On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 22:59:38 GMT, wrote:

The do not eat this or drink that or smoke tobacco fanatics talk
through their backsides if you ask me .

Anecdotal evidence of a few isolated data points is bad science.

To take just one example of good science:

http://tinyurl.com/3b524h

"From 25 through 84 yr of age, the cumulative incidence of lung cancer
was 0.9% in nonsmoking males and 0.5% in nonsmoking females. The
cumulative incidence rates were much higher for smokers; for males who
smoked 20 or more cigarettes daily from age 25, the cumulative risk of
lung cancer through age 84 was 31.7%. For females with the same
cigarette smoking history, the estimate of cumulative incidence
through age 84 years was 15.3%."

In other words, if you want to increase your chance of getting lung
cancer 300-fold, just smoke.

Clearly, that's not to say that everyone who smokes will die of
smoking-related diseases - evidently, you are one of the lucky ones.

James Farrar wrote:

evidently, you are one of the lucky ones.

Not necessarily - the molecular changes that cause cancer may well be on
their way, and he may well be suffering from other effects such as skin
ageing.

E,

On 3 Jul, 23:59, wrote:
Listen here frustrated weed addict having spent from 1960 till 1985
breathing in peoples second hand smoke first as a bus conductor then a
driver all this none smoking is nothing but a nonsense.

Regardless of any possible risks to health, myself and plenty of other
non-smokers find it thoroughly unpleasant to occupy an area where
people are smoking. This is fair game where it is a designated area
like in a restaurant, but there's nothing more annoying than waiting
on a station platform and someone lighting up. This ban is not before
time, and I for one hope it gets further extended in the future.

BRB Class 465.

It made sense when the rules were "below ground - smoking banned",
"above ground - smoking allowed".

When LU brought in a total ban, how could be "dangerous" to smoke at
East Ham and Upney, but not at Barking? In fact the above ground LU
smoking ban is widely ignored and never enforced (frequent PA
announcements are useless as smokers just carry on regardless).

Until recently they were still bombarding LU passengers with repeated
messages saying "it is illegal to smoke in any London Regional
Transport bus station" which patently wasn't the case (see Finsbury
Park, Becontree Heath, Victoria etc), and just what is "LRT" anyway?

BRB Class 465 wrote:

Regardless of any possible risks to health, myself and plenty of other
non-smokers find it thoroughly unpleasant to occupy an area where
people are smoking. This is fair game where it is a designated area
like in a restaurant, but there's nothing more annoying than waiting
on a station platform and someone lighting up.

I can think of many things that are more annoying. For example, the
habitual overuse of needless hyperbole that everyone does these days.
But I agree it is a nuisance.
--
Michael Hoffman

Michael Hoffman wrote:
BRB Class 465 wrote:

Regardless of any possible risks to health, myself and plenty of
other non-smokers find it thoroughly unpleasant to occupy an area
where people are smoking. This is fair game where it is a
designated area like in a restaurant, but there's nothing more
annoying than waiting on a station platform and someone lighting up.

I can think of many things that are more annoying. For example, the
habitual overuse of needless hyperbole that everyone does these days.
But I agree it is a nuisance.

The thing that used to irritate me most was that on bright, breezy days you
would find the non-smokers confined to the platform, whilst the waiting
shelters were infested by the smokers, making them unusable by the majority.
It always seemed bizarre since, in the weather conditions, smoke outside
would quickly dissipate and cause very little inconvenience to anyone
(unless it was a particularly packed platform) - keeping everyone happy.

On 4 Jul, 13:21, BRB Class 465 wrote:


Regardless of any possible risks to health, myself and plenty of other
non-smokers find it thoroughly unpleasant to occupy an area where
people are smoking. This is fair game where it is a designated area
like in a restaurant, but there's nothing more annoying than waiting
on a station platform and someone lighting up. This ban is not before
time, and I for one hope it gets further extended in the future.

Right. If I'm standing waiting for a train having a bunch of smoker
stand around me and light up (its happened all too often) is really
horrid. It can set off my asthma and makes me feel yuck for some time
afterwards.

Obviously if smokers *really* wanted to carry on with what they were
doing they would have (a) organised themselves to be more considerate
(eg by having designated smoking places on platforms) (b) lobbied
their manufacturers (who aren't poor) into making less polluting ways
of enjoying their addiction (as has happened with most other
technology).

But no. Absolutely nothing has been done by any smoking group to get a
way to smoke without causing lots of unpleasantness to others. That is
why I feel little sympathy (and much joy) that, after 40 years, I can
go some places without breathing in smoke. I look forward to the ban
in all public places in due course.

Francis

In article ,
Obadiah Jones wrote:
Its just that in the past a simple 'no smoking' or
'burning-fag-with-red-slash' pictogram seems to have proved sufficient
deterrent on trains etc, even though lighting up was illegal under the
Byelaw. Now that NR stations put up the same 'statutory'-type signs
that pubs, shops, etc have to display, it does tend to imply that they
want people to believe that the blanket ban at stations is a result of
the new law.

Silverlink open-air stations have 'ordinary' no-smoking signs (or
at least, the ones at Upper Holloway were ordinary; I haven't checked
all Silverlinks stations).

--
Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3!
-- Flash