Oh aye? Smoking enforcement officers may just find the "power" of Highlanders clamping down on them and their fascist masters.!!!

I smoke and I always use ashtray/suitable disposal bin if one is provided. However, when the smoking ban was being proposed, it seems there was no thought to any of the obvious results of this. Simply bad planning is part of the problem.
No different to the piles of rubbish outside BurgerDonalds.
Provide enough places to dispose of cigarettes and ALL other types of rubbish and we are in with a shouting chance.
The enforcement offices I would really like to have a run-in with....what exactly are they going to do and how will they do it?

Why not give the enforcement officers a black bag and they could pick up the litter.

#3 When the smoking ban was proposed, there was a great deal of thought given to this, which is why you see wall-mounted ashtrays and cigarette disposal sections in bins all over the place now.

Dropping cigarette ends is just like anyn other littering - if there is a bin, use it; if not, take your litter with you.

§5 Duncan, Aye, true, but these are all (as far as I am aware) paid for by the owners of the business that the ash-tray located by. No provision was made by those who made the law.

I do agree though that littering is the same whatever the matter disposed of. I just wish there were more places to dispose of litter and that they were emptied often so as not to spill onto the surrounding floor.

#6 agreed SS. But it drives me mad to see people, often older folk not kids, taking the cellophane and silver foil off their fag packet and dropping it on the ground, then smoking one and dropping the butt on the ground, when all the time there is a bin right next to them. Happens at the bus stop next to where I work all the time. I once challenged an old guy, who had literally dropped his cellophane wrapper right next to the bin, and he headbutted me.

It does not matter how many bins, etc. you provide. There will always be some moron who throws his litter on the ground.

If litter wardens were in place and around they should have the power to impose on the spot penalties, I would suggest the minimum be £100. Then you might make a start in cleaningh some of it up. Until the mind-set of the morons changes however the problem will never go away.

A lot of smokers (not all) would walk a hundred miles for a fag but won't wlak ten feet to put the fag end in the bin

The SE should have paid for ALL the bins, they have made legislation that is very difficult to comply with, and that has cost many businesses a substantial part of their takings into the bargain – demoralising thousands of people is not the ticket to a clean and tidy country. Agreed not everybody uses bins but that applies across the board not just to smokers.

Robert @9

That was succinctly put and well done. As an ex smoker I can tell you that your statement is spot on. But I can also tell you it's an addiction, just like coke, heroine and alchohol and needs to be treeted accordingly, with a modicum of compassion. However, littering does get right up my nose...........

Of course nicotine is a n addiction but littering certainly is not.
#6 a few ashtrays, bins am sure cost a lot less than ventilation systems, tio install, run and maintain
How come in SE Anglia there are more people wanting to get into the pub industry than there are pubs if things are so bad here
http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&st...

I notice receptacles on the outside walls of the pubs etc. in Glasgow, and I thought these were obligatory throughout Scotland. If they are not, then they should be.

Debbie,

You really ought to think before hammering away at your keyboard.

On Monday I ordered an air purifier for my home office. It is capable of scrubbing the air clean in a room continuosly. It arrived on Tuesday morning, took me ten minutes to unpack, five minutes to set up, and about two hours to clean the air in my office. I leave it on continuously as it is so cheap to run. The model I bought is capable of cleaning the air in a room three times the size of mine and it is doing a fantastic job. The cost? £399 including VAT and delivery. The benefits? Truly clean air, a fresh smelling room, and most importantly, the wholehearted approval of my wife.

The air in an unventilated pub remains decidely dangerous due to the naturally ocurring 400 plus carcinogens that were there long before the ban. What are you doing about those? Just because you cant see them, doesnt mean that they are not there.

It has taken me three days to prove to myself what I have been writing about for almost a year.

Ventilation works.

Debate over. No need for a ban.

If nicotine is addictive that means people won't give up and as far as I am concerned the government should pay the expenses this imposes on licensees by its legislation.

Colin I am delighted for you and your wife but I still don't want to sit in a room where there is environmental tobacco smoke - as far as the other air pollutants I'll take my chances.

I usually open the window. Seems to clean the air too.

I used to make a point of not dropping litter anywhere, however since the smoking ban came in, as an act of protest, I throw my cigarette ends onto the street even if there is a suitable bin to hand and often throw ends from the window of my flat rather than use the ashtray. I have also started dropping general litter (juice cans, paper, etc). I see this as a legitimate form of civil disobedience.

Whilst you may not agree, there is absolutely nothing to prevent me from doing this unless I am caught (which is very unlikely) and the repercussion of a tiny fine would not trouble me anyway. I will continue ad infinitum.

Charles Stewart #19 - please don't soil your own back yard. Save them up and when you have enough take them along to the Scottish Parliment and dump them there. That way perhaps the MSP's will get a message.

Solution:
Ban smoking outside the pub's

I mean outdoor everywhere
Allow smoking only at home

#19 sorry but I think this line will do absolutely nothing to further the argument of those who believe the ban is unfair or ill informed. It may make you feel better but will do absolutely nothing other than create more mess and litter.

Surely there must be more intelligent and effective ways too fight your cause.

Folkert, I take it that vehicle exhausts will be included in the outside smoking ban.

Dave (18),

Opening a window "just isnt good enough". According to the zealots we need "hurricane force winds" to clear a room of smoke. Your way, is of course, very logical.

I had to prove to myself that ventilation works in order to negate the (99% emotional) argument from the jihadists.

Charles, please reconsider your means of revolt. All it does is extend the myth that we are scruffy and unthinking. Litter is ugly and unnecessary.

Folkert: be patient. An outside ban is coming. (That it makes as much sense as an indoor ban is neither here nor there to people like you).

We should focus on getting rid of the smoke, not the smoker.

