Such nonsense.

I was in a pub today and it was full of kids.

1 - Ginster

You ARE getting older! ;)

FOREST refute the effects of passive smoking, yet still use the increase in passive smoking at home as an argument against banning smoking in public places.

Go Go Big Tobacco and the $hit ye spout.

One could conceivably call the tobacco industry "an economic target of opportunity" in pretty much the same way as factories producing materials that allowed the German war machine to continue to operate for years until the end of World War II. Allied bombers attacked chemical factories, fuel refineries, canals, docks, railway stations, transportation facilities, and so on, in order to cause as much disruption to the Nazis' ability to wage war.

Perhaps some may find this an inappropriate (and others an outright offensive) analogy, yet, even if tobacco products are not illegal, they are nevertheless being distributed to outlets on behalf of the industry. If there was some kind of concerted effort by outlets like, for example, supermarkets to cease vending these products in the first place, smokers would find it challenging to acquire these products at a price that does not make a proverbial hole in their pockets, no matter how much of a tobacco tax the government slaps on them, considering that the latter have never really proven a real deterrent to a lot of smokers (though the corollary of tobacco taxes is that they are channelled partly into the NHS).

Any industry would really be in trouble if its supply outlets were closed off altogether. If one could only buy cigarettes and other tobacco products at outlets specifically owned by the tobacco companies themselves (rather than supermarkets and newsagents, say), it would cause a lot of inconvenience in terms of the time and trouble needed to go to such places (if they are few in number), so people might not necessarily be inclined to want to go out of their way to buy such products if their availability was quite limited.

Hence, the incidence of smoking at home might decrease considerably, and the health of a lot of people would benefit considerably, too. It may sound simplistic to some, but the fact is that outlets will continue to sell these products because they get a cut of the prof

I have no problems with this. If my grandchildren visit me they sit outside on the lawn, or underneath the carport if it is raining. If I visit them, I smoke outside. I do not know if it would work too well in Scotland.

There is so much wrong with your post that I honestly dont know where to start. Most of it shows no respect for your fellow humans. I think you need some help.

So I will settle for proof that passive smoking has killed people.

If you can show hard evidence, I will apologise, and I will never write another word on the subject again.

Here's a tip: scientists all over the world have been searching for evidence since 1954. They dont have proof, so it would be great to see yours.

I'll alert the BMJ.

#7 is intended for Mr Dragonhead.

Thanks Colin, I was getting a bit worried for a minute.

Bad laws will require more & more laws to get their required effect but it would not be necessary if Governments looked behind the over zealous statements of groups like ASH.
The SE believed what ASH said about no increased smoking in the home BUT a look at the ASH(Scotland) document supporting their belief shows how their quoted references fail to support their view. In most cases the reduction of smoking in the home was put down to Education and EFFECTIVE campaigns.
Quotes ASH ignored from their supporting documents-
-“…………. that more progress is likely to be made without the need for intensive interventions. The move to smoke-free homes can be thought of as part of a movement that is promoting this social innovation through the community.”
-“However, the potential for change rests not only on attitudes, but on realities of housing, income, and child care.”
and from their WHO source
-Legislation is of limited value in reducing exposure in private homes. Educational strategies, including education about the risks to children from ETS exposure and steps to eliminate exposure, are likely to be more effective in these settings.” “Young children’s greatest exposure to tobacco smoke occurs at home. Increasing the percentage of tobacco-free homes is generally not amenable to legislation but can be achieved by a combination of mass media campaigns and smoking restrictions in public places and the workplace.”
-“Heightened public awareness may be the reason more Californians have smoke-free homes, said the authors.
Come on Maureen admit it - you'll say anything to get your own way.

Smoking is an amazing habit.

Pays 6 times into the exchequer what it costs in disability through taxation and early deaths meaning less pension money paid out.

Just keep it the hell away from me as it stinks like $hit - that's a good enough reason for me to a) encourage smokers to keep smoking; and b) back a ban of smoking in public places.

I really don't care if smokers' kids die young as a result of their parents' activities - it all keeps the cost of longterm care down.

Maureen Moore is not a useful source of information. I listened to her on the radio before the ban and it could be any halfwit picked up off the street they had interviewed.

She is in no position to criticise any scientific paper because she is not qualified to do so. Stop giving this pointless person the oxygen of publicity.

So, Mr Pastie wants smokers, but they can only smoke on his terms.

How nice for us.

I found this:

“Any increase in sales of cigarettes is bad news for public health,” said Moore. “If cigarette sales are genuinely on the increase then the government needs to raise the price of tobacco further and consider new ways in which to target smokers with better smoking cessation choices.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/newspapers/sunday_times/...

Moore accepts it is probable that smoking has gone up, but can't join the dots and work out where. You can see why this woman is a favourite of Jack and Andy. She is on their level.

#5 Christopher Crossley

You seem to have lived in China too long and sound like you are thinking in a totalitarian way. A free, liberal and democratic society has the upside that people will tolerate what you want to do with your life. The downside is that you have to tolerate what others want to do with their lives.

This is utter non-sense that probably has some somkers and tobacco companies behind this research. Smoking is in fact a subtle way of killing and injuring people. It is subtle and hidden because the final effects of it are not seen until many years later, in the smoker and in the non-smoker---we can see other difficulties such as motor problems, attention deficit disorder, etc.

The fact is that smoking around children (and I might say other adults) is very injurious to them and contributes to the lowering of their intelligence not mention to make them and others prone to cancer, asthma, and other chronic respiratory diseases.

We do not allow people to take a gun and go out and murder others nor do we allow them to poison food et al. Just because the affects of smoking are not immediate and show up some 20-70 years later is no sign to allow tobacco companies to promote the murder of otheres including their smokers. This is immoral and just as immoral as being an opium dealer hooking people on opium.

Tobacco needs to be banned absolutely world wide and used only to make insecticides. It after all a poison. Western man took up the habit from American native peoples for whom this was a sacred rite. White man abused it. The native peoples of Cuba; used tobacco to combat mosquitos.. Shoe me a smoke and I will show you that person is a drug addict. Tobacco is very addictive and very difficult to get off of. Women seem to have a more difficult time ceasing smoking than men.

If you love your children, care about them

If you love your children, care about them--do not smoke around them; do not allow others to smoke around them and do not take them to places where they will exposed to second hand smoke.

If you care about your children; know that they need you and do not need you to deliberately ruining your health so that they and the government will have to come up with millions of pounds to give you lung transplant or other
expensive medical treatment that in the first place was totally avoidable because YOU allowed some immoral person to get you addicted to smoking.

#16 ludwig

You are misinformed and not making a great deal of sense. You state "the government will have to come up with millions of pounds to give you lung transplant or other expensive medical treatment " Are you aware of what taxes are paid from smoking?

Smokers are paying for their NHS treatment four to five times over.

Asthma has risen while smoking has fallen. Attention deficit disorder has risen while smoking has fallen. These are inverse relationships.

Your analysis of these issues is the most perverse use of logic possible. Stick to reality and not junk epidemiology.

Typical Responses from the anti smoking lobby. I think it is worth pointing out that it was Caroline Flint and Patricia Hewitt who both stated that 95% of all harm caused by passive smoking occurred in the home, 5% in public places, of which 0.5% was in the work place. Which means if we believe passive smoking is harmful the vast majority of the alleged 11'000 UK deaths ( 10450) are children or the elderly, the two most vulnerable groups. This is the third study independently commissioned without any links to the tobacco companies that have reached a similar decision. A poster says FOREST can't have it both ways. Either Passive Smoking is harmful or it's not. The same surely applies to HMG, they can't say 95% are at home and then as this research shows bans force more to stay at home. The cynical amongst may well conclude that this research could well be part of the anti smoking campaign to enable Government to control even our 'castles'. Big D has a vast army of anti smoking propaganderists and are known to have funded junk science using Ghost Writers, and then reputable scientists have prostituted themselves for cash or favours. These types of things are well documented in Jerome P. Kassirer's book On The Take. He is a Professor and former Editor in Chief of the New Englnd Journal of Medicine, the US's equivalent publication to the British Medical Journal, whose former Editor Dr Richard Smith also wrote a book highlighting this scientific corruption. Following the Erstrome/Kabat study that showed following 39 years of studying 118'000 people, ETS/Passive Smoking to be virtually harmless. Dr Smith was so incensed by the way the research was condemned by the anti smoking lobby that he took the unprecedented step of making public comment support the 'robustness' of the research. Needless to say he put to his own career and has been vilified as have others who have not been assimilated by Big Pharma. This study has however come at a bad time for HMG with their late

Statesman you forget we do not have an infinite number of medical staff. does not matter how much is taken in taxes. so it stands to reason even with smokers paying all ammounts not all can be treated making for growing NHS queues.

I think Ms Moore needs to research her subject more. The first study on the adverse effects of smoking bans actually came from the University of Australia, who concluded mush the same as this UCL study. Isn't it just amazing how everything ASH don't like is funded by BigT. Never mind the fact that ASH/HMG and others receive hundreds of millions from the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, the charitable trust funded by Johnson and Johnson, the worlds largest supplier of smoking cessation products, never mind that ASH are supporting the use of a new smoking cessation drug that has greater side effects than Zyban, a drug known to have killed dozens of people world wide. The hypocrisy of the anti smoking movement is now being roundly condemned by former anti smoking supporters like Professor Michael Siegel who is disgusted with the junk science. Ordinary non smokers need to look at the science and the critics and decide for yourselves. Do not believe the Health lobby they are lying to you. I have challenged ASH numerous times to public debate, they refuse. Why would they if they had 'truth' on their side?

This is an arguament that neither side will ever win.The smoking ban is here and there is not a political party brave enough to change it.

Jim Lad you are wrong. UKIP have already aligned with us and we will publicly supporting them. There are 14 million potential UKIP voters out there.

