Smoking on QM2 after UK ban

[GAV BOY]

Really? Was the person who told you that the same person that told me that the moon was made of blue cheese?

 

Cannabis is actually more dangerous than many realise. The real dangers are to mental health, not physical health.

 

A lot of things are bad for you. People get pleasure from a lot of them.

 

Matthew

 

PS - What are "trans fats" anyway?

 

The moon is made of blue cheese :D

 

Yes but you have to mix normal Tobacco with cannabis for it to burn and that is bad for physical health ! :mad:

 

A lot of things may be bad for you, but you have no right to inflict it on other people which is what passive smoking does ! :eek:

 

Next !

[pnhmrk]

A lot of things may be bad for you, but you have no right to inflict it on other people which is what passive smoking does ! :eek:

 

I am fed up with the lies you are spawning about passive smoking. In a recent study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, using actual monitoring devices, instead of estimates as were provided before, shows a worker in a smoker-friendly establishment inhales the equivalent of 6 cigarettes per year.

 

The effect of those six cigarettes over a year is negligible.

[GAV BOY]

I am fed up with the lies you are spawning about passive smoking. In a recent study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, using actual monitoring devices, instead of estimates as were provided before, shows a worker in a smoker-friendly establishment inhales the equivalent of 6 cigarettes per year.

 

The effect of those six cigarettes over a year is negligible.

 

 

Boring Rubbish is what you spawn ! :eek:

 

The majority of Experts are correct, you come up with a couple of seedy reports and think your right ! :confused:

 

Well its going to be banned so either like it or lump it ! ;)

 

Cos your WRONG, WRONG, WRONG ! :)

 

Anyway get yourself a life !

 

Roll on JULY 1st :D

[guernseyguy]

In a recent study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, using actual monitoring devices, instead of estimates as were provided before, shows a worker in a smoker-friendly establishment inhales the equivalent of 6 cigarettes per year. The effect of those six cigarettes over a year is negligible.

 

Malcolm,

 

Two points (for arguments sake accepting that the study (from 2000) is correct) - its still six more cigarettes than I would choose.

 

Second point, this study was funded by 'The Centre for Indoor Air Research' . And who do you think funds them......

 

http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/nonprofits/center_for_indoor_air_research.html

 

http://tobaccodocuments.org/profiles/ciar.html

 

http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=331

 

Peter

[GAV BOY]

Malcolm,

 

Two points (for arguments sake accepting that the study (from 2000) is correct) - its still six more cigarettes than I would choose.

 

Second point, this study was funded by 'The Centre for Indoor Air Research' . And who do you think funds them......

 

http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/nonprofits/center_for_indoor_air_research.html

 

http://tobaccodocuments.org/profiles/ciar.html

 

Peter

 

Hey Peter im just sick of this persons rudeness, because he is losing the arguement he starts insulting people. well let him get on with it !

 

Regards,

 

Gavin :cool:

[guernseyguy]

Hey Peter im just sick of this persons rudeness, because he is losing the arguement he starts insulting people. well let him get on with it !

 

Gavin, expressions involving pots and kettles spring to mind.....in general I find Malcolm to be a respectful and thoughtful poster - in this case I think he's mistaken, and since we have the (reliable) data on our side, I think that will be the best way to persuade others.

 

Peter

[GAV BOY]

Gavin, expressions involving pots and kettles spring to mind.....in general I find Malcolm to be a respectful and thoughtful poster - in this case I think he's mistaken, and since we have the (reliable) data on our side, I think that will be the best way to persuade others.

 

Peter

 

Well i dont see calling me a liar being respectful ,but as you say we are correct and thats good enough for me ! :D

 

regards,

 

Gavin :cool:

[SamanthasDad]

I am fed up with the lies you are spawning about passive smoking. In a recent study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, using actual monitoring devices, instead of estimates as were provided before, shows a worker in a smoker-friendly establishment inhales the equivalent of 6 cigarettes per year.

 

The effect of those six cigarettes over a year is negligible.

Six cigarettes more than I want to inhale. or that I want my daughter to inhale.

 

Lets just assume, just to keep you happy, that passive smoking is not harmful. I still do not want to smell smoke and breath it in, it does nothing for my asthma. And even after sitting in the non-smoking section of a pub, I still get home and have to change all my clothes because I stink. Smokers are very lucky that their sense of smell no longer exists.

 

At work we have been non-smoking since it was introduced in Scotland.

So now instead of smokers being shut into tiny rooms around the building, they now stand by the main entrance.

