THERE can be little doubt that of all the policies introduced since devolution, the ban on smoking in public places has been the greatest success.
Utter rubbish.
The continued de-normalization campaign against smokers (which is an euphemism for a campaign of continual harassment, ostracism, scapegoating, and public ridicule) by this paper and government funded charities and 'experts' has successfully ignored the needs and wishes of many Scots who are not regarded as a wanted part of New Scotland.
–

Poor old addicted nicotinics.

What this article says is that smokers concerns will not be addressed until there is open revolt and civil disobedience.

The premier of Ontario Canada essentially said the same thing. That "he didn't see any rioting in the street"

Makes you wonder doesn't it? When a politician openly says that he won't listen until you break the law and force your will upon others?

Michelle

I am shocked if this is now the editorial position of the Scotsman/Evening News. Quite apart from anything else this is a slur on traditional pubs, which are as likely to be run by women as men, and are not the hostile places this piece makes out. Indeed at their best they are strong places, arranging day trips, and recreational activities, music and other entertainment as well as a place for old and new friends to meet. It may be fashionable to have us believe that this sort of thing is just the stuff of East Enders and doesn't happen in real life but I assure you it does still happen and is one of the most important things going. Pubs don't have to be soulless places geared only to generating turnover.

Furthermore in many communities the traditional pub is all that there is. So think twice before you destroy it. How would you enjoy living somewhere where there was no social gathering place that you couldn't reach.

If you think smokers are just going to cower and look pathetic in the rain you have misunderstood them. They have more dignity than you give them credit for.

Is this the sort of drivel that passes for editorial comment these days?

In the first piece you praise Joke McConnell for enacting a smoking ban against the will of 76% of the Scottish people (those 76% were in favour of restrictions, not a full ban), which leads me to believe you are a non/ex/anti smoker, and you cleverly did not allow your own personal viewpoint to influence your editorial. You really must try harder.

And quoting the council research is meaningless. Why the hell should we believe these clearly biased numbers from an organisation with a vested interest in the outcome?

In the second piece you rightfully lambast this petty minded trend following amateur.

Since we "nicotinics" (very constructive and insightful comment, David) are incapable, isnt it about time the "free" press made our minds up?

people like chris are being saved from themelves - which might be a pity

"Greatest success"???? Who wrote this rubbish? Was it a journalist? a member of the public? a spokesperson for the Anti-Smoking Hate group (ASH).

Illegal "smoke-easy's" "46% seeing fewer customers". "after hours smoke-ins" persecution and hate campaigns against those "haunted-looking people huddling in the cold and rain" and we're not even into winter yet. This is their 'Greatest Success' is it?

The youth won't rebel against the "haunted looking", they will rebel against the virtuous.

I think there are enough Ghost towns/villages already, does not seem a healthy alternative to me.
What happens to people when the village pub closes down. There were choices for eveyone, that was too simple it seems.
Persecutions of any minority is not helped but unfair reporting either.
This will not stop, unless its stopped.

No matter how your pro-smoking correspondents evade the truth, smoking is nothing other than a dirty unhealthy, repulsive anti-social habit, best kept within smokers' own private domains. Glad Colin liked the nicotinics appellation.
Perhaps it'll become more widely adopted to describe smokers' real condition, and deflect all this ill-considered barrage about smokers' so-called rights to the detriment of everyone else.

Oh dear, oh dear.

Firstly, David, look up the word "sarcasm", then re-read my post.

Secondly, judging by the anti smoker bile you just vomited, you are either an ex-smoker or you have dead relatives somewhere that died of what you now firmly believe were "smoking related causes". I am a fourth generation smoker. Despite searching high and low, I cannot find a single member of my immediate, or extended family that died of anything related to smoking. Perhaps we are blessed with the anti lung cancer gene. Our average lifespan is around 80 years. This beats the allotted 3 score and 10 by a decade, and I will be satisfied with that.

Lastly, I would like you to tell me a) why I should live like you and b) why your breed now insist that I die like you as well?

Do you imagine, David, that you are somehow going to die a healthy death?

The vast majority of us, smokers and non smokers alike, cost the NHS the most in the last six months of our lives, as this is when we are in the hospital dying of whatever it is we are dying of.

I fully intend to wear out every organ I have been issued with. No prizes are handed out for those returning them in pristine condition.

Oh, and while you have the dictionary out, look up the word "tolerance" as well.

