Model Boat Mayhem
Mess Deck: General Section => Chit-Chat => Topic started by: Proteus on July 25, 2008, 06:34:46 am
-
As an ex smoker of over 30 years I am very anti smoking, but I think people should be able to have there little pleasures(expert Max Mosley) But I think this is going a little to far to stop people having a little pleasure,
Painter fined for smoking in van http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7524526.stm
Proteus
-
Absolute lunacy and i am sure he will have the fine overturned on appeal but what a waste of public money....AGAIN..
That said, smoking in a vehicle whilst driving can be as dangerous as using a mobile phone.....It does cause accidents..
Barry
-
I don't even think you have to be driving,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/7025671.stm
and Labour wonder why they are getting such a Kicking
Proteus
-
Thats this non smoking law I'm afraid. Any company vehicle is actually a workplace and we all know you are not allowed to smoke in your workplace. >>:-( >>:-( >>:-(
Should have brought this law in years ago. O0
-
Governments are starting to realize that the tax from cigarettes is not keeping pace with the cost of smoking related health problems. In fact the balance has swung towards the cost of health problems and they are doing everything they can to stop smokers, albeit by stealth.
-
yes but the van was not a works van, it was his own transport taxed as a private vehicle.
Proteus
-
yes but the van was not a works van, it was his own transport taxed as a private vehicle.
Proteus
As it would appear that this chap is self employed you can bet your sweet life his accountant offsets his van running costs against his tax bill.
I have been in a similar position and my accountant claimed fer everything on my "privately" taxed van. By the way there is only one tax duty on vans, private or business.
To say he uses it to only travel to and from work takes some believing. If thats all he uses it for, why not use the bus. Sorry forgot about ladders steps paint etc.
It is still classed as a workplace.
-
Extract of the smoking legislation sent to our offices:
All public transport (including taxis, trains and buses) plus business vehicles that may carry more than one specified employee need to display a sign containing a smoking prohibition symbol of at least 70mm diameter in each compartment that could carry passengers (e.g. a black cab must have a sign in the front and the rear of the taxi)
If the vehicle is registered in his own name or is self employed - he might just get away with it
-
If you are self employed your whole life becomes part of your business, all monies in, all monies out and all property and vehicles appertaining to the business so I cant see he will get away with it.
-
I think you are all missing the point. It is just another nail in the coffin of this nanny state, If smoking is so bad (and it is, I smoked for 35yrs) why not just make tobacco a class A drug and ban it totally? because the gov make so much money from it, if they can make money from something they will, the idea of taxes is to give the gov enough money to run the country not to give the maximum they can get. Just where is all the money going in this gov?
Nige, tax payer, pension payer, vat payer, road tax payer.
-
why not just make tobacco a class A drug and ban it totally?
For rather practical reasons I would think. If they can't control the existing drugs supply (to a much smaller number of people), how could they do it with a large market of smokers?
Second reason, the bright people who tried to impose that concept would likely spell the end of their days in power. Do it by niggling petty methods, don't use a large hammer to crack the problem. People might just react - end of your gravy train life.
-
with vehicles it is a very grey area, what if a truck driver, (who is an owner - operator meaning that that nice swanky Daf 95 Spacecab, all £90,000 of it, is owned by the driver), is smoking in his cab with his tachograph out of the tachograph reader because he is out of his hours, and parked in a layby, that cab is no longer his work space, BUT his home for the weekend.
surely there has to be an ounce of common sense somewhere. if you smoke at home, you can get fined if you are smoking in there whilst a plumber or carpet fitter is in YOUR HOUSE working. I dont smoke, but I can see that this so called smoking law has so many gray areas it's rediculus. what next, passenger cant smoke if driver is non smoker, or driver is not allowed to smoke because passenger is non smoker? come on guys who make these laws get real and come to the real world!
-
I think the real world ended in the late sixties.
I think I can still remember enjoying my self withought getting fined or imprisoned.
-
I have heard that you can get fined if your passenger is a non-smoker. There was certainly a guy who was fined in Wales for smoking in his van (£30) yesterday or Thursday - which he uses for getting to work, is his own van, his passenger was smoking (no fine), and the zealots of the Mad Mullah (Bronstien?) wouldn't listen to him trying to explain that the van is not a works vehicle but a private van. I think that someone in the same part of the country was cautioned for letting passive smoke get through to her next door neighbours house!!
