> BRG wrote:
>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> In article
,
>>> dennis@home killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:>>>>>> You are a typical addict.. any evidence that goes against your
>>>>>> drug is wrong. There is loads of evidence that smoking is harmful
>>>>>> you just choose to ignore it.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's also loads of evidence that alcohol harms many many people
>>>>> - more die from its effects each month than die in a year from
>>>>> heroin. Nor can you say it only effects the users - many city
>>>>> centres are near no go areas due to its abuse.
>>>
>>>> Irrelevant and typical of the junk smokers bring up to justify their
>>>> addiction.
>>>
>>> Really? It's perfectly relevant since *you* brought up drugs and
>>> addiction.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So I just hope as a likely boozer you'll be just as in favour of a
>>>>> similar restriction on that when it comes - as it will, given all
>>>>> government's love of control.
>>>
>>>> There are already laws to control drunkenness and they have been
>>>> there far longer than antismoking laws.
>>>
>>> And are ignored or not enforced.
>>>
>>>> And I know of nobody that has suffered from secondary drinking in a
>>>> pub/restaurant or cinema.
>>>
>>> I'm willing to bet far more have been killed by others under the
>>> influence of alcohol than have ever been harmed by passive smoking.
>>
>> Dave,
>>
>> My last words on this subject.
>
> Probably because you have realised your argument is completely flawed.
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge, no long term studies have ever been
>> carried out on the effects of passive smoking - but it is obvious
>> that if non-smokers live or work for a long period of time in the
>> company of smokers, then this *has* to have an effect on them simply
>> because of the amount of noxious chemicals that are produced from the
>> tobacco and the residues exhaled by the smoker.
>
> Many studies have been carried out on the effects of passive smoking and
> non have reached the conclusion that it is a health risk. You are
> clutching at straws in order to support your argument.
I will make it quite clear here.. secondary smoking is a health risk without
a doubt.. I suffer allergic reactions from it so it is proven without a
doubt. There are probably many others too. Now will you please stop using
lies to support your cause?