Yes, it's lovely the way David talks about "the truth"
when it is in fact only his opinion. But you know, I once had a turnip stuck up my bottom too!

Research by the Council? I keep hearing about all this research - who are they talking to? I have never been asked for my comments and I don't know anybody who has!! The comments in this leader are enough to put people off buying the Evening News!! Nothing fair or constructive about these comments and don't forget a fair few of these "hunted" people buy your newspaper. Shame on you.

David (9),

What's a pro-smoker?

It would be the opposite to anti-smoker, the extremist hate campaigners.

Do you see anyone driving non-smokers from anywhere? campaigning for laws against them? labelling them baby killers to arm them for the next phase, removal of freedoms in the home? spending hundreds of millions on junk studies to create myths? ruthlessly wasting charity donations to feed their obsession? throwing people out on the street and then still moaning because they have to walk past them? having a stated goal of making everyone a smoker?

No, of course you don't

So there isn't any such thing as a pro-smoker is there? It's just another made up slur from the anti-smoking movement.

It's interesting to note that homosexuals were labelled pro-homosexual back in the days it was acceptable to persecute that minority, creating a myth that they wanted everyone to turn gay. The nazi party labelled anyone who helped a jew in any way as pro-jew; they weren't pro anything, they just had compassion for other human beings.

Your sort has always used tactics like this to fuel the hate that feeds your inchoate obsessions.

I think the author of this article needs a Nanny, prehaps that is their problem, they miss their nanny.!!!

Steve(13) Could'nt agree with you more, it is Disgusting what is going on here.!!!!!

Colin (5)

You make an excellent point and one I hadn't previously thought of.

The government claims smokers cost the NHS 1.6 bil
per year, however this is only accurate if you can state that smokers would never have got ill later in life had they not smoked.

Of course this is not the case and therefore smokers cost the health service nothing, they just cost it sooner thus saving the effects of inflation.

Not to mention the 8 bill that they contribute in stealth tax.

So, yet another made up figure and propaganda exercise from the government in "The War Against Tobacco Smoking (T.W.A.T.S)"

To intimate that there was somehow choice for non-smokers before a smoking ban came in is simply untrue. I'm in England and if I choose to go to a pub where I don't come out smelling of stale smoke or give myself a cough for the next couple of days then my choice is severely limited. If I were in Scotland then my choice would be limitless.

If it is true that smokers are deserting their locals simply because they can't smoke, how committed are they to their local anyway? Is smoking that important - it would suggest that it's more important than meeting with friends, playing darts, having a quiet pint, etc. So who's really to blame - the smokers or non-smokers?

I appreciate that for whatever reason smokers say that they 'enjoy' smoking - but I can name you a number of activities that I enjoy that I don't feel the need to do twenty times a day or whenever I'm at the pub. In fact one or two would probably see me thrown out, rather like a smoker would be in Scotland.

And I wish people wouldn't denounce the substantial research that has been done on the effects of smoking, and second hand smoke. It's utterly outrageous to suggest that this is in some way done to victimise smokers.

Roll on next summer when England will catch up on what's happened north of the border.

GT (16)

Smokers aren't demanding all the places; they just want some places. Do you see anyone demanding to have smoking on buses or in non-smoking restaurants?

Would you care to produce one of the 'substantial research' documents that shows a link to a recognised scientific standard?

There are approx 150 statistical studies on the subject which constitutes the entire myth of passive smoke, not a single one of them shows a risk ratio capable of establishing a link; but please try to find me just one that shows the link to that standard.

The fact is there isn't one, but this shouldn't be surprising; after all the products of smoke are the same particles all around us from other sources, there are no 'magical' particles in smoke and the products of passive smoke are, according to other 'substantial research', over 1000 times below safe levels. (actual scientific research that measures real particles in real environments as opposed to your substantial research that asks relatives of dead people how much of other peoples smoke they inhaled in 1977 and ignores the fact they worked down a mine)

David,

Let's not get us in to the second hand smoke debate. We can go to hundreds of websites to go through the same old arguments. I hope you can't disagree with the fact that (i) tobacco smoke smells unpleasant and (ii) that it causes people unaccustomed to it to have immediate symptons - such as coughing, streaming nose, etc. This in itself should be a good reason to bring in some measures to control it.

I would point you towards a couple of documents which, I hope you would agree, might suggest that my assertions above have perhaps more validity than your own.