#23 Bobfm
Thought UKIP were bankrupt, anyway they still have the stigma of Kilroy Silk hanging over them like a bad smell.Bit like David Ike

Sorry Jim, wrong again, they are not bankrupt they are fighting what can only be a politically motivated decision to try to seize their assets all their donor did was forget to fill out his voters register form once. He has paid hundreds of thousands of taxes over his life time he is a UK citizen. This mover by the Electoral Commission is unprecedented and the clause is designed to stop non UK tax payers from donating. It will be thrown out by the court and hopefully will lead to a full investigation as to why it happened. As for RKS that is ancient history in the last 6 months UKIP have doubled their share of the potential popular vote. You may be interested to know that all the 'shit' has come from six former UKIP members who joined the BNP. I would suggest you look at the UKIP site you will see they have moved away from being a one issue party and have excellent policies which will appeal to the man in the street. They are moving forward at a pace, hence the Tory controlled media rolling out weekly stories of incidents and situations that have been around for months. The Tories are worried that UKIP could well to use a topical phrase, eclipse, them. I am a life long Tory but under David Cameron I fear we will just get NL mark 2.

As a non smoker, I believe that the public smoking ban was, for the most part, a good thing. I hated coming home from a night out stinking of other people's fag reek! I believe though that there was plenty of room for compromise and that an outright ban was neither neccessary,or the right way to go. I don't see that it takes an academic to figure out that if people can't smoke in bars, they will do most of their smoking at home. It's just common logic,although, as usual, the powers that be would rather spend barrowloads of money establishing that fact .

What I personally see as a bigger issue is adults smoking in cars while there are children in them. THAT, I would like to see banned, yet as far as I'm aware it has never been deemed a priority. It's too confined a space to subject children (or other adults) to a smoky atmosphere. Surely that's where the real damage (if passive smoking IS a real danger) could be done?

Although I haven't researched the subject fully, my understanding is though that there is very little evidence to support the fact that passive smoking in itself is seriously damaging to health. No doubt I will be corrected if I'm wrong in this.

anyway go to http://www.bat.library.ucsf.edu/ and let the tobacco companies speak for themselves. see how in 1974 the companies own research found passive smoking dangerous. this was also found to be the case in 1977. problem was it was funded by the tobacco industry and they tried to get the scientists to cover this up.

All it says to me is that if their smoking parents were in the pub - where were the Scoial Services to round up these 'latchkey' children?

Lazy reporting as usual.

Look up ASH Scotland:

http://www.ashscotland.org.uk/ash/ash_display_home.jsp?p_...;

#Colin: Look up WHO's web site and type in Cancer they'll tell you the top 10 facts about Cancer. 1 of the being that the most comon cancer in the industrised world (Thats what we live in after all) is Lung cancer and most case of lung cancer are caused by smooking and pass of smoking.

It is a known fact that parents who smoke at home and have kids, will have the kids wandering the streets until all hours. So how they can be effected by the parents smoking is beyond me?

I am also concerned about people smoking while driving. We can't use a mobile phone when driving but we can get a fag out of a packet, light it, flick ash in an ashtray, stub it out, all while having our senses effected by a drug.

It just does not make sense.

Smoking and driving kills people.

It is really disheartening to see so much hatred and how easily it can be inspired. Dragon breath your ignorance speaks for itself and your hint about corrupted lineage may well be the secret to your success.

Ludwig your rendition of death and destruction and poor cognitive abilities? If you examine the single source study it actually demonstrated what science has known all along Nicotine and it's metabolite cotenine are memory enhancing and neuro protective. If you want the see the human research consider the baby boom generation who were more than 99% exposed from the maternity wards through college. With our addled brains we were able to accomplish what I would consider quite a bit.

What many armchair critics don't realize in the core of the big propaganda con job is the fact in North America the number of smokers has not changed in more than 50 years a stable cause should result a stable effect. Population has more than doubled resulting in reduced prevalence Half the prevalence should see half the effect. So called smoking related diseases more than doubled eliminating smoking or second hand smoke as the cause of those increases and a significant portion of the presumed effects in 1950 as well. . Suggesting something about your environment is not being revealed. Is it sufficient to blame smokers for damages which could not be their fault? Who is being protected here while the disease numbers continue to take their toll?

Think before you leap, smokers are just your neighbors and friends most with your own concerns, not some unknown devil hell bent on destruction. Now consider how the media who promotes this hatred preaches on how we should treat other addictions how may of them are kicked out of shelter when a sign could always have sufficed? How many of them are taxed into searching for cheaper products sold on the black-market and why was that necessary to promote?

How many of them are being told to use alternate products more like

That baby looks furmilar, is that no the one that is thoes adverts for NPCC averts on the telly, though I don't rember the smoke coming out of the babys mouth.

#30 Some extraordinary statements there!

"Parents who smoke at home and have kids, will have the kids wandering the streets until all hours"

Ah I get it, smokers are, by definition irresponsible parents?

"Smoking and driving kills"
The next logical step. After getting a ban on smoking in enclosed public places the antismokers now move onto anywhere else that smokers can smoke, in the interests of safety of course and not the fact that antismokers are complete headcases who are undoubtedly mentally ill such is there hatred for smoking.

Never understood this mindset of hating something so much that it reduces one to lie continuously to reach the end target of never having to see anyone smoking ever again.

I'm sure some "research" exists to prove this point that smoking and driving kills?

#25 Bobfm
I respect your opinion but i can't see UKIP without seeing Robert Kilroy Silk and the overtones of BNP, so i for one will pass but stay with your beliefs and good luck.

How did the doomed baby boom generation fare? Among a group predicted to die at 65 the day they were born? The latest Health Canada numbers state the average age of death is now 84. Doesn't sound like the second hand smoke had as much power over their lives, as it now has in reducing the freedom of our children while increasing the number of those who will smoke themselves.

Has there ever been a generation of kids more focused on smoking? Politics in the schools was once morally repugnant, now we applaud the ability of lobby groups to make your children worship fear.

Has the World Health Organization ever distributed anything which does not promote politics by dispensing fears for all of us?

Fear promotes mistrust and that promotes violence. People need to wake up and stand by the words of courage over tyranny. "You have nothing to fear but fear itself."

That is the one truth which will set you free.

Eve The most common Cancer is not Lung Cancer who made you believe such nonsense?

Consider the source and always follow the money ETS like Breast implants both big boob manipulations, huge frauds relying on public ignorance to reap billions in profits.

Check you facts you are making yourself look foolish.

I won't use the word BOOB when blonde will do.

I always enjoyed the name ASH.

Entirely appropriate of it's following.

After everything of substance is spent all which remains is the ASH and the holes.

Just stop and think for a moment everyone, smokers and non-smokers alike (and that includes the anti-smokers). How many bans have Nu Labour forced through since they took power? Quite a few. How many more bans do you think Nu Labour will force through before they finally get kicked out of power. Quite a few more.

The last ban was hunting. This time it is smoking. What next? Drinking? Fishing? Then fat people, then thin people? There are nasty, vociferous groups already screaming for a ban on 4x4 vehicles! This isn't about people's health - far from it. It is about controlling the population by any means Nu Labour see fit. It is about removing people's personal freedoms. Take, for example, the recent furore about road charging via satellite. No matter how this government tries to dress it up it will be a way of keeping tabs on the population wherever they go. 1.8 million people signed a petition against this further invasion of our privacy. What do the government do? They state they will ignore the petition and carry on regardless. How contemptuous for the people who put them in power. ID cards are another sinister way of controlling the population. Nu Labour's legislation is purely about control and nothing else. These bans and introductions of this, that and the next thing are a huge social experiment that eventually, unless they are stopped is going to create a society of automatons. Where no-one will be able to relax whether or not they smoke or drink or whatever relaxation past-time they do both for fear of someone looking over their shoulders and reporting them to the authorities. Already Nu Labour and their Big Pharma cohorts have created an atmosphere of fear and terror. Fear and terror breeds one thing only - hatred. One only has to look at the post from Dragonhead and others like him to see that. Under this government, so many people have stopped thinking logically for themselves. Exactly what Nu Labour want. Even kiddi

As convenor of the Scottish Freedom to Choose group, I would like to add that there is a third option. in certain constituencies. This is the Publican Party, and it is a single-issue group. They are the ones who approached us as people with a common cause. I have no problem with UKIP's endorsement of the UK group but they haven't made approaches to us and I don't get the impression that Scottish candidates have the issue at the heart of their cause. They have said that groups such as ours, if sufficiently well supported by the public, would get a proper hearing. I am not a candidate and don't know the approach yet to be adopted by any successful Publican candidates, but the basic principle is to amend the legislation.

Sorry, that should read 'in certain regions' – the Publican party candidates are going for regional seats, not constituency seats, so electors would use their second vote to get them in.

Anti Smokers always refer to information from the ASH or Cancer Research Site. These sites mostly take their information from the Jamrozik report. If you read the Jamrozik report, it uses words like may, could, might not words like does, will, definitely - in other words they have no proof.

This link from the medical site Pub-Med says it all as regards children.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retriev...

CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk

In its desire for bodily purity this current government has adopted and copied the propaganda and tactics of the Nazi party when they persecueted the jews. Quite frankly they should be taken to court over their current adverts which are totally untrue and misleading.

and here are just a few others and there are many more.

"..not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer, but that it could even have a protective effect."
World Health Organization, March 1998

"The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.."
London Telegraph, 1999

"In general, there was no elevated lung cancer risk associated with passive smoke exposure in the workplace. ..."
- Brownson et. al.
American Journal of Public Health, November 1992, Vol. 82, No. 11

"... no evidence of an adverse effect of environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace."
- Janerich et al. New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 6, 1990

"... the association with exposure to passive smoking at work was small and not statistically significant."
- Kalan

So Maureen Moore says that smoking in the home has reduced in Ireland...more lies. I have video evidence that shows differently. So Maureen produce your stugie to back your claims

CK;
Your description of the symptoms are deadly acurate. However your belief this can be cured in preference of political party is misguided. Anyone who takes the time to search at the World health Organization [WHO] site; HIA health intervention you will see the training process for domination of politics.

Unless your party is calling for UN reforms and the elimination of Industry from the WHO decision making processes, you are going to be sadly disapointed. If any party tried to promote those reforms the Press would be on them like flies on dung. Industry has discovered money is better spent lobbying small UN agencies than many individual governments.

Many of those who can be subverted with cash have diplomatic immunity and can never be held to the same criminal measure as the rest of us.

The WHO has taken a power position above the elected officials. The public service buracracy will survive all elections. Health scare reform is evident in all industrialized countries our own private Taliban terrorists promoting destruction from within. Consensus determinants allows politicians to ignore physical science with facts created in research studies to suit any purpose. Have you heard the term everything affects human health, this takes one buracracy to the top above all others. In Canada that Health ministry had the head scientist replaced with a professor of political science.

