I don't know anyone... apart from Roy castle who you have already mentioned...unfortunately I am a passive smoker...hope I dont end up as a statistic.check out the site below.
2007-06-26 08:22:19
·
answer #1
·
answered by ǝuoʎʞɔɐʍ 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
Right, for the uneducated.
It's very difficult to prove 100% that a non smoker's lung cancer was caused directly by passive smoking, however.... It's well documented that passive smoke not only causes lung cancer, it aggravates asthma, eye problems and others. It's not just dying from it that makes it an anti social practice, it's because it contributes to so many other things.
I don't smoke. I worked in a nightclub for a year when I was younger. And I had a cough every single day for that year. You seriously can't be so thick that you don't understand that passive smoke affects non smokers in exactly the same way as it affects smokers?
They're banning it in England, mate, because you're the last part of the UK to actually take the completely logical step. You've finally reached the same point as the Scots, Welsh and Irish. Congratulations for entering the real world.
2007-06-28 05:40:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by Beastie 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
They can't even be certain about Roy Castle. To be honest with you, I only know of one person, an uncle of mine, who's death was almost certainly attributed to smoking (emphysema). But that was because he smoked, it wasn't passive smoking. Even so, he was 74 years of age, which, at the time, was about the average age for a male.
If passive smoking was so dangerous, most of the people I used to know would have been dead by now. It is impossible to measure it, but if you could measure it, the numbers would be tiny. A lot of intolerant control freaks want to promote the passive smoking argument, because they want to stop smokers for their own rather more selfish reasons. I don't like the smell, my clothes smell etc.
Moreover, the so called cost to the NHS has almost certainly been massively overstated, although I don't think that it is possible to cost it at all. Even if their figure were accurate, a huge if, they forget, conveniently, that you have to die of something which will involve medical and perhaps nursing costs together with the fact that these people will have taken out a fortune from the various pension schemes, not to mention the loss of tax revenue which smokers contribute to the Treasury.
I am not against the ban in many places, but they could at least have left us with smoking pubs.
2007-06-26 08:53:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by Veritas 7
·
6⤊
2⤋
With July 1st looming and the government constantly trying to convince us that hundreds of people die every year of 'passive smoking', every month they should show us the list of non smokers who have died as a result of second hand smoke, then I maybe convinced.
Apart from Roy Castle what about the other 1,000's of artists that have performed in smokey clubs for decades?
Firstly I am a non smoker and secondly more people die every year from 'Fishing Accidents' so I would rather risk going in a public place where people smoke than taking up Fishing as a hobbie.
2007-06-26 08:22:57
·
answer #4
·
answered by Vanilla Icequeen 2
·
7⤊
1⤋
Not one. I grew up during the time everyone smoked. My doctor smoked in his office. All my uncles, my dad, my friends dads smoked. Very few women smoked then. If you believe the alarmists,we should all be dead and there would be no baby boomers. How did we make it through all that hell. No bottled water, no air conditioning, no anti bacterial soap, no seat belts, no government to protect us from ourselves. Oh woe is us.
I personally believe that living in any large city is much worse than second hand smoke. I believe a car exhaust puts out more pollutants than a cigarette outside. I can't say the alarmists are wrong, I just know that my experience of 65 years wouldn't support their conclusion.
2007-06-26 08:30:44
·
answer #5
·
answered by GABY 7
·
8⤊
0⤋
How can anyone say that someone died "directly through passive smoking"?
When people die, they usually die (if it seems they didn't die from old age), it is often malnutrition that is the major cause. Most people are malnourished, even if they eat plenty, because they eat and drink the wrong things. Y'know, junk food, soft drinks, too much alcohol, refined foods, etc.
Then, there are the drugs (poisons) that ravage the body. Yes, that includes prescription drugs.
So, usually, it is not just one thing that causes early death.
2007-06-26 08:09:46
·
answer #6
·
answered by mrearly2 4
·
4⤊
0⤋
Roy castle. he never smoked he was an entertainer in clubs and pubs. until he break into TV. he died of lung cancer
2007-06-27 04:12:05
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
My mother never smoked a day in her life but lived with my father who did yet she died of pancreatic cancer and all the doctors we spoke to for treatment assumed she smoked because her disease is mostly one of heavy smokers.
2007-06-28 15:55:02
·
answer #8
·
answered by alioopisme 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I was about to say none, then I read your bit about Roy Castle, and yes he is the only person I ever heard of.
But my mum died of cancer and she smoked so I blame smoking, even though they never actually stated it definately was.
2007-06-26 08:20:16
·
answer #9
·
answered by babyshambles 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
i dont know any but my grandfather died at the age of 90 of something totally unrelated. my inlaws smoke way to many a day and they are both healthy and so are the people that live there. i dont know much about christopher reeves but his wife dana died of lung cancer and she never smoked. in ga all public places are banned from smoking just like it should be.
2007-06-26 08:54:22
·
answer #10
·
answered by abarnwe 2
·
4⤊
1⤋