Wonder what other restrictions the elf n safety lot will come up with. It certainly looks like it will never end no matter what you do.
Ron.
-
at work they gave us a talk about this.
1 an car,van ,truck,etc that is used for work or owned by a company multi national or 1 man band is a work place on exceptions. There is no grey it black and white look at the government web sit.
2. In your own house or shed if you have an office or workshop were you carry out work that form part of your living income IE your job this to is a work place and comes under the no smoking regs. So if you had a company that made model boats and sold them to make a living IE your job . You did this in your shed this is you work place and comes under the same rules.
john
PS the government have gone to town on this to make sure the maxum amount of fines can be achieved to of set losed income from reduced smoking tax income.
-
The law is very straight forward about smoking in company vehicles, if it as he says and he is the only person that uses the van then he will be OK, if other employees travel in it then it is against the law.
End of case.
(It is one of the best laws of recent times.....now lets ban chewing gum as well...nasty stuff >>:-()
-
Here in Canada we have at least two provinces (Ontario and Nova Scotia) that made it illegal to smoke in cars with children present. Here in Ontario its unusual to see a smoker in a public place.
When smoking was banned in the workplace, smokers gathered around the building entrance doors for a fag, now that has been banned too. On that note its interesting because many non smoking workers have been complaining about their smoking work mates getting copius "smoking breaks" during the day, while the non smokers can only get their usual coffee and lunch breaks.
Southwestern Ontario used to be the center for tobacco farms, however, to do down there now you only see a fraction of the tobacco grown as compared to ,say, twenty years ago.
oldiron
-
Smokers to be floged ?
Perhaps they should be invited to a soiree with a motor racing supremo?
-
Hi guys...i dont smoke so i don't really care one way or the other , but i would have thought that if you drive a van to and from work and you want to smoke without being nicked by the smoking nazi's then take the passenger seat out. surely if you cant carry a passenger then you are not breaking the law , even as stupid as it is O0
regards........bob.
-
The problem is though you can't smoke in a company vehicle that may be used by another driver or passenger and I don't think any excuse would be allowed as you cannot Absolutely Guarantee it.
What really gets my goat is the fact that lorries, vans, cars, motorcycles, factories pump out far more pollutants than smokers, yet they are not treated in the same way, I suppose the smoker is the 'easy' target.
You go to the doctors with a chesty cough - the first question is "how many do you smoke" not
"how many times have you walked down a busy road" or "been by any factories lately"
Don't get me wrong, I smoke and I enjoy it and I know it's bad for me, (along with sugar, salt, fat, alchol) but I fell that many diagnosed health problems are attributed to smoking as a 'PC' easy option
.
Are there any figures to show how many people have died through vehicle emissions, factory emissions?
I would like to see figures on expenditure for research for smoking versus vehicle / factory emissions and effects.
regards
Gary :)
-
Don't get me wrong, I smoke and I enjoy it and I know it's bad for me, (along with sugar, salt, fat, alchol) but I fell that many diagnosed health problems are attributed to smoking as a 'PC' easy option
.
regards
Gary :)
Gary I think you should maybe read reply 58 on this posting http://www.modelboatmayhem.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=4693.40
O0
-
Has any body realised that smoking whilst driving is in fact "driving without due care and attention," as is eating or making a phone call!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
now I dont smoke, but ask me to run 100m and i will probably get to 75m before dropping in a heap! this I equate to secondary smoke (relatives smoke), and industrial air pollution.
-
Hi Richard
I've read your thread and found it very sobering.
I hope I haven't offended you; or others, if so then I apologise.
I just think that 'everything' is attributed to smoking, either directly or indirectly, with no real search for the actual cause. (be it smoking or other)
I guess that even if I was right, the outcome of a smoking witch hunt would be a healthier society.
regards
Gary :)
-
Hi Gary
No you havent offended me at all, it was just that I was picking up the "it wont happen to me" vibes which is what I thought a few years back and I wanted to show you that it can. O0
-
yet gary, walking normally, I dont get breathless.
what doesnt help though is all the crap we put in our foods and our atmoshphere from factory fumes to diesel fumes. here's the odd thing, cars and trucks get annual emmissions tests, do cookers, do gas heaters get checks to see what crap is being shoved out the flue? no!
smoking does harm in confined spaces, (inside cars and buildings) because the toxins dont have anywhere to go so the air gets more and more toxic. in the outdoors, there are far more important things do deal with in regards to air quality.