(i) The World Health Organisation's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, signed by well over 100 countries. Article 8 states "parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability".

(ii) Documents from Philip Morris in the late 80's that state they set out to "co-ordinate and pay so many scientists on an international basis to keep the environmental tobacco smoke controversy alive".

I think that this kind of argument is slightly more comprehensible than talking about "risk ratios" and miners from the 1970s.

I would refer to Colin's diatribe at #10, none of which seems to contest my simple summary of the features of smoking.
In brief response:-
1)Sarcasm is "language expressing scorn or contempt,often but not necessarily ironical".I assume this is an allusion to his comments at #5 against the Scotsman for choosing to publish the article. Ergo...?
2)Both suppositions about myself are fallacious. I have no issue with his personal habits or his desire for self-flaggelation, or with the longevity of his extended (smoking?) family ,nor have I any interest in whether he lives or dies like "my breed".
3)The notion of "a healthy death" I find confusing, and somewhat of an oxymoron.
Tolerance is inter alia "the ability to tolerate and hence no longer benefit from the effects of a drug after prolonged use"-hence my term "nicotinics".Q.E.D.

David (18),

Just a couple of points.

Firstly I see you, like all anti-smokers, don't want to "get into" the "science" behind the myth, are you suggesting that asking someone about what another person inhaled 30 years ago, but ignoring some of the things they may have inhaled is scientifically sound? Is that a more "comprehensible" question for you?

With regard to the statements of the WHO, can you explain why their own "substantial research" showed a protective effect from passive smoke? and why they removed all links to that research and don't mention it when making claims about passive smoke? Can you explain any of the following (figures provided from the WHO)?;...

Why do the 5 biggest smoking nations (four of which almost half the population smokes) have higher life expectancy than us ?

Why does Japan have a much lower incidence of Lung cancer than the US despite their smoking figures being much higher, when government and cancer organisations tell us that 90% of lung cancer is caused by smoking ?

Why are Japanese women 5 times more likely to contract lung cancer if they emigrate to the US?

Why do cancer specialists tell us that cancer is caused by the synergistic effect of many factors and cannot be attributed to any single one yet researchers tell us that smoking causes cancer?

Why do none of the research's that conclude passive smoking is harmful take into account all of the other risk factors such as diet, exercise, genetics, pollution or profession ?

Why have cancers and heart desease continued to rise in line with industrial and vehicle pollutions over the past 60 years while smoking levels have been falling throughout that period?

Is the answer to these questions the reason you find the science and the myths that arise from it 'incomprehensible' and why you don't want to "get into it"?

Finally, I must point out that it is neither the righ

Steve,

Unfortunately I do not have time to rebut all of your comments.

But the Japanese example is easy, and exposes a massive flaw in your arguments - namely your call for 'standardised studies'. The fact is that the Japanese 'smoking curve' is someway behind countries such as the UK, where numbers of smokers peaked much earlier. Because lung cancer is not an immediate effect of smoking - and you rightly point out that it affects people in different ways - it is simply that it takes time for the rate of lung cancer to catch up. The fact is that Japanese lung cancer rates have been steadily rising, contrary to the falling rates that countries like the UK have recently started to see - corresponding to falling smoking rates which started some time ago.

It would be interesting to see you explain that one away - though I'm sure there's an answer to everything.

As I said we could go on for a while, but I think we've both got better things to do.

GT (21)

Ah, so lung cancer doesn't manifest itself until over 60 years after a smoker quits? Another anti-smoking myth. I take it then that all the smokers under 75 who have died from lung cancer have been wrongly put into the 'smoking death' category.

The decline started after 1948, but thats when people began to quit smoking, not when they started smoking. So you are saying lung cancer develops up to 80, 90 or 100 years after you start smoking. (If you are not saying that we would have seen massive declines in lung cancer at least 30 years ago, because the anti's tell us 90% is caused by smoking)

So no need for the smokers to worry then and not much point quitting if you're over 30, according to this anti-smoking myth it takes 60 years after quitting to see new cases of lung cancer begin to fall off, which would of course mean that everyone gets it 60 years after quitting and not before.

And how does this simplistic and made up argument explain why Japanese women are 5 times more likely to get lung cancer when they emigrate to the US. Or doesn't your 60 year rule apply to Japanese women?

Do you think about this rubbish before you repeat it?

