Smoke easies sound a lovely idea - its just a pity so many pubs are part of large chains!

I agree with you sed, smoking outside will be nae joke come winter up here in the Highlands. prehaps we can create a website that smokers all get together and organise these smoke easies. of course we would have to invent a secret code, so the anti smoking Nazis brigade would'nt turn up.

Prohibition has never worked anywhere else in the world where it has been tried in the past. Think of the speak-easy and liquor running black market 'industry' in the USA of the 1920s. Of course there will be people breaking the law.

Passive smoking is bad for you, but so are the passive effects of excess alcohol, from agressive drunks, road accidents, violence, vomit etc. Where do you start drawing the line? What about obesity and fattening foods?

I am hardly suprised as since i have been over here the same thing happens in certain areas of Wellington and other locations around NZ. The PC brigade won their battle with the government but have lost the war. In rural communities especially this will be hard to enforce. Why don't these people get a life? It is my theory that people who interfere in other peoples life and enjoyment - on some lets get healthy crusade -, have totally meaningless lives of their own, and so like sticking their noses in where its not wanted! Enough said really, apart from bog off and leave us smokers alone!

"unless smoking takes place on domestic property attached to the pub."

So - all round to the Landlord's pad with a carry out then !

Illegal use of a legal product ????????What is that about? The world has gone haywire!

Great. Hope they have them in England as well when the ridiculous smoking ban comes into force.

Watch out! The smoke police are going to get ya! They are easy to spot though fortunately. They have big woolly jumpers with their initials in reverse across the front, so they can look in a mirror when they want to remember their names. The 'hug a tree' tattoo across their foreheads is a dead give away too!

What a complete tosh ... I'm glad I never let go of my tobacco shares - remember Prohibition?

And anyway, who the hell wants to hang out with filthy-smelling, passive-minded smokers?? Let them all gas themselves in grotty pub lock-ins, if that's what they want to do ... what's so wrong about smoking at home? Is that illegal yet? It should be - it's as much fun as you can have with your pants on ('not')!!!

BUT - immediately withdraw all NHS support for smoking-, drinking- and drugs-related diseases, and make the fag, booze and street-drugs users pay cash for service at the point of use. These are self-inflicted injuries resulting from inappropriate lifestyle choices - there's no reason at all why the healthy majority should foot the bill for medical care for the self-destructive and the effects of their 'entertainment'.

Good, sounds like a poke in the eye for the health facists and their totalitarian buddies.

Scott i heard they were going to have swazstickers on their jumpers as well as their initials.!!! Your right why dont they bog off and leave us to enjoy our perfectly legal cigarettes. Great idea Anon lets get round to the landlords pad with the carry out and fags.....hmm i'm going to ask my landlord why he did'nt think of that.!!!!BERT the world has gone mad.... who would have ever dreamed it would be ilegal to use a legal substance in public, but it is apparently alright to drop ilegal bombs on the public of Iraq and anyone else they dont like.!!! Maybee they will round up all us smokers and put us on an island somewhere and drop some bombs on us.!!! Wait i forgot.....they cant do that because then they would'nt get the millions of pounds or dollars in revnue from us. God are'nt we lucky.!!!

Quite correct Flora i have a feeling if the UK population stopped smoking and drinking tomorrow and subsisted on Special K instead the whole country would be bankrupt in a week! Oh and another point about the smoking ban, i have been told by an English friend of mine that when it comes into force (only what ive heard through the grapevine would be grateful if someone could verify this as fact) in England next year, there are exceptions. Namely, the house of commons bars and army messes, if this is true then only one word for the tree hugging MP's HYPOCRITES!!!!

Philip what do you do with your life.?? prehaps you sit at home reading your copy of Mein camp, or prehaps you are one of those patrolling smoking police. It is very clear you are afraid of normal life, never taking risks. well if you never take risks in life you never do anything or achieve anything. What is next on your list? should we include banning cars as the many deaths from R.T.A. could be called self inflicted or victims of "passive" driving.!!! I noticed you did'nt include "Diet" on your list, when it is a medical fact that over eating or eating the wrong food is the number one killer and cause of high medical costs, in fact diet related diseases costs the NHS four times the amount that smoking related diseases costs. Is this prehaps your "vice" Philip?? hmmm....i wonder. !!! Everyone has somthing they indulge in.

Flora, i think Phillip may have been being sarcastic at least i hope so lol

Your quite correct Scott they would go Bankrupt and yes we have heard the same thing about the ban happening next year in England and the exceptions for the house of commons. They are a bunch of Hypocrites, even worse their Lunatic Hypocrites.!!! These are the Nutters the "Great British Public" voted in to rule us, although i can honestly say i did not vote for them, and nor will i vote for them in the upcoming elections in Scotland.....SNP will get my vote.

Has not won the NZ government any friends here from the Kiwis.

Scott i dont think he was being sarcastic, as there seem to be a lot of "brainwashed" people like him these days. Sad but true i'm afraid.!!! And their numbers are growing as we speak.!!! I think it may be our (normal people) duty to save these very sad people.!!! Don't you think so?? prehaps we could all adopt one, take them home and unbrainwash them so they could go on to live normal happy lives.!!!

Flora - FYI, I did my time with a ciggie in my hand, and packed it in (too late) in 1993. Since then, it's cost me two negative tests for throat cancer, permanent pharyngo-laryngitis, eleven near-fatal while-asleep choking fits during the 90s, and the overriding need never to be in contact with smoke in the air (from any source) ever again.

It also cost me pub nights out, music nights out in smoky 'music dens', being able to sing, being able to follow a career as a training instructor (you need to be able to talk endlessly to do that, and I can't anymore) - in other words, all the things that I really enjoyed doing. In short, I f*cked up big-time.

I still cringe when I see people light up - because I know exactly what's waiting for them if they indulge themselves to the extent that I did. If I'd been a bit more cautious, I'd have got away with it ... as it is, I sort of did, in that I'm still alive - conditionally.

And 'no' - beyond the two tests for throat cancer, I haven't asked for or received any sort of NHS support - and I won't, because my problems were SELF-INFLICTED. What I had to do was to find a place to live where there's clean air all the time - even traffic fumes mess me up these days - hence Shetland.

Smoke Free could you not reply without resorting to " colourful" language.? No i suppose that would be too civilised for you.! Are you by any chance from Glasgow or somewhere in Lanarkshire??? Your clean air by the way is non existent as you inhale more damaging toxins the minute you step out of your "smoke free" pub.!!! SO away you go and knock yourself out enjoying your Sooo clean air.!!!!

Jim (3), What you say is true, but don't fall for the anti-smoking myth that passive smoke is bad for you. Passive smoke is harmless.

Smoke Free (19) True, you are not alone; there is a very small group of people just like you; loud, obsessive, virtuous, selfish and fond of interfering in other peoples lives.

Philip i am sorry you have throat problems, and i would not mind at all if you did get Nhs support. I still say though that we as smokers or whatever it is you indulge in, do so knowing the risks and just about everything you do in life is a risk. That is the way life is and always has been since the begining of time. There are things people do that i do not like, and indeed would try to advise them not to do it, but if they choose to ignore that i would not then enforce them to stop if it is a legal thing they are doing. Dont you agree that the goverment are being hypocrites as they make a lot of money of smokers and that is why they dont make it ilegal altogether. The ban in public places is based on unproven data by ASH that passive smoking results in smoking related diseases. ASH by the way are funded by new labour and the drugs companies that sell Quit smoking products.! Hardly uninterested parties with nothing to gain out of it. I can see though how inhaling smoke from any source would make your problem worse. All i am saying is that so far scientific evidence says it is only if you do smoke that you may get a smoking related disease, and as all smokers are aware of this it is up to them if they continue to take the risk. I wish you well Philip and hope you do still have some pleasures in your life.

It's a very shakey point: 'consuming a legal substance illegally'.
It's only a matter of time before airports will have signs saying "You can be prosecuted for importng tobacco in any form".
"Minimum penalty:£1000;Maximum penalty:Death
(we are quicker).

Reminds me of the film Water World where the baddies were called the SMOKERS

Sincerely, Coffee-drinker

Flora. Why does it not surprise me that you are an SNP voter. Like you, they are all raving ranters who talk nothing but a load of b********

Bejjy, why does it not suprise me that as usual ( i have seen your posts on other topics) you make ignorant statments that acutally say nothing. What exactly did i "rant" that is so hard for you to understand.?? Are you an Adult or should i repeat it in words a five year old would understand.??? Do let me know, your so entertaining in a simple kind of way.!!!

James #25
Hope you enjoy your coffee, that could be next on "the hit list" lol !!! i have taken the precaution of converting to Tea.!!! Anybody know if tea is on the list yet???

I am sick of hearing about the £1.7 billion we smokers apparently cost the NHS when no one mentions the £13.5 billion the government collects in tax on tobacco products!
DW

Daft laws invite flouting!!!
And another thing, isn't it time for the Scottish government to go after those other parasites, who cost the NHS even more than smokers, are ugly and unsightly, and ought, with equal force, to be banned from all public places.
Let's have a campaign of persecution, like the smoking ban, against fat people!

I think its definitely wrong that the government capitalises by taxing legal tobacco products then not allowing these products to be used where people choose.
Therefore the government should bite the bullet and make all tobacco products illegal hence ending all arguments about were people can smoke or not smoke.
The NHS would if smoking is causing so much illness save money as there would not be so many supposedly smoking related cases of illness hence offsetting the lost revunue from tobacco sales.
Well I suppose that all sounds too simple and you can't make everyone happy all of the time. Oh dear, how sad .......... next.

I'm happy to leave smokers alone,as far away as possible.on top of ben nevis would be a good start

My mother died of lung cancer after working for years in our local pub, despite the fact she was a non-smoker. Probably just bad luck, eh?

Steve (23): I'm really glad to hear that passive smoke is harmless. You've done the scientific research, have you? No thought not; you're just in denial because the facts don't suit your own views.

IMHO the smoking ban is the one decent thing this appalling Labour administration has done. Pubs are far more pleasant places to be now for the MAJORITY who don't smoke.

Live and let live folks. If consenting adults want to break the law and smoke in a pub at the landlords discretion then fair play them. This isn't a news story. It's a nonsense designed to provoke meaningless debate between 2 parts of society that will not agree on this subject. !

i was at the rangers game a few weeks ago and the smokers were in the toilet smoking like schoolboys hiding from the stewards it was a hoot, I hate smoking but they could give them a section to smoke within a stadium this size at half time ,just for common sense

Graham, sorry to hear about your mother, but I think you'll find that geneticists agree that there is a gene for cancer. That's why some smokers live until they're 90 or 100 and non smokers die at 21, like the athlete, Lilian Board.

Anyway, it's a pointless arguement. The non smokers will never shut up and the smokers will never stop moaning. There will be a backlash, rest assured.

Graham sorry your mum died of lung cancer, there are a few different types of lung cancer, only one of them is purely smoking related. The others anybody can get whatever enviroment they are in. Did they tell your Mum what type she had.?

I am shocked. literally shocked....I didn't imagine so many intelligent people (obviously because they read the Scotsman) are stupid enough to smoke!

Neil 39
Aye we probably are stupid to smoke, but no more stupid than anybody else as everyone (if they know it or not) indulges in something "stupid" but as it is supposed to be a "free country" i dont bleat on about their bad and in some cases "offensive" habbits.

I am sick fed up listening to all these sanctimonious, holier that thou "People" gloating at the situation. At the end of the day this is a LEGAL product!! Common sense should have prevailed and a choice given. Unfortunately I did vote for the bunch of numpties who passed this legislation - never again!! I will have to do my research and find a MSP who didn't vote for this as they will receive my vote this time around. Like Mike #37 says there will be a backlash.

Typically smokers show less concern for the rest of the population.
What about folk with asthma who also enjoy a pint but found that their enjoyment was spoiled by the smokers arround them? In mainland Europe there are "smokers areas" in many cafe's and resturants. Unless there are very good extrator fans in these premises, asthma sufferers still find these hostelries challenge their immediate health and well being. As an adult one can chose where one eats or drinks but there are often children, who have no choice, on these premises with their parents.
Smoking bans are for the greater good. No doubt smokers will argue that they don't need to have these decisons made for them, but the decision is being made for the rest of the non smoking population. Thats part of living in a democracy!

I thought the whole point of a democracy was the face that you were actually allowed a vote on the matter!! This wasn't a democratic decision. There was no referendum. You should be very very careful saying that bans are for the greater good you might find yourself in that category one day.

All this talk of swastikas and comparing the government to Nazis is unfair and a terrible exaggeration. After all, the Nazis never went as far as banning smoking in pubs!

Blimey o’ riley! It's true what #something or other said: Nobody is going to agree on this subject and I think Flora’s head is about to explode with apoplexy due to many of the comments going back and forth.
Here’s some facts:
1. Smoking is bad for you
2. Some people like to do it anyway
3. The smoking ban was forced on the public. There was no consultation, or alternative debate with the public. That’s what happens when you vote labour…
4. It’s going to be very cold outside this winter.

Now let’s all get back to work!!! (Fag break at 10am…)

It's always interesting when the smokers claim their "rights" to enjoy a fag... leave us alone to enjoy our legal product where we like etc.... Sorry guys, but the majority don't smoke and I would like to defend OUR right to be able to go out and not have our air polluted by a minority of people. Nobody would care if you smokers didn't effect anyone else through your enjoyment of your legal product. In fact you're very welcome to do so in this free country (yes it is a free country) of ours. In your own personal home. Unfortuantely, the smoke has addled your minds so that you can't seem to see that in a free country it doesn't mean that everyone gets to do anything they like. Smoking in public places like a pub effects everyone in that place, and negates the choice of those who choose not to smoke. Therefore in that case, since the majority don't choose to smoke it's right and democratic that smoking be prohibited to respect that choice. You can't have it both ways unfortunately. If you CHOOSE to smoke that's up to you. You just have to find a way to enjoy it without effecting anyone else. Of course, if you have kids at home and choose to smoke there, then I would also question whether that should be allowed as you're again affecting people who have no power to make a choice. Finally, if tobacco were discovered today it would absolutely be illegal; I hope that's where we're headed. Next step -- raise the legal age of buying fags to 18 like alcohol.

Alastair (34)
Oersonally I have not carried out studies on Passive Smoking as it would be covering old ground but others have and to date there has been over 150 studies carried out. Each reached the same conclusion that there was no scientific evidence to suggest that Passive Smoking is anything other than an irritant. This can be controlled and removed by Ventilation and Air Filtration, now with the addition of pure science in the form of Plasmacluster Ion Technology the indoor air can be made cleaner than outdoors. If you don't believe me Google 'Plasmacluster Ions' and all will be revealed. This is available in the U.K. and is not expensive to install, but ASH would not approve as this is science and they do not understand the word.

Flora, thanks - my little misadventure with cigarettes forced changes in life on a lot of fronts, and I'm actually all the better (and happier) for it.

I agree with you that the UK Government have been hypocrites about smoking all along, for money, regardless of colour. But, they're slime - we all know that, and still we keep on voting for them ...

Also, I disagree with all of the 'health Nazis' and nannies who'd have us all stop doing everything that could harm us - a person has to be allowed one foolish habit, and smoking in moderation (although unpleasantly smelly for all non-smokers around them) is hardly something to jump up and down about. Even so, my personal position on smoking is that I know (very nearly at first-hand) just how unpleasant it would be to choke to death for no good reason; and all the more so because it's not necessary - just like that hangover after one glass of wine or spirits too many (that I'm not supposed to have either, as it makes my throat even more dry than usual).

All I can suggest is - don't smoke to extremes, don't inflict the smell or alleged hazard of it on others, be a 'good neighbour' in that way. And hope that if your time comes like mine did, and you wake alone in the middle of the night to find that you can't breathe in or out because your throat's collapsed in a manner similar to that of brittle asthma, that you don't panic (like I didn't) and have a brainwave about what to do about it (as I did - eleven times in all, before the attacks stopped) - or you may not survive it.

What is really interesting Nick#47 is that apparently you cannot discuss this without resorting to insults. This says a lot more about you that your comments.

"But the Scottish Executive warned that anyone caught running illegal after-hours smoking sessions for customers in defiance of the ban, which came into force in March, will be prosecuted."

What happened to freedom of choice? these are all consenting adults are they not? they have waited for any 'non smoker' to leave and then locked the door to enjoy a smoke with like minded folk, what is so wrong about that?

David at 29, good point!

Ah the smoking ban again I am sure that all polls before the ban showed by percentages in the 70 & 80 that there should be a compromise on a blanket ban and have smoking and non smoking establishments but as we know in this country the only time politicians listen to the majority is when they are voting to put them in power.
They will not make the production, trading, transportation and use of tobacco illegal as that would lose the treasury and authorities billions of £ in taxes and put 100 of 1000 on the dole.
The amount of people smoking has been going down in the last 40 years yet the illnesses that smoking and passive smoking are blamed for have risen ?.
Both sides that have researched the effects of passive smoking have an agenda so we will never have the true effects of passive smoking until it is researched with out the results being predetermined and any evidence that would disprove what the researcher is trying to prove being discarded which has been proven in courts of law around the world to be the case over and over.
Sir Richard Dole who discovered the link between smoking and certain illnesses and who carried out research in this field said (in layman's terms) that the effects of passive smoking were so minuscule that it did not bother him sitting in a room full of smokers.

and you know what? I hate being told what to do, makes me feel kinda defiant you know!

People have been lighting up in Britain for hundreds of years. At some point the Government thought "mmmh mighty profitable, methinks I'l have a slice of that".......but its cost them since then. As I have said previously not just to the NHS but also the workforce. How many of you 'healthy' smokers are more prone to bronchitis, chest infections and colds, than non smokers? Please try to think a bit wider than yourself and the people in your immediate circle. It was only a matter of time before people started suing workplaces etc for the effects of passive smoking on them. So the Government have banned it in a step to avoid this.

I am an ex-smoker but I never justified it like some of the people on this forum do. I knew it was a dangerous habit that would gradually decrease my quality of life or kill me, as it did my father, with emphesema. And no Flora, that was not work related but definitly smoking related, your question to that chap "Did they tell your mum what type she had" was pretty f*****g tastless!....just to score a point in this forum.

