GUITAR BOARD

a place for those, who loves to play guitar
It is currently January 7, 2009, 5:10 pm

All times are UTC





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: 2005-01-23 18:59:00
Online
Registered User

Joined: 2005-01-23 18:59:00
Steve Cobham wrote:

> JNugent wrote:

>> jh wrote:

>>> the jury is out on passive smoking,

>> No, it isnt.
>> The verdict was returned decades ago.

> Everyone has their own agenda and the anti-smoking lobbyists have
> theirs too.

Absolutely correct.

> To a great extent, their arguments are flawed by their lack of
> long-term research and their inability to factor in other
> environmental causes.

That sounds like wishful thinking, Steve.

> Meanwhile, some suggested reading.
> I have a lot of respect for Joe Jackson and he writes very well on the
> subject:
> http://www.joejackson.com/smokingissue.htm

He does write well.

But his writing is a focused protest against being the idea prevented from
just doing what he wants to do. It gives me the distinct impression of a man
clutching at straws. Had the internet been with us in 1967, it would have
been full of analagous essays on why the breathalyser was only a sop to
anti-drink-drive fanatics.

His phrase For many of us, a drink and a smoke complement each other so
perfectly that being forbidden to smoke is not only infuriating but a
genuine loss sounds reasonable at first bite, but amend it (slightly) to
for many of us, a drink and clean, fresh, surroundings complement each
other so perfectly that being forced to put up with smoke is not only
infuriating but a genuine loss, and Joes piece is suddenly thrown into
some relief.

Elsewhere (and this is most amusing in a piece wherein he castigates others
for what, in his opinion, is their lack of scientific rigour), he says: The
bald statement Smoking Kills! makes us skeptical right away, since we can
see for ourselves that in most cases, it doesnt. Leaving aside his
apparent conversion to American spelling (hes British, isnt he?), he is
being as disingenuous and and as uscientific as it is possible to be. No-one
claims that smoking kills all smokers and passive smokers. Obviously, it
doesnt kill all of them.

But then, neither does drunk driving kill every drunk driver, every drunk
drivers passengers and every person who comes within crashing distance of
them on the way home. Yet no-one claims that drunk-driving should be
legalised because the claims of the road-safety campagners can, if
sufficiently-well traduced - Joe Jackson style - be made to look overblown.

I remember the introduction of the breathalyser. I was in my first year of
working as an apprentice. I was too young (and way too poor) to drive, but
the arguments that raged back and forth among my older workmates were
something to behold. The boss of the company (who has been bannd from
driving many times over the years) even posted anti-breathalyser posters on
the notice=board and encouraged his employees to write protest letters to
their MPs. Truly, none of us like being told what to do (or what not to do).
But the times, they are achanging.


Top
 Profile
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kukla@email.com (kukla),Milton Banana,Graham Dinsdale, 1 guests, Domy Białystok Lyftbord Teksty piosenek pozycjonowanie w wyszukiwarkach fresh.dodere.info


New posts New posts    No new posts No new posts    Announce Announcement
New posts [ Popular ] New posts [ Popular ]    No new posts [ Popular ] No new posts [ Popular ]    Sticky Sticky
New posts [ Locked ] New posts [ Locked ]    No new posts [ Locked ] No new posts [ Locked ]    Moved topic Moved topic
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group