Forgive me, perhaps I didn't put my point across correctly. To put it simply: why are lung cancer rates rising in certain parts of the world - such as south east Asia, central America - and falling in others?

Anyhow, you are right in saying that cancers are complicated beasts - and the example of Japanese women emigrating is interesting. The fact that rates of other cancers - breast cancer for example - increase at a similar rate do point to something about the Japanese way of life having some sort of protective effect against cancer. However, I fail to see what relevance this has to somehow disproving the link between smoking and lung cancer.

If you chose to ignore the research done into the harms of tobacco smoke and passive smoking, isn't the bottom line that the onus should be on the "pro-smokers" to prove that tobacco smoke is harmless, rather than the other way round?

GT, a lovely thought but you ought to know that it is impossible to prove a negative.

And believe me, we are not ignoring the research. 98% of it forms our defence in the upcoming Judicial Review. That alone should tell you how good the research is in the first place. Over the coming days and weeks you will see our publicity machine kick into life.

Prior to smoking bans being enacted in Kalifornia by addle brained zealots, world-wide smoking rates were dropping. Slowly, but steadily. Once the puritans and litigation freaks got involved, those rates slowed down. In Ireland, their ban made smoking more popular among the very group they were targetting! There are now over 10,000 new smokers in Ireland since the ban was introduced. The Irish Office of Tobacco Control are mystified.

"Its to protect the workforce", they said.

They protected the workforce alright. Over 12,000 hospitality staff lost their jobs. They are no longer in harms way. Praise the Lord! Over 600 pubs closed down. They now close at a rate of just over one per day. Tourism has suffered. And, at a time when we should focus on bring people together, a new sectarianism has been created. Lovely, eh?

Smoking should have been left alone, in adult venues where the kids couldnt get the idea that smoking was somehow cool and grown up. By forcing us out on the streets, kids see adults smoking more than ever before. Of course, there will be a predictable outcome.

The evidence, should you care to seek it out, is blindingly obvious: bans do not work.

GT can you give us a link to the info that says lung cancer is going down? I read that it was going up! Its funny how the "it smells" thing is the main bugbear of the anti-smoker. Can anyone remember how life smelled when we all had coal fires and everyone smoked? I bet you can't! nothing to do with smell was ever mentioned! We had a chemical plant near us that used to smell sometimes and there is a landfill near hear that smells nasty if the wind is in a certain direction nowadays. Why have all the venomous anti-smokers waited until now to start bleating and dummy-spitting now? It is because they have boon told to!

Gosh-so many questions, but here we go.
#11,John. If my analysis at #9 is a mere opinion, the analogy is that the "truth" is that smoking is a clean, healthy, attractive,social habit. I don't feel that that proposition would attract too many subscibers. Whatever became of the turnip?
#13,Steve. To explain my semantics,I had used the term "pro-smoker" to indicate a proponent of smoking.Henceforth, I shall use that more accurate term.I found the thread of Steve's comments difficult to follow,but would say I have no problem with homosexuals, male or female, as, unlike smokers, they don't impose their predilections on me. Also,under the Nazi regime those who favoured Jews were regarded as enemies of the state. As I recall, the non-Jewish protectors of Ann Frank risked their lives in so doing."Inchoate" means rudimentary or unfinished.Did he mean incoherent?
As Colin has not seen my comment #19,or chosen to ignore it,or perhaps not even understood it, I shall move on to the comments between Steve and GT next, tho'probably to-morrow or on another day.

GT (23)

Yes why are lung cancers rising in Asia ? what happened to your 60 to 100 year delay? You can't argue it one way in one post and another way in another post. Either there is a delay or there isn't,, which is it?

Could it at all be possible that the rise in industry and transport has something to do with it?

You are right, genetics does play a part in cancer, so perhaps you can tell me why, in the main, the studies you are so proud of don't take that into account.

I don't have to disprove a link between passive smoking and disease. The 150 studies that show no risk to any scientific standard coupled with the real measurements of particulate matter show anyone willing to look that there is no risk.

I don't choose to ignore the research, I've read the research, maybe it's you that shouldn't ignore it and blindly quote anti-smoking myths because it suits your view of the way the world should be.

Perhaps you can answer this;.. why are the Anti Smoking bregade still spending millions of pounds funding more junk studies when they told us 10 years ago the link was "proved"?

The medical and scientific research couldn't find a link to passive smoke and the pharma and anti funded junk studies can't find one either; just maybe that's because there isn't one.