-
Hey ghost..... Got nothing to do with you just being unfit then? O0 O0 O0 ;) ;) ;)
Mark...
-
lol,
-
I think he has been to close to the cargo of his boats. :D
Proteus,
-
May be the time will come, that when your car goes in for a service, they won't be able to do the job because the mechanic is not allowed to work in a smokers car.
-
Bob I think you just scored a hole in one mate! Given the logic of the present day thinking, I bet there would be absolutely nothing a firm could do about it if an employee found fit to refuse to work on such a vehicle.
-
I`ve already done something like that sheerline,
I am a driver and a non smoker I refused to use a vehicle that some one was smoking cigars in beforehand,it was absolutely rank.not a thing they could do about it.
-
A thought about the post:-
"May be the time will come, that when your car goes in for a service, they won't be able to do the job because the mechanic is not allowed to work in a smokers car."
I think your right on the button there; but surly the issue is breathing in smoke; either directly or indirectly, is there still a health risk when the smoke has dissipated?
On a similar line, do you think in the future there will be a "Health Warning" on Smoked Kippers, Smoked Sausage, Smoked Haddock, Smokey Bacon Crisps - are they another form of passive smoking? ;D
regards
Gary :)
-
No..No Gary, don't talk it up ... !! Some little twit at Westmonster might be lookin in and decide to stick a pollution tax on kippers and I love kippers.. please don't let them screw that up!! :D
-
So now the anti-smoking Fascists have had their way, using a perfectly legal substance BTW, the sights are set on Alcohol.
Banning happy hours in pubs and cheap alcohol from supermarkets this is soon to be followed by being overweight.
You might not actually live longer but it will certainly seem like it!!
Bob
-
So now the anti-smoking Fascists have had their way, using a perfectly legal substance BTW, the sights are set on Alcohol.
Banning happy hours in pubs and cheap alcohol from supermarkets this is soon to be followed by being overweight.
You might not actually live longer but it will certainly seem like it!!
Bob
I don't know if your comment on banning overweight was tongue in cheek or not, but over here there has already been flags raised to test the waters on taxing (banning) overweight people in one form or another becuase they are seen as an extra burden on the health care system.
I believe Happy Hours are already a thing of the past in pubs and bars here. I'm not sure if there is a law against it, or just pubs etc. doing the politically correct thing.
John
-
No my comments were not tongue in cheek, several NHS Trusts refuse to carry out operations on people who are owerweight, and not just hip and knee replacements.
Bob
-
is there still a health risk when the smoke has dissipated?
Obviously no particles in the atmosphere, but, years ago, just after I started work, the gang I was with was having its Carrier (5 tonner, van at the back, bus at the front) given the Bamber Bridge Treatment. Basically a re-paint in fetching dark green. When it came back, I realised that the inside of the cab was supposed to be white, not a splodgy brown. That was 1960/61.
I have no idea if nicotine tar is harmful if applied externally.
-
and those who are underweight?
-
and those who are underweight?
They have to be careful when walking over grids. {-) {-)
Malc
-
A while ago, when Mrs Jacket Mk1 decided to visit her parents in the USA, my Dad and I decided to redecorate our lounge. I have to confess to being a user of the evil weed at the time (much to my parents' disapproval). Dad set to with sugar soap and sponge and quickly drew my attention to the patch of painted wall which he had just cleaned of fag residue...........it was SCARY!
"That's it!" I said "I'm packing it in!" said I
"Smoking?" said Dad, hopefully.........
"Nah, yer berk - decorating".
I relented 20 years later.
Latterly I had to clean Craig Talbot's stock and equipment with kitchen roll and meths to get rid of the tar before I could use it. Six weeks later my friend Liam died of the same thing (lung cancer) and I had to buy more meths and kitchen roll to clean off his stuff. Two blokes who must have thought it would never happen to them; it did for Mum, too.
IMHO smoking stinks.............but suit yourself. It won't happen to you, will it?
FLJ
-
I've never had a fag in my life, prefer other vices! But my Dad died of lung cancer and it wasn't nice at all.
Colin
-
Right on Dave, tell it like it is, and they still wont believe it can happen to them. I know, my son is one of them. Pushes me around in my wheelchair but carries on smoking just the same. O0
-
At the age of 14 I went on a school trip to Paris. We all experimented with "Disque Bleu" or it may have been "Gallouise". Never touched cigarettes again!
