enhanced by
Bookmark:
The licensed trade is talking rot. Far from losing business, most pubs are doing better than ever, and that is confirmed by the continuing robust market for Scottish pub properties. see http://www.dmhall.co.uk/news_item.asp?id=185 for evidence.
FFS - this is a disgrace, to force people outside is rediculous! in new zealand they have introduced this farce of a skeme and virtually everyone is outside in the street smoking.
this will lead to violence and a street drinking culture which will cost the health system more in the longrun.
tobacco tax could already pay for the NHS twice over!!!!
all that is required is well ventilated rooms or even a smoking area.
I say keep smoking and dont pay the fines, they can never jail you for this under international law
No Johnny(1) other reports show otherwise- maybe some bans went better!!!! The food led- ones that is!!!! The wet led ones- especially those landlocked are suffering!!
http://193.78.190.200/smokersclub/banloss3.htm
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ob...
http://www.meridianbooster.com/story.php?id=237589
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/hi/news/5053428.html
http://www.caller.com/ccct/local_news/article/0,1641,CCCT...
Also wait till winter comes- smokers will not be happy in the cold will they????
hers from a neutral perspective :http://www.kansan.com/stories/2006/sep/14/meyers/?opinion
"Thanking landlords for letting it happen"- more like forced them!!!!
quote "Proponents of the smoking ban seem to believe that they have a right to eat on someone else’s property free from smoke"!! I mean its almost like autoinviting yourself to someones house and making your rules- abuse of hospitality!!!!
Whats next customers have the right to trash a place to check if theres asbestos in the walls or strange smells they feel will put their health at risk?? Cos thats the way were going!!!!
Spain has the perfect balance bars must put signs displaying their smoking policy!!!! Its the owner's decision and customers CHOOSE where to go!!!!
2 It is disgusting all because ventilation they say doesent work:
well heres proof:http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/07/its-time-to-d...- anyway somewhere on the site!!
I meant does work by the way!!!! Not as the antis say!!
Johnny
The licensed trade is not talking rot at all. You wouldn't make it, up in business, this tale of losing money when everything is hunkydory. It isn't so bright. You may be right that many businesses are thriving in the new conditions, but the ones I know that are not thriving are in areas where there is more reliance on the businesses as social facilities. Once these businesses go under there is precious little for locals to do but go back home.
Reading a few articles from the papers on property values will not give a full picture of reactions to this legislation. If a smoker in a lung cancer unit can say s/he respects people's choice to smoke in social situations I can go along with that. You are right #2 about the outlawish culture that develops with a smoking ban, and I am sure that health costs will not decline because of this measure, any more than smoking has declined in Ireland over the last two years.
There is enough space and fresh air in Scotland, do we have to be so mean-spirited as to deny smokers even a table and chairs indoors??
guys and girls, get a grip. the smoking ban is to protect the people who have no choice other than to change jobs to escape the most deadly by-product of the habit, second hand smoke. to use the argument that it endangers children because the uncaring, irresponsible, ignorant smoker will take a carry out home instead is beyond belief. i smoke but i know the dangers and i feel guilty if i blow smoke in a barperson's face and i wouldn't dream of smoking near a child. this ban is for all of our good, the sooner we all realise it the better.
Obviously time for harsher sentences!
Many publicans are still breaking the rules by allowing smoker to stand inside the doorway.
It has been an absolute pleasure to work in a pub for the past 6 months where I do choke all night due to the smog of stale tobacco and have take the stink home with me. I'm quite happy if smokers want to kill themselves - they can do it outside but why should they take others with them as a result of passive smoking!One of the best decisions made by the parliament so far
Any time I go to the pub it seems to be at least as busy as it ever was and personally I find it hard to believe that trade has declined. However I have noticed that publicans have turned off the ventilation and the air quality still leaves an awful lot to be desired!
Forest lost the argument, but are bad losers, it's as simple as that.
The ban is a good thing, and it should stay.
I remember reading one objection in advance of the introduction of the ban, that young people walking past pubs would now be able to see the people smoking and it would encourage them to start. I have to say, having walked past a lot of pubs with gaggles of people smoking outside them, there doesn't appear to be anything aspirational about any of these people. They tend to be the most ill-looking, rough people you could imagine. I suspect young people walking past them would actually think "there's no way I want to end up like that".
I was in England over the weekend and the landlord of the pub near where we stayed was asking me about the Scottish ban.
He is seriously concerned about the impact on his business and believes there is more likely to be a backlash there because of the greater importance of the pub to a lot of rural villages.
He also believes it's less likely to be as heavily enforced in England.
So a few old 'dive' pubs go out of business, so what its not as if we need more pubs in Edinburgh. The end result might not just be less smoking but less drinking which wont be bad for Scots as a whole since we are busy trying to kill ourselves as the unhealthiest nation in europe.
I don't think 200 fixed penalty notices over six months shows anything other than a lack of enforcement. I'd also be intersted to see a breakdown of the locations of the offences. I can't honestly see this being a policing priority in bars in some of the more "colourful" areas of our towns and cities
I can't believe that there's only been 200 odd prosecutions - you could get that in a single day in Edinburgh if you watched taxi drivers, bus drivers (and passengers), lorry drivers and white van men. Also, why can't they extend the ban to shop and pub doorways? Nothing worse now that having to choke your way through the smoke haze and stinking air simply to go into Tesco or whatever. And from what I've seen, the pubs I've been in are actually busier than I can ever remember - in fact, local hostelries say they're doing more pub meals than ever and are doing a roaring trade, even though alcohol sales have slightly dropped. But the reduction on alcohol sales could be because the boys in blue are getting tougher on drink drivers........
To non smokers it is a pleasure i can stand in a pub etc with out someone standing in the vicininty smelling of stale smoke, if the smokers wish to smell may i offer a solution, get one dead buffalo and apply to skin and clothes for me it is the same if a smoker smells of smoke or smells like a dead buffalo !!
Need I say more...read these from a professional who is prepared to tell the truth unlike our political leaders
http://www.acsh.org/news/newsID.1271/news_detail.asp
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.215/news_detail.asp
No Bill those aren't facts, those come from a industry funded 'smoke-screen' organisation of which there are many in the U.S. designed to push junk science on people by big business.
Simple question for you. What is the most common cause of death in house fires? Answer: Smoke inhalation.
Case closed.
Ian speaks the truth, does it hurt ?
If only the law was as well enforced with youth crime!
Duncan even more to the point, will the puffers be given money by passers by at halloween ?
If you defy the ban and get jailed you can smoke in prison,, also you are allowed to smoke on the oil rigs, isnt that abit mad oil, light a ciggy boom!! Ironic that criminals in jail get the right to smoke yet x servicemen who served the country in wars are told they cant smoke in their clubs., they may as well break the law then be allowed to smoke in prison.
In our ever encroaching totalitarian regime, nobody will have any rights, and nobody will be allowed freedom of choice.
Let's hear it for Tory Bliar and his collection of control freaks.
Quick question for all sides.
What objection would anyone have to a pub or club exclusively for smokers, managed and staffed exclusively by smokers that does not impact on any outsiders?
Guga. Nobody is telling you that you cant smoke, and remember also that by you excercising your 'right' to smoke you infringe on my right to clean air.
I am not a fan of Bliar either, but this is not an issue even worth arguing about.
#26. Gary
Excellent idea. But no doubt the nuttier element of the non smokers would have found a problem with this too. The reason, I reckon, that this was not considered is because non-smoking pubs would have fallen flat on their faces due to lack of business.
We should also consider the health implications of the smoking ban. Elaina Collie-Duguid, Research Fellow at the University of Aberdeen, says that the risks associated with passive smoking will be minimised by the ban in public places:
http://www.newsquoter.com/ViewQuote.aspx?QuoteId=218
Some folks need to 'lighten up'. Match anyone?
#26 Gary.....
Logically there should be no problem in having a smokers only pub/club..... But the Edinburgh Commissariat doesn't like logic.....
Hamish, what nonsense
Bill's links were to the American Council on Science and Health, an anti-smoking body that is getting embarrassed by the claims made about the dangers of so-called passive smoking. Their conclusion: 'There is no evidence that any New Yorker — patron or employee — has ever died as a result of exposure to smoke in a bar or restaurant. '
Inhalation from a full house fire, with untold numbers of chemicals being released from the burning cocktail of man-made materials that most of us now live in, would undoubtedly kill you much more quickly than second-hand smoke from burning a few leaves. You don't hear of suicide bids undertaken by people sitting in smoky rooms. They would go for something properly poisonous like a car exhaust.
Hilarious - a resident of "auld reekie" bleating on about "right to clean air" - plenty of it - move north!Who do those non-smokers blame for lung-cancer deaths among non-smokers (including passive)? Blinkered science, blinkered politics - yes, blame smoke, blame islam, blame MTV, then you dont have to look any further for the real reasons.Suckers and blowers - see the real enemy - ignorance!
Hamish, Last time I read the bible God was not called Hamish, what gives you the right to decide what any other human being is or isn't allowed to do.Do you think non smokers are worthier human beings than smokers. I think not !Just where do you think you are going to find this clean air ?Stand outside get a gutful of petrol fumes, or perhaps you would prefer the smell of the aerosol sprays used to mask nasty smells, or even the aftershave and deodorants you use, they all give off killer chemicals,harmful to us but I bet you still use them.Wake up there is no such thing, we are all adults and should not have the freedom of choice taken from us after all no other human is worth more or less than the next.
"Success" of the smoking ban is being measured entirely in terms of enforcement. No attempt is made to "prove" that it has saved the 1,000 lives a year McConnell promised in Parliament. This is not surprising since it cannot be seriously claimed that more than 20 people a year (or up to 20 less) die from passive smoking outside the home. I would be interested to see if any researcher is going to make a calculation of how many pensioners will die prematurely, over the winter, from catching pneumonia standing outside pubs - my guess is it will be over 20, my other guess is there will be no grants available for such research.
"Campaigners also claimed more people were taking drink home and smoking in front of their children since the ban was introduced"
Well gosh, how come opponents noticed this in advance of the ban but "campaigers" didn't?
If politicians want to address smoking fine - no problem but lets be even handed and deal with drinking as well. A&E is full of booze fueled injuries & drink related deaths (including innocent bystanders) and our response open the pubs for longer! Not only will we soon lack freedom of speech (terrorism control) Movement (ID Cards) Smoking, drinking, working till we are 80 to have a pension,what goes into packed lunches for children, being politically correct .............. will it actually be worth getting up in the morning?
Right now that we've solved the Smoking thingy--lets ban alchohol, then all the problems of Scotland are solved.
Neil(35) no attempt has taken place as the 1000 number was simply plucked out of the air!!!! There is no way to prove this!!
Neilo my guess is therell be much moe dying that way than ever from ETS, the former can be proven the latter cannot!!!! But its all special interest behind all this!!!! How much money is there to make from pneumonia research - none cos theres no patches or such from it!!!!
It is obvious that it would happen!!!! The problem is that "campaigners" have such tunnel visions they cant think outside their box!!
It makes me angry that the unelected repulsive creature Maureen Moore gets so much press coverage for producing nothing for the nation!!!! What a useless life shes living!!
38. Charles / Well said charles. she should be forced to put a bag on her head when in public as not to scare the children.
AULD REEKIE was not because of smoke it was so called because it stank get your facts right 33.
Go ahead and smoke... just don't exhale.
There is no risk of passive smoking except to severe asthmatics. The relative risk of passive smoking for lung cancer is a mere 1.16. Whole milk is 2.4 (bear in mind a relative risk of 1 means no risk at all).
This means whole milk is over 100% more of a risk than passive smoking.
Furthermore, before passive smoking became the number one issue pursued by politicised epidemiologists, a relative risk of less than 2.0 was not considered a risk.
Now that standards have dropped to absurd levels (due entirely to trying to make passive smoking look dangerous), there are scare stories in the papers every day linking one thing ridiculous after another to cancer.
This whole issue is a sham and a stain upon scientific rigour.
Any non smoker like to comment on #26?
41 loving the ban how pathetic are you!!
39 shes who should carry a health warning- i feel sorry for the poor children!!
#42, so Roy Castle died from drinking milk?
As a non-smoker, i probably go out more to pubs now and tend to stay longer as i dont have to deal with sore throats and running eyes. My clothes don't smell too when i get home. If all that gunk is going into your clothes then what about your lungs, skin etc... My smoking pals too don't mind going outside and all say that they've cut down as a result.
Cant beleive some people still think smoking isn't bad for you! Yeah, and nuclear waste IS safe.
45 an air quality standard would guarantee your health more than a ban!!
http://www.jicosh.gr.jp/english/guideline/Smoking/Attache...
also look at it on http://airinitiative.com. click onto "the facts" page then seek out on the "Ventilation effectiveness" page on the right end of the webs tree.
#45 There is no proof whatsoever that Roy Castle contracted lung cancer through inhaling secondhand smoke.
If you have it provide it now. There is a big difference between science and wishful thinking.
The constant idiocy of junk science is to say that any non-smoker that dies of lung cancer does so due to passive smoke. It's utter nonsense.
The Roy Castle foundation actually raises money for child lung cancer sufferers that have never been exposed to smoke. So they know they are lying.
No anti-smoker seems to be able to get this point: There isn't always an external cause for cancer. Some people will get cancer no matter if they live as healthily as possible.
Something out of our control isn't such a good story though.
Roy Castle AGAIN? all these thousands of people who are allegedly killed by passive smoking and I can count the named examples on the fingers of one hand. Roy Castle is the only one I remember. There have been zilions of famous people working in smoky environments and only one name sticks.
I agree – total waste of council tax payers' money. If this is about environmental health there are better things to do than harass smokers to stand on the pavement (obstructing the path) instead of standing on the step. Maybe I'll just stop paying some of the tax.
Not only does ventilation work against secondhand smoke.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/12/ventilation-n...
But secondhand is not the deadly hazard activists claim.....in fact acoording to the American Cancer Society's AQ testing secondhand smoke is up to 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA workplace air quality regulations for secondhand smoke.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/american-canc...
Why do pharmaceutical nicotine interests provide funding to all the pro-smoking ban activist groups?
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/09/now-that-rwjf...
#45 S
No Roy Castle died of lung cancer. What is not widely known is that Roy Castle self diagnosed the cause of his lung cancer as passive smoking. All his doctors could say was that he had lung cancer.
It may very well be the case, Roy himself stated that he played the trumpet in smoky jazz clubs for years, so it's quite possible he was inadvertently smoking while performing - he must have been breathing fairly hard doing that, but Roy can't have been the only trumpeter doing that - I don't recall many jazz trumpeters dying of cancer.
But to be honest, Roy was a jazz player, not a doctor and all the evidence for passive smoking causing his cancer was his best guess and no more.
To comment on #26. No I have no problem with a club exclusively for smokers.
Although when those people get ephysema, lung cancer or some other nasty illness, I think they should pay for treatment. If people are dumb enough to smoke after all the evidence, not sure my taxes to the NHS should pay to put it right.
Belinda, do you know whats in the cigarettes you smoke? Have you read exactly what chemicals you are inhaling? Its surprisingly similar to what you might find in a house fire, there is even cyanide in there in small quantities.
So get your facts straight.
Hamish
I'm not inhaling anything as I am not a smoker. There are traces of these chemicals in the smoke inhaled by smokers but self-evidently not in the quantities required to kill them outright, which would happen in a house fire.
This is a quotation from www.antibrains.com: 'even 5,000 chemicals (rather than the usual 4,000 claimed to issue from cigarette smoke) would be fairly meaningless in face of the fact that our ordinary dietary intake includes rougly 10,000 different chemicals ... some of the "deadly toxins" (such as isoprene, acetone and acetonitrile) that come from the end of a cigarette are also found in the normally exhaled air of nonsmokers as a byproduct of standard body metabolism.'
Smoke from house fires is lethal. Smoke from cigarettes is one of the most dilute toxins known to man.
#26 & 28---your comments are lost on those jumping on the anti-smoking bandwagon. i suspect there will be the "gad-abouts" turning in their neighbors for smoking & drinking at home, & then watch out! this is only the beginning. we have had class action law suits here worth hundreds of billions of $, & people are still smoking. if they were serious, they would ban tobacco. it's all about the money, not peoples health. taxes my dear, taxes.i get my cigs from the Indians, no taxes there & they're making out quite well.
Hamish (20) As you are so knowledgeable please advise us all as to when Dr. Elizabeth Whelan. an epidemiologist and president of the American Council on Science and Health. also author of "A Smoking Gun: How the Cigarette Industry Gets Away with Murder drew a salary from the tobacco industry. Evidence please....
Stuart (55) there is another problem when considering HGV drivers as in Employed v Owner / Operator, the latter is allowed to smoke in their own property. Also think of the air changes per minute while tramping along at 60mph...
Well said Belinda, but you will scare the paranoids to death, they will not want to eat, or drink for that matter go google water dangers, milk dangers, ect ect in fact anything you can think of dangers.I choose to have a voice with freedom to choose.The pharmacutical companies seem to have a vested interest in this ban do they not.
I like a nice cup of coffee with a ciggie, Then later with Bacardi and coke, But after Autumn leaves, I will NOT – stand outside and Freeze, For an evening to relax without a smoke.
I know I’m not alone in my thinking, The difference, may be my choice of drinks, But one thing is for sure, I know their are many more, Even tolerant non-smokers, think this ban just stinks
Hamish #51 - What's your view on all those who partake in dangerous sport, those who drink alcohol - or those who put salt in their food - or for that matter those who put salt in "our" food - those you eat dairy products - red meat eaters - people who walk to work instead of taking the car etc etc is it only smokers that should have to pay for any future illness or do you have a hit list of those worthy of health care.
Best ... ban ... ever.
Gotta love how smokers think they have the right to smoke where they want.
Yeah, just like junkies should be able to shoot up wherever they like.
You're all addicts, just a shame the majority don't see it.
Hamish...read and learn.
From Dt Michael Sedal, USA Tobacco Control Department
Without Sufficient Evidence, At Least 25 Anti-Smoking Groups Claiming that Secondhand Smoke Causes Emphysema
September 20, 2006By Michael SiegelIn spite of the failure of every major scientific body that has reviewed the evidence to conclude that secondhand smoke causes pulmonary emphysema, at least 25 anti-smoking groups, headlined by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Cancer Society, and SmokeFreeOhio, are making precisely such a claim.
The California Environmental Protection Agency report on secondhand smoke, which is probably the most comprehensive review of the subject and which drew the controversial (even within the tobacco control community) conclusion that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer, did not even suggest that secondhand smoke causes pulmonary emphysema in nonsmokers.
In fact, the report stated that any effects of secondhand smoke on chronic lung function in nonsmokers are limited to small decrements in lung function, and is mainly in the form of exacerbating symptoms of patients with existing chronic lung disease:
"While lung function effects are less pronounced in adults than in children, ETS exposure appears to play a role in the genesis of chronic lower respiratory tract symptoms in otherwise healthy individuals and produces small, but measurable, decrements in pulmonary function. In adults, exposure to ETS at home and/or work was less associated with the onset of respiratory illness but rather with the aggravation of the symptoms and severity of existing bronchitis, sinusitis and emphysema."
The Surgeon General, in his comprehensive report on secondhand smoke, also fails to conclude that secondhand smoke is a cause of emphysema. He mentions that there is suggestive evidence, but it is not adequate enough to support a causal conclusion at this time:
&qu
Graham...I am a non smoker only interested in preserving choice
Smoking parents' kids have more asthma.
More become diabetics as adults.
More of them will smoke themselves and have an early death.
(Incidentally saving me a fortune in paying for their pensions and healthcare - which they fund 6 times over by tobacco tax).
Smoke on bozos - just not near me!
Discuss.
We now live in a dictatorship some people havnt woken up to that fact yet, but its only a matter of time. Personally I have no objection whatsoever to non smoking pubs, but have you stopped and asked yourself why smokers are being denied smoking pubs staffed by smokers. By an anti smokers reasoning in these circumstances smokers would not be harming anyone but themselves. There are black association clubs, muslim clubs, jewish clubs, polish clubs, all manner of clubs belonging to different races and religions but people who smoke are being denied a club of their own, WHY? because we no longer have freedom of choice under this current government, they dictate and ban they are the masters not the servants of the people they do not think that adults are capable of making their own decisions they treat you like children and idiots. This government does not represent the working class, it is immersed in snobbery, with a self inflated ego that dictates and bullies and fines people for doing somthing which is perfectly legal. The sooner they are out the better.
Hamish please take note:
From Dt Michael Segel, USA Tobacco Control Department
&quo
"This government does not represent the working class, it is immersed in snobbery"
Personally, I'm quite happy for the working class to graft away until they are 65 then drop dead.
It's all good.
(mild sarcasm btw)
Bye bye blairy, blairy bye bye.weapons of mass destruction, think you lie,lie,lieAnd WHO have allowed this many people to die because they were wrong.WHO will be accountable, as I have heard a million times one preventable death is one too many.Is this link true or all lies too. Worry about health, do not make make laugh. I have only found this out today. How strange when smokers have estimated figures banded around.
http://www.3billionandcounting.com/index2.php
Gordon(69) fact is i sa that coming with my crystal ball!! So obvious!! reminds me of those boring years not so long ago when herr Schumacher was winning every grand prix!!!!
Anyway for everyone proof of ventilation working:
http://www.tornex.com/solution_plugandplay.php
Hamish, Are you now saying that you as a non smoker are more entitled to health care then a smoker who has paid the same in tax if not more than you.I just hope you are never struck down with a chest complaint and gasping for breath, non smokers too develop emphysema, asthma , lung cancer etc etc, if you are born with a genetic weakness and predisposed to it it will develop whether you smoke or not
Graham 61Re Junkies - Indeed they do - including in PRISON where they are soon to be supplied with needles and whatever to ensure they don't get hep, hiv or aids whilst doing so AND BTW they can also smoke. Thus when they leave prison - which are you more likely to be killed by - a waft of smoke or a crackheadout on parole needing to mug you for fix money?
As for why there's no response to the solution put forward of separate venues - it's because the rabid anti smokers mind is too narrow to acknowledge that it IS the solution and too small to admit it.
#60--check out the web-site-DRUDGEREPORT.com,& read the story titled,"food police: NYC considers ban on trans fats in restaurants"what bothers me about the smoking ban & now the possible trans fat ban is they are dictating what a privately owned business can do.
Are the slta not a wee bit naive in thinking that people did not smoke in the home before the smoking legislation came in ! Also having been to scandanavia on many occasions I would suggest that the winter temperatures are not an obstacle to people going out socialising they simply abide by the law and leave the premises for a smoke and then return why should it be any differant here, the pubs are not empty! This legislation is here to stay live with it and work with it always remember the majority of peole do not smoke !
