Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Sheila Duffy: Young people key to stubbing out lethal habit

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 08 October 2009
Youth engagement is helping put a stop to smoking, says Sheila Duffy

THE increased involvement of young people in educating their peers about the harm caused by smoking will be a focus at ASH Scotland's AGM in Edinburgh today.

The tobacco industry has always needed to attract young people to replace the 49,000 sm
okers in Scotland who quit or die every year. Annually, they are replaced by 15,000 young people who take up the habit. So it is great to see young people taking an interest and learning about an industry that relies on recruiting them to maintain its high sales and profits.

Young people also have fresh eyes to those already working in the field. They have different views, opinions, and ideas and often become involved for different reasons to adults. Tobacco is a cross-cutting area providing a wide variety of issues for young people to explore and act upon such as health, the developing world, advertising and marketing, the environment, the media, and multi-national business.

More and more teenagers are becoming involved in youth-led projects, such as peer education and youth advocacy. Peer education is an approach which believes young people are often more receptive to information given by those of similar age, background, and culture.

Across Scotland, peer education projects raise awareness and engage with young people on a range of health issues, including smoking.

In June this year, Scotland's first ever pro-choice smoking information group led by and for young people was launched. W-WEST – Why Waste Everything Smoking Tobacco – is a great resource for young people and those who work with them and its website provides advice and information for all in Scotland.

Teenage smoking has often been seen as cool or a rite of passage, but legislation, information campaigns, and youth projects have led to a cultural shift so that we now are not only seeing fewer teenage smokers, but also more engagement in prevention. This is something we should all welcome and encourage.

Sheila Duffy is chief executive of ASH Scotland




Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 08 October 2009 8:41 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Scottish Eric,

Falkirk 08/10/2009 11:04:49
Pro-Smoking group freedom2choose won't like this article, and we'll probably hear from Belinda, English Charlie and some of their other members about why this is a bad thing.

Belinda has been telling this discussion (http://bit.ly/pointofsaletobacco) about why banning tobacco displays in shops will drive up tobacco bootlegging.

She's left that discussion before discovering that Imperial Tobacco research from Canada that shows that smuggling actual grew fastest in the provinces that were last to adopt the display ban.

So we can expect some regurgitated tobacco propaganda on here about how youth-led projects lead to higher smoking rates/ more crime/ more smuggling.

It is getting really predictable.

2

tug f wilson,

08/10/2009 12:16:14
What does Sheila Duffy know about Pro Choice ? ASH was set up to try and give all people No Choice, on one hand we are told smoking rates are up all over the country on the other Sheila tries to tell us that Ash are doing a good job at cutting down the number of smokers,i am afraid it is time for Sheila to look for another job,after all everyone should have a pro choice to Smoke or Not, that is the message is it not Sheila, Choice.
3

english charlie,

08/10/2009 12:23:25
Has anybody seen how pro-choice 'W-WEST – Why Waste Everything Smoking Tobacco' is?
It is purely an anti-smoking campaign group.
4

Tag,

08/10/2009 12:31:31
Tug
Most smokers are addicted to smoking.

The choice to Smoke or Not doesn't exist for them.

Hello Charlie, wheres your mate Rich White gone? Has he realised he was onto a loser?
5

tug f wilson,

08/10/2009 12:31:41
Nothing to do with Pro Choice there then, what is meant by all this is No choice, which is everything Sheila Duffy stands for or in other words, Do as you are Told.
6

tug f wilson,

08/10/2009 12:35:22
Tag....are you saying people should not have the choice to smoke or not ?
7

Dorian,

Edinburgh 08/10/2009 13:26:47
If the government wanted people to stop smoking they would ban it all together, but they don't because they make so much money from this legal form of DRUG DEALING.
8

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 08/10/2009 13:42:29
Why does this paper give Duffy and her bunch of objectional nazis column inches? Additionally, why does the Scottish Government provide 90% of the funding for this subversive outfit?

In the next world she will get her come-uppance. No-one as evil as her can escape eternal damnation.

Smoking is on the INCREASE because of the ridiculous anti-smoking laws that we have nowadays. It was declining until about 3 years ago. I say "good". I'm GLAD that smoking is becoming more popular.
9

the plum,

08/10/2009 13:47:05
excuse me, does anyone have a light?
10

Tag,

08/10/2009 14:07:57
Tug at 6

Tag....are you saying people should not have the choice to smoke or not ?

