Smoking on QM2 after UK ban

[DON M.]

Hamburg, that article will be taken by non-smoking zealots as LIES, written by a person hired by the tobacco industry.

[DON M.]

Don,

I do not have cancer. However, I am sure that many folks who have been around a while can tell you the tale of how I took my first cruise after recovering from a COMPLETE RESPIRATORY FAILURE. READ: Almost died, Came as close as I have ever been to finding out if there really IS a God!

 

Unless you have lain helpless, a respirator doing your breathing for you, and it going into hissy fits if you try to move, bells clanging and loud whooshing noises at your least twitch, If you have gasped for breath trying not to panic, but feeling the most horrible compression on your chest, feeling as though your are drowning and suffocating at once, then I suppose I might find your opinions on second hand smoke to be as valid from experience as my own. and I might add Marc's point of view, if you have sat sobbing next to your most precious loved one as an anesthesiologist forces a tube down your nose and throat, absolutely certain that they are going to die before the night is out- And before that, as he rushed to meet the ambulance at the hospital along with my pulmonologist who was a already there, on call, but the ambulance never showed up.l They turned and went to a different hospital, knowing I would never make it to the one I was headed for. I would die before I got there. I certainly feel that I have a valid objection to second hand smoke. I try to be considerate of my smoking friends. And I certainly have a vested interest. How difficult would it be for you, who has nothing to lose but a bit might have to suffer a bit of temporary inconvenience, to be equally considerate of those of us who have no choices, but the ones that life has thrust upon them. I can go on about the ravages to my body, and what the drugs they had to use, repeatedly, to keep me alive have done to me, I now take over 18 different drugs a day, Many of them counteracting the side effects of the other ones, and I now live with TWO chronic illnesses from the damage the life-saving drugs did.

 

So you honestly think your need for unfettered access to unlimited and instantaneous satisfaction of a cigarette trumps my selfish desire to breathe?

 

Think now. Make sure you pick the right answer.

 

P.S. Marc's mother died of lung cancer not too long ago.

 

Iam sorry about your illness, but to blame my second-hand smoke is just not fair. You might of gotten the same illness if you never left your home for 40 years. And, to answer your question, until I quit or die or until it is illegal outside of the home, I will continue to have the satisfaction of smoking.

[guernseyguy]

Gio Batta Gori

Gio Batta Gori, an epidemiologist and toxicologist, is a fellow of the Health Policy Center in Bethesda. He is a former deputy director of the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention, and he received the U.S. Public Health Service Superior Service Award in 1976 for his efforts to define less hazardous cigarettes.

 

What they left out about Gio Batta Gori:

 

Dr. Gio Batta Gori has a doctorate in biological sciences and a masters degree in public health. He was a former scientist and top official at the National Cancer Institute (NCI), where he specialized in toxicology, epidemiology and nutrition.

He held several positions at NCI between 1968 and 1980 including Deputy Director, Division of Cancer Causes and Prevention, Acting Associate Director, Carcinogenesis Program, Director of the Diet, Nutrition and Cancer Program, and Director of the Smoking and Health Program. [1] After Gori left the NCI in 1980 he traded on the professional credibility he had accumulated, aligned himself with tobacco industry interests and reaped significant financial rewards in the coming years.

In 1980 Gori became Vice President of the Franklin Institute Policy Analysis Center (FIPAC), a consulting firm funded initially by a $400,000 grant from the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation (B&W). [2] Following its initial formation, FIPAC continued to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding annually from B&W. [3][4]. [5] Gori worked on R&D projects for B&W, such as analysis of the sensory perception of smoke and how to reduce the amount of tobacco in cigarettes. By 1989, Gori was a full time consultant on environmental tobacco smoke issue for the Tobacco Institute in the Institute's ETS/IAQ (Indoor Air Quality) Consultants Project. [6] In May 1993, Gori entered an exclusive consulting arrangement with B&W, reaping pay at the rate of $200/hour an day to $1,000/day for attending conferences. [7]

Activities in which Gori engaged on behalf of the tobacco industry included attending conferences, writing and publishing books and papers, and lobbying.

