So the grassing on the public is declining, GOOD,
This is a purge against the drinks trade .
I see hgv,s busses,post office vans, counsil vans.
all driving around town without the executives no smoking signs on them.the smoking police are a joke.AND DONT FORGET THEY HAVE NO POWER OF ARREST,and the police have said they will not respond to calls dealing with some one having a wee puff. LIGHT UP PUFFERS.

Have these people nothing better to do? No wonder council tax is so high!

reported cases have fallen because the "enforcement" officers run a mile when you threaten them. Give it a few more months and we will be back to where we were before this embarrising law was introduced.

Scottish law was once admired throughout the world,
take it from me, that's changing, fast.

What sad miserable lives the smoking police must live. I object to my council tax being spent on this nonsense. Meanwhile, cigarette sales have stayed the same and even gone up in some clubs while alcohol sales have gone down. The social scene outside pubs is great and we are joined by a lot of the non-smokers as pubs have become boring and very smelly without the smokers.

I too am a smoker unlike "40 a day" I do not advocate others should adopt the habit. I am glad that the restrictions are being imposed because i know we stink. It is nothing to be proud of being a smoker. I never look at myself when having a puff as I know how pitiable we look and the groups outside pubs look rather sad that they can't wait until they go home for a drag.

The smoking police should visit Hollyrood, I believe they still have a smoking permitted area in the building! Do as I say, not as I do, say the MSP's. Hypocrites!

John (5) why dont you quit?? Secondly are you really a smoker cos i dont believe you!!!! You sound to me as one of Maureen Moore's servants!!

WoodyG the smoking police sound like the biggest losers ive ever seen!!

Im sure the pubs must be the most boring places on earth with all the health freaks complaining about some random toxin in their beer(if even that i thought theyd be drinking still water(bubbles could be a health hazard!!))

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?

One thing i agree with you John(6) is why should Holyrood be allowed a smoking room when a pub cannot????

None i believe it should be the owner's decision what the smoking policy of a restaurant/pub/bar etc

sorry i meant to add "is" in there

Take a look next time you're at a hospital at the numbers of patients and visitors smoking at the entrance doors and you have to run the gauntlet through a thick veil of smoke. The worst site is the numbers outside the doors of the Oncology Clinic at the Western - no wonder the specialists despair at times.

#1 Its interesting that you choose "40 a day" as your "signature" - Are you proud of your ADDICTION? It's fair enough to criticise aspects of the law but aren't you encouraging others to smoke so that you feel better about your ADDICTION to nicotine....

"Light up Puffers" could translate as "c'mon lets all die young and take the non-smoking bar staff with us"....
In a single word - moronic!

Gary, our pc crowd would never allow such a thing since it contravenes the 'spirit of the law'.

Charles. 7.
I am a smoker. Who is Maureen Moore? Yes, I smoke in doorways. I would suggest this; Stand in the doorway, with your ciggie outside the doorway. That will confuse the police state officers.

Since the ban has come in i have managed to stop smoking - after 20yrs.
That has been 4 months since i last had a fag and i couldnt have done it without this ban. I have been out drinking and if there had been smoke everywhere i may have been tempted to join in.
The ban showed me how awful and digusting this habit is and although i know it is hard to give up- smokers must accept that they arent allowed to blow poisons at everyone else anymore.

40 a day man - get up to 60. You can do it.

RM. 14. With regard to health. 4 out of 5 cancers are not related to smoking. Therefore 20% is. Can you tell me what causes the other 80%?

17. William, Leith /im off to buy some more fags.
60 a day,i,ll give it a try.

John 16 sorry i meant the other John!! Dont wory you have a common name!! But yeah i share your views!!!!

Its perhaps one in every ten cancers that can be linked to smoking!!

what is next ?

No smoking under trees, clouds?

What difference does it make to man or beast if a smoker wants to stand in an empty doorway and have a fag?

Absolutley pathetic in the extreme.

What is this country coming too?

Calum. 13. Have you ever noticed Nurses; Doctors; Consultants smoking outside the Hospital building? I see them on a regular basis.

everyone should smoke. the smoking age should be reduced to 10 years old and be compulsory in bars.
the tax on cigarettes should be reduced to 1% and a self satisfaction tax applied to activia.

John #6 & Charles #9

There is not a smoking room at Holyrood now although there was one before the law changed.

IYDBI - phone them up and ask.

#19 - Sorry I'm not a medic but I believe medics say that 25% of fatal illnesses, not just cancers, are linked directly to smoking...... anyone can choose to ignore these figures..... "och its only 25% of the corpses - what are they making such a fuss about!"

#18 - "40 a day"and "light up puffers" sounds like taking pride in your own stupidity to me!

smoke smoke smoke

26. RM /What on earth are you blabbering on about man. take a break and give us peace. IF people want to smoke let them, you self important little brain washed snob.

The only reason people are being told to stop smoking is so that people can live longer and work longer.
It's my choice if I want to die younger. At least I won't have to work until I drop. I won't have to live in poverty. I won't have to worry if I can even get a pension. I won't have to worry about which old peoples' home I will have to live in.......etc

well i love the ban! I am a non-smoker and go out to pubs and clubs every weekend and love coming home not reeking of YOUR FAG smell! I chose not to smoke so why should i have to breath in your smoke? I already know 3 people who have quit since the ban came in as they dont like standing outside on their own to smoke.

I'm not a medic either but that is what medics are trained to believe these days. There are many factors in all so called smoking related conditions, both environmental and genetic.

The medics don't tell you that everybody dies of something, and that two-thirds of us exceed the age of 75 by the time we die (using 2003 figures). This makes it slightly ridiculous to assume that tobacco is a major cause in the deaths of most people. More like old age in combination with many other factors.

Also, if 25% of fatal conditions are directly related to smoking, that correlates with the 25% that smoke. This does not suggest to me that passive smoking is very dangerous, so the legislation is a little bit pointless.

i agree with gary - this is a law too far with little support despite the scottish executive's publically funded spin that it's a success - lets see how popular the politicians are after the coming winter when they're due for election - the whole lot of them will be unemployed!

According to the Report - Lifting the smokescreen
http://www.ersnet.org/ers/show/default.aspx?id_attach=13509
there were 13 estimated deaths of non-smokers in Ireland regarding second hand smoke exposure at work in 2002. Of these 13 non-smokers TWO (are estimated Hospitality workers).
SEE page 36.

Non-smokers so defined will include both never-smokers and ex-smokers. Any excess risk related to their previous smoking borne by the latter has been ignored for three reasons. First, the WHO database does not include a separate figure for the proportion of exsmokers. Second, the excess risk associated with previous smoking decreases with time, but there are few data available to define accurately the decay functions for the four diseases of interest, and most relate to cohorts established when non-filtered cigarettes accounted for a significant proportion of the tobacco market.Third, even if the decay functions were precisely known and current, applying them would require detailed information on when individuals had quit smoking, data that are also not readily available.
SEE Page 26

So maybe 2 ESTIMATED deaths, of non-smokers or ex-smokers will be avoided in the future. Do you still think second hand smoke is such a killer. That people who visited from time to time a smoky bar or restaurant are at real risk. I doubt it.

No fags Mags. Do you really think I would want to phone up the Scottish Executive to find out if they still have a smoking room in Hollyrood.
Firstly, I would probably have to be put on hold; then put onto different departments, to hopefully get through to the right one. Then, they probably wouldn't give me a straight answer, or they didn't know. Or they would just lie.

I would give up smoking but then I would become one of those annoying ex-smokers who prattle on about it when all they want is one lovely cigarette.

How many times do you see a drinker being sick in and outside a pub or club? How many times do you see a smoker being sick?
Which one is more disgusting?

When Scotland has so many other major problems -Diet , Lowly Paid jobs masking the problems in the economy, Alcohol and all the others - this seems a bit extreme.

I am sick and tired of everyone saying that smoking is linked to this and that illness!!!! if you look at the British medical councils website i challenge anyone to find definitive proof that smoking causes cancer etc....

don't get me wrong im not saying it's good for you but far too many things are blamed on smoking next it will be alcohol (which causes a bigger strain on the nhs and communities) but for a social drinker it will be hell when they raise the prices so much that it will be the wealthy who will enjoy it.

I know of a club in midlothian which was very busy pre march and is dying a death losing 1000's £ every week and when the brewary was tackled about it they put the prices up ffs

Only places that sell or provide food and workplaces should have smoking bans the rest should be left to the licensee to decide, i'm sure it would be evnly split for smokers and non smokers alike in the end

rant over

p.s. ive no doubt it contributes to a lot of illnesses but certainly no more than stepping out your front door.
as for passive smoking.....give me a break its a bit like we dont know what it is so we will blame it on smoking. Like the girl a few years back died of the human form of CJD but low and behold she had been vegetarian all her life!!!! let me think was that "passive meat eating"?

oh and check the picture out!!! was that taken on a Friday or Saturday night? cos in reality thats what pubs are like once you leave the city boundaries

I visited a patient in a ward of 6 people, and this person I was visiting had given up smoking 6 months earlier, we got chatting to the other patients and all of them had either given up smoking recently or knew someone who had and they all said the same thing. They had come down with illnesses they had never had before, since giving up smoking. Which makes me wonder, is this all a big conspiracy to get people to stop smoking, so they die younger, saving £billions in NHS; pensions.

Smoke is blowing into the pubs from the doorways and causing problems for drinkers. Perhaps what we need now is laws such as in San Francisco where smoking is not permitted within 15 yards of a doorway.

FASCISTS!!!!!!!!!

Since the smoking ban, I have stopped going out to pubs and clubs drinking. I've never been happier- I decided a few weeks ago "what the hell, I'll go out the once". and went clubbing. URGH! The whole venue reeked of vomit and urine. The most social area (and nicest smelling) of the club was outside where the smokers were!

Somebody smoking a fag is no where near as annoying as some drunken lout spewing their guts into the streets.

Y'know--- Hitler would LOVE the way the government are going right now.

#19 pig sick

From the Medical Research Council's website:

"Our success can be measured by the 23 MRC funded scientists who have won Nobel Prizes and by the major medical advances that have flowed from MRC research, such as the link between smoking and cancer".

# 33 Conny,Malta,
That death rate equates to 1 death in 323077 people for ALL the estimated ETS deaths and 1 in 2.1million for hospitallity workers, these figures are you say, 'Guestimates' so they are totally staistically insignificant and indeed as they are an estimate, not reliable.

The plain and simple truth of the matter is that you have more chance of being killed in a Road Traffic accident in the UK (1 in 1875 , 2005 figures) than by dying of a Smoke related illness if you are a non- smoker.

So Go Figure all you PC, Liberal, Middle Class Do-Gooder , 4x4 driving Numpties. Your are not part of the solution , so you must be part of the Problem, lets all have a big cup of extra strong black coffee a nice custom made cigarette followed by a hauf an a hauf pint. and then ban all motor cars from the road, after all with average speeds of 7 MPH in the Capital we would all be fitter for the walking and have healthier lungs as we wouldn't be breathing in first hand obnoxious exhaust fumes ;-))

They are having an event to mark 6 months of the no smoking ban?! Can I have 2 birthdays this year at the tax payers' expense?

#44 This Just in... and your point is caller?