I mean that people addicted to smoking don't have a choice not to smoke.

It is quite simple
11

tug f wilson,

08/10/2009 15:49:21
A free choice for all is simple, so why do some control mad people think that the choice should be taken away,like i said, it is time for Sheila Duffy to go.
12

Tag,

08/10/2009 19:43:58
Addicted smokers aren't exercising a choice to smoke

Free choice doesn't exist with addiction
13

tug f wilson,

08/10/2009 20:11:04
This article is about young people and Duffy telling us that they are the ones to end smoking.If they choose to smoke, fine , if they choose not to, fine, that is what you call pro choice, so free choice does exist as long as we never let anything take that away from us,i dont think anyone is fool enough to think that Sheila Duffy or ASH have anything to do with people having a free choice.
14

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 08/10/2009 21:27:09
Various, tug f wilson.
Is F2S member tug really claiming that this initiative will prevent hardened nicotinics from continuing to feed their addiction, when the point of the exercise is to allow young people to consider the advantages and demerits of adopting a practice that may enslave them for life? Why does tug resent any move that might save them from such a fate?
15

english charlie,

08/10/2009 22:17:47
tag. You are addicted to saying that smoking is addictive. Many things that we enjoy doing, COULD be called addictive. Do you enjoy having a drink, using a computer, playing sports, doing exercise, doing gardening, etc. etc.?
16

Tag,

09/10/2009 06:23:30
Charlie
Don't you remember that really long thread about smoking addiction where Rich White's claim (that smoking couldn't be addictive because there was no nicotine in cigarette smoke) was systematically destroyed?

On planet reality, where the rest of us live, nobody is in any doubt that smoking is addictive.

We cannot account for the laws of biochemistry in that La La Land that you call home.
17

tug f wilson,

09/10/2009 09:49:37
14
The only thing i resent is having any group of control freaks trying all they can to take away peoples choice in life and at the same time mention Pro choice,the article is about young people smoking not adult smokers,i would have to ask David from New Mills why does he resent all people having a choice,if young adults choose to smoke or not they can make that choice,i can respect that,but it seems David cannot.
18

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 09/10/2009 10:38:58
#17, tug f wilson. Tug, like so many of the F2S members seems just a tad confused..I have no compulsion to deprive adults of their choice, wise or otherwise, to indulge in their nicotine addiction, as long as I'm not compelled to share their noxious fumes. However, the article was about an ASH initiative “to allow young people to consider the advantages and demerits of adopting a practice that may enslave them for life”.
At his #2, tug claimed “ASH was set up to try and give all people No Choice,” How does he draw this conclusion from the article, or is that just his personal, embittered opinion, based, perhaps, on a realisation that the banning of tobacco advertising, and the introduction of smoking restrictions are simply steps that tend to highlight the abnormality and lack of wisdom in choosing to feed his unhealthy addiction?
19

english charlie,

09/10/2009 12:24:32
#16. Tag. Rich destroyed your claim.
People will stop smoking if the really want to. In the 1970s there was a big reduction in the number of smokers, long before all those rubbish NRTs.
Like many things, smoking is a habit that some people enjoy doing, just like drinking and eating.
20

Tag,

09/10/2009 13:11:00
#19 Only you could think that Charlie. How is the weather in La La land today
21

tug f wilson,

09/10/2009 15:04:59
18
David it seems you and the small band of ASH followers are confused, do you really think ASH is about giving choice when it comes to smokers,and why do you think that running a campaign to get rid of tobacco advertising and other restrictions is wanted in the country,you have made your views clear when it comes to smoking,you made your choice,if others choose to smoke that is up to them,it is not up to me,ASH or you to question the wisdom of that choice.
22

Rollo Tommasi,

09/10/2009 19:18:46
Here's an interesting thing.

24 hours ago I checked the W-West website. They've been running 3 polls for several months. One of them asks "Is smoking cool?" Noticing the sudden interest of our pro-smoking friends in this website, I thought I might take a note of the responses. At the time there were 115 responses, built up over 4 months - 45 yes, 70 no.

I look again tonight and suddenly there have been 135 responses. That's 20 new replies since this time yesterday. And lo and behold, 18 of these 20 new votes have gone to "Yes - smoking is cool".