#15 Colin - I assume you have seen the reports about the UK topping the energy wasting charts?

While I am pleased that you have a lovely smelling office surely to save some cash running your purifier you could have just opened a window? ; )

#25 Andrew,

I have seen the reports. I wouldnt have bought the unit if it was a high energy consumer. We are quite green in that we recycle as much as we can and use low energy light bulbs throughout the house. We even reuse our food waste by feeding it to our newly acquired wormery-they convert food waste into a liquid fertilizer.

The "opening window manouvre" does not remove the airborne particles, it does not remove germs and any other airborne bacteria that occur commonly in all homes. My new unit is even capable of deactivating HS51N (Avian Flu), among other things. None of my family suffers from asthma, or any other respiratory disorder (according to the urban legends surrounding SHS/ETS, they should all be dead by now), but my new machine protects against that too.

All pubs should have them. They are great.

Charles Steward
It will be just a matter of time.
I think, in the near future, children will think it is strange to they see pictures of our times with people who are smoking on the streets.
Cars need to be improved and will become a lot cleaner also (Co2, plant-oil etc.)

I really don't see why special measures should be taken against smoking related litter as opposed to other litter. It all has to be cleaned up.

People do litter, here more than in other countries, and this problem was entirely predictable. This is why the government should foot the bill.

Robbing people of their social amenities and then expecting them to behave better than the general run of humankind is exactly the sort of naive behaviour that we've come to expect from this government.

Folkert, A friend from London commented that it felt very odd to have to light up in the street. All this on-street lighting up results from restrictions indoors.

Bear in mind that the Executive wasn't banking on smoking levels to go below 20% in the next four years. We just heard (though disputed) that tobacco sales have already gone up 5 per cent. That means that I think your rosy vision of a smoke free future is a long, long way off.

It is time that Licensees were obliged to make sure that their customers are not causing a nuisance. ie: Crowding the pavement outside there premises, with drunk smokers.
Causing litter there.
Customers being drunk and incapable.
The laws are there they just need some zero tolerance from the police.

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

debbie 16 colin is right!! Why cant some publicans be allowed to invest i n ventilation to accomodate smokers?? Then this problem would not exist!!!!

Face it the ban is based on cod science(passive smoking) you really think a whiff will kill you??
How long have you been going to pubs??

cos if you did before you got scared by the junk science then you prove my point!!

Debbie trust bill

And Debbie seriously did smoke bother you before ban talks before you started faking caughs when someone fished out a marlboro light!

Why are anti smokers on this site only bothered about cigarette butts as litter, what about bottles, cans, paper, and the worst chewing gum not to mentioned those that spit in the street and Ive even passed used condoms when walking into work. I would rather stand next to someone having a cigarette any day than someone puking up all over the place because they have drank too much. If people drinking outside of the pub is causing problems then blame the executive not those that are complying with the law all that was need was separate rooms and/or ventilation - this ban was totally unnecessary bet Joke McConnel doesent live next door to a pub and have to put up with the consequences of his stupid ban. I see in the south of England, Yeovil they are now taking peoples fingerprints when they go for a drink so wait for that one to come in. Labour has steadily introduced a police state over the last 9 years and they have not finished yet.

This was all entirely predictable and the argument about providing bins misses the point a bit.

For years before the ban I noticed that most smokers outside non-smoking establishments just threw their fag ends down irrespective of the presence of wall mounted bins, so it was always unlikely that bins would do be much of a defence agains littering resulting from the more recent smoking ban.

It's the same with drivers - how many actually use their ashtrays these days - I suspect that the vast majority of dog ends just come straight out the window.

Remember the little piles of fag ends that used to be seen occasionaly when a smoking driver would empty his ashtray out onto the road?

I never see this nowadays, presumably because the fag ends never even reach the ashtray.

That's progress!!

Correct me if Im wrong - cigarette ends are biodegradable aren't they? The government cause a problem and then whinge and whine about it! Pubs had ashtrays inside didn't they? How many anti-smokers were taking the moral high ground before the ban was even thought of? I'll tell you NONE! Why weren't the same anti-smokers opening their own pubs where smoking was banned, this has never been illegal has it?

Claire #39 they are but take years to biodegrade.
Charles #36 yes cigarette smoke has always bothered me long before the ban was even thought of and it is one of the reasons why I never particularily enjoyed going to pubs and clubs.
Sorry Donnie #37 you can't blame the executive for people behaving in an unacceptable manner. It is not just those who choose to smoke who throw litter, puke outside pubs etc. But sometimes it is easier to blame everyone else but ourself!!!

For at least 50 000 years mankind has lived with smoke (the same chemicals are produced from wood fires as from cigarettes) yet it wasn't until the 20th century that we saw epidemics of lung cancer, heart disease and asthma. The 20th century also saw the rise of deisel, petrol, gas and fast food but the anti-smoking movement buys 150 studies that ask the relatives of dead people how much smoke they were exposed to 30 years ago and all of a sudden smoking causes everything. Holes in the ozone, more deaths than actually occur and now even litter.

Some people are so gullable.

Debbie (16)

I'm more worried about the 400 carcinogens that have nothing to do with smoke. Now who's rights are more important here when deciding the environment to "sit" in; mine, yours or the owner of the room?

#39,Claire.
I, too, am willing to be corrected, but as I understand it, modern filter tips or "butts", as opposed to the old "douts", which were simply the end of a cigarette consisting of tobacco and paper, are made of cellulose, and are non-biodegradable, hence they lie in the street and elsewhere, until disposed of.
By the "government" I assume Claire refers to the Scottish Executive?
If so, they are scarcely responsible for the irresponsible attitude of litter louts, whether they be smokers, mint chewers, or Big Mac eaters.
Scottish pubs, as most English ones still do, indeed had ashtrays. Sadly many smokers have a poor aim, and often flick their ash on any nearby table, or even on the carpet, which I would assume they wouldn't do at home.
I find Claire's allusion to moral high ground puzzling, and don't know why anyone is expected to open his own pub to avoid the habits of selfish smokers.
I look forward to the Scottish example being followed in Cumbria and all points south.Sadly, Claire's logic is as sparse as before, though thankfully without the usual accompaniment of multiple exclamation marks.