So the only way to get into our building is by walking through clouds of smoke and over a few thousand discarded buts as the majority of the smokers are too lazy to walk 10 feet and use a bin.

 

Apart from being unhealthy, smoking is just plain antisocial.

 

You have produced one piece of evidence (no links?). against the many that have been produced arguing against you.

Either produce more independent evidence or shut up.

[patwell]

I am really getting appalled at the rudeness and lack of respect being shown by some people on this thread. We will NEVER be able to discuss this subject without bringing out the intractability in some people...it must be either their way or no way. Well folks, we are all on this planet together....it's just a shame that some people refuse to understand the concept that we all have rights, whether or not we agree with them.

 

At the risk of inflaming the subject any further, don't you think this thread has deteriorated to a ridiculous state of redundency....in short, stop beating this dead horse! There are studies that have been done from both sides and will prove whatever you wish to see them prove.

 

It's been quite some time since I've seen this level of rudeness on this forum and i find it quite disappointing.

Penny

[rosinryanz]

I had to chime in on this. I was thinking exactly about this topic about a month ago. Now that New York and England will be under smoking bans, what will happen to smokers on QM2? That remains to be seen, but my guess is that nothing will really change. Here in the US, the majority of cruises leave out of California and Florida. California has been nonsmoking since 1995 (bars were in 1998), and Florida since around 2002. Still, our cruises offer indoor smoking areas. Only change in the past few years - dining rooms have gone nonsmoking, but they are still puffing away elsewhere onboard.

 

Regarding passive smoking (called secondhand smoke in the US), I suggest that you read http://www.davehitt.com/facts/. Definately an interesting perspective on things. Have we all been fooled?

 

I am a nonsmoker by the way.

 

Sorry to some of you, but I am looking forward to going to a nonsmoking England. That being said, I still think smokers should be allowed to smoke in seprate, indoor smoking lounges. They are happy because they can smoke inside, and we are happy because we have nonsmoking areas. But the idea of nonsmoking bars - let's face it, if you are at a bar, you aren't there for your health. Just my 2 American cents.

[travel-to-go]

Really? Was the person who told you that the same person that told me that the moon was made of blue cheese?[/quote

Wrong.

It's specifically, Stilton

 

PS - What are "trans fats" anyway?

 

I think those are fats which have had a gender change. <G>

 

Karie,

who has global fat.

[travel-to-go]

Penny,

You know I'd sit with you any time in the Commodore Club as long as my health is okay (Today is not one of those days, sadly- I am suffering greatly, and the least exertion causes me hacking fits. I don't get colds, unfortunately. They usually go straight to bronchitis, as it looks like this has)

I cannot imagine right now my being anywhere in proximity of a lit cigarette- Or for that matter, a fireplace. I think I would just keep over and die. In fact, I'm considering doing that anyway- At least until the pain goes away! <G>

 

Okay- I think both sides of this argument need to back down and remember that civility is key here. In fact, civility is key when it comes to cigarette smoke exposure. Although a ban would give me the freedom to go anywhere I wanted without fear of exposure I might have difficulty coping with (and just plain distaste) it is not realistic. As long as people are addicted to these things and cannot or do not want to quit (and our kids keep picking up the habit, somehow thinking they are being "cool") it is unrealistic and cruel to affect a ban. And I think very few smokers would want their kids to pick up the habit. However, I think it is perfectly reasonable to restrict where the public may smoke, so long as they are given some place they may go. OTOH, I do not think a business should be forced to create a smoking lounge. And smokers should be considerate in hanging around entrances, both because it is rude to be in the way and to expose others to our bad habits, and those who are litterers are just plain rude period. I don't care if it is cigarette butts or chewing gum wrappers. As I like to think of those throwing them out their car windows, "HEY! If you think it's too nasty to be in YOUR atmosphere, I sure as hell don't want it in mine!" As for those who think they should be entitled to frequent smoking breaks, I like sex. however, I don't expect my employer to give me free breaks to indulge 7 or 8 times a day! <G>

 

Now Malcolm- Oak Ridge Labs? Conducting second hand smoking studies? That is certainly news to me! Last time I was there (and I used to have meetings once a week at one of the Y-12 guard shacks) Oak Ridge Labs was the world's first Nuclear Power Plant! Now they're doing smoking studies? Sheesh- Times must be slow in the Nuclear industry (Yeah- let's not get into that. Dad was in the Nuclear industry, and I've been through the Oak Ridge Power Plant. personally-and even met Felicia the ferret) Remember, I am from Tennessee and my father worked for both TVA and GE)

Oh, and Gav Boy- Take it from me, who has um.. has had friends who have smoked Tennessee home Grown (Yea- Friends! That's it!) it does not need to be mixed with tobacco to burn. Any vegetation will burn if dry enough.