Who are these people, to go onto a website for young people and deliberately rig a poll in order to try to claim that smoking is cool!!
23

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 09/10/2009 19:26:35
#21,tug f wilson.
I don't think I have ever hidden my views about my distaste of the obnoxious fumes generated by smokers, and their selfish disregard of others in their vicinity. Smoking restrictions would seem to be more than happily accepted by the majority of the populace, as apparently would the proposals to dispense with ostentatious tobacco displays and dispensing apparatus. As tug rightly says, smokers have made their choice, and I have no quibble with their decision, as long as the effects are literally at arm's length, or preferably further, from myself. As they are always saying, “Their freedom, their choice”. So just how do these proposals prevent them from exercising that choice?.
24

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 09/10/2009 19:51:18
#22, Rollo Tommasi.
Possibly the same few contributors who constantly bleat about their "Freedom to Choose", when current and proposed tobacco restrictions scarcely impair their right to exercise that freedom. Or again, they could be tobacco company plants, ie infiltrators, rather than bushes?
25

tug f wilson,

09/10/2009 20:34:10
Rollo...so the young make their pro choice when they vote,is not freedom a wonderful thing,but don't worry ASH and their handful of anti-smoking anti pro choice followers will soon turn the vote around to fit their version of choice,maybe you and David can get together and do a spot of voting,or have you already done that?.Still it is good to know that all decent people want is Pro Choice in a free Country, Iam glad we can all agree on that.
26

Rollo Tommasi,

09/10/2009 20:44:51
Tug - Are you seriously trying to tell me that these 20 votes in the last 24 hours have all come from young people? None from your F2C cabal with your pro-smoking agenda? How many times have you voted, Tug?
27

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 09/10/2009 20:48:03
#25, tug f wilson.
Just to satisfy tug's insatiable curiosity, I visited the W-WEST site following Rollo's posting, and cast my “no” vote in the “Is smoking cool?” section, as is my “Freedom to Choose”, but promise not to attempt multiple postings. Tug is, of course, free to cast his vote as he feels apposite, just as much as he is free to carry on indulging his nicotine addiction. So, just what's his beef?
28

Tag,

10/10/2009 10:50:04
#25 The comment left by Kelly on the W-west site at 11.22 on 8th October looks very much like the work of freedom2choose.

I'd hazard a guess that one of their scottish officials is behind it, as I'm sure we see that phrasiology on here a lot.

The kids look like they are more than capable of holding their own. I hope english charlie posts on their from his terminal in La La Land, they'll eat him alive!
29

tug f wilson,

10/10/2009 12:12:25
You do make me laugh,this article is no more than a drum banging exersise by Sheila ( get rid of all smokers ) Duffy and ASH ,yet it seems by some of the antis comments that if a young person goes onto the so-called Pro choice site and votes that smoking is cool,then it follows that it cannot be a young person who votes that way it can only be an adults vote,my message to the antis is,Keep off the site and stop voting,leave it to the youngsters,after all Sheila will make sure the vote is just what she wants,i am sure you are not that foolish to think that the vote would show any other result,i think you need to know that Control is not the same as Choice.
30

english charlie,

10/10/2009 12:41:47
#28. If somebody makes a comment that they don't like, it must have come from a member of freedom2choose?
I hazard a guess?
With such logic, I'm not surprised that Rich ate you alive.
31

tug f wilson,

10/10/2009 15:20:19
David....I think that site is for youngsters to vote on,i am too old to vote on that site,so have not,but it seems you had no such problems in casting your votes,shame on you,like i have said,leave it to the youngsters to say what they think,it is a shame that Duffy and co do not understand a basic rule,if you want to make something Popular, Ban It , It works for youngsters every time.
32

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 10/10/2009 16:12:01
#31, tug f wilson.
I saw no mention of age restriction on the site, so felt no problem in exercising my freedom to choose to cast my vote accordingly. Likewise, I see no reason why tug and his cohorts could not exercise their freedom. As stated at #25, I shall neither cast multiple votes, nor shall I induce others to cast a “no” vote, leaving it to individuals to vote as they see fit.
33