Can anyone explain why we have so many pensioners? surely they should all have died from passive smoking (especially when it was fashionable) if all the crap that is being forced down our throats now is to be believed! Why are HMG saying that they next generation will not outlive their parents? Our grandparents smoked pipes, strong tipless cigs, ate lard and dripping, had coal fires, and never had to listen to the words "only 5% fat" or childhood obesity (kids often didn't have enough to eat). Hope all the anti-smokers enjoy their child friendly pubs as once the smokers decide to boycott them rather than being put out like a dog, establishments will start losing and going out of business. The whole thing could have been avoided with a ventulation law but thats too easy. Better to see the war veterans standing outside getting hypothermia in the British winter than fit a ventilation system. It will save HMG having to pay those pesky heating allowances. I hope the destruction of smoking pensioners and war veterans social lives sits comfortably with the anti-smoker. It should, as the veterans only risked their lives to keep this a free country, I bet they wished they hadn't bothered.

Debbie I don't think people are blaming the Executive for littering as that is what they have always done, but the Executive has always known that littering is an enourmous and expensive problem and it made these messes that result from the ban entirely predictable. Pubs did have ashtrays that contained ash, and butts inside pubs but the Executive decided to buy the idea that tobacco smoke is as toxic as something like anthrax and had to be moved out of doors.

I believe some establisments even encouraged people not to bother with them as it is easier to sweep floors than wash ashtrays!

Scaremongering about tobocco smoke is the culprit. I have never complained about smoke and have never felt unwelcome in smokers' company. This blanket ban is extreme and unfriendly.

#43 David,

6 years. They take 6 years to biodegrade.

Nuclear waste, on the other hand, which our genius First Minister is happy to dump in the North West of England, (you neck of the woods) will be with us for millenia. Given a choice, I know what I would prefer.

It would seem that when an individual drops a cigarette end it is punishable with a fine. When a government dumps toxic waste, all is fine and dandy.

Go figure.

Aye David which would you prefer.?
I cannot wait to hear your answer.!!! (just love exclamation marks)

Welcome back herr david43!! Answer steves42 question whos decision is it yours, mine or the owner's??

I look forward to the lies being exposed and the bans consigned to the trash can of history, together with ASH who will cease all operations!!!!

Claire44 good point about the pensioners!!

Smokers say that all the tax they pay goes to the NHS, now we find the truth - it is paying for all of the litter pickers that are needed to pick up their rubbish

I don't care if you are killing yourself by smoking, you have earned your slow and often painful decline in old age.

But you stink. Everywhere you go you leave your foul miasma.

You are as welcome as a farter in a phone booth.

Why not try to stop for a few weeks and smell fresh air, and then you'll realise what the rest of us are complaining about.

Brian

How unreasonable to say such a thing about somebody you haven't met. Or is it a group attack?

The rest of us are complaining about remarks like yours. You can't smell through a PC. Maybe your monitor is the problem.

Brian,

I guess then that your death will be quick and painless? Good luck with that.

By implication, all non smokers smell just fine, do they?

A wee anecdote: anout 8 years ago I went into a local pub for a pint, a fag, and to read my newspaper. I sat, alone, in a corner, getting on with my paper, my fag, and my beer. There was only one other customer in the bar. He was about thirty feet away, but felt it necessary to come over, sit down, and begin a tirade that lasted for about five minutes. He told me that I was filthy, disgusting, and a waste of time, indulging, as I was, in the habit of smoking. I endured his vitriolic diatribe because I didnt know any better at that time. I hung my head in shame. He was right! I was murdering innocent people with my disgusting habit!

About 7 months after that incident, I read in my paper that this creature was jailed for 15 years for molesting children over a 20 year period.

This depraved beast was the only rabid anti smoker I have ever come across in person. He was a serial child abuser and paedophile. So, 100% of anti smokers I have met in person are paedophiles. Should I now assume that ALL anti smokers are paedophiles? It would be a logical process, according to your way of thinking, as you say that all smokers stink.

But no. I wouldnt dream of tarring every one of you with the same brush.

Two tips for you:

1. You might want to think a little harder before writing drivel.

2. Stay in more.

First of all I don't agree with the smoking ban - its a step too far "for our own good" as if we can't make up our own minds how we wish to live our lives. Other options, such as allowing publicans the right to choose whether to remain a smoking pub or introduce a smoking ban, were barely considered far less given a fair try.

Secondly, now that the ban is in full force, surprise, surprise, the anti-smoking lobby are still not happy and will not be happy until all smokers are forced to quit.

And why has no one asked why this article highlights a particular problem in Highland? Is it just taken for granted that its because we're a bunch of heathens who don't know any better? Its actually because the local authority have done nothing to help provide for this new ban. There are no new ashtrays or bins with ashtrays provided, other than those provided by publicans, should they choose to do so.

And if they don't, which some seem to prefer, then of course there will be more mess outside their pubs! Or are we supposed to take the stubs back inside with us? And put them where exactly? Litter bins in Inverness do not have ashtrays on top like in some cities so with little or no option, what do you expect? I can't put fag ends in my pockets!!!

I agree with on the spot fines for droppping litter (all kinds of litter) but the LA must first take responsibility for providing an alternative.

To those who support this ban why dont you clean up the litter yourselves- you created the problem now solve it.