Maybe the experience should be compulsory?
Roger in France.
P.S. : The memory didn't put me off coming to live here!
-
Thought I would add, I gave up smoking for seven years then had a stroke! only a mild one but I would not recommend that to any one it took a long time to recover and still there are some things I know are not quite right, Did a strange thing and started smoking again (don't ask)
Then finally the time came and I gave up smoking again! that was three years ago! all going well until at work and through stress I had a heart attack.
I would say only a small one but as my specialist says a heart attack IS A HEART ATTACK!
Why am I driveling on like this ? well I find out that yes I am better off NOT smoking but the damage I have done to my one and only body is allmost perminant!
Your body gets rid of nicotine, the smell and the little bits of the dreaded weed that get into your blood but it cant repair the lungs and other organs it damages.
In your mind you feel better and yes you are in some ways your joints move easier and generally (I) have been more on the healthy side of life and I like it.
I don't look down on smokers as I am not one of the 'reformed smoker' I was one and yes I know that the addiction is very hard to stop so I congratulate any one that stops.
R,
-
.................and I've not heard yet of anyone being fined for sucking a mint humbug while driving (although it'll probably happen one day).
FLJ
-
Sucking the humbug, no problem. Getting hold of it and transferring from bag to mouth while in charge of the vehicle, probably considered as worthy of transportation to the colonies.
-
hands up those who have drunk a soda or consumed candy whilst at the wheel?
-
So I admit I have taken part in some dangerous driving techniques!
1. turned on the radio whilst driving
2. returned radio 'ditto'
3. told children to shut up whilst driving
4. looked at the sexy woman walking down the road...... whilst driving
5. thought about the above
5a, told wife I WAS concentrating on driving but missed turning due to children in the back asking are we there yet.
6. more of the same.
Are they all and I suspect that they are infringements within the driving laws.
Oh and as a foot note I asked a copper Policeman why he was driving and using his mobile as he turned into a carpark only using one hand on the steering wheel, his reply was "I AM SPECIALLY TRAINED" dogh why did I not think of that one. (a standard patrol vehicle with a driver that put on a chequer banded hat). ??
Oh well R,
-
So, if carried to its ultimate logical conclusion, doing anything in a moving vehicle which detracts from actually controlling that vehicle could be construed as 'not in full control'. For instance, opening the sunroof or winding down the widow, adjusting the seat, operating heat and ventilation controls or touching anything to do with the radio, glancing at unneccesary instruments ie: outside air temp, fuel economy, milage trip etc or switching on interior light for some reason or another..... I expect there are a load of other examples and some would obviously be impossible to police but you can see how daft it could really get.
Smoking whilst driving is something all smokers have done ..and still do and it is obviously one of the most dangerous pastimes a driver can indulge in as many people have died because of it. How many of us remember the burning fag ember falling off the end, dropping on the seat between ones legs and the ensuing panic and weaving of the vehicle as we tried to get at it.
In this day and age of congested roads and high speed, this dangerous habit should be consigned to the dustbin and be prosecutable with the full weight of the law along with mobile phones.
Some changes made to the law have been good but typically of this country they go too far in the extreme to the point common sense flies out the window. I remember the recent case of the truck driver, fined for using a switched off mobile phone which he had been seen placing on the dashboard because it was uncomfortable in his pocket.The law stated he had been using the phone whilst driving just because he handled it. Now thats daft and to me it smacks of money gathering and a waste of peoples time and effort... it has nothing to do with road safety or the correct application of a sensible law.l
-
hands up those who have drunk a soda or consumed candy whilst at the wheel?
"Soda"? "Candy"?? In Stoke-on-Trent? ??? Come back to the UK, Mark - you're far too skinny to be American, anyway.
Someone should remind these imbeciles in Worstmonster that you can legislate until the cows come home but when your police force are all tied up in paperwork or so-called "safety camera" duties then there's no-one left to enforce your silly rules...........
"Kids on the streets with machettes? Nah, mate - we're too busy watching motorists for the tell-tale signs of a moving jaw............"
As for the rozzer on the mobile while driving, you don't need special training to be an arrogant oaf - just a hat with a chequered band around it, it seems.
(Nothing like a good rant to set me up for the day, eh?)