The WHO refers to individual countries as member states in their dominion. Health is not limited to physical well being but includes mental health to the highest posible standard. That being; Their own!!!

The training for advocates in effective lobbying includes as a primer; the advocacy of helmets while riding bicycles. I would presume in your country this has already been sold, despite the fact recent research shows someone wearing headgear is more likely to be involved in an auto acident. It apears the drivers get a sense of profesionalizm when they se

If smoking is REALLY REALLY REALLY that bad, why doesn't the SE just ban the sale of fags, sorry, cigarettes.....????

If any other merchandise killed as many people as is claimed them surely to goodness is deserves to be stopped?? Sorry, forgot the baccy companies fund those in power.....

Again another scare tactic.......

Maureen Moore needs to look at this site and get her facts right.

http://www.sadireland.com/dublin_pubs_call_time.htm

http://www.sadireland.com/index.htm

#36. Kevin Mulvina: I'm no wrong Lung cancer is the most comon cancer that people in the instralise world die from. The WHO backs this up. See:

"lung (1.3 million deaths/year);
Stomach (almost 1 million deaths/year);
Liver (662,000 deaths/year);
Colon (655,000 deaths/year) and
Breast (502,000 deaths/year). "

"Tobacco use is the single largest preventable cause of cancer in the world. Tobacco use causes cancer of the lung, throat, mouth, pancreas, bladder, stomach, liver, kidney and other types; Environmental tobacco smoke (passive smoking) causes lung cancer. "

Read the rest of this web page:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs297/en/

Other Links for Kevin:
http://www.who.int/gender/documents/en/lungcancerlow.pdf

http://www.euro.who.int/eprise/main/WHO/Progs/CHHGRE/burd...

http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html

#45. Donnie: Ah the Irish are amusing

"Rock against the ban" some how I don't think it will be as popular as prevous ones. I think these things have been done to much and have lost any power that they had.

I'm unaware that any goverment that follows what Rock star/ popstars say. Not unless they've got a political party called this and there standing for the next election.

The tobacco stooges are having their cake and eating it today.
Elsewhere they argue that the smoking ban was pointless as breathing other peoples smoke is harmless, now this comes along and they say it will harm kiddies.
If a small proportion of smokers are selfish enough to smoke in front of their kids at home that is sad, but society isn't ready to intervene just yet (and may never be ready).

46 Eve - perhaps this will refresh your memory on the real causes of lung cancer

http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carschemicals.htm

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html

70% of all cancers occur in non-smokers

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5029/death.html

9,000 deaths from diesel

http://news.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=1178382006

You are what you eat!

http://www.scientific-alliance.org/news_archives/chemical...

http://pages.eidosnet.co.uk/~no2labour/

Britain's blazing foot and mouth pyres are spewing out more deadly pollutants than all the country's factories combined, unpublished official figures indicate. The Government has admitted that no systematic checks are being made on the pollution, no single body is responsible for controlling it, and no assessment of the health effects have been carried out.

The massive airborne emissions are of dioxins; carcinogens 1,000 times more deadly than arsenic. The pollution poses yet another risk to agriculture and the countryside, as well to public health. Environmentalists fear that the pollution will make farmland unusable for long after the crisis has ended.

"The Irish are amusing", Hmmm interesting as most of them are of Scottish descent!

Good day all. Well, here I am, a product of the smoking, drinking sixties. Fit, healthy and working 84 hours a week at 62, and still smoking like a chimney like I have done for 45 years. Don't cough, never had the flu, get a cold about once in two years, am a perfect weight for my height and can eat anything. Not what you antis want to hear.
I have three children. One smokes, one smokes a bit and one dosen't smoke at all. They have produced 7 grandchildren, the oldest one at 19 dosen't smoke, his choice. The healthiest three who are seldom sick and rarely even get a cold live in the smokers house, where husband and wife both smoke anywhere at any time. I haven't seen a doctor in at least 12 years, and that was for a fall on the ice. I run a small coffee shop, do all my own cleaning and shopping for it. Get up at 5, open at 6, close at night at 6, go and do all the shopping after clearing up, go home, eat supper about 9, watch TV, love Survivor, go to bed about midnight and sleep like a log, 7 days a week. If I die tomorrow I've had a wonderful and fulfilling life. I have done my bit to keep the human race going, and was a registered nurse for most of it.

Anti smokers, a sad lot to see,
No life except going smoke free,
Overweight, over zealous,
I think they're just jealous,
Of active, fit, healthy old me.

Diana Reid

The WHO are politically correct zealots Eve.

Is this the same great, caring, truthful, WHO who banned DDT because of a possible cancer risk that then caused millions of people to die of Malaria?

The same WHO that buried it's own results into passive smoking as they didn't show the politically correct result they wanted?
http://www.data-yard.net/2/11/jnci.htm

Don't trust them to look after you Eve.

Eve what you actually stated was this;

"facts about Cancer. 1 of the being that the most comon cancer in the industrised world (Thats what we live in after all) is Lung cancer and most case of lung cancer are caused by smooking and pass of smoking."

Lung cancers represent less than 1% of total mortality according to the American EPA numbers.

The largest cancer rates are actually skin cancers. Mortality rates are a different matter Lung cancers are drastically under funded. All the charity groups are now spending hundreds of millions purchasing politics and not finding the cures seems to be the reality.

As I pointed out above, Lung Cancers have risen dramatically over the past 50 years the cause you assume to be smoking could not bear out examination of the timeline observations.

During the same time when Doll stated cancers were caused by smoking he also knew diesel exhaust was a more definitive cause. Smoke has never grown cancers in a pietrie dish Diesel exhaust set the land speed record for growth. It took until last year due to the power of the oil industry to just add it to the carcinogens list despite what they have known for over 50 years.

The growth of lung cancers more than doubled and so did population Twice as many people twice as much industry and twice as many cars and trucks. You believe this had no significant impact? The medical community swears it, at least those in that defined group who are allowed to speak in media circles.. The number of smokers stayed the same which seems to indicate 5 of 6 smoking related diseases are not caused by smoking that’s how the math actually works out. Sorry…. What was it you said about cause? Epidemiology can not find cause only if a risk might exist the higher the number the more sustained a risk might exist. No cause can be claimed especially with such low numbers is risk assessment.
Although this was created by the Tobacco industry and many will step back s

Continued;

The 20-30 year time lag does not explain the prevalence numbers opposing the disease numbers because the non smokers were never affected. Half the prevalence should immediately halve the effect as with diesel use increasing resulted in higher mortality risk immediately.

For reference look at the six cities studies physical measurements reveal a lot most of the public does not realize because we get poor quality health information That is supposed to be against the autonomy rights we are supposed to be respecting in all this.

Physical measurements demonstrate
25% higher smoking related mortalities in the most polluted cities. Smog days have immediate effects not requiring 20-30 years. As pollution drops so does mortality immediately again no time lag. Lung cancers are also much more significant in cities than in rural environments.

I base my comments on research which I did. Beyond the paid views of lobby groups, look for yourself you may find your opinions are quite misguided a lot of people were paid a lot of money to get you there.

A common sense solution would be to have smoking in bars and pubs that choose to allow smoking and have other bars and pubs for people who don't smoke and don't want to be around it. A business should have the right to run their business as they see fit, and a person has the right not to go into these businesses. Ahhhh - but that's not what the "my way or no way" groups want. The US is going nuts with all of the laws against everything. Face it .. We aren't meant to live forever. No one knows what to do with the elderly that can't afford to live now, but by god we're going to make sure more people live longer so they can starve, suffer and be homeless. I can't wait till they start outlawing fat people, just to hear the outrage from all who think they actually have rights.

#50. Donnie:
I would strongly querie the acurcay of the information given in your 2nd link. I've never heard of this organsion.

The WHO says: "40% of cancer can be prevented (by a healthy diet, physical activity and not using tobacco)."

"One-fifth of cancers worldwide are due to chronic infections"

Donnie that wasney ment as an insult, their great people too hang aroud with.

I hope noone gets lured into thinking that this has anything to do with criticizing smoking bans. This is the groundwork for invading our homes and privacy, the next logical step in the anti-tobacco zealotry.
Our children's health is our responsibility on the advice of their pediatrician. There are laws that protect children from parental neglect. If anyone feels our children are being neglected or abused in any way (smoking or other issues), let them take the negligent parents to court and prove it on a one to basis. Our children are not public health statistics! This is a direct invasion in our parental rights and autonomy. Get the h... out of our homes and our private lives !

Col...I am just about to follow the money, right to the frontdoor of Pat Hewitt.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6456001,00.html

Now the solution is simple

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

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

Just think ...I get a good rake in from HMG and then send a big donation to Freedom to Choose and the Judicial Review could be paid from Government funds.

53. Kevin Mulvina:
This is what Cancer research says: "Yes, yes, yes. There is an absolutely undeniable link between smoking and many different types of cancer. Tobacco is the cause of 90% of lung cancers. In 1998 nearly 35,000 people died of lung cancer in the UK. So 31,500 smokers died from lung cancer that year."
"Overall, over a quarter (29%) of all cancer deaths are linked to smoking"

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=3823

interestingly it seems its skinny people are the ones to be outlawed first

Another well thought out plan by the puppets.

Some suggested reading for you Eve in understanding my opinions.

Slightly off topic in Washington State a proposal is being considered to Ban Booing at sporting events
How controlled would you like to be?

Freakonomics; Levitt and Dubner

State of fear; Creighton

The Nazi War On Cancer; Proctor RN
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6573.html

Handy web links

http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/04/09/58428360.s...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007...

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/PublicHeal...

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=...

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv29n4/v29n4-4.pdf

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/hea...

http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=...

http://whyquit.com/pr/102906.html

http://whyquit.com/whyquit/A_GuidelinePanelDisclosure.html

Report Unsuitable

#62. Kevin Mulvina: I don't have time too go back and read about last semester topics, I did plenty reading on Cancer last semster to have a decident understanding to ansewer an Exam quetion (Yes I passed it, with a good mark too)

Eve again you are being manipulated by self serving numbers.

The actual stats do not state smoking causes anything. What you are referring to is a stat which reveals 90% of lung cancer mortalities are among those who smoke "ever" The most substantial among this group are in the majority also victim to coincidental factors such as; this is a disease of the elderly. The majority of those dying were among a group exposed to leaded fuels asbestos and a number of other things which also would have some small effect one would presume. The lowest of economic standing is the bulk of the group who would not receive the best medical care or early detection resulting in higher rates of mortality.