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 10/10/2009 16:16:55
#28, tag.
Having read the Kelly posting in question, I must agree it reads just like a F2S press release, despite what old Charlie and uncontrollably laughing tug may assert.
34

tug f wilson,

10/10/2009 17:41:58
David....you do make me laugh, The site-Led by and for Young people, yet you have no problem casting your vote and try to make it sound ok to do so,then you tell us you voted No on the poll and then say you would not induce others to vote that way, then you get paranoid about youngsters saying it is cool to smoke and that it cannot be yougsters voting that way it must be F2C,is it any wonder it makes me laugh. but the biggest joke is Sheila Duffy and ASH trying to convice people they are in some way cutting the amount of smokers in the country,with Government figures showing smoking rates are Up all over the country,if Sheila and co carry on like this,Everyone will be smoking,except me, i am a non smoker.
35

english charlie,

10/10/2009 18:09:38
#34 tug. I first of all laughed at David voting on a young persons' poll, but now see how sad he is.
Sheila Duffy must be laughing, in helping the smoking rate to increase, as it guarantees her job for many years to come.
36

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 10/10/2009 18:15:51
#34, tug f wilson.
Gratifying to learn that tug has such a keen sense of humour, but I would remind him that although the site is “Led by and for Young people”, no age restrictions were imposed on those visiting, or voting on, the site. Also, we really have no idea of the age mix of the votes cast thus far.
How can tug assert that I “get paranoid about youngsters saying it is cool to smoke and that it cannot be yougsters voting that way it must be F2C”, when I have made no such assertions. Perhaps tug is the one suffering from paranoia? It certainly would appear so, if he honestly believes that he and I will be the only ones still not smoking. Has he been on Charlie's La La juice?
37

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 10/10/2009 18:27:09
#35, chas.winfield.
Perhaps after inveterate laugher Charlie has enjoyed his chortle, he will reflect on the fact that he's one of the smokers who “guarantees her job” How sad he really is.. Simple solution, Charlie. No smokers=No ASH )(or even ash). Let him have a laugh at that one while he can.
38

Tag,

10/10/2009 20:13:28
#35
Smoking rates are going down, not up, in Scotland.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/08/07100738/12

We don't care what they are doing in La La Land charlie
39

english charlie,

10/10/2009 21:04:38
#38. According to that report it went down by only 0.3%, but only because those smoking 1-4 a day cut down or quit. The number of people smoking over 4 a day went up. When the increase in counterfeit fags are taken into account there must have been an overall increase.
I thought the idea was to stop youngsters from smoking.
The number of young people smoking in Scotland has returned to a level last seen nearly 10 years ago, according to a report by health officials.
The survey revealed nearly a third of people between 16-24 are smokers.
In 2004 the number of young smokers in Scotland had fallen to just 25% but by 2007 that figure was 31%
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7791012.stm
40

tug f wilson,

11/10/2009 11:57:02
39
I think you will waste your time showing true facts to these antis,they only want to believe the rubbish they come out with,they just wait for more polls to jump on and rubbish articles like this one,still we do know that Duffy and ASH are failures and their time is limited,the one fact they cannot get their heads around is,young or old,if people choose to smoke that is their choice,nothing to do with Duffy,ASH or a handful of antis who seem to think it is their right to try and take away other peoples free choice,now those people really are in La La Land.David,it is non of my business if people choose to smoke, it is non of yours, getting the picture yet?.
41

Tag,

11/10/2009 13:25:00
#39 and 40

The overall smoking rates have been falling steadily, and a 0.3% decrease could only be classed a rise in La La Land.

As for the youth smoking rate, it is disappointing if it has risen, but I don't think you are right to blame this on ASH.

Tug and Charlie are both members of a group that promotes smoking, both live in the south of england and both spend time on Scottish web forums arguing against anything that suggests we need to do something about smoking in our young people.
42