FLJ
-
And I thought you had gone all soft, Dave. Pete M
-
phone records would show that the said truck driver was not on the phone at the time, that case could get quashed very very quickly. whats the difference of passing your phone to a passenger so he or she can make the call on said phone, and placing the infernal things on the dshboard because you happen to be wearing a seatbelt and it's pushing it in your thigh?
the other silly case springs to mind, the tradesman travelling IN HIS OWN VAN, in his OWN TIME, was fined for SMOKING IN THE WORKPLACE.
Aalso if I am with a truck driver on home delivery, (which sometimes happens at my where I work) I as a NON SMOKER can be fined for NOT REPORTING THE SMOKER for SMOKING IN THE CAB OF THE TRUCK. what next, a smoker fined for lighting up in a non smoker's car? (even with the permission of the driver) hell an 8 hour trip without a cigarrette can be hell for some smokers.
another example of uk lunicy, banning children's parents from bringing things like big mac's and kfc's to school for their parents because the school meals is lettice sandwiches or tomato and cucumber because it is "good for them". social workers being called in because kids are over weight (because parents feel its unsafe to let their kids out and so causing so said kids to be come play-station couch potatos)
where is this country going? the PC brigade has gone WAY WAY too far again, far facist right and loony left seem to have merged to form the labour party!
they have had their go at mobile phones and children, driving habits fast food, now smokers, whats next?
-
Its already started.
DRINKING.
Bob
-
yet the gov't allowed 24 hour pub openning to reduce binge drinking they say.
something tells me that the loonie's in red (sorry Chris Rea) are trying to find things to poke at whilst leaving the important issued like defence, education, the "credit crunch" on the back burner because they dont want to do anything about it because it INVOLVES SPENDING MONEY.
-
I am still amazed that "smoking shelters" can only have 3 sides, why?
Who cares if there are 4?
But of course the latest figures show over 20% down in pubs turnover and lots of pubs closing, mostly down to the smoking ban.
So now people drink at home and have a fag when they want so the cheap booze is under attack.
My local pub sells more food but beer sales down by almost 20%.
This of course means less revenue from beer sales and tax from staff as pubs close so where will the additional revenue come from?
You choose!!
Bob
-
Arrh but Bob, the goverment has said that the smoking ban has not affected pub sales, and they are the goverment so it must be true !!!!!!!!!!
sorry my sides hurt and I can't stop laughing !!!!!!!
-
Hey and being part of the great EU
WE can bring in as much cheap fags and booze as we like and then drink and smoke in OUR OWN HOMES to our hearts content!!!!!
Just try it
So there's even more money this grabberment cant get their hands on (or can they)
Tax the tax on tax wheeee I just found the answer (best not tell Gord and Co)
R,
-
I am still amazed that "smoking shelters" can only have 3 sides, why?
Who cares if there are 4?
IIRC there are very closely defined rules regarding the classification of whether a shelter is "open" (smoking allowed) or "closed" (smoking banned). It appears to be calculated on a ratio of the surface area of the "wall" (or opening) to the total surface area of the shelter.
There was a report of a dispute on this subject in the press recently, calculations down to umpteen decimal places decided that a particular structure was in fact a closed structure thus no smoking allowed.
Don't the elfin safety wallahs enjoy all this?
The Rules Rule OK
-
There is a pub in Pembroke Dock where there is a walled back yard.
The owners have fitted a large umbrella which is just 6 inches from the wall.
Guess which part of the pub is crowded, yes the smoking area.
The rest of the pub is nice and smoke free, (which I do agree with) but almost empty.
It just illustrates why some pubs have been hit hard.
Another silly story was in Scotland. On shore leave we went into Largs.
2 smokers, 2 nonsmokers. We went our for a fag and got talking to others outside the pub. By the end of the evening the 2 nonsmokers were comming out with us as there was such a good atmosphere OUTSIDE.
Yes I know the dangers of smoking.
BUT
More deaths and injuries caused by road transport so I assume this should be banned too.
Bob
-
Yes I know the dangers of smoking.
BUT
More deaths and injuries caused by road transport so I assume this should be banned too.
Bob
Drove trucks for 30 odd years but it's the smoking that's killing me.
Statistics don't always work as you want Bob. :(
-
DickyD,
I wouldn't have a problem if tobacco was banned, what I have a problem with is the way it is being done.
Either it is so bad it SHOULD be banned or it isn't and can be sold on the high street.