 

 

 

Surprise, Surprise!

 

 

 

Peer reviewed Science folks, not Tobacco paid for!

[SamanthasDad]

Iam sorry about your illness, but to blame my second-hand smoke is just not fair. You might of gotten the same illness if you never left your home for 40 years. And, to answer your question, until I quit or die or until it is illegal outside of the home, I will continue to have the satisfaction of smoking.

Once again the smokers are not understanding the problem!

 

Karie has been saying that secondhand smoke makes her current condition worse and could be life threatening. I don't remember her saying that the one and only cause of her condition was secondhand smoke.

 

I have said that smoke makes my asthma worse, at no stage have I said what caused it.

 

This is like arguing with a brick wall!! There maybe 300 posts, but take some time and actually read what the non-smokers are trying to say.

 

I understand that smokers have rights, I would just like them to be more considerate. But this is never going to happen so legislation is the only way forward.

[guernseyguy]

I agree, smoke COULD be harmful. In 1998, a North Carolina federal judge ruled that the EPA had made serious procedural errors and worse had "cherry-picked" its data to reach a preordained conclusion. But like most zealot non-smokers you will only search out the articles and studies that support your position and if they dont, they must be puppets of the tobacco industry.

 

Don,

 

First, thank you for agreeing that smoke could be harmful - some of your fellow smokers deny even this. Second, on the North Carolina Judge Osteen's finding, you omit to mention that:

1. Osteen had been a paid lobbyist for Tobacco before becoming a judge, and,
   
2. Osteen's judgement was overturned by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal in 2002.

Not being a 'pro-smoking zealot' in selective presentation of data are we?

 

Peter

[guernseyguy]

I understand that smokers have rights,

 

And they also have RESPONSIBILITIES - at least to others, but as you say, (some of their) unwillingness to accept them, means that legislation is the only way forward. On the bright side, some do recognise how to cope with smoking bans:

 

Most smokers have adjusted to the inconveniences, if I can go 2 hours at a rest or 12 hours on a flight without smoking, I can play blackjack for 1 hour without smoking and then go outside if need be.

 

Peter

[guernseyguy]

Hamburg, that article will be taken by non-smoking zealots as LIES, written by a person hired by the tobacco industry.

 

Well, we've demonstrated that it WAS written by someone in the pay of Tobacco - does that make it more, or less, believable, in your view? And who's the zealot?

[Kindlychap]

I'm one of those who stood up, at first, for the right to smoke. I do so, in part, on behalf of my late father (ante).

 

I spent some time last night having drinks with some friends from work. One of whom (at least) was smoking. I can't say it made too much difference to me. I'm an easy going chap though.

 

As someone in the middle ground, I am annoyed as much by the rabid "I'll smoke where I like, when I like and the rest of you can just lump it" group as much as the "I refuse to be in 300 metres of a smoker without making loud remarks about how people shouldn't be smoking in a smoking area because it escapes" group.

 

Few people would deny that the world would be a better place without smoking. Certainly my father wouldnt' have argued with that concept.

 

But we can't put the clock back, and there are more important things to worry about.

 

Sometimes, of course, you'll find someone like Karie around. Is anyone here going to claim that they would smoke in her presence if she was having a bad day? - because if you are then shame on you.

 

Perhaps this thread has run long enough. We are going round in circles.

 

Matthew

[SamanthasDad]

On the bright side, some do recognise how to cope with smoking bans:

I do agree that there are considerate smokers out there. I have friends who don't smoke in their own houses when we visit. I never asked them not to.

[guernseyguy]

A great movie about a Tobacco Lobbyist.

 

The art of arguing according to Nick Naylor (the Lobbyist) with his son, Joey...

 

Joey: So, what happens when you're wrong?

Nick: Well, Joey, I'm never wrong.

Joey: But you can't always be right.

Nick: Well, if it's your job to be right, then you're never wrong.

Joey: But what if you are wrong?.