 

Okay, anyone want to talk politics and religion?

Or maybe jeans on formal night and calling the lower classes steerage.

Maybe we could discuss why Americans are better than Brits! <G>

 

Okay,

Maybe not

 

Karie,

who thinks we have gone WAY too far now.

I am sending both of you to your rooms without dessert.

[Norfolk Brit]

I am really getting appalled at the rudeness and lack of respect being shown by some people on this thread. We will NEVER be able to discuss this subject without bringing out the intractability in some people...it must be either their way or no way. Well folks, we are all on this planet together....it's just a shame that some people refuse to understand the concept that we all have rights, whether or not we agree with them.

 

At the risk of inflaming the subject any further, don't you think this thread has deteriorated to a ridiculous state of redundency....in short, stop beating this dead horse! There are studies that have been done from both sides and will prove whatever you wish to see them prove.

 

It's been quite some time since I've seen this level of rudeness on this forum and i find it quite disappointing.

 

Penny

 

Very well said, Penny

 

Regards, Mary

[GAV BOY]

Six cigarettes more than I want to inhale. or that I want my daughter to inhale.

 

Lets just assume, just to keep you happy, that passive smoking is not harmful. I still do not want to smell smoke and breath it in, it does nothing for my asthma. And even after sitting in the non-smoking section of a pub, I still get home and have to change all my clothes because I stink. Smokers are very lucky that their sense of smell no longer exists.

 

At work we have been non-smoking since it was introduced in Scotland.

So now instead of smokers being shut into tiny rooms around the building, they now stand by the main entrance.

So the only way to get into our building is by walking through clouds of smoke and over a few thousand discarded buts as the majority of the smokers are too lazy to walk 10 feet and use a bin.

 

Apart from being unhealthy, smoking is just plain antisocial.

 

You have produced one piece of evidence (no links?). against the many that have been produced arguing against you.

Either produce more independent evidence or shut up.

 

Well Said ! :D

[guernseyguy]

There are studies that have been done from both sides and will prove whatever you wish to see them prove.

 

Penny,

 

I agree that we've probably usefully discussed all that we can on this - though, if I may I'd like to challenge the concept of 'both sides'. From a Scientific perspective the overwhelming preponderance of peer-reviewed evidence is that smoking and environmental tobacco smoke are harmful. The 'studies' that are sometimes cited as 'raising doubts' almost all turn out to have been funded by Tobacco. Its a bit like (to start another row!) Creationists claiming they are 'the other side of the argument' about evolution - one is science, for all its flaws, the other is not.

 

Peter

[pnhmrk]

I am really getting appalled at the rudeness and lack of respect being shown by some people on this thread. We will NEVER be able to discuss this subject without bringing out the intractability in some people...it must be either their way or no way. Well folks, we are all on this planet together....it's just a shame that some people refuse to understand the concept that we all have rights, whether or not we agree with them.

 

At the risk of inflaming the subject any further, don't you think this thread has deteriorated to a ridiculous state of redundency....in short, stop beating this dead horse! There are studies that have been done from both sides and will prove whatever you wish to see them prove.

 

It's been quite some time since I've seen this level of rudeness on this forum and i find it quite disappointing.

Penny

 

Penny - I agree. The lack of respect that I've been shown has, at times, been incredible. It's only when I respond in a slightly insulting way that somebody comments.

 

Unfortunately you are right we will never discuss this subject to allow for consideration for others:( We are also well off the track of the OPs question: how will the smoking ban affect the QM2 (and other cruise ships)?

[pnhmrk]

I'd like to challenge the concept of 'both sides'. From a Scientific perspective the overwhelming preponderance of peer-reviewed evidence is that smoking and environmental tobacco smoke are harmful.

 

Peter - see http://www.davehitt.com/facts/ the link originally posted by rosinryanz

[GAV BOY]

Penny - I agree. The lack of respect that I've been shown has, at times, been incredible. It's only when I respond in a slightly insulting way that somebody comments.

 

Unfortunately you are right we will never discuss this subject to allow for consideration for others:( We are also well off the track of the OPs question: how will the smoking ban affect the QM2 (and other cruise ships)?