I just object to harnessing the anti brigade to do the job.
First it was Fox Hunting then Smoking, soon to be Alcohol and Weight.
So eventually we wont smoke, drink or eat (unless its been ok'd by the Health Police), seemas a fun world!!
Cant even go on a Bouncy Castle now!!
To me that is the world that is being produced by the preaching classes.
Actually what you are saying is that you smoked, but everyone else shouldn't.
I have just been to a funeral of a 46 yr old lad who didn't smoke, hardly drank was quite fit but still in the cemetery.
In the last year I have attended too many funerals of younger men than me who looked after themselves.
Bob
-
DickyD,
Actually what you are saying is that you smoked, but everyone else shouldn't.
Yes Bob I am.
I like you dont believe in the nanny state or the way it goes about things, but I do believe people should make up there own minds if they want to kill themselves.
However I feel I should try and talk them out of it, even you Bob ;)
Smoke if you want to but just be prepared go through what several members of this forum are going through at this present time, as no one is immune.
And please dont use the excuse that people also die from other things, so might as well carry on smoking, it doesn't wash.
-
My wonderful mother......60 a day......dead at 55!!!!! >>:-( >>:-( >>:-( >>:-(
-
Either it is so bad it SHOULD be banned or it isn't and can be sold on the high street.
It's never as simple as that. Some people are more susceptible than others so how can you draw the line? Also, almost everything will kill you if you have too much of it. Most things are tolerably safe in moderation. The guy who "invented" jogging dropped dead of heart failure. Sorry about your Mum Footski. Mine was a also a chain smoker who ate hardly anything and kept going until 74, no cancer -just heart failure. My Dad gave up smoking in his late 30's and was dead of lung cancer at 65. Fickle Finger of fate
As somebody once remarked to me, if they invented petrol now it would be immediately banned as being too dangerous.
The problem with these people is that they want to dictate how you live your life rather than spell out the risks objectively and leave you to make your own decision. Rather too many people are a bit like that for my liking. Nanny state rules.
Colin
-
My wonderful mother......60 a day......dead at 55!!!!! >>:-( >>:-( >>:-( >>:-(
You have my sympathy Barry, my mum went at 50. :(
-
"The problem with these people is that they want to dictate how you live your life rather than spell out the risks objectively and leave you to make your own decision. Rather too many people are a bit like that for my liking. Nanny state rules."
Dead on Colin, 10,000% correct. We should have the choice.
Nige
-
Have to agree with you guys, javascript:void(0);one should be given the facts, and allowed to make their own choices. Thats what lifes all about, have respect for others, but live your life how you want, not how some under-achiever, being paid by your taxes, telling you how to live your life. But, I hear the cry go up, smokers cost the public health system millions each year, which would be better spent elsewhere. No, we all pay our taxes to fund the public health and other services, and if 'wee noddy' up in the PUBLIC services cannot manage this continuing income to provide the services in the future, when you may need it, then surely, that is incompetence on a quite large scale. (trying to show a modicum of restraint here)
Politicians, definitely can not organize anything beyond the the current term of office, and the public service, just muddle along trying to run the country along private business lines (ie show a profit, and make the user pay) and loose sight of the fact that the user has already paid, via his taxes, so I ask why do we have to then turn around and pay again. Have you ever noticed, its only the public utilities (govt run services) that are making large profits, which are then 'privatized'. None if the rest. Talk about jobs for the greedy boys. Its all about diverting the funds from the public purse into individuals pockets, and 'joe public' lets them, and swallows all the b**l s**t. The tax system could be vastly simplified, made so much fairer for all, but then we would't require all them's in the tax office running around trying to collect, would we. Its all about greed, money and power (control). It would be a simpler, and happier world if people cared and had some respect for others, and lived peacefully together.
As has been said before on this forum, different people have different tolerance levels to most things. My grand father, a chain smoker all his life, finally departed, aged 90. Whilst others with the same habit don't make it to a third that.
All a part of life's lottery.
I step down the soap-box is now vacant againjavascript:void(0);
kiwijavascript:void(0);
-
All a part of life's lottery.
The Americans have a phrase for it: "S**t happens"
Explains a lot.
-
The Americans have a phrase for it: "S**t happens"
Explains a lot.
Exactly
kiwi
-
DickyD,
As an apprentice I was exposed to brown asbestos from brakes and clutches on a DAILY basis.