Just for the record similar studies show olive oil as more dangerous than passive smoke. These junk studies are responsible for the daily health scares. One this week claims tea is much better for you than water; surprise, surprise, funded by the tea coucil. Last week I read 2 junk studies, one claimed swimming pools cause asthma the other claimed leaving a light on damaged babies brains.

If you believe these studies you won't eat or drink anything ever again; or is it just the junk studies against smoking that you choose to believe???

Wee jack boot has fcuked up his political career, the smoking ban crossed a line which has alienated a percentage of the population who dont deserve to be treated as lepers

David (26)

Typical anti-smoker. Ignore the science and insult the person or correct grammer.

First of all; inchoate.......

has more than one meaning (as do many words), it can also mean 'ill or badly formed'.

Secondly "proponent" means a supporter or 'for' something. I am not 'for' smoking, I'm against propaganda and erosions of freedom.

I'm sorry you couldn't understand my post, i'll endeavour (that means try or strive or attempt) not to confuse you.

I never suggested you had any problem with homosexuals or nazi's I simply pointed out the similarites of the 'pro' slur.

In your insult filled post at (9) (very good by the way, it shows the anti-smokers attitudes perfectly to any normal person reading) you say smokers should stay in their own private domains, does that include the domains of publicans and encompass (include or cover) their guests?

Was that coherent or would you like me to explain it in simpler terms just for you?

Theres several traits that seem to be displayed by all the anti-smokers which makes them quite easy to spot from their first sentences:- taking the moral high ground, personal insults against people, assuming academic siperiority (seen in grammatical correction and long words), a complete lack of compassion and empathy and persistant moaning about smell on hair and clothes. I would also like to point out that the stress levels of the anti-smoker must be reaching an almost critical point and several of them must be on tablets for blood pressure and should be looking towards an anger management course to get those stress levels down. Stress has a negative physical reaction on the body when too much adrenalin is prodcted too often - really! go look it up. I'll just have a cigarette and relax - heaven!

sorry! couple of spelling errors - should be there's and not theres, should be superiority and not siperiority. A sentence towards the end is too long as well!

Careful Claire,

If you moke spilling mistokes and don't use proper grammer like what the queen does the anti's will say 'fifth hand smoke transmitted through the internet causes typo's !!!!'

Don't forget that smoke contains magic particles added by the tobacco companies to trick ventilation and to become thousands of times more harmful than they normally would be.

The magic makes them so harmful in fact that there is "no safe level", not even one atom is safe. That makes passive smoke more dangerous than nuclear waste.

Sunbathing in chernobyl or standing in a pub with a smoker??

I'm tempted to believe the anti's might just be lying a bit with this "no safe level" story. Nothing new there then.

;o)

I found David on another thread. He accuses me of not keeping up to speed. I am not sure what you want me to address David.

Is it the healthy death question? That would be me using sarcasm again.

You really are struggling with it arent you?

Ask a question, but keep it scientific. Anything else is misdirection.

Steve - lol! I had almost forgotten about the magic particles included by a genie who works for the tobacco firms (it was maybe even god as he gave us the plants!!!) the genie was the only one who could be employed to include the particles in a "puff of smoke"!The genie was wearing full PVC and breathing aparatus as someone was rumoured to be smoking a cigarette in a 500 yard radiuis. They said that was ok as one of the smoke police was issuing a £50 on the spot fine and insisting that the perpatrator was sent to ash for "conditioning". I have a question for David - are you an english lecturer at at university or do you have an A level/degree? The need to take the acadamic high ground is getting a bit much. You sound like a scot on another website who always has a dictionary handy to pull everyone up with! would you be Bungo? If not you need to get in touch with the guy you have toooo much in common not to be the same person! If you are then Hi, you know me well from the filthysmokers site.

To David at 26's response to my post at 11.

But your analysis is just an opinion David albeit an intersubjective one. What the public may consider dirty and unattractive at one point it may consider the reverse at another.

Let's consider garlic for example. That's my pet hate for, and with no disrespect to garlic lovers, to me those who consume it smell like latrines. I have to put up with their horrible breath in my face and if I am really cornered by a garlic muncher I actually want to throw up.

Now there are still quite a number of people who share my dislike but at one time lots of people did and thought its odour unacceptable. Now, however, it's fashionable so a reverse trend has happened resulting in lots of people just "loving" it.