No one denies there is a link between cancer and smoking, but what is tennuous is the supposed link between ETS and Cancer, even the WHO assert that the figures are statisically insignificant and if the figures from Ireland referenced by Conny, Malta are correct, would only go to enhance the WHO view, which of course was used extensively to promote this illegal Ban, in a very 'doctored' fashion by Black Jack when he done a U Turn on his commitment NOT to introduce a Public Smoking Ban, after his victory at the last Holyrood elections.

So my friends for the sake of humanity I implore you to not only make Scotland a Tory Free zone, but also make it a New Labour/Old Tory , Lib Dem Free zone come next May ;-))

....oh and isn't Andy Kerr, the Health Minister obese?

Boggle fey the Bog 47

That is exactly my point. NO SMOKING BAN is needed. There are greater risks in our life, than a bit of second hand smoke. But the ones which are so worried about, have to see, that there is nothing to worry about. But they are all brainwashed by the anti-smoking lies.

Most probably they get a heart attack for seeing an unlit cigarette, because of their unfounded worries.

Smokers are now becoming pariahs and not before time too. We have breathed in their fumes for long enough

There seem to be a lot of desperate people on this page..... .....desperately trying to justify their addiction.....

I know its hard to stop and that stopping itself produces problems with overeating, stomach trouble, etc..... And there should be more help on offer from the NHS....

If only they'd have the maturity to start their comments with "I know I should stop but.......... " instead of whingeing at those who have and glorifying their addictions as acts of rebellion... I can think of much better issues to rebel against but thats another story.

What was wrong with the comment I made?

smoking, drinking and enjoying yourself should all be banned. \never mind just from the pubs but everywhere

Scooby dooby doo

Since when is maturity characterised by following a PC line? This is not about justifying addictions, it is about airing opposition to a hare-brained policy designed to shame people into stopping smoking by ejecting them from comfortable social surroundings.

RM you may not like it but people do like smoking and so the POLICY WILL NOT WORK. We are just telling it as it is. And it is not only smokers who don't like the ban either. I don't smoke.

I think the smokers look quite pathetic having their puffs outside

i think you will find this ban will work and wont be lifted - ever.

the real benefits will be seen in the future generations.

#44 this just in...
I said where is the proof that smoking causes cancer etc? if you look hard enough you will find a link between almost any 2 things

GET A LIFE

PABLO

You have no idea what your on about. If you think the smokers are at fault for whatever reason then trace back to when they started the habit.....oh thats right the government and advertisers where ooooh tooo happy to tell you it was good for you as they where raking in millions from the revenue as for breathing in theur fumes!!!! wake up and smell the roses you breath a hell of a lot worse walking down the road

Since the ban came in I no longer go to pubs. I don't really see the point. I can have a smoke, a beer and do what I want at home.

I have to say, the whole line about denormalising smoking that was touted at the outset of this ban is clearly false. Kids out and about now see people on the pavement smoking everywhere. If anything it has normalised it because it is in your face everywhere.

50. R M / Are you as ignorant in real life or just when you are posting nonsence,no one has to justify
smoking to a moron like you or any one else.
You seem extremely paranoid about people who CHOOSE to smoke. I would suggest a wee visit to your doctor, calm yourself down chill out,if one chooses to smoke, turn the other cheek and look away, at the end of the day it is none of your bloody business.
MORON

Should be funny watching smokers 'smoking' in blizzards.

# 49 Conny , Malta, may I apologise if you thought the last paragraph of my post #45 was directed at you, I assure you it wasn't. I was reinforcing your view in the first paragraph and giving an open invitation to the PC brigade to get a life, in the last, Sorry for any confusion :-(

#58 Pablo S see my post #45, read and digest

#55 William,Leith, should they survive that long without getting cancer from motor vehicle fumes or killed in an RTA, or being sent to war by Black Jacks Westminster Masters.

55. William ... I agree with you, the ban will work. I moved to New York 10 years ago and own a bar in the East Village. When the ban was put in place over here 5 years ago I was up in arms along with everyone else. Sales were down 60%, a bouncer in a neighbouring bar was stabbed and killed asking a smoker to leave, we started getting fined for people talking while they smoked outside. All these things we put down to the Fascist goverment interfering in something that had nothing to do with them. Leave it up to the individual bars we said and let us get back to having a good time and making a little cash.

I won't say this too often but I now believe the powers that be got it right. After a tough couple of years every bar owner I know says business is better than before, most people enjoy the break from drinking going outside to smoke gives them, people can drink and breathe fresh air, the staff don't get sick as often and they don't have to go home stinking of cigs. As for the bars now smelling of vomit and urine I suggest going to a nicer bar or suggesting the owner of your local perhaps cleans it a with a tad more regularity?

Good for you Mr McGregor, An invite to another knees up at the councils expence.
I wonder how many will be standing outside the door having a fly puff.

Belinda 18.. Your statistics apply to the whole of the UK.
You will find as soon as you cross the border into Scotland your life expectancy falls to something like 65 if you are a male.. This is due to Scottish people’s love affair of eating lard filled food, heavy drinking and smoking and some unknown "Scottish factor"

I would love to have been a part of the latest household survey! I have lived in Edinburgh all my life and never been part of a Council's survey. Sheila Gilmore is talking rubbish. She will be campaigning in my ward for a seat come the elections - she can go and get stuffed. I voted Labour all my life NEVER AGAIN. How dare they criminalise smokers and take your money at the same time HYPOCRITES!! And as for Jack McConnell saying he is proud - he will have time to rethink as well.

The bars in Edinburgh lost my trade when the ban came in so the dogma police can do what they like.

But if they want to avoid a sore nose I would advise them not to target drunks in doorways having a fag ! You know it makes sense . . .

This is all academic.
The law is here to stay.
Those not happy would be better off in France

#43, Alison: Have you never heard of Godwin's Law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
By resorting to Nazi comparisons you have just lost the debate. Sorry, by rights this thread should now be closed, but I'll put in my tu'pence worth:

Smokers can huff and wheeze all they like about the smoking ban. The fact of the matter is that it is no longer socially acceptable to force other people to suffer just so you can enjoy a fag.

As for the "passive smoking doesn't really hurt anyone" argument. Well, like Mike in the article, I suffer from asthma (possibly because my parents both smoked). Thanks to the ban I can now enjoy a night out without having to suck on an inhaler and I can go to sleep afterwards without waking up again unable to breath with a stinking headache.

Clearly passive smoking WAS hurting me and I'm proud to live in a country that was forward thinking enough to take steps against it.

Pablo S. 69
Laws can be ammended in future, then you can go back to Spain!

Time the dirty smelly lot were sorted out.These people are a most selfish lot who think they can blow their smelly filth all over us all.Time to stamp it out completely.No smoking ...full stop.If you want to smoke do so in your own dirty smelly homes.

Graham Stewart. 70. Your argument is a bit weak, you don't become asthmatic just because your parents smoked. Also your headaches could have been self inflicted ie hangover. This is not a forward looking country; Scotland is becoming a dictatorship. It is a proven fact that alcohol consumption is more of a health risk than smoking. Don't be a hypocrite.

Re #6 - John
Sorry to dissapoint you but the smoking room at the Parliament was closed down 3 months in advance of the ban elsewhere. You can indeed see legions of workers and George Reid nipping oot for a puff!

This story should really read:

"Council loses money having hired extra environmental wardens that aren't making any money. Council to harrass soft targets in order to recoup losses."

The Evening News could really do us all a favour and separate council spin from reality. Lazily regurgatating council press releases isn't exactly doing the readers a service.

John. 74.
I'm not disappointed, glad there is no hypocricy. I bet they sneak into the toilets for a quick puff! Oops, wrong subject, that was illegal drugs they found in the toilet.
I hope they have a smokers Shelter in the grounds of Hollyrood, and it adheres to the correct design and positioning.

#73 John:
I'm afraid Asthma UK disagree with you:
"children whose parents smoke are more likely to develop asthma"
http://www.asthma.org.uk/all_about_asthma/asthma_basics/w...

And I know what a hangover feels like. But unless they started diluting the beer when then smoking ban came in then that wasn't the cause of my headaches or breathlessness.

Yes alcohol is a health risk, but if I have a pint at the bar I don't then regurgitate it and force you to drink it. (Not unless I'm very pissed anyway).

There is nothing hypocritical in it. I don't necessarily want to avoid all "health risks" - I just want some control over which ones I decide to accept.

#77 I certainly do not disagree with your sentiments but there should have been a CHOICE! The Landlords, Breweries, Bingo Halls, and Cafes have been forced by the Executive to enforce this stupid law. There could have been No Smoking premises and Smoking and then people would have made their choice where they wanted to socialise.

Graham Stewart. 77
Thanks for the link to the website. Interesting that there are lots of other reasons, "at the workplace"
So everyone avoid work as you could get asthma!
Also, the smell of alcohol from someones breath is disgusting.

To all those who have made anti smoking comments, please see #8 and advise what objection you would have to such a pub or club.

Let's say for example every 10th pub within any given area was exclusivley for smokers - all other pubs are non-smoking - what objection would you have to smokers going into a smoking pub - it does not interfere with you or yours in anyway; please advise why would you object.

John #79:
Selectively misquoting an authoritative website is a pretty poor way to conduct an argument.

It actually states that "irritants found in the workplace may lead to a person developing asthma"

And by "irritants" I don't think it means that secretary that gossips all day or the photocopier that keeps getting jammed.

You're right - the smell of alcohol on someone's breath is pretty revolting - but I don't think adding stale fag smoke really helps any.

#80 Gary: who would decide which pubs were awarded this monopoly?

I moved to Spain 7 years ago and the No Smoking Ban came in here 1st Jan 2006, you can still smoke in Bars and Restaurants have a Smoking or Non Smoking Policy it is up to the Bar or Restaurant Owners to decide what they want to do.
In general the smoking ban here is a waste of time and thank God for that cheap fags, cheap drink and plenty sun and no twats watching your every move while out looking for their Fathers

whinge, whine, moan, groan, bemoan, grumble, blub. Shriek, wail, yell, cry, roar, sob, complain, shout and denounce.

Pig Sick you are in denial which is why you are sick pal.

kevin #81 There already is a "selective recruitment policy" with regards to smokers. How many adverts ask for non-smokers only to apply? Is this not double standards?

Fug off....the lot of you whingers!

#80 Gary why not the LEGAL owners! This was not a democratic decision, it wasn't in their manifesto and I suspect if it had been we wouldn't have the woodentops we have got. The elections in May will see a massive backlash. We are fed up with being TOLD how to live our lives. When they bring in the 3 drinks in a pub (which has already been muted in parliament) and you won't be able to have a local anymore and that wasn't in the manifesto either and then MacDonalds, Burger King, Pizza Hut and similar outlets will be next as we are all eating unhealthily. So fatties beware after the drinkers you are next.

83 Ron why couldnt Scotland be democratic and leave it to the owners??

85 i believe the owner has a right to select smokers only!!!!

87. Patricia / Well said ,we are living in an undemocratic democracy run by new labour liars and bully,s.ALL THE SMOKERS I KNOW WILL NOT BE VOTING LABOUR EVER AGAIN.

How much are the so called 'Smoking Police' costing us? It would bmoney well spent diverting their costs to help prop up the NHS staff shortages

Rab (89) did you stamp your foot after you typed that?......boo fuggin hoo!

#89 Thanks Rab - and you know the most gobsmacking thing is that it was LABOUR that brought this law in. I for one will never vote for the Executive again. They obviously do not listed to their voters.

John (29) Oh yes you will, just look at the age our smoking generation are currently living to. Yes they are living so long now that they have outstripped their pensions. So much for smoking shortening your life...there is living proof that is a lie all around us.

Smoking's worst trait is the extortionate price,
In pounds and in pence only, I think.
Everything else is charming and nice.
It's fresh air and perfumes that stink.

The words of an incompetant blind ignorant oaf .Health Minister Andy Kerr, said: "So far, I've been really encouraged by the extremely positive response we've had for the smoking ban." what planet is this moron on. DONT VOTE LABOUR.

91. Ex Smoker/ Why would i want to stamp my foot ,you silly child.PAST YOUR BED TIME I THINK.

Did all the smokers that are complaining about the "undemocratic" smoking ban make their views known during the public consultation? Did they raise the issue with their local MP?

Anyway, what is so "undemocratic" about making laws that cater to the majority?

Simply that it is not what the majority wanted. No smoking ban caters for my wishes even tho I do not smoke.

Graham Stewart 97

The "Tyranny of the majority" will bring more laws, which targets other minorities, who knows, YOU may belong then to THAT minority.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Belinda, if that was not what the majority wanted then the majority must have kept very quiet during the public consultation.

Five out of every six people, out of the 40,000 that responded, were in favour of at least a partial ban (according to this Scotsman article: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1149502004 )

97. Graham Stewart, The majority were ignored by the executive, their own poll proves this as fact ,Have a look at the pub in the caption,this is what the ban has done to a once busy pub.

Go ahead and smoke...just don't exhale

Conny, wow, second violation of Godwin's Law in the same thread - albeit a veiled one this time.

Please! No one "came for" the smokers. They were just told they could no longer force other people to breathe in their smoke in enclosed public areas.

Funny how many smokers preach about their "rights", but conveniently ignore the rights of others.

You have the right to smoke if you wish. But you don't have the right to force it on me.

100. Graham Stewart, Yes ,a partial ban, but what the ignorant bullying executive forced on the public was a total ban , turning smokers in to criminals over night. by your own admision they ignored public opinion.A bad law by bad politicians

105. Graham Stewart, Edinburgh / waster, another andy kerr fan i think .OR just paranoid about pollution.

It should be up to each pub, club etc if they want smoking or non smoking in there place
i feel it for the people who have worked all there lifes and cant go and enjoy a pint and a ciggie in there local club, bingo etc,
bingos are closing down with the ban and theres a big report on bingo online, which of course will bring more gambling and debt

this country is becoming a joke , spend tax money on more serious issues
smokers get 50 quid fines, but you let your dog foul and they get 40 quid fine, does that make sense?
comon sense is all this country needs, but no they like to make life more misreable with stupid bans , i just hate to think what is going to be next haha

107. Gordon, People's Republic of Stirling / you are right gordon. AND It is a bad law by a foolish executive who are ,at heart coonsilors out of their depth.

Graham Stewart, sorry but Hitler was an anti-smoker. No doubt people who support bans will not like this parallel and we are not actually accusing anybody of mass murder. But it is one where people are expected to conform, and to reject and even inform on those who don't conform even. –

In Dundee foster carers are not allowed to smoke at home and so there are rules already affecting people's personal lives, and a snitch line. How unkind is that to stop smoking foster carers who already can't smoke in public with their friends, to create rules to stop them inviting their friends home to smoke – as a kind of reward for caring for children on behalf of the state. Regardless of the size of home ...

This is not institionalised violence as in the Hitler, it is institutionalised pettiness, engendering fear of our neighbours instead of an accommodating generosity where people are welcome regardless of their condition – and it is ILLEGAL to welcome those who smoke. How sad is that?

There is all the difference between a partial and a total ban. I would be happy without any ban really (not smoking).

Graham Stewart 100

Maybe you do not see it yet, it is only the beginning, as smokers already denied jobs, because they smoke.

A group (smokers) are singled out. Even if they maybe are more qualified, they are not even considered as an option.

Maybe this time it is the smoker, but tomorrow it will be the obese. The question is only, who is next?

Rab: the findings of the public consultation are here:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/12/20381/48206

80% of respondents said yes, they would support a law "that would make enclosed public places smoke free".

And 53% said there should be NO exemptions to this law. (Only 35% said that there should be exemptions.)

Gordon: no public consultation? Eh? Wasn't it the largest public consultation ever made in Scotland? It was all over the press, there was an internet site and leaflets in the pubs. Were you blinded by the smoke?

PUFFER: I'm no particular fan of Andy Kerr, or even Labour, but I do think the ban is a good thing and one of the best things the Executive has achieved.

109. dawn /It should be up to each pub, club etc if they want smoking or non smoking, you say .
This would have happened if we had an executive that was competant, but we dont ,we have idiots that will do anything to waste money on stupid smoke police and jobs for their pals in the tobacco control division at folyrood, who do not have any control over tobacco, [ but they liked the name]
new labour are a sham. DONT VOTE LABOUR

113. Graham Stewart, FUNNY HOW, I OR ANYONE I KNOW WAS NEVER CONSULTED. Who were the respondents out with the reach of mCONnell and kerr? banning things is not an acheivment you labour clone.

Another view, http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1425692004: depends who you ask, obviously. The ban is hitting hard in areas where there are large concentrations of smokers, and fewer economic options. In other words, as usual, hitting the poor hardest.

Rab and Gordon: so you weren't consulted? How can that be? Did they not show the adverts about the consultation on smoker's TVs then? Did they re-route buses to make sure only non-smokers saw the adverts on them? Did they cut bits out of your newspapers?

Were you waiting at home for wee Jack McConnell to come and ask you personally?

The consultation was open to the public. 600,000 copies of the questionnaire were distributed. It was widely available in pubs, cafes, libraries and other public areas, as well as online.

I managed to fill one in. So did over 50,000 other people. If you chose not to make your opinion known then you can hardly complain that the result was undemocratic.

It's fair to expect the govt to make a special effort to consult the affected population. My consultation paper came out of a chemist's shop. All the pubs I go to are wet led city centre pubs and I did not see a consultation paper in any of them. At a public meeting I attended recently in Fife only one out of the 200 or so people present had seen a consultation paper and they were all people with a direct interest in the licensed trade. We also heard of consultations being sent back filled in by one officer on behalf of the whole organisation but this was done without seeking the opinions of theirs members.

Graham (105), I hope you realise godwin's law was intended as humour and not as a defense of people imposing their will on others. As they say, the only thing wose than someone using the "N" word, is someone invoking the "G" law.

You ask what is undemocratic about laws catering for the majority. What is wrong is when those laws unfairly and unnecessarily restrict the freedoms of a minority. I think Churchill had something to say about that. Some people have described the no-smoking ban as "forward thinking". I doubt any kind of ban can be described as such, whether it's smoking, fox hunting or abortion. It's a crude solution.

Now we have smoke-free pubs, but the ventillation in these places is just the same. Where once we were warned about the air condition by the smell of tobacco smoke, now we are clueless. There's nothing like the warm damp air of an airtight Scottish pub in winter for the breeding of germs and what have you. And who would bet against landlords lowering the ventilation level now that there's no smoke. Look at the situation on airplanes since smoking was banned to see the likely result -- higher disease rates among staff and customers, probably due to reduced air-conditioning.

A forward-looking solution would have tried to create separate places for both smokers and non-smokers, and to have improved the air quality for both.

But I doubt the two side of this argument can ever be resolved. One side is viewed as a bunch of self-centered morons, and the other as being able to pack as much joy into an 80+ year life span as a Sunday sermon.

Brenda I am a little confused about the economic impact you speak of. I know no poor publicans so can you tell me, other than them, who is suffering in the workplace as a result of this ban? Because as a health professional I can tell you about the many people who have been able to work more effectively and take up posts in places they previously couldn't due to workplace smoking.

Dave

You make some valid points but sadly this law was not ultimately passed on it being the majority choice....it was, and still remains, a health and safety law to allow people to work in a smoke free environment. I didn't voice my opinion in the consultation because of personal choice (alhtough personally I prefer the current position) but because it was the correct decision to protect people in the work environment and to prevent jobs becoming unavavilable to people who can't work in a smoking environment

Other than them ... don't they matter? The ones I know of are in Fife and I know of a bingo hall owner in Lanark. They provide the social outlets for many smokers, they are suffering economically and are worried that their businesses will not survive the winter. This will leave a lot of people without social outlets and effectively more isolated. This is when people will lose confidence, and get lonely, and the local economy will become poorer in the meantime.

Why don't you expand on this theme a little and tell us about these health care workers? I thought most health care buildings were smoke free anyway?

But the Executive has no jurisdiction over health and safety. They have torn themselves to bits bringing in this legislation on the grounds of health. There were already HSE guidelines for this sort of thing.

I seriously believe that if people in the health profession were really excluded from employment because of smoky environments, more flexible solutions could have been found. For instance I know a social worker who works with adults with learning difficulties, and his clients are unable to smoke when he is with them: a situation he finds quite frustrating because he is a smoker himself, and when they could smoke together it brought them closer and they could work together better.

Belinda (sorry got your name wrong)

I AM a healthcare professional. I am suggesting that I see patients every single day in all professions who have had fewer hospital admissions, less time off work and thus increased productivity in the workplace as a result of this ban. Sickness is THE single biggest cause of lost man hours and revenue in this country and thus we are improving this by this ban. I also see many patients who have been able to take up posts in the service industry who could not have previously worked in these environments.

.....and I could bond with my patients over a few pints or such but ultimately I can provide my job without having to resort to this. I don't deny it would be mutually convenient for the example you give but they can't do it in an environment where there are others who may not smoke.

Gordon #120: I'm going to reply very slowly: the issue was important enough to me that I made sure I got a leaflet and made my opinion known. It wasn't very hard to do. If there were no leaflets available anywhere near you then you could have used the website.

Dave #121: Thank you for providing a more balanced and reasoned argument. I don't agree that bans can never be forward-thinking. Several people here are using "ban" in a very negative context and claiming it is "infringing their rights". You could argue that people's rights are infringed by bans on child-labour, slavery and wife-beating - but yet these bans seem remarkably popular!

A ban in itself is not always a bad thing.

consultation , ha, nobody i knew received any paperwork or got asked there views,

we are not having a choice , but goverment clearly happy to take money etc,

what are they doing about people drinking themselfs to death, i heard they are thinking of limiting each people to a maximum number of drinks in pubs then stopping selling to you
but they are happy for kids to be sold fags and alcohol in the little corner shops
i thought this was a country to be happy to be in , we had a choice haha well day by day we are losing our voice then it will be to late, BB

I don't think it's possible to get rational comment from drug addicts deprived of their fix.

It's an addiction. It's really bad for you. Get treated, and stop trying to force others to breathe your toxic exhalations.

Sad gits.

Aylene (123), I don't follow you're logic. You seem to be saying they had to pass the law because if they didn't they would be breaking another law. Why not just change the other law?

That aside, what you describe as a correct decision, I would describe as a cheap decision. A law to address the air quality in the workplace should address exactly that. It should prescribe the air quality that has to be maintained, i.e. maximum levels of nicotine and other dangerous substances in the air. And if a pub can achieve that by using a good ventillation system or by opening the wndows, then fine.

As to whether all workplaces should be given the same levels of health standards is another issue.

I'm sorry Dawn but I have to agree with Graham that there was consultation, information provided and means to make one's views known. I think it was very widely reported in the very publication whose website we are on right now...... and in media outlets all over the country.

You heard it was coming long before i was actually made law.

Re Alcohol.....there is a safe and acceptable way to drink which does not impact on others who choose not to.....unlike smoking around others. I agree we have to do more to prevent the damage caused to the users of excessive amounts of alcohol and those who suffer as a side issue.

And last time I checked there are laws re underage purchasing.....so we are not "happy to let them be sold alcohol and fags...."

If you think you are losing your voice......get involved in the process and change it!

Dave

There is no acceptable "maximum" level of nicotine to adhere to in air quality so i don't see how ventilation could work. Ventilation was tried and was never proven to work.

I welcome everyone's right to get involved in the law making process. If you want to change the status quo get active and do so. If enough people want to change it .......they will. Im sure some french boys did something like that a few years back......some kind of revolution they call it.......

Brian (130)....... hee hee.....I await your dressing down.....

Why not? I am a non-smoker and would have no objection to working with a smoker under those circumstances. In fact I would find the requirement on a client not to smoke in his or her own home a severe nuisance to our professional relationship. I suppose I would be expected to report them to some authority if they transgressed the ban?

I know there are people who mind smoking and might have difficulty saying so, but don't accept that their (hypothetical) need automatically over-rides that of the smoker.

Smoking with clients isn't a matter of 'resorting' to anything. It's a normal mode of social intercourse (clumsily put perhaps but there is nothing contrived about it).

Graham (128) said "You could argue that people's rights are infringed by bans on child-labour, slavery and wife-beating - but yet these bans seem remarkably popular!"

I fell into that one, didn't I? Thanks for the reminder.

No acceptable level of nicotine? Like no acceptable level of sunshine before you get skin cancer? Going out for the morning paper in January is as dangerous as sunbathing for ten hours in July in Tenerife?

Aylene
Does this mean, your workload has decreased, as less admission occur and you write less people sick since the smoking ban?

Gordon #132: I don't sit around waiting for consultations either. However this was obviously a very important issue for you. The smoking ban and the consultation were very widely publicised, surely you must have known about it? Yet you didn't respond because there were no leaflets in your local and no one came round your house? That seems a pretty lame excuse. How hard did you really try?

Here is an example article from the BBC at the time the consultation was announced:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3781003.stm

It gives links to organisations representing both sides of the argument (Forest and Ash) and a link to the SE website which offers telephone numbers to call for copies of the questionaire, an online version, downloaded versions to print, and an email address to respond to.

Like I said, it wasn't hard.

No, they didn't individually mail everyone in Scotland. As you pointed out, that would have meant over 5 million mails and a huge expense. It wasn't a referendum, it was a consultation. Your opinion was sought and you did not offer it.

But Belinda if i suffer from asthma and the client smokes in my working environment I am being forced to work in what is a hazardous environment to me.

I don't care if people smoke themselves silly but I am entitled to do my job in a safe environment.

And to all......is it impossible to get through the working day without a fag? (ducks down under the parapet of sarcasm)

Conny

Yes there has been a change in the demographic of patients becoming ill since the ban.

Sadly the biggest improvement has been in the smaller group of people who get ill through exposure not direct smoking.

But before anyone suggests it hasn't reduced smoking, there aren't long term figures yet as we are only six months in but the Smoking Cessation Service in my area has had record numbers of referrals, attendance and rates of cessation...... only time will if my anecdotal evidence is translated into hard figures

132. Gordon, IGNORE GRAHAM. he is an ass , and probably cant understand life as we know it, he and his ilk want to control people ,just like his incompetantl, useless , new labour liars and bullys,

Aylene

Today's electro-static air cleaning systems are very state of the art and high tech, there are brands, which will remove 99% of particulate down to a 0.01 micron particle size, and then use a carbon afterfilter to remove odors.

So 99 % is still not good enough? Ventilation does not work? When and from whom were these studies done and financed? And with what kind of ventilation system?

Im sorry Belinda you seem to suggest there is an acceptable level of nicotine recognised. can you tell me what it is in PPM?

Conny

I couldn't tell you who funded the research but Im happy to concede the point to any clinical study or case report which shows reduction in morbidity and mortality with the use of filter systems.

142. Graham Stewart, Edinburgh /GET A LIFE YOU SAD GIT,YOUR COMMENTS are pathetic. YOU ARE PARANOID.

DONT VOTE LABOUR

Aylene, do you have asthma? It is one thing having asthma and another thing not liking smoke. If you don't have asthma I don't know why it should worry you unless you feel the law should be applied as if all health workers have asthma.

Some people find it hard to go through the working day without smoking. Why should that bother you either? You don't know why they are doing it, and it is not really your concern. It is not unlawful and is taxed.

As for the consultation, in the early days of these issues not many people catch on to what is really happening, or they hear things and people say, 'it can't happen here'. People in Ireland say they sleepwalked into the ban. Then when the reality hits them they take stock. Just because they weren't up-to-speed before doesn't mean that they are not now entitled to feel annoyed at certain aspects ... such as the fact that jack told us before the consultation that he wanted to have an allout ban because he was so impressed by his day in Dublin ...

And if ventilation did work.....why aren't we using it? I don't know but I'm guessing the lack of evidence for it and people not willing to invest in it may have been part of it. I genuinely don;t know the answer but til someone gives me the answer I KNOW that no smoke in public areas does work!

Yes I do have asthma Belinda but why should that make a difference. I also look after many people with a variety of these conditions and I feel Im entitled to go out into the workplace and do my job just like anyone else. We have equal working rights for people with disablitlies, maternity rights etc... why is this different? Are you suggesting that i have less right to that than someone has to their right to smoke in the workplace?

PS I agree that people are entitled to have a fag if they want to and its none of my business.....until i have to be subjected to the smoke. In their own space, home......go for it. I have never suported outright ban of smoking. It wouldn't work and would not sit well with me.

Rab #145: Either debate a point or keep it schtum. No need to insult me because you have run out of answers.

40 a day #149: Likewise. Paranoid? Hardly. I'm not the one suggesting the consultation was a fix and that the latest research into HIV is a conspiracy by anti-smokers!

And I don't vote labour, but thanks anyway.

Conny...I can go a bit further than you to 99.7% with the latest pure scientific approach called Plasmacluster Ion Technology. This will deactivate cigarette smoke turning it into water molicules. It has been proven to work on H5N1 Avian Flu and SARS viruses and is now fitted into Toyota and Nissan car air conditioning systems. It might soon be available in Malta as I have passed the information on to the Malta Standards Authority.

Cost about 260MTL

The equipment is also endorsed by the Asthma Society of Canada and the National Asthma Council of Australia

http://www.sharp.ca/products/ion/

http://www.jama-english.jp/europe/news/2005/mar-apr/peter...

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=25784

143. Aylene / put a bag over your heid,you are not a very tolerant person and should not be in the job.
I feel very sorry for the people that you have to deal with. [you squeek,]But Belinda if i suffer from asthma, boo hoo ],who cares about you or your illness. i dont.

In PPM I can't tell you but the table below is based on information from OHSA (US health and safety authority). It goes down the page instead of across unfortunately but I am sure you can work it out. Basically it gives the output from cigarettes of each chemical, the safe level and the number of cigarettes it would take to reach it in a sealed unventilated room. Numbered 1 to 4 for ease of reference:

1. ETS Component
2. ETS Output
(mg/cig)
3. Safety Limit
(mg/m3)
4. Cigarettes
Required

1. Methyl chloride
2. 0.88
3. 0.30
4. 1,170

1.Acetaldehyde
2. 1.26
3. 180.00
4. 1,430

1. Nitrogen oxides
2. 2.80
3. 50.00
4. 1,780

1. Phenol
2. 0.25
3. 19.00
4. 7,600

1. Benzene
2. 0.24
3. 32.00
4. 13,300

1. Dimethylamine
2. 0.036
3. 18.00
4. 50,000

1. Benzo[a]pyrene
2. 0.00009
3. 0.20
4. 222,000

1. Polonium 210
2. 0.4pCi
3. 3pCi/l
4. 750,000

1. Toluene
2. 0.000035
3. 375.00
4. 1,000,000

Bill

I await seeing you make your millions with a similar product.......good luck......

Im all for it once it becomes economically viable.

Conny, yes there may be sytems which filter 99% and this sounds very effective but how long does it take to remove it? I suggest quite along time. The extractor fan in my bathroom (and I know it's not exactly the same thing) takes 15 mins to process all the air in the room. Meanwhile what happens to all the smoke from the people standing next to me puffing away? Much of it will be going straight into my lungs I suspect before it gets to your filter. What you say would be fine if you entered the room half an hour after everyone had stopped smoking.

40 a day....Belinda and i are having a reasoned debate and will never actually come to an answer....thats the beauty of reasoned and sensible argument and debate

You however are clearly not capable of reasoned debate, argument or even sarcasm which is th elower form of wit.

But if you want my answer at your (from what I can tell childish) level...... we who got involved got our way...... nah nah nah!!!!!

Bill 155

Thanks Bill, this is good news.

If they 99.7 is still not good enough, then surely this law was not implemented to protect non-smokers (as always claimed), but to harrass smokers to quit.

160. 40 a day, well said ,pal gs is a joke.

I just don't think your asthma should affect the working and social relations of those people not directly affected by it. I am not trying to exclude you or people in your postition from employment, but how does it help you that people can't smoke in pubs up and down the land that you don't go into, or that people can be sacked for smoking in hospital grounds?

Conny..here is another interesting link

http://www.acsh.org/news/newsID.1271/news_detail.asp

It is further proof of the lies being presented by Governments anf Health Authorities

Julian,

see figures above, the smoke is not even dangerous as the OHSA demonstrates.

161. Aylene / 10 WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU ON ABOUT. NAH, NAH, NAH,

Aylene....no need to you can buy off the shelf in Currys Superstores or online. You have been conned by the Scottish Executive and ASH

Oh and 40 a day I'll be the one you come to if you are gasping your last on your 40 a day looking for help cos you feel so awful. But I'll not hold it against you. And thats why I am in the job.

I'm off. Have to get up and go to my smoke free work environment in the morning(sarcasm from me!) Thanks to all for the debate.....long may it continue.

Bill, your plasmacluster filter sounds very impressive and is obviously suited to filtering out smoke particles from outside when you are in a car but how does that help you when someone is puffing away either side of you in a pub? Are you also implying that all the research on passive smoking is wrong and that there is no risk?

By the way Aylene the price in the U.K. is only £400.00

Julian...the unit will work inside as well covering an area of 320 square feet. I think taht would be enough for most pubs

161. Aylene / READ THE TRUTH IF YOU CAN READ A January 4, 2006 column by Audrey Silk, head of NYC CLASH (Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment), not someone with whom ACSH usually sees eye to eye on smoking issues, quotes ACSH president Dr. Elizabeth Whelan and late ACSH Advisor Sir Richard Doll:

Any claim that exposure to exhaled or sidestream smoke poses a threat to life is "indisputable" is false. There are studies and scientists who dispute it strongly. When New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg claimed his ban would save 1,000 workers' lives, the president of the American Council on Science and Health, who vehemently opposes smoking, wrote, "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." Dr. Richard Doll, the scientist who first linked active smoking to lung cancer, said in a 2001 radio interview, "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."

These statements, among many others, are based on the results of studies that found no long-term health risks, and even on studies that claim to find risks, because the science is so weak.

Julian...there is no scientific evidence to prove that Passive Smoking is anything other than an irritant that can be controlled and removed by Ventilatiob, Air Filtration and now pure science.

Belinda, your figures certainly raise some questions. I am surprised that there are so few chemicals in cigarettes...I thought there were a lot more. What size was the room that the experiments were done in? Also, presumably the smoke was very evenly dispersed. The toxicity of the chemicals (like ripples on a pond) will diminish exponentially the further they disperse, ie. the smoke in a room from someone standing 10 metres away is probably (and i'm guessing now) hundreds of times less toxic than someone standing 50cm away.

Here is a solution that has been working for several years but has been ignored by the Scottish Executive as they claim that a Ban is the only way for Scotland

http://www.jicosh.gr.jp/english/guideline/Smoking/index.html

Julian The room size was 30 ft x 30ft by 9 ft high

If you want to see other examples of tests go to http://www.faac.ca/ventilationsolutions.htm

Bill, i'm sorry to disagree but apart from the fact that some studies have linked passive smoking to lung cancer etc. I just can't believe that passive smoking is only an irritant and not harmful. If you accept the fact that smoking to any degree is harmful then how can inhaling the smoke passively from the end of a burning cigarette or from a person's exhalations not be potentially harmful. I know from years of going to pubs and clubs that at the end of the night my clothes smell like an ashtray. What hope therefore do my lungs have when they are actually drawing the very same air towards them. I know your filtrations systems would probably help but they're not going to eliminate it.

Gordon, thanks. I feel now that I have reached the top of the social ladder having helped disperse all you smokers out into the streets. I'll be sure to toss you a few coppers the next time I leave the pub. Don't forget to bow before me.

Bill, I've got nothing against designated smoking areas in the workplace but i'm not so sure about pubs and reataurants etc. 30ft square is a big room. I'm guessing you could fit 250 people into that. Can you tell me where and when they measured the level of the toxins in the room and how and at what points in the room they released the smoke?

Gordon, I apologise. Your comments did imply that you were a smoker.
Here is my correction.
Gordon, thanks. I feel now that I have reached the top of the social ladder having helped disperse all those smokers out into the streets. I'll be sure to toss them a few coppers the next time I leave the pub. They better not forget to bow before me.

Julian (182), you say you can't believe that passive smoking is not harmful. I can understand your position. After all, there's "overwhelming" evidence available all over the net. Surely smokers can't believe all this research is biased and unsound?

But if you want to get a glimpse at how smokers feel when bombarded by "evidence" and "facts" from BIG-anti-tobacco, take a look at the site below. If you think all the evidence on the page is biased and unsound, then you can perhaps understand how smokers feel.

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm

Julian (185) the Spanish have got the best idea!! yeah it works i believe like you say for the workplace(DSRs).

For bars and restaurants theres a a two level system!! Bars and restaurants of 100sqmetres can be either smoking or nonsmoking whilst those over can create separate areas. All this comes with an air quality standard.
And property rights and democracy are safeguarded as the owner decides whilst the workers CHOOSE where to work- those asthmatics or smoke sensitive wont obviously work in a smoke filled environment!! And likewise for chainsmokers(which im not)!!

Dave(187) the problem is these days were bombarded by so much anti-propaganda!!
The reason is a long story!!

But thats a good site you got!!!!

OMG !! If all us smokers and i say IF ?stopped smoking ??..... God help the rest of you in having to make up for the loss of revenue in tax !!...............

Aylene (126) I'm sorry i cant let you get away with this.! You state.... "I am a health care professional, i am suggesting that i see patients every single day in all professions who have had fewer hospital admissions, less time off work and thus increased productivity in the workplace as a result of this ban." Really Aylene??? prehaps you would like to tell me ( also a health care professional) what medical conditions there were fewer admissions for as a result of this ban?? The admission rate in the hospital i work in was round about the same, admission rates vary for a number of reasons e.g. time of year, flu viruses e.t.c. so yes i would like you to specify what you have had a reduced number of admissions for. Also as to the "time off work" you referred to, there again there are a number of reasons e.g. one of the biggest causes of time off work is reported to be "Back problems" and R.S.I's . It was highly unprofessional of you to make such a statement, unless of course the hospital where you work has done a detailed study, which they cant have because to get an accurate result the study would have to be done for a longer time period than this so that all factors involved be taken into consideration. Lastly i have to point out that not all people with Asthma react to cigarette smoke, and if you are a health care professional you should know that. Asthma sufferers react to different things e.g. a friend of mine who has asthma reacts to certain pollens and heavy road traffic and some air freshners and perfumes but has no reaction to cigarette smoke. My friend cant always avoid these things but does not advocate to have them banned.!!!

marknyc 64
You wrote: "When the ban was put in place over here 5 years ago I was up in arms along with everyone else....."

The ban in New York City went into effect on 30th March 2003.

This is not 5 years. Are you telling the truth? Or is your little story made up?

Julian

Of over 150 studies around the wrld, they all came to the same conclusion that there was NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to link Passive Smoking with causing Cancer. There in some cases was slight evidence but who is to know if gene strain or other outside influences such as outdoor polution had a causal effect.

Aylene The ban in Scotland has been in place for no more than 6 months and you can somehow present details of lower work absenteeism. This is amazing as even the biggest liers in the country, the Scottish Executive have not presented this information yet...I wonder why when they are normally first to present such false statements.

OK i'm a smoker who has put up with the smug non-smoking alki's comments when going out for a fag, i just canny wait till the pc people get thier way and we're all limited to two pints a day.
just think of baa baa rainbow sheep

To all who are so statistic needy....at no point did i offer up any because I was expressing what was my experience in practice and i didn't suggest it was. Also I have no doubt you would choose to ignore the figures i gave you anyway which are available in our hospital interestingly and do show a reduction in respiratory illnesses in smokers and aslo some local GP work which shows less sick time requests in the same group.

And at the end of the day Im not that fussed if you don't believe me. I'll just keep treating people each day regardless of their choices.......but I will continue to try and educate people on what i believe to be god health promotion......the two are not mutually exclusive and should never be so.

PS 40 a day.....don't think I'll tell any of my patients to try the paper bag over the heid just yet.....unless you have some data on it

oops that was meant to be "good health promotion"...."god" health promotion something very different and defintely not one im getting in to!!!!

Dave #187:

Okay, assuming that the forces.org website is all true: that passive smoking is in fact completely harmless and all research that says otherwise is some kind of organised campaign of propaganda.

Then who is organising this propaganda and what are their motives?

The Tobacco Industry is worth hundreds of billions of pounds and is heavily taxed (both at the consumer and at the business level). It is a good source of revenue for our government (and many others), so why would they want to damage it, if it wasn't really causing any harm? What do they gain?

This question is worth asking. I suggest:

1. Perceived harm of tobacco to smokers (the evidence of this is more compelling although it doesn't make everybody who smokes ill ).

2. Pharmaceuticals lobby for controls on any kind of substance which people use as self-medication, because they can always market an alternative: in this case nicorette patches.

#3 "Scottish law was once admired throughout the world, take it from me, that's changing, fast." - Thanks for you authoritative view on the international opinion of Scotland's legal system.

In terms of the smoking ban, I say your opinion is utter nonsense.
All my friends and colleagues here in Derby are quite envious of the Scottish smoking ban and look forward to its introduction in England (& Wales) next year.
I have heard similar from friends in London, including those who smoke.
Many of my Scottish friends who now live abroad look home with pleasant surprise that Scotland has leading the way and wish it would be introduced in their country soon.

Belinda:

I hadn't thought of that angle. You could be right.

According to a study in 2001 by the tobacco giant Philip Morris, the higher mortality rate and shorter lifespan of smokers means they actually save the government money.

The report said that Czech Republic saved about $147m in 1997 as a result of the deaths of smokers who would not live to use healthcare or housing for the elderly.

BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1443098.stm
Copy of the Philip Morris report: http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/Philip-Morris-Czech-Stu...

So the pharmaceutical inductry may well be better off when people don't smoke.

But the government is much worse off. The ban loses them votes and money, so why would they support it?

Perhaps the pharmaceutical industry is good at persuading them that they don't lose money, and that there are real health gains?

well well! I wonder why nobody was getting hysterical about smoking before all this bloody hoo-hah was started???? The next victimisation, demonisation and public hatred campaign will be......... wait for it......... drinking, obesity, chip eating, chocolate cake eating etc etc etc! How wonderful it will be to live in a place where nobody smokes, nobody drinks, everyone is fit, we all work until we are 100 then we retire to start backpacking round the world! oh what fun we'll all have!! I don't know who will pay our old age pensions. Im sure we'll be producing kids in labs who will be bred to work to provide for us all. All that will be needed is a couple of donor eggs and donor sperm to be frozen for use when we feel like it. The first child born to a person in their 90s will be on the cards before long and we'll all have a clone made of ourselves for organ donation.

George Orwell didn't realise it at the time but his novels 1984 and Animal Farm will be hailed as the new Bible.

The amount of hot air being blown by the asthma suffers on here could run a small power station. Have you all contacted HMG - it could be very profitable for you - who needs an inhaler!!!!!

HAPPY DAYS KIDDOS WE'RE ALL DOOMED!!!!

Graham (200) and Belinda (201)
The goverment does'nt lose money as smoking bans do not reduce the number of smokers, indeed as has been shown in Ireland it can actually increase numbers of smokers as the "forbidden" seems to attract some people. Some people do try to give up with the Nicotine replacment products, but usually fail and go back to smoking and then will try again and end up repeating a cycle which allows both the goverment and the pharmaceutical industry to profit from their misery.

Aylene (195)

People with Respiratory conditions (smokers and non smokers) always have less acute exacerbations in the spring and summer months.! So your figures (if you have any) are meaningless.!!! I repeat to get an accurate result , it will need to be studied over a longer time period. Meanwhile stop insulting the intelilgence of everyone with your Drivel.!!

Henry (203) in 1992, executives at Philip Morris circulated a memo entitled "Impact of Workplace Restrictions on Consumption and Incidence".

The memo states that "Total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly affects [tobacco] industry volume. Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11 per cent to 15 per cent less than average and quit at a rate that is 84 per cent higher than average".

So the tobacco industry certainly think a ban makes people quit.

Also to address your point in #204: I'm sure the medical community is well aware of seasonal variations in respiratory conditions. Is it not possible that they are comparing figures from this summer with figures from previous summers? I agree it needs to be studied over a longer time period before meaningful conclusion can be drawn. But calling the early anecdotal evidence "Drivel" is a bit strong.

Recent evidence in Ireland is that smoking is on the way up again, after the two years of their ban, prompting Action on Smoking and Health to raise taxes on tobacco products.

So they don't necessarily lose out. Smuggling is another factor. Also does anyone know if the tobacco companies supply the nicotine used to make patches?

wow, the pub that picture was taken in, really really shows how much a success the ban is :lol:

Belinda, I haven't seen any of these figures for Ireland, do you have a link? I'm sure Henry will point out though that there are seasonal variations in the number of smokers so it may be a bit early to judge the long term effects.

martin, I know it's great isn't it? A pub in the middle of the day and there is still plenty of custom. In fact a report in the "Irish Journal of Medical Science" with the snappy title "Smoking, Occupancy and Staffing Levels in a Selection of Dublin Pubs pre- and post- a National Smoking Ban" showed that there was an 11% increase in custom in pubs following the ban.

(208) 4 customers does not equal "plenty of custom"

"Irish Journal of Medical Science" well, it must be true then.

martin, if you don't believe a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal then do you have any alternate figures to hand?

Even a spokesperson from the Licensed Vintners Association conceded that "in the past six months there had been 'strong stabilisation and growth'"
( http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2006/07/04/story7514... )

Anecdotally, I haven't noticed any down turn in the pubs near me. They seem as busy as ever. I'm sure a few traditional "old man's pubs" have suffered, but on the whole there doesn't seem to be that much difference. To me anyway.

--

Belinda, I think I found the figures that you mentioned, in an article in the Irish Examiner:
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2006/01/06/story2541...

There does seem to have been a minor upswing recently, but if you look at the data on the Office of Tabacco Control website you'll see that the level of smoking is still lower than in March 2004 when the ban was introduced.
http://www.otc.ie/fig.asp?image=fig_1.2.jpg

graham (210)

its not that i dont belive it, it is the " a Selection of Dublin Pubs " that instantley turns me off from reading it. any medical science group is going to be biased against smoking and the 600 irish pub closers certainly makes me belive not is all as well as it would seem.

Graham 210
That minor upswing is a rise every month but one over 15 months and shows smoking prevalence after two years of social destruction to be only 0.5% less than when the ban came in.
Pub companies, brewers & even tobacco companies are unlikely to lose out.
People and communities and individuality are the losers.

Henry #204 I am referring to numbers compared to the same period over the last two years. Im not comparing summer to winter. And I stress again the point that I never suggested that this was anything other than experience, anecdote and short term findings.

You seem to be intent on misconstruing my opinion and thoughts. I stick to peer reviewed science for defintive proof and so thats why I haven't quoted any here.

My position is my own. I treat my patients regardless of their choices but still try to educate them on what has so far been proven to be good health promotion. Whether they accept it or not is up to them and doesn't influence my treatment. And I resent any inference that it makes me unprofessional.

Martin, okay, do you trust The Scotsman more?
"Pub sales soaring despite ban on smoking"
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=551632006

This quote seems particularly relevant to the original story on this page:

"Our figures are up on this time last year. That could be partly due to the ban. We haven't had any negative impact, apart from the fact that door staff are suffering from passive smoking due to people hanging round outside."

The Irish trend apparently showed an increase in business in city pubs, but closure of some rural pubs.

--

Chris, yeah it's not great. The difference between Feb 2004 (month before the ban) and June 2006 (last available month) is actually 1%. That's not brilliant, but it is still a significant decrease.

The Irish government hasn't increased the cost of cigarettes in any recent budgets and as a result they are now cheaper in real terms. That could well account for the upswing. It will be interesting to see what the future holds there (and here).

...actually Henry, on second thoughts I don't resent it because your opinion of me bears little relevance to my day to day life and you are just as entitled to yours as I to mine. In other words......I couldn't give a rats ar*£e!

There are many others opinions who do matter to me and i'm sure they would concede on many things (and with a few drinks in me) i can indeed talk drivel!

graham (214) your link was posted 2 weeks after the ban, try this one instead http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=663&id=124405...

That is th plan for the future, how other nicotine products shall replace cigarettes.

Very interesting!!! This explains why pharma industries sponsor anti-smoking measurements, that they can reap later the profits.

http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/3/161

Interesting martin. That does seem damning, though they don't say what the trend was before the ban, so it's difficult to judge how bad that "11% decline" really is.

I notice that a bar owner and prominent member of the Aberdeen Excise Licence Holders Association dismissed the SLTAs findings, saying they were altered by the World Cup and warm weather:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/5278438.stm

And as Henry was keen to point out earlier, six months is a little early to judge long term effects.

Gordon, fair enough, if you are noticing changes in your pubs then I can't really argue with that.

For what it's worth, I can see that some pubs suffer, particularly if they have not (or can not) provide suitable facilities for smokers (like outside areas, heaters etc).

But I don't think that trend will last. There will be an adjustment as things settle down and the pubs that were relying on 5 regulars, who all smoked, are forced to close. Then it will be business as usual for those that remain.

Not sure I understand your last comment though: do you believe the murders and drug dealers were somehow caused by the smoking ban?

Altered by the world cup- if anything trade is more likely to be higher then!!

With freedom of choice spanish style this would be no problem!! IE when owners not busybodies decide!!

graham(220) maybe therell be an adjustment given therell be much fewer pubs!! Of course theyll be forced to close down as the government removed the owner's choicce to accomodate smokers by their fascist decree!!!!

If choice is returned nobody loses out!!!!

Graham, I am sorry to burst your bubble but I too suffer with ashma. Cigarette smoke does not bother me at all but car pollution fumes do in particular diesel which also makes me go dizzy and feel sick. You must also have read this in the Scotsman recently
http://news.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=1178382006
Facilitaties for both smokers and non smokers should have been the answer, everyone would have been happy then including publicans. there is absolutely no such thing as clean air in this country and never will be whilst we use the dirty fuels that we do that pollute the atmosphere. Stop worrying about cigarette smoke it oxidises easily, the same cannot be said about cars and lorries.

Charles, if you read the article he said that "The World Cup is not good for pubs as it's on television and not on Sky in the pub" - hence the lower numbers.

Gordon, There are always more pressing problems. Do we ignore the little problems because of the big ones?

Donnie, my bubble is intact. I'm sorry car pollution brings on your asthma. That sucks. Different irritants affect different asthma sufferers. I'm still glad the ban allows me to go to the pub without feeling ill.

For what it's worth, when I responded to the consultation I emphasied heavily that I thought smoking rooms, with no staff allowed inside, were a preferable solution.

Anyway - goodnight all.

Graham 214
Glad you see it as 'not great'. The june figure you mention is, just like the March one only 0.5% below that of June 2004, 2 months into the ban. The figures published earlier in the year showed that smoking in cars had dropped less than in Britain and so had smoking in the home. Surely this goes to show that total bans are maybe not the best response to the perceived problem.
Better progress can be made through using carrots not sticks. A much mis-quoted source used by ASH to support a total ban also states "that more progress is likely to be made without the need for intensive interventions." but they ignore that bit
Anyway, I would have answered earlier but I walked through the mist and drizzle to the warmth of my village pub to meet friends. There was the regular group 9 of us (7 smokers). We arranged extra funding for the Christmas lights, a quiz night for the RLNI and another for the South-west Hospice. We don't raise a lot of cash but we make the effort to support good causes in our own small way. It all helps.
Since we're all worried about the ban and its likely effect on pub and village life the discussion turned to what would happen next year. We realise that we won't get the numbers into the pub to make our efforts worthwhile so 'enough is enough'.

A couple of points:

Graham Stewart: nice to see you are a genuinely thinking person and I have a couple of points to make in relation to your comments.

1) You said that someone does not inflict their alcohol on someone else unless they regurgitate it. Not true, alcohol comes off people's breath and evaporates from their glasses into the room. It's key ingredient - ethylalcohol is a class "A" carcinogen.

2) I had to laugh a couple of days ago when someone drew my attention to an article that the EU is now actually considering introducing a "passive drinking" initiative. They are a little dumb though in that they seem to have missed the point I've made in 1) and are going to work on the basis of the damage that alcohol causes to others in terms of accidents, violence etc although this does also cover the effects of drink on unborn children. They now also claim that alcohol causes as many deaths as smoking which I personally am very amused by as soon we shall hear many very self-righteous non-smoking drinkers moan themselves silly.

marknyc: what precisely do you mean when you say the ban in New York is a success? I have in front of me a list of some 120 bars and restaurants which have closed since the ban and that list is two years old. I understand from NYCClash that more bars and restaurants have closed since. It's going to be very interesting too to see what happens too with the Executive's decision to ban transfats. That's going to cause major, major problems. Also, has Bloomy yet succeeded with his intention to ban perfume in all government buildings? New York doesn't sound like much fun to me!

To all you pro ban lobbyists here is a sharp warning. I can confirm that Inland Revenue VAT Returns for the first two quarters since the introduction of the Smoking Ban have dropped 40-50% within the hospitality sector. This will, when taken as a national figure result in either increases in taxation in other areas or a cut-back in services, probably more hospital jobs lost or hospital closures. All this in the name of HEALTH

I agree with Henry (I think) and Donnie with Asthma. I worked with chemical in the printing trade for 25 years, fumes were bad, but I loved them ( bit like the smell of tar or glue ) I have always smoked, I had asthma for a few years when we had hasters and a chinchilla. Never got asked what job I was in ( although I kow that was not the cause) only if I smoked. Spent ten minutes getting a lecture, got my inhalers. Once I became bad I lost my tolerance for lots of other things. Have not had to use inhalers for years. But last time I went to the pub I was gulping like a goldfish with someones perfume. So I find it strange how asthmatics are going to enjoy all the perfumes and aftershaves, so should it be you use them in you house, but not around others Hmmm.
Do not suppose the antis on here worry their car exhausts are in line with Children in buggys or people in wheel chairs, or people who ride bikes Nah. Hypocrites

Chris, I definitely agree that those smoking prevalence figures from Ireland aren't exactly startling. But it's probably worth remembering that the stated aim of the ban (in Scotland at least) was to protect workers and other people from passive smoke. Any reduction in numbers smoking is purely a side effect.

Also the population of Ireland is around 4 million. So, unless I misunderstand, even a 0.5% drop equates to 20 thousand fewer smokers.

Your events in the pub sounds good. Surely they are one of the things bringing people into the pub? Cancelling them because you don't think people will come to the pub seems like a self fufilling prophecy.

--

John, thank you for the compliment. It's good to debate with intelligent people who make interesting points. Those who resort to vitriol and name calling do little to persuade me.

1) I'm not a chemist or a medic, so I'll leave that debate to the experts. But I've certainly not seen any papers suggesting that "passive drinking" is a major cause of cancer. I would have thought the concentration of ethylalcohol in the air would be too low to pose a serious danger.

2) Drinking is not without it's social problems - granted. However the vast majority of people can enjoy a drink without harming anyone, whereas smoking in an enclosed space is proven to be harmful to everyone present.

--

Bill, a 50% drop in revenue across all hospitality? That is a huge figure! More than four times what even the SLTA were claiming and far worse than any other country has ever seen post-ban.

The pubs round me certainly don't seem to have half the business and the hotels, restaurants and cafes are as full as ever.

--

Mandy, my points on asthma were made to illustrate why I (and others, like Mike in the article) personally feel health benefits from the ban.

Smoking (passive or otherwise) has a proven link in the development of asthma and other respiratory cond

Graham, a few people, mainly smokers, work very hard to make things happen and attendance at our small events is limited by the size of the community.
ASH & Cancer Research UK describe smoking as 'The Unwelcome Guest'. The NHS says 'If I smoke I stink'. I think we've got the message. The self-fullfilling prophecy is their wish. If you want our effort you will have to accept us warts and all. Designer societies can't have it all their own way.
Our pub provides for smokers and non-smokers (as long as they are not too manic about that rogue carcinogen chasing the pure and vulnerable to a certain death). Non-smoking visitors keep coming back.
As far as protecting the employees and tolerent non-smokers is concerned they have been given no choice. Many accept smoke as a part of life and don't regard it as any real danger. They could be absolutely right since all the damning evidence comes from individuals and groups who have been charged with the task of ensuring there is evidence.
In the real world there is little danger from a bit of smoke when you've been at sea in attrocious weather conditions rescuing some idiot from their drifting yacht or you've seen brave colleagues die trying to help the foolish.
These measures are totally out of proportion to the supposed dangers.

Chris, I meant that if your local pub is precious to you, which it certainly sounds like it is, then surely you'd be better off supporting it with your custom and continuing your events, rather than abandoning it and blaming "the evil ban".

Regarding your other point about evidence:

Surely there can be little real doubt that smoking is harmful? Even the tabacco companies themselves acknowledge this (the article I mentioned above, where Philip Morris list the economic benefits of a high mortality rate in smokers, is a pretty cynical example of this).

No one has "charged" the Medical Science community with the task of finding "damning evidence" against smoking.

Realistically, what shadowy group is in a powerful enough position to influence the results issued by organisations such as the World Health Organisation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Royal Society, the British Medical Association and every prominent medical research centre and scientist?

My wife treats people every day who are crippled by COPD, or dying from heart disease and cancer. And many will still splutter "You doctors blame everything on smoking" till their last wheeze.

In "the real world" there is plenty of danger from "a bit smoke". It may not be as dramatic or apparent as a drifting yacht on a stormy sea, but it kills people just the same.

If you decide that the pleasure that you get from cigarettes outweighs the long term health issues, then that is fair enough. All I ask is the benefit of the same choice.

Graham Stewart #230

Reducing levels of smoking may be only a 'side effect' of the ban, but if the levels of smoking remain level or even go up, surely the levels of so-called 'passive smoking' can't be expected to drop.
Unless all the smokers are now smoking in isolation???

232 Graham
Nobody says smoking is not harmful to the smoker. But there are a lot of people, who smoke and do not get sick. This is also a fact.

What is questionable is, whether passive smoking is harmfull.

If your wife treats people, who are sick, how many are NEVER smokers and what is the average age.

And maybe you have missed to read my previous link, what the end goal is.

http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/3/161

The last sentence is the best:

The third phase includes a progressive reduction in the nicotine content of cigarettes, with clean nicotine freely available to take the place of tobacco as society’s main nicotine source.

If third phase is reached, the pharma industries will sell their nicotine replacement products.

That is why all the studies which are funded by the pharma industry will always show a harmful effect.
Because otherwise they cannot harvest the fruit for their investments.

And these so called studies are based on questionaires to recall how much somebody was exposed during a life to second hand smoke.

You suffer from asthma an say most probably because your parents smoked, but can you recall how many cigarettes were smoked in your presence?

And if you say yes, then please tell me also what you had daily for breakfast, lunch and diner. How many apples or vegetable you ate during this time., etc. If you cannot, then you know how accurate the information of these studies are.

My father smoked a lot. I cannot remember him without a cigarette. And to be honest after almost 20 years I still miss the smell of him. For me he did never stink. He did not die because of smoking. He died because of a complication after an appendix operation. This was his first and only visit to a hospital in his live and it killed him. My sister and me are not asthmatics or have any alle

232 Graham

And of course I can understand, that the average person does not question the statements about passive smoking, when health authorities, like the WHO, Cancer Research, etc claim the ill effects of passive smoking.
But is it not also frightening, that the same WHO after 30 years (Malaria has killed an estimated 50 million people during this time) http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=..., changes its opinion about the use of DDT and making a U-turn. And now recommends the use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) to reduce the number of infections caused by mosquitoes not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa.

Maybe in 30 years, we will hear from them as well, that on the passive smoking issue they were dead wrong, if we are still alive, as cancer will be still around, even if nobody smokes. Because then they have to find another scapegoat to blame for all the cancer cases and heart attacks (It will be most probably obesity!)

Belinda: yes, the number of people exposed to passive smoke and the amount of smoke to which they are exposed should both have already decreased quite signifcantly, as people are no longer exposed at work or in enclosed public areas.

If, for some odd reason, the ban in Scotland doesn't follow the same pattern of reduced smoking levels that other places have seen, then I still think there will be massive drop in the levels of passive smoking.

The only increases I can envisage would be from greater amounts of passive smoking in the home/car and greater amounts between smokers.

Conny, have you read the full text of that paper? It contains a suggestion that future policies should consider the use of "clean nicotine" and nicotine replacement therapy to break the dependency cycle on tobacco-based nicotine.

It is the opinion of eight reseachers and hardly evidence of a global conspiracy from pharmaceutical companies.

You can buy 105 Nicorette gums for about £15 at Boots. If "they" were going to organise a worldwide conspiracy then wouldn't "they" do it for something a bit more profitable, that people had to take for the rest of their lives, rather than a couple of months?

You seem to have a pretty low opinion of how medical research is carried out. They don't get one person to fill out a questionaire and then base their findings on that. They look for patterns and trends in large numbers of people.

Yes some people can smoke all their lives and be fine. That's great. Likewise some people can take herion and be fine too - yet it is generally accepted that it is bad for you.

The purpose of medicine in general is to offer patients the best care that they possibly can, based on what peer-reviewed evidence currently suggests is the best practise.

Regarding the WHO: I'm not too familiar with the issue, but what exactly was their U-turn after 30 years? Did they ever recommend against the use of DDT for internal residue spraying, where no other alternative was viable?

In fact, in 1998, after the United Nations called for restrictions on POPs, the Who said "there will continue to be a role for DDT in combating malaria, particularly in the poorest endemic countries."
http://www.who.int/malaria/docs/WHOpositiononDDT.pdf

Importantly though, they haven't suddenly decided that research was wrong and DDT is okay after all, which is what you imply. They simply say that in some p

Hello again Graham Stewart and thanks again, in turn, for your compliments.

1) With regard to the issue of passive drinking there were properly conducted studies a while ago which purpoted to show that the amount of class "A" carcinogen contained in alcohl vapour in pubs exceeded the class "A " carcinogen in the tobacco smoke by some 500 times. I shall try and dig out the references for you.

2) You are plainly rather taken with the notion that environmental tobacco smoke is some deadly carcinogenic substance although no properly conducted study has shown it to be so despite the claims made by the anti-smoker lobby. Yes, it is certainly the case that on the back of certain studies the authors have tried to claim their findings indicate danger but the problem for them is that their epidemiology does not match their claims. Many of the relative risks cited do not even reach the first weak epidemiological level of concern at 2 (or 200).

Epidemiology, which is the most popular tool used, is not science it is statistics, however, one of the dangers to the progress of their knowledge that many people have in these circumstances is the over reverance they place on "scientists" and medical "authorities". We can also learn to dissect these things ourselves for it is not rocket science and well within the grasp of the well motivated person of average intelligence.

As reagrds ASH, I am afriad I have caught them out too many times in providing misinformation and for me they are a mendacious and dangerous organisation not to be trusted at all. Just take their misinformation regarding economic damage caused by smoker bans to commence with. There is most substantial damage contrary to their propaganda. In addition, there are many large question marks over many of the claims regarding drops in the number of smokers and the tobacco companies continue to make handsome profits.

If you want a quality websi

You would think wouldn't you that the Scotsman would take up the mantle for the Publicans, Bingo Halls, Restaurants. The only time there is this much response is the highly emotive one of banning something. Why doesn't the Press question the Executive about this? There is so much evidence that they were lying after all. I quite agree with the previous post about ASH a very dangerous organisation but then any organisation that advocates banning is dangerous. To tell outright lies to get their own way is despicable! Jack McConnell will live to regret this decision. Are the Press scared to question the lies?

It is not only eight opinions of some researchers. It is interesting to whom these researchers belong and the competing interests some of them have.

And in the paper they write:
...NRT is not known to be attractive to non-tobacco users and for most tobacco users who use the therapy, premature discontinuation is common, with use longer than six months occurring in only a small percentage of persons who initiated treatment. However, it is telling that among people who successfully quit smoking using NRT, extended use (that is, 6–24 months) is more frequent (10–20%), suggesting that extended use may benefit many people. This suggests that increased smoking cessation might be promoted by efforts to enable more people to use NRT for LONGER PERIODS, such as with more attractive products and more flexible regulatory policies governing use. There are a range of options for product modification and regulatory evolution which have been discussed elsewhere and these include making products and their allowed uses more attractive to enable more ready compliance and tobacco abstinence.

So the goal is extend the approved period of use. There are people who take nicorette gum since years.

The research on passive smoking is not a MEDICAL research, it is EPIDEMIOLOGY. But I just see that John has already mentioned it, so I do not explain this again.

Yes the WHO was against the use of DDT. How many lives could have been spared, if they would have changed their opinion earlier.

Thesehttp://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3339who_oks_ddt.html

The World Health Organization's announcement Sept. 15 that it will back DDT spraying on the inside walls of houses to kill or repel malaria-carrying mosquitoes is very good news. The reversal of WHO's 30-year policy against DDT brings the hope that the relentless disease, which now kills one African child every 30 sec

Hi John,

1) I look forward to reading them.

2) Dave mentioned the forces website in #187. It's good to get both sides of an argument, but I find it a bit overly zealous to give it much credibility.

In particular the conspiracy theory that "big pharma" is behind anti-tobacco "propaganda" and influences the results of health studies across the glove, so that they can sell nicotine replacement theapy, seems a bit far fetched.

You might enjoy these quotes "Cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other serious diseases in smokers. Smokers are far more likely than non-smokers to develop diseases such as lung cancer. There is no such thing as a "safe" cigarette."

"the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places"

Those aren't from some anti-smoking zealot site. They are from Philip Morris, "one of the largest tobacco companies in the world, producing many of the world's best-selling cigarette brands".

If there is a credibility issue with anti-smoking data then why are they not challenging it?

--

Pat, "any organisation that advocates banning is dangerous"? Really? As I said earlier, bans are not always bad. The banning of slavery, child labour and wife-beating are largely held to be positive steps.

Oh deary me Graham you should really get a life! Slavery? Child Labour? Wife Beating? A bit extreme don't you think? I believe that in parts of the world these are still happening particularly in Scotland for the wife beating! Banning does not work. But then that's because there is not a 3 drink ban in the pubs and alcohol causes more wife beating that someone having a cigarette ever did.

Thank you 238. John,

A couple of specific post regarding ventilation and "alleged hazards" of secondhand smoke are found at these links:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/12/ventilation-n...

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/american-canc...

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/02/air-quality-t...

The more we get these test results ACS and SLP above to lawmakers the more likely we can get smoking bans reversed, because they discredit the rationale (justification) for smoking bans altogether (no health hazard = no smoking ban).

Also interesting to read

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.html

This page also gives a short description how to read epidemiology studies and to value them.

He explains it very well, so a normal person without a University degree can understand it.

But unfortunately our politicans do not read these things, because they are busy "micromanaging" our lives.

Vote labour out before they do more damage to liberty!!!! Thats not in the puritanical "holier than thou" self -righteous arrogant ASH style!!!!

http://bureaucrash.com/blog/vodcrash3

check this out anyway!!

Graham you must have been imagining it was from Philip Morris- unless pm make the nicotine for the NRT products!!

Charles, those quotes were lifted directly from the Philip Morris website:
http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/PMINTL/pages/eng...

Oh and by all means vote labour out, but don't forget that the ban received fairly unanimous cross-party support.

Perhaps the Publican Party, if they make an appearance again?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4309019.stm

Graham, I've seen all the Philip Morris stuff as have many people and this latter company gives the impression it will bend over backwards like a harlot in order to survive. Moreover, it is very strongly rumoured to be supplying Glaxo with its nicotine for its NRT. Whatever, but the only people who take seriously what Phillip Morris says is Philip Morris. It is interesting too that whilst the anti smoker lobby likes to describe the tobacco industry as liars at every turn when it comes to Philip Morris quotes then that's just fine. One is reminded then of the Cretan paradox "all Cretans are liars" hence, following the rhetoric of the anti smoker lobby itself nothing Philip Morris says can be believed.

