt against smokers. On short journeys, I wait until I arrive before lighting up.

I suggest that 99% of smokers, who drive, do as I do....don't smoke with children or non smokers in their cars, smoke with the window down - and if you care to notice, virtually all the smoke is sucked out almost immediately.

Of course, this thread is not just about smoking, but it is another example of how a small group of people want to force their wishes upon all of us and enshrine it in law to create yet another class of criminal.

It is about time these busybody, interfering meddlers found better things to do with their time, instead of looking for ways of criminalising the general public and leave the rest of us to decide what we do in our own property.

There is proof about SHS, various docs released on Tobacco Wiki from the tobacco companies accept this as true. Including the ones about changing the argument from health ' because we cannot win on that battleground' to civil liberties. I would suggest that 90% smoke with others or children and I did a straw test today and 18 out of 20 weren't smoking with someone else in the car/or window down. 2 smoked with window up and children in back seat, one with no seat belt on.

I think strong recommendations about NOT smoking with children in the car even with window open should be made very strongly but no law should be implemented and defo no law for single person smoking in car alone.

[Ali]

Here's another one for the 'More Laws the Merrier' Ali, the BMA are once again harrying the government to make it 'ILLEGAL' to smoke in your own car.

They are saying that smoking in a confined and enclosed space makes it 60% more likely to ingest deadly chemicals, children and old people are in particular danger from this.

So, lets look at this sensibly before we just accept another law that a small group of people want to force upon all of us.

Firstly, again I say that there is no 'proof' that secondary tobacco smoke causes any disease.

Secondly, who in their right mind smokes in a car with the windows wound up?........forget the health issue for a moment, it's just downright uncomfortable. I smoke in my car, but only when I'm on my own or with another smoker, it is something I have always done, long before the witch hunt against smokers. On short journeys, I wait until I arrive before lighting up.

I suggest that 99% of smokers, who drive, do as I do....don't smoke with children or non smokers in their cars, smoke with the window down - and if you care to notice, virtually all the smoke is sucked out almost immediately.

Of course, this thread is not just about smoking, but it is another example of how a small group of people want to force their wishes upon all of us and enshrine it in law to create yet another class of criminal.

It is about time these busybody, interfering meddlers found better things to do with their time, instead of looking for ways of criminalising the general public and leave the rest of us to decide what we do in our own property.

Yes I saw it, and?

With all the best will in the world TJ this is meant to be a protective law if it ever gets to that.

Whatever you say and whether there are toxins in second hand smoke or not it does get into the lungs of other people and that alone is enough to trigger chest complaints. People with asthma for example frequently get wheezy when in a room where people have been smoking so the smoke must be irritating to them if nothing else.

Oh and by the way, I am a smoker too.

[Trapper John]

Ok then Ali, lets ban all motor vehicles or people walking in streets where there is traffic?........that is exactly why they cannot prove second hand smoking causes illness, you'd need subjects kept in an haematically sealed room, away from all other toxins and gasses which are far more readily available in the air we breathe every day, subject only to tobacco smoke. See how many of them suffer illnesses.

The poisons are in the air we breathe every minute of the day. I know, lets have a law against breathing without a gas mask on, that would cure everyone wouldn't it?

[Guest]

Ok then Ali, lets ban all motor vehicles or people walking in streets where there is traffic?........that is exactly why they cannot prove second hand smoking causes illness, you'd need subjects kept in an haematically sealed room, away from all other toxins and gasses which are far more readily available in the air we breathe every day, subject only to tobacco smoke. See how many of them suffer illnesses.

The poisons are in the air we breathe every minute of the day. I know, lets have a law against breathing without a gas mask on, that would cure everyone wouldn't it?

Yes they did this in the USA and suppressed the 'disastrous' results. Now why on earth would a tobacco company do that?

[Guest]

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/566504

November 27, 2007 (Chicago) — Although it has been speculated about for years, investigators have now revealed the first real, hard evidence that secondhand smoke does, in fact, damage the lungs.

The findings of a study using long-time-scale, global, helium-3 diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of nonsmokers with high and low secondhand-smoke exposure and of smokers were announced here yesterday during the Radiological Society of North America 93rd Annual Scientific Assembly.

The study involved 60 volunteers, all with normal spirometry measures, with forced expiratory volumes in 1 second ranging between 58% and 92%, and all without other symptoms of lung disease.

Of these, 23 participants were nonsmokers with low levels of secondhand-smoke exposure, defined as no family members who smoked and no exposure to smoke in the workplace; 22 were nonsmokers with high secondhand-smoke exposure; and 15 were past or current smokers. All had at least 10 years of exposure in their respective categories.

Lung structure was assessed using helium-3 diffusion MRI, with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values calculated for each participant. The lower the ADC value, the better the lung function. Higher ADC values reflect enlargement of the alveoli.

Only 4% of those with low secondhand-smoke exposure had elevated ADC values, reported principal investigator Chengbo Wang, PhD, a magnetic resonance physicist in the Department of Radiology at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Of those with high levels of secondhand-smoke exposure, 27% had elevated ADC values, whereas 67% of past and current smokers had high ADC values.

"Nonsmokers with high secondhand-smoke exposure were not as bad as the smokers but were much worse than those with low exposure," Dr. Wang pointed out.

"Helium-3 diffusion MRI detects changes [in lung structure] before symptoms are evident," he told Medscape Radiology. "These were all basically healthy people with normal lung function tests.

"We know that about half of smokers have normal lung function. They just don't seem to be sensitive to smoke," Dr. Wang noted.

"If we want to find proof [of secondhand smoke damage to the lung], we can see it now. This is a very solid finding," Dr. Wang said. "This is very exciting that we can see this difference."

The findings have important public health implications, he added. "We really need to prohibit smoking in public places."

The Philadelphia investigator said that helium-3 diffusion MRI could also be useful in evaluating the efficacy of inhalation therapy such as albuterol on the lung. "Before, we had to guess."

[Norma Broin]

If there is no ETS why did the cigarette companies payout $359 million in a civil claim against ETS caused by cigarettes when a stewardess worked in a smoke filled aeroplane?

Why didn't they say prove it?

Did they settle when the claimant's lawyers received company info about the real dangers of ETS and how many it would kill in that year in the Us alone?



Philip Morris's strategy is laid out in the document: not to fight the ETS issue on its merits, but instead to destroy the credibility of the government agency that declared it dangerous:
"The credibility of the EPA is defeatable, but not on the basis of ETS alone. It must be part of a larger mosaic that concentrates all of the EPA's enemies against it at one time."
The paper describes how the media's focus would be taken off of ETS by the generation of non-ETS stories, stories that focus on "general EPA bashing by credible, authoritative sources." and "EPA ineptitude and, when possible, corruption.

It is interesting that people who are against corporations believe the BS their lobbyists churn out