When I joined Portsmouth Dockyard I was exposed to free Blue, White and Brown Asbestos (although the dangers were known in the 1930's!!)
Used Engine Oil ( a virulent carcinogenic),
Unleaded fuel fumes
Various heavy metals.
When I was on the Tugs we regularly moved a waste NuclearWaste Barge which was "cleaned up" for disposal but somehow managed to still be over 30 times the legal limit for daily exposure.
My present ship still has Brown Asbestos, but its OK now, there are warning signs!!
Plus lots of other "unknown" substances.
Exhaust leaks within the engine room, etc
Most of my peers do not enjoy long happy retirements, and neither do I expect to.
So I subscribe to the S**T HAPPENS theory.
So I shall eat, drink, smoke and me merry.
Bob
-
I agree smoking can be bad for you, but can the doctors state un categorically in the individual that smoking is the ONLY cause of the cancer?
Can vehicle, factory or other contribute, or be the sole factor for the cancer? If it's a mixture of pollutants what are the %'s?
You never hear of some one dying due to car exhausts? (suicide's apart)
regards
Gary :)
-
...My present ship still has Brown Asbestos, but its OK now, there are warning signs!!...
nothing wrong with asbestos as long as its left alone, even if unsigned. its the dust that is the problem.
-
I spent a large chunk of my career in a County Council Property department. Some types of asbestos are not harmful if sealed and not disturbed but you have to know where they are and identify them so that they remain undisturbed by, for instance, building alteration works. A lot of money continues to be spent on this. It's a big potential problem that will need to be managed almost indefinitely.
Colin
-
Just had news today that an ex-colleague from Her Majesty's Customer Neckties has popped his clogs. Smoked 60 a day; drank about two bottles of assorted spirits in the same time (mainly vodka and whisky) and was the most objectionable little nonentity I ever met. Age 53.
As Brendan Behan once said (quote) "every cripple has his own way of walking".
FLJ
-
Some on this thread are saying that as long as you know the risks that smoking potentially has then so be it. However the majority of the public assume that the authorities who state that smoking is a health hazard are just part of an anti smoking conspiracy and so must be false. The tobacco companies refuse to admit that the chemicals in their product are harmfull (it is so easy to ignore when profits come into it) I have said it before that the analysis of the chemical content of smoke inhaled by tobacco products should be on the packet for all to see and not just some quickly forgotten slogan or gruesome picture. Let the smoker be able to make his/her own choice wether to put these chemicals into their lungs. Also as discussed in this thread is that some people smoke all their lives without getting lung cancer, well it is not only the lungs that are affected by the smoke inhaled there are things like vascular disease and heart problems and other such things. I don't begrudge anyone the right to light up I just wish there was a little more honesty with the government and the tobacco industry to admit that their product is addictive and the chemicals that the smoke contains. Like all addictive things it seams hard for the addicted to see the harm in the pleasure.
Said my piece and probably alienated half the forum but it is just my oppinion.
Regards David
Added: There is one thing that really gets my goat about smokers (only one I hear) that is the flicking of the butt on the ground. Now I can not understand the thinking of this. These flickers seam to think that the cigarette butt is not litter. They would probably be the first in the crowd to condemn some youth dropping a McDonald's wrapper on the ground.
Now I have alienated the other half of the forum.
-
Hi Bigfells,
Noooo you have not alienated me and I though I am an ex-smoker (oh I don't eat mucky Di's either)
I agree with your post but
I just wish there was a little more honesty with the government and the tobacco industry to admit that their product is addictive
Is it not true that "WE" can not smoke in the work place --- Yet they can still smoke in the houses of Parliament?
I may have my facts wrong but I am sure I heard this when the smoking ban was being introduced
R,
-
Is it not true that "WE" can not smoke in the work place --- Yet they can still smoke in the houses of Parliament?
Surely this is just the classic example of the old saying "Don't do what I do, do what I say".
You can bet your last penny on one fact, they'll never implement any legislation that affects their cosy little world.
-
I just wish there was a little more honesty with the government and the tobacco industry to admit that their product is addictive
Is it not true that "WE" can not smoke in the work place --- Yet they can still smoke in the houses of Parliament?
I may have my facts wrong but I am sure I heard this when the smoking ban was being introduced
I am unsure about the UK but here in Australia anyone caught smoking in, or even now around, a government building of any sort will be shot on site {-). No really it is a big fine and any public building even shopping centers and their entrances are policed.