 

Well your not the only one then ! :(

[guernseyguy]

Peter - see http://www.davehitt.com/facts/ the link originally posted by rosinryanz

 

Malcolm,

 

I have read it - First, he attacks a study from 1993.....there has been a lot more work done since then. Second, I've also read the claimed 'rubbishing' by the Congressional Research Service of the EPA study - see here:

 

http://www.heartland.org/pdf/23804d.pdf

 

What he does not mention is that the 'report generally endorsed the findings of the study, while noting that 'a few researchers have challenged the classification of ETS as a known carcinogen' - and also challenged the methodology of the Oak Ridge Group study which you cited earlier. He does not mention that, either.

 

Peer reviewed science?

 

oh, here's some, from the Journal of the American Medical Association, which concluded that:

 

In multiple logistic regression analyses controlling for article quality, peer review status, article topic, and year of publication, the only factor associated with concluding that passive smoking is not harmful was whether an author was affiliated with the tobacco industry (odds ratio, 88.4; 95% confidence interval, 16.4-476.5; P<.001).

 

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/19/1566?view=abstract

 

Peter

[guernseyguy]

Ooops! Punny headline! Never mind, the BBC report that scientists believe they have an explanation of that phenomenon known as 'Beer Goggles':

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4468884.stm

 

The factors involved include alcohol, and the room's smokiness:

 

"The beer goggles effect isn't solely dependent on how much alcohol a person consumes, there are other influencing factors at play too. "For example, someone with normal vision, who has consumed five pints of beer and views a person 1.5 metres away in a fairly smoky and poorly lit room, will score 55, which means they would suffer from a moderate beer goggle effect.

A formula rating of less than one means no effect. Between one and 50 the person you would normally find unattractive appears less "visually offensive. Non-appealing people become suddenly attractive between 51 and 100. At more than 100, someone not considered attractive looks like a super model."

 

Now we know!

[SamanthasDad]

Ooops! Punny headline! Never mind, the BBC report that scientists believe they have an explanation of that phenomenon known as 'Beer Goggles':

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4468884.stm

 

The factors involved include alcohol, and the room's smokiness:

 

"The beer goggles effect isn't solely dependent on how much alcohol a person consumes, there are other influencing factors at play too. "For example, someone with normal vision, who has consumed five pints of beer and views a person 1.5 metres away in a fairly smoky and poorly lit room, will score 55, which means they would suffer from a moderate beer goggle effect.

A formula rating of less than one means no effect. Between one and 50 the person you would normally find unattractive appears less "visually offensive. Non-appealing people become suddenly attractive between 51 and 100. At more than 100, someone not considered attractive looks like a super model."

 

 

Now we know!

I wish I had known about this formula in my younger days.

Maybe if I had gone in more smokey bars the females would have seen me in a better light:);)

[pnhmrk]

He attacks a study from 1993.....there has been a lot more work done since then.

 

The World Health Organisation ran one of the most exhaustive tests on second hard smoke ever done. After years of meticulous record keeping of all the data, their ultimate findings showed no measurable relationship of second hand smoke to any form of cancer or other illness. The only measurable fact they did discover was that of all adult children who came from homes where both parents smoked had had a 22% better chance of NOT contracting lung cancer than did adult children who came from homes where both parents did not smoke. The W.H. O attempted to hid these facts from the public until several astute reporters forced them to make their facts public. Unfortunately I'm struggling to find when the survey finished.

[pnhmrk]

Peer reviewed science?

 

oh, here's some, from the Journal of the American Medical Association, which concluded that:

 

In multiple logistic regression analyses controlling for article quality, peer review status, article topic, and year of publication, the only factor associated with concluding that passive smoking is not harmful was whether an author was affiliated with the tobacco industry (odds ratio, 88.4; 95% confidence interval, 16.4-476.5; P<.001).

 

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/19/1566?view=abstract

 

The same article also says "The conclusions of review articles are strongly associated with the affiliations of their authors". Not just the-pro choice bit also the anti-smoking reports!

[guernseyguy]

Not just the-pro choice bit also the anti-smoking reports!

 

Which businesses have interests in anti-smoking?

 

Peter

[guernseyguy]

Unfortunately I'm struggling to find when the survey finished.

 

Its probably not this one, which concluded that 'involuntary smoking is a cause of lung cancer in never smokers':

 

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/volume83.pdf

 

And it certainly would not be the report from the CDC, which the US Surgeon General summarised as saying:

 

"The scientific evidence is now indisputable: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700710.html

 

Peter