Now, come now, to dismiss an organisation like FORCES by stating that it is too zealous to give it credibility is not the mark of an intelligent man. One must consider what is actually said and presented in order to form opinions. What in fact you indicate there is your own bias and an unwillingness to truly consider anything that conflicts with it. Moreover, FORCES has one of the best evidence archives in the world and you have plainly not even ganced at it. Moreover, you need to learn the basics of epidemiology in order to know how to interpret it otherwise you will forever be in thrawl to what someone else just says. Conny above has given you Dave Hitt's website reference and Hitt's lessons are excellent.

Er, why is it far fetched to consider the desire of parts of the pharmaceutical industry to sell NRT to be a motivator behind smoker bans? The 3 largest funders of the WHO are Glaxo, Novartis and Pharmacia and Upjohn- all major purveyors of smoking cessation products. Others are Phizer, Merck and Johnson and Johnson. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is cash supplied by Johnson and Johnson and this foundation is one of the leaders in America for funding anti-smoking research (also now, anti alochol). Go on to RWJF's site and ty

I've split this post into 2 for easy reading so to continue.

Graham, the anti-smoker lobby is one of the most twisted fanatical and mendacious in the world and will go to any lengths to achieve its ends on the basis of the end justifies the means. Oh, I'm not talking about the well meaning honeys and upstanding citizens who provide the cannon fodder but those who set the policies and pull the strings. It's now big business. Now, I'm going to invite you to honestly and sincerley challenge your preconceptions by going here:

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/

this is the website of Dr Micahel Siegel, a noted tobacco control advocate who has become disillusioned with his own movement. Yes, Siegel still believes some of the codswallop about the dangers of ETS, but, even he is alarmed at the excesses in which the tobacco control lobby has indulged. Go to this site Graham, read through or at least scan through Siegel's archives and take in the damning catalogue of lies and excesses that Siegel lists and criticises. Take the trouble Graham and go there with an open mind and then tell me if you think this is just some nut of "over zealous" person who should not be taken seriously.

You may like to get involved with some of the blog conversations too - there are many fine posters and by interacting with them you will learn a lot.

By the way as promised I did some digging on the alcohol thing and have found one of the articles I was looking for at the BMJ's website. See McFadden's article here:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/330/7495/812#105082

Lastly Graham, if you want to take in some of the evidence regarding the underhanded activities of the pharmaceutical industry go here:

http://www.zero-risk.org/

This book used to be a free download - although not any more unfortunately. However, you can read what it's about plus reviews and comments.

Wow John, that's a lot to respond to. Okay...

You say Philip Morris just say that because they are rumoured to supply nicotine to Glaxo. Okay, how about:

"Gallaher acknowledges that tobacco products are unique as it is clear to everyone that there are health risks associated with smoking. People who choose to smoke are more likely to contract certain diseases such as lung cancer, heart disease and other circulatory and respiratory conditions, than non-smokers."
Gallaher Group (B&H, Silk Cut etc)
http://www.gallaher-group.com/faqs_smoking.asp

"Along with the pleasures of smoking there are real risks of serious diseases such as lung cancer, respiratory disease and heart disease"
"Over many years, epidemiological studies have consistently reported a much higher incidence of certain diseases among smokers compared with non-smokers."
British American Tobacco (Rothmans, John Player etc):
http://www.bat.com/OneWeb/sites/uk__3mnfen.nsf/vwPagesWeb...

"Statistics show that smokers are far more likely than non-smokers to develop lung cancer and certain other diseases. This conclusion is based upon epidemiological studies.."
Imperial Tobacco (Lambert & Butler, Embassy etc): http://www.imperial-tobacco.com/index.asp?pageid=64

As for the Cretan paradox: true, but likewise smokers choose to believe tobacco companies when they denied the health risks, but now choose to ignore them.

Forces.org: Well I have read through some of the articles on the website. Some have more credibility about them than others. For example they dismiss the recent research showing a statistical li

More...

The alchohol thing: yep, very interesting. The whole page is worth reading in fact, as is the paper that they are responding to "Estimate of deaths attributable to passive smoking among UK adults".

It's a good example of an active public peer-review process, as I mentioned earlier.

Mr McFadden raises the point about alcohol in the air only to make a point about the smoking ban. He dismisses the risks as "below consideration by any rational person".

I also tend to agree with Dr Lee, who says "Logic dictates that if cigarette smoke is harmful when inhaled into the lungs of smokers then the same smoke when inhaled into the lungs of non-smokers will also be harmful."

There has been some talk on here about ventilation systems and I agree they may be a very good option in quiet pubs.

However, if I'm elbow to elbow with a group of smokers in a busy city bar, as was often the case before the ban, then any conditioning system powerful enough to stop their smoke reaching me would also likely suck my pint out of my hands.
I don't doubt that the anti-smoking lobby is fairly fanatical. There are always zealots on both sides of any cause. An enclosed smoking area would do better - which, as I said, was what I requested when I replied to the consultation.

And finally (I really must stop posting to a four day old debate!)..

Regardless of scientific evidence one way or another, I have personally benefitted from the ban. I can once again enjoy a night out in a pub without the smoking making me feel ill. I can wear the same jacket the next day without the reak of stale fags following me around and my shirt won't have holes in it from clumsily gesticulating smokers. All this actually matters more to me than the long term cancer risk.

A straw poll of friends and workmates suggests the overwhelming majority consider the ban to be a good thing. Even some of the smokers amongst them.

I support your right to challenge the law and demand a referendum on the ban, but I sincerely believe that such a referendum would uphold the ban.

Finally, it is always emotively described as the "smoking ban". Yet in reality no one has actually banned smoking and the sale of cigarettes (as they did in Bhutan). Nor have they banned smokers from coming to the pub.

The law simply states that you have personal choice and you are entirely free to ignore current medical advice if you wish. But in doing so you must also respect the choice of others by displaying the simple courtesy of stepping outside.

Is that really too much to ask?

Thankyou for your time. I have enjoyed our discussion. It is always interesting to consider the other side of an argument. And "lang may your lum reek"... but just not too close to me please :)

Well, I am going to add a couple of final points Graham.

1) Firstly, most smokers do not choose to believe the tobacco companies - most with a serious interest do their research completely independently.

2) Secondly, with all due respect, I am not impressed that someone who supports these issues must be right because they are a doctor. I've caught out many doctors during this debate and many do not have a cogent grasp of many of the key issues and seem to play with the epidemiology to suit themselves. With regard to the current craze in the medical profession regarding ETS many are making their professsion look extremely foolish by trying to attribute all illnesses to it in some way or another. I watched the House of Lords debate on this issue and one medical gentleman said "trust us we're doctors". He then went on to describe cotinine as a pollutant. Another repeated the James Repace nonsense about it takes hurricane force winds to remove ETS from a room. Yes, I should certainly trust these people (I don't think) as their knowledge is appalling. Moreover, the other great myth is that all doctors think ETS is dangerous: this is simply not true, fortunately, as it shows there are many that can still avoid being carried along by the popular trend.

3) You "dare say" that the anti smoker lobby is extreme at times? Plainly, you didn't take much note of all the issues dealt with on Siegel's blog. But, these things take time to read.

4) NRT is largely costly nonsense and if you go to NICE's website (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) you will discover that even they, tracking users of NRT for one year only find a between 3% and 6% success rate. After a year the rate drops even further and the ineffectiveness of NRT has been tracked by other sites too. This, I'm afraid, is more convenient guff pumped out by medics and the anti-smoker lobby and particularly the pharmaceutical industry that wants to sell the

Lastly, with regard to those tobacco company comments - those you have quoted have referred to primary smoking. No-one denies that for some people primary smoking is a calculated risk although it isn't for everyboody and there have been listed some 42 coefficients with regard to the causes of lung cancer for example. However, if adults choose to smoke knowing the risks that's their choice and they pay excessively well for their privilige through taxes on purchases (£8 billion). In addition, the govenment obtains handsome rewards from the corporation tax on the profits of the tobacco companies (at least another £8 billion). Total £16 billion. Considering that the "estimated" cost of treating smokers according to the Department of Health is £1.7 billion then where would the treasury and the NHS be without the other £14.3 billion?

However, the key issue is about ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) or secondary smoke as some people like to call it. That this is a deadly toxic substance has never been proven and as I said before there is major medical fraud going on in this area which I could describe at great length, but the blog restricts it, and this involves making outrageous claims which are not supported by the supposed evidential epidemiology.

Yes, I have enjoyed interacting with you too Graham and there is nothing wrong with continuing with a blog after others have left it. In fact, some of the best conversations take place at those times.

It may be a four day debate but did you see Brian Monteith's piece today. I have said that I wouldn't vote for the Executive ever again but if the Publican party stand then they have my vote!! As Brian says the anger runs very deep.

Patricia: which version of the paper did you get? The online version didn't appear to include any mention of the Publican party, only comments about stereotypes: http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1443132006

Graham (251)

Philip Morris print anti-smoking messages on their website because they are forced to under the settlement agreement they made for protection against lawsuits.

No-one denies that smoking is bad for health, it is passive smoking that is in question and real science shows that to be completely harmless, the anti-smoking movement therefore use the 150 epidemiological studies on the subject that show nothing to any scientifically recognised standard. It is not the 'scientists' who misuse these studies, it is special interest groups; this is why we suffer daily health scares in the media about everything from sunshine to light bulbs.

You are very naive if you believe a research company will not be biased by a client who spends millions with them. The ban is worth billions to the Pharma industry; they sponsor the anti-smoking movement; now if Pharma walks into your office with a huge cheque and says "we are launching a new quit smoking therapy next year, ask lung cancer patients how much smoke they were exposed to", you are unlikely to say no.

These studies are not widely 'peer reviewed' in the scientific community; all of them ignore known confounders, some tout causation from low ratio's with widths containing 1 and none have shown a risk to any recognised standard.

Finally, I'm very happy that you can enjoy nights out now but I'm unsure why you feel you have the right to smells of choice in someone else's pub. Would it be right for vegetarians to have meat in a burger bar banned because they didn't like the smell or were worried about a perceived risk from the carcinogens it produces? Would it be right for the people who enjoyed burgers to be forced to eat them outside while having to leave their drink inside?

Graham(251) cont.

What about a vegetarians rights to smells of choice? what about their right not to have to wash their clothes after a night out?

You seem to have the attitude that your rights to smells are more important than others and you completely miss the fact that it is the owner who has the right to decide; you only have the choice whether to enter or not.

Contrary to your belief that smokers still have a choice; they do not. Throwing them outside to partake in their social activity is not choice; smoking and non-smoking premises would be choice. The anti's will not back this however because it has already been tried in thousands of pubs and they just weren't popular.

#257 I bought a copy of the Evening News where Brian Monteith wrote about the Publican Party. I did notice it was not on the online version. Apparently they are going to field on all 8 regional lists. Good Luck to them as I said they already have my vote.

I am sure I looked at an early edition of the News and the second part of the article was not there. I did not even notice it was missing until somebody pointed it out (because I had been at the meeting of licensees referred to and had been sent a copy of the original piece by Brian Monteith). Well I am glad that it did make one of the editions anyway!