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 11/10/2009 13:47:32
#40, tug f wilson.
As I've often stated, it really is “non” of my business what smokers do, as long as their fumes don't reach my nostrils. However, I think it only praiseworthy that young people be made aware of the risks involved, as so many in old Charlie's helpful link were so sorry they'd started the addiction, and were trying to give up after a very short smoking career. Hopefully others might be saved from years of misery, or even turning out to be like cranky old Charlie. Is tug getting the picture yet?
Oh, and could he explain his “I get paranoid about youngsters saying it is cool to smoke and that it cannot be yougsters voting that way it must be F2C” comment at #34, when I said no such thing? As usual, the F2S brigade seem to ignore questions they are not comfortable with.
43

english charlie,

11/10/2009 14:34:13
#41. I blame ASH, because before they started their anti-smoking campaign, the smoking rate in the whole of the UK was tumbling. Both young and old do not like to be told how they should live their lives.
The number of young people smoking in Scotland has returned to a level last seen nearly 10 years ago,
ASH are a total failure and the money given to them from the Scottish Government, CRUK and the BHF should be stopped immediately, before that rate increases further.
44

tug f wilson,

11/10/2009 15:06:41
41
may i just say that you have it Wrong again,i do not live in the south of england,if Any forum site is put onto the internet,that is for the most coverage they can get,and the most comments,i think it may be wise for you to go back to Pen and Paper comments to your local newspaper,we already know smoking rates are Up all over the country so anyone can only say the efforts of Control over people by ASH and co have failed big-time, so no need to throw anymore money at those losers.I am surprised at you David, i got the picture very early on, you vote on polls that you should not go onto then try to blame others when the poll does not go the way you would like it,by the way Tag, i do not smoke or promote smoking, i promote Choice, a freedom we should All have,smoker and non smoker alike.
45

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 11/10/2009 15:41:35
#44, tug f wilson.
As tug has “got the picture” early on, perhaps he could fine tune it by explaining how I “vote on polls that you should (?) not go onto“ or “try to blame others when the poll does not go the way you would like it,” I await his elucidation with much interest.
46

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 11/10/2009 16:03:57
#43, chas.winfield.
I blame F2S, because before they started their pro-smokers campaign, the smoking rate in the whole of the UK was tumbling. Both young and old do not like to be told how they should live their lives.
The number of young people smoking in Scotland may have returned to a level last seen nearly 10 years ago, so F2S are a total failure and should be stopped immediately, before that rate increases further.
47

tug f wilson,

11/10/2009 18:21:11
David...I am sure a pro choice (not pro smoking ) group like Freedom 2 Choose will be very pleased to know that they have more influence on both young and old people than do a control freak group like ASH have ( in your view ) but i think people already know that,if you are given a choice between being Told what to do or having a choice it is not hard to see what normal people would choose,but there are still some people about who need to be led,as you point out in your comment, far from being a failure F2C is a Huge success when it comes to Freedom and Choice.I am sure F2C will thank you for your comments,now you can see why ASH are such a very costly failure, Thanks David.
48

Tag,

11/10/2009 18:29:14
#44 You are right, Skegness/Nottingham or wherever you come from may be about 300 miles south of Edinburgh but you indeed aren't in the south of england.

It does feel like you and Charlie are behaving like a couple of english imperialists by refusing to let us discuss how we choose to live in Scotland without your input.

You and Charlie have contributed 20 posts out of 46 on a discussion about smoking in Scottish children.

How would you feel if a Welsh or Norwegian anti-smoking group started posting so heavily on discussions in your own papers?

I suspect that you and Charlie would probably leap to the conclusion that they were being paid to influence your thinking, wouldn't you?
49

Belinda-2,

11/10/2009 18:49:22
#48

If you don't like people from outside your immediate geographical area participating in discussions, then why are you getting involved in a media discussion on the Internet? Internet discussion is not localised.

Whether or not people are paid to influence our thinking has absolutely nothing to do with where they live. People who are paid to influence our thinking are often savvy enough to realise that it is very easy to look like an authentic local by entering the appropriate location in the box when signing in.

Suppose Chas and Tug Wilson were on your side of the argument, you would not be criticising their participation in the debate then.

The offending poll on W-West didn't seem attract many votes. In order to see the result I had to cast a vote! I was no. 106 after the thing had been online for around two months. Hardly speaks of a hugely popular youth movement. Now the thing has swung possibly because the interest it has attracted. Internet polls are enormously open to abuse as they are easily swayed by blocs of interest groups and you would need several thousand votes in a region even to get an idea of the general mood.
50

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 11/10/2009 19:14:31
#47, tug f wilson.
It may be that tug f hadn't spotted the irony in my parody of chas.' #43, but now that he's mentioned it, I see F2S as simply a pro-smokers' group, with freedom (apart from their's) not forming part of the equation.
Perhaps tug could enlighten us to the various huge successes of his beloved group. Rescinding or amendment of the Health Act 2006's provisions regarding smoking in enclosed public places? Progressing the much vaunted Judicial Review? National Smoking Day on 31/12/07? Affecting progress of the Health Bill,2009? (Third Reading due to-morrow in the Commons-perhaps tug should pray for a miracle.) Organising meaningful protest marches? ( By meaningful I mean consisting of more than a few members and stragglers.) Having the ear of Government? (That by definition doesn't include UKIP.) Supporting the pro-smoking rebel landlords? Have I missed one, perhaps? While tug is racking his brains for some iota approaching “success”, perhaps he could come up with an answer to the elucidation sought in my #46?
Tug seems incapable of realising that many people, myself included, can reach decisions, neither affected nor “led”by either ASH or F2S.
Thanks from a free minded non-smoker.
51

english charlie,

11/10/2009 19:18:45
#48. Is it OK for David to comment on YOUR site, as he also lives south of Scotland?
52

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 11/10/2009 19:41:14
#49, Belinda C..
I hope Belinda is aware that she is liable to be taken to task by tug f wilson for “voting on polls that you should not go onto “, as some one in her 40's scarcely falls within the broad ambit of youth as defined by tug. Most of these polls allow you to see the result to date without casting a vote, but perhaps Belinda would enlighten us as to how she voted, or is that as big a secret as F2S's vast membership number? Regarding her locale point, Pleasantville is decidedly south of the border, but although I feel free to post on these threads, I am not part of any pressure group. Perhaps she could have rustled up one or two Scottish members, rather than depend on the usual southern stalwarts, such as the dynamic duo of chas.,and tug, (Sounds a bit like Ant and Dec), or aren't too many available north of the border? Colin Gee or Bill Gibson, perhaps? After all, they used to have a lot to say at one time.
53

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 11/10/2009 19:44:06
#51, chas. Winfield..
As per my #52, David is neither an ASH nor a F2S stooge.
54

tug f wilson,

11/10/2009 19:48:36
Tag....The only ones that get paid to try and influence the way people act or think on this article are ASH, and as we have seen they will not be successful because people want a choice,i have said before if someone wants to smoke,fine,if someone does not want to smoke,fine,i can respect their choice,but when a group is set up to take away(by any means they can) the freedom of choice of one set of people(ie smokers)then that is wrong.it is wrong anywhere in the world,mutual respect is not so hard and it works.
55

soapy1,

Rainworth 11/10/2009 20:24:13
Do those now posting agree that every person has the freedom to choose their lifestyles?

Do they agree that a business owner has the freedom to choose his or her clientel?

Do they agree that an individual has the freedom to choose what type of establishment they frequent?

Do they believe it is reasonable that if a businessman or woman chooses to cater for a particular type of client that they should be stopped from doing so by legislation?

The above questions are deliberately neutral and do not specifically concern any particular business model.
56

Tag,

12/10/2009 06:40:57
#52
Whatever did happen to Colin G and Bill Gibson? They used to have so much to say.
I wonder if Colin still lights up when he's near his grandchildren because it will protect them from illness.

And Belinda, the comment left by Kelly on the W-west site at 11.22 on 8th October looks very much like the work of freedom2choose. Don't you think? Do you know who posted that comment?
57

Tag,

12/10/2009 06:42:17
#55 Weak attempt at diversionary tactics from another freedom2choose imperialist in the English midlands.

58

english charlie,

12/10/2009 07:00:15
#56. With the youth smoking rate increasing at an alarming rate in Scotland, why does it surprise you that a youngster can make such a comment?
#57. Is that because you find it difficult to answer such simple questions? I note that English David hasn't answered either.
59

Tag,

12/10/2009 09:12:33
#58 Charlie
Do you know which of freedom2choose's members posted the Kelly comment?
60

english charlie,

12/10/2009 10:02:35
#59. Eric, why do insist that the comment came from a freedom2choose member? Youths are quite capable of making comments. I do not know of anybody called Kelly.
Does anybody here know Kelly, K E L L Y?
61

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 12/10/2009 10:20:17
#51, chas. Winfield..
As per my #52, David is neither an ASH nor a F2S stooge.
#58 & 60, chas.winfield.
Surely even old Charlie can detect a posting straight out of the F2S textbook, and composed in fluent F2Sese. In case he doesn't know any, youths just don't compose texts in that fashion. Or does F2S have a junior league, apart from being in the amateur division?
Perhaps “Kelly” was a mere soubriquet, as posting under the name of soapy, chas. or tug, might have been rather obvious, as if the wording were not sufficient clue.
Regarding soapy's carefully worded “neutral” comment, I may turn to that for a moment's divertissement in due course. Charlie should indeed feel honoured that he was accorded precedence by British David.
62

Tag,

12/10/2009 10:39:15
#60 Charlie
I'm sure, as a participant on the freedom2smoke website you will have been involded in some online discussions about the W-west forum and voting on the w-west poll.

No doubt one of your clan will no doubt have posted a veiled 'look what has been posted here' in reference to a clever post they've made. Of course they won't be known as 'Kelly'

Has that happened? Who did it?

63

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 12/10/2009 10:54:25
#62, tag.
Tag is assuming that chas. is one of F2S's inner circle, rather than being a mere destructible foot soldier.
64

english charlie,

12/10/2009 11:44:33
#61 TAG. I have no idea who this Kelly is. We leave the lying and deceit to anti-smoking group and enjoy exposing their lies.
Why can't you accept that youths have minds of their own?
65

Tag,

12/10/2009 12:47:55
#64 Chas
You sidestep the question.

Did anyone post a coy message saying "have a look here, there's a new post" or similar?

Who did it?

I think we can take it that 'Kelly' is a made up name.
66

Belinda-2,

12/10/2009 13:08:03
I did it Tag. But I don't know who wrote the post. Why wasn't it a young person?

The ban has many oppenents:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&forum
67

Scottish Eric,

12/10/2009 13:44:55
Hello Belinda

I see you have written the freedom2choose pro-smoking group's article on the display ban that England is voting on today.

You missed out the Imperial Tobacco research in Canada that shows that tobacco smuggling increased less quickly in the Canadian provinces that banned tobacco displays earliest.

I thought you were about truth and freedom of choice.

Your article says "The display ban, by insisting that tobacco will no longer be in open view, invites bootleggers to invade the market. Instead of protecting legal traders from such dangers, the government and associated sources dismiss bootlegging threats as tobacco industry scare stories."

This has been shown by Imperial Tobacco not to be true.

Are you going to apologise for telling porkies and edit the article to reflect the truth?

If you really were about truth and freedom of choice you would.

68

Belinda-2,

12/10/2009 14:08:18
Kindly explain why bootleggers will have any success in getting shopkeepers to push counterfeit or unpaid duty tobacco in shops where the tobacco is displayed in full view of customers.

And while you are about it, perhaps you would like to explain why you suddenly see a tobacco company as a reliable source of information.

I am not aware of this research. Is there a link?
69

soapy1,

Rainworth 12/10/2009 19:20:17
Thank you all for exercising your freedom to choose as to whether or not to answer my questions. Clearly everyone here agrees that all individuals have the freedom to choose even by not answering any questions.
70

english charlie,

12/10/2009 19:49:26
#65 TAG. 'I think we can take it that 'Kelly' is a made up name'. Is that because you cannot accept that a youngster can make a sensible comment?
71

soapy1,

rainworth 12/10/2009 20:44:27
In regard to 61 I would have posted as Loretta, shows how much David knows about his opponents!

No doubt of course my sense of humour will be taken as gospel truth.

Now we all know that the anti smoking case is so weak the it can barely lift its head but really suggesting that anyone has the time or inclination to imitate children is really the death throws of the anti smoking lobby.

Since this is seriously put forward as evidence against smoking one wonders just exactly which asylums they have day passes from?

Love Loretta
72

soapy1,

12/10/2009 22:11:09
10

Lets have a look at free choice, a large number of the anti smoking lobby claim that addicts have no choice. The implication is that addicts are mentally deficient when it comes to choice, what does the law say on this issue, the law says that addicts are competent to choose how to plead whether it is guilty of an offense or not guilty of an offense.

