People just have to accept the ban is here to stay.

Most people don't smoke but whenever they complained about it to smokers you got the staple answer of, "You don't have to come in here."

Now the boot's on the other foot and we're expected to feel sorry for them shivering in the street feeding their habit.

My advice to them - you don't have to smoke.

WOW, Could this mean that if few people are actually travelling to the pubs to drink that they're either staying home to drink or maybe acually cutting back on their drink which in both cases means fewer problem drinkers on the streets at night. That could even equate to fewer problems that police are called in on and fewer people drinking and driving, and maybe even fewer people chucking it all up on the neighbours door step. It all sounds like a better plan to me. Thank you smoking ban! And now maybe someone can answer a question for me... Why exactly is it that we need a pub on every corner anyway?

I meant to say fewer people travelling to the pubs. But I did think of something else... More people might actually remember what they did last night.

The scientific value of the SLTA exercise is highly questionable. It is far from clear how many businesses were included in the responses and there is no clear definition of the different types of business. This is about Mr. Waterson's propaganda exercise which failed during the bill's passage in the parliament; there's too much crying wolf here and not enough effort by SLTA to help those of their members who may be losing business to see what they can do to limit the damage. Meanwhile the rest of us can get on and enjoy our pint or half an' a half in a refreshingly smoke-free environment.

Why would SLTA complain about the ban if it is actually good for business? How paranoid can you get?

I agree with the Health Minister pubs and bars have now got to think outside the box and dream up clever marketing strategies to increase their sales. Old smoky pubs are old hat and are thought to be frequented by regular heavy drinkers and smokers. If you now want to encourage non smokers into your establishments you will need to entice them. If a person has been avoiding a pub for many years due to the smoky atmosphere and drunken louts then the publican will now need to target them by offering something different and let them know about it.

The Scottish Executive should tell Paul Waterson to ram it, that there will be no chance of compensation.
There could be any number of reasons why people have stopped going to his members pubs, for instance the price of their drinks. Pubs are guilty of putting drinks prices up before the budget every year, then slipping on a few more pence "in response to to budget."

Paul Waterson once told a drinkers at a bar in the town (Paisley) that he had paid $250 for a haircut in the States.

So Gordon #6... you're saying drinking = violence... Well folks there you have it! And now let me take you back a few weeks when some idiot was trying to convince us that letting our kids start drinking at home as young as 5 is a good thing? This society isn't a french society it's a scottish society where drinking = violence apparently. Well I don't want that violence on my door step so I'm happy for them to take their drinking into their own houses. If there's someone there who doesn't want to be in a drink related violent relationship then that's something they need to decide and do something about but don't be beating on my kids just because they happen to be on the pavement when you come out of the pub drunk.

Gordon #11

Coincidence.

Gordon, I really don't think this has anything to do with smug middle class anybody. This has to do with 2nd hand smoke killing people who didn't ask to breath it in the first place unless of course they were so drunk they didn't know or care or they were smokers themselves who were already on the road to lung cancer. This is also about the fact that there are way too many pubs here in scotland and maybe if a few were closed then those who withstood the test of time might be fuller. I still say we don't need a pub on every corner. In my village there are 3 pubs on the high street and the only other thing there is a block of flats, a chip shop and a funeral parlor. OH... I forgot the co-op. I wouldn't mind seeing at least 2 of the pubs turn into nice dinner places, the street wouldn't smell of vomit and traffic on the high street wouldn't have to dodge drunks.

Drink = drunk = sick, injury, or death
smoking = cancer= sick or death
In this case it would seem the 2 go hand in hand. I'm afraid I'm with Kyle on this one. The NHS is already over burdoned. It's commonly known that most drinkers smoke as well. Just ask a life or health insurance company. You pay more for insurance if you drink or smoke so what's the big beef over paying higher prices to do it. How much money do smokers spend on a pack of fags and now much does a night of drinking lager after lager cost? Why is everyone so worried about money here? It's expendible, there's more where it came from, right? Oh it's not everyone, just the ones that will lose money because people aren't doing it in their establishments that are complaining. Well well, maybe it's time for them to change the decor and turn their places into chinese take-aways.

Is anyone else sick of the fact that the Scotsman is becoming a soapbox for the disgruntled businessman or political figure?

Gordon #17

Your head is in the sand, the links between and lung cancer and smoking are well documented. It should be the smokers who are inconvenienced anyway. Half the time their fag is sitting in an ashtray blowing in any direction but theirs and that is anything but passive if it's your nose it's drifting into.

Gordon #21

Why take a chance with someone elses smoke?
Show us your references, then look at this http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html, which absolutely contradicts your barefaced misrepresentation of the report.
It states emphatically that passive smoking causes lung cancer in non-smokers.

Quote "The study found that there was an estimated 16% increased risk of lung cancer among non-smoking spouses of smokers. For workplace exposure the estimated increase in risk was 17%. However, due to small sample size, neither increased risk was statistically significant. Although, the study points towards a decreasing risk after cessation of exposure."
You can copy and paste the above URL into your browser, Gordon, in case you find it difficult to use a computer.

The best thing that ever happened in Canada has been the campaign to ban smoking in the workplace, in bars and restaurants and public places. Here in Ontario, you cannot smoke under any type of covering, such as an awning on a sidewalk cafe/bar. Also, smoking must be done 9 meters or more away from a building's entrance. Some hospitals have banned smoking anywhere on their territory, including parking lots.

For the disastrous effects of second hand smoke, particularly on bar and restaurant staff, please take the time to visit this link on the Health Canada website:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/tobac-tabac/second/do-faire/...

By the way, I am a former pack-a-day smoker. I only wish the research and evidence available today had been around years ago when I started to smoke.

Gordon #21

Just in case you have managed to read all those big words here's some more, http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/HAsmoking. Same procedure as before, copy and paste...

Has anyone ever done any research into why some people smoke all their life with no ill effects? I have never read any but I think of my own (scottish) family. My mum who never smoked or drank and taught swimming died from repeated strokes at 70, her sister who has smoked like a chimney since she was 14 is now in her 80s and doing fine, for many years it was really strong cigarettes too. I can't believe in passive smoking as when I grew up almost everyone smoked everywhere, cinemas were a fog, smoking in shops usual and even hospitals had ashtrays. I am not aware that this has had any effect on anyone I know, certainly not me. I really would like to hear if there are any answers.