Nick: Okay, let's say that you're defending chocolate and I'm defending vanilla. Now, if I were to say to you "Vanilla's the best flavor ice cream," you'd say ... ?

Joey: "No, chocolate is."

Nick: Exactly. But you can't win that argument. So, I'll ask you ... so you think chocolate is the end-all and be-all of ice cream, do you?

Joey: It's the best ice cream; I wouldn't order any other.

Nick: Oh. So it's all chocolate for you, is it?

Joey: Yes, chocolate is all I need.

Nick: Well, I need more than chocolate. And for that matter, I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom and choice when it comes to our ice cream, and that, Joey Naylor, that is the definition of liberty.

Joey: But that's not what we're talking about.

Nick: Ah, but that's what I'm talking about.

Joey: But ... you didn't prove that vanilla's the best.

Nick: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong and if you're wrong, I'm right.

Joey: But you still didn't convince me.

Nick: Because I'm not after you. I'm after them.:rolleyes:

 

On a serious note - this actually is how Tobacco pursues those who oppose it - demand more science - claim its not exact - shift the goal posts. I do feel (some) sympathy for people with Nicotine addiction - but their freedom to swing their arms ends at the tip of my nose.

 

Peter

[pnhmrk]

So you honestly think your need for unfettered access to unlimited and instantaneous satisfaction of a cigarette trumps my selfish desire to breathe?

 

Karie - I don't think that anyone's saying that they will insist upon smoking to the detriment of somebody else's health. The big debate is between those people who are willing to allow the freedom to choose between smoking and non smoking venues to be made by the establishment itself and you cannot smoke. There must be a middle ground between not smoking anywhere and smoking everywhere!

[pnhmrk]

Moderate drinking actually has the opposite effect.

 

Moderate drinking is about 2/3 units per week. Anything over that could be detrimental to health.

[pnhmrk]

Hamburg, that article will be taken by non-smoking zealots as LIES, written by a person hired by the tobacco industry.

 

Activities in which Gori engaged on behalf of the tobacco industry included attending conferences, writing and publishing books and papers, and lobbying.

 

Surprise, Surprise!

 

Yes Peter - Surprise, Surprise:)

[pnhmrk]

I understand that smokers have rights

 

I don't believe you do.

 

I would just like them to be more considerate

 

In what way? By not smoking at all? What about you being slightly more tolerant of the views of others - possibly the majority if you go by the numbers posting on this thread.

 

But this is never going to happen so legislation is the only way forward.

 

You are quite right - the only way for a total ban is to outlaw tobacco however I cannot see any government turning down the revenue. Unless you outlaw tobacco you cannot have your smoke free state.

[guernseyguy]

Yes Peter - Surprise, Surprise:)

 

And no surprise that you cannot - or will not - post peer reviewed science that supports your case, other than tobacco funded 'research'. The ball is in your court, methinks.;)

 

Peter

[guernseyguy]

You are quite right - the only way for a total ban is to outlaw tobacco

 

I'm not aware of anyone (other than pro-smokers seeking to muddy the water, or Gavin in one of his more excitable posts) suggesting outlawing tobacco. All the so called 'anti-smoking zealots' unquote suggest is that smokers do not share their smoke with anyone else. That is what the UK legislation, the topic of this post - is designed to do. Pity it won't extend to the QM2/QE2 outside territorial waters - although I wonder, for example, if the QE2's 40th Anniversary cruise will leave territorial waters or not and possibly be completely smoke free?

 

Peter

[mufi]

I understand that smokers have rights, I would just like them to be more considerate. QUOTE]

 

Problem is of course that many smokers are not considerate. And not many of us need the agro of confrontation, so we just move away if we can.

 

I have never sat with a smoker in a pub and been asked if I minded if he/she smoked, smokers just don't think that way. And you have to be a non smoker to know how unpleasant secondary smoke can be.

 

And we know who is most upset by tobacco smoke. Ex smokers of course.

 

David.

[GAV BOY]

I don't believe you do.