Just reflecting further, although eating in general (as opposed to the consumption of specific foods) cannot be considered a habit, nevertheless it could also be construed to be a "filthy" activity. After all that lovely food passes through the system it ends up as pooh and you can't get nastier than that for most people. Erm, I think that's what happened to your turnip.

#35 John.
I can understand John accusing me of subjectivity,but if so I wonder which element of my summary of the qualities of smoking he would disagree with. If by intersubjectivity, he means we are of different opinions, I would not disagree.
Smoking was indeed at one time regarded as chic, and being practised by the majority of the adult population was the norm, but this is no longer the case.
I don't share his dislike of garlic and simply regard it as a culinary ingredient, so won't comment further.
Eating is basically a necessity for bodily sustenance.
Defecation, spitting, flatulating and other unpleasant bodily functions are best carried out in private.If he consumed the turnip at #11 orally does he suffer from constipation?

Wow David - intersubjectivity, defecation, flatulating you've got your thesaurus out again I see!!!! I wasn't aware that turnip caused constipation! it is a root vegetable which are not know for their ability to prevent defecation. Vegetables are well known for their properties of aiding digestion whilst at the same time supplying vital nutrients, minerals and fibre which aids in the passage of a bolus of food through the alimentary canal, through the digestive system for the final destination of the bowel where faeces of the correct consistency can be formed and easyly passed without the aid of straining. This prevents the production of piles. Can't believe you missed that opportunity to advise us of a little bit of human biology - you're slipping kiddo!

#34Claire. To satisfy her curiosity, I am neither a lecturer in English at university nor a graduate, but I do have a number of 'A' levels, for which I feel no shame. In northern parlance, "Nowt wrong with education, love!"
Neither am I Bungo, and cannot know her from the filthysmokers site as I don't know it, so no "Hi!".
#37Claire. The intersubjectivity allusion originated in posting #35 from John, which I was merely replying to. I could use shorter terms for the bodily functions, but most of these are regarded as somewhat vulgar, so I choose to avoid them. Your medical treatise I found illuminating, but I don't think it explains the presence and location of John's turnip at #11, or had that merely been his attempt at sarcasm?
By the way, you overlooked "prodcted" at #30, but I had attributed that to the lateness of the hour.
Bye.

They award 'A' Levels for colouring in now ??????

David - I knew you had a sense of humour in there somewhere! Bungo is a male scot on another site and his post are scarily like yours. Johns turnip I think is a medical miracle! 1000 apologies for the error in #30 - doh! I know we are off subject at the moment but lets face it, if you didn't laugh you'd cry! p.s. like the word treatise, I sure I will be able to incorporate this elsewhere. Its one I have never heard before!

#40,Claire.
I must confess that I've found a sense of humour somewhat lacking in most of the correspondents on this site. I still deny any knowledge of Bungo the male Scot-you could always try asking him if he's David of New Mills?
I refuse even to think about John's turnip.
I shall leave you to look up "treatise" for yourself, as I wish to terminate this correspondence, which I feel has strayed too far from the original theme of smoking and the role of the state.
At least you got some response.I've chosen to ignore Steve's recent poor attempts at sarcasm, which I find not a little colourless. (That's an example of litotes.)
David-Doppelgänger of Bungo.(?)
Over and out.

But David, the nub of your dissertation against smoking seems to be that it just isn't chic any more. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't but simply following fashion is rather superficial isn't it? Furthermore, and considering this matter further, it's often though very chic to go in the opposite direction from fashion -- hmm must dig out those old winklepicker cuban heeled boots.

No, can't see smoker bans lasting forever because after a bit all prohibitions become boring rather like so many of the aspiring role models who propose them. Anyone find Jack and Andy stirring and colourful? Or, how about Maureen More? Now there's a thrilling woman - not!

David 41 its true you have so much in common with bungo/ Llanarc(in nation states)- but yeah ive sent him the link for here!!!!

42 your right John i dont find them colourfool- and Maureen- so ugly!!!!

Sorry Claire, David and I are different people. Never met the guy.

And when have I been quick to whip out the dictionary. I only remember two set to's over a word. The first you instigated and I admitted you were right. The second was your lack of understanding of what "anecdotal evidence" meant.
I'm hurt :)

As for this thread, I'm intrigued by Steve's assertions (20). Like many pro-smokers, he makes a lot of claims but then fails to provide proof. I have found that when pressed over these things it turns out .... well ,,,, it's not really true. His further assertion in (22) about GT saying lung cancer doesn't manifest itself for up to 100 years is just deliberate misunderstanding (twisting) of the facts which the pro-smoking lobby relies on.