Smoke where you want folks.....shebeens, locks ins, landlords pad your own hoose.....as long as its not in public. You are a drug addict and will continue to bleat and justify your position. Oh the poor smoker, how their world is crashing down around about them......you lot sound just as feverish as the anti-smoking, yes that includes I, brigade.

Don't you just love the comment from the council official. 'we haven't heard about these'. Of course you haven't and neither would the SLTA have, would they?. The fact is LA's have no rights of entry to pubs when they are 'closed', and the police are certainly not going to waste their time over people voluntarily locked in a pub for the purpose of smoking. As Jo says, these are adults making adult choices. Freedom to Choose, wwwthebigdebate.org has moved a step closer to a Judicial Review of the UK ban following a strategy meeting with solicitors. But I have to tell the people of Scotland that during our research that we have uncovered damaging evidence that shows how the Scottish Executive have lied and deceived the public. Frankly if you do not vote this lot out then more Social Engineering will follow. Standard up for your rights, your politicians won't.

#48 Bill.. bless you mate, but you've either never looked into the subject or you are delusional if you think that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that passive smoking is anything other than an irritant.
Please see these links that are published papers that would disagree. Please actually read around the subject before making these kind of statements -- it makes you look a little foolish. Anyone else: if you read these papers do you draw the same conclusions as Bill?

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/340/12/920
http://tinyurl.com/zhmrn
http://tinyurl.com/edre7
http://www.oehha.org/air/environmental_tobacco/finalets.html

a quick Google search would give some others, but enough I think to prove the point....
Oh, I leave you with a quote from one of the reports: "Based on the weight of the available scientific evidence, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded that the widespread exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the United States presents a serious and substantial public health impact."
http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id...
Finally, some other food for thought when looking for papers:
"The fact that tobacco companies have set out to recruit scientists and others to present their views on passive smoking has been borne out by a literature review which examined the affiliations of authors of studies on ETS. Out of a total of 106 reviews, 31 had been written by authors with tobacco industry affiliations. Of these 94% (29/31) concluded that passive smoking

Walter, maybe Sir Richard bloody Dole had a healthy pink pair of lungs and a wonderful constitution due to all his outdoor activities as opposed to the wee bachle fae a damp tenement in the gorbals, who never smoked but nonethless somehow could not sit amongst smokers withoot coughing their guts up.

Everything is bad for you if not done in moderation, but still I reserve the right as an adult who knows all the facts to make my own choices and if and when I decide not to smoke it will be MY choice!.

quote William # 30..

"Let's have a campaign of persecution, like the smoking ban, against fat people! "

That is coming William, the writing is on the wall on that one already.

I am sorry to say the poster who thinks 1.17 Relative Risk is proof of ETS harm, should study the science of risk. Causation has to reach 3 all scientists agree on that. The conclusion as always is not backed up by the study.

Results Overall, nonsmokers exposed to environmental smoke had a relative risk of coronary heart disease of 1.25 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.17 to 1.32) as compared with nonsmokers not exposed to smoke. Passive smoking was consistently associated with an increased relative risk of coronary heart disease in cohort studies (relative risk, 1.21; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.14 to 1.30), in case–control studies (relative risk, 1.51; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.26 to 1.81), in men (relative risk, 1.22; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.10 to 1.35), in women (relative risk, 1.24; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.15 to 1.34), and in those exposed to smoking at home (relative risk, 1.17; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.11 to 1.24) or in the workplace (relative risk, 1.11; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.00 to 1.23). A significant dose–response relation was identified, with respective relative risks of 1.23 and 1.31 for nonsmokers who were exposed to the smoke of 1 to 19 cigarettes per day and those who were exposed to the smoke of 20 or more cigarettes per day, as compared with nonsmokers not exposed to smoke (P=0.006 for linear trend).

Conclusions Passive smoking is associated with a small increase in the risk of coronary heart disease. Given the high prevalence of cigarette smoking, the public health consequences of passive smoking with regard to coronary heart disease may be important.

I don't mind people smoking so long as they eat their cigarette butts....

Don't politico's/nanny mentality tree huggers make a problem when there is no need for one. All they had to do was say that there would be smoking or non smoking pubs, staff would know whether they were applying for jobs best suited for them, but that's far too easy, as for them being hypocrites, well we knew that anyway, did anyone really think they would include the gravy train of Westminster to be included?

I am an ex smoker so know the pleasure it can give, and if they want to have all these restrictions then let them have the balls to make it illegal. lol they couldn't afford to.

I get 200 bensons for 11dollars the same cost about 90 dollars in Edinburgh its all tax if we all stopped smoking all the PC dogooders would S___ them selves because the Goverment would have to put 10p in the pound on income tax to get the same amout they are robbing off us

Total bans are stupid,however, what are we to expect from the diddies that run the country.

The sensible option here would have been to license premises for smoking, therefor allowing establishments the option whether or not to be a smokers pub or not, allowing them to advertise they are a smoking pub,giving people the choice whether or not to go in. I'm sure market forces would have allowed everybody to live together-smoking and non smoking pubs.

But hey, this is too sensible of an approach,instead we have toon council Jack McConnel et al trying to stamp a political authority. Can somebody tell Jack his public profile is pathetic,oh, and the rest of his diddy men/women as well.

Am all for protecting people from passive smoking,indeed,it's sensible,but total ban was stuuuuuuuuuupid, it's called compromise.

Roll on May 2007 and hopefully a few heads will roll for their stupidity,and Ken Dod et al will be gone.

WW

Live and let live. Keep pubs smoke-free so that I can enjoy my drink and turn a blind eye to the lock-ins so that anyone who wants to risk a life-threatening illness can enjoy his/her cig. Fair enough?

It is a pity that such an undemocratic law imposed in such draconian fashion leads otherwise law abiding citizens to behave in such a way as to put themselves outside the law.
No one seems to see the breakdown in democratic thinking involved in the imposition of this law. Can we truly deny our citizens who smoke the right to meet with others who are likeminded to enjoy a legalized drug in the company of friendsand in the absence of non-smokers?
I do not smoke.

Oh Brian #60 you are much more to be pitied than anything else if you really believe what you say about smokers. I never really believed there were people like you in this world I thought it was media hype! The non-smokers in this forum just seem unable to post a comment without being abusive. Says it all really Sad!!

In reply to no 10 Phillip remove NHS funding for self inflicted injuries I assume he is also referring to all sporting injuries, drunk driving injuries, mountain climbing, lunatic lycra cyclists, and any other what is classed as a high risk activity. Why should publicans be told what to do in their own homes what happened to property rights. Live and let live I say. I heard on the BBC today that old people in hospital are suffering from malutrition because nurses arnt helping them to feed this apparently costs us 9 billion a year consider that against smokers who cost the NHS 1.5 billion but contribute 10 billion in taxes. Choice when elderly go into hospital and starve to death or enjoy some pleasures in life and take some risks.

Quote Allan #63.." The sensible option here would have been to license premises for smoking, therefor allowing establishments the option whether or not to be a smokers pub or not, allowing them to advertise they are a smoking pub,giving people the choice whether or not to go in. I'm sure market forces would have allowed everybody to live together-smoking and non smoking pubs"

Too true....and I know which pub would be more fun : )
It's quite amusing these days in a pub or should I say just outside the door, that's where you will find most of the socialising being done, funny how at times the pub seems empty because everyone is outside enjoying their fag. Even this will bother the anti smoking brigade though.

I had been known to have the occasional puff and blame it on the smoky pub or bookies when Mrs Voltaire asked why I was reeking of fag smoke.
Since the smoking ban, my excuses would no longer work so I have given up completely.

The smoking ban is wonderful. It is putting more of a stigma on smoking and that is how it should be

Clearly an emotive topic. I think there have been some interesting points raised.
I am not a smoker, however, I have been known to enjoy a cigar once a year! That said, I can't agree with the view that the NHS should not treat smokers. They have paid tax (more than the cost of treatment) to the government for the use of a legal product, therefore they should be treated. If it's that bad for you - ban it totally.
Also, an interesting statistic is the the environmental health officers had time to visiti 5,851 premises! If they had time for that - what the hell were they doing before the ban, and if they were busy before, what are they neglecting now?
What's wrong with choice? I don't go into some pubs in my neck of the of the woods as they are smoky - my choice. Likewise, many pubs have no smoking rooms and all get on fine.
This is just a typical example of over-regulation by an adminsitration desperate to pander to the whim of the few and ignore the silent majority.
I can't wait to go back to Edinburgh net month, buy a big fat lardy and light up wherever I feel like it!!!

Non-smoker, who is loving going home from the pub not smelling like an ashtray.

patricia67/I think all the non smokers on here most probably work for THE SCOTTISH TOBACCO CONTROL DIVISION as they have nothing to do all day to justify their salarys.You can tell by their complete inability to have any sort of grown up debate on the matter at hand and that they must be employed by the executive in some capacity.ie small minded,arrogant, ignorant,pathetic control freaks ,spring to mind.

Dougie, your right!!! Not even the Nazis went that far!!!

Smokey Jo, Dont worry my head is'nt going to explode yet.!!!

patricia, Agree with all your comments.

Jo, good point you made, what is wrong with that.???

Bill Lockerbie, you are totally correct, prehaps Alastair should try reading "real scientific research" instead of "junk science".

Peter Kirkcudbright, Landlords are saying their food sales are down, as less people are going to the pub since the ban.

Nick, my air is being polluted by "the majority" i.e drivers and all industry in this country. If you dont believe me take a look at the NHS stats that say Asthma is increasing at alarming rates in adults and even more so in children due to the ever increasing road traffic and the filth industry is spewing out, and getting away with, but that is alright is it???

Scott, see above.! Asthma sufferers are more prone to an attack on the street than anywhere else.

Philip, Thanks for your reply, I always try to be a considerate smoker. I never smoke anywhere without first asking everybody present if they mind. I am glad to hear you still enjoy life, and once again i wish you all the best. Take care of yourself.

Alastair (34)

Yes I've done the research have you? If so perhaps you would like to show me one that shows a statistically significant link between passive smoke and disease. You won't be able to because there isn't one.

I'm glad you think Pubs are far more pleasant places to be now for the minority who wanted a total ban. I'm sure the person who owns the pub is happy for you too.

Let's have some clarity here.

Smoking is a proven killer and as smokers are in a minority, it's right that it's banned so that the non-smoking majority can enjoy their pint. This is a public health issue.

Having said that, the way the ban is implemented is a typical example of new labour nanny-state PC small-mindedness. If groups of consenting adults want to smoke together, then fair enough. The council and police should have better things to do than persecute smokers. Such as catching real criminals with drugs and knives.

Like car drivers though, smokers are an easy target and guess what? The fines will be more easy revenue for the council.

Doreen I normally don't answer to people who just attack what I said without putting over a constructive argument.
I had forgot that the anti smoking brigade had turned against Dole as they would use his name and his research constantly in their arguments against smoking but were quick enough to shun him when he stated some thing that did not meet their agenda.
As for the person from a damp tenement block in the gorbals don't you think that sitting in the pub with smokers may not be the cause of their problems but the conditions they are living in.
Dampness certainly is not good for the old bronchitis.

Lets have even more clarity, the anti smoking brigade have won, smoking is not allowed in pubs any more.

The issue here is this ...the Scottish executive warned that anyone caught running illegal after-hours smoking sessions for customers in defiance of the ban, which came into force in March, will be prosecuted."

Again as consenting adults amongst like minded people are we still denied the right to smoke, when all non smokers are gone or either consent to being in an enclosed place with smokers? We have to remember that a pub is also someones home, have they lost the right to have a smoke in their own home with consenting adults after closing time???.

If all smokers vote against labour [like i and all the smokers i know will be doing at the next election] then it is good bye jack ,that,s what you get for ignoring the majority.. And for wee jacks side kick Andy Kerr,to state that he has not met one person who opposses the ban.what planet is this clown on, does he really expect people to believe any thing he says after spouting this rubbish.The public want smoking and non smoking pubs,it should be up to pub owners if they want smoking or not.Not idiotic under acheivers like mconnell and mouth peices like Kerr.DONT VOTE LABOUR.

Every time we get a report like this a few anti-smokers turn up shouting about their human right to entertainment in someone else's pub and repeating the passive smoking myths.

This loud minority anti-smoking movement is half the reason people smoke in the first place; there's nothing sweeter than peeing off the virtuous.

Interesting to see the government ban smoking in public places.
If it's bad in public places then surely ipso facto it's bad - so why not ban it and drinking on health grounds??
Because they'd miss all the luvverly tax revenues!!
Hypocrites is, indeed, the word!!

Spot on Christopher I have said that from the beginning of this fiasco BAN IT!! If it as bad as they would lead us to believe it should be banned.

Ross - totally agree I have mistakenly voted Labour all my life I never thought I would see the day they turned into right wing fascists!! Like you I don't think they have a snowball in hell's chance of being returned at the next elections.

You smokers need to be less selfish!!!!! Simply as that.

In terms of scientific research it may be fair to say that passive smoking will have an effect on your health. If this is the case then I find it very difficult to have any sympathy for the "hard-done-by" smokers who feel their civil rights are being infringed by this ban.

The real issue is the protection of people, within their work place, from other people's smoke (given that passive smoking is said to be harmful). For most of us this is most obvious within the pub.

By the pro-smoking logic, everyone should be able to smoke anywhere they like. This would, of course, mean buses, restaurants, hospitals, libraries etc... If people generally agree that that logic is flawed then why should pubs be exempt and given special "smoking allowed" status? Again, this is just selfish.

As someone who has spent many a year working within the pub trade I can say I was overjoyed when the ban came in. No more of having people blow their smoke over the bar at your face when they are ordering their drink and then giving you pelters for asking them to stop!

And no; the "you don't have to work there" argument is not valid!

I have to say though; if one day passive smoking is proved to be harmless then that may prompt a change in my position. I doubt it though!!!

Walter, I would take Sir Dole's comment with a pinch of salt. If he sat around smoking family members, friends, workmates, on public transport daily, as a non smoker then it could be a very different story. You clarified my point for me, people react to smoke in a variety of different ways. He had no problem, others would, asthmatics, bronchitics, people with allergies etc, pregnant women, children.........

Nick (56) Read the reports Nick...they all come to the same conclusion...that there is no SCIENTIFIC evidence. I work within the industry and should know wnat I am talking about unlike the self appointed advisors to Government, ASH. I can also provide an impressive customer list that includes Offices of the Deputy Prime Minister; The Department of Trade & Industry (used to be the domain of a certain Mrs Hewitt); Department of Transport, Department for International Development, MI5 need I say more. At one time I was asked to quote for the Hollyrood Smoking Room...£5500.00 but they decided to look for planning permission for a bus shelter at £20000.00 this is the way Government think because it is not their own money they are spending it is ours.

Agree with Ken (35) and Tom (64). Live and let live.

I AM a smoker and when out with friends to the pub I do miss being able to have a ciggy along with my drink, however, the fact that I can take my daughter for pub meals and to restaurants without her having to sit in a smokey environment (which she hates without even knowing about passive smoking) more than compensates.

Flora - loved your comment on the NHS article about a petition for cleaner hositals - if you attack that task with the energy you display here, we'll have Matrons back in no time!

as a reformed smoker i think its bullish of the scottish excectative to outlaw smoking in public houses and working mens clubs as it is all smoke free now pubs and bars are now putting up ther prices in order to minimise losses due to the lack of clientel frequenting their establishments its a viscous circle indeed i now suffer ill health due to smoking but that was my decision and nobodies else

Keith #83 that is SIMPLY not true. People who smoke have not smoked on buses, or in non smoking establishments such as Hospitals or Restaurants that have a No Smoking sign for a good few years now. BUT we still had a choice - in public places - if an establishment did not allow smoking we took our custom elsewhere we did not smoke to be selfish! The fact that pubs and bingo hall are losing money hand over fist is testimony to that fact. If we had smoking and non smoking pubs you also would have had a choice.

Doreen when you say you take Dole's comments with a pinch of salt, is that all his comments?.

lol, nicely said walter

As a non-smoker and non-drinker my sympathy is with those who choose to indulge. It is pathetic entering hospital buildings to find smokers at the entrances compelled to be there to indulge in their habit. It is now the same with public houses; there should be some space provided for those who choose to live this life.

A couple of further points; if smoking is banned why not ban too alcoholic liquor which, contrary to the cherished beliefs of some, is equally harmful to health? The reason why smoke-easies are in existence and why alcohol is not banned is not to pacify smokers or drinkers but, rather, to increase profit; there is always the ulterior motive. Indeed, why not ban processed food which is decidedly harmful to health.

Take for example polyunsaturated fats (all those so-called healthy vegetable oils) their downside is that they suppress the immune system which eventually causes cancer (and not smoking) and other chronic diseases.

Many fruits and vegetables are goitrogenic (suppress the thyroid) and carbohydrates can cause diabetes so if the NHS is under stress it sure ain't the fault of smokers. Could smoking possibly be the symptom of inadequate nutrition from processed foods?

Another interesting example; some years ago it was discovered that the cardboard box of cornflakes possessed more nutrition than the cornflakes so what did the food companies do, they doctored the product by adding vitamins. More still, we in Scotland are banned from buying unpasteurised milk and as the consequence beneficial nutrients and bacteria is denied us causing this type of breakfast to be potentially harmful to health, yet those practices are legitimate business.

If we have to die, then let us choose our own method.

If you think that smoking is not dangerous to your health and that it does not kill, have a look at www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news after which you may be of a different opinion.

Ahhh, so sending people outside for a fag kills bejjy.

Let them stay inside quick.

The point is Steve that if he had'nt of been a smoker he would probably still have been alive today.

Yes Bejjy, we wont drive, eat certain foods, drink alcohol, or fizzy drinks, do extreme sports, DIY have sex etc, etc, then we can all live forever in our boring closeted little worlds. Feel better now?

Sex is good for your health Jack so keep on doing it but cut back on all the other activities that you mentioned.