What a stupid argument!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#47,Jamie.
As the two are not mutually exclusive, the imagined choice does not arise. We are all entitled to favour restricting either or both. However, this discussion thread is about tobacco and it's detritus.

#48 & #54,Charles/Charlie/Carlo.
#48. Charlie seems to think I'm German, or is he still confused about an imaginary link with Nazis and fascism? Re #42, my name isn't Debbie.
Charlie seems to live in some fantasy world- Does he like the old Django tune "Manoir de mes Rêves", perhaps?
#54. Debbie should realise by now that Charlie is not a master of logical thought, or perhaps he's just quoting what his parents said to him when his bedroom was untidy?

The Irish ban has failed in spectacular fashion.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/irishexaminer/pages/story.as...

I fully expect the Scottish ban to fail in the same way, since our ban is based on theirs.

Hopefully the English, Welsh and Northern Irish will pay special attention before enacting their useless bans as well.

McConnell and Kerr: are we learning yet???

My remarks weren't personal. Smokers stink, simple fact for those who haven't spent their lives in a fug of smoke.

As for your lifespan, you're definitely shortening it, but that is your concern, but don't try to justify your addiction.

Well Brian, to a non-smoker maybe we do smell of tobacco,
What do you think you will smell of when you have lived until a ripe old age and waiting to die in an old peoples home, where your visitors will be scarce, because some people do not like the smell of pee.

Good luck, hope the Goverment can afford to keep you, you cannot say for certain smokers will have a long lingering death, but 1 day in an old people home will be more than enough for me thanks.
I have many friends now thank you, who would rather smell tobacco.
How comes we are not wading through ciggie butts up to our knees since smoking has been going on longer than bins were invented I should think, or the council bothered putting them in the streets?

Brian,

Your inconsistency is consistent.

In your first bigoted post you said "often painful decline in old age". And now its "As for your lifespan, you're definitely shortening it".

Definitely shortening it, eh? Tell it to Jeanne Calment-she only quit smoking at 118. She was tragically taken from us, prematurely, 4 years later, at 122 years of age.

If it's definite, you will have evidence will you? Even the scientists never use the word definite. They say "might", "could", "may" and "perhaps". But you know better?

As for justifying my addiction, read this carefully, I dont have to justify a damn thing to you. I smoke, and I am unashamed. I smoke and I pay the excessive duties on tobacco. I smoke, and if I get ill, I will demand treatment. I pay 4.7 times more than you do into the government coffers.

Are you an angel, Brian? Live a risk free life?

I would never dare to criticise your lifestyle, what makes you think you have the right to criticise mine?

Colin No 6 , Banff.
I agree with Brian. Perhaps if Jeanne Calmert had been a non smoker, he would have lived well beyond his 122 years.
I am not familiar with this person, nor the circumstance of his demise, but I suspect his death was smoking related. Could he have been struck by a bus whilst lighting a fag?
How can Brian "tell it to" Jeanne. After all, you have told us he is dead!.

Hello Woodbine,

Odd choice of name for an anti smoker.

"Tell it to Jeanne" is just an expression. But if you needed that explaining, we really are in trouble.

Jeanne was a lady. She only quit at 118 because her eyes had deteriorated and she was too embarrassed to ask people to light her cigarettes.

So what if her death was smoking related? (it wasnt, as a swift Google of her name will tell you). Brian, whom you agree with, was completely wrong about smokers all dying early deaths. Then again, in his first post, he was right as well. Most of us, contrary to the myths, do live to a ripe old age.

As an active smoker, I have a 92% chance of NOT contracting lung cancer. You as a non smoker, have a 99% chance of not contracting lung cancer. I can live with those odds.

I have said this before, but it bears repeating: dont be a victim of memetic aphorism. If you cant be bothered looking it up, it means "quoting without thinking". ASH, Cancer Research, the SE, HMG, and probably your GP do it all the time. A little research will tell you that the Health Care lobbies blow everything way out of proportion. Secondhand smoke, while it may be smelly, (and I know for certain modern ventilation units can deal with that) is harmless. If it was as deadly as they claimed, most of us would be climbing over piles of corpses on our way to the corner shop. If it is as deadly as they say, why do you suppose no one has ever sued the government for allowing such a lethal product to be sold? And, perhaps more importantly, why do no insurance companies (not one, anywhere on the planet) demand a premium to be paid for those exposed to such a deadly toxin?

The answer is really simple.

No danger exists.

No 40 Debbie we are told people have a binge drinking problem so what does this government do open the pubs 24/7 so yes I do blame them for encouraging unacceptable behaviour, but dont worry their next target is alcohol they are going to make it as expensive to drink as it is to smoke so pretty soon neither of us will have to worry about drinkers or smokers as non of us will be able to afford to do either. The eminent scientist Dr Kitty Little wrote this
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html
several years later the Scotsman printed this
http://news.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=1178382006
the largest ever study done by Enstrom and Kabat conclued that passive smoking was harmless and have now released this in their own defence
http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/defense.html
I have absolutely no problem with non smoking pubs I think non smokers have every right to them but have you considered why they wont allow smoking pubs staffed by smokers for smokers. If I am black, brown, polish, irish, jewish, muslim, christian in fact any colour, race, regligion can have a club made up of their members apart from smokers. Democracy is a farce it doesent exist unless it fits in with these morans ideals. They are Nazis in disguise
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1....

63 Colin, Banff.

Colin, I am a gardener. Hence the chosen name "Woodbine". Sounds more masculine than "Honeysuckle".
I really do not require advice from a pedant, suffice to say that none of the words you have used thus far compels me to seek their meaning in a lexicon or concordance.
On what basis do you know that second hand smoke is harmless? This knowledge runs contrary to medical opinion.
I do agree with you that insurance companies do not require a premium to be paid by those exposed to this deadly toxin - in fact toxins, but they do offer reduced premiums to non smokers.
Smoking is a fools luxury. No doubts about it!.