Regards David
-
What happens if they are just standing there smouldering? ;)
-
I believe that hotels are exempt from the non smoking laws, and that there are designated areas within the building for smokers.
One rule for one?
regards
Gary
-
The last two hotels I stayed at had a total smoking ban Gary. O0
-
Is it not true that "WE" can not smoke in the work place --- Yet they can still smoke in the houses of Parliament?
I may have my facts wrong but I am sure I heard this when the smoking ban was being introduced
It's a Daily Mail type red herring, although technically the Houses of Parliament are exempt from the smoking ban it is in fact banned in there.
As for hotels, I think it is allowed in certain designated bed rooms but not public places. I'm told the same goes for prisons where it is allowed in cells.
Perhaps someone who works in prison and/or hotels can tell us
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/article2007242.ece
-
Sorry FTF,
But according to Ken Clarke MP (cigar smoker) he could smoke in the House as there cannot be an official ban he as just decided not to. Don't know about any other MP's.
Just a thought but if smoking in the work place is banned and it surely is. How does a smoker go on in a public park, the park keeper works there or on the Derbyshire moors National Park rangers work there.
Colin H. smoker.
-
If thats the case Colin, imagine smoking whilst standing in the middle of a farmers field and the farmer telling you you can't do it as it's his workplace and therefore against the law....logical or what? You can now see how it works, pass one small regulation and it can be expanded to ludicrous heights and even argued in a court of law, I'll bet! Carried further, I bet some legal minded blighter could argue that you couldn't smoke anywhere out in the open, even in the middle of an empty road since it could be considered the workplace of various drivers, roadmenders, sweepers etc. Is it me going mad or are the Brits loosing their freedom bit by bit and being ruled by a nit picking bunch of yoghurt sipping bean counters.
-
If thats the case Colin, imagine smoking whilst standing in the middle of a farmers field and the farmer telling you you can't do it as it's his workplace and therefore against the law....logical or what? You can now see how it works, pass one small regulation and it can be expanded to ludicrous heights and even argued in a court of law, I'll bet! Carried further, I bet some legal minded blighter could argue that you couldn't smoke anywhere out in the open, even in the middle of an empty road since it could be considered the workplace of various drivers, roadmenders, sweepers etc. Is it me going mad or are the Brits loosing their freedom bit by bit and being ruled by a nit picking bunch of yoghurt sipping bean counters.
you try tell the farmer that he couldnt smoke in his tractor or in his field, when he 1/ owns the tractor, 2/ owns the land, and I bet the answer you get won't be repeatable on here!
-
3, Has a BIG gun
4, Got a bigger dog to go with 3
R,
-
Sorry FTF,
But according to Ken Clarke MP (cigar smoker) he could smoke in the House as there cannot be an official ban he as just decided not to. Don't know about any other MP's.
Just a thought but if smoking in the work place is banned and it surely is. How does a smoker go on in a public park, the park keeper works there or on the Derbyshire moors National Park rangers work there.
Colin H. smoker.
1. that's Tories for you....
2.There aren't many parks that are inside that is where the smoking ban applies.
"On July 1st 2007, England introduced a new law to make virtually all enclosed public places and workplaces in England smokefree. A smokefree England ensures a healthier environment, so everyone can socialise, relax, travel, shop and work free from secondhand smoke."
http://www.smokefreeengland.co.uk/
Let's hope the info on Mayhem about model boats is more accurate that that about the smoking ban ;) ;)
ps from the Guardian website.
"And while the Houses of Parliament are technically exempt from the new law, both the Commons and the Lords have agreed to make all enclosed parts of the Palace of Westminster smoke-free from tomorrow."
-
FTF,
Ken Clarke only pointed out the truth which after research you found to be correct and lets be right its the labour party that are passing all the stupid rules and regulations whilst ignoring major issue's like gun and knife crime etc etc etc.
I personally don't mind not smoking in enclosed public spaces as I know it can be a pain to others. But there are far more important things that need urgent attention and they are being totally ignored by politicians of all colours.
Again a personal opinion but a small tactical nuke on the palace of Westminster would not go amiss.
To the watchers ITS A JOKE honest {-) {-) {-)
Colin H. (I despise all politicians) >>:-( >>:-( >>:-(