Bejjy
It may have escaped your notice but the smoking ban has also been the cause of a death in Scotland. An unfortunate gentleman in the Dundee area was leaving the bar to have a smoke, fell in doing so and died as a result. Tobacco is a legal product, sold in pubs etc but is not allowed to be used in them...it is crazy. I do want people however to beware of voting SNP or Lib Dem next year as these Parties were equally keen to introduce Social Engineering, not that I am a Tory as they appear to be totally lost in the arean. What will be interesting is when the public is presented with the truth in a court of law by the Judicial Review, what action will the electorate demand of politicians to scrap this unwanted legislation.

Nick #56 Hmm, internet links - like the internet isn't full of misinformed idiots/articles? And to quote an American agency? No, not the done thing, we all know how long it has taken them to catch up with global warming, not to mention the anti drugs report that they dished out to college students informing them they WOULD die from 1 single little ecstasy tab. College students in America threw their hands up in the air and howled with laughter. How can we take you seriously when you are quoting the yanks and actually there is no scientific reports available from British health agencies to confirm that passive smoking causes cancer, plenty of speculation that it does, but NO hard facts. What's wrong with allowing people, stupid people included, to make their own decisions? Because you know better?

Be careful Bejjy; if you stay in you might fall down the stairs, but if you go out you might get run over.

Patricia (89): This is exactly the point!! It is all about choice. You have the choice whether to light up or not; somebody working within that environment has NO choice whether to breathe YOUR smoke!

My point of bringing other work places in the debate was to highlight that this ban is not simply restricted to stopping smokers having a fag in a pub but to protecting employees within all work environments from the effects of passive smoking. We can’t have a ban implemented on buses but no pubs.

That is where the crux of this debate should be fixed. Not whether people can have a quick smoke with their pint but whether employees should be protected from passive smoking!!

Come on people, what are your thoughts???!!!!

I'm an atheist and so are the majority in this country, can we ban religion?

Bouk (102)

My thoughts are passive smoking is harmless, so how are you protecting anyone??

Are we protecting workers from smells they don't like ?

Bill. I'm amazed at the furore that this ban on smoking in public places has caused in Scotland. Until recently, I lived in Greater Manchester where, for the past eighteen months or so, a lot of pubs have operated a voluntary practice of banning smoking in certain area's of the pub, e.g. at the bar area, etc. even though it is not law in England yet. This worked fairly well as I understand that customers of these establishments were in agreement with these arrangements. I now live in Northern Ireland where the ban comes into force next year and even here it does not seem to be seen as a major problem although all may change when the ban does come into effect.

Smoking kills alright - the nurse that was stabbed going off site for a cig, the man engulfed in flames having a cig on a hospital fire escape, the man burned in the shed as seen in the manchester evening news. These are the only true deaths that can be attributed to cigs! Nobody even the mighty ash, cancer research and the BHF can name one person who died from SHS! They cant do it and are spending millions of pounds on junk science while children on the planet are starving to death. A couple of years ago a bouncer in NY was shot by a smoker for getting heavy handed over a cig. Yeah, thats 4 deaths - better ban it eh! Zeig Heil!!!!!

Bouk it may have escaped your notice but I was actually agreeing with you. If you have a choice you can work in a non smoking establishment and equally I can take my custom to one where I can have a drink and a cigarette. The only minor flaw with this is that the non smoking establishment is more likely to go out of business!! Which is happening already.

I used to smoke Steve until I spent twelve days in intensive care following a massive heart attack. I have not smoked since (seven years) and have never felt better than I do now.

That is where the crux of this debate should be fixed. Not whether people can have a quick smoke with their pint but whether employees should be protected from passive smoking!!

Come on people, what are your thoughts???!!!!

As a smoker I agree with the freedom of choice, I believe that either a pub could be a smoking pub or a non smoking pub, that way everyone is happy, no?
In the same way an employee could then decide to work at the non smoking pub or a smoking one, cant say fairer than that eh?
A smoker can respect the rights of others not to want to breathe smoke in but can you non smokers say the same and respect the smokers right to have their freedom of choice?

Thoughts on that welcome too!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondhand_smoke

and this latest report from the US Surgeon General would appear to be quite thorough. It's in no doubt as to the effects of secondhand smoke.

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

Forget the costs, they can be bent whichever way. Healthy people live longer and are beneficial to society in more ways than just being a drain on the exchequer through their pension. The long term costs to a family of a loved one stolen by an early death or disability is incalculable.

Even though I would love to, I realise that you can't ban it but the selfishness and self-importance of this increasingly small MINORITY is beyond belief. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's acceptable. Many things are legal that are unaccaptable in public and the population would rightly be indignant if policy was dictated by say, the needs of a follower of a bizarre but still legal perversion or religious sect.

And please stop peddling this nonsense about the efficiency of air conditioning. The smoke's still got to get to from either your mouth or the end of the fag to the intake and if it's next to you you're still being affected. It would be far easier if smokers were just considerate and respectful. Restaurant owners ought to take note that it's actually not illegal for a customer to refuse payment for a dish they deem unacceptable or inedible. If my enjoyment of a meal is spoilt by the ingress of smoke from a smoking area then I would I think be within my rights to get up and walk out without paying (and believe me, our sense of smell is bloody fantastic since we've given up). If all non-smokers did this I wonder what the effect would be?

Non-smokers or ex-smokers have had to put up with the fall-out fro

I think Bejjy highlights the issue very well. The anti smoker doesn't listen or read what is written, they just post the same thing ad infinitum. No one on this thread has said Smoking isn't harmful. We know that 23% of all lung cancers have a smoker related cause. But this means that there are 77% of other confounding factors. The interesting thing is that if the 'smoker gene' is isolated then Lung cancer from smoking would be a thing of the past, but Lung Cancer continues to grow even though smoking rates continue to fall. It may well interest the anti smokers that Smoking is not a cause of death. The registry of births and deaths do not recognise smoking as a causation of itself.

Let's fqace it, some of you are just not tough enough to smoke.

Because Smoking is a cause, not a disease Robert.

VOTE SNP ,GET INDEPENDANCE, THEN KICK OUT THE SNP AT THE FIRST GO.

I have to say I do agree that the 'minority' who do smoke should have somewhere to go to have a fag other than doorways - but yet again - this country is being dictated to by a minority group!!!!!!!!!
The law is the law like it or not! Get on with it!

If they're dopes for smoking, then let them smoke dope!

Richard (110) You know as little about air conditioning as you do about passive smoke and I see you still know nothing about dose/response relationship.

Would you care to pick one study on passive smoke and I will explain it to you.

The surgeon general is an anti-smoking joke who has been heavily criticised by virtually everyone in science. He claimed no safe level... how is that possible? what are these magic chemicals? He claimed causation... how come the specialists don't know the cause?

Stop repeating the anti-smoking rubbish and take a look at the facts.

Patricia (107) and Jack (109):

Not the case re, employees choice. An employee should have the right (rather than choice) to work within an enviroment that does not impose a risk to their health. PERIOD.

How can you equate the choice you make on whether to indulge in another fag to the choice that person makes when the choose to come to work in the morning given that if they do not, they may be in a position to loose a house, have their ammenities cut off or get taken to court for not paying their council tax? For some of us, we do not have significant "choice" on our place of work.

In my opinion, the empoyer has a duty to ensure that the working conditions and enviroment do not pose significant risk and that those risks, that have been identified, have safeguards and procedures in place to ensure maxmimum protection for the employee.

Jack #109, when I asked my Labour MP why there couldnt be smoking pubs (staffed by smokers) and non smoking pubs he replied if Labour allowed smoking pubs non smokers would be tempted to socialise with smokers in them, so you see Labour dosent only want to remove the rights of smokers they also want to remove the rights of non smokers to make their own decisions about where and whom they socialise with. I have this in writing. I have never voted Tory before but I will be doing next time at least they believe in freedom of the individual.

Bouk (120),

Passive smoke is not a risk to health, why are you one of the few people left who believe daily health scares?

__-Steve-_, whatever the facts about passive smoking, it's still a filthy habit that the non-smoking majority object to.

Or don't you believe in democracy, you mealy-mouthed mendacious mediocrity?

Claire @ 106. I've not yet seen either George Bush or Tony Blair on the front line in Iraq yet thousands of deaths are happily being attributed to them.

Addicts of any kind trying to cling on to their addiction are the sorriest and saddest of folk. Only when you've been one yourself can you see how idiotic it all appears.

Sue, I think you mean the ideological virtuous minority object to it. Over 75% were against the total ban remember.

I see that when you have no scientific argument you resort to the 'filthy' slur and personal abuse.

All you sad smokers might as well accept the fact that the ban will never be lifted. the government should now increase alcohol tax to bring the price if drink right up to cut the damage being done in Scotland

Flora, why go on about the SNP, it was one of their members who introduced the currennt Legislation.

As for the 'increased' risk the WHO (World Health Organisation) report that this Darconian and perhaps 'illegal' piece of legislation * is based upon, concludes, that the 'observed differences' are within the realms of 'statistical error' so much so that the 'INCREASED RISK' of a non smoker contracting lung cancer due to exposure to ETS is indeed statistically irellevant, (the 1.17 refered to is 1.17 people in 100,000 MAY contract Lung Cancer as opposed to 1.14 people in 100,000, (a difference of 0.03) which is the base figure if there is no exposure to ETS, and even this is admitted by the WHO to be a wholly unsubstantiated figure.
ASH have issued figures, supposedly based on 'Government figures of 10,000 people a year in the UK getting Lung Cancer through ETS. All I say is do the maths. 1.17 is equal to 11.7 per million or 70.2 people in 60,000,000 Which is the current population of the UK (the base figure is 68.4 people per 60million )Which is less than 3% difference so is totally statistically insignificant.

It's time Black Jack and his morally and politically bankrupt new labour old Tories, along with their fellow Illiberal Demcratic travellers threw in the towel and resigned.

*The legality is questioned as under the Scottish Constitution, we have an unalienable right to 'Freedom of Association'

Mario, smoking is not a 'cause' as you put it, it is a confounding factor amongst many others including, diet, alcohol, etc. If it was a 'cause' then everyone who smoked would get lung cancer.

Richard the SG was even criticised for his comments by The American Cancer Instute. He cannot substantiate his claims, and given Bush has many sponsors including Big T who were not happy with SG's report he had to fall on his sword. Bush could have re-appointed him but chose not too. As said previously the man is a joke.

You are so right Richard. Looking back, for the life of me, I cannot understand why I ever started smoking and, when I did start, why I never stopped. It took a near death experience to make me quit. Not only am I healthier now I am also wealthier. Where all these smokers get their idea that smoking does not cause health problems/death. They are not living in the real world but are in denial which allows them to carry on with their addiction.

Its pointless arguing about the smoking ban it's here and we just have to deal with it. It does have its benefits though. You can now nip out for a “special” cigarette without raising suspicion. Incidentally where can I find one of these smoke-easy pubs?

Bejjy (129),

No-one has said smoking isn't bad for health. It's the passive smoking myth that is in question.

And have you noticed that all these smokes only nip out for a smoke when its their turn to buy a drink.

__-Steve-__ (110) dismisses the US Surgeon General's report as completely biased, although it is based on a wide variety of independent sources from the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Clearly, his expertise supercedes all that, so congratulations on your extensive biomedical knowledge and expertise.

Bouk #120
There are more people killed on building and construction sites in a year than die of Lung Cancer contracted by ETS. So maybe we should stop building houses, schools,hospitals, workplaces etc. That way we would be taken a large proportion of the 'working population' out of a dangerous working environment.

I am in two minds about this. I am a former heavy smoker spending more on cigars than on my mortgage at some points. However (since long before the ban) now only smoke a couple a month.

Funnily I cannot smell cigar smoke on my clothing - but can smell cigarettes, and it is now quite nice not smelling thwm from the pillow in the morning after a night in the pub.

However recenly visiting a friend who is a student, living in a shared flat, the smell of cigarettes in their shared kitchen actually seemed pleasant as it triggered memories of a previous era.

So OK - smoking is bad for you - as is drinking at average levels. I reduced the amount I smoked due to children appearing, and not wanting to set them a bad example.

But it was my "bad example", and one I enjoyed with friends who shared it too (I did not smoke with non smokers present).

So if pubs can have gay nights (and I believe some gay pubs have straight nights) to accommodate for peoples tastes, and they say business has declined in pubs since the ban, could we not use the night that by the general concesus of the trade is quietist to be offered as the smoking evening?

I am sure not all pubs would wish to do this - so there would still be places for devout non smokers.

Hmm. PUbs STINK of booze and smelly people now rather than Cigarettes. Let's face it the vast majority are horrible little dives anyway.

Do what you want as long as it doesnt hurt or disturb others. Isn't that part of Democracy?

Sandy (134),

Perhaps you would like to share your superior intellect and explain the magic particles in smoke.

Perhaps you could explain why, when the products of smoke are over 1000 times below recognised safe levels, he can claim no safe levels.

Perhaps you can explain why cooking on a grill, which produces more harmful particles, was not described as no safe level.

Perhaps you can explain why millions of pounds of charity money is still being spent on yet more junk studies when he claims the link has been proven.

Finally, perhaps you can share with me one of those studies 'from the peer-reviewed scientific literature' that shows a link.

Having read all the comments here, I think a lot of people are focusing on the 'passive smoking' issue and completely missing what I think is the main benefit of the smoking ban, ie. that it will prevent many people from taking up the habit in the first place - and also allow people to give up who would have struggled before.

My best friend and my fiance both say they would never have taken up smoking if they hadn't been allowed to smoke in pubs. Their habits started at about 19 years old when they drunkenly took cigarettes that were being offered to them by friends, and eventually started buying their own from cigarette machines in pubs. My fiance struggled for 2 years to give up smoking, even though he desperately wanted to, because his extremely selfish friends would offer him cigarettes in pubs and after a few drinks he would accept. It is only now the ban is in place that he has been able to successfully give up smoking.

I know a lot of smokers and they all like the ban, as it has helped them all to cut down significantly, and they too appreciate the cleaner air and lessened hangovers.

Surely the main benefit of the ban is for today's kids, who will not grow up thinking that alcohol and cigarettes are inextricably linked? Unlike my fiance and friend, they may never start to smoke because they can't make that decision to light up their first ever fag while drunk in a pub.

What I dont get , is why there are so many ridiculously bad chemicals on top of the nicotine and tobacco. Can anyone explain why? Surely it cant all be preservative. And I know about the chocolate before anyonre mentions it.

Of course Wikipedia says that. It always does when there's an ongoing debate about a subject. That statement doesn't rubbish the contents of the reports.

Steve, you're sounding increasingly despairing. How many times have you gone into an air-conditioned toilet and it's as if someone's died in there? The smell doesn't go as soon you switch the aircon on, however efficient it is, does it. You either hold your breath or walk out until it's cleared. I would imagine the same's for fag smoke and all the particulates it contains. I've yet to walk into an air conditioned pub or bar and not smell smoke from the other clients. The cleaner the air, the more noticeable any ingress of smoke is. There are no hard and fast rules. Fart 2000 metres up a mountain in clear air and you'll still smell it.

As for dosage, yes I do understand the relationship between dosage and response. Let's finish this once and for all. Which public space have you been in where the dosage of tobacco smoke is 100% constant and proven to be 100% safe? I'll tell you without you having to tax yourself: one where smoking's banned. The dosage argument is completley redundandt. I know I feel rough when I've been in a smoky atmosphere. According to you, it's attributable to something else. You seem to know as little about it as I apparently do. There's a lot that's remained unproven in the world despite us knowing the effect. One smoker in a room of 50 can ruin it for everyone, it's just not about the health issues, proven or not, it's just as much about inflicting a disgusting habit upon the people around you.

It sickens me that us ex or non-smokers are always painted as having "agendas" or being "do-gooders". Fanciful tosh. The smokers don't have an "agenda" at all, do they.

Well said Catherine

Richard.

scientific dose/response is nonsense is it?

I see from your toilet analogy it's the smell that bothers you.

The point of dose/response is that everything is safe below certain levels. Read the Oak Ridge Laboratory study (real science, based on real measurements of real particles) There is no difference between the air quality in a non-smoking restaurant and a smoking pub.

It's the 400 known indoor carcinogens that have nothing to do with smoke that you might want to concern yourself with.

__-Steve-__ [122] Sorry, if you don't mind, I won't take your word for it. And no, I do not believe everything the government tells me!

Ray [135], Gordon [120] - I have absolutely no idea of why these aspects are relevant. Both the construction industry and the MOD (in peace time) take significant steps to ensure the places of work are safe as possible. They have too; law dictates this. Your points are moot I'm afraid.

It is not about how dangerous a place of work is or how dangerous the activity might be; it is about the steps being taken (or not as the case may be) to ensure identifiable risks are catered for. So in other words, if there is a hazardous activity within a job the employer must provide equipment and training that helps reduce the assessed risk.

If an employer fails to do this then they be breaking the law. Passive smoking may kill less people than a building site but to identify a hazard (passive smoking) and then do nothing about it is ridicules. Especially, to then state that the responsibility for safety should then lie with the employee as they choose to come to work.

I wonder if we would take the same attitude for those who dispose of hazardous waste products, "Why do you need gloves and a mask? After all you don't have to work here!!!"

Catherine [139] - Couldn't agree more!

Gordon 144. Are you describing yourself?

Gordon

I don't smoke, so I can't comment on what would prevent people from starting - but my friend and fiance both insist that being able to smoke in pubs was what led to them starting to smoke, and gradually becoming addicted. It is not MY 'naive' logic, but theirs.

You're right - the ban certainly won't stop 13 year old kids who start smoking behind the bike sheds at school, or others who are determined to start, but if it prevents even a few people from starting, then surely it's worth it. I have seen how hard it was for my fiance to stop - not starting in the first place would have been far easier for him.

All this heavy argument stuff is doing my head in, man. I mean, let's just make everything legal. If we all had a blast of whatever good stuff we fancy, we might stop being so uptight with each other, eh?

Sue (147)

are you planning to kill me?

You may feel you don't need an argument to promote your ideology but it might help your cause if you had one.

I should be careful in your 'tin'...............

Tin can affect you when breathed in.

Contact can irritate the skin and eyes.