Woodbine,

To date, 150 studies have been carried out to try and connect SHS with lung disease. Of these 150 studies, 84% found no statistically significant risk. 16% found a slightly elevated statistical link. The majority were paid for by the anti smoker lobbies. The most significant study to date, Enstrom & Kabatts 2003 study (have a look at the BMJ website) found only one significant figure. Their study found that children of parents who smoked, had a 22% increased chance of NOT contracting lung cancer. That is to say, they were afforded protection by their parents smoking. Naturally enough, the anti smoker lobby tried to trash the study. They couldnt.

Next, if you want a truly pedigreed study, go to the WHO website and look at their massive 7 year, 7 nation study, published in 1998. It clearly showed there was "no statistically significant link between SHS and lung cancer". The health lobbies wept real tears, and did their best to bury the study. They failed.

I have over 70 of these studies in my possession. Over 90% of them tell me the same thing. No risk. Nothing to worry about.

I quote the real science, and the weight of evidence tells us that there is no health risks associated with SHS. That may well change in the future. Nothing is absolute.

The truth you "know", is a lie.

The Great SHS Hoax exists only to make money for big pharmaceutical companies, and so called Health NGO's. Smoking bans keep these interfering nobodies busy, and sales of useless NRT (patches, gum, nasal sprays etc) rocket. Did you know they had a failure rate of 94% ?

If you want the real story, look for the money trail.

This isnt about your health, or mine. It never was.

Its about money, greed, and power.

7. Duncan / 9. Ha, ha, hope it hurt .

55debbie if i were you i wouldnt talk as you are pretty much a hypcrit- from what ive seen in your comments my stupidometer reads 9 on a scale of 1 to 10 !!

No i dont think your german!! im dont think the link is immaginary:
http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/nazi.htm

http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/naz.htm

http://www.forces.org/articles/art-fcan/nazi2.htm

http://www.data-yard.net/nazi/7070nd2.htm

So there is a very strong link!! Ive always learnt best place to hide under- where one is least expected so theres more than likely to be plenty of neo-nazis in ASH and other such anti-smoking organisations!!

Well David about the liter it is logical those responsible pick it up perhaps those stupid tobacco control officers- gives them a use at last given were paying the drones with our taxes(what a waste of money- could have been spent on improving the roads or the railways which are worse than some third world countries)!!

Idiots think outside your box not just your brainwashed little amoeba-sized brains!!!!!!

Woodbine im not even going to bother talking to you!!

Can't expect sense from addicts.

Brian (59)

Thanks for your generalizations over categories of smells. I would assume that it is not only you who gets to choose which smells "stink" and therefore should be banned.

In your utopian world of personal choices of smell would vegetarians be allowed to ban meat ? Or how about those who think that garlic or fish or anything else "stinks"? Will anyone who dislikes a smell be allowed to have it banned from other peoples property?

It's a good job you were born in the 20th century; with your abnormal aversion to the smell of smoke you would have been very cold had you been born any time before that.

By the way, could you enlighten the rest of the world as to where we go to breath the "fresh air" you refer to in post 50? Do you think you are safe from the 400 known indoor carcinogens that have nothing to do with smoke?

Charles (69)

Why?

Woodbine (62)

Why do you presume that Jeanne had any desire to live beyond 122 years? Some of us would rather have 50 years of fun than 70 years eating all bran and jogging to the library. Does this in some way make the healthy more righteous?

Why do you suspect her death was smoking related? Do you have any knowledge of this or is this just a generalization because everything is 'smoking related' these days?

The entire anti-smoking movement is driven by the obsession of these two myths; firstly that everyone wants to die being spoon fed in a nursing home and secondly that every premature death is smoking related. Both are inaccurate.

#58,Charles.
I am indebted to Charles for introducing me to the forces.org website. It reminded me of those extreme religious tracts one finds through the letterbox, and makes FOREST seem quite neutral and balanced. Perhaps I now realise where the concept of zealotry comes from.
I would quote from the last link:- "That does not mean, however, that anti smoking movements are inherently fascist(28); it means simply that scientific memories are often clouded by the celebrations of victors and that the political history of science is occasionally less pleasant than we would wish." No se olvide de mirar "Hitler's Holocaust" al Canal 4 a las 19.00.
Not sure what Carlos is hiding under, apart from a smoke haze, but he should perhaps recall the old adage "Lazy Louts Leave Litter Lying" and take his detritus home with him, rather than leave it for others to sort out.

Steve (73)
I do not presume anything about Jeanne Calmert's desire to live to whatever age. I merely raise the possibility that her lifespan may have been extended had she been a non smoker.
I, as a non smoker, am not obsessed by either of your declared myths, and I believe that many of my fellow beings will share a sense of horror at the prospect of ending their days being spoon fed in a nursing home, just as they would dismiss any charge that they consider all premature deaths to be smoking related. The sad fact is : THEY ARE.

Post 75.

The last sentence in my posting should read; "The sad fact is that TOO MANY OF THEM ARE.

Woodbine,

I am awaiting your response to my post at #66.

David #74.

If its true zealotry you want, you really ought to look at some of the anti smoker sites. Take the twig out of your own eye etc etc...

Colin, Banff (77)
Sorry for the delay Colin.
You are being very selective, and I feel you must be devoting a lot of your time trawling for reports of studies which you believe will justify your addiction. The ones you refer to in your latest posting certainly do not.
You state that of the 150 studies which try to connect second hand smoke with lung disease,"some results prove a risk" Should only one of these studies had proved a connection, it ought to be sufficient for you to acknowledge that ther is indeed a connection.As you say, even the most significant one - Enstrom & Kabatts 2003 one - found a link!
Your reading of the WHO "truly pedigreed study", states that there is no significant link . Consider the word "Significant". Even your "pedigreed" report does not rule out a link.