It was predictable that the SLTA would come out with this -they have to stand up for their clients. It was the same when the minimum wage came into effect - predictions of mass unemployment by the CBI which, of course, never happened. There is no going back now and the change in the more progressive pubs is also changing the culture of people for the better, at least in the long run. Either those pubs who are complaining change or they die, simple as that.

Gordon #25
It's not my quote, but, here's the quote that matters "passive smoking does cause lung cancer and other diseases", he concluded."
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html.
It's always an idea to take a document in it's entirety and not select a few (11) words that suit you.
I don't fancy the "other" diseases either Gordon, how about you?

For those bar owners that are concerned about lost sales and customers, I think their fears are groundless. The Ontario Tobacco Research Unit (OTRU) released the results of a report that examined the sales tax data from the city of Ottawa before and after the implementation of its 100% smoke-free by-law on August 1, 2001. Results showed that the by-law had no negative impact on bar and restaurant sales. For more details, go to this link: http://www.otru.org/pdf/updates/update_june2003.pdf

As I said in an earlier post, I am a former smoker. I really enjoy going to bars now that smoking is banned. The surroundings do not stink and my clothes don't smell either for days afterwards.

Richard is right. Those pubs that catered simply to the smoking brigade have no imagination and deserve to fail. It's like any business that fails to move with the times.

I thought that one of Scotland's biggest health problems was alcohol consumption. So how is this in any way a bad thing?

Sir Richard Doll who established the link between active smoking and lung cancer said of passive smoking
"The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."
And the (non-significant) risk increases if any really are tiny. The Scottish Executive 'research' on deaths attributable to passive smoking massages the figures upwards as much as it can. And doesn't do any significance tests, as it takes for granted that passive smoking kills.

Here in the States, I have gone to pubs from time to time now that smoking is banned in DC and in my local county.
I stayed away from them because smoking makes me cough.

In Scotland, I had an experience with an nice Indian restaurant in Lerwick in the Shetlands on one of my vacations in Scotland.

a man behind me started smoking and it made me cough terribly and I had to move clear across the restaurant.

Here in my county in Maryland smoking was finally banned in our restaurants but not in the bar area of the restaurants if there was a bar. I could choose to eat in restaurants that on their own did not allow smoking due to no bar inside.

Now there is no smoking allowed in restaurants and pubs at all, How nice to breathe clean air free of the bitter, vile, nasty smelling smoke of burning tobacco that so irritates my throat and lungs and sets me coughing miserably.

Now asthmatics, children and other people who can not be around smoke can go to any of our local restaurants and enjoy a nice meal without the torture and misery of someone's cigarette making filthy and unbreathable the air they must breathe.

If a species of human is ever invented that can actually survive at all and be healthy without requirement of oxygen that comes via air please let me know.

And you know, in some areas of the US, even smoking outdoors is not as common as it used to be.

I went to our county fair just last week and there were just a few people walking around with cigarettes out of a crowd of over a thousand people.

I am happy that smoking is not allowed in Scotland's dining and drinking establishments that means that I can enjoy a meal and a drink in a leisurely fashion without having to eat and run.

People will find out on their own, that they will feel better without the need to smoke.

I tried smoking and it made me so miserable with the coughing, the nasty, vile, clinging smoke odor that wouldn't go away witho

Well, we all know that the Scots are a stubborn lot, but really! Get over it! When other jurisdictions have adopted a smoking ban in bars and restaurants (and enfore them), sales have risen, because patrons and those who avoided going previously find the new environment much more comfortable, attractive and enjoyable.

For now, some patrons are staying away as a protest, but once they see the futility of their actions and the benefits of the new legislation, they'll be back.

Regardless, tobacco smoke--be it your own or someone else's in bad for everybody and this legislation has been long overdue.

I agree with the smoking ban in public places, and it would be good if folk did themselves a favour and quit. It is highly carcinagenic, but they are doing it to themselves. Then the health service picks up the tab for cutting out cancerous growths. The thing that I find most offensive about the smoking ban, is, that I can no longer walk down the street in most places, without being subject to the pollution on the streets. if I go to enter a local cafe, they are even standing at the door. They stand at the entrance to Wishaw general hospital, and sick people have to breathe their smoke as they enter the building. I think its disgraceful. They are not allowed to stand and smoke at the bus stop, but they can stand at hospital doors, cafe doors and on the streets where I have to walk. I don't smoke and don't frequent pubs and clubs, so I wouldn't notice the difference, but it's great to be in a smoke free restaurant and cafe. As I said, the worst is having to inhale their side stream smoke on the street, when I didn't have to before. I hope this gets outlawed too, or there are little huts built for smokers only to stand in if they are out and about. This would be best. With love.

Gordon - see my post @ #30 for a link to some harder data

Gordon #6: The smoking ban is here to stay because smokers are against it and they represent only 30% of the population. I know of no non-smoker who is against it. As for your example of the poll-tax you'll recall we'd still be paying that if it weren't for the English kicking off.

Your reply to Peter #4 about questionable evidence - that's precisely the point. SLTA rubbished ASH's claims due to the short time frame then presented their "evidence" despite the fact it was over a similar time and not nearly representative.

I'm amazed at the reasons people give for it being a bad idea. Domestic violence increase. Give me a break! If someone's going to do it they'll do whether they're drinking at home or the pub.

Are some of the people who say there's no link between passive smoking (when did it become second-hand smoking?) on the President Bush committee who told him to say that there was no proven link between CO2 emissions and global warming? Definitely head out of the sand time.

I also know of quite a few people who declared they'd "never be back" to a pub you couldn't smoke in as they weren't willing to stand outside and freeze. Sure enough, they're back, as regular as clockwork.

I have a friend who owns a pub in Aberdeen. He says that since the smoking ban his sales have increased. I've always enjoyed going to the pub but couldn't stay too long when the pubs were filled with smoke; I'd usually walk to another pub just to escape the smoke for a while. My wife rarely went to the pub in the past because it meant she was constantly using her inhaler for days afterwards. The situation for us has only improved since the smoking ban. I would now like to see smoking banned in private homes if children are living there.