Breathing Tin can irritate the nose, throat and lungs causing coughing, wheezing and/or shortness of breath.

Tin can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and abdominal pain, headache, fatigue and tremors.

Tin can cause "spots" to appear on chest x-ray with normal lung function (stannosis).

Tin may damage the liver and kidneys.

High exposure can affect the nervous system.

Maybe we should ban collection tins from bars.

Re 35 and 51

I agree whole heartedly about those comments. If the individuals want to flout the law, amongst like minded smokers, then knock themselves out! No one is getting affected by passive smoking except those who are consenting to be there, albeit illegally.

I think the smoking ban is superb, the pubs are a much nicer environment to be in now.
Having recently come back from working in Spain (not working in a bar), I loved the night life but it was spoiled by the MASSIVE amount of smokers there. On more than one occasion I had to leave pubs because they were so smokey- far worse than I ever remember Scottish pubs being.

So Gordon; have you always been a drunken layabout?

Steve you are quite right - Sue Percillious has no rational argument, all people like this have is supreme arrogance and to actually boast that it is ok to be abusive says more about anti social behaviour that anything else. I know it is hard but the only thing to do with people with this is to ignore and pity them!!

Gordon [151]

"Where do you intend drawing the line exactly?"

I don't have an answer for that. Perhaps issuing gas masks to all pub employee is the only answer.......or we could just ban it? :)

I would ban Drinking in Pubs. Honest I would. Make George Street into one big Starbucks.

Gordon

Missing the point here. They only started smoking through the combination of peer pressure and lowered willpower through consumption of copious amounts of alcohol. Have you really never heard anyone say "I only smoke when I'm p***ed"?

And since when were people peddling guns or knives in pubs? (OK, well maybe they do in some pubs, but not ones I've ever been in!). This is hardly a relevant or constructive comparison.

Catherime i think you are missing the point. What does it really matter what your brother /sister / Aunty Marys Godlfish did.

Catherine,

Whilst I appreciate your interest in reducing smoking levels and can see the good intention, I have to side with Gordon, bans have never reduced anything. Smoking had been falling in Ireland for decades but since the ban its gone up by 10 000.

As usual, the health nazi's are at it again. yes, there are risks with smoking, yes there are risks with passive smoking, and so what? provide a smoke free environment for those who don't want to risk it or find it obnoxious and a smoking environment for those who smoke or don't mind.

Not hard to do, so why this absolute ban? why the highly publicised threats against the likes of Mel Smith and Keith Richards - it just makes the SE look like sad bunch of jobsworths and gives free publicity to Mel and keith (although Keith probably didn't need it)

Then of course there's the absolute b******s talked about the cost to the health service of smoking related diseases. yes, mostly paid for from the umpty hundred percent tax on tobacco.

I see the health nazi's are now targetting obesity and drinking, tobacco and alcohol are proposed to be put on the drugs register -with no penalties attached obviously (subtext to that being, "as yet")

There are all sorts of statistics available to both sides of the debate (mostly grossly exaggerated for effect), but the plain fact of it is that there are some people in this country who just can't tolerate other people smoking - or indeed, enjoying any pleasure that they don't approve of.

these people are a mix of health professionals who've forgotten about freedom of choice, people who advocate a healthy (and regimented) lifestyle and people with the same fundamentalist attitude to smoking as the more extreme animal liberation groups have to glaxo-smith-kline.

I am fed up to the back teeth with people telling me what I should or shouldn't do because it's bad for me. Living in a country with a third rate underfunded health system is bad for me and will shorten my lifespan, so will being exposed to car fumes, so will being fed red meat contaminated with sheep prions.

We all live exactly the same length of time - we get one lifetime each. How you spend it is, or should be, up to you.

So Patricia, why didn't you ignore me? Inconsistent, aren't you?

And keep your uptight blue-rinsed beak out of my argument. __-Steve-__ and I were having quite a nice wee ding-dong before you muscled in with your irrelevant observations.

There are plenty of opinionated idiots on here for you to disagree with. Find your own sparring partner, I don't exchange invective with any old self-important busybody.

I though the ban was to protect the staff? So if the staff organise the lock-in, what's the problem?

Sue,

I'm flattered to be your self-important busybody of choice.

Do you realise how many carcinogens are in a thesaurus?

oh and Sue,

stop being inconsistent by exchange invective with any old self-important busybody.

;)

Oh dearie dearie me Sue you really are a sad old buffer aren't you! There goes your supreme arrogance again - exactly who are you to tell me to keep my nose out - it may have escaped you but this is a public forum and the only opinionated idiot is yourself. But then I imagine most things escape you - being so judgemental, offensive, and abusive leaves little space in you tiny mind to hear anyone else's opinion.

Whats a buffer Patricia?

uptight blue-rinsed beak

Bejjy (105) As a result of the demand by publicans who fear for their businesses, I have been invited along with others from Scotland to address the Publicans, Bingo Operators and all other affected venues and will tell the truth about the biggest conn job in history. I had the pleasure of having a Lancashire vased publican attend a crisis meeting in Glenrothes a few weeks aga. He has 6 pubs and employs over 130 staff. If the ban affects his places which are all wet led (no food as the overhead would be too great) many will be unemployed in a short space of time.

The publicans in Ireland and here in Scotland have not kicked in any direction and look what is hapening to them. A ban on smoking, a ban on happy hours, now a possible ban on serving certain pub grub if what we hear is true. All in the name of health and living longer when our pensions are worthless and elderly care is currently stretched to its limits. Wake up world, I for one am prepared to stand at next years elections as an Independent as Party Politics is dead and has been proven as such since devolution.

Bouk 146
Has there been the identification of a 'Hazard' as in ETS or 'passive smoking' ? The scientific communtiy can't agree on it, and as I indicated before (see post #127) the WHO reckon that the scientific rationale is at best 'flawed' and at worst' statistically wrong, or inconsequential'.
So if an employer carries out a risk assessment within the terms of the Health and Safety at Work Legislation, they can come to no conclusion other than that no risk exists.
The current encumbents at Holyrood brought this legislation in by the 'back door' based on our 'devolved responsibility' on 'Public Health', even the Westminster 'Government' are not bringing it in as a UK wide piece of legislation, as the HSE have already discounted the 'supposed health risk of ETS as to be negligible at worst and non-existant at least. So if there was a 'Clear and Present Danger' from 'Passive Smoking' there would have been no need for Black Jack and his fellow travellers to usurp the lawful authority of the Westminster Government as the whole matter could have been dealt with by an SI attached to the Health and Safety at Work Act.
I did not see this happenning, what I saw was a man who denied that he had any intentention of bringing in 'Anti-Smoking' legislation, before the last Holyrood Elections,immediately back peddling and bringing in legislation he denied was being planned, after he had secured his postion as the First Minister of our country.
Duplicity rules no doubt, but a lie is a lie whichever way you present it, and this legislation is based on a lie.
Had he put it out to referendum, I doubt he would have succeeded in bringing this illegal act onto the Statute Book.

A buffer is the apparatus at the end of a railroad track, for absorbing shock during collisions.

I think Sue would make a good buffer; she has plenty of gas.

Apparently the ban will not affect pubs that serve food or private members clubs, unfortunately or fortunately depending on your point of view the house of commons comes under that heading, and by food that means no crisps, peanuts or any other food of any type.

So smokers are a minority and shouldn't inflict their smoke on other as it's offensive/dangerous. OK, I belive gay men are a minority too and therefore should be banned as they are dangerous (high AIDS cases) and offensive to some. Agreed? Cars, are a minority compared to humans and are both dangerous and offensive and unecessary for most, ban them too? Agreed?

Catherine

I have always claimed to be a non-smoker but I confess that my 'status' has been compromised since the ban came in: partly through irritation at always being asked to mind drinks etc, partly through my irritation with the whole concept of a ban, partly because the people I have traditionally drunk with are mostly now outside the bar and it is not alway possible to take a drink there. Smoking was never an issue before, because my companions were not forced to move.

The leading article, describing lockins, demonstrates that you can't force people to stop smoking or to stop socialising. To prosecute people who stop in for lock-ins is logical in terms of the legislation. It is also small minded in the extreme. Wanting to be together as friends, smoking or otherwise, is one of the Good Things in society that rightly laments when people are isolated and alone. Governments that persecute people who congregate are causing immediate social damage that far exceeds that of secondary smoke.

I very rarely smoke outwith these situations, nor do I think about it so if smoking is an addiction it hasn't caught me yet!

Ray [174]

You are of course correct. That is the downside of my arguement! Has PS been identified as a real "risk"? If not, is the employee duty bound to do anything about it? That arguement will rage on no doubt.

To be fair though, headlines like this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4998
and
http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/news/news.asp?PR_id=192
are pretty powerful.

Bouk (120) The Health & Safety at Work ACt specificly provides the protection for employees working within an environment that brings them into contact with Tobacco Smoke. To date the Act has never been challenged in a court of law as the threfore it can be assumed that everyone is working within the regulations ser out in the Act. The ban in Scotland was introduced on the back of Health as Employment Law is not devolved to Hollyrood...politicians have lied and repeatedly lie about this subject.

__-Steve-__ where were we? Oh yes, fags. The simple fact is that people like Ken Clarke the Tory MP earn millions by pushing their product at people and then exploiting their addiction. And the irony is that these same users defend their dependency. Ever heard of Stockholm syndrome? It's usually applied to kidnap victims identifying with their captors. Personally, I have no desire to make rich people richer by killing myself.

Oh, and please accept my most insincere apologies for that rational argument. I just wanted to get up potty-trained Patricia's prim little ego. Thus, back to the mindless abuse...

Since you ask, numbnuts, there are no carcinogens in my thesaurus. I have a decent vocabulary to rely on, unlike you, you noxious old knuckle-dragging nonentity.

Bill [180] "politicians have lied and repeatedly lie about this subject."

I don't believe that!!!!!! ;)

Belinda what an excellent post, if only the fascist anti smoking brigade could be more liberal instead of forcing their view on the rest of us(and that actually includes many non smokers!)
Dictators should not be tolerated in a democracy.

oops forgot to state this was addressing much earlier posts, and that this is for england next year

Bouk (179),

Don't just look at the headline.

That study used data provided by ASH; The Anti Smoking Hate group. Hardly un-biased. The figure of deaths is made up, there are no studies to back it up. So the claim of one bar worker a week is made up too.

sue/patricia... i'd just love to take sides, but find both of you equally amusing !! :D

more !! bring it on !!

Sue,

You must have a page missing, carcinogen is certainly in my thesaurus.

Cardenden Marzipan Doorknob

Bouk try this one for size

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3737

and this one for why dinking is the perfect partner for smoking

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3249

:-))

i can't check mine... i smoked it last year

my thesaurus, i mean...

__-Steve-__ [185],

That's it, you have converted me to the dark side! The ways of the FAG are strong in you.

Right, who's got a light?.....

(I must admit to liking a fine cigar on occasion. Surely it's OK to smoke cigars in pubs rather than cigs. Are they not healthy for you?)

Down with non-smoking conformers!!!!!!!!!! All hail the mighty cigar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Instead of smoking, which is bad for you, we should all eat more kangaroo meat, which is very healthy.

Having read the comments on here has anyone considered the fact that the generation that is living the longest i.e. into their 80's and 90's are the generation that fought the second world war. The majority of the population at this time smoked and havent died of lung cancer. This generation ate and cooked fresh food which was often grown in allotments, no ready meals or junk, walked or cycled everywhere couldnt afford cars so got a lot more exercise. Look at the following two links and judge for your self what is the real cause.
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html and 40 years on
http://news.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=1178382006

Thank you Mr Piles but you really should take my side (as the advert says You know you want to!!) cos that is it started already - Drinkers beware you are next on the list!! Followed by overweight people. The facts are that this was an undemocratic decision foisted on the public with no referendum.

Steve. I suggest that Sue has got more than just a page missing.

I blame the feminists. If it wasn't for them we wouldn't have women in high power jobs dictating what we should and shouldn't do.

OK, so let’s step into your world for a moment, Gordon.

So because you are strong-willed, intelligent and sensible enough not to succumb to peer pressure, that obviously automatically means that nobody else ever has either. Of course there are no immature teenagers who think that they might as well try a fag because they are drunk, their friend is offering them one, and it seems like a good idea at the time?

And the many, many smokers that I have as friends or acquaintances that tell me that they like the smoking ban because it has helped them to significantly cut down the amount they smoke are obviously all lying.

My fiancé has suddenly been able to quit smoking after 2 years of trying, because his willpower is no longer pushed to the limit every time he wants to go out for a pint with his mates. I suppose you’ll be telling me that’s a coincidence, too.

catherine is at the wynd up,she,s not worth answering,any thing you dismiss, she will make a story up.

It's true Kris. I heard some Wummin on the train today going to some seminar or other with name badges on. They were banging on about how somebody decided the jumpers in the store were to displayed in colour order rather than style and how much work would have to be done on the shopfloor to accomodate this. Also how Kathy never did nowt and how the two boys in the stockroom nivir did nowt either and how Boab (who was a NICE GUY apparently) always did all the work and cleaned up after the two of them.

I reached into my pocket for my IRIVER to get a blast of the Boards of Canada but I'd left it in the hoose so I had to listen to their drivel all the way.

If it doesnt involve Hoovers or curtains women should not be involved.

They gossip.

NO one was smoking on the train by the way.

rab 200/ cathie janieson mibee,s

bejjy at 196. Steve. I suggest that Sue has got more than just a page missing.

People in glass houses Bejjy! your link at 93 made me think that of you. lol

People in Glass Houses shouldn't walk about in the Scud or sing opera.

Why are non-smokers so opposed to a group of smokers getting together for a few fags and pints? Would there be such an uproar if the publican invited them into their own home to have a drink and a cigarette? Really, what is the problem here? There are NO non-smokers present, get a grip people. Or chill and have a fag!

P.S I smoked a couple of Silkies at lunch time (outside the pub, unfortunately) and they're not nice. It's like smoking fresh air. Damn me for forgetting my regal.

Bill 173. The banning of smoking (which, by the way, I'm not necessarily in agreement with just because I am an ex-smoker) in pubs will, I am sure, lead to staff losing their jobs and, no doubt, pubs closing down. But this has been happening in the pub trade for the past twenty years or so and not because of a smoking ban.. The availibility of relatively cheap alcohol from other outlets such as supermarkets has left many pubs struggling to exist. It then becomes a vicious circle with pubs charging increasingly higher prices which further depletes their customer base. I bet everyone on this forum could name a pub in their locality which has closed during the last ten years or so. Its all about supply and demand.

True Bejjy , but pubs are also evil (albeit Legal) Drug dealers. If they close so what.

What's wrong with my link at 93 Jo at 203. Are you just catching up with the rest of us?

Mario; I enjoy going to the pub and socialising with both smokers and non-smokers; but then I am not discriminatory.

Yes, it's true, fans of Sue. I am indeed a couple of quarks short of a hadron. (Look it up yourselves, any of you wastrels without a physics degree. Do I have to explain everything to you spoon-fed specimens of sub-standard simian spermatazoa?)

But, while I could easily taunt such deserving deadbeats for the remainder of the day, even I have better things to do. Until we heartily harangue once again...

Thats fine bejjy but Catherine's Mum once went to the pub and didnt like the music on the jukebox so i t just goes to prove that music in pubs is all rank.

Are you off down to the gardens for a few tinnies then Sue.

Bejjy..This ban is not purely about pubs but the way it has affected the wider community such as Bingo, Pensioners Lunch Clubs and the like. In England they plan to ban smoking in Mental Care Hospitals if the patients are in residence for less than 6 months. The question there is who will enforce this rule...certainly not the Smoking Polis that is for sure. Staff do not want the ban, but those holier than thee Doctors want it. My local Director for Public Health, Dr Derek Cox has the right approach...forget bans as a way of improving health...just make them happy.

Gordon #206

You of course are right - but he was 19 then and 27 now, usually people do a bit of growing up during those years! Cut him a bit of slack!!

Watch out in the garden though Sue, you may fall into the pond and drown or trip over a rose bush and kill yourself on the rockery.

Exactly Bill, who will enforce this rule. There was a report in the Manchester Evening News one day last week about an elderly man travelling home on a bus who noticed a younger woman light a cigarette (smoking is banned on public transport in Manchester) The man approached the bus driver and asked him if he would tell the woman to exstinguish her cigarette. The driver refused to do this as, apparantly it would have breach Health and Safety rules. The woman noticed the man complaining to the driver and when the man returned to his seat, the woman physically assaulted him for which he needed hospital treatment. When the newspaper approached the bus company about this incident they were told by a manager that the driver had followed the correct procedure in not getting involved as it would have put his safety at risk. What is the point of all these rules if no one is prepared to enforce them?

lol bejjy and the moral of the story is???? Mind yer own bloody business!

Thats the problem with the society in which we live Jamie; people minding their own business. Its immoral that you can have an old lady being mugged by some thug and passers by do just that; pass by.

How did you manage to get from someone smoking to a lady beging mugged by a thug? *shakes heid*

I've read the messages,re-read the messages and still havent decided. Think I'll have a nice cup of coffee with caffeine and fire up a Regal.

And before the PC Idiots and Anti Caffeine & Anti Ciggie police & Anti anything dangerous brigade start bleating and whining,I'm in my hoose.

Hasn't it gone quiet all of a sudden?

Hugh U. Lookinat. Where are you man. Thought you would have been half way across the Irish sea by now.

an interesting thing about issues like the smoking ban is it gives a lot of people with profoundly empty lives something to wag their fingers about....busy people will simply be getting on with life...
that's the real problem of modern living...people don't collaborate in life like they used to...
they hide behind their computers for a decade and the end result is isolation and boredom....so when someone brings up"THE SMOKING BAN"..they're in their like vultures round a dead horse, in the hope of killing some time.
They dont really give a damn about the smoking ban...they're just bored and lonely.

Doom and Gloom Mary; Doom and Gloom you sad wench.

And under utilised at work Mary.

I must congratulate the pubs involved - well done! Let's stick two fingers up at the anti-smoking Stasi!

one of the ironic things about life is,it's the things that kill you that can make life itself a bit more bearable...it's not an easy thing to get your head around,but there you go.....
these smoke easys sound fabulous..there will be a shared common ground in the light of adversity...the atmosphere at these smoke easys will be really good.....sure they're killing themselves..but there you go...it's coming to us all some day..we all make our choices....
its the same with booze..its toxic...in theory its just wrong..and yet...booze brings people together wonderfully well...gets us talking...but it will kill many people..the cars..the food...the sex...this is life and no one is free from it....even the birds are chained to the sky

There is justification in the concern of the authorities over the health-damaging aspects of the tobacco products, but there is also a willful ignoring of the many cases of lung cancer among those who have never lit up a fag in their life.

In one of the news letters I receive, there was an article on the fact that more Japanese and Koreans smoke than Americans, but their cancer rates were far lower. This was attributed to diet. They get their Omega-3s and anti-oxidents while Amis are slopping down Omega-6s, TFAs and destroying nutrients with chlorinated water. If the health fascists want to do some good, they should promote better nutrition and clean water for everyone.

The idea of "Insurance" for health is all wrong, I think. The healthy should be rewarded by NOT having to pay for health care until they create a cost for the system, then they should pay the rates until that cost has been covered.

Here in the States I watch the fatties waddle and pant into the hospital and I'll be durned if I want a national health care system to tax me to pay for their care and to support a Big Pharma that is complicit in the murder of tens of thousands of people--Bayer, for instance, after being forbidden to sell their Factor for hemophilia in the States because it was HIV and Hepatitis tainted, turned around and knowlingly sold it all over the world infecting perhaps a million people and killing thousands. If a foreign power had done this it would be called terrorism and some action would be taken.

You have to assume these things would comprise only people who want to smoke, so only dirty, evil smokers are being harmed. Why don't we just let them get on with it? Oh, no, hang on, it's actually because we are becoming a wee totalitarian state, where mediocre wee numpties have been tossed a tiny bit of power and gone a bit mad on it. Where will it all end? I heard that a total sugar ban's next, with obesity levels rising. Let's put our resources into stopping real crime, like I see in this city every night of the week, and let smokers enjoy a puff with their pint.

Since when did they(!!) ban smoking in NZ ?
Soon I'll have no where to go!

Craig seems like a nice man...he knows how to bend and where and when to mind his own business..this is attractive.....have you noticed how there's something oddly unnatractive about people who put the world to rights....strangely impotent

I am in two minds about this. I am a former heavy smoker spending more on cigars than on my mortgage at some points. However (since long before the ban) now only smoke a couple a month.

Funnily I cannot smell cigar smoke on my clothing - but can smell cigarettes, and it is now quite nice not smelling thwm from the pillow in the morning after a night in the pub.

However recenly visiting a friend who is a student, living in a shared flat, the smell of cigarettes in their shared kitchen actually seemed pleasant as it triggered memories of a previous era.

So OK - smoking is bad for you - as is drinking at average levels. I reduced the amount I smoked due to children appearing, and not wanting to set them a bad example.

But it was my "bad example", and one I enjoyed with friends who shared it too (I did not smoke with non smokers present).

So if pubs can have gay nights (and I believe some gay pubs have straight nights) to accommodate for peoples tastes, and they say business has declined in pubs since the ban, could we not use the night that by the general concesus of the trade is quietist to be offered as the smoking evening?

I am sure not all pubs would wish to do this - so there would still be places for devout non smokers.

there is nothing nicer than the aroma of a good cigar...a nice davidoff or a cohiba robustus....

i think a smoke easy for cigar people would be exquisite...a formidible venue with good air conditioning...now i'd pay for that!

Sometimes a think the people of this country are blind to the fact that the "wee right wans" are eroding our hard fought for freedom a bit at a time.
When all the parochial laws and rules that they make up are connected together by these control freaks, then freedom will become a thing of the past and our children and grand children will have no respect for there elders for selling them down the water. who could blame them.

Blimey does anyone work in Scotland or are you all illegally using your works computers defrauding your companies time?. Back to the point. ETS/Passive smoking isvirtually harmless the WHO says so. Plasmercluster Ion Technology removes 99.5% of aorborne particulates. No one has died from passive smoking and the HSE have a regulation about smoking rooms under Building Regs 2000 F1. Mechanical extraction to a level of 16 litres/person/second. The average modern system is 15 to 20 thousand litres per minute. So non of the anti arguments stand up. But I guess you've all gone home now.

No Robert. They are all suffering smoke related or alcohol related illnesses and are living on benefits.

I had my first pipe when i was 17, it made me sick but I carried on and still smoke. What o object to is rhar this so-called government can decide what we shall do without any consultation or discussion and backed up by the force of law.
That is much more important than a few smokers staying behind in a pub for an illegal fag.
Today smoking -- tomorrow what???

I had my first pipe when i was 17, it made me sick but I carried on and still smoke. What I object to is that this so-called government can decide what we shall do without any consultation or discussion and backed up by the force of law.
That is much more important than a few smokers staying behind in a pub for an illegal fag.
Today smoking -- tomorrow what???

Catherine 139- have you recently noticed the amount of people who now stand outside the pub for a fag- in full front view of all kids DUH- before they were in the pub,discreet- I'm sure the kids are all walking about saying look at all those cool people outside having a fag.

Live and let live, have smoking only pubs for the minority- The guy who commented about andy Kerr the health minister,find out where this dud came from, not so long ago- if you mention "rubbish" I'm sure it will give you a clue to his former employment and now he's a health minister woop de doo- A should be king of Scotland if this all the qualifications you need to be a minster-nae wonder the countries in a shambles with crackers like that helping to run the country.

I'm leaving and will switch the light out whilst on my way out.

WW

Kylie Antoinette 193, unless you are a Kangaroo

#237 Robert, well you hit the nail on the head. Waste company time at your desk thats fine, talk football, cricket ect for 30 to 40 minutes in the corridor thats fine, discuss what you did the night before and what the kids are up to thats fine but oh woe betide if you nip outside for a quick fag you are then labelled dont work as hard take more breaks etc, ect. Funny how people have different views on what is a waste of a companies time!

When will the Scots start voting for better politicans instead of "PC" Englishmen into office?

If you don't like smoking at a place, then don't go there.

Eric you are obviously another yank who does'nt know what he's talking about.

Eric,

What? Jack McConnell is a Scotsman and he is leader of the Scottish Executive who decided on the no smoking policy in Scotland. He may well be PC - I do not know - perhaps one of the Scottish posters could enlighten us.

The ban on smoking comes into force in England next year, however, it is hoped that it might be done a bit more sensibly and less dogmatically than the one in Scotland, but I'm not holding out too much hope for that.

The suggestion about separate establishments which allow smoking and state it clearly outside their pub is a good one. Then, people can make their own mind up whether or not to go in or apply for a job in one of the places that allow smoking.

Deal with it.

Lucifer anti smokers have two things in common.

1. They repeat the same old 'spoon fed' lies.
2. They are insulting and abusive

Does passive smoking harm others, not according to this study. Not the word ACTUAL. As in real note made up or guestimated.

'PASSIVE smokers inhale the equivalent of just six cigarettes a year from other people's smoke, according to the largest ever study of actual exposure levels of non-smokers.

The figure, which undermines previous warnings about the dangers of passive smoking, is a thousand times lower than that faced by direct smokers, and so tiny that it could not be measured statistically. Results from personal air monitors carried by more that 1,000 people in cities across Europe reveal that even the most highly-exposed passive smoker inhales the equivalent of 0.02 of a cigarette a day - 10 times lower than Government-backed estimates.

The findings, published by an internationally respected UK-based team of air monitoring experts, are the biggest blow yet to the credibility of the Government's insistence that passive smoking causes fatal diseases. Until now, ministers have based calls for action on claims that those living with smokers face a 20 to 30 per cent increased risk of lung cancer.

So to all those ASH supporting anti smoking zealots, not only do your masters lie, they have suceeded in corrupting your Government with their lies. Although in fairness to ASH the health minister was too thick to understand the numerous pieces of science put to him, including a submission which contained dozens shwing no causal link. So you can imagine how he made the decision " We give ASH tax payers money to advise us so they must be right".

Well this reminds me of a few years ago when they did it here. I've had some nice cold winters, so always bring a jacket and brella. Now if we can just keep the nonsmokers inside during the summer, it would be fair.
The reason the pubs are losing monies is that the smoker has to leave and drinks less. Or can you bring your drinks outside? I know I couldn't in London. I might break a glass.
Whats happenned here is that the nonsmokers came to all our bars/pubs, stayed awhile and then went back to there own places again, so no more money was made. And yes we have smokers nights and so forth.
I won't even touch the health issue, except to say that we do give alot of tax money to the state, and the health dept. cries its costing them to much, so much for logic of that.
Oh yes the real reason I'm writing is to let you know that in our state gov. The're passing around a bill to make it a crime to smoke in your car with children, so when that passes, I see as the next step inside your house with children. Because the magic words will be said. (For the Children) Instead of the poor trapped worker, who can't get away from the smoke.
Enjoy.

If that doesn't make any sense, thats ok, just an american.

Glenn, what sane parent smokes inside a car with their children?

Why do the anti-smoking brigade have to resort to personal insults?? Why weren't they all screaming before this smoking ban came in? Answer - nobody told them to!!!

So Claire do you think that as a smoker you have superior intelligence to that of a non-smoker? If so, you must be one deluded crank whose brain, or whats left of it, is so befogged by the poisons that you put into your body that you can't see the wood for the trees. You probably feel that smoking makes you more attractive and sexy to males where the opposite is probably more to the truth that most males would view you as the fag ash lil that you are.

The only question I have over this is whether or not the pub will still be a hazard to my health the next day - if not then I can't really see any problem with it, other than it's breaking the law.

You can sign this online petition if you disagree with the ban in Scotland.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ScottishFreedom/signat...

Anyone attending one of these illegal "smoke-easy" lock-ins will be commiting a criminal act and should be punished accordingly. I suggest that they be pilloried in a public place and then flogged to within an inch of their lives. This punishment is no more than they deserve for being anti-social dregs of our society for their continual polluting of decent law abiding citizens environment. For a second offence, I suggest that their heads should be removed from their disease raken bodies. Allah be with you.

I want to just ask 3 simple questions here to all the Anti-Smokers who have posted today.

Please tell me what is wrong with:-

1)A publican being able to decide whether or not he wishes to allow smoking in his/her pub and ventilating the premises to accommodate non-smokers who do not have a problem with others smoking (and YES they do exist - I know many of them).

2) An individual deciding whether or not to go into the pub having established whether or not it is suitable to his "comfort"

3) An employee deciding who he/she would like to work for, having made their own decision as to whether or not to believe the "science" surrounding the "alleged" passive smoking risk.

PLEASE tell me where there is a problem because for the life of me I just can't see it.

Oh and Bill - Let me know when you are ready to stand as an Independent up there - I will volunteer to be your campaign leader!! Just might have to pratice the accent :)

Well it's late at night and I have had a few drinks and shock horror a few cigarettes.

I cannot believe that this story has generated such a response from pro and antis alike - let's calm down.

This smoking ban legislation is complete and utter bumcom.

Put in it's simplest terms, people should be given a choice - smoking or non-smoking designated areas in pubs, clubs or restaurants. And ventilation or area cleaning systems in smoking areas - I have no objections to that and the technology works.

To the people of Scotland, I hope you exercise your democratic right and remove Jackboot McConnell and his cronies in May 2007.

Tolerance, freedom and most of all just enjoy your life - smokers or non-smokers alike.

New research was done and found that in most urban areas in the developed world, the amount of carcinogens and toxins in the air from industry and motor cars is actually higher in the outside air than anything produced by the smokiest indoor bar!

That research also helped explain why in areas that are engaging in smoking bans and the like and which have had incredibly decreases in the use of tobacco products the rates of lung and throat cancers are increasing! Even many epidemiologists are beginning to question the absolute linkage that was assumed in the past - "If a person smoked and got cancer then the cancer came from the smoking." - because so many people who have never smoked are getting the exact same cancers. The only common factor is the outside environment, which we have polluted to the point that the "clean air" is worse for us than the inside of a pub.

If the health care nannies want to do something for the public good, take aim at major industries and power generation stations, not some poor working man trying to have a brief break from the drudgery of his daily life.

Phillip. smoke free and the rest, why dont you all just bog off and get on with your mediocre lives (see post 4) and stop interfering in ours , do we stand over you lot when your munching on your Special K NO! The only reason you lot dont smoke and drink is that you think you will live longer and you know something YOU WILL and it will certainly feel like it ya bunch bunch of boring no life gits!

Scott 260. Yet another befuddled nonsensical nonentity who has'nt a clue what he is ranting about. Where in any of these posts does it say that non smokers are also non drinkers. Exactly, nowhere. You really are a pathetic little man if you really believe that all non smokers are health freaks. Its just that we are of an higher intelligence than people like you; we must be because it is not us that are poisoning our bodies.

scott 260/ Well said pal,nanny state tossers the lot of them.

Lucifer (well named) im 6ft 1 actually, seems like you are one of the smoke police who like to interfere in other peoples free will. Do you like spending your life telling other people what to do? My theory on this that you are in the unique club of little grassers at school who would hold their hand up and point and say 'It was him miss i seen him do it' Sad git! Get a life!

Sheik Ali Ben Bej / 255/ Bye the way? Are you fae govan. your kebabs are crap.

Scott 263. You really are one sad little arsehole. The fact that you tell me that you are 6ft suggests to me that you are of such low esteem that you have to boast about size. I don't care how big you are mate because in my experience, the bigger they are the harder they fall. And if you had read all of the posts made today instead of basing your comments just on one or two posts you would see that is actually smokers who are trying to tell non smokers what they should be doing and not the other way round. As for me getting a life; I have probably a better life than you will ever have and yours will probably end in excruciating pain. Until that day comes, go crawl under a stone where you belong.

Lucifer the 2nd,So your a wee grass that drinks , the worst kind of person there is.

Dublin' california is on the verge of classifying smoking in your home or yard a public nuisance and as such subject to a $7,500.00 fine. You would have to be reported by a neighbor for "smoking with impunity." That is, to such a degree that the smoke travels to their yard, house and troubles them. On the bright side, the police say they will not actively patrol for passive smoke violators. It should be noted that most people who live in california suburban communities are actually insane. Still, this is the future.

James CA 267/are the neigbours complaining that tobacco smoke is interfering with their crack cocaine smoke and limiting their life style.

Lucifer265, you sound like one of the antismoking stasi described by an earlier poster!!

Well done to the pubs for sticking their middle fingers at people like yourself!!!!

Er no it is pubs who want their right to decide what customers they want not stamped on by a few self- righteous antis like yourself!!!!

Its people like you who are like cockroaches!!!! denouncing their fellow citizens for doing something they dont approve- you have no respect for other people's views do you????

You belong in the wrong age- you belong in Nazi Germany!!

Scott263 well said!!!!

come join this friendly site-

http://www.forces.org/phpBB2/

Some folk on here need to chill out a bit - have a fag a cough and a drag and relax.............

Lucifer sounds like you have spat your dummy out mate. Did you not get enough cuddles from your mum when you were a kid?

Let me see if I can make any sense out of this smoking controversy... Cigarettes are legal merchandise which can be purchased by any adult, the price of which includes a rather hefty tax that goes to the very government that then tells them that they may not smoke them in places of which the fat-cats do not approve... If they are truly interested in the public health, when will they begin to prosecute and imprison people who are grossly overweight and continue to overeat?

people are now drinking at home and public house numbers are down 11%.
i remember the arguement was that people did not visit establishments due to the smoke filled atmosphere but publicans have reported none of these complainers have materialised . they are now gravely concerned as more people will sit at home in the winter months and never return as regulars . surely people sitting drinking and smoking in their homes is worse for the nations health especially children

Come doon tae ma bit if ye want a wee drink wi yer fag.

Charles 270, thanks for the invite mate, unfortunately cant logon from work, bleedin firewall and all that!

James 274, exactly!

Well luckily weather is improving down here, spring on its way, lovely day outside so off for a beer at dinner and for once i can sit outside and have a smoke without freezing me nutz off! I feel sorry for you guys back home as winter is approaching, dont think the pub trade will be doing well soon, probably worse than 11%. There goes jobs, revenue and all because the SS have reformed since 1945 and are now in the guise of 'tree huggers'

follow the money--(TAXES) this is not a health issue. your gov't needs more money!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm a smoker but I don't drink alcohol - does anyone else think that Scotlands appalling record of alcohol abuse should be tackled in the same vein as smoking has?

I wish they had tacked the alcohol problem we have here before the smoking thing - it costs our country so much each year - way more than ciggies. Our city centres are a disgrace at weekends these days - it's like hogmany every weekend.

Ask most foreign folk to describe the average scot and drunkard is a word or phrase that i imagine would crop up quite lot...

scott277 youll be able to log on eventually it is really slow that site

try, in fact everyone itn the UK against smoking bans too:

try http://www.thebigdebate.org/

and

http://www.smokersclubinternational.com/

for arguments with antis try out:

http://filthysmokers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=92

shocking the name of the site huh??

PS the above links are for all smokers not just those who drink!!!!

Don't be silly Lester, all these latest non-entities can't comprehend or get to grips with the smoking debate. To introduce another topic to debate would completely throw them over the edge. Interesting to note that most of these non-entities are from the colonies. Says it all I think.

Hey Lucy! You're hot on the pride bit anyway - indeed, one of the seven deadly sins - yeah, in your case Hubrisville.

Hey Lucy, you should really get your facts right before you make assumptions, but then i guess that is typical of 'i will tell you whats good for you' brigade. Head first always! What is really scary is there is lots of you out there with the right to vote! No wonder this planet is in a mess. Anyway you should be used to the smoke down there!

yes smoking is harmful but legal. obesity is harmful but the pc crowd hasnt come for my chocolate yet. But once they get their fill of tormenting smokers they'll move on to the next habit. Everyone has one. too much tv take them out of the homes. reading is making people anti social burn the books! the smug people who state these laws are good won't be happy when its their turn.

lucy282 im not from a colony and also who are you anyway- especially since you use the most pathetic name immaginable!!!!!!

Well the real Lucifer im sure loves smoke!!!!

Heather from upstate, if they come for my chocolate, by GOD there'll be a shotgun blast in their ass. I am not a smoker but I sit with smokers everyday at work, my mother is a smoker, everyone I grew up with smokes, and have spent time in our SMOKE FILLED bingo parlors. And my mother smoked with me in the car as a wee kid and guess what I DON'T HAVE ASTHMA, EMPHYSEMA, or CHRONIC BRONCHITIS. I have allergies to mold, mildew, and dust mites. I get migraines from cologne, cleaning chemicals, and smoke from burning leaves, trash, and rubber like old tires and plastic. If you go to the Yahoo weather site and you follow the dealybobs about allergies to the quiz they ask you'll be surprised as I was to learn that cigarette smoke does NOT cause eye allergies--have them too. They are an irritant and will irritate eyes but do not touch of an allergy attack which might make allergies worse but that's it. Which does make sense now that I think of it. Cig smoke doesn't bother me unless my allergies are already haywire and my sinuses are screwed up then it is nearly unbearable. But I have the choice to get up and move to another table with a smoker just as I have the ability to get up and move when one of the people I work with douses herself in cologne and makes me sick to be around her. Guess what, even though I have complained to her about cologne she still wears it and I don't go anywhere near her when she does. Everyone has a price to pay...

I think this whole total ban only adds more fuel for the nosey parkers in the world to get their jollies by watching other people minding their own business.

My cousin has a great set up in his house. When you drive into his hillside garage the first room you walk into is the BAR. It's a real, working, honest to God bar with neon lights, booze, ashtrays, and dark lights. As I said I don't smoke but it was the most relaxing room in the house.

Smoking ban is the very best legislation that as come from this "Scottish Office" yet they know it is being flouted by the licensed trade allowing regulars to smoke when non regulars have left the premises.However never mind about the smokers in the pub what about those in Dumbarton Road Glasgowflouting the law by smoking and drinking on the pavement within 5m of the licenced permises

Bill 48: wonder how many of these inconclusive "studies" were funded by the major tobacco companies?

To those who use the "nanny state" argument, or speak of rights and list off what might be next on the list: 2nd hand smoke is the only thing which closes my throat and sends me to hospital as I'm violently allergic to the formaldehyde in it. The right to breathe supersedes the "right" to smoke. Standing next to an obese person or a gay man has never posed a health problem for me.

I can't tell you how lovely it is to be able to go out to a restaurant/a movie/a pub/a concert with friends now and actually enjoy the meal/the show/a drink/the music. It took legislation here to achieve this, as smokers never extended that courtesy themselves. That's what it's really about: courtesy.

I am saddened to see the hostility that flies whenever cig addicts are confronted about their addiction. I have severe asthma, and I can no longer attend music shows at smoking venues here in the US, because I would have to be hospitalized. Yes, I;m in the minority, but sometimes laws are passed to protect minorities from majorities, when majorities don't care about the well-being of the minorities. I have had people threaten me with violence here in the US because I asked them to move or put out their cig, when I had been at the table first. If they had been there first, I could certainly understand anger regarding such a request. Somehow in the final analysis this seems like social Darwinism to me: those of stronger constitution see it as their right to prevail over those of us with weaker constitutions. Like drowning defective puppies, eh?

Philip (258) I agree with you. I have severe Emphysema (or COPD) as they like to call it these days. Anyway i have never smoked and grew up with non smoking parents, and was always lucky enough to work in non smoking places. Why then did i get Emphysema? Also i was diagnosed at the age of 32, my moronic G.P (now ex G.P) said "you must be a smoker because people dont get Emphysema unless they smoke" in other words i must be lying. In actual fact there is a Gentic form that you can get young, if you smoke or not, but i was tested twice for this, both times tested negative. So i kept asking the 3 or 4 speclalists i have seen since then (i am now 42) Why have i got this? and they said they did'nt know. So always having being a person who has to explore "the unexplained" i set about doing my own research from many different sources, it is reasonable to want to know why you have something that is going to kill you.!!! Here is what i learned from all the Major medical institutions round the world..... smokers dont get Emphysema untill much later in life, onset of symptoms normally starts in early sixties (mild) then progress with severe symptoms in seventies, now they are all saying that there is an increasing number of younger people smokers and non smokers getting Emphysema or COPD and quite a lot of them are concluding that Enviromental pollution by Industry is the cause. Also the rates of infants and children getting lung diseases is increasing at alarming rates, and there is a lung disease that used to be rare but is now had a big increase in adults and it is called Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis and again anybody is getting it and they dont know why. This is also a fatal disease, interestly though when they did research to find out how long patients live they put them into 3 different groups i.e non smokers, exsmokers and current smokers. They found current smokers lived the longest with exsmokers and non smokers having lower simular rates of

Roxy, have you ever thought about writing a novel?
Anyway im off for a ciggie.

Scott, have you finished your ciggie yet? hope so because i was thinking about writing a novel, but wondered if you had any suggestions on what the novel could be about.???

Well how about? 1) Passive smoking and its effects from 12,000 nautical miles. Revealing the true case of a man In Frankfurt, Germany who exhaled some cigar smoke on his veranda, the smoke then travelled all the way to The Cook Islands in the South Pacific, where innocent Sam Nuvo was just about to cross the road when he caught a whiff and turned to see what it was, unfortunately not noticing the 10 ton truck bearing down on him……….guess the rest.

Scott, that sounds great !!! A real good fantasy novel with lot's of science fiction always goes down a treat!!!
I was expecting to get reply's to my post from the anti smoking brigade containing their science fiction, by telling me i got Emphysema from "passive smoking" but all seems to be quiet on the western front.!!!

The fascist twits who impose such bans ought to be smoked like the haddocks than whom they have less sense. We shall never be suppressed.

Or you could have had - A comic book!

Adventures of Bertie the '40 a day' Beagle

Episode 1

Bertie goes into a newsagent.

'Woof', Bertie says.

'20 what?', the newsagent says.

'Woof, woof', Bertie says.

'Oh the tipped ones, i see', the newsagent says.

'Woof', Bertie says.

'You me to light it, why?', says the newsagent.

'Woof. woof', Bertie says.

'Ah you've no hands ok!'

If a non-smoker is in need of mouth to mouth and the only person around is a smoker, does the smoker say "No" I cannot do that in case I get sued or does he blow air into the non-smoker so that he can live longer. No doubt the non-smoker would sue you when he found out. Perhaps the non-smokers should carry cards advising smokers what to do in such an incident. Non-smokers should have their protection too.

I am personally tired of non-smokers insults, treating us like dope addicts, also, no ashtrays outside buildings so that we look like a filthy lot when we stub our cigarettes on the street. I have a portable ashtray that I carry in my handbag. We eat food everyday that is so loaded with chemicals that it would be enough to choke a horse. Exhaust from vehicles is also doing humans harm. I can see both sides of the coin and I do not insult non-smokers. Also, how many non-smokers drink and drive and invade my road space. I don't drink.

I do consider the people around me. If they have Asthma then I do not light up a cigarette. If there is any kind of medical problem I am mature and strong enough to go without a cigarette. I am not completely ignorant to the world around me and special needs that another human being might have.

With all that said and done, I know the benefits of not smoking and would give up the cigarette in a heartbeat. Sometimes it is not that easy, something a non-smoker has not taken the time to try and understand. Be patient and maybe one day you will have your perfect world to live in and working 3 jobs to pay the taxes lost when no one is smoking. If governments were so concerned about your/our health, then they would ban the product in it's entirety. They won't do this since they would lose too much money.

wow.!!! that is even better scott, you would'nt like to be my ghost writer by any chance??? I'll give you 50% of the cut.!!! By the way did you like George's "smoked like the haddocks of whom they have less sense" I did, good one George.!!!!
Wilma i agree with you.

SM (290) Instead of wondering who funded the studies...tell us. You should do your own research like the rest of us..it is the conclusions that matter as well as the public acceptance of the results by organisations such as the World Health Organisation and the British Medical Asssociation

I quote from a doctor and past president of the New York Cancer Society :

I’m Robert E. Madden MD, FACS. I am also a non-smoker. HOWEVER I am a passionate opponent smoking bans. Most of the opposition to the smoking bans has been based upon economic factors such as loss of business revenue, even closings. My opposition is due to loss of individual freedom and abuse of scientific fact.

I am a practicing chest surgeon, a teacher and a former cancer researcher. I am also past president of the NY Cancer Society. I will not tell you that smoking is harmless and without risk, in fact one in eight hundred smokers will develop lung cancer. Asthmatics should avoid tobacco smoke. What I will say is: 1) it’s a personal choice and 2) so called second smoke (ETS) is virtually harmless. One may not like the smell but it has not been shown to cause cancer, even in bartenders. If people do not like the odor then they may go elsewhere. Those who support the ban have no right to deny 24% of the adult population their enjoyment of a popular product based on dislike, possibly hatred of smoking. This attitude is that of a bigot, akin to anti-Semitism or racism.

To me the most offensive element of the smoking bans is the resort to science as “proving that environmental smoke, second hand smoke, causes lung cancer”. Not only is this unproven but there is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for a scientist like myself to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society (of which I am a member) and the American Lung Association used to justify what is best described as a political agenda. Smokers enjoy smoking

James (274) I could not agree more...yet again Government ignored the warnings given as a result of a study by Dr Jerome Adda, of the University College London Department of Economics who on the 18th December 2005 said ' Bans in bars may induce smokers to spend more time at home, and therefore expose other members of the household, especially children' He then went on to say “Much of the current debate has focused on exposure of hospitality workers in the workplace but the voice of children, one of the most vulnerable groups to the effects of smoking, hasn’t been fully considered. Our results suggest a better solution would be to provide alternative places for smoking in public, such as smoking rooms in bars.”

Dr Francesca Cornaglia, of the UCL Department of Economics, says:“Governments in many countries are under pressure to limit passive smoking. Some pressure groups can be very vocal about these issues and suggest bold and radical reforms. As often, their point of view is laudable, but too simplistic in the sense that they do not take into account how public policies can generate perverse incentives and effects.

Yet the only political group to take notice of the above comments were in the House of Lords Economic Committee

Bill (301) Well said.! If some of these people like SM(290) did some research then they might actually have a clue what they are talking about.!!! Instead they express uninformed opinions to suit their cause.

I find it interesting that the pro-smokers here are accusing us in favour of the ban as resorting to insults. I have seen so many posts accusing us of being: small-minded, facists, Nazi's! etc... Seems like the pro-smokers can't argue without resorting to insults either. Can I ask for a pause for thought here: Nazi's killed over 6m people on the basis of their genetics. We who favour a smoking ban are mearly prohibiting a minority from smoking in a public place where such an act inconviniences the majority in terms of odour and potential health risk. We are not facists. This cry of "we want to do whatever we like whenever we like" is the cry of the 3-year old who hasn't yet learnt that for society to function there has to be rules. This country is a democracy where democratically elected politicians make laws on our behalf. They don't have to consult on every point of legislation. If you don't like it, then protest at election time. How many of you malcontents on the smoking ban is involved in politics? Join a party. Stand for the council. Lobby your MSP. Use your democratic right to vote! Just look at attendence at elections and you'll see an issue -- again this a democracy where people have fought and died for your right to vote. Not a dictator ship. Anyone who idly uses these words such as facist when talking about this ban has NO idea what they are talking about. Pity you if you actually had to live in a dictatorship -- then you might have some right to compare.
Finally on the traffic issue: no posters who raise the point (quite rightly) seem to be aware that steps are underway to improve this through cleaner fuels being brought in in 2009 across the EU that will decrease pollution. So, yes something should be done about traffic pollution, and plans are in place. Now, lets see about that congestion charge for Edinburgh.....

Couldnt care less about smoking. But people should have Intilligence tests and those who fail should not be allowed to speak in Public.

Yep well said Bill301!!!! i agree with everything you said!! Smoking isnt the most healthyhabit but hey.............

nick304 have you read bill's comments?? yeah let the owner of the establishment DECIDE!!!!!! Understand!!!! Well the fascists in government certainly dont!!!! yeah im afraid your ramming your views down people's throats does fulfil the nazi category!!!! especially with your accusations of anyone opposing 100% indoor or indeed outdoor smoking bans as a tool of the tobacco industry- tell you what i have no connections with the above and neither do i want to in principle!!!!

Roxy 300 and Scott298 your novel sounds a great idea- someone getting passive smoking the other side of the planet!!HAHAHAHAHA!! Amazing!!!!

Im sure some antis do believe it travels and descends on "innocent" people randomly- im sure you do Nick??

Nick (304) Public means public in the true sense that the amenity was paid for and supported by public funds (taxes) I have no problem in having smoking bans in libraries, council offices etc, or for that matter providing controller designated smoking areas such as hospitals which are high sress locations as are airports and ferry terminals. However it is wrong for Government to interfer in private businesses to the extent of the use of a legal product that gains them 9.7 billion in taxes each year.

Nick...some high profile people are currently encouraging me to enter the political arena and to be honest I know that I would do a good job. However Party Politics is dead, it is time to return power to the people. I would swell the Independent numbers as would many others as we witness the current chaos in both Westminster and Hollyrood

#304 "We want to do whatever we want whenever we want"?? I don't think anyone has suggested that!! It was not democratic as it was not in their manifesto and if had been then we would have the choice of who to vote for. Yes people have fought and died for our right to vote and I sincerely hope it make you feel better when my friends Dad who is 87 and fought for this country and freedom has to go outside for a cigarette and cannot understand it!!

Nick

Don't kid yourself. Insults are traded fairly evenly on all boards. There is even a website called filthysmokers.com so don't go around believing that anti-smokers have any kind of monopoly on courtesy.

It may be the case that nobody is under threat from state violence for smoking, comparable to the Nazi regime's treatment of its unwanted citizens. But the comparison is simply that the general public is being fed junk science and encouraged to believe that they are being slowly killed off by their helplessly addicted neighbours and relatives. A government's role should be to promote mutual respect and not insist that differences between smokers and non-smokers have no solution short of a draconian ban that deprives a whole section of society of reasonable recreational facilities. Above all a government should respect communities and people's social networks and routines because they underpin people's (sometimes difficult) family lives and hold society together.

The government's stated aim is denormalising smoking. Hence their fury when any section of the community decides that smoking together in public is still normal and they are going to do it even in defiance of the law. Eventually they will be forced to realise that smoking and breaking the law is not what people at lockins are about. All such people are doing is obeying social instincts.

Charles, Thanks !! Fantasy science fiction is very popular, and if the anti smoking brigade are "the Majority" as they claim then a lot of them would buy it. Good lord!! Scott and i could make a fortune. !!!
Bill , I agree with both your posts. Pat and Belinda i also agree with what you both said.

Ray, you are the one who should grow up!!! Start thinking for yourself and read some "Real Science" instead of always blindly being led by people who create "junk science" to promote their Agenda. I am a non smoker who takes the time to do research to find out the true facts, why cant you.???

Ray (312),

Like many other anti smoking zealots, you are a victim. You have believed all of the "science" issued by idiots like ASH, Cancer Research and the British Heart Foundation. Its not your fault though. 30 years of lies and propoganda will weaken the strongest mind. The real crime, now that you know you've been brainwashed, is not carrying out proper research. If you look elsewhere for your information, you will be staggered by the plethora of studies that tells us SHS and the "damage" it does to countless innocents, is pure fantasy. Start with the WHO, look for their 1998 study and learn from it. Trawl around a few sites that DONT get funding from the smoking cessation product manufacturers. Then finish up with either the BMA or the BMJ. Whilst at the BMJ site, look for Enstrom & Kabat's study. This is by far the biggest study to date, involving 100,000 people spread over 39 years. Learn from that. Then come back and post an honest appraisal of the "truth". I dont dare hope that I will convert you. But I sincerely hope that by learning a little more, you and the rest of the control freaks will cease to use meaningless sound-bites. The truth you "know" is a lie. If you do nothing else today, change that.

The sad facts are that this ban was enacted using deeply flawed science. The SE got their information from ASH who are paid by Big Pharma. Big Pharma benefit enormously from smoking bans as people rush to buy their products to help them quit. These products, by the way, have a failure rate of 84%.

This nonsensical ban is about money. Its about greed, Its about power. Its about social control.

It was never about health.

Colin, Well said.!!! I too found out all you have stated in the course of all my research.

Oh Colin,
how I agree. You have read my thoughts exactly, I couldn't have put it better myself.
I have watched the anti-smoking propaganda machinery in action over the last thirty years, and am appalled at the way people's minds are so easily manipulated, even in the face of their own personal experiences.
Passive smoking is not harmful, it can in some cases be beneficial.
We are bombarded almost daily with the results of junk studies and so-called science usually paid for by our own money. All to prove that smoking may be harmful. (What isn't?)
The reason the whole subject is so emotive is because, deep down, these zealots are simply hateful people, frustrated by laws against racism, sexism, ageism, free speech etc..
So now the only politically correct thing to hate are smokers.

Colin #314 -- Read the Enstrom & Kabat study as you suggest. This is the study that, although not proving a link with heart disease and lung cancer DOES show a link between passive smoking and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, quoting from an article also from the BMJ site: "The report by Enstrom and Kabat confirms that exposure to secondhand smoke causes injury to the respiratory system with the finding of a combined increased mortality risk for men and women for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (relative risk 1.65, 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 2.73).1 This is consistent with other investigations that show the sensitivity of the respiratory system to secondhand smoke at all ages and in different settings." BMJ 2003;327:502 (30 August)
So yes, we should learn from this study as you suggest.
The problem in all of this is that it is very difficult to scientifically prove these things. That is why you need to look at the body of evidence -- which increasingly shows some health effects. One thing you may ask about the study that you quote as disproving the link between passive smoking and health issues (which, as I point out above it does not) is: is passive smoking from your spose (which is what the study is about) related to continued expose of bar staff over a 8 or 12 hour shift. Might bar staff infact have more exposure to second-hand smoke (i.e. in a packed bar how many smokers are there) vs. someone living with one smoker. I would suggest so. So the risk is therefore increased for a bar worker who may encounter tens or hundreds of smokers over the course of a 8 hour-shift over someone living with a single smoker. So do you wait for a scientific study proving this, or do you take the preventative route and take action ahead of time. I'm personally glad that the UK is taking the latter route.
Finally, do you really believe that Cancer research and the british heart foundation are "idiots". Cancer r

there are around 12 public establishments in my town and every single one were against the ban .they were hoping the government were correct about families and others who abstained from visiting would start to frequent their establishment . they have been left dissapointed .the non smokers who go are the ones who were already attending and did not mind smoking . now people out shopping with their families have to pass these places with sometimes dozens of people lining the pavement smoking and sometimes heavily intoxicated . they can be subjected to loud swearing and sometimes arguing which used to be kept behind doors . people smoke and drink at home meaning anti social behaviour is now on the increase causing arguements with neighbours . why the 100% smoking ban . could 2 or 3 of these places not get smoking rooms with proper ventilation and a smoke licence when they have met these requirements . scots do tend to accept being guinea pigs so i cant wait for the english protest . it is nothing short of ludicrous . no one cares about restraunts or other enclosed places .

nick317 if you read the report it also says ETS should not be used in determining policy!!!! Also belinda is correct you probably know it already!!!!
Antismokers are some of the most arrogant people around in my view!!!!

Prblem is CRUK and BHF are taken over by ASH much the same way as the governement- we donate to independent foundations that do the same job the two foundations mentionned carry out!!!!
problem with antismokers is they cherry pick what suits them better!!

Colin and Tony316 i agree with you both!!!!

Ray312 your not even worth talking to by the junk you spout!!!! Also it is a law unwanted by like 80%of the population so harly democratic!!!!
Of course owners have the right to stick their middle finger at it!!!! Well done to them!!!! Since when does a bar have to accomodate people like you??

Roxy im sure youll make a big fortune well(me and my colleagues) be willing advertise it on certain sites!!!! Do you know Scott personally??

Ps in fact look at advertisements for nosmoking signs the ban is a business!!!!!!!!!

And patio heaters- if one buys shares in them one will make money!!!!

Why?? All based on meta-analysis junk!!!!

Nick,

Thank you for looking at the study. Most wouldnt have bothered. I was pleased to notice that you quoted the relative risk from the study. In this case it is 1.65. A closer look at the art of epidemiology will tell you that any figure under 3 is statistically insignificant. Its meaningless.

I am also pleased that you mentioned CRUK and the BHF in your reply. I have court-room quality evidence that proves that they lie. I have proof that they falsify polls. I have proof that they issue fallacious statements regarding SHS. I retract my statement that they are idiots. They are simply liars. I have invited them all to sue me. So far they have declined. I also now invite them to a public debate on the science/myth that surrounds SHS. They would lose. If they were at all confident, they would have accepted the challenge. At best, they hide behind the junk science, at worst, when it suits them, they simply make it up.

CRUK, who you are rooting for, should be investigated as to their charitable status. They receive grants and donations totalling over £400 million pounds per annum. Want to hazard a guess as to how much of that money is spent on finding a cure? Less than 11%. Still love them to bits? Still think they are performing sterling work? Every 89p in the £ that you donate is wasted. It is wasted on massive salaries, useless advertising, and, for a charity, (who are not supposed to do this) they waste an inordinate amount on political lobbying. They, CRUK, need to decide whether they are a health group, or a political party.

As I said earlier: the truth is a lie.

Nick (317) If you read my first post (292) then you would know i have COPD i have never smoked, nor does my spouse and i have never worked in a bar or indeed anywhere that people smoked and i was also brought up by non smoking parents. Why then do i have COPD? Read my post and you will see why!!! They are using smoking and passive smoking as a cover up for all the damage "Big Industry" is doing to people's health, because it would cost them "Mega Money" to admit the truth and put things right. I have'nt looked at that BMJ Article yet, but i will, although i can tell you that the Bmj have been slammed recently by the world health organistion as well as others for publishing "Misleading and incomplete Research". Dont you think that as a person who has had COPD for ten years, that i would want to find the truth about why and others like me have this disease.???

Ray (312) Please name 3 people who have died as a result of so called Passive Smoking. I can offer real scientificly proven solutions to clean the air to a standard equivalent to that found in pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities. It is not expensive, is proven to work and is now being fitted into car air conditioning systems by the likes of Toyota and Nissan. Very useful considering the smoking ban extends to company pool cars as well. We are looking at both the short and long term effects such unnecessary legislation has on our social and economic fabric. Forget the propeganda presented by ASH. they cannot care less if the polulation has a pay packet or not, excetp when Government decide to cut their funding because of a drop in revenue from taxes.

Roxy #322 -- read your post. Now you should re-read mine since I never suggested that people with COPD have it through smoking. Just that there is a link between passive smoking and COPD. That has nothing to do with your case.
Secondly, industry is and continues to be regulated and legislation is upcoming that will continue to reduce pollutants issued by business, such as limits on NOx, SOx etc... So things are being done. For example, the cost of implementing clean motor fuels (low sulphur) to the refining industry has been tremendous and has no benefit to them other than to cost them cash (and a lot of it). Yet even in the US fuel regs. have recently been tightened again, requiring a substantial amount of investment at great cost to the oil industry. So politicians, although far from perfect, are hardly unwilling to make big industry pay for a cleaner environment.
I was referring to the BMJ article because it was referred to by a previous poster, who was claiming that because the article was there it was proof that it was untainted by the anti-smoking lobby and was being used in support of the pro-smoking position.
You seem to post as someone who thinks that an anti-public smoking position means ruling out other causes of illness, but why should you conclude that. Just because I support the smoking ban doesn't mean that I have concluded that this is the sole causal element in causing disease. It is however one (of many) factors. These should continue to be looked at.
Colin #321: Interesting points re: CRUK. However, I return to my original issue with the study you quote which you didn't respond to. That is, do you think that the small risks in this study can be equated to the risk of bar staff exposed to a much larger does than someone who lives with a single smoker. If not, then would you propose to try and study this before enacting legislation, or use the precautionary approach to say, there is some element of risk here, it

Charles, Thanks for the offer, No i dont know Scott personally but he seems like a very nice bloke. If we get together and write it, then i'll let you know and i am sure we can give you a cut of the hugh money we are bound to make.!!!!

Nick, are you a politician??? you certainly sound like one.!!!

I may be missing something here but my impression is that tobacco companies have been conspicuous by their absence from this debate. They have not been trying to deny that passive smoking causes damage, they have just kept quiet.

Going outside for a smoke is not a marginal inconvenience to smokers, non-smokers who associate with them, or licensees who have to supervise outdoor areas as well as a mess of half-empty drinks glasses inside the premises (did the drinker leave half his drink or just go out for a puff?)despite having suffered a drop in takings.

All this chaos for the sake of enforcing legislation on the basis of a precautionary principle.

Lets be honest about this whichever way the debate boes there is only ever going to be one winner. The tobacco companies are on a win, win situation as they supply the Pharma Companies with the nicotine fro the Nicotine Replacement Products. The other winners are the NHS who when Alan Milburn was Health Secretary signed a deal in November 2002 with the Pharma Companies to promote the products in return for cash and finally ASH who are in the pocket of both Government and the Pharma Companies. The loosers are the public whose freedom to choose has been taken away by a bunch of dictators who wish to impose their own personal views on those who elected them into office in the first place.

Nick (317)

relative risk 1.65, 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 2.73.

The width of the interval contains 1, which = no risk and a RR of 1.65 is meaningless in any scientific arena even if the interval didn't contain 1.

The conclusion of the study was - .....

"The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality"

Let me quote you some RR's from other epidemiology studies;

Obesity in women and premature death (1.3)

Abortion and breast cancer (1.5)

Eating red meat and advanced prostate cancer (2.6)

Workplace stress and colorectal cancer (5.5)

Consuming olive oil and breast cancer (1.25)

Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer (1.19)

Perhaps the above will help show how small and meaningless these figures are

Belinda, well said. This is not a "marginal inconvenience". Its an unjust law based on the whim of a wannabe world leader.

Steve, your knowledge of this particular art, I hesitate to call it a science, is profound. Thank you for a) explaining it in a way we can understand and b) showing some great examples of other risks, and just where SHS ends up on the list.

Nick, I hope you didnt want me to paint myself into a corner. But, for what its worth, I do not think anyone (apart from severe asthmatics) are exposing themselves to any risk whatsoever. Perhaps if I made it clear what I want to happen in the future, here in Scotland, and the rest of the UK, where unwanted (see the latest ONS figures for proof of THAT statement) bans are about to be rammed into our everyday life, you would then appreciate my argument a little better?

1. The ban is based on nothing. I have in my possession 73 studies on SHS. 61 of them say that the risk is statistically insignificant. Does this meet your "body of evidence" criteria?

2. The ban should be altered to allow for those pubs that wish to accommodate smokers to do just that. Whether this be via a special license, decided on square footage, or mandatory ventilation, I care not.

3. I dont really believe that the ban will ever be completely rescinded so I, and others like me, are simply demanding access to adult venues that can live with our legal habit. Non smokers, or rabid anti smokers can stay away. If this is done fairly, and in line with the smoking population, this should leave you with 75% of the pubs and clubs. Or is this not enough?

If I want to get healthy, the last place I think of going to do that, is my local pub. If I want to avoid children, I head for the same place. Which right-thinking parent wants to expose their children to drunken people anyway? I am happy to live with smoke-free restaurants as well. I work from home now so I can please myself whether I sm

Bill #302 - a place is provided for people to smoke. It's called outside.

Pat #309 - there was an online consultation on theproposed ban. I filled it in myself. Bearing in mind that most people in Scotland have access to the internet (certainly enough for the Executive to get an idea for public opinion) then it must be the case that not enough smokers took the time to fill it in. Probably because they thought it would never happen.

What has the fact your friend's dad fought in the War got to do with anything? The law's the law. The fact that he (and others) has to go outside does make me feel better because my eyes and nose don't sting and I don't stink.

I know a lot of people spoke in favour of a partial ban but since its introduction I have hardly heard anyone speak against it. I've even heard smokers say they think it's a good thing as it's meant they've cut down on the amount they smoke as they can't be bothered to go outside.

Well done the Scottish Executive. One of the few forward thinking things you've done.

I'm also amazed at the comments by some of the smokers. You'd think they were under house-arrest. Let's remember you're not banned from any of these pubs, or anywhere else for that matter, you're just not allowed to smoke there.

I know a lot of people spoke in favour of a partial ban --Robert.

It was more than a lot of people my intolerant friend. The actual figure in favour of restrictions, not a full ban, was 76%.

When asked about it, Joke McConnell said "It is for us to lead". In other words, " I will have my ban! I have heard the Scottish people and I choose to ignore them".

Still think THAT was a democratic decision Robert?

Robert

Most people in Scotland have access to the Internet - I think not... The point I was making was that this was not democratic no matter if there was an online consultation. A democratic decision would have been in their manifesto or a referendum to the people. That man fought in the war for a democracy which is a bit meaningless now as they can pass any law they like as long as it's for "our own good"- give me a break.

Colin - Joke McConnell - Love it! that and Jackboot McConnell - no I honestly believe that he will lose his job come May 2007 and I hope he will reflect on his leading the way as well as Andy Kerr who has never met anyone who wants to turn back the clock.

Robert (331) Smoke outside...tell that to a pensioner who has faught for the country to give you the so called freedom you currently enjoy. What level of mentality do you have?

As far as the Consultation..I attended one of these Consultation meetings on the 19th August in Stranraer. The initial reaction to the very first question in the document resulted in an overwhelming ‘yes’ to a ban. However as the evening evolved the net result was that by debate, the participants left the meeting accepting that Controlled Designated Smoking Areas were probably the most appropriate way forward. As I was later to learn, similar results have been noted at other meetings throughout the country. 76% of the public who responded to the consultation were in favour of more restrictions on smoking but not a total ban. The consultation process was a total sham that cost the cuontry thousands of pounds that would have been better used in providing healthcare in the form of more radiographers to diagnose and treat the disease that is at the forefront of this debate... CANCER

I also attended an evening in the Signet Library in Edinburgh hosted by Forth 2 our local radio station. It was to ask Jack McConnell a question. Mine was about the smoking ban. Surprise Surprise due to time constraints I never got a say but ASH did!! And Jack gave his stock answers. Maybe it was just as well.....

In all four nations of the disUnited Kingdom we have cmoe to trust (if that's the right word) ITV as a key source of pro-Government propaganda. Imaginr my surprise therefore to see tonight's "Emmerdale" showing Terry with a ciggie. Is he about to be killed off in a lung cancer plot then? Either way shouldn't Emmerdale be banned in Scotland and replaced with a nightly half-hour slot of sombre martial music?

Yes sadly Danny you are probably right! If they are going to censor Tom & Jerry and probably all the films which show people smoking - that will be next. Kind of reminds me of an episode of Doctor Who when everybody was brainwashed.

Well thies posts should be made into a book for future generations- or will that very un pc,
Roxy, I have learned something there, I always believed it was only smokers who got Emphysema.
Thankyou for that, because I would be amazed if that was reported on the BBC.
Belinda I did look into that filthysmokers site and underneath that it says discuss the filthy bastards here. Hmm nice.
I also read about Dublin in calafornia and the no smoking in your gardens, if your neighbours complain.
I have read a lot about the smoking subject as I smoke and my Husband never has and we have been married for 32 years.
If pubs want to have lock ins with consenting adults, no intolerant smokers would be there, I cannot see the problem.
Looking through all these posts I can see why the pubs ect will lose money- because there are not many Anti smokers. There are a lot of tolerant non-smokers who have friends that smoke.

What is going to be next, and I wonder what nice names they will give the site.

And yes Pat it is disgusting sending elderly folk out in the cold, that is how nasty and uncalled for unwanted this ban is.
For those who say you only have to step outside the door, it will not stop there and we know it.

I wonder how much money has been wasted on this propoganda. Well they will not be wasting a penny more of mine.

Have they fined Keith Richards (the millionaire Rock Star of the Rolling Stones) that £50 for the henious crime of having a ciggie on stage yet?

That one is just as barking mad as the Tom & Jerry one!

Robert (331) The fact that making an 87 year old go outside in all kinds of weather makes YOU feel better says it all, You SELFISH man.!!!! He risked his life when he fought for Your freedom and democracy and you would pay him back by taking away his.!!! Unbeliveable!!! Tell me if you could would you make him and other smokers wear a yellow star???

#332 Robert, telling someone who smokes they carnt smoke in the pub with their drink is rather like telling a vegetarian that his local resturant has become a kebab house but he can still eat there. No thanks Id rather stay at home in the warm with drink and cigarette watching Tom and Jerry before they get air brushed. Interestingly on a matter of history, Hitler, Mussolini and Franco were all anti smokers, Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin were all smokers. The first three didnt last long, Jackboots and side kick kangeroo kerr are on their way out, dictators never survive for long.

Roxy - Episode 2 of Bertie the '40 a day' Beagle

Bertie is out on the town with his best mate Sammy 'the passive smoking' Seagull and decides to light up his favourite cigar.

'Woof', says Bertie.

'Squawk', says Sammy.

'Woof, woof', says Bertie.

'Squawk', says Sammy.

Sammy becomes violently ill.

Anna341 worse at least they didnt fine tom and jerry!!!!

Charles said, "at least they didn't fine tom and jerry!!!!"

Give them time Charles: if they're not stopped it may become illegal to even DRAW someone smoking! Hmmm... aren't there a number of famous paintings of Sir Walter Scott and Churchill and the like where they smoke? Think we'll see some paintovers done? They've censored three or four different postage stamps in the US you know... removing cigarettes from well known photos/paintings of famous personages.

Orwell's Winston Smith has finally found a home.

In disgust,

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Scott - It then continues.... As Sammy is being violently ill, suddenly a Dalek who works for the Goverment appears and says "You have made the bird ill with your smoke" so "you must be exterminated"
Bertie says Woof???
more Daleks turn up and the first one shouts to them
"Exterminate" "Exterminate" "Exterminate"!!!
Bertie very alarmed says "Woof, Woof, "Woofffff"!!!
Sammy also very alarmed for his friend says "SQUAWK" "SQUAWK" "SQUAWKKKK"?????
Then Sammy starts flapping around trying desperately to distract the Daleks attention away from his friend, so the Daleks say to Sammy "you must be Exterminated"
Bertie now very worried for his friend, in an act of pure desperation lifts his leg and Urinates all over the Daleks.
Sammy likeminded flies above them and Defecates on them. Suddenly the Daleks start to explode.!!!
Bertie and Sammy start running and flying off down the street, untill they are a safe distance away.
Bertie, "Woof" "Woof" "Woof"!!!!
Sammy, "Squawk" "Squawk" "Squaaawkk"!!!!!!

whats all this talk about the majority not smoking ?not in the pubs it,s not! i bet some pubs have more smokers than non smokers!

As it turns out Keef did not recieve a fine as the place in which his alleged offence took place is not covered by the legislation!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5292...

As a friend of mine put it,
"A good brief would, of course, argue that the stage is not a public place as the public are specifically excluded from it by some very large security people!"

Hilarious, eh?

I had the plaesure of e-mailing Andy Kerr the following e-mail:

"I read with interest your assertion that 99% of licensed premises in Scotland are now smaoke-free. Could you possibly furnish the names of the 1% of establishments that are not, so that I may encourage them with my patronage?"

Nothing but an interim reply as yet, will let know if he "coughs" up the information.

Aplogies for the poor spelling, on my second bottle of wine and 21st Embassy (at home Smoke Gestapo)!

Scott (350)
Good one Scott, i like it.!!! Who cares about spelling, as long as your enjoying your wine and ciggies then that is all that matters.!!!

Micheal346- could be true!!!! I agree Winston's (smith) found a home!!!!

My ex-wife died (horribly) from a smoking-induced mouth cancer - that's a disgusting way to die - your tongue and gums turning black and growing to a revolting shape.
I used to smoke and due to reduced lung capacity I can no longer swim underwater for more than a few metres. I dearly regret having listened to idiots, like those above, who convinced me that smoking wasn't as bad as the experts suggested.
The truth is that many smokers will die a painful disgusting death - a revolting sight for their friends and family.