There are a number of issues with the careless use of language, in stating a known cause when none can be demonstrated in physical science which could account for such high numbers. If a real cause where actually sought and found we would likely be well on the road to a cure. The real danger of following dogma and cultist followings is it represses the advancement of the discovery process which should in comparison to other scientific advancements, have shown a lot more promise than what your cult following actually produces.

All I can say is based on personal experience. Tobacco smoke makes me ill.

Eve...this unwanted legislation was introduced based on Passive Smoking and supposidly to protect employees of hospitality venues.

The Health & Safety at Work Act was already in place and offered any protection that was necessary.

The Health & Safety Executive state clearly that they do not consider Environmental Tobacco Smoke to be a health risk unless an employee has an underlying health problem such as asthma.

Eve;
Nothing can be more dangerous than a closed mind. I say it one more time consider the sources and follow the money.

Your marks were dependant on reciting the dogma not in any way connected with reality.

Politics in the classroom; teaching you what to think and not how.

A small amount of smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a ventilated venue is harmful to your health??
The only time it is harmful to your health is when you 'think' it is harmful to your health.
I took a survey and found out that well over 95% of compatible non-smokers do not think it is a health problem to them.
http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com
http://smokersclubinc.com

#67. Kevin Mulvina: My minds no closed, where do you get off in telling people that you don't no that. You haven't got clue about me.

I read then listen to the fact and then choice what to belive. Classes have told me that you can find an artcle to prove any thing and everything so I'm secptical.

I don't beleive them when they talk about the Brittish 8"£$$. Though I find the information on Smoking and Pass of smokeing and lung cancer as fact. I've never smoked and sometime I feel ill when people smoke around me. So it is quite easy for someone like me to see the dangers as true.

I know that Not everyone who smokes gets cancer but they do get other illness like emphasema.

I know of 2 people who had lung cancer and are both dead 1 was a smoker and the other was a passive smoker (Was constenly around friends and family that smoked) That proves thing in my mind.

There is many things that I question, just because I see no reason to question this one doesney mean I have a closed mind.

We all make choise about the things we belive and the things we don't belive and things that we question.

No one questions every thing, unless their a computer!!!! Are you a computer?

#66. Bill: I think you'll find that some of us wanted it!

I know I did, the stink of smoke when you left a pub or night club was descusting.

Sometime the smoke cause an non smoker to be ill. When I worked behind a bar a few years back I was once SICK IN THE TOILETS BECAUSE OF THE SMOKE and when I quite I had a coff for well over a year. (I've never smoked, I've never even tryed it, so why should I ever want to inhale other peoples smoke, please tell me why, some one like me should want too!)

#68. snowbird11: How many people and ware?

Everyone I know thinks the Ban is great and some of them are Smokers!!!!!

Why do most smokers when they reach an age where looking cool and being rebellious is only leaving towels on the bed - either give up smoking or spend big money trying to give-up smoking. NZ brought in the no smoking legislation before Scotland and it’s just part of life now but nowhere have I read more smoking in the homes - in fact smokers where not smoking in their homes before the public ban took place because of the annoyance to spouses, children or guests. To believe that Scots care so little about their offspring is quite unbelievable.

#71
The ban is great eh?

Isn't it great that a taxi driver giving his daughter a lift is fined for smoking?
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2006/04/29/newsstory82...

Fantastic news that supermarket workers were sacked for smoking outside on a break.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/5400186.stm

I take it your not in Fife Eve?
http://www.fifenow.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=1015...

All this could be prevented if common sense were applied. Sadly, the Scottish Executive lost all sense on this matter when it took it's tough blanket ban approach. It's not a success at all. If this is success then we are in very sad times indeed.

#51 Diana
Wait till you're over 70, have blood clots due to your arteries narrowing and have to have your leg amputated. I have seen the post mortem results of years of smoking and the difference between the pink lungs of a non-smoker and the black, tar-hinging lungs of a smoker (though I suppose they were both dead, so neither one was really any better off than the other!!). If smoking is as safe as some of the posters above are saying, this is a non-story - let the teachers all smoke in the classes. It won't affect your children in any way - right?

#50 Nikistan, well said, the intolerance and hatred over there is enough to drive people to depressants, which I understand is high. Big Pharma must be rubbing their hands together, I am sure they will find a pill for the fat antis, because they are next.
We can have some fun then, when their turn comes, as it will.
Glad you mention the DDT Iain and how much WHO care really about Health.
How many real deaths do they have on their hands.
Dragonhead, I read how much your Country cares for the Children, how many forced abortions have their been. Or is that all hype like so called Passive smoking.
For all the paranoids out their, I suggest you do not even put you children at risk taking them out in the car,with you.
So people who do NOT have cars may think you are disgusting putting children in them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6371944,00.html
Traffic fumes from motorways can seriously impair the lung development of children, new research suggests.
A large-scale study in California found that 10-year-olds who lived within 500 metres of a motorway suffered a "substantial" loss of lung function by the age of 18.
The effect became less the further away a child lived from the road.
A similar impact was seen on both boys and girls, and there was little influence from social background, other pollution sources, or exposure to tobacco smoke.

Smokers to the left - Chubblies to the right - make way for the Perfect people

http://www.hazards.org/haz74/asbestosconcern.pdf#search=%...

There are “hotspots” and
Asbestos should be a major
Issue in the politics and communities
Of those areas. This is doubly important as many
asbestos-related deaths, caused by workp

72. Robbie /Best joke I,ve read in years.Smokers were not smoking in the hoose before the bam. lol.

#73. Iain Inverness: It's a good thing.

Smoking sometimes makes me feel ill as I said in an early post I was once sick because of people smoking near me. The smoke really goes for my stumic (damit, cant use the word I want to use, Tummy the simple word for it). I very much dought I'm the only one who experences this and its great to go out and not have pains in my stumic.

I'm unaware of smokers being in pain and vomiting becauase they can't smoke. Is there any stories of that? Please tell me I though they just got a bit crankie or went outside to smoke.

Pre the ban it use to be me that got crnkie because of the pain and lit cicaretes coming from any direction at any given time when you were in a night clubs dance floor.

Eve...86% of the Scottisn public wanted choice...therfore you appear to be in a minority.

76. Mandy, Banthisbanthatbantheotherland.
Another brilliant post mandy, well done.

#76. Mandy: calm down no one said you couldn't buy cigarets they only said you couldn't smoke in public places. Most people in Scotland are non smokers, I don't know bout any where else.

It's only fare that us non-smokers (& espesaly those of us who have never smoked) have a smoke free enviroment to enjoy while we're out and about allow we still expose to the fumes when we're ut in the street. I hate it when I'm stuck walking behined someone whose smoking because their fumes hit me in the face in somtime I feel really ill. I have to put up with this so the lest you can do is expet the ban and be thankful that you can still smoke outside and your home if you chioes too.

77. rab
Talking about NZ Rab - don't know about Glasgow.
People have been going outside to smoke here for ages.

It started when 'they' reckoned smoking in homes could be a factor in cot deaths (not saying whether that‘s correct or not). People just started 'going out0 for a smoke.

#79. Bill: Want choice is part of life every one wants it to an extent

but your missing £$"£^&^& point smoking in public place should stay the way it is. I would like it to go futher (Are you so so inbcreadble selfish that you would want a person who has never ever smoked in there life to in hale durity fummes which make thwem feel ill. I love going out and the Smoking ban makes it more enjoyable, I feel more energeic) But I'm a resonable person and I'll put up with in the street but not when they're smoking out side my flat door and I can't get in I had to ask one increadbly selfish smoker to move from enternce and tell them that I didn't want to stinc of smoke because I wanted to get in to my flat.

Smoking near food is unhygenic and is rightly so now baned, Smoke taints the taste of food.

I'm no in the minority most people I know are happy with it.

Eve...define a public place. The hospitality sector is made up of private businesses where you are invited to participate in hospitality. THe owner can refuse to serve you as well as eject you. So come on define a public place

Reading all these posts, whether right or wrong, some people are unconvinced either way about the health issues. In a way, that's not really the point.

What is, and has never been in doubt, is that smokers STINK, - anyone sitting near them have their bodies and clothes contaminated with the disgusting smell, the irritation of smoke in their lungs.

Before the ban, spending an hour or two in a pub meant howkin' up some pretty nasty stuff the next morning, since the ban none.

No amount of ventilation has ever stopped that.

Well Eve, I feel like I need my Asthma pump with peoples overpowering perfume, how many air freshners do people use at home, do you have any idea what that is doing to everyone?
Why do we have so many pensioners and good luck to them, they lived through the biggest so called passive smoking eras ever. Why should we believe the blinkered view, of a minority of smoke haters.
It is not just public place, those who have done some research and their are many good ones on this board, know where this is going and it has nothing to do with health.
They banned it inside and outside of a hospice for Christ sake, wake up.
It is about control, nothing more nothing, less.
Why should people who work not be entitled to a ventilated smoke room, many factories and shops had them. You would not even enter it. Why should the government, expect the hospitality industry, who lose money not be compensated. This was forced on people because of a smell. So ban perfumes with their carcinogenic smells. Where do you stop, you don't, that is the problem.
Did the elderly know they would be kicked out of their homes should they wish to smoke.
Did anyone speak up for them? Do many of them know how to use computers to get some facts?
Angry, you bet, the government should give all smokers back the NI paid up to date if they do not want to treat them, taxes should be lowered of ciggies, then we could afford our own healthcare,
People are being denied drugs because the NHS has run out of money, yet they have thrown millions into making smokers the lepers of society.
No I do not work for Big T, no I do not have shares in Big T or my pension. I do not work for big Pharma either, do you

Thank Rab

#84. Bill: Leave me alone am anyed by the selfshness of some smokers, it's no like they canney smoke at all. It's unfare to restrick the places that a non smoker can go without inhaling potenchial lethal fummes. A non-Smoker doesney force a smoker to inhale something un voultery. But a smker can force a non-smoker to do so.

I belive the law sayes places where the public go and work places and this includes Bus Stops apparently but this one hasney really been up held though.

I can't belive none of them will exept that some of us relise the dangers of smoking and pass of smoking and I will not be bulied in to changing my mind over my opion.