Sad thing, addiction.

It destroys the body and controls the brain.

So, basically, you smokers think that you don't stink the place out?

Obviously your sense of smell was one of the first things to go.

BRIAN (79)

You are right again. All the poisons introduced into the body by this insidiously obnoxious addiction does all the things you refer to It also affects appetite and taste. ASK ANYONE WHO HAS GIVEN IT UP.

Woodbine,

(Just for the record, your post at #80 is meaningless. Even without tobacco smoke your body is taking in the same toxins. You just cant see them. They are everywhere. You are not deploying deflector shields that smokers dont have).

Of the 150 studies carried out, almost NONE of them exceed the epidemiologists RR (relative risk) of 2. For any other substance, we wouldnt even be discussing it. The scientists say that any RR under 3 (or 300%) is, in their words, "statistically insignificant". Again, none of the studies to date get even close to the magic number 3.

Your "team" continually use the term "weight of evidence". The news, (Shock! Horror!), is that the weight of evidence as far as secondhand smoke is concerned, is overwhelmingly in our favour.

Your team are getting so desparate that they even claimed recently that tobacco contained plutonium! A week before that claim they said it contained asbestos! They are growing ever more manic and absurd with their claims. They are on a self-destruct course, and I will thoroughly enjoy watching them crash and burn. Particularly as all of their nonsensical campaigns are paid for with my money.

When we get right down to the bottom of this debate, all you have is the smell. You have nothing else. And the smell, as I keep saying, can be dealt with effectively and immediately.

It isnt all bad news for smokers. There are some benefits. Non smokers have a huge risk of contracting Alzheimers. I dont. Non smoking women have a huge risk of suffering from pre-eclampsia during labour. Smoking women dont. My risk of Parkinsons disease is also massively reduced. I can list at least another dozen maladies that smoking protects me against. Scientists are fully aware of the benefits of nicotine, they just dont like the delivery method. They are working now on ways to use the health benefits on the non smoking population. Dont be too quick to trash a chemical th

Colin, even when smokers are not actively smoking their breath stinks out a room in short order.

As far as the studies you quote, how many were funded by the tobacco industry - look closer & you'll find they are willing to sink to any tactic to keep their firm grip on your wallet.

As far as nicotine as a medicine, I'm not qualified to comment, but I do not doubt there are some medical uses, as indeed there are for heroin. I have no objection to this so long as the delivery method does not involve innocent bystanders having to suffer the stench and pollutants.

Take it intravenously, or in pills, or in patches, but please don't foul the air.

Smoking stinks. Try getting your nicotine some other way for a few weeks, and smell the difference.

regret that I can take no further part in this debate as I have to leave for Gatwick. I'm off to Goa for three weeks.
Enjoyed the debate and the depth of intelligence displayed by the participants.
Best wishes to you all,
Woodbine.

Woodbine (75)

I'm sorry you had to leave the discussion but after your comments at 75 I'm not totally surprised.

You state that it is "Fact" that all premature deaths are smoking related. This sums up the ridiculous claims and 30 years of propaganda of the anti-smoking movement. If you believe that if smoking ceased to be then we would all live to 75 and beyond you are deluded beyond belief; even the anti-smoking movement don't believe that, they just wish gullable people to believe it.

Brian (80) and (82)

Since you asked; I quit for two years, it didn't increase my appetite, it didn't improve my taste and I've always liked the smell.

Why is it you feel you need a law to protect you from a smell you dislike?

As for the 150 studies; regardless of who funded them there isn't a single one that shows a relative risk to any scientifically recognised standard; they all ignore known confounders, most are based on recollection of smoke inhilation over decades and all are subject to recall bias.

The leaps to causation touted by the anti-smoking movement break all the laws of mathematics, physics, chemistry and all that is known about evolution and even despite all of that, not one of them shows a risk greater than that of olive oil.

Real science on the other hand, measuring real particles in real environments, shows no difference in air quality between a non-smoking restaurant and a smoking pub. In fact the particles measured from cooking on a grill are more harmful than those produced by smoke.

Finally, if you don't like the smell so much don't enter other peoples property where they don't mind the smell and choose to let their guests do it. If there were a lot of people who shared your 'smoke stinks' view there wouldn't have been a need to ban it in the first place.

Didn't improve your taste, eh? I'd take that as proof of the damage done.

The law is to protect me and my children from all the toxins coming from cigarettes. You know, all those nice additives to make them burn. Pipes and cigars don't seem to have these (I may be mistaken) and their smell is nowhere near so objectionable.

As far as particles caused by other sources, I was under the impression that the real problem was the hydrocarbon heat sources rather than the product. I'd be happy to see the end of them too. Ditto vehicle emissions.

I do not enter other people's property where there is smoking. My objection is to smoking in public places. It stinks.

(BTW I think there is no problem with the idea of smokers pubs. Consenting adults and all that.)

Brian (86)

You don't need protection Brian; the particles produced from smoke are over 1000 times below recognised safe levels. Do you feel you need protecting from cooking smells too? Frying a steak produces more carcinogens.

The problem is actually the bi-products of incomplete combustion and these bi-products are released by all organic material. The fact remains that from cigarette smoke there is nowhere near enough to be harmful.

I find it difficult to think of any true 'public places' that still allow smoking; unless you are referring to outdoors. Your view that it stinks is irrelevant unless you support legislation based on personal likes or dislikes.

It is good to see that you have a concern for vehicle emmissions; there is very real evidence that these (particularly deisel) are responsible for many illnesses currently attributed to smoking. In fact a question was raised recently in the house of commons citing the devastating effects of vehicle emmissions; the governments response was that they were within European guidelines and so no action was planned. If you wish to talk about 'stinks' this response stinks to high heaven; it is seriously detrimental to public health while the anti-smoking lobby is happy and have admitted to blaming everything on smoking for the better good of getting rid of cigarettes.

I am pleased that you would support smoking pubs;
who should decide whether or not to allow it in any particular pub? The government, the anti-smoking lobby, the council, the customers or the owner who is risking his money to provide the entertainment best suited to his area?

David at 74. Instead of finding the easy way out response to Forces' website, as its plain you didn't do much digging, why not take the trouble to read the major studies that are archived there and start to do some real learning? Your response was one of a person who just shuts his ears and eyes to anything that looks like it may disagree with his viewpoint.

Woodbine at 78, the two studies quoted by Colin showed no significant link between smoking and lung cancer and the major difference between Colin and you is that like a growing number of people he has learnt to read the epidemiology for himself. That way, one is no longer in thrall to what some "expert" tries to say. But see also Enstrom's own site:

http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/index.html

It is very interesting the stock that anti-smokers palce on the words of experts too, as in most other fields we know from our own experience that experts get it wrong time and time again.

Next, what we are talking about here is epidemiology and that is what is mainly used to promote bans by the anti-smoker lobby. Epidemiology is not science but a statistical methodology which can never provide proof of anything as for proof one needs the demonstration of a clear bilogical pathway and it is a fact, but no-one knows what actually causes cancer as such pathways have never been demonstrated. Furthermore, epidemiology is often referred to as "the junk of junk sciences" and given its ridiculous methodologies, it may well be confined to the research method dustbin in the future.

Penultimately, a much sounder and scientific way of looking at ETS is to analyse its contents and that has shown that the so called "toxic substances" within it fall well below any levels for concern as set by organisations like OSHA and others.

As for those more vitriolic posters who v

Vitriolic? Hardly! I simply point out that smokers stink.

They seem to be unaware of this, so it is necessary to make the point strongly. It is not an intrinsic quality of the person who smokes, but a result caused by their habit (like the equally offensive garlic eater).

Good manners would suggest that you don't create offensive smells around other people or in public places. If you don't know you stink you can't be blamed for being offensive.

Smokers stink. Now you know you can avoid bad manners.

I do not object to you indulging your habit in your private places. I do agree that there should be designated places for smoking. My parents were heavy smokers and I know how desperate they used to get for their fix.

As far as the safety or otherwise of your habit, I do not care what you believe, so long as I am not having to breathe the smoke.

Brian

Kindly desist from saying that smokers stink. You have met only a minute fraction of smokers and have no basis for your allegation other than personal prejudice. Your remarks are also quite unrelated to the article which is about litter in the Highlands.

You are being quite offensive. Now you have been informed of the fact, you will have no trouble in avoiding bad manners yourself. You have used the word 'stink' in almost all of your posts, like an obsessed child. Get your head round the point at issue and stop gratuitously insulting people that you have never met.

David74 hysteria i think not!! For hysteria i think one needs to look at yourself in the mirror oh a whiff will it kill me?? And stuff like that!!

oh yeah i watched the programme- very interesting!!

You dont realise but both the modern antismoking movements and the nazis have a lot in common- they both used junk science and both rammed their views on others and never admitted they were wrong!! Thats a lot in common!!

Brian 89 i hope you took notice of he links as a matter of interest here they are again:

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

http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/naz.htm

The same tunnell vision as yours!

88John i dont think David takes any bother at looking at forces as he knows the studies there are right! But given they disagree with his view point - well he just cannot accept reading them because otherwise itd give him serious doubts!

# Belinda, Edinburgh.

The article did indeed start off as a litter matter, but it has developed into a much more serious one.
Brian has made very valid comments, and his belief that "smokers stink" is is not without merit.
As for the assertions of Colin from Banff (and others). They are living in cloud cuckoo land if they believe that smoking tobacco is a benefit to ones health.Apart from the carcinogens in tobacco, the smoking of this substance contributes greatly to cardiac conditions.

Brian

You clearly have an unhealthy obsessive disorder over an odour. Thankfully such disorders are rare which is why normal people can enjoy bonfire night.

If there were a lot of people with your condition I would be able to make a fortune at the beginning of November selling gas masks and oxygen tents.

Maybe some samaritan will take pity on you and offer to wash your clothes on the 6th.

#9, Steve.

.... And others could make a similar fortune selling deodorants to those who carry tobacco pollutants around with themselves!. Problem is they are impervious to their own fragrances.

I did not deny that Brian made valid comments, for example he favours a smoking room in order to give smokers somewhere to go.

But I am sorry, Bessy, saying that smokers stink is a statement quite without merit. Apart from anything else how can he say for a certainty that people who don't stink are all non-smokers?

Tobacco smoking is an activity that damages certain organs in the body but I am prepared to believe that it benefits others. Why not?

As for 'being impervious to their own fragrances', offensive comments that seek to generalise smokers as smelly themselves carry a rank odour, impervious to those who make such comments.

The alleged smelliness of smokers is a matter of absolute triviality in the context of litter.

Bessie (95) & (97)

Perhaps you would like to read Colins comments again before you send him to "cuckoo land". If you wish to undermine his words at least back it up with a reason why;

Maybe you could enlighten us as to your knowledge of the carcinogens in tobacco smoke; perhaps you could also explain why ETS is harmful when those particles are over 1000 times below safe levels. Are these particles magical?

Why do the worlds five highest smoking nations have higher life expectancy than us?

Or perhaps you could just explain why the government refuses to back an indoor air quality policy to reduce the 400 known indoor airborn carcinogens that have nothing to do with smoke.
They would have to ban cooking on a grill before they could ban smoking under such a policy; could this be why they won't back it? Do you remove all children from the building before you fry a steak?