Roxy-Im so glad im landing Manchester on the way home next month, at least i might be able to enjoy a ciggie with a beer inside the pub, before i high tail it back to Auld Reekie (no pun intended). Mind you come next year even that last bastion of sanity will be gone, have to go to Spain I guess, before the Gestapo gets there too.

Scott, hope you enjoy your ciggie in Manchester,your right!! I think the Gestapo are going to try to take over the World.!!! Still i hope you will enjoy being back in Auld Reekie despite all the crap that is going on here. I still love it here despite all that, but i am hoping the people of Scotland will vote for a change and get rid of this shower we have dictating to us at the momment. I certainly am going to vote for a change.!!! On a lighter note what did you think of the part of episode 2 i wrote?? Did you like that i had the Daleks representing the Gestapo.???

John Michael (354) How charming of you to publicly share a morbid description of your wife's death. You really should be ashamed of yourself. Now, along with the typically required anti-smoking slur ("idiot") to those who promote their personal choice to smoke and the right of pub owners to determine the clientele they choose to serve, you can be proud of yourself for sharing this information on a public forum. People die and the majority do so from causes other than smoking.

Bill #336 - I'd quite happily tell that to an 87 year-old who has fought in the War. That's got absolutely nothing to do with it. I'm in the Army. I've been to Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. I've come under enemy fire. Thankfully there's never been a full-scale war in my lifetime but if there was I'd go. Then, God willing, when I come back I wouldn't expect to be able to break the law just because I'd been to war. Get real!

Roxy #342 - No need to make anyone wear yellow stars for being smokers. You can identify them by the stench. Most of the time before you've actually seen them. It's not selfish to want to breathe clean air. It's the smokers who are selfish for thinking it's their right to inflict the minorities habit on the rest of us. Now that you're not getting your own way the teddy gets thrown out the pram.

If, as it transpires (in what was a declining trade before the ban), people do lose their jobs then I'm sure there will be plenty of others available in the supermarkets and off-licences which, apparently, are where the stay-aways are getting their drink from. They must be doing a roaring trade!

Oh, and I know things are getting heated but the person who called someone else a politician was being far too nasty. No one's that bad!

Garnet Dawn, could'nt have said it better myself. Do you know that Ex-Smokers like John Michael are the most Aggressive group of anti smokers i come across. Every time i have been insulted or preached to give up, it has always been by an Ex. Just because they (by personal choice) have given up, they seem to have the need to convert the rest of us. When you insist that you do not want to quit, then they get insulting and aggressive. They dont seem to want to acknowledge the fact that i have a personal choice not to quit. Methinks they should consider going back on the fags, it might calm them down and turn them back into Rational human beings.

Robert @358.
Are you an Ex-Smoker or a Politician.?

Robert (358) By the time you come back, the law will have been proven in court as illegal as a result of a Judicial Review. It was illegal when introduced and remains illegal now as it was never in any manifesto prior to the election of the present Government. The public has been lied to by politicians and Government Agencies, by taking legal action the truth will be presented in a court of law. I also have evidence of underhand dealings by Executive Ministers that will ensure an interesting election next year.

Ha ha! Can't claim to be either. I'm not daft enough to smoke or slimy enough to be a politician. Though as a member of the Executive it must be a pretty easy job. You just have to sit there in Edinburgh and wait for the Westminster based Labour party to tell you what you are and aren't allowed to do. But that's for a different post!

Bill #336 - I'm sure that, just because something wasn't in your manifesto, it's illegal. If that were the case half of what Labour have done would be illegal.

Robert (358)

Interesting to see you have no tolerance towards the people who provided your democracy and freedom.

If you don't like the "stench" then stay away from them, smokers don't inflict anything on you; it's your own fault for going in someone else's pub and standing near them.

It's nice you want to breathe clean air but I must point out there isn't any. If you are truly concerned with what you inhale I would suggest you stand outside the pub with the smokers to avoid the 400 indoor carcinogens that have nothing to do with smoke. Don't stand near a bus though.

I do stay away from the smokers now. I stay at the bar while they stand out in the rain. I must say it's fantastic!

Thank you for the advice. I will no longer loiter near buses like I used to(?).

Robert,

You don't need to loiter near buses, you're still breathing it.

I see you are happy to stay inside inhaling all the nasty particles that have nothing to do with smoke; which proves your stance is nothing to do with health. It's ideology.

It's not ideology Steve, it's the law. There'll be less pollutants in the air in the pub now the smokers are outside.

Robert,

Your view has nothing to do with health, you just don't like the "stench". Supporting a law on that basis is ideology.

These 'pollutants' you talk about are way below safe levels. Or perhaps you would like to ban pub meals to reduce the pollutants; do you feel at risk from the odour of someone's steak ?

Robert (358) As i am not a smoker, i'm not throwing anything out of the pram.!!! I will always defend people who are being persecuted based on lies, and the fact that they are a Minority is no excuse to do so. I thought that was what you were suppossed to be doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, defending persecuted minorities and lets not forget democracy.!!! This ban was imposed in a very undemocratic manner. As a compassionate human being, i do not think it is right to make any elderly person stand outside in all kind of weather to do something they have been doing all their lives, and is a legal thing to do(smoking is legal you know) I wonder how you would feel if when you get old and somebody tries to take away one of the few remaining pleasures you have left.!!! Would you say "I fought for this Country, put my life on the line and this is how i am repaid" I am sure you will tell me that you would'nt say that, but i bet you would. Anyway if you really want "clean air" then you will have to get rid of Industry, Cars,and Aircraft as these are the pollutants, but i bet you dont want to get rid of them.!!!

Roxy, I wouldn't say that because I wouldn't assume that, just because I fought for my country, I had carte blanche to do what I like.

Yes industry, aircraft & cars are massive polluters. The difference is they are necessary. Smoking is not. Would you rather have no job and live in a cave with no heating, lighting etc?

Pat #334 - Most people in Scotland do have acces to the internet. Over 3/4 of the population have the internet in their home. Then there are public libraries, internet cafes. If people didn't take the time to take part in the cnsultation that's their fault.

Robert...We can fully understand your delema here. Having also been in the Forces, you are not allowed to think but to obey at all costs. In the real world where politicians are our servants it would appear that the message has not got through. Currently we have socialist dictators getting fat on our money...look at the girth on J McC right now.

I recently received this response from Mr John Glen, Tobacco Control Dept, Edinburgh
Ventilation systems usually re-circulate around 80-90% of the air, bringing in 10-20% fresh air from outside, and expelling 10-20% of the stale air. This results in the majority of the harmful gases (there are over 40 carcinogens in second hand smoke) remaining in the internal space.

However what can now be deduced from the above statement is that it is the supposed 40 microscopic carcinogens that Government have an issue with and how these trace elements are measured with so much outdoor pollution present is not considered in the response. Now by including Air Filtration into the Ventilation that means that 98% of the 40 carcinogens would then be removed and that leaves less than one little fellow floating around in the air. This I believe is much less than your average deep fried potato chip, which now tells us that food led venues are unwittingly presenting a greater health risk than wet led. The above statement formed the basis of my reply and to date I have not had a response to say that my assertions were incorrect.

By introducing pure science into the debate in the form of Sharp Corporation PlasmaclusteTM Ion Technology and the perceived dangers of ETS have all but disappeared. This technology has even been proven to deactivate H5N1 Avian Flu Viruses as well as MRSA .

Furthermore Robert...I am a lifelong non-smoker who is intent on presenting the truth to the public. If you are happy to obey an order such as the smoking ban then it is safe to say that you would gladly jump off the Forth Bridge or unde

Bill, the fact seems to have escaped you that the smoking ban is not an order but the law. There's a bit of a difference there.

It may also interest you to know that the Army has also changed somewhat from when you were in. We don't get shouted at from dawn til dusk anymore and are perfectly capable of thinking for ourselves.

I'm glad you're a non-smoker, clearly showing some intelligence unlike your daft Forth Road Bridge comment.

I'm also perfectly well equipped for civvie street, thank you very much!

Robert, I dont have a job because i am dying from a disease caused by your necessary polluntants, but yes i would rather spend my remaining time in a cave to get away from Uncompassionate, Intolerant, Insufferable and Arrogant people like you. If you are a indicator of things to come, I will be heading out the door to find that cave A.S.A.P.!!!

I'm sorry to hear about your illness but it doesn't make me arrogant or intolerant just because I want to breathe air, free of tobacco smoke. Less so than the people who told me, if I didn't like it, then I could f*** off, if I complained about the smoke.

Insufferable? Well, sometimes, I suppose, but then we all have our moments!

Wrong Robert...Order by Government. Wrong again Robrt, there is still the same problems within the Forces or have you missed out on Deepcote while you were away. This proves again your selective in your debating skills

Robert, The reason i called you Intolerant was because you make no exceptions, not even for Elderly people. You are quite happy to see them stand outside in all kinds of weather.!!! Where is your compassion??? They deserve to be treated with Respect, they have contributed to this country most of their lives.!!! No I dont think it is right if you have been told to F*** off, but maybee it was the manner in which you stated your objections.!!! Smokers are always very courteous to me. As for Insufferable....Yes we all do have our moments, I sometimes am Insufferable i'm sure, but i do try not to be and if we all tried to be more tolerant prehaps there would not be so much hate in the world.!!!

Bill, behave! I don't know when you were in the forces but speaking as someone who's in them NOW I can assure you that things are very different from the idea most conjour up when they think of it. Things progress. The stuff you see in programmes like Bad Lads' Army don't go on either. Get real!

And what of Deepcut? The last I heard no one had been prosecuted for anything. In fact one of those who shot themselves had admitted to a fellow recruit that he was going to shoot himself. These people were adults (or at least old enough to get married) and there is plenty of opportunity to make a complaint and get their problem sorted. Shooting yourself is a bit extreme.

There are also nearly 180,00 people in the Forces so this is hardly representative and killing yourself through work/life problems seems to be more prevalent in civilian life but unfortunately doesn't have the same dramatic impact as shooting yourself.
Don't tar everyone with the same brush.

A law is not an order in the same way you meant in your earlier post. It is an act passed by a democratically elected government

Roxy, I have the utmost respect for the elderly, but that doesn't mean they should be exempt from the law. Yes they have contributed to the country as I intend to. I won't expect to be able to pick and choose which laws I adhere to. The whole point is that no one HAS to stand outside. The only difference is that the roles have been reversed. Where before it was a case of if you don't like it you don't have to come to the pub, now it's if you don'y like it go stand outside. It's just a case of the smoknig minority being inconvenienced rather than the majority.

My mum brought me up well so I was never rude to smokers!

Robert (373)

You can breath air free from smoke. Don't go to places that allow smoking.

Because you fought in the army doesn't make you any more virtuous than anyone else, Do the WW2 men come to your places of entertainment and tell you what to do and how to live? Then force it on you by law?

yes it is law, undemocratic and likely unlawful in itself; passed by bigots who don't like the smell.

If your so concerned with air quality will you write to your MP and ask why the government won't back an indoor air quality scheme in public places?

(377)From your comments it seems you feel you have a human right to entertainment in someone else's pub. How much money did you invest in the pubs that you are now deciding who should and shouldn't be inconvenienced?

Robert, I hate to quibble, but a government doesn't have to be democratic before it can impose a law. Not all laws that democratic governments pass are good, workable laws. You are arguing as if now there is a law in place that is the end of the discussion, we should all treat it as a fait accompli and accept everything that government tells us as gospel truth, but the fact of the matter is that MANY people don't believe the supposed 'science' underlying the law. This discussion was based on a report claiming the law is widely disrespected and circumvented, and this suggests a low level of respect for it.

Interfering with people's social routines and habits is bad law. I don't smoke (very much anyway, before the ban came in it would never have occurred to me) and still find it quite ridiculous that we require people to step outside to smoke whether or not the licensee or other friends want them to. No discretion, no flexibility.

I invest more money than I used to, Steve , because they are much more pleasant places to be. I haven't decided who should and shouldn't smoke. That was the democratically elected Executive.

Yes, I can breathe air free from smoke too. In this case the pub. You make it sound like the pub is the sole preserve of the smoker. Remember that non-smokers constitute the vast majority of the population, and are partial to a drink too.

You repeat the smokers' mantra - "Don't go to places that allow smoking". The thing that upsets those opposed to the ban (who are smokers, anyway) is that it's now -"You don't have to smoke." Fortunately for the non-smokers the vast majority of places are now smoke free.

I never claimed that I was more virtuous than anyone else either. The point I was making was in reference to an earlier post where someone seemed to think that the ban was unfair on someone because they fought in the War.

Belinda, I appreciate your point but I was talking about Scotland where democratic elections take place.

The latest opinion poll (I know they're not exact but they give us an idea) shows that 61% of the population are in favour of the smoking ban. Even when only smokers were asked 30% were in favour of the ban.

For public opinion to change the law there'd have to be a big swing.

Speaking as a heavy smoker I am glad the ban came in. When I used to go for a night out at the pub I would usually smoke about twenty cigarettes or more during the night. I reckon now with having to go outside I smoke less than ten. I haven't found it easy when I have tried to give up my habit and these bans help because they give me fewer places and times to indulge and I also come home reeking less of smoke.
I also hope that our children will be less inclined to smoke as a result of the ban and so they will have a healthier than us smokers have.

Colin #333- I just had a look at the results of the pre-ban consultation.

When asked whether they supported a law to make enclosed public places smoke-free 80% of (nearly 53,500) people said yes.

Robert, How old are you? because you do not have a very mature attitude. You say you have the "upmost" respect for the elderly, but you would still make them stand outside.! If that is respect then god only knows what you would do to them if you did'nt.!!! As for your "They dont have to stand outside, they can just stay at home" Well they could, but then they are being deprived of their social life in their last years....how nice!!! Do not forget that this ban covers clubs that only the elderly go too, yes they will have to stand outside because they have been smoking 40 plus years and need to smoke, but i bet you would say they should just give it up and never mind the hell they would go through trying to do that.!!! Why should they have to give up one of their last pleasures just so you a fit, healthy person can swill down a pint in a pub that they dont even go to. Also what about small rural pubs? what if the majority of their customers are smokers and they all stay away? they would shut down, ending the social life of everybody in the village, not just the smokers.!!!

Robert it is al me, me, me in your responses. It is obvious that you are very self centred, care very little about others as long as you can breathe what you believe to be clean air. Wake up to the real world, next the Execurtive will move further on drink...they have already banned Happy Hours, then the mighty Scotch Pie is destined for the bin and in the name of what...certainly not health

Robert...can you enlighten us all as to why smoking should be banned in company pool cars to prevent harm to the next driver from the effects of so called Passive Smoking. Normally vehicles will travel at speeds of 40-70 miles per hour facilitating many air changes per minute in the process...so in the name of health, why a ban. The case of a farm worker in the cab of a drafty tractor cab has alrady been aired, but how can anyone recognise an employed HGV driver from an Owner/Operator. The reason I ask is that one is banned from smoking in his cab, the other is not. The law as you put it is an ass, like those who created it.

if the tobaccoo companys inserted a coupon similar to gift tokens of the past in the form of a petition in cigarette packets asking for private clubs and non food pubs to be exempted from ban.
it could result in a petition of between 6-10 million of smokers and friends gathered up en masse in pubs clubs etc and posted to parliament even our mps and media would have to take heed,
no legal argument could be used against this democratic right of petitioning

Robert (380),

The pub is the sole preserve of the person who owns it and the fact that you make a purchase from there does not give you a share in it. As the owner he is quite free to put a sign over the door saying 'No Green Jumpers', and you would be trespassing if you entered wearing one. As the owner he is entitled to set the rules for any legal activity he desires; you are a guest and must by law, adhere to them. Why is it then that you think anti-smokers should be above this basic principle of freedom?

You keep quoting the misleading anti-smoking propaganda;.. what does the fact that the majority are non-smokers have to do with anything?? Are you saying that minorities have no representation? Are you saying that black people shouldn't be allowed to do things because they are a minority??
How about gay people? how about Jews? Your definitions of democracy are certainly favoured to your ideology.

The only "mantra" I am repeating is the freedom of choice one. Which you seem to oppose, on this issue at least. It is not a 'smokers mantra' that says if you don't like it here go somewhere else; it is the choice of the owner.

Stop twisting words. You support a ban that would see an 80yr old ww2 veterans freedom of choice taken away. You apparently therefore know better than him and support telling him how to live. That makes you virtuous.

Welcome to the 21st century. The UK is developing a new improved Apartheid. Scotland, led by lily livered amateurs, of course, wanted to be first.

It is illegal to discriminate against gay, black, disabled, old, or ethnic minorities, (and quite rightly so), but bigots need a target. Unfortunately, the venom reserved for the aforementioned groups can now land you in jail so they, the anti smoking Jihadi's, vent their bile on us smokers.

We, sadly, are the last unprotected minority left in Britain.

And its open season.

All this about rude smokers. I can remember when you could smoke anywhere. Then they came up with No Smoking areas. We all respected them, on the belief that if we respected the rightsof non-smokers, they'd respect ours. Well, that was true for the majority, but a small grou of fanatics, with lots of billionaire and corporate money behind them, has managed to brainwash people that they're being poisoned and that smokers have no rights anyone is bound to respect. Looking back, I think smokers hould have been LESS polite. Now we're a quasi-criminal class and we'd better get busy.
One more thing: I don't know a single smoker who thinks we should be able to smoke everywhere, but there seem to be plenty of antismokers who think that every square foot of the planet should be to their liking. Civilization demands tolerance and compromise, otherwise we get a dreary, puritanical society where no one can do anything enjoyable because someone objects. I never objected to smokng restrictions until I saw that the ultimate goal is to make sure there's no place we can puff in public--or private, for that matter.

Roxy, my wife's grandfather was in the Navy in WW2. He has a lung condition which is aggravated by smoke. So, before the ban, it was him that was "deprived of his social life" in his last few years. But that was ok because he wasn't a smoker and he didn't have to go to the pub to meet some of his friends. Now the boot is on the other foot all of o sudden we're talking about choice and respect. Come on. It works both ways. Does that mean that all smokers used to be immature and have no respect. No, I didn