 

 

 

In what way? By not smoking at all? What about you being slightly more tolerant of the views of others - possibly the majority if you go by the numbers posting on this thread.

 

 

 

You are quite right - the only way for a total ban is to outlaw tobacco however I cannot see any government turning down the revenue. Unless you outlaw tobacco you cannot have your smoke free state.

 

I keep telling you Malcolm, you may (just ) be in the Majority on this board, but in this country and the World overall you are in the Minority ! :D

[pnhmrk]

I'm not aware of anyone (other than pro-smokers seeking to muddy the water ..... suggesting outlawing tobacco

 

I think (but I'm not checking back through 16 pages and over 300 posts to see) that I'm the only person who's suggested that tobacco should be made illegal. The intention is certainly not to "muddy the water" but simply to give the only fair solution to all (smokers and non smokers) if the use of tobacco is to be heavily restricted.

 

All the so called 'anti-smoking zealots' unquote suggest is that smokers do not share their smoke with anyone else. That is what the UK legislation, the topic of this post - is designed to do.

 

The legislation is a very heavy handed method of preventing the spread so smoke. In fact I don't see much difference between that and a total ban! I think that the argument is about the right of a government to outlaw a perfectly legal activity in vast areas of the country

 

I wonder if the QE2's 40th Anniversary cruise will leave territorial waters or not and possibly be completely smoke free?

 

I wonder if Cunard have thought about it? Or if they're hoping that the legislation pertaining to cruise ships will have calmed down by then.

[pnhmrk]

In this country and the World overall you are in the Minority ! :D

 

I am in the minority because I believe that businesses should have freedom to choose if a legal activity can take place on their premises or not?:eek:

[guernseyguy]

In fact I don't see much difference between that and a total ban!

 

Malcolm,

 

Sex in public is illegal. Has that been banned? But according to your logic, it should be?

 

Peter

[guernseyguy]

Moderate drinking is about 2/3 units per week. Anything over that could be detrimental to health.

 

For such a libertarian on tobacco you are quite the puritan on alcohol!

 

Standard UK advice for men is 3/4 units per day not to exceed 21 units per week.

 

Others are more liberal, with the Basque Country suggesting nearly 9 units per day and the French Academy of Medicine 7.5 units/day.

 

See here: http://www.icap.org/PolicyIssues/DrinkingGuidelines/GuidelinesTable/tabid/204/Default.aspx

 

Peter

[pnhmrk]

For such a libertarian on tobacco you are quite the puritan on alcohol!

 

Standard UK advice for men is 3/4 units per day not to exceed 21 units per week.

 

My calculation of 2 to 3 units per week is based on the the health giving properties of (if I remember rightly) red wine. I am not saying that you can (or should) only drink 2 to 3 units of wine per week AND that you may only drink it at home or outside.

 

Sex in public is illegal

 

Is it? I don't think so (at least not hetero sex which is what I'm assuming you're talking about). There are regulations that cover such things as public nudity but they are generally left to the establishment (whatever that may be, it could be a bar, a beach or even a whole village) to apply if that is wanted. Why can't smoking be treated in the same way?

[stowaway2k]

How much of my whiskey or beer is involuntarily consumed by others in the same room?

[GAV BOY]

I think (but I'm not checking back through 16 pages and over 300 posts to see) that I'm the only person who's suggested that tobacco should be made illegal. The intention is certainly not to "muddy the water" but simply to give the only fair solution to all (smokers and non smokers) if the use of tobacco is to be heavily restricted.

 

 

 

The legislation is a very heavy handed method of preventing the spread so smoke. In fact I don't see much difference between that and a total ban! I think that the argument is about the right of a government to outlaw a perfectly legal activity in vast areas of the country

 

 

 

I wonder if Cunard have thought about it? Or if they're hoping that the legislation pertaining to cruise ships will have calmed down by then.

 

No your not the only person to suggest smoking be made illegal, i also suggested it ! :eek:

 

In one of my excitable moments ! (thanks Peter ) :D

 

regards,

 

Gavin :cool: