can take five to ten years to work through.

could take ten to 30 years before all the benefits are seen.
Typical Tobacco Taliban mathematics.

We have 'em over on this side of the pond too.

Good luck

I see that these numpties can't even agree on their lies. At the beginning of the article they say 400 people die per year from passive smoking, but, by the end of the article, it is up to 865. What a load of bulldust. There is not one shred of genuine scientific evidence to prove that passive smoking kills anyone.

As for wee Joke McConnell, the smoking ban is his party's "greatest achievement". It is the numpties only achievement, which doesn't say a lot for them as the party in government. Though I suppose you could add to that the making a laughing stock out of the Scottish people with his pin-striped skirt.

Archie FOREST have for years been telling us passive smoking is not dangerous so why bother if more are smoking home? Or are you and FOREST now agreeing passive smoking is dangerous? you cannot have it both ways.

Lets face it, the facts are there for all to see and if the smoking lobby is now going on about more smoking at home then they are in so many words admitting passive smoking is dangerous.

as research predicts up to 22,000 people will kick the habit in the next year.

what about the last year then? we could have some actual facts here instead of predictions, or is it there is no actual register for those that have given up and remained so.

smoke and mirrors

and having the same air pollution levels as outside. really clarifies the position as 'outside' is a well know measure of air quality.

Back to the Royal family again I'm sorry as they sanctioned cigs here and packets are still stamped by appt to them - sue the country for the import of drugs although fresh is fine w out all the additives put in like everything else - Look at he bank notes as well pay the bearer on demand £xx go to a head office bank and ask them too ??

Initiatives hailed as a success by the SE:-

Ban on Smoking
Ban on Hunting with Dogs
Section 28

Not bad for around 5 years work.

Initiatives hailed as a failure by the fee paying population:-

.........

and sue Windsor as cigs are by Royal appt

The Publican Party are fielding candidates in four regions, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Fife and Highland. The best thing for the discriminated are to vote for them, maybe then the Executive will see how "successful" their ban has been.

Sorry folks, but the smoking ban has come too late for me.
You see I have been a passive smoker all my life, my father smoked ( Woodbine) not a lot but he did smoke.
My wife smokes and the house is Silk-Cut White, my lungs are shot to ribbons, and my kids are both asthmatic.
Now that is passive smoking at it’s worst, but I can now enjoy a pint with the lads that I could not before the ban, I can now go out for a meal and not spend my time having to go out side to get breathing again. Nah its her that has to go outside and before the house is cleaned up again she will have to go outside to smoke because a smoking ban is to be implemented in the house now.

I could have supported the smoking ban if I'd felt that the Executive was putting as much effort and enthusiasm into growing the Scottish economy.

Putting it bluntly.. They simply got their priorities wrong.

Guga #5 - It is the numpties only success. You typify the anti ban lot by conveniently ignoring the facts that don't suit you. Or does free care for the elderly not count? Mind you that is insignificant compared to the huge inconvenience caused to smokers by having to walk five yards and stand outside for five minutes, something they don't have to do.

As for the article I would like to see a comparison between numbers trying to give up now with those before the ban. Trying to give up is not a ban phenomenon.

A simple answer to al who do not support the smoking ban.

They asked me how I knew
Lung cancer was assured
Oh, I of course replied
Something here inside cannot be denied

They said someday you'll find
A cure .... but they're so blind
Oh, when your heart's afire
You must realize
Smoke will be your pyre!

So I chaffed them and I gaily drank
My clothes no longer stank
The smoke had gone away
And my fags are thrown away
I am without my smokes.

Now smoking friends decide
Smarting eyes tears you cannot hide
Oh, and I just smile and say
When a match's flame dies
Smoke's not in your eyes
Smoke's not in your eyes!

*adapted from "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes" by Jerome Kern and Otto Harback, sung by The Platters!

People who smoke have parents who smoke. Its hereditory. Stop smoking and save your children. Smokers are pathetic. I was one and can hardly breath whilst writing this. All for what?

Labour are playing up there ban on smoking as there major acheivement in EIGHT years
the fact is, its there ONLY acheivement in EIGHT years

#18 Sorry, I forgot about wee Joke's other success, hamsters.

Why is everyone so critical of this smoking ban? Just think of all the lives it is going to save and all the people it will help to stop smoking.

But the work must not stop here. Now it is surely time to properly attack the root of the problem - children at school thinking it is "cool" to smoke.

But I share your opinion Helen.

No time at all for people who think that their right to filth is greater than my right to cleanliness.

I'm not smoking any less than before the ban, I just go to the pub less; single figures in the past year.

By concentrating on dehumanising smokers, we can, of course, now conveniently forget about those tougher issues.

Child abuse
Rape
Alcohol abuse
Crack cocaine
Spousal abuse
Crime
Benefit fraud
Anti social behaviour

The list goes on, and on, and on.....

So what does the SE do? It happily rakes in the money from the one minority who chip in over £10 Billion per year. All the others cost money.

And lets not forget that the dear old hypocritical numpties are investing heavily in tobacco stocks.

The mind boggles.

#31 'How many of these smokers would be content with someone injecting drugs as they sat at table in a restaurant or bar yet the observer is unlikely to be directly affected by this'

cant see a problem with that, especially when its a mate doing his insulin.

oh you mean illegal drugs.

#26
Seconded. Its a bit rich being told how to have a better Scotland but hey that's the old colonial English attitude for you isn't it?
BTW, I love being able to go out and not come home stinking of smoke and I have no problem with anyone's sexual orientation. However, I think we are generally over regulated by the Executive with their Central Belt values and by Westminster with their populist panderings and moneymaking exercises.

36. an interested party/ Does that include insulin?
In a democratic society there would be smoking and non smoking bars, Shame we dont live in a democracy.
The nany state bullying liars have taken control.

33 makes a very valid point. Clean air is exactly what Freedom to Coose are fighting for. Dundee University on behalf of the SE has shown that air quality has improved by up to 80% since the smoking ban. But what if air quality could be 99.97% clean. Forget smoking for a minute, surely that is preferable. Clean air for all. Now add back the smoke and still achieve 99.97% clean air. No social isolation, no social divisiveness, no business failures and a united Scotland again. Visit www.airscience.co.uk see for yourself. Look for the truth and you will find it.
Robert Feal-Martinez
www.freedom2choose.co.uk

#39,

Political hot potatoes are the major reason for legislation being amended.

We can also pursue a Judicial Review to force them legally to amend the ban.

It was enacted with shoddy science. Enough court room quality evidence now exists to prove to a judge that the SE acted disproportionately, and possibly fraudulently.

No riots required. Simple jurisprudence.

Watch this space.

Since the smoke has cleared customers of The Halt in Glasgow have been able to see what a dump the place really is and may reduce their alchohol intake as a result.

Just kidding, The Halt! We still love you. Not sure about the new pool table tho.

I am a non smoker so this is not a self serving post , but can someone tell me when the country is smoke free where is the deficit in tax for the treasury going to come from.. as the income far exceeds what the smokers cost the economy. lets face it another 11p went on in the budget for Gordy's black hole in the economy....

Sile,

No politician in his/her right mind will slaughter the cash cow that is tobacco. Its easy money.

Besides, the industry (world-wide) employs over 100 million people.

Thats a lot of jobs for a lot of people.

Still, very few of them are in Scotland, so what do we care?

Anyone involved with tobacco ought to be burnt at the stake. Right?

Colin I really, really hope this is sooner rather than later. I just want the truth! I don't like the fact that this exec has demonised smokers. I honestly do believe that Jack and Andy will lose their seats in May because of the backlash from labour voters.

#43 Sile "as the income far exceeds what the smokers cost the economy" .. Can you expand on this please.

This is a tricky one as a lot of things have to be taken into account, ranging from NHS costs, (the biggie) , redecorating and refurbishment of buildings, the impact on industry and commerce through improved health ,down to little things like Fire Insurance etc.

But yes, you are right in that the revenue shortfall will have to come from somewhere else. But if Society is the better for that .........

http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/story.php?story_id=411

I seem to remember that very recently in this newspaper that it was reported that tobacco sales had not in fact decreased (It may have even said that it had slightly increased).
The article went on to report that all it had done was pushed those smokers back home and out of the pubs.
So please explain to me how has this 'initiative' been a success, it seems to me just the opposite?

As already pointed out, even the figures quoted are inconsistent. Let alone all of the perhaps and maybe's.

I guess it's too late for us in Scotland but lets make sure our votes count and get rid of those who brought in these draconian laws.

Re Enrico *48
At the end of the article landlords say get a shower !!! What a bloody cheek !!!

But all said and done, ok for our health if you don`t smoke it`s got to be good for you . (and I`m a smoker ) There is one thing thats missing the point from all these so called "experts" in relation to the health of children and adults.
I only really noticed it was so bad a few years ago taking one of my sons to the shops when he was in a pushchair.
I bent down to pick up a toy he had dropped right at a road junction . The vehicles were moving slowly and so were their exhaust fumes, right at the level of the pushchair where any child at that height was forced to breath in god knows what .
I don`t know of any studies that have taken place regarding children /babies being forced into this postition and the health effects that they cause in later life. But, what I have seen is a massive increase in respatory disease in city children .
Could this be at least part of the cause or even greater than smoking ?

there are none as blind as those who will not see.

Excellent point jazzman, here's what they say in California, the epicentre of this nanny state nonsense:

"The excess cancer risk... from diesel particles... is higher than any other identified toxic air contaminant"

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/dieselfact2.pdf

Sceptic Man - Wrong again

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

Totally agree with No 50, look at where your exhaust is on your car and which way it points, usually directly at the pavement - any child in a pushchair is forced to breathe in all your crap as it is at the same level - you dont hear people up in arms about that do you

Load of hypocrits

#46 THS,

If its honesty you want, then it is honesty you shall have.

Look west to the US for evidence of smoker bans being amended every single week. Many dont even make it onto the statute books. The economic havoc is very real. Look at California where their bans have cost them in excess of $100 billion. Ten years on; no verifiable health improvements, no decrease in smoker prevalence, compliance with their ban is less than 50%. Lung Cancer deaths are up (amongst non smokers even when 99% of the SHS is removed-I'd love your take on that), asthma rates are up, Alzheimers and Parkinsons Disease on the increase as well.

Prior to this unwanted interference smoker prevalance was falling year on year.

Enact a ban, its a sure way of increasing tobacco sales.

#53 I haven't made any specific references to children and smoking.

If you are going to cut and paste, be a bit less selective.

"CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure."

So the government controlled NHS claim it will save 400 lives a year. We should not take this as any more truthful than McConnell's lie in Parliament - that it would save 1,000. It is clear that, looking at US government predictions it will save roughly 1 life & lose several from pneumonia & more passive smoking at home.

Politicians & bureaucrats who lie to us should not continue in public employment.

Lets also ban fast food, alcohol, television, surfing the web, driving, flying on holiday and everything else that is bad for us (not taxes of course).

As the tax on tobacco is far greater than NHS expenditure on smokers, does this mean that the NHS budget will be incur a greater deficit if everyone stops smoking or will the tax on chocolate go up? I forgot, chocolate is banned.

I became tired of this nanny state and have left the country.

I have moved out of the UK and the Nanny State to Abu Dhabi. I can smoke, drink, drive (not together of course) and all other bad habits.

Now please excuse me while I go out for a beer, meal and some warm sunshine and eat some melting chocolate.

To the interested party and others

Unfortunately there are no reliable NATIONAL figures for the number of people who have quit post ban compared to before the ban was in place, because not all Health Boards were collecting the data before 2006. There are some parts of Scotland where we do have good data however, and they suggest a significant rise in the number of people quitting. But the lack of national figures is a weakness, and that's why the story is not straightforward, and the Scottish Exec knows it.

There are studies underway now looking at how the ban has affected smoking in the home, and particularly children's exposure to smoke. We don't know yet whether it does, and international studies are not conclusive. So I wish people would shut up about this until the research reports, and then we'll know.

studies by the government costing more millions - cig companies are being sued in the states why not continue it over here in the country that never complains if they go out for a meal and is rubbish but easily voice opinions when hidden behind a computer !!!

Some of you just don't get it ! banging on about freedom of choice as soon as someone lights up a cigartte within a few feet of me I have no choice but to smell it's disgusting smell have it envelope my clothes and hair as well as making me inhale the drugs that cigarettes contain never mind if it's harmful or not it's extremely unpleasant. I should be able to choose whether I want to do that not have it thrust upon me.

Or perhaps we should get rid of the ban and all the people who don't want to smell like an ashtray or even might want to venture out with their kids should just stay at ome. Are all these smokers going to make up the loss in revenue to restaurants that would lose their trade from "families".

I also wonder would any of the smokers like their children to take up their habit? By banning smoking we are sending a message to our children that it's unnacceptable and surely that can only be a good thing.

Also to even suggest that it would be better for people to continue smoking so that we don't have a financial deficit is
moronic! We don't need any figures to tell us that smoking is not beneficial to anyone's health.

I appreciate #38 sounds like a good idea in practice but then have you given any thought to the health and jobs of the
people who are expected to work in such establishments.............

#58, Ex Pat

The other, very important point is that people are very dishonest about reporting their smoking habits, even/especially to their doctors. They also withhold that info from their employers, friends, families and their insurance agents.

A couple of years ago I had to organise a Christmas party. There were five of us (out of 50) that smoked. On the night I got there late only to find several "smoking" tables pushed together to accommodate all of our company smokers. There were fifteen of us in total. I asked these 10 additional smokers why they did not declare that they were smokers at a recent life insurance chat by our broker, and they said that if they did not say they were smokers they saved around £14 per month on their premiums.

In short, I agree with you. Scotland, (possibly everywhere else too) has no idea how many smokers they have. The numbers will always be manufactured on the spot, by whoever is speaking at the time, and will be slanted in favour of whatever cause they support.

Smoking ban was long overdue in order to save lives - not only of all those badly affected by passive smoking, but of smokers themselves who will by law have to limit their smoking activities to outdoors or in their own homes and cars.
I feel sorry for the children of smokers. These children do not have a choice about ingesting tobacco smoke and will possibly contract smoking related diseases or illnesses in the future through the selfishness of their loving parent(s).
As previous posters have pointed out, we have enough pollution in the atmosphere already without adding to it by ingesting tobacco smoke.
If anyone has witnessed a post-mortem of a person who has died of lung cancer they will have noted that the lining of the diseased lungs are black. Little wonder that cigarettes are referred to as 'coffin nails.'

#62,

Your whole post is utter nonsense.

My children dont need your pity, but yours need mine.

Even a little research will tell you that SHS is harmless. But dont let that get in the way of your ridiculous statements. Smokers lungs are just as pink as non smokers post mortem. You are repeating a fairy tale told to infants to scare them off smoking. A little truth and education would stop millions of kids from taking up smoking.

The World Helath Organisation produced a study in 2003 that said children of smoking parents had a 22% increased chance of NOT contracting lung cancer in later life. Their study says that SHS provides a protective effect. Go and find the study yourself.

Golden Rule No 1: Research first, post second.

As for your "pollution" garbage; imagine the whole worlds poluution on a sheet of white A4 paper. The white is the pollution, now add a black dot to represent second hand smoke: you would need an electron microscope to even find the black dot.

Puts things in perspective, doesnt it?

You people certainly take tobacco seriously. It's the most rubbish drug on the planet and I've tried plenty. You get the same rush from a baby's dummy or similar nipple-substitute.

#44 Colin - a decline in piles would also cost jobs at the company who makes Anusol but I think human beings might be able to come up with some other use of time and resources than making tabs.

It goes on and on lets get down to the crux of this. Most anti posters could care less about public health. They about the smell and having to wash their hair and clothes. Sorry guys, I wash my hair every day, and change and wash my clothes, with or without the smoke. I am a life long never smoker and as a former policeman can tell there are more important things Government should be doing to save lives, like making our streets safer, not wasting 10's of millions on promoting bans and funding junk research and science and then denying the results if they don't suit. Much of Freedom to Choose's time over the last year has been 'extracting the teeth' of civil servants under the FoIA. There reluctance to provide simple answers to simple questions is legendary. Ask then a question like. 'Can you provide me the data on which the estimate of deaths from passive smoking is based', quite simple really. Do you get a simple simple answer, not on your life after about 6 or 7 letters, you'll get a shrug of the shoulders, and a 'well actually there isn't any'.

#64, Boab,

I would certainly hope so.

Of course, there is a simple solution. Its called "grandfathering". Look it up and let me know what you think.

The same problem remains though......its too damn lucrative for all concerned. Tobacco will never be eradicated.

I grew up in a house full of second hand smoke (my ma, my pa, my rele's and open peat fire). Served my country as a boot neck, still run 4 miles a day blah blah and my latest health check told me I'm in tip top condition so your SHS and kids argument is total crap.

#13 Sceptic Man

I was interested ( and annoyed - but I'll get to that) by the point you made in your posting:-

"do you think that helping people to overcome say, alcoholism, violence against others, compulsive behaviour with guns and so on is a bad thing? "

Yes actually, it is a bad thing. because you aren't helping them, you're forcing them. You can't cure an alcoholic by banning drink - that was tried in America, it was called prohibition and it was a dismal failure.

All of the issues, including smoking, you want to "help people overcome" are issues which are cannot be cured or overcome by by coercion. Violence and gun crime are also addictive behaviours and we lock people up for practising them. It doesn't cure them, but it prevents them harming others.

Smokers don't get locked up, because they harm themselves, not others and because they're not breaking the law. (Incidentally, for those who claim they do, by passive smoking, do some research people and look at the evidence rather than allowing your personal predjudices to make you look ignorant and bigoted)

Alcoholics, well, I suspect they do harm others, but not directly, but it's still not illegal.

Helping people to overcome these (legal! - except the violence and gun crime of course) addictions can only be done by education, encouragement and support. Not by legislation.

'........curse Sir Water Raleigh he was such a stupid git........!'
Tobacco was a con from the beginning and it remains so. Also it is extremely addictive and the chemistry is very complex leading to great chances of resuming smoking even among people who having not smoked for several years. It is an important public health issue and I for one find the outcome of the ban to have led to an immediate improvement in the quality of life in Scotland, which will be repeated all over Europe. No amount of bleating from some of the licensed trade interests
( not the bar staff) or the the smoke lobby can get round the facts here and the parliament is to be congratulated for its resolution on this policy. It shows what can be done in Scotland's interest if people are resolute enough!

#63 Colin

Having attended many post mortems I've seen what I've seen. I use the evidence of my eyes and the comments of pathologists.

However, where I do agree with you is that education will help prevent children taking up smoking. The movies - back in the 40's,50's and 60's in particular - glamourised smoking and made it a fashionable activity. Good health education given today will hopefully prevent many of our citizens becoming casualties of smoking-related illnesses in the future. Ill health is no respecter of persons so why give it any help?

Reference your comment about the black dot. Best if it weren't present. Every little contributes.

"Reference your comment about the black dot. Best if it weren't present. Every little contributes".

Apart from that last bit it was a sensible post.

Its like saying lets get rid of pea-shooters but retain thermonuclear devices....after all, every little helps.

14 - Patricia

If your Publican party gets a derisory vote, will you accept the findings of the electorate, and let the issue drop?

If they become elected MSP's I'll accept that the issue should be revisited.

#72 Yes Bill I will let it drop. It's only a pity that they can't field candidates in all 8 constitutencies. I will at least feel that I have had my say, (my democratic right) which was completely ignored by this executive in their haste to bring in this unfair law.

It warms my heart to see so many who can see this for what it is: governmental coercion. Of course smoking is bad for you. LOTS of things are bad for you. But YOU and I should have the right to choose what we do--whether they're good or bad for us--not the government.

(Note, however, how they throw in the "fact" about the non-smokers whose lives will be saved. That's the way they justify that your behavior harms others. I'm glad most of us see through it.)

#75 - agreed. those who are celebrating today are sadly misguided.

Hope the antis enjoy the ban while it lasts, I can't see it lasting long
http://freedom2choose.co.uk/judicial_review.php

Hmm, let's see about democracy.

Smokers are about 25% of the population, give or take a few percent, therefore a minority.

F&^$ 'em.

minorities?

#78 - perhaps you would like to tell us why the minority status of smokers is fair play for grounds for discrimination? no other minority is openly treated in this way.

What I dont understand is why cigs are not just banned altogether, the science behind them is now overwhelming, they are blatantly bad for the user and those around them and preys on foolish people who cant refused dried out turd wrapped in paper and setting it alight in their mouths!

Must make a good bit of cash for ole Gordie Brown then i suppose...

74 - Patricia

Thanks for an honest and straightforward answer.

I'ts a rare enough happening on this forum, and virtually non existent with politicians.

BTW - Good luck! ;)

Frobnitz sounds delightful.

What about other minorities in our communities?

The Jews
The Arabs
The Gays
The Lesbians
The Single parents
The Asthma sufferers
The Alcoholics
The Junkies
The Blacks
The Polish
The Indians
The Pakistanis
The Chinese
The Disabled
The Blind
The Poor
The Uneducated

Do they get your compassion too?

Enrico (and others)

Could possibly agree with you re. separate pubs, but only if they WERE separate. IF non-smoking pubs refused to let people smoke, as at present, and smoking pubs refused to serve anyone who was NOT smoking. Strictly policed. Level playing field. Sound fair?

Otherwise, as I'm sure you well know, all pubs, in order to maximise the clients available, would be smoking.

Put it to any publican - you have the choice between smoking and non-smoking, but if you choose smoking, you have to exclude the 75% that don't smoke. See then how many pubs would close.

What about villages with only one pub? Or other areas where there is only one pub for miles?

I would like to know how much money the numpty,s have given to their propaganda freinds in the media , tv etc, for their anti smoking campaign.
I have not met one person who has quit smoking since this forced ban, yet they come out with figures plucked from thin air to justify their act of folly. No amount of REPETATIVE advertising will make anyone who dos,nt want to stop actually stop.
This ban is all about wee joke and his side kick kerplonker, they have become used to bullying people to do what they want and this ban just shows
them up for their gross incompetance as politicians.
But hey it is not their money they are wasting so they dont give a toss.The smoking ban was introduced as a distraction for their mishandling of the economy,crime,health waiting lists etc, etc.

Rab,

There arent as many quitting as they would have you believe.

Look here:

"The most popular month to make an attempt at quitting was March, when the new legislation was introduced, according to official figures published today. After one month, at least one third of the 3717 people who used NHS cessation services said they had not taken another puff of a cigarette in the previous fortnight".

Thats roughly 1200 people from a smoking population of 1.2 million. My cheap calculator tells me that that is 0.1%. Hardly "overwhelming numbers wanting to quit", is it?

I got the figures from here:

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=663&id=470022007

Who cares it's not just about the smokers !!! It's for the benefit of non smokers and the people who have to work in these places or even wish to visit them.

Kerry,

The other night I walked my dogs. I walked right past one of the three pubs in my town. Outside there were three customers. All smoking. Empty pub, apart from the landlord, looking glum. When I came back there were four people outside, all smoking. The landlord came out to join ALL of his customers.

No non smokers in sight. Not a single one. Pre-ban they said they would flood the pubs. Landlords everywhere bought nice cars on the strength of all this new business. It seems you all lied about wanting to visit pubs. You are all still at home, whining about something else.

Can you honestly tell me that this situation is right?

Because it makes no sense to me.

THS,

My "addiction" needs no justification. I smoke. Big deal. It doesnt hurt you, or anyone else. The science tells me so.

Whats your vice, Mr Anonymous? Are you one of the growing tide of crack cocaine addicts? Are you a drunk? A drunk driver? A wife beater? A pervert? A criminal?

I am none of the above. I am a husband, a father, a son, an uncle, I work, I pay taxes, I give to charity, I contribute. Oh yes. And I am a smoker.

I will not apologise, I will not feel guilty, I will not be bullied by you, or any other anti smoker. I will not roll over because some numpty in the SE says I must.

Do keep up the insults though. It shows your bigotry for the world to see.

Don't like smokers. They taste bad.

#93 Paula Vulture .. Are you going to carrion with posting?

Oddly enough, they can. And do. I suppose you dont mind the junkies swallowing pills either? Just because you dont see it, it doesnt mean it doesnt happen.

What part of my argument dont you like?

If you read my comments on this and other threads, you would know that I have no wish to "inflict" my smoke on you. I want separation, and I want ventilation. Just because there are no smokers in pubs does not mean your air is cleaner.

Choice for all. You prefer to call it "pissing in the wind".

A great debating strategy. Any more gems like that?

re post #4: i love the fact that some people are now saying "you're just forcing smoking into people's homes". this implies that they are fully aware of the damage this does to children, so surely if it's not okay to inflict that on your own kids, it shouldn't be okay to inflict it on others in bars, restaurants etc? completely flawed logic!

The law, THS, is blind.

A Judicial Review is there for us, the people, to take action if we feel that a law has been unjustly enacted. This is the legal process. And it will be used.

And once it is before a judge, the "science" will be laid before him/her and I will live with that decision.

Not decisions made by inexperienced politicians.

Thank you.

Gut feeling not needed though. Just hard evidence, and we have reams of that.

I see.

I suppose you think milk is harmless? Coffee? Water? The outside air? Processed food? Deoderants?

I have seen the studies on them as well. None of it is good, and all of those mentioned are statistically more harmful than second hand smoke.

In toxicology, the poison is in the dose. My lungs filter the smoke up to 25,000 times before it gets anywhere near you. If I can smoke 20 a day and not be hurt for 40-65 years, why on earth would 6 cigarettes per year (the amount ingested by barstaff in a smoky bar without ventilation) hurt you? (and that assumes you work or stay in a bar for 40 hours per week). If you go weekly, your SHS intake is pathetically low. Almost unmeasurable, in fact.

SHS deaths are a fallacy. You sound intelligent enough to have worked out for yourself that that is logical. Its a myth, a fairy tale, a hoax. Follow the money to see why.

Not one corpse in 6,000 years. Not one death, anywhere, due to passive smoking.

Believe me, I've looked.

That gets us back to the odour. That can be dealt with simply and effectively, combined with separation there is no need for this draconian trend-following infantile ban.

BBC Scotland Poll as at 4.30 today.

"Has the smoking ban worked in Scotland?
Yes
66.01%
No
17.82%
Not sure
16.17%
3457 Votes Cast

Results are indicative and may not reflect public opinion"

People still don't work out the REAL reason for the ban.......Chemtrails.......look out your window and see a haze even in strong sunlight..........Chemtrails ......remember they need your lungs nice and clean for maximum abortion :)

I couldn't care less whether a single smoker quit due to the smoking ban. All I care about is that I don't have to smell the stench that comes off of them and pervades my hair, clothes and lungs.

Thank you Scottish Executive, at least you made one brave decision even though most of you are still a bunch of free-loading, time-wasters who have done Scotland no good otherwise.

Comment@ 105............Dam the spellchecker......i meant.....maximum Adsorption :)

adsorption? Or absorption?

And, have you got more info? I looked at your site but could not find a reference to chemtrails.

I need to know more.

Thanks.

Where do these people get all the statistics from. After one year the health of the nations has shown an improvement. What a load of the smelly stuff. Are they trying to convince themselves that the ban has been a success. Me, I'm not impressed. Have a look outside pub doors to see a direct contradiction to their claims. Same goes for numerous other business premises in any town centre. Still, I suppose all the meetings they had to attend to implement the ban would no doubt boost their claims for expenses.

Comment@108 Colin, Banff, hi mate......this is a dam good site http://www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm
this is a very useful vid http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-34328948283042...

There are a lot more vids and sites on the subject, let me know if you need more links :)

#111 Precisely Jacqueline, go to prison and it is ok to smoke. How ridiculous is that? Labour have committed political suicide with this, and I was a diehard labour voter. I certainly didn't vote for this or saw it in any manifesto when I cast my vote the last time. I would rather vote for the monster raving loony party than ever vote for them again.

#110 Scottwebb,

Me go looky.

Cheers.

#114 commenting on #60
Yes of course we all have free choice to get work for pay and conditions of our choosing. But for someone who resides in "the real world", get real. You have to pay off the mortgage/student loan/feed the kids so you take what you can get. Let's just imagine in your smoky world, someone working in a small office with five smokers. Of course with freedom of choice, you can change job to where the conditions are better for you. Then you get a new manager/employer and your back to working conditions that are not good for you.

In any scenario, like bullying or racial prejudice for example, it's always better if the emphasis is for the individual even if it gets people "squealing" about their liberties.

#Discuss 114

#117 ... "The rights of the individual do NOT override the majority's rights"

Well, you will probably spend the rest of the evening questioning the legality of it, but no smoking in public places is currently the law.

#120 1) Well, you got me for missing out the word "enclosed" . Your a stickler for detail and accuracy that's for sure.

#120 2) I am happy with the situation at present, so no comment on darkest Renfrewshire. Note with your stickler mind, that I have not been focusing on pubs. That's an easy choice, Don't go in. What about places where you have to go in? Your place of work ?

#114 You said in attacking a previous comment ... "No-one is "expected" to work in smoky establisahments; compulsory labour direction ended with WW2..." (Copied and pasted) You are technically correct of course, but in the real world it's not that easy for people not as enduring as you.

Here in North America, anti-smoking bans have resulted in heart and lung mortality decreasing steadily. Smoking is also linked to bladder, esophageal, and stomach cancer.

Second hand smoke is thought to be just as harmful as drawing it down into your lungs from a cigarette in your mouth.

People can do anything they want to their health, and really no one can stop them; but in a socialistic health system like Scotland's, why should taxpayers have to support the results of other people's deliberate bad health practices? Can you imagine how much money you'd save just by reducing lung and heart conditions in only 30 percent of the population?

I can give you one very good reason why smoking should be banned in all public places, including city parks where people congregate in large numbers:

The habit is filthy and disgusting and annoying in the extreme to non-smokers, who are the majority.

Cigarette butts and filter tips are also unsightly and disgusting, and require a cleanup crew-- that's even more tax money spent on the d-----d smokers. Does anyone really have the right to endanger the public's health, or to annoy the public, just to indulge in a personal vice? Does anyone have the right to expect the public to pay for his/her health care after becoming ill from smoking?

#122 Thank you Martha. Can I leave it for you to discuss with SeeGee. You'd better have lots of statistics and links ready. Good luck.

#122, Martha,

Says "Second hand smoke is thought to be just as harmful as drawing it down into your lungs from a cigarette in your mouth".

We've been here before Martha. Bring proof.

Thought? Thought by whom, exactly? You? You anti smoker friends? Or real scientists?

I have tons of evidence that SHS/ETS is harmless to 99.9% of the worlds population. Even the WHO agree with me. So does the (British) Department of Health, Safety & the Environment. So does your own CDC. Even the EPA had to mangle their figures to "prove" that tobacco was a Class A carcinogen, which it isnt, as Judge Osteen rightly said when he voided the evidence presented to him.

Yet you say different? Bring it on. Lets see who thinks it is just as harmful.

No biased groups, please. Independent scientists will be just fine.

And, of course, you are way out of whack with the financial side. Smokers contribute over £10 BILLION per year, and their treatment costs less than £1.5 Billion. A net gain to the Chancellor. For every treatment the smoker receives, he/she pays for four more for non smokers. Who is ripping off who?

I have you beat on the finance, and on the science.

What else have you got?

So now we know who's running the country, silly me I thought it was the elected government.
I wonder if the government has been told about this.
So as the anti smokers are now in charge, I would like to raise a few issues for them to address.
As the bars and restaurants close as a result of the ban, what plans do you have for all the unemployed this will create. With all the money you will save on health care that was formerly used to take care of smokers problems, will you be setting up alternative training and jobs for the newly unemployed.
Without the burden of smokers, will you be closing some wards or even some hospitals down.
Now you won't need to use the dry cleaners every time you go to the pub they will also take a major hit. And what about all the cabbies who normally drive people home from the pub.
Presumably, as you have had more than adequate time to address all of the above and any other fall out from the bans, you will soon be publishing information that clears the air for those involved.
Respectfully Diana Reid

Maybe there aren't any health risks to second hand smoke, but you don't know any more than I do what the facts are in that case.

Deliberately indulging in a nonhealthy practice is the reason why, in North America, insurance companies refuse to insure people who engage in dangerous sports. Medical insurance companies routinely deny coverage to the obese, heavy smokers, and illegal drug users. Many professional sports personalities have to carry far more expensive health insurance than the average person does, because their risk of injury is so much higher. So in effect, in our system people who indulge in hazardous habits or occupations or hobbies have to pay their own way-- except of course for the derelict drug users and alcoholics, who end up on the welfare rolls and in tax-sponsored treatment. And, health insurance claims for heavy smokers and HIV victims, etc., cause ALL premiums to rise. So we do pay for people who refuse to care properly for themselves, as well as having to pay for our own health insurance, which even to the most biased observer, such as yourself, must appear as totally unfair. And we pay far more than a billion pounds per year for them. What do these smokers do in return? They make money for tobacco companies around the world, very little of which is returned to the public, except in the USA, where tobacco companies are essentially now out of business and/or have diversified and are still paying massive fines to the state and federal governments for knowingly pushing a harmful, addictive substance on the public.

Mr Chairman, my hat is off to you!

(I was once charged for getting sunburnt in the Army, in Cyprus, so I can confirm you are telling the truth....)

#129 I was going to give it a rest but I looked in to see how Martha was coping. Forget Pubs, discuss the small office. Are you for Senga from Shotts (a non smoker for her sins) with two wains to support just accepting her colleagues smoke while she tries to earn an honest crust? Or should the law be on her side?

And, I venture to say, alcohol has killed more people than all the wars in history. Who cares if pubs go out of business? Here we call them "bars" and they are usually considered as low places for the marginal people who frequent them. In the UK, by contrast, there is great effort made to make pubs "family-friendly" and so the next generation of alcoholics is created, no doubt to the complete satisfaction of liquor companies. Never mind the lives ruined, the auto wrecks, the liver illnesses-- as long as the whiskey and beer companies make a profit, that's all they care about.

all this is fine, but what about the ones that were originally supposed to be suffering, the workers, what about the newly unemployed. Diana Reid

When smoking is so much of a social situation ie In bars or pubs , banning it will just make it go underground (where the smokers will be)
Have you ever seen hospital patients outside with portable IV poles in all weather having a puff?
How's your day Martha?

122. Martha

You really are talking utter nonsense. Epidemiology these days is all about weak associations and the invention of thousands of invisible coffins.

Correlation in anything does not imply causation. Very weak correlations, as used in modern epidemiology, are extremely unlikely to infer any causation at all.

These clowns are damaging the future of science.

I'm off, the left hand side of the pond has woken up.

Do we really need to squander tax payers money to fund so called "scientific research" to discover that after prohibiting smoking the levels of ETS have gone down in pubs? What a surprise! Did they expect it to go up somehow?

Just another report to try and hoodwink the public into believing the smoking ban is the best thing ever done in Scotland, which of course it isn't. Keep those reports coming. Repeat ad nauseam "the ban is good" message. Don't let the public forget how great the smoking ban is for everyone and how popular it is among everyone otherwise people may just see for themselves what an utterly crass, unwanted and cruel piece of legislation this is.

It is the worst and most hate filled divisive law ever imposed by the executive who, by the way, are still happy to have their big, fat pensions invested in tobacco companies.

I wonder if they, the holyrood clowns, think that it was a good thing that Morrison supermarket workers were sacked for smoking, outside, on a break?

Good that potential adoptive parents are banned from the adoption process if the child is under two years old and either parent smokes?

Good that Aberdeen councillors, out of their minds with boredom, contemplated banning smoking across all their care homes even though the legislation allows for smoking in designated rooms in care homes?

Can you these fools not imagine the utter despair that say, a disabled smoking resident must feel when confronted with the likes of this indignity? Forced to stop smoking because some health fascist councillors, ever keen to climb the ladder of promotion by endorsing Andy Kerr's ludicrous guidance to local authorities and care providers, decide “it is for the residents own good” ?

Good that Councils are threatening to, and are encouraged by Kerr’s guidance, to refuse to carry out work in peoples homes where smoking may have occurred within the last hour?

Shame on all those who dared

Heard of the success in the Western Isles? No? I wonder why?

In the Western Isles smokers made just 12 attempts to give up using NHS stop smoking services - meaning an estimated 0.3% of smokers contacted health workers for help.

These figures don't seem to be such an outstanding success as the SE would have everyone believe the smoking ban is.

NHS cessation services were never mentioned as part of the reason the ban was brought in so why try and mislead the public, yet again, about the "success" of the ban.

#111: The smoke room at Holyrood closed 2 weeks before the smoking ban came into force.

If you want to smoke, smoke. If you don't, don't. It'll never be completely banned. Not possible. Too many hide and do it.

BEFORE all this hub-bub about smoking bans, FIRST think of how it is going to DESTROY businesses-et. al., your country! There are U.S. cities who have dropped the bans and devoted 3/4 of there establishments to smokers and 1/4 to non-smokers OR going by the demographics of smoking. THE reason -BANKRUPTCY. Yes, despite the constant "studies" which do NOT prove anything about 2nd hand smoke, it IS a 'old wives tale' that non-smokiers have used as propaganda for about 15 yrs. Unfortunately, IF these bans are not lifted you will see so much poverty that you will not be able to think of feeling secure, no matter where you are! With poverty comes crime; and let's face it your crime rate is almost as bad as the US's. People in the US went bankrupt from these bans on eateries, bars, and everywhere else people assemble to socialize. They lost their homes, cars, 401K's, EVERYTHING! Now those of you who don't own businesses cannot understand the desperation that comes over people who do loose everything, especially over this PROPOGANDA! You will end up with a government like the U.S.'s where there is sooooooo much b.s. told that you will believe NOTHING said-in fact, you're already there, from what I read. Isn't that why Scotland wants their independence-tired of the lies?!?!?!? IF IN FACT YOU FALL FOR THIS ONE, YOU'VE DONE AN INJUSTICE TO YOURSELVES. AND THE SNOWBALL EFFECT WILL DESTROY ANY ATTEMPTS AT BECOMING A "FREE-NATION"-I do NOT smoke, or own any business, however, I DO believe in EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL. YOU are LETTING the SAME PEOPLE YOU WANT AWAY FROM, DESTROY YOU BEFORE you even get started in reality! Think and think very hard about what you are doing and the ramifications of it! People throughout the world are starving because of the "governments'" stripping them of their rights AND YOU ARE GOING TO LET THIS HAPPEN? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?
IF the truth were to be disclosed, you would find out that there are more deaths cause

#138 Chairman Gordon

You are wasting your time with Mad Martha.

She must be a real bundle of fun to live with!!!!!!!!

#144 Debbie
You sound like you sat on a lit cigar! Just a touch overwrought?

#130 _Martha-Where in the world did you get these analogies from? Someome in the state of Texas? Where Bushism is finally taking a dive! Everything you've said is "straight-lined PROPOGANDA" Get your INDEPENDENCE; then do your OWN studies by competent scientists, NOT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, WHO ARE PAID TO LIE! If nothing else the U.S. is THE example of a government gone WRONG! We NOW have so many restrictions on Bush that he is really in "lame duck status!" True, some networks, (what is commonly known as the "nag news networks, FOX is # 1- most of which will be shut down BEFORE Bush is out of office, allow him 5-15 minutes per day or two to ramble on about his insane ideas and what he says he is going to do. Usually his mouth overrides his abilities! And NO, he is NOT 'THE DECISION MAKER" per his own party , not to mention the Congress and Senate! We have a Congress and Senate in the U.S. who do as THE PEOPLE request. BUSH GETS NOTHING! HE IS BLOCKED EVERY TIME. JUST BECAUSE HE SAYS OR SIGNS A BILL DOES NOT MAKE IT LAW! THE SENATE OVERRIDES EVERYTHING HE DOES WITH THE 2/3rds VOTE TO VETO HIS SIGNING AND VETOS. Now if you're not aware of the lies that come out of that man's mouth, get yourself some archieve newspapers and see IF you can find one word of truth in them! YOU WILL NOT!! This smoking ban originated as a "cover-up"-to get people busy doing something about smoking while Bush and friends (most of which will be indicted, IF they haven't been already) destroyed the U.S.--Bush still does not understand that "the people" spoke in Novemeber. People have to be AWARE of what is truth and what are lies-what is happening over there has already happened here. Therefore, it would be wise to see what the outcome of these propoganda "idealisms" have done in the U.S. BEORE making such laws in Scotland. Just think, the tobacco industry helped get Bush in the White House and this is what HE did to "pay"

#133-Martha-you are really obsessive compulxive with a lot of gandious thrown in. Alcoholisn IS a disease-PROVEN. It runs in families. Narrow mindedness, must run in yours. Bars, pubs, lounges, clubs are all the same. People own these places and make a legal living from them. Would you rather it be like prohibition, which occurred in the US the last century? Smokers can't adopt? You are really crazy, and ocd! If Angelina can adopt, I'm sure the drug dealers can to! Better yet, terrorists, too. True, you are a waste of time. Your postings are that of an 80-90 yr. old woman. Or is it your religion that has yo going? Your religious beliefs are your own, in the US. But that doesn't give you the right to tell lies. You woman, really need to look at the BIG picture. Take a breath and tell yourself, you are crazy! Get hep immediately. Or at least go back on your meds!. . . .

#147 Deb(ra)
I really enjoy both sides of an opinion especially when both are at the far ends of the spectrum. Both are so far from reality that no other views are tolerated.Wish that I had that degree of certainty .It would make things so much easier.
Deb(ra) I do see your point of view and also of your countrywoman Martha.Reread your blogs and open your eyes.
Dont you realize that you are argueing the same position? (Albeit on an over the top viewpoint)

John Montgomery, at #6, sorry but I think your logic is flawed. It is totally illogical for a government that believes passive smoking is dangerous to design policies with the inevitable result that children are exposed to it. There are enough reasons to object to the ban – to impose it because of a scare story about secondary smoke that is designed to incite fear in people is objectionable enough in itself to say nothing of reassurances every second week that the ban is a resounding success. This would be quite unnecessary if there were any truth in it.

If opponents of the ban are right about passive smoking not being a danger there is no need for a ban.

Your entitled to your opinion but anoyone who wants to stink and put take harmful drugs in to their bloodstream are obviously right eh !

Carry on you all seem to be so selfish that you neither see or care the eefcts it has on anyone but yourself.

"The unhealthy effects of smoking are hard to ignore. Equally drink is pretty unhealthy, but it does not so immediately assault the surrounding atmosphere".

Nuff said !!!!!!!1

If you're referring to me I am not really a smoker and never smoked in bars before the ban came in. So I am not making any impact on anyone, since I smoke only in the company of other smokers. I attended bars before because other people's smoke did not upset me, just as there are other non-smokers who are not really bothered by it. Smoking has no bearing on whether or not somebody has won an argument, and it certainly doesn't make smokers less likely to win an argument.

Doctors want to reclassify alcohol because it takes little excess alcohol to create life-threatening situations on the roads and domestic abuse. Tobacco intake doesn't tend to lead to 'binges' and serious anti-social behaviour, nor does it lead to violence.

As for selfishness why should your intolerance of smoke affect someone who wants to smoke over a coffee and the Sunday paper 50 miles away from you or enjoy a game of dominoes in a pub that you never attend?

a game of dominoes and a smoke, that is!

I was in Comet (electrical store) in Edinburgh yesterday and was planning on making a significant purchase. The guy who was helping me had the foulest fag-breath I have ever come into contact with. His shiny, dirt-encrusted polyester suit was equally impregnated with the stench of cruddy nicotine. Mucky brown stained fingers set off the whole look.

Needless to say, I headed off elsewhere before I gagged - tripping over 2 other employees on a fag break standing in a puddle of fag-ends outside the entrance to the store.

When will bosses learn? Fag breath lost them a sale - as did the lack of professionalism noted of their rag-tag employees.......

Funny – I used to work in a shop where the only person who was a discredit to the establishment was a non-smoker. Minus the yellow fingers and nicotine-breath he had everything you describe in the smoker at Comet – namely grubby clothes and a whiff of personal odour. No idea if he put people off purchases. But it is a mistake to assume that all people who lack understanding of self-presentation are smokers.

The bosses should learn that the civilised way to accommodate staff on smoking breaks is in comfortable rooms indoors. If people are treated like second class citizens, it shouldn't be surprising if they don't behave immaculately.

Belinda I'm not just thinking about myself I'm thinking about all people who dislike it !

Colin no need for personal insults no one is ranting except you !

The quote regarding alchohol is quoted from someone else hence the quotations once again though you have missed my point and went off on one.

Anyway been fun reading the very mixed opinions on what people think is the way forward but I now find the subject boring as all everyone is doing now is repeating themselves without adding anything new or conceding that maybe any one other than themselves might have a point.

Think I might demand that drugs be decriminalised so that I can try them along with my pint of an evening in my local or anywhere I wish in fact.

Ciao..........

Kerry,

My way of rating "ranters" is based on the number of !!!!'s used per post. You are in hyper-drive.

By contrast, my posts use science, logic and common sense. You might want to try that sometime.

Naturally, just like any anti-smoker, you came, spouted, offered no proof to back up your nonsense, then you run away.

Typical, tedious, and utterly predictable.

No point replying to Kerry as she's gone, but what about the feelings of people who like it, and who smoke socially as a pastime? Why are the feelings of one group of people rubbished and the others respected?

Belinda,

The common denominator in all anti-smokers arguments is not the science, its not the politics, its not the harm/no harm caused by SHS, its not the finance, or the burden on the NHS, its the smell.

(Your feelings, or mine, mean nothing to these people. They want everywhere to be smoke-free just on the off chance that they may pop in).

It all boils down to the odour, in the end.

Which is a shame really. As we can deal with it most effectively using modern technology.

Its sickening that this paper simply repeats the SE line without a hint of investigation into the TRUTH.

Not seen that word in years, its been missing presumed dead since 2001.

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