View previous topic | View next topic

DEATH RATES

Page 3 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Bunter
151260.  Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:45 am Reply with quote

Let's not forget what Headmaster Anthony got from the sweetie makers' advertising man. Double what teacher got : £1 million fat ones:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/931708.stm

 
Bunter
151261.  Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:50 am Reply with quote

Oh look. What a surprise. Governor Edward was also bought up by the sweeties men.

And you call this AN ANTI-SMOKING CRUSADE!

Quote:
The introduction of the warnings comes as it emerges former Tory Prime Minister Edward Heath curbed attempts to clamp down on smoking in the early 1970s.

New Scientist magazine reports the then social services secretary Sir Keith Joseph was proposing a bill which would have forced cigarette adverts to carry health warnings and give local authorities the powers to ban smoking in public places.

But the idea was quickly watered down. In 1971 tobacco companies agreed to carry health warnings on packets as part of a voluntary code, but no legislation was introduced.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2617585.stm

 
Bunter
151263.  Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:56 am Reply with quote

Golly. I almost forgot Uncle John's anti sweetie crusade:

Quote:
Let us take as an example what I believe to be the pernicious influence of the tobacco industry. Smoking kills 300 people each day in Great Britain. Everyone knows, and the British Medical Association has long argued, that tobacco advertising should be prohibited. But the fact that the tobacco industry donated poster sites worth probably millions of pounds to John Major's government for their 1992 election campaign cannot have hastened that government's progress towards banning tobacco advertising


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/vo001012/text/01012-23.htm

 
Flash
151265.  Sun Feb 25, 2007 5:12 am Reply with quote

Quote:
The Second Crusade, 1145-1149

After a period of relative peace in which Christians and Muslims co-existed in the Holy Land, Muslims conquered the town of Edessa. A new crusade was called for by various preachers, most notably by Bernard of Clairvaux. French and German armies, under the Kings Louis VII and Conrad III respectively, marched to Jerusalem in 1147 but failed to accomplish any major successes, and indeed endangered the survival of the Crusader states with a strategically foolish attack on Damascus. By 1150, both leaders had returned to their countries without any result. St. Bernard of Clairvaux, who in his preachings had encouraged the Second Crusade, was upset with the amount of misdirected violence and slaughter of innocent people, especially the Jewish population of the Rhineland.


... but it was still a Crusade.

 
Bunter
151266.  Sun Feb 25, 2007 5:14 am Reply with quote

According to the Department of Health:

Quote:
Smoking is known to be the principal avoidable cause of premature deaths in the UK.


http://www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/HealthAndSocialCareTopics/Tobacco/fs/en

And yet...it's legal, government still profits from it and there's no suggestion of an outright ban.

That's one hell of a crusade.

(CRUSADE: any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea, cause, etc.: a crusade against child abuse.)


Last edited by Bunter on Sun Feb 25, 2007 5:19 am; edited 1 time in total

 
Bunter
151267.  Sun Feb 25, 2007 5:19 am Reply with quote

Quote:
After a period of relative peace in which Christians and Muslims co-existed in the Holy Land, Muslims conquered the town of Edessa. A new crusade was called for by various preachers, most notably by Bernard of Clairvaux.


But surely the point is that the French and German armies TOOK UP ARMS against the Muslims!

A comparison with your example would be like saying:

"The French and the Germans today announced that Muslims could no longer advertise Islam on the television network of Edessa. However, The French and the Germans are perfectly happy for all Islamic prayer to continue in people's homes, as long as everyone coughs up a fiver."

 
eggshaped
151268.  Sun Feb 25, 2007 5:21 am Reply with quote

This is surely a question of semantics isn't it gentlemen? I think we all agree on the facts, that there is an anti-smoking movement which stops short of a full ban due to financial advantages.

I have to say, if there's a smoking-jihad you can sign me up today. Religious or no. Health factors or no. My jeans stink this morning.

 
Bunter
151270.  Sun Feb 25, 2007 5:29 am Reply with quote

Golly. Look what we've found here.

A "pro-smoking crusade" that advertises a book at the end for financial gain.

http://home.wirehub.nl/~spectr/cowardcolumn/smoking.html

Pot. Kettle. Black.

 
Flash
151271.  Sun Feb 25, 2007 5:45 am Reply with quote

I actually don't understand what point is being made. There manifestly exists a widespread campaign against smoking, a social trend towards the ostracization of smokers, and an increasingly rigorous body of anti-smoking legislation in several jurisdictions. I don't think Bunter can be denying this, though it may be that I've wholly missed the point of what he is saying (I think some parts of his posts are intended as sarcasm, but I'm not completely sure I know which parts). Anyway, given that he can't very well be denying this, I don't really understand what point is being made, as I say.