Since the smoking ban came in a good friend in Scotland has stopped smoking and she says it was the ban that motivated her. I'm really pleased, because it means there's every chance she will avoid getting sick with one of the many diseases and illnesses caused or exacerbated by smoking. It also means that when I'm in Scotland on my next holiday I won't go home from the pub after a night out with my friends feeling like I've smoked a packet of cigarettes, and my clothes, my hair and my skin won't stink to high heaven!

Gordon #42 - Ok then, I'll spell it out for you.
1. The ban is in place
2. Smokers are against it.
3. Smokers represent 30% of the population
4. Laws can be changed due to public opinion.
5. The vast majority of people in Scotland think the ban is a good thing.
6. It's not going to change.

Was that easy enough for you?

Gordon - 45.

What's the size of Ottawa got to do with a smoking ban in Striling's pubs, or the price of Paul Watersons haircut?

Gordon

Point taken, however statistically speaking the data should generally hold true for any large town or city conurbation. Thus, the per capita percentage of smokers in say Perth should be approximately the same as for Edinburgh or Aberdeeen or Newcastle.

By the way, here is another study that refutes the notion that the hospitality industry gets clobbered by smoking bans: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/alt_formats/hecs-sesc/pdf/pu...

1st we hear people are drinking more because of the smoking ban, Now there saying people are drinking less.

#32. James: I have you ever thought that may be, just may be some of us are fed up getting really drunk, ever time we steep in to a pub. (sure we still binge drink more that 4 Units is class as binge drink for everyone regardless if you feel drunk or not) Though I have to agree that may be more people are drinking in there home. I think most people who don't have a lot to spend, drink before they left their house (that was even before the smoking ban)

I'm afraid you're wrong Gordon. The Scottish Executive had a public consultation prior to the ban. I filled in a questionnaire about it myself. Even if it were the chattering classes, Gordon, do you think 70% of the public are thinking, "You know, I really miss having my health damaged and stinking of smoke all the time?" Be realistic. Public opinion's not going to change on this one.

Gordon from the People's Republic of Stirling

Smoking is a public health issue, which gives the authorities every right to legislate it. If there was a typhoid or E-coli outbreak and the government did nothing about it, you would be the first to complain. But I forget, in People's Republics utopia exists so you would not get any outbreaks of disease in the first place.

It has nothing to to with pub or restuarant losses or gains it is all to do with civil liberties and your right to smoke if you want to.Just look at the chemical disaster in Grangemouth then lets talk about "HEALTH RISK" Smoking little more than a flea on an elephants backside . WAKE UP YOU SERPANT NON SMOKING WEEDS

Talking of money Gordon (38) if the NHS spends 1.5 Bn fixing up smokers and those who have been subjected to second hand smoke, what revenue is produced in VAT from the sale of cigarettes ? how many people are employed by the tobacco industery and all its various groups. that pay income tax, what is the cost in money and lives from the effect of second hand diesel and petrol fumes, not to mention coal.. then ofcourse what is the cost in lives AND the tax payers pocket of maintaining an Army..

(LIGHTS ANOTHER CIGARETTE IN HIS NON SMOKING OFFICE) Ah! the joy of 2 fingers in the air to establishment

Incidentally more than 50% of doctors SMOKE the other 50%over indulge in alcohol

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/rep...

For all the doubters of the risks of second-hand smoke see this recently published report by the US Surgeon General.

For all you good folk making the pubs of Scotland more enticing and pleasant...keep up the good work. As a tourist to your great country we frequently ducked out of pubs that were too smoky...a losing proposition for the owner. Can't wait to get back to see our favorites and spend our cash in a smoke-free environment!!!

William no one wants the yanks anyway

Non-smokers' rights are important. I agree that they shouldn't have to be exposed to second hand smoke. But that doesn't make a total ban necessary. There is another agenda here and reading some of the comments some people obviously hate smoking and think that smokers shouldn't be allowed to smoke anywhere. For any human activity there will be people who hate it and want it stopped. What next?

I suppose some pubs will win and some will lose as a result of the smoking ban. As I said earlier, a friend of mine who owns a pub in Aberdeen told me the smoking ban was good for business. He wishes the ban had been introduced years ago. As far as people having the right to smoke, I would say yes provided it doesn't harm other people. Second hand smoke does harm other people. My wife will be constantly using her inhaler for days if she spends a couple of hours in a smokey pub. Smoke makes me very wheezy too. There is no reason why people should have to put up with that.

Gordon, you need to check your facts. The questionnaire I filled in was not done in a pub but on the Scottish Executive website. It was open to all. I'm sure that, with the vast majority of people in Scotland having internet access, the Executive gained a fair representation of public opinion.

The ban is partly as a result of this.

I'm sure the Government doesn't see smoking as a bigger risk than heroin. That's why smoking's only just been banned but heroin has been illegal for God knows how long! 800 MDs asked for heroin to be legalised and it wasn't. 800 MDs asked for smoking to be banned and it was. Not sure I understand what point you're trying to make.

The fact of the matter is that for years people have had to put up with smoke and the smokers' attitude has been 'tough'. Now the shoe's on the other foot the dummy gets flung out of the pram.

i am delighted by the smoking ban in pubs and the accompanying decrease in alcohol consumption. As Scotland has one of the poorest health records in Europe this may mean that we can increasee our life expectancy above that of Costa Rico.

Oh, and John I do hate smoking but if people want to do it that's up to them. Just as long as non-smokers don't have to put up with it.

Phil 68, for that to happen we'd probably have to shut down half the fast food joints and Chippies. Sometimes it seems as though Glasgow has one chippie per head of population haha!

Gordon... GET OVER YOURSELF!

Smokers want to smoke, and that is their right and they should be able to.
The rest of us just want to breathe freely and that is our right.
The difference being that only one group makes an active choice in their pasttime: the smokers.
The non-smoker is partaking in a passive activity, which always take priority over active rights.