If you don't like the smell of something, stay away from it, but don't forget your mask for next week.

Bessie #95,

I merely pointed out that smoking has some medicinal benefits. I also pointed out that the health authorities dislike the delivery method.

For the record, and I have said this many times, I would not encourage another human being to start smoking, and I would fully encourage anyone who was trying to quit.

I am aware of the risks of active smoking and, having read and re-read the science many times, I find the risks acceptable. I am a fifth generation smoker and having researched my family tree, no-one, I repeat, no-one in my family has ever died with smoking as a cause of death. The average age of death for males is around 85, and slightly higher for the ladies. I'd be happy to get to 85.

My personal belief is that we are genetically pre-disposed to one illness/disease or another. I also believe we are taking the easy way out by blaming smoking for everything from athletes foot to thinning hair. Doctors, in my opinion, have become lazy. As Steve points out, how do you explain the fact that for 400 years "lung cancer was extremely rare"? But, in a post industrialised world, and the explosive growth of huge smoke belching factories, and the production of millions and millions of cars, trucks and vans, we see an upsurge of cancers? Do you really think the correlation is a "blip"?

If you are truly interested, you may want to look at diesel as the bad guy. The findings are nothing short of stunning. It is easy to blame smokers and tobacco. Not so easy to uninvent motorised transport, and the wealth it brings to major corporations and governments the world over.

Broaden you search criteria, Bessie, and you may just find that the world isnt quite as black and white as you think.

# 99. Steve.

This fellow, Colin, appears to be very conversant with reports that have a bias towards the smoking lobby. I wonder if he gives equal consideration to reports which contradict these ones.
I assume that in the interests of balance, he does avail himself of alternative reports, and if so, perhaps he might enlighten us as to what their authors contend.

# 100. Colin , Banff.

I posted my comment (#101) before I read your very reasonable response to my earlier one.

Bessie,

Again, for the record, the vast majority of the studies I have read are produced by the anti smoker lobby.

What you should realise is that the science used is sound. Its the interpretation of the resulting "evidence" that is mangled, tortured, and cherry picked to support one side or the other.

I am now capable of reading any study, regardless of who paid for it, and seeing the facts for what they are.

Bizarrely, the studies done by the anti smoker lobby almost always tend to support our argument rather than their own. Which is why they torture the data to support their own agenda.

Until they interfered, world-wide smoking prevalence was dropping. Slowly, but steadily. The onset of their mania has put a massive spotlight on smoking, and with the inevitable trend followers and their shrieks of "Ban smoking in public places", like our own Jack McConnell and his inept sidekick Andy Kerr, we find that smoking rates are increasing. The same happened in Ireland. We asked them to study bans in other parts of the world, and learn from those. They didnt.

A spectacular own goal.

Bessie (101)

What is the smoking lobby? How many groups do you know of that are 'lobbying' for smoking on buses or for laws against no-smoking sections in restaurants?

Which reports are you referring to that are biased towards this smoking lobby? There are now approximately 150 statistical studies on ETS which make up the sum total of the passive smoking myth.

Is it the massive study commissioned and then covered up by the World Health Organisation because it didn't show what they wanted? Or maybe the biggest ever study (30 years) that the American Cancer Society removed funding for when preliminary results indicated no risk?

Or perhaps we could discuss the "alternative" studies. How about the infamous EPA meta analysis that was ridiculed in court for altering scientific standards, cherry picking data, ignoring conflicting data, using data from an unfinished study, releasing the results before data was even collected and declaring passive smoke as a class A carcinogen from an RR of 1.19.

bessie could you tell us the name of a lobby campaigning for a return of smoking on buses cos i dont know any, rather like other pro-choice advocates on this forum. Oh forbidding nosmoking sections what planet do you live on- there isnt anyone of the like on the planet(maybe one or two loonies stashed away in a mental asylum)!!

So were not prosmoking thankyou very much.

Think why were the two leading studies carried out on ETS covered up?? Both of them?? If they were false theyd have been released promptly but antis whenever the two are mentionned they panic why??

And you still believe the EPA one ridiculed in court??

Or is it in the world of smoking always the truth= a lie.

more debates on myspace

http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboar...

http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboar...

the debates are on smoking!!

#91-94,Charles.
I find the description of "Hitler's Holocaust" by Charles as "intersesting" to be a little lame. I would remind him once more of a quotation from one of his earlier links, namely:-
"That does not mean, however, that anti smoking movements are inherently fascist(28); it means simply that scientific memories are often clouded by the celebrations of victors and that the political history of science is occasionally less pleasant than we would wish."
Not sure how I accused him at #74 of hysteria. Perhaps he has some guilt complex?

#106,107,Charles.
Interesting to see Charles on his foreign travels, but why the image of a loose cannon?...........Oh, but of course!

But David108 you have to admit those statements are quite true!!`Thats just an opinion your quoting but they dont quite take into account the fascist antismoking doctrine of anyone opposing them being lamely called "a front for the big tobacco"!! Even restaurant organizations even some ex-antis as Siegel has learnt. Isnt that quite fascist!! I think that the quote was before smoking bans really became an issue!!

You accused forces i think of hysteria when like me they are simply truth seekers- me and forces both indeed HATE big tobacco.

109 So what do you think of my advice to the Americans(where smoking bans originate)?? Its strategy the reason im in the debate!! unfortunately theres quite a few lilachamsters/bungos on myspace. Though theres also many of my kind(prochoicers), and others who dont care. Theres all kinds of people which is good. Do you not use myspace- its a great site- good for discovering new bands too!

Did you not like the cannon- that is a good picture- anyway i changed it to one of my family's cars instead. Lets see if Herr David can identify it! Can you guess what make it is??

ps im on only one of the debates.