I feel like I've made some really good points on this subjects but Smoker don't exopet because they don't want to see the hobbie as being unhealthy and they blow things out of persepective.

The smoking ban existed, theres no going ban (I would defenty not wont it to be reversed) And no I don't feel like I'm in the minority. If non-smokers are tell you other wise its because theu don't what to have these arguments with you.

Smoking Bans here to stay deal with it and smoke on your own property (home) or in the street.

Horrible Cankers,
I work with people who have lost limbs too, not through smoking, through road accidents and Diabetes.
Just name me one illness that only smokers get that non-smokers do not.
Then maybe I can believe something.
Now let me think, how quick things change and the scaremongering that goes on.
Coffee- bad for you, decaffinated better, oops no, changed our minds, normal coffee is better.
Red wine- bad for you- oops no changed our minds.
ECT ect.
you are taking your children into a police state and you cannot see it coming

Eve...I am a non-smoker who helped introduce Smoking Restrictions into Malta in October 2004, the model was then taken by Italy. By allowing Designated Smoking Rooms with Ventilation and Air Filtration linked to a Regulated Indoor Air Quality Standard the issue is solved.

#87. Mandy,: It's ABOUT HEALTH,
Health
And Health

To think other wise is foolish!!!

It must be be about time for your next fag break cause your no makeing sence.

And no I don't wear exess realy strong perfume because I don't need to hind the smell of being a smoker. Oh yes in my experence people who ware strong perfums and lots of it are smoker not non-smoker as its a well knowen fact that smoking dulls your sences (Smell and taste)

You wake up Smoking is an unhealthy pass time, which appeanly has a calming effect on the smoker and is belived to help stop weight gain by silly people who don't realise there bodys defsent in vits and mineral cause they need a higher does due to the habbit.

Smoking is an addicaton, You should really start thinking about how smoking is effecting your life and what will happen to you if you continue to smoke.

Think about at least for a few mins.

Think about at some point in the future.

And one day you'll wake up and you'll think about quiting serously. Thats the day you should ask for help with quiting cause its a difficult habit to quite.

Eve...where is your evidence that shows that Cigarette smoke is lethal?

If you read this it says that there has not been enough scientific research to confirm such a statement

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2007/3/1/nonsmokersAtRisk

#93. Bill: Potencaily is the word you missed out.

86. Bill, Dunblane
After a while Bill everyone’s tempers and lungs will settle down and even smokers will enjoy the smoke free ambience. The clubs here were the most against the ban, especially the RSA (Returned Services Association) very strong in NZ and Oz with quite flash clubs. They vehemently believed old soldiers deserved to smoke in peace. When these clubs decontaminated (drapes, carpets, walls, ceilings, members) and freshened up the restaurants bloomed. The old guys returned and are happy with their new club’s image and patronage.
It’ll happen in Scotland, perhaps many are just more conservative (with a small c) there. Bet Annabelle Goldie wishes that were true.

It would appear that even in America where we are told gy the Scottish Executive that smoking bans work....they are taking a rethink

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/politics/16...

by the way....carcinogens will remain alive and well as long as we have soft furnishings in rooms.

Chemical contaminants from indoor sources: Most indoor air pollution comes from sources inside the building. For example, adhesives, upholstery, carpeting, copy machines, manufactured wood products, cleaning agents and pesticides may emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including formaldehyde. Research shows that some VOCs can cause chronic and acute health effects at high concentrations, and some are known carcinogens. Low to moderate levels of multiple VOCs may also produce acute reactions in some individuals. Environmental tobacco smoke and combustion products from stoves, fireplaces, and unvented space heaters all can put chemical contaminants into the air. It can also come from synthetic fragrances in personal care products or in cleaning and maintenance products

Hang on...do you know what is in coffee?

Perhaps it would help to note that coffee contains over 1000 chemicals, 19 of which are known to be rat carcinogens.
-"Rodent Carcinogens: Setting Priorities" Gold Et Al., Science, 258: 261-65 (1992)

Second Hand Smoke contains 400 trace chemicals of which many cannot be measured. of these 60 are known carcinogens 7 of which are human and the remained rodent.

sorry 4000 chemicals

#97. Horrible Cankers: Exeslent (Good) Point!

One of my reltives was a smoker for decades and has quite for about 3 1/2 years now and wishes he'd quit decades ago as he has emphesema (This is uncurable). Smokers who don't have emphesemaand the other more serouse ilness, lungs will eventuly heal and go back to normal after about a year or two can't rember which but it defently takes at least a year.

If you quite before you turn 30 then there a better chance your lungs will go back to normal quite after 30 then sicentce say that there less chance of your lungs healing completly but they will become healthier.

Sorry, I'm tiered and begin to be incable of spell the most simplict words

This study is worth reading....

http://www.forces.org/evidence/download/ntp915c.pdf

Whatever the pros and cons of banning smoking in restaurants/bars/certain public places, allowing non-smokers a fresh smoke-free atmosphere, the fact is that smoking is a very expensive, unhealthy and more and more being regarded as an anti-social practice. The truth is that even many smokers dislike the habit and wished they had never started as weans. They then spend money on patches special gum, dummy cigarettes, hypnotists and one guy I know to give up smoking took a drink every time he wanted a fag. Gave up smoking but got cirrhosis.
I wonder, how many reasonable, intelligent non-smoking ADULTS take up smoking? How many smokers started after the age of say 30 years? It’s children who start smoking and than can’t stop. Perhaps in stead of warning the young about the health hazards (remember they are immortal and are never going to age and die - that’s for other folk) we explain that it is really quite unsexy - not pleasant kissing smokers and ’some’ reports state it can produce impotence. It also costs a small fortune - and really truthfully does stink.

92 - Bill

NEVER been in a pub where the air was clear until 26 March last year. Only a smoker would deny it.

However, I remember in Aukland airport some years ago, they had a small perspex room where smokers could sit and not annoy others. I could accept a sealed room like that for those who don't give a damn about others. It was also a good spectator sport, looking in at the pale, ill faces, howkin' the cr*p up fae their lungs.

I have a close neighbor who gave up smoking over 20 years ago, he hardly ever drinks.
He has just had his first course of Chemo, he has liver and lung cancer.
His doctor asked if he was ever in contact with asbestos. He is 53 years old.
He is hoping to make it to his sons wedding in september.
We know that smoking is a risk for us, but given the old peoples homes I have visited, if it did take ten years off my life, kept me out of there, that will be fine by me. But it is not just down to smoking is it.
There are Countries where they have higher rates of smoking per capita, yet lower rates of cancer.
One day they will find a cure for it.
Are you telling us Eve that there will be no cancer if all smokers gave up?
If cancer is still around, you and others will have slowed down finding out the real cause. Science is so flawed now, it is like the little boy who cried wolf.
The amount of studies done over many years, it should be facts not estimates, maybes or couldbes.
I live near one of the most dangerous roads in the Country and I could get the facts on how many people have been killed on it or injured.
Now the A14 is a road that I find too risky.

Robbie,

Your point about smoking being smelly, addictive and that you don't like kissing smokers etc is all very well but has nothing to do with whether people who smoke should be excluded from having any recreational space in which to do so. You don't represent all non-smokers anyway. People you kiss are those that you want to kiss and if your ability to love people enough to kiss them is determined by the way they smell you are only to be pitied. Many brands of aftershave are stronger (and more offputting) than tobacco. As to smoking causing impotence, it didn't stop the baby boom – there is no credibility there at all.

It is comical how many who show up on these discussions knew one or more who died of lung cancers as a result of second hand smoke.

The numbers say some of them have to be completely full of it, in fact the majority of them.

In your lifetime you only have the good fortune of meeting less than 1000 people if 90% of lung cancers are among those who smoke only 10% of Lung cancer victims are available to support the claims of those who swear they had lung cancer victims as close relatives and frends.

Go figure.

The essence of Tobacco Control[TC] and Health [S]Care logic has always been in treating people like a disease. Smokers are seen as no more than a hated disease statistic, deprived of any ability to participate in health decisions which affect only their future.

These descisions have nothing to do with non smokers, their protection or preferences hate filled zelots all who sit exclusively at the table plotting what they might imposse on their percieved tribal enemies.

The autocracy of the corrupted World Health Organization[WHO] as directed by it's investing industry partners, reigns supreme in guiding media opinions which currently control the voices of duly elected officials. Instead of the people directing government the reverse is now true. This undermining of democracy will cost us a lot more than our expression of who will be allowed to govern. The backlash when people finally realize the full extent of how they were cheated will be extreme.

Speaking stricktly as a drug resistant disease I will adapt in time growing immunities to the cruel treatments and all the drug company creations you throw at us will prove to be a waste of resources and ultimately will prove TC for the fraudulent theory it actually supports.

Because someone smokes does not make them a target for contempt. They never deserved to be treated as less than human. TC in the majority are supportive of the hatred expressed and carry the bur

Eve this one is hilarious;

'Smokers who don't have emphesema and the other more serouse ilness, lungs will eventuly heal and go back to normal after about a year or two can't rember which but it defently takes at least a year."

If non smokers can have hearts and lungs permanently damaged by second hand smoke within minutes, would you say this is consistent with what you just posted? Considering the fact a smoker is expossed more in one year, to more second hand smoke by volume than a non smoker is in a lifetime.

The current logic makes second hand smoke more deadly than primary smoking so why should a smoker quit? By your belief system smoking offers protection.

Maybe in order to protect yourself based in what you believe; you need to smoke as well???

Even a smoker would not praise such actions, are you promoting smoking here or trying to control the actions of smokers? Get back on your own side of the issue.

Why don't you just be honest here? your just looking for convenient victims to express your thinly veiled hatred. Hatred for others outside your personal comfort zone. People you dont know, much less understand.

#108 Kevin
I believe the information is that after a smoker stops smoking, the terrible damage they have caused to their lungs also stops and actually heals to some extent. It takes at least a year to effect these repairs and does not recover to the standard of healthy lungs.

I have also heard people advised that it can be dangerous to stop after a certain number of years as it makes them vulnerable to other infections. The permutations are endless!

Well JG #75, I hate to ---- on your bonfire, but I have nice pink lungs not black ones. The most common people to lose legs are diabetics which I don't have, and the only difference to length of life in my family is about five years whether you smoke or not but the smokers live longer. I can expect to live to be about 95 unless I am killed in an accident.
The cause of most cancers still remains a mystery.
There are so many contributing factors including gentics, location and exposures to many carcinogens. For example, did you know that the alpha particles in radon cause cancer, and radon is in your back yard in the soil, rocks and ground water. Remember that next time you're gardening.
sleep well Diana

#11 Diana
What, you can see inside your body? Your smoking has indeed provided you with a remarkable gift! I have seen the pink lungs of a non-smoker and the tar-dripping black (well, maybe they were dark brown) lungs of a heavy smoker. Both were dead, and the samples were taken post mortem. Of course there are other reasons for amputation but I think the top three are diabetes, smoking and trauma - a bit tough if you are a smoker who contracts diabetes, eh?

Very interesting reading, all of you! Some of it made me laugh out loud! I still say have pubs that want smoking and pubs that don't want smoking. Someone mentioned follow the money - right on the money there! States sue the tobacco companies, pledging to use the money for tobacco related health costs, education etc. Yeah right. No one has seen any of that happening any differently. Now in Washington State the battle has been with the Indians who sell cigarettes. They don't honor the smoking ban in the casinos and the Governor is pissed. Says that it's unfair to businesses that don't allow smoking. Not to mention they cut the state out of tax money. She wants her share of the Indian money. I could go on and on about that.
Diana - loved your poem.
Eve - you are just wrong about the lack of taste and smell sense for smokers. And I might add, how is it unfair to restrict the places a non smoker can go but not unfair to restrict the places a smoker can go? You attacked someone who you say judges you without knowing you in one of these posts. Do you not realize that your rants have given us all an idea into your character?

106. Belinda, Edinburgh
Hi Belinda - if you happen to return for a gander at this forum here are a few points regarding your reply to my post. Often posters who reply are rather selective in the line of reasoning they use to make a response - picking only minor comments in the debate and ignoring the more pertinent statements.
1) “..whether people who smoke should be excluded from having any recreational space in which to do so.’
I never suggested the above. No one is forcing any one to give up smoking - that is there choice.
Where they smoke is a different matter and we do have the dichotomy of freedom of the few or the many. The smokers or the non-smokers. Most now believe that non-smokers should not be severely inconvenienced by the
smell and irritation of exhaled smoke. For years many people would not go to bars and clubs because of the foul atmosphere - now they are enjoying a smoke free ambience.

2) Hey kissing is not, or wasn’t many years ago, make that many, many years ago reserved solely for ones life-long partner. I was a ’teenager in the lat 50s - 60s and there was a lot of kissing among lots of people I only make the remark that anecdotal evident would confirm that the vast majority of non-smokers (who are in the majority) would much prefer kissing a non-smoker and this could affect who becomes their life-long partner.
If you love some one - two things can happen (as far as the kissing and the smoking go) the non-smoker through love assures the beloved smoking partner that they do not mind the stinking breath (or gets use to the Macleans taste) despite secretly hating it - or the smoking partner understands that kissing for the other partner is not as pleasant as it should be and gives up smoking. They could encourage the beloved partner to take up smoking but true love would stop such a dastardly act and if the beloved is over say 30 years old would be too sensible.
3) ’some’ reports state it ca

Robbie

I admit to not being the most pertinent of posters.

Not everybody minds smoking as much as you do. When you talk of smokers not being socially acceptable and faffing about with toothpaste etc I just don't recognise it as the same world I live in.

I did suggest that you want to exclude smokers from social space, not that you expected they would give up. Why should a smoker go outside if I don't mind and it's pouring with rain? Artificial social engineering.

Smokers may dislike the habit but that doesn't mean they are all willing, ready and able to stop. It doesn't mean either that they appreciate being pitched out into a chilly and damp climate.

112, JG you are wrong about the lungs. The black lungs that used to be shown on TV were coal miners every one knows that.

You should try reading this book it will educate you if you have an open mind which I doubt

http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap8.htm

" Kephart insists, however, that it is normally impossible to tell, from autopsy, whether the deceased was or was not a smoker. Upon resection, the lungs are always clear, unless the deceased lived in a large city where there was significant industrial pollution. In that event, carbon deposits may be found, but these are unrelated to smoking. So the "brown lungs" myth is exactly that: a myth. "

Read and learn

#99 Bill you are talking a load of tripe - read this

If you buy bottled water you are drinking benzene

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article21...

There are carcinogens in everything we eat

http://www.scientific-alliance.org/news_archives/chemical...

So it may come as a shock to you that even an all-natu- ral holiday feast (and every other meal you consume throughout the year) comes replete with chemicals, including toxins (poisons) and carcinogens (cancer-causing
chemicals) - most of which average consumers would reject simply on the grounds that they can't pronounce the names

and the so called fresh air

http://www.tribune.com.ng/01032007/hlt1.html

and it is known that smoking protects you from this.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/27022007/325/number-dementia-suf...

#116 Donnie
I never saw the lungs on the telly, I saw them "in the flesh" so to speak. The deceased lived in Fife (no idea of his previous history) and I don't think he was a miner. I read the link you gave me and spotted it was commissioned by a pro-smoking group. Smokers always find ways to justify what they are doing - "my granddad lived until he was 127, smoked 60 capstan full strength a day and never even had a day off his work" - you carry on smoking if you like, just keep the stench away from me. Thank you.

118 JG I dont have to justify what I am doing, when I woke up this morning you could legally buy a packet of cigarettes so no justification needed. You may not like the smell of tobacco millions of others do. I dont like the smell of many things but I would never be rude and ignorant to someone else I simply move away. You say tobacco smells well this government stinks and the biggest W****r is this man mates with Joke McConnel and Andy Kerr.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news....

JG, #117,
What you mean like, the oldest women ever lived, in France may have lived another 10 years had she not have smoked until she was 120,

#105. Mandy: Eh, NO

40% of cancers are realet to diet and lack of exersice.

90% of Lung cancers caused by Smoking.

Theres an unlucky 10% who will get lung cancer and its no realatet smoking.

Cancer is commonly cause by infection such as Hepp ect

These are the facts.

#108. Kevin Mulvina: Your crule.

You've not read all of my post or you would have may be relaised that it was related to age, being under 30.

Also smoking cause perment damage to a non-smoker pasive smoker as it does to a smoker, have you lost the ability to think rationaly.

Opps , So sorry for wasting your time I forgot your a computer. So nothing I say is ever going to make sences to you. Everything has to presies and you have to querre every thing. Oh your wores than that stupid papper clip which knock the scren and say "It appears you are writting a letter", when in fact I'm no writting aletter at all.

Is smoking in front of your children (IE posioning their atmosphere) tantamount to child abuse? If they were smoking hash we would say yes, coccaine, we would say yes! So why are normal cigs different?

Many people will forgo meals etc to feed the craving for a cig, I agree that it probably has moved more smokers inside their homes but, surely that is something that the smoker themselves should be considering, that they are harming the health of not only themselves but those near and dear to them including their children.

I had the misfortune to talk to a smoking couple the other day, I say misfortune because I could not understand their rationale for continuing to smoke, they smoke (constantly) in front of their baby boy and young daughter, both of whom now have significant health problems including asthma and immune deficiencies making them more prone to infection than their peers, it has been pointed out to them that their habbits are not helping and more than likely causing the problem yet they continue to smoke, can someone from the pro smoking lobby explain this to me? I simply cannot understand putting your child in harms way deliberately!!

Child abuse is the wilful mistreatment or neglect of children. You cannot describe a habit in which millions of people participate as child abuse. Abuse is an individual act, not a 'class act'.

The authors of this study use cotinine as a measure of exposure to tobacco. But the presence of cotinine does not prove that the exposure has caused harm.

There may be limited numbers of cases, perhaps the one you describe is one of them, where smoking aggravates a pre-existing condition in the children. If you think these parents are maliciously harming their children perhaps you should go to the police! But it may also be that the parents know something about the children that you don't know.

Parents may forgo food to smoke but that doesn't mean that they expect their children to do likewise.

Belinda Cotine is found in fruit and veg I believe.
How can any parent be accused of anything, pensioners would not be here, given the 30 minute heart attack lie, you cannot accuse with maybes. couldbes, estimates, guesstimates.
Yes Belinda, I remember in the days of no support from HMG, I smoked, I went without food, my children never did.
I will give up nothing for fanatics
Lies are disrespectful, children deserve truth not propaganda.

#119 Donnie
I should have said "justify to themselves". I am exceptionally pleased they have prevented people from smoking in public (what you do in your own house is your business and you are entirely correct - smoking is not illegal) - there was nothing more rude and ignorant than going out for a meal somewhere and having it spoiled by the people at the next table lighting up and creating more smoke than the brickworks chimney. THAT was truly ignorant!

As a non smoking, anti-ban, anti-anti's, anti-Ash etc, etc, etc, I would suggest all you carinogen worried anti's read this:

http://100777.com/node/1117

By the way, the floggings should continue till morale improves.

It never fails to amaze me the level of stupidity and statistic spouting folly on behalf of FOREST et al.

In an ideal world, smoking would not be harmful, people could enjoy it without worry and not have to head outside to enjoy their tobacco.

It isnt an ideal world though, so in the interests of eveyones health this legisaltion is introduced.

I would simplify the arguement down to these two questions.

1. Do smokers really believe that smoking kills?

2. If so, how can it be possible that the smoking 'bi-product' does not kill?

That is like stating that Radioactive material is mutagenic but the fumes that it emits are not.

I am an ex smoker who still has a love of smoking (and would probably still be a smoker if it wasnt for pressure from my family). If i were still smoking i would happily go outside.

I like all smokers (ex or otherwise) enjoyed a pint and a cig, those days are gone now. Accept that inhaling tobacco smoke causes health issues.

Before anyone postes stats regarding the minute levels of carcinogenic particles in tobacco smoke, i am fully aware that the effects of ETS are chronic

127

given that all of those products you list appear to contain carcinogens, dont you feel it is a good idea to reduce exposure to these chemicals.

Therefore shouldnt breathing ETS be minimised?

"1. Do smokers really believe that smoking kills?

2. If so, how can it be possible that the smoking 'bi-product' does not kill?"

I know that water kills, but I also know I'm not going to drown by breathing in steam in the shower...

#130 Jonnycab
Nice try! Cigarette smoke contains arsenic, formaldeyde, ammonia and carbon monoxide to name but a few. Steam contains only water!

131- the point i was making was about the amount you're actually likely to inhale- the dose makes the poison afterall

Thanks for the response Johny cab very analogous!

129
Dear Peter peter,

Give up all things carciginian and you most certainly give up something else - life.

#134 - What? The poison is in the atmosphere - presumably the more you inhale, the greater the risk.

134
Yes, hence why i said the situation was "chronic", i.e.meaning the opposite of acute.

The miners didnt develop emphesema over night, the same can be said for ETS.

there is a more analogous response

TAXI!

JG and Eve;
The origin of what you are talking about is the latest research of Sir Richard Doll he's the guy who it is popularly believed, first demonstrated a risk association between smoking and Cancer. That is of course if you ignore the fact Hitler did it first.

His latest research a major 50 year study of doctors who smoked spanning over 100 years. demonstrated among those who quit before 30 no detectable effects were found in later life not partially healed as you contend totally. Of those who did not quit or quit later the effects grew incrementally to a maximum of 8 years life lost according to life estimates and in comparison to others within the group.

This would suggest a linear cause and effect could be demonstrated. Political rhetoric opposed that reality with the term “no safe level exists” popular among smoker hating Bigotry which sells smoking bans. A term which allows an unscientific classification of smoking as one despite physical science which demonstrates clearly they could if regulated be much safer for both smokers and those who fear the smoke. The anti smoker crowd will never allow that to happen because they like the risk figures exactly where they are at levels which can be manipulated to inspire fear in the general public who they believe are to ignorant to look close enough to know any better. Apparently they were right. “Tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth”.

For years our trusted Health authorities told us of the benefits if we quit smoking. Now they defeat those statements with the exaggerations. Acceptance of risk being transformed into cause. The effects of ETS if you remember were derived of highest maximum exposure “lifetime” of hospitality workers. Now inexplicably that risk is said to occur within minutes from miniscule exposure levels among the general public. The use of children as props fools a lot of us, however the guidance to use those tactics are well explained in campaign strategies l

continues...

It is curious smoking affects only smokers directly and smokers are allowed absolutely no say in controlling the health effects which affect them alone.
The dangers of ETS are a debate for those frightened by the political rhetoric a separate issue entirely.

As for the effects of smoking those who abuse others claiming some misguided compassion, this is a convenient realignment of those in society no longer able to vent against Jews or Blacks.

Now a government seal of approval allows those small minds to attack smokers as a new detestable disease. Humanity can be removed all rights and all opinion nullified with catchy phrases like denial and drug addled brains.

Oh what fun for the small minded, who have no reason to be involved in this discussion if not for the attraction of community hatred imposed on their fellows.

Get a life of your own or continue to be aligned with Bigots, by your own choosing.

As for the acute vs. chronic discussion.

Tobacco specific carcinogens found in urine samples of non smokers reveals not a permanence but proof of a body disposing of what it can't use, urine is outside the body. The recent study in an examination of toe nails in spectral analysis, revealed although nicotene and cotenine were found among the most expossed, curiously no tobacco specific carciniogens were detected.

Dies that inspire some thought, or do we continue to sing along with the popular cult rhetoric suporting what ever they give us?

As long as everyone who counts makes a buck it's all good.

How much did you get? or did they tell you the cheque is in the mail.

Kevin everyone is against us arent they, at least they arent abusing blacks and jews though eh Kevin? The least credible statement on here (closley followed by your sexist rants earlier).

Not that i really care, i notice that you have managed to answer every point minus these 2. If you would indulge me futher

1. Do smokers really believe that smoking kills?

2. If so, how can it be possible that the smoking 'bi-product' does not kill?

It would be easier if you could reply in simple formal prose rather than a statistical rant.

The fun one here is the indignity of a non smoker being disgusted in eating a meal in a smoking allowed environment.
The total shock and surprise of smelling cigarette smoke and extending that to reveal the ignorance of a smoker, who had no way of knowing what the preferences were of the table adjacent.

I have to wonder if two doors were available one saying no smoking and one saying smoking is allowed which door would our indignant and insulted diners choose to enter?

Once we were all satisfied by a designation of non smoking sections, however a small number chose to complain and we invented enclosed smoking sections to appease them. Smokers did not complain and welcomed the chance to participate in inclusive solutions. Not satisfied some extremists although no one could any longer smell the smoke employed instrumentation to prove it was still there. Although impossible to separate to source, a list of deadly carcinogens demanded further action. The barely detectable trace amounts come no where near the amounts of lifetime exposure levels demonstrating a slight increase of risk among those most exposed, still no level is acceptable so smokers had to go. The readings now are telling us how much reduced those toxins are in the finer so called clean air. Air which after all can not be cleaner than the polluted air outdoors which inspires global warming fear and is known to be concentrated inside buildings. The higher levels of carcinogens and risk emitting from candles and incense or the log burning in the fireplace are still much higher than even the smoking allowed environment offered. The smell of that meal wafting from the kitchen still increases the risk. To add insult to injury what is presented on the plate exposes us all to millions of times higher risk than ETS ever could, in the food and preservatives offered.

So I ask in your indignant tones, have you no concerns for your safety? In the risk terms of smoking bans they actually ac

How many would simply support a ban of smoking all together and end the huge expenditures and the making of simply useless legislation.

Lets see a show of hands here.

The ones who scream indignities the loudest would be the first to fight against a complete ban of smoking, because like governments they are to attached to the cash flow. Demonizing smokers allows much more of that cash to flow. This is a campaign of hatred which is inspired by one common denominator the worship of greed.
The health of any one is not important as long as the cash cow continues to deliver.

That is the real bottom line behind the creation of this so called news item.

Who is in denial now peter peter?

Your loaded questions in search of half truths by the rules you imposed are indicative of your wish to deceive. Not in an ability to support what you believe.

1. Do smokers really believe that smoking kills?

2. If so, how can it be possible that the smoking 'bi-product' does not kill?

It would be easier if you could reply in simple formal prose rather than a statistical rant.

I believe there is nothing which can not kill including oxygen and water if delivered in their purest forms. Poison is in the dose on a Linear scale somehow ETS has non linear capabilities not yet explained a magical substance which defies all the laws of credible science

Kind of like diesel Exhaust which set the land speed record for growing cancers in a dish something not yet demonstrated by cigarette smoke even in the most extreme of concentrations.

Diesel exhaust is completely harmless as seen in thousands of mothers and their babies sitting in train and bus stations daily ETS kills in minute quantities and diesel exhaust is absolutely harmless that how you see it?

Smoking banned on outdoor patios protect those sitting next to a bus idling while the driver is inside getting a coffee sounds right to me.

That is scientific reality. The level of risk is a personal; decision we all are able to make based on our right to the best possible information.

Do you believe skiing can kill? Makes as much sense.

Of course smoking byproducts can kill if delivered in high enough concentrations they have little accumulative tendencies so I can assure you as did Sir Richard doll you should have no fear being in the company of a smoker as long as he doesn’t have a virus like a bird flu or Sars those are scary too, yet you got out of bed this morning . You as many naive in society are being conned by those investors who seek a profit Fear as a tool sells much more efficiently than sex until rece

Anti smokers clain smoking causes 400,000 premature deaths a year.
(Actually, this is a purely computer generated imaginary number and even so, by their own figures, half of those "premature' deaths occur after age 72...almost 20% of them after EIGHTY-FIVE!)

Now Peter Peter I will test your intelect.
One simple question which Health Scare authorities fear the most. Take your best shot.

And please, attacking the messanger so so tired usually an indication of association to a paid lobby who don't want discussion, seek originality or at least try to sound like you have something to say.

The actual number of smokers in North America is almost exactly the same as the number of smokers in 1950 throughout more than 50 years the number has been held constant.

Population has more than doubled reducing smoker prevalence to less than half. With a stable cause and effect we should see half the effect in prevalence terms yet we saw more than a doubling of smoking related diseases.

The current numbers support 1 in 5 or 20% of mortalities are caused by smoking, by projection we would have to say in 1950

80% of mortality was caused by smoking.

Do you believe the numbers?

I don't

#141 Kevin
The fact that the smokers I referred to were quite happy to blow their smoke wherever they liked with no consideration at all, actually shows that someone needed to step in and tell them just how unacceptable that was - they obviously didn't have the courtesy to think about other people.

As someone else said - Your bad habit is smoking and the result of that is that my clothes are left reeking of your smoke. My bad habit is drinking and the result of that is that I need to use the toilet more regularly. How about I come and p!ss on your clothes.

JG I would be the first to agree with you ignorance is inexcusable.

To blame all smokers for the ignorance of a few is your issue

As for the smoke on your clothes how easily that could be avoided is also something you would have to accept personal reponsibility for as well.

Your final statement speaks for itself

You offer nothing of value with such immature proposals.

#147 Kevin
I never put the smoke on my clothes (and the scenario I described was an instance - unfortunately not the only one) - the only ways not to allow my clothes to be contaminated would be 1) For me to stay in my house - a bit unfair as it's not me causing the pollution. 2) For the smokers to stay in and spoil their own air.

The last part of my comment was not meant to be taken seriously - I would not inflict my excesses on other people!

JG;

The reality is a sign on the door of a bar could allow us all to make choices which are inclusive of everyone.

That is not so hard to concede is it? If an employee feared for their health they have the right to refuse the work. That has always worked in the past suddenly for no apparent reason that is no longer a choice in an environment where smoking prevalence is half what it used to be and exposures in public are reduced more than 70%

The majority of the population don't smoke and the hospitality industry is all about accommodation where is the harm in allowing the market to decide?

Smokers take their own risks and have always respected a social etiquette you can not deny being asked "do you mind if I smoke". In a bar where smoking is allowed if someone smokes why shouldn't they? If the bar offers beverages why shouldn't you drink?

If we all seek to live together in harmony we can work out any problems, some give and take is necessary however absolutes and exclusions are where I draw the line.

We had a health minister telling the press smokers better quit or be punished. In Quebec the Health Minster went farther stating smokers have no right to an opinion because they are under the influence of their habit.

That is pure ignorance.

We can all do much better. We certainly don't need to find leadership in those who profit by promoting fear.
We have jails at the ready for that sort of people. We call them terrorists and extosionists.

Consider as I pointed out before;

The name ASH and their following; when you burn off everything of substance all that remains is the ASH and the holes.

Tobacco Control is about the Control, Governments dictating the actions of the people instead of the other way around.

#149 Kevin
Yes I have, indeed, been asked by smokers for permission to smoke (my Dad was a heavy smoker and was most mannerable) - I have also had smoke blown in my face by those who are not so polite. My own opinion on this is that there should be no smoking allowed AT ALL where food is being served (one of our local hotels used to have a smoking room to where, when coffee was being served, those who enjoyed a cigarette with theirs were escorted) - I find that disgusting (as do my smoking friends, by the way!).

I'm not sure about the situation of the bar employee though - if he/she said they couldn't work in a smoky atmosphere that might effectively make them unemployed!

The guy in Canada who said smokers have no opinion is well out of order - is that not meant to be democracy?

I confess to some sympathy for the pensioner (say) who has visited his local for years, savouring his pint, fags and a game of dominoes with the boys! It won't quite be the same sitting in his house (alone, maybe) with a can and the telly!!

JG;

There is a growing consensus among smokers right now and I whole heartedly agree I would rather suport a complete ban of all smoking than live in the environment we have allowed to evolve. Lets really level the playing field.

If we can agree on one thing here honesty and integrity would be calling for that absolute prohibition. Anyone who supports anything less is a fraud.

If the majority rules and the majority does not wish to tolerate smoking any longer and the preventable diseases are truly preventable, what are we waiting for? Why is no one asking for a complete ban?

The answer to that one is pretty obvious, in it's absense it speaks volumes.

#JG 126 - you realy do exaggerate. I bet you drive one of these gas guzzling poluting cars that are killing thousands, but complain about a whiff of tobacco smoke - pathetic and hypocritical.
Next time you start your car up think of the child in the pushchair who is at the same level as your exhaust and breathing in your toxic poisenous fumes - do you care a dam NO - selfish selfish selfish

http://news.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=1178382006

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6422699.stm

Kevin

I can see where you are going with that, but another reason is that prohibition simply doesn't work. The obvious parallel to draw would be with American Prohibition - and THAT worked so well, didn't it???? I would never smoke - my parents have suffered the ill effects of years of inhaling those noxious fumes - and I would prefer if my family didn't either. I can accept the arguments smokers offer when it comes to freedom of choice, but am astounded when I hear them suggest that it isn't hazzardous to their health.

#152 Donnie
Yes, I do drive a car - as no doubt do you! It's not much of an argument to say that cars pollute the air so it's OK to smoke too!

The answer is quite simple...make it illegal to smoke in a car whether the individual is the driver or a passenger. Personally I've always found it bizarre that people could be prosecuted for using a mobile phone, peeling a banana, drinking from a bottle of water, or combing their hair whilst driving; yet people who smoke whilst driving get off scot-free.
The other solution is to make it illegal to smoke in the presence of children. Therefore people who wanted to smoke would not be allowed to do so if there were any children present.

Very easy to make it illegal to do what other people do quite comfortably. Ever heard of multi-tasking? The mechanics of smoking become second nature to a smoker.

Yep Belinda, people who are used to smoking, like myself in the car, will have crap concentration if it gets banned.
I have been driving for over 20 years and touch wood have never had an accident.
People who sit up your backside are far more distracting, as are children.

Whether passive smoking kills or not it is certainly a major source of inconvenience and annoyance to those of us who don't smoke.

If the tobacco industry isn't behind this latest survey I will be most surprised. Clearly those parents need a bit of help to devise simple strategies that allow them to smoke without harming non smokers in their own homes e.g. a smoking room with an air vent, or simply stepping outside.

The inconvenience of either one will cut down the number of cigarettes smoked thus helping the parents as well as the non smoking (we hope) children and other relatives/friends in the house.

The arguments of distracted driving are just silly, flying a helicopter would not be possible with such mindsets.

Smoking rarely diverts your main attention away from driving and it is very easy to smoke and drive at the same time adding chewing gum is also possible while walking for most of us.

The difference with cell phone use is it does divert your main focus whether you realize it or not, your mind drifts to focus on the conversation “at hand”.
The effect is different between women and men. Women are much more capable of multitasking than men who tend to be more single thought oriented. BTW A physical reality not my opinion. This does not let women off the hook though, it ‘s what your hands are doing which steers the focus ship. Cigarettes wind up between fingers and are discounted by the brain as a constant of no interest Cell phones in your hand with texture and heat stimulate much more interest in sensory processes. which guide your primary focus. Sometimes the diversion can be reduced by training yourself to hold the phone in your non primary hand. If you are right handed only use your left had while using your right hand on the wheel.
Simply using a head set reduces the diverted focus problem much more because our hands are more tightly wired to our control centers we receive information through our hands which allows fast reactions to heat or extreme cold getting the phone out of your hands is paramount to guiding your unconscious focus along with your primary attention to the road first. Drivers need education, more than laws criminalizing what they don't realize is a problem. Most who yammer on the phone while driving into a brick wall simply don't get it because they don't understand it.

If people were more aware of what is going on, that would save a lot more lives than the notion smoking is diverting attention of a significant number of drivers. If smoking did take someone’s attention away from their driving it is

more...

Many believe drunk driving is the largest hazard on the road when actually speeding kills 100s of times more. Lobby groups give us a lot of false impressions selling their wares. Mothers against drunk driving is financed by General Motors who sell their wares with sporty sexy ads, promoting fast driving and bravado. MADD sells the drunk driving tales with babies crying eerily mommy… MADD purposefully avoids the number one problem because they protect the hand that feeds them.

Take a look at how the cancer society and the anti smoking lobbies reacted when faced with a total ban on smoking.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040202014528/http://www.gran...

"There's no evidence banning tobacco would prevent and reduce tobacco use because no such approach has been implemented, the groups argued. The ban also could take away certain funding for these groups for tobacco control programs."

Sounds like focused dedication and unquestionable integrity to me, anyone else see it? LMAO

JG 153

The situation right now in the use of abusive taxation and smoking bans is simply a side door prohibition. Dealt by those who could not sell total prohibition.

In reality the current ban fans are creating the same effect as the American prohibition. The black market in North America is booming. Smokers are now able to buy untaxed cigarettes from international and internal sources cheaper than they have in years. In Canada you buy a carton of 200 cigarettes in a store you are paying close to 100 dollars, on the Indian reserves you can buy 200 cigarettes in a zip lock bag for 12 dollars what would you buy?

Imports from China and Asia of look alike products sell in close to the same price range. With packaging identical to the store brands. People do not go to that kind of effort with out extreme financial incentives.

Yes banning pot 70 years ago makes pot the number one cash crop in the United States today, but the word Prohibition is not the cause. The restriction of Government makes the rebel appeal in standing for freedom the number one selling point for pot. The anti smoking groups are going down the same tambourine banging road today, which as we saw with prohibition grows the popularity of smoking.

We have passed the saturation point and people are just getting sick of the scare mongering now the effect will be; the more you nag the more we will do the opposite. That is the real tragedy to giving the floor to fanatics they always show themselves to be just as dangerous as what we hoped to cure.

Moderation is the key and these flameouts like ASH will never get it, because they want it all and they want it now and they don't care who they have to walk over to get it.

We are all victimized by the hatred they sell. That includes those of us who don't smoke. I can show you research which is sourced from police numbers which shows violence increased significantly everywhere smoking bans were put in place and a de

158 Brian...the solution is simple

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

Yesterday, I was interviewed for Scotland Live which will be aired on the 26th March. I pulled no punches and showed the Scottish Executive and fellow politicians who voted this legislation in to be the fools that they are.

Bill;

Here is an excellent article to explain their foolish motivations.

http://www.viewsfromtheworld.com/article0046.html

The air cleaning tech looks like an excellent solution to a lot more than the smelly clothes created by second hand smoke some real health risks are taken on in kind.

I have often asked the participants of this debate why considering the outdoor envioronment and the many risks we face why non smoking rooms were never seriously discussed. If the goal is to deal with fears in health risks the safest environment would be a room with all toxins filtered out.

Tobacco smoke is the least of our wories if we consider the ambient effects no one can avoid which actually produce the largest effect in so called sick buildings. Smokers come and go ambient air remains as a constant. Lower periodic measurements rarely tell the whole story.

It is fun to see how many can be convinced smoking rooms are ineffective yet the same victims of the popular spin, would swear clean rooms in biology labs are constructed with safer technology.

Bio hazards are somehow trained to stay where we want them to stay. Cigarette smoke is more stuborn and just can not be trained to stay put on command.

If smokers wish to put their children's health at risk by smoking at home, that is their decision. I feel no requirement to tolerate their fumes in public places as some kind of baffle board for the sake of their issue.

Anti smokers -

Would the easy solution to this not be designated pubs/hotels with a large sign warning non-smokers that smoking is permitted in the establishment?

To protect barstaff, a separate, ventilated room could be provided for smokers (there is already allowance for smoking bedrooms in hotels).

i think smoking should be banned completly as it is harming the community

i think smoking should be banned completly as it is harming the community

i think smoking should be banned completly as it is harming the community

162 - Bill

I vaguely remember something about you being involved in selling these things, back in what, November or thereabouts?

Correct me if I'm wrong, and if I am, I apologise.

Whatever, they just DON'T WORK! - not effectively.

I have been in literally thousands of pubs, both in the course of my business, and also, of course, as a punter.

Prior to the ban, I NEVER encountered ANY licensed premises that did not stink of smoke.

Besides, it makes a nice change for pubs to be able to paint the walls and ceiling in light clean shades instead of the inevitable 'nicotine' brown.

In a previous occupation I was involved with renting TV's to pubs, and if you had seen the state of them when we removed them for service or renewal it would have sickened you - it took hours of chemical applications to remove the thick gunge that adhered to them.

But, hey ho, it's all academic now anyway. No serious political party will advocate allowing smoking in public buildings.

#162 Bill "No serious politician", we havnt got any, just control freaks and nazisthey are only in it for themselves with snouts in the gravy train do you realy think they care about you or anyone else. Man you could do with a fag or a magic mushroom you have definitely lost it.

#170,Donnie.
Donnie seems to have lost the plot in that he can't even differentiate between #162, viz.Bill Gibson of Lockerbie and Tornex Tornado Towers fame, and Bill of Dunblane at #169.
Perhaps he should forget the fags and the magic mushrooms, and as Colin G. keeps saying, concentrate on "joining the dots". Does he need a pencil, or can he only spout on about control freaks and alleged nazis?
Maybe he should take a Smintair flight ASAP. in 2010 or if ever?