You have the right to swing your arms about like an idiot until they interfere with my passive right
to take up space on the planet.

frankly, i've had my fill of smokers.i was out eating last night and at the next table was someone who actually had a fag inbetween courses!...what's interesting about these folk is how they've learned to fecklessly ignore the chagrin of people at other tables...i can't wait for the new law to kick in next year here in london..the scottish and irish are doing fine now.....who cares if the takings are dropping in the bars?...if the breweries complain,well,that's just greed on their part.....they're still doing fine...and even if they can look back at the golden years of their boom period,who cares?!...it's simply not a crisis

This is great, there's folk out there with views. Hey Gordon, have you ever been to a people's republic? There's none of them got anywhere near being a utopia.

Smoke feels as though it is doing me harm so that is enough for me to want it out of public places. All they yellow-brown ceilings in pubs were once white. When we were weans we used to low smoke through a handkie to see the brown stain. Same stain as in your lungs. It makes your hair and clothes stink too.

Less drinking is good, as a nation we drink far too much. Ditto smoking. As for the puir auld Hational poor Health, why should I pay for treating people's self inflicted injuries?

Here's an amazing fact for you. In Singapore and Malaysia the oppressive Imperial Power - that was us - set up a provident system where everything you pay in has your name on it, the medical care is first rate, hospitals put ours to shame, the waiting times pale into insignificance, there are safety nets for those unable to look after themselves.

So the begging question is why did we not do the same thing at home?

My Applause to Phil #68. Not only is smoking not healthy but it smells bad and kissing a smoker tastes like kissing an ashtray... No thanks. Not for me.

Like I said right at the beginning people just have to accept the ban is here.

It's one of the few visionary things the Executive has done since devolution and I am absolutely delighted. It may take a while for an improvement in the health of the country but it will come.

Early indications in Ireland are good. Idon't have the exact figures to hand but in Ireland there's has been a big drop in the number of bar workers with respiratory complaints which, for me, is reason enough for the ban.

robert ayr head76/ you make thing up as you go along.your posts are all selfish and dont merit any response.get a life .

Gordon from the People's Republic of Stirling

Sorry about the People's Republic comment. I have not visited Scotland in many years so am out of touch with the political situation there.

I will however take issue with your comment on obesity. You do need a "fitness Czar", otherwise health costs will continue to spiral upward which is a recipe for disaster when combined with a declining population generating the tax revenue to pay for healthcare.

Unfortunately obesity is a fact of life caused by general laziness, urban sprawl (shops often too far away for walking forcing people to use their automobiles), laissez-faire on parents' part where kids are concerned (much too easy to get a McDonalds burger or a KFC bucket than cook), television (makes couch potatoes) and video games.

To demonstrate just how much people stick their heads in the sand on this, Statistics Canada recently published a survey showing that only 9% of parents thought their kids were fat whereas the reality is that 26% are obese or overweight - see http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060821...

Come, come Mr. Waterston. Ever heard of market forces? I don't think Mr. Blair has abolished them quite yet.
Your answer is to DIVERSIFY. Lobby your MP and get the brewers/distillers on-side. Remember that if you are right HMG will be going without some sheckels too in the form of duty. So get them to go one step further and (a) legalise old MaryJane, which you can chew and/or use to make a nice herbal tea (b) regulate it and plunder the pleasures of the working classes again (c) fund research into a big manufacturing project for consumer brands.
There is a benefit in everything if you know where to look fot it.

why do the canadians on this subject think they know what is better for us in scotland.scotland is not canada=canada is not scotland.

I don't think I've seen anybody mention that smoking is an addiction too. I've read that tobacco/nicotine is more addictive than heroin, that only a few cigarettes is enough to get you hooked. Once hooked you are dripping roast, to mix metaphors, for the greedy vultures that run the tobacco companies. The tobacco companies, particularly in the USA, have fought tooth and nail to deny they knew that tobacco was a dangerous substance.
If it was to come up for licencing today there is no way that it would be approved, in any way, for human consumption.

Just rejoice! Now I can go to the pub, drink a pint of Deuchars IPA, and breathe fresh air at the same time. It's a huge improvement over the past when smokers could pollute the air for everyone. Now we should turn our attention to cars and homes. Smoking should be banned in these too if there are children in them.

Gordon#### etc...

I don't think even you can argue there is no nicotine in cigarettes? Nicotine is addictive, yes?
Nicotine also kills, 30 - 60 mg of nicotine is enough to kill an adult; maybe 5 -6 cigarettes ingested will kill.
Your favourite substance is so toxic it is used as a pesticide.
So the pubs lose money because people can't smoke in them, awww!

Carol 27: it's a combination of genetics (obviously yours are great) and environmental factors. Our grandparents' generation wasn't exposed to the pollution and chemicals in everything (food, carpeting, housing materials, etc.) to the degree that we are. We're just maxxed out with what we inhale, absorb and ingest. We aren't quite glowing in the dark but we're getting there.

After an initial period of moaning and groaning in Ontario by the bar owners and restauranteurs who thought they were going to lose their shirts, things have settled down and it's a kind of non-issue now, especially since all of Canada has gone smoke-free. Non-smokers now can go out without having their health or meals ruined, so they are doing so. It all works out, as non-smokers are by far in the majority.

Rab, we too are on a quasi socialist health care system and are paying through the nose with our taxes for health issues brought on by bad lifestyles as our medical system strains to keep up. We aren't Scotland but we share certain problems. I was really glad, when I visited Scotland two years ago, that I could get smoke-free accommodation and eat in smoke-free restaurants. I'd been dreading it because the impression is that "everyone in Scotland smokes" and it triggers asthma in me. Whether you like it or not, Scotland depends a lot on the tourist dollars, so it isn't such a bad thing to have pubs and all more inviting for folks.

These poor children forced to live in homes where mum and dad smoke like fish! We need to do something about it for the sake of the children's health. Am I correct in thinking that if you are looking to adopt a child you must not smoke inside your house? This is the way it should be. No child should be forced to inhale that acrid, poisonous smoke.

Are all you anti-smokers fit? do you have a lean body, don't pollute my "chean air" with your petrol/diesal fumes? Do you all think you are going to live until you are 200 because you go to the gym? Get real kiddos! how do you think there are so many pensioners still living and breathing if smoking was soooooooooo dangerous? Can you imagine how the hell the country would function with a large population of "fit as a butchers dog" people aged 120? who the hell would pay the pensions!!!!! Why don't they ban fags and be done with it? I'll tell you why, we are kind enough to give the snivelling idiots £11bn a year in tobacco duty! Tell tony to ban it and we'll all have to give up - problem solved! Until then I will carry on smoking and they can shove their pubs where the sun don't shine because I will not pay stupid amounts for drink and then have to stand outside. The rest of europe has managed to cater for the smoker/non smoker but our government are just a load of useless idiots!

Gordon #89

Getting rattled now eh? I notice you don't deny the "substance" of my last post, that tobacco is a killer?
Playground, trendy - bandwagons, take the discussion in an other direction with spurious references to banning other "addictive things," you sound like a tory politician trying to muddy the waters.
Is tobacco a killer substance or not, no more weasel words, please?

Rab #80 - I am not for one moment suggesting that Canadians know better what is good for Scotland. We have our flaws too - that's why I referred to the Statistics Canada survey on obesity. The point I was trying to make was that we have to recognize what our shortcomings are and do something about it. Banning smoking and focusing on fitness is a good start in that direction, whether it be in Scotland or Canada. The healthcare dollars (or pounds) that are saved by these initiatives will eventually take the pressure off the cost of health insurance premiums.

By the way Rab, Canada does partially equal Scotland. There are millions of Canadians who are descended from Scottish immigrants.

Gordon, The People's Republic of Stirling - You need to give your politicians a good, swift and very hard kick up the backside. Tell those morons that competitive sport is good for kids. Quite apart from the fitness aspect, sport builds character. Also, competition starts as soon as you exit the womb - just ask anyone with a younger sibling.

I find it amusing when I hear women wearing loads of perfume complaining about cigarrette smoke, when it's known perfume ingredients are often carcinogenic.

Claire: Wow, a quick google brought up this, which would sure scare the tar out of me, pun intended (I'm sure you know this though):

Tobacco smoke contains over 60 carcinogens. These chemicals represent approximately 7 chemical classes (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, arenes, N-nitrosamines, aromatic and heterocyclic aromatic amines, aldehydes, organic compounds, and inorganic compounds).

These include:

Benzene (petrol additive)
A colourless cyclic hydrocarbon obtained from coal and petroleum, used as a solvent in fuel and in chemical manufacture - and contained in cigarette smoke. It is a known carcinogen and is associated with leukaemia.

Formaldehyde (embalming fluid)
A colourless liquid, highly poisonous - also found in cigarette smoke. Known to cause cancer, respiratory, skin and gastrointestinal problems.

Ammonia (e.g., toilet cleaner)
Used as a flavouring, frees nicotine from tobacco turning it into a gas, found in dry cleaning fluids.

Acetone (e.g., nail polish remover)
Fragrant volatile liquid ketone, used as a solvent, for example, nail polish remover - found in cigarette smoke.

Tar
Particulate matter drawn into lungs when you inhale on a lighted cigarette. Once inhaled, smoke condenses and about 70 per cent of the tar in the smoke is deposited in the smoker's lungs.

Nicotine (insecticide/addictive drug)
One of the most addictive substances known to man, a powerful and fast-acting medical and non-medical poison. This is the chemical which causes addiction.

Carbon Monoxide (CO) (car exhaust fumes)
An odourless, tasteless and poisonous gas, rapidly fatal in large amounts - it's the same gas that comes out of car exhausts and is the main gas in cigarette smoke, formed when the cigarette is lit. Others you may recognize are :

Arsenic (rat poison), Hydrogen Cyanide (gas chamber poison)

Remember when they allowed smoking on the buses? You could be forced to sit beside someone holding a lighted cigarette a few inches below your nose. Then they moved the smokers upstairs. Still the whole bus was reeking of smoke. People in Scotland just don't want to put up with it anymore. Even smokers agree it's an awful smell. For some of us it necessitates the use of inhalers to enable us to breathe properly again after smoke is inhaled into our lungs. People should not be forced to breathe other people's smoke.

My lads worked one summer picking tobacco. They said that when they saw what was sprayed on tobacco to stop fermentation etc., that they'd never smoke. Every jug and container had a skull and crossbones on it, with high emergency alert information if any of it came in contact with skin or eyes. Ingestion meant death and they were warned of this. None of this gets properly conveyed to smokers. It isn't about freedom to choose, Claire, it's about big bucks - as usual.

Gordon #94

I hate to burst your ideological bubble but this column is really about poor publicans, on the bones of their erses because of a no smoking rule.
However, I am glad that you agree that tobacco is a lethal substance, but it's only a wee bit lethal when you inhale someone else's smoke. I'm glad we got that cleared up.
So, how would you compare it with say, asbestos, more/less?

Ken 93: spot on
Gordon 94: not sure what demographic differences you mean? People?: in my area (south central Ontario) just about every other name is a Scots or Irish one. As for our health care professionals scaremongering, I wish! I can't speak for the US but here they don't tell us young enough or thoroughly enough. We have increasing obesity in our kids - well everyone, really, type II diabetes on the rise, rampant heart disease in our adults, and every cancer imagineable. The only way we can change any of it is with our wallets.

Richard 98, they still smoke on the bloody buses...the drivers too, and I'm sick of neds lighting up joints on the back of the bus. All you selfish buggers that want to smoke do so, but in your own space in your own place and not in my face. Your kidding yourself on people, give yourself a bloody shake and grow up...SMOKING KILLS!

#96 w, funny, and I agree, some perfumes are way more noxious!

Melanie 103: or worse, a smoker who douses herself with perfume. gack.

Doreen #102

I am amazed they still allow smoking on the buses. Is that just in Glasgow or is it common throughout Scotland? In Ontario smoking in prohibited anywhere on public transit property, including train platforms that are in the open air. Now if we could only do the same with those clowns who think that everyone wants to hear their cell phone conversations!!!

oooohh, SM #104, sounds like my old auntie!!

I used to have to work in an office where smoking was permitted; this was before the days it was banned from workplaces. My response if someone smoked was to open a tin of sardines and leave it on my desk. Smokers hate the smell of sardines.

Re: smoking and perfume. I used to work in an office where one woman used to reek of a well known perfume of the 80s. (Came in a shaped bottle with a bow on it - house was initials EL). She was a smoker as well and the combination of the 2 was vile, especially first thing in the morning! I could never work out if the perfume was to cover up the smoke or vice versa.

Gordon TPRS, I am a non-smoker that agrees with you. I can't understand why the owner of the pub can't make the decision whether they will allow smoking or not. It's supposed to be their business. They would know their customers better than any of the governments.

I smoke, but the reason I stopped going to the pubs as often wasn't because of the smoking ban b ut because the price of a pint in the Edinburgh & Lothians area is getting extortionate.

I fully support the smoking ban, the rare occasions I am in a pub now I either do without, or go to the street (away from the door).

I just wish the government wasn't so hypocritical about the whole smoking thing, and ban it outright. totally.

Laws can indeed by repealed, but am sure the Smoking Ban is here to stay, I centainly so hope as I lunch a lot in bars,& its a real pleasure now to eat without some smoker blowing funes around, & coughing his/hers lungs up at the same time..I think though there should be Bars around that caters for Smokers,non-smokers would of course not frequent them, & that way every one could be happy...I think in the Western World, smoking is well recognised as a health hazard,& seen as passe! Just another bad habit we have tried & abandoned, well the sensible ones have! but to each his own, just not in my space!

BHF did a study on mice (go look it up) by making them passive smoke. They didn't get their results so this was shelved. Just think, all those that donate money to the BHF are funding this. They did conclude that the mice lost alot of hair! Why are the government not banning it altogether, that will shut us all up once and for all. They won't do that as the smokers are lining their pockets for retirement! They couldn't give a damn about health so all you anti-smokers are kidding yourselves if you think they do! Its manipulation of the population on a grand scale. What you take for granted now could be coming under the crunch of govermnet jack boots sooner that you think, you have been warned. Its all too easy blaming smokers for all the ills in the world but obesity and drink is now at the top of their "things to do" list. So don't mock the afflicted you could be joining them sooner than you think.

nancy - how do you intend to offer us something to compensate for having to read your posts?

Unbelievable! Thae smokers who for years have inflicted their habit on us are now turning round and calling people who are anti-smoking selfish.

Like I said - dummies out the pram.

your the dummie

Robert (130)

It is the anti-smokers who have turned it round to call smokers selfish.

Do you see any smokers throwing non-smokers onto the street?

Do you see any anti-smokers funding the pub they want to alter?

Do you see any employment ads that say non-smokers need not apply?

Do you see any smokers refusing a non-smoker even a shed at the back of a pub to stand in?

Do you see smokers forcing oap's outside of their nursing homes ?

Do you see smoking groups backing campaigns that give non-smokers no-where at all to go?

Now who is selfish again?

I take it you are overweight, like a drink and drive a car robert!!!!! I will be laughing between puffs on my killer cig when you lot get the old "jack boot" treatment! well said rab!! It makes me seeth to think that part of my cigarette duty that I pay to HMG will be going to treat you lot - the rabid anti-smoker!!!!! How come you have waited until now to start howling? Non smoking pubs have never been illegal so why weren't there more of them about? good question! You have got your way so why the hell are you mocking the afflicted? do it make you feel good? Theres nothing like kicking a dog when its down to tickle your fancys! why do you get personal? You could have demanded non-smoking pubs if you had wanted them soooooo bad so where were you all then????

Caire, why would you think Robert is overweight,likes a drink?? & drives a car..just because he is not a smoker?....Most People in Scotland are more than happy with the Ban...u r not.because u r a smoker...I was not when smoking was allowed....so whats with the vitrol...rabid anti-smokers???If u seeth so much, perhaps this would a good time to pack in the fags, so ur cash wont help us non-smokers if we need the NHS...perhaps ur arteries are already hardened by the smoking as ur heart seems to be...,causing lack of lucidity....just a thought...

Jennifer,

Less than 25% of the people asked said they wanted a total ban. That is "most" is it?

....just a thought...

Several states that I know of in the USA where smoking is banned statewide in enclosed areas or in pubs or restaurants.

Delaware, Massachusetts, Maine, California, Washington, DC (federal city, not a state) not to mention my own Maryland county which borders on DC.

How nice to have a drink in a pub in Palm Springs, California up the side of the San Jacinto mountain minus smoking, (special cable car gets you up there) or to be in a pub on the ground level where you can have a view of a mountain out the back of the pub. minus smoke.

I remember one pub in Scotland, can't remember what island it was on had a very nice view outside through the windows of nature, nice to be able to see that again, now I can do it without smoke.

I either ate and drank at places in my county or in neighboring Delaware when in the ocean shore area and avoided DC until it went smoke free.

I found that the Canadian province of Nova Scotia went smoke free- I have friends there and know other Gaelic speakers there so I go to NS the most out of any Canadian province.

Ireland has made its pubs smoke-free at least that is what I found in County Donegal. (Conndae Dhun na nGall)

All domestic flights in the USA are smoke-free by law.

It is getting very prevalent by now in my county in Maryland to find fewer people smoking even walking around outdoors.

Cigarettes have gotten much more expensive here in the States, more tobacco land is no longer growing tobacco and it is easier to find help to quit smoking.

Non of my best friends smoke, which makes life even better.

This is a good start regarding the link between passive smoking and cancer:

http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/10/14/75/04101475.pdf

btw protecting my health is not my main reason to avoid places where people smoke

Murchadh Og (136)

It's very nice that you can sit in your mountainside pub in palm springs, sipping your drink in a smoke free environment.

The person who owns that bar presumably disagrees or it would have been smoke free before. The soldier on his way to war to fight for your country and who can't have a cigarette in the jeep might be glad your'e happy too. Or how about the OAP standing outside his nursing home in the rain, I'm sure he's happy in the knowledge that Murchadh Og is in his own little utopia. But that's ok, don't worry about anyone else.

Who was it again who said smokers are selfish?

It would be nice if a few could see the decline in respect for property rights at work here. Why not let a publican decide for himself if smoking is allowed in his establishment? Any non-smoker could just find another pub. Or alternatively, the system used elsewhere could be applied, where a restaurant or pub could have a smoking and a non-smoking section, with the installation of a good quality ventilation system. This works so well where it's been tried that the issue is solved. Both parties are happy. The fact that the very idea is jeered so completely in the US and UK goes a long way to back up the notion that this is simply an imposition of smug values by a group of hostile and repugnant anti-smoking fanatics.

I am an Ex-smoker, but I totally believe that in this day and age we should be able to accommodate both smokers and non smokers either by segregation or technology.
Despite the population as a whole smoking less, deaths from cancers are steadily increasing. This is what we should be concentrating on. Unfortunately we would find that the biggest single cause is the fuels used in cars and lorries and the Governments biggest revenue earner Deisel and Petrol.
It suits the government for us to be at each others throat over the small matter of smoking. Let's focus on the bigger picture and stop the big "C"

Perhaps fewer alcoholics. fewer lives shortened. fewer lives ruined. fewer families shattered, fewer resources spent on the results of alcoholism.

Perhaps fewer tobacco-related deaths. fewer lives shortened. fewer lives ruined. fewer families shattered, fewer resources spent on the results of tobacco addiction and illness.

Maybe bad news for funeral directors and the booze industry.

All together now ................ Shame ..............

Hi Ron #141, yes, cancer...environment, genetics, but I wonder if stress can't be a bigger trigger for the cause?? Or perhaps the combination. Which is ironic, because if smoking reduces stress in a person...
...it is a bigger picture; Norman made an interesting point, but I still think this all has to do with 'big brother' and the 'nanny state' mentality people controlling us.

Hmm, "smoking reduces stress in a person"....
Yes, one could call withdrawal symptoms stress. So, best way to avoid future stress is by quitting smoking. Perhaps a smoking ban in pubs might help smokers a bit to motivate them?

Hi Frank#144, I think the biggest motivator for not smoking is....who wants to "kiss an ashtray"!! ;)
.
..I'm not condoning smoking, nor would I want to sit in a pub thick with smoke, or try to have a meal in a restaurant next to an inconsiderate chain-smoker....but I'm ever rebellious about the 'freedoms' issues and the nanny state(anywhere)

With the ventilation systems now available why do pubs have to be smoke free? I don't smoke but my husband does and we both enjoyed relaxing over a drink at our local pub in Chicago. Unfortunately Chicago is also under the misguided notion that a government should ban a legal behavior!!! So we have unhappily moved to a pub in our suburban neighborhood that still has a smoking area. These laws are just as bad as prohibition was in the 1920's. And does the American have to remind the Scottish how bad that was for your economy?

Ah Melanie (145), I am not very fond of nanny states myself. But if their "nanniness" protects me from bad-mannered smokers, and make it possible to go to a pub or buy a smokeless meal in a restaurant, I will gladly accept their protection.

hi Frank, all right, I will agree with you, but only just so far...my mum's American Southern Rebel blood will only let me concede ever so far!

Claire #133 - Thanks for your wishful thinking. Unfortunately I'm in the Army so am pretty fit, I drink maybe twice a month at most and I bike to work. I've been @howling@ about no-smoking pubs for ages and I'm absolutely delighted they are here.

Rab #131 - Thanks for that constructive argument. That's me told!

Gordon from the People's Republic - Throughout this post you've asked for evidence of the effects of passive smoking. Every time someone puts another one up you just seem to ignore it. You're not a member of the La La La I Can't Hear You Party are you? I don't have any exact references for reports. But then they are probably too many to mention. Unlike the two that vainly offers you hope. One of the other people on the post has extracted a quote which shows one of those says exactly the opposite of what you claim.

I'm off now to have a nice (smoke-free) pub lunch. Fantastic!

Steve #132-

Smokers don't like roles being reversed.

Non-smokers won't be thrown out on the street because they aren't breaking the law.

Non-smokers drink too.

It'd be abrave employer who advertised a job and said 'non-smokers only'. That's discrimination and no different from saying 'no ethnics'

Non-smokers don't need a shed out the back of a pub as they can stand at the bar.

My mum works in a nursing home and OAPs don't have to go outside their nursing home as it's classed as their home. So that's just nonsense.

It wouldn't make a difference if smokers did mount a campaign because you are in the minority. Feel free though - it should be a laugh.

So, no, we're not being selfish. smokers aren't banned from anywhere. They're just not allowed to smoke when they are inside. No one's barring anyone. It's just that now the tables have been turne and smokers don't like it.

But thanks anyway

Robert (150)

Lucky for you they havn't banned people who talk rubbish from pubs;

Smokers, like anyone else, don't like being told not to do a legal activity by the virtuous.

How are smokers breaking the law? It's a legal activity.

Yes non-smokers drink too, does this give them a right to entertainment in someone else's pub beyond the owner of the pubs wishes?

There have now been a few reported cases of employers advertising jobs where 'smokers need not apply' and there is no law against it.

I think you will find it is the ideological anti-smokers who are a minority, 75% were against the total ban remember?

There is no table that has been turned. I think you mean now the anti-smokers have spent millions of pounds of charity money on junk studies they have conned the public and government (as they admitted in a letter to the Guardian) that somehow the virtuous minority have invented human rights over other peoples property.

Perhaps you'd like to force the landlord to turn the disco off too so you don't get a headache.

As for you not being selfish, how do you justify a smoker not being allowed to smoke when he's alone in a company van? How do you justify smokers not being allowed a warm shelter? How do you justify a group of smokers being unable to rent a private hall for a private function not being allowed to smoke?

If you think nanny bans won't be overturned, read your history.

How are smokers breaking the law? Well if they're smoking inside a building I'd have thought that was pretty obvious. I think you'll find they're breaking the law. Is that not what this whole post is about? Yes, it is a legal activity - outside and in your own home.

The way all those opposed to the smoking ban talk you'd think that passive smoking was a new thing. It's been around for as long as I can remember. Just because smokers have ignored it, thinking nothing would ever be done about it doesn't make it new now that something they don't like has been done.

I've no idea what your background is but I'm sure that the hundreds of doctors and professors through the decades, who've studied these things will be mortified that their medical expertise and training was wasted. All they needed to do was ask you and they'd know they were talking rubbish. Silly them!

Oh and the smoke-free pub lunch was great!

Do you mean the 150 epedemiology studies? statistical analysis to estimate risk factors in epedemics? The total case of the passive smoke myth. I'm sure you know of these studies, they are responsible for the daily health scares; there have been two this week alone... 'swimming pools cause asthma' and ' leaving a light on damages babies brains'.

Would you care to produce one of these studies that shows a statistically significant link between passive smoke and disease?

Or maybe you would you like to explain any of the following;

Why do these studies ignore known confounders?

Why do they tout insignificant RR's with negative widths and widths containing 1 as proof of causation?

Why do the 5 biggest smoking nations (four of which almost half the population smokes) have higher life expectancy than us ?

Why does Japan have a much lower incidence of Lung cancer than the US despite their smoking figures being much higher, when government and cancer organisations tell us that 90% of lung cancer is caused by smoking ?

Why are Japanese women 5 times more likely to contract lung cancer if they emigrate to the US?

Why do cancer specialists tell us that cancer is caused by the synergistic effect of many factors and cannot be attributed to any single one yet government tells us that smoking causes cancer?

Does a publican open a pub for commercial reasons or to provide for the human rights of anti-smokers to entertainment?

Why won't the government back an indoor air quality scheme?

How many carcinogens are in tobacco smoke?

How many carcinogens are known in indoor air?

How many carcinogens are in all organic matarial?

How many carcinogens are in the sodium nitrate they inject into supermarket meat?

would you like me to go on?

having suffered a heart attack at the age of 40 after smokingf excessive cigarettes and cigars my feeling is that any measures that can reduce the amount of smoking can only be good. Go with it and live a long healthy life.

David (154)

Smoking 40 a day is certainly an overdose and is not good for health, but banning smoke in pubs does not reduce smoking levels.

Since the war smoking has steadily declined from 50% (80% in males) to todays level of around 23%. This was acheived through sound science and education.

Junk studies and myths about passive smoking coupled with bans are having the reverse effect, they are driven by ideology, not any concern for public health.

Smoking costs NHS £1.5bn

Now lets think of where some of that money comes from.

Lets say 25% of the UK smoke, so 25% of 60000000 is 15000000 people.

Say the average packet of cigs(20's) is £4.75 and the average smoker smokes 15 per day.

So the average person pays ¾ * 4.75 = £3.5625\day

So total sales revenue per day is 3.5625 * 15000000 = £53,437,500

Per year £53,437,500 * 365 = £19,504,687,500

Now we Know VAT is 17½%. From that we can derive that total VAT to the government.

To backwards calculate VAT its 17.5/117.5 * amount inc VAT (or 7/47) to get what the government is getting.

So 7/47 * 19,504,687,500 = £2,904,953,457.45 VAT revenue alone.

Now to the actual tax on tobacco.

I cant find any actual figure on how much the tobacco tax is so Im going with 50%

So total revenue - VAT = 16599734042.55

So 50% of 16599734042.55 is £8,299,867,021.28

So I estimate is that total tax paid to the UK governmet from the sales of tobacco products is £11,204,820,478.73

Thats £9,704,820,478.73 than the NHS needs.

Smokers not only pay for there own treatments they pay for a hell of alot of other people treatments as well.

Heres a thought:

What if all smokers stopped smoking tomorrow.

The government loses £11.2bn\year
The NHS will eventually stop having smoking relates illness but it will go on for a good few years.
Still an overall loss of £9.7bn.

Where does that money come from?
So from the above calculation you can say the average smoker spends £1300\year on cigs, which would drop to £0 if they stopped.
But that £9.7bn has to be recovered and so other taxes would rise.
If all the people in the UK split that evenly that would be £161.74 per person per year.
But remember the smokers have saved £1300, so they are overall £1138.26 better off and the non-smokers are £161.74 worse off.

Now tell me that you want smokers to stop.<

Kevin, I don't want people to stop smoking. I couldn't care less. I just don't want to breathe in their fumes.

You're also working on the assumption that, if those people stopped smoking, they wouldn't spend that £1300 on something else I know if I had that extra amount of money I would.

Fair play to you on the maths though!

Incidentally, I think the most effective warning you could have on a cigarette packet is:

"Smoking makes you a social leper"

you hit it on the nail kevin#156; its what the general people dont know that with out the revenue generated from tobacco sales the money, it has to come from somewhere. With smokers they are paying for there health care in taxes. If people stopped smoking and it would have a knock on affect with job losses in the tobacco industry ae well which is taxed aswell. Why not have a drinking ban as it cause's more problems than tobacco!!!!!!!!!!!!

Glad to see theres people out there that see it my way. And just to say you possibly assumed that I am a smoker, and that is true.

#157 Robert - I would love to stop myself and the money would be very hand and I would spend most of it on other things. And for the warnings most smokers I know look at them and usually make a sarcastic remark like "Oh My God, Smoking Kills - Now you tell me". In fact ive seen many replacements for the warnings, one that I remember is "Only quiters quit". Basicly they don't really help.

As for not wanting to breath other peoples smoke, I'll admit theres the exception but ive usually found that smokers where curtious to non-smokers request when it came to where and when they could smoke.

#158 Douglas - Ive had this conversation with many people (smokers and non-smokers), most don't think of the finanial implacations to the country, and when they do they dont realise how much.

I don't think the government will ever ban smoking totally because they make to much money from it. But we livew in a nanny state anyway so you never know.

On a side note the thing that still puzzles me for example at my work there was a dedicated smoking room that no non-smaker needed to enter unless they wanted to and if a non-smoker wanted anyone from that room the smoker would exit the smoking room so they didn't need to enter it. Why did there rooms need to be banned(?), when the whole point of them was to keep the smoke away from the people that didn't want to breath it.

On a final note another thing that I find totally stupid is think about this: lets say I work from home and im typing a letter to a customer, while im doing that I cant smoke as Im "at work", if I was to close that document and start browsing the net as a recreational activity I can smoke. I have even needed to move from my seat to do this. This is the part of the law that I find totally ridiculous, I realise that the cha

With people like Robert from Ayrshire defending our country we have nothing to fear.

But personally, as a non-smoker, I appreciate the smoking ban but really can't understand why the pubs/clubs etc were not given the option. If you had a "smoking" pub and a "non-smoking" pub then everyone would have the freedom of choice.

Yes, smoking can kill. So can a lot of things. Until the government bans cigarettes outright it has to accept that fact and make allowances.

Allow smoking pubs, with smoking employees (or those who don't mind the smoke), and put big signs up saying that "non-smokers enter at their own risk".