I also find it funny when pro-smokers wax lyrical about the "anti's" being vitriolic while pouring on the insults :) Perhaps you should whip out your dictionary again Claire, and look up "irony" :)

meowww Bungo! Nice to see your acid tongue is as sharp as ever!!!! I still think you were David! How IRONIC that David signed off and you miraculously appeared!!! lol what the hell are we supposed to be arguing about anyway?????

Does it mean we are 1-1 in the set-tos over words? I think I should be in the lead as I had you sussed out as Bungo from the word go!!! lol!!

#45Claire.
Bungo no speak with forked tongue. New Mills is nowhere near Angus, and helicopter would be required to cover distance in four hours. Or maybe the Tardis or Startrek's transporter could do the job, but then I don't believe in the tooth fairy either. Colin of Banff knows the difference between sarcasm and irony if she's unsure.
So it looks as if she's got two of us to dream about or maybe even have nightmares over.
Keep guessing.

Me Bungo David (44)

Would you like to 'un-twist' my words and explain why the biggest group of smokers (average age 45 in 1948) were mostly deceased by the 1970's yet lung cancer kept rising.

It wasn't me who made up the 60 year after quitting delay; it was the anti smokers; that's how they explain their myth that 90% of lung cancers are caused by smoking even though smoking rates halved while lung cancers kept rising. I merely pointed out that this would equal up to 100 years after starting smoking. ie.

smokes for 40 years then quits.. 40 + 60 = 100.

Is simple arithmetic enough 'proof' for you?

As for the 'proof' you say was lacking at post (20) I pointed out that the figures are from the WHO. They are on the website if you want to look.

If the biggest group of smokers were 45 in 1948 then by the 70s they were OAPs! not a bad innings! Is it not true that most people who were (according to the above figure) born in 1903 would be reaching the natural end of their lives by the 1970s??? considering fighting a war, working down coal mines and being alive during the real industrial times I think they were pretty marvelous!!! How long is the human being expected to live if they have never smoked? could we be looking at 120 or 150!!!!! ps bungo - we only enter what we want when we submit our details to reply.......:)

Actually, smoking reached it's peak in the 1970's. So I don't know why you keep banging on about 1948.

Lung cancer in Scotland has decreased remarkably in the last 10 years in line with the long term decline in the numbers of people smoking. Cancer in general is down, despite an aging population.

90% of people with lung cancer are smokers. That is a fact. Accept it.

Claire. I arrived here after Chuckles gave me the link from a thread on Filthysmokers.com . This guy David and I are not the same person. Let it go.

Sorry if this reply is a little disjointed. I've just spent the night in busy, smoke free pubs watching Scotland surge ahead in the Euro qualifiers :)

Me Bungo (49)

Smoking rates in 1948 were 54% and more importantly over 80% in males. Smoking rates in 1970 were 46% split more evenly between men and women. Now with millions of male smokers quitting (not starting) between 36 and 58 years ago we should have seen a massive decline in lung cancers beginning 20 or 30 years ago. Cancer rates in general are still rising despite early detection and better cure rates and yes there has been a recent decline in lung cancers but some of these are surely attributable to cleaner vehicle emmissions and controls over industrial pollution and certainly not enough to account for the drop in male smokers from over 80% in 1948 to todays level of around 28%. The figure of 90% caused by smoking is therefore yet another made up figure from the anti smoking movement and it hampers efforts to discover other risks.

Lung cancer was an incredibly rare disease before the epidemic of the 1930's despite smoking being prevelant for 200 years prior to that and mankind sitting in caves around wood burning fires (produces the same chemicals) for 50 000 years. It is more than coincidental that the epidemic arrived and rose with the industrial and motor transport of the 20th century. A research on that epidemic in the 1930's quickly discounted smoking as the major cause due to the fact that industrialised cities around the world with low smoking levels were still seeing the epidemic and non-industrialised cities with higher smoking rates did not have the lung cancer epidemic.

Cancer development is irritation at the cellular level and it is complex and multifactoral; Direct smoking along with many other things is a risk factor but the claim that smoking causes 90% of lung cancers is just a plain lie and recording them as smoking related deaths on that basis means we are missing and therefore unable to counter other risks.