Quote:
From 1 July 2007, the whole of the United Kingdom will have smokefree legislation in place, making it the biggest jurisdiction in the world (by population) to have legally-enforced protection from secondhand smoke. Virtually all workplaces will be smokefree, which means that all employees in offices, shops, factories, restaurants or pubs will be able to work in a clean, smokefree environment.

http://www.ash.org.uk/

 
Bunter
151272.  Sun Feb 25, 2007 5:56 am Reply with quote

I'm reacting to Mat's earlier post Flash:

Quote:
I have written a pamphlet, in which I argue that the antismoking crusade is based on religion, rather than science. Iíve been writing it for well over 20 years, and am quite surprised to find that Iíve now finished it.

What I want to do is to somehow put it up on the internet, so that anyone who wants to can read it for free. But Iíve no idea how to do that, or even if itís possible. Any helpful suggestions would be gratefully received. The pamphlet is about 44,000 words and 536KB.


I vehemently deny that there is an 'antismoking crusade'. There is an 'anti smokers' crusade, maybe, but not an 'antismoking crusade'. My sources prove that government isn't trying to eradicate 'smoking' but trying to marginalise 'smokers'.

Small but important point.

 
Flash
151273.  Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:13 am Reply with quote

OK. So small as to be invisible to me, I'm afraid - no wonder I didn't understand.

 
dr.bob
151462.  Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:50 am Reply with quote

I agree with Flash that there is a movement (I'm not sure it really warrants being called a "crusade") against smoking at the moment. However, at the same time, as Bunter has pointed out, there is also a very well-funded pro-smoking movement.

For a long time the pro-smoking movement has had a significant influence on government policy (many ministers in the last Conservative government were either funded by tobacco companies or sat on the board of one, Ken Clarke being the most famous example). It just so happens that, at the moment, the anti-smoking movement seems to be winning.

To be honest I find it hard to view that as anything other than a wholly positive thing. Smoking has been scientifically proven to damage your health. While the case for passive smoking might not be so cut-and-dry, the number of harmful chemicals contained in tobacco smoke would suggest that it's not the best thing to be breathing in all night long.

Thinking of pubs, are there any other situations where people who are suspected of doing harm to those around them have been traditionally catered for whilst those who wish to avoid said harm are shepherded into small, special areas (if they exist at all)?

 
suze
151521.  Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:20 am Reply with quote

Dr.bob is of course right that smoking isn't very good for you, and from a health care point of view it would have to be a good thing if everyone suddenly stopped doing it.

But it would be less good for the taxpayer, since the £8 billion or so that is collected annually in excise duty on tobacco products would have to be made up somehow. (It's equivalent to something between 1p and 2p on the income tax, and there are no votes in that.)

And as for those pubs - well good luck on finding a salubrious one after the smoking ban takes effect. The pub which my husband and I visit is closing its doors in April, having been sold as a private house. That's simply because mine host doesn't think it would be viable as a non-smoking outlet - and I'm sure he isn't the only one.

Since both the other pubs within walking distance of my home are the sorts of places where 19 is considered old and supporting a football team other than England constitutes grounds for a boot to the head, that is likely to be the end of my pubgoing days. Sad really.

 
dr.bob
151558.  Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:49 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
But it would be less good for the taxpayer, since the £8 billion or so that is collected annually in excise duty on tobacco products would have to be made up somehow. (It's equivalent to something between 1p and 2p on the income tax, and there are no votes in that.)


That's very true, though not necessarily a good reason for not banning smoking.

suze wrote:
And as for those pubs - well good luck on finding a salubrious one after the smoking ban takes effect. The pub which my husband and I visit is closing its doors in April, having been sold as a private house. That's simply because mine host doesn't think it would be viable as a non-smoking outlet - and I'm sure he isn't the only one.


What a very strange decision to make. You forget that I live in Scotland where we already have our smoking ban in force. I'm not aware of any pubs closing their doors around here, so the salubriousness is unaffected. Certainly all the pubs I go to are still open as normal. The only difference, apart from the clean air in the pub, is the small group of people lurking just outside having a fag.

I wonder if "thine host" is over-reacting ever so slightly.

 
suze
151565.  Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:05 am Reply with quote

I dare say he is, and the fact that he's 60 in a few months and contemplating a Spanish retirement was possibly not irrelevant either. But the smoking ban was the reason why he sought to sell as a residential property rather than as a going concern. Either way, it doesn't help me ...


440 pubs in Ireland closed their doors in 2006, with the smoking ban cited as a leading cause (source: http://tinyurl.com/2zexfn). England has more than ten times the population of Ireland, and is also exceptionally zealous in its enforcement of regulations. While I'm sure the ban is rigidly enforced in Dublin, do they actually take any notice of it in those parts of rural Ireland where the pub is a room behind the grocer's shop?

They don't in France - restaurants there have had a smoking ban for some years, and it's just utterly ignored in a large number of eateries. That isn't the way we do things in the UK - so early July would be a great time if you have the Crime of the Millennium planned, since the police will be far too busy removing recalcitrant smokers from licensed premises.

 

Page 3 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group