The addict goes to trial and is found guilty where he may face a number of penalties, for example he may be ordered to go into rehabilitation. He now has a choice, he can attend rehabilitation or he may not, if not he goes to prison. These are conscious choices; the law says they are, not I, for if an addict is incapable of choosing between going to rehabilitation and going to prison the he is incapable of making a plea to the court. This then makes him mentally ill and unable to stand trial, this being the case every drug conviction ever made is unsafe, the door is wide open for suites of unlawful imprisonment the costs of which will run into £billions.

So if an addict is incapable of choice then he is mentally ill and not responsible for his choices but if he is capable of making a choice of how to plead in court then he is equally capable under the law of making any other choice including giving up drugs as indeed some do voluntarily.

In light of this statement which is true as we read almost daily of addicts choosing to plead to offenses do you still claim addicts have no choice?
73

Tag,

12/10/2009 22:37:27
Soapy
You need to stop being so pompous.

I think the reason nobody bothered to respond to your post 55 was as I suggested "Weak attempt at diversionary tactics from another freedom2choose imperialist in the English midlands."

And as for your flight of fantasy at 72, remember you start off responding to my post at number 10 which said

"I mean that people addicted to smoking don't have a choice not to smoke.

It is quite simple"

Are you and Charlie closely related? Twins separated at birth perhaps?

I just said addiction to smoking stops many smokers having a choice about whether they smoke or not. Nothing more. No implications of medical deficiency.

On planet earth we all know people who smoke and like it, and we know people who smoke but would rather they didn't but can't give up. It isn't complex at all.

Your flight of paranoid excess at 72 looks symptomatic of something - heaven knows what. Can I suggest that you buy some darts or a pool cue, go to the pub and mix with people
74

english charlie,

13/10/2009 06:36:22
#73. 'Can I suggest that you buy some darts or a pool cue, go to the pub and mix with people'.
You should be suggesting this to all the anti-smokers, who wanted smoke free pubs.
75

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 13/10/2009 09:59:06
#74, chas. Winfield.
Chas. should perhaps follow Tag's advice and toddle down to the pub with his fellow inmate soapy, where he'll find that most of the customers, smokers and non-smokers, will be quite friendly, and make allowance for the disabilities of this pair. Who knows? The experience may act as a palliative, giving soapy some relief from whatever is troubling his disturbed mind.
76

soapy1,

13/10/2009 11:12:49
They do have a choice Tag, they can choose to give up, they choose not to because they enjoy a legal habit. what part of that do you not understand?

If as you claim addicts have no choice then they cannot give up anyway.

Why are you quoting 55 it is not revelent to addiction is it?

So much for me diverting the issue!

I repeat addicts are capable of free choice a fact that you are clearly unable to grasp and which is central to your own argument!

The fact is addicts can make choices as they clearly do when pleading in court then your claim that addicts have no choices or are incapable of making choices is wrong then so is your argument. The central plank of your argument has woodworm, dry rot and is unseasoned wood!

Addicts make choices every day, they are capable of choice therefore if smokers are addicts they are also free to choose whether or not to smoke with or without your permission whether or not you dislike it.

I look forward to the infantile argument that I cannot smoke in a pub it will just confirm what I already know........

Since you don't like addicts having free choice then lobby your MP they'll probably write laws that tell you what to all day, when to sleep ect, perfect for those who don't want any form of responsibility for making choices isn't it Tag?

77

Tag,

13/10/2009 12:44:33
76 Soapy

I have seen some incredibly weird posts by you on threads like this Soapy, but your grip on reality seems to be slackening.

To my "I just said addiction to smoking stops many smokers having a choice about whether they smoke or not. Nothing more. No implications of medical deficiency."

you responded "They do have a choice Tag, they can choose to give up, they choose not to because they enjoy a legal habit. what part of that do you not understand?

If as you claim addicts have no choice then they cannot give up anyway."

If, as I claim, addicts have no choice then they cannot give up anyway.

Yes, exactly, addicts do not have a choice and find it hard to give up.

Why are you both agreeing and disagreeing with me?

Stop being so pompous and use less words and we might be able to get to what you're trying to say.

I mean "The central plank of your argument has woodworm, dry rot and is unseasoned wood!" is a belter, great fun, thanks for that.

You need to get out more.

78

soapy1,

13/10/2009 13:03:09
Free choice is free choice the choice of whether to smoke or not is no different to the choice of whether to go to the pub or not.

They do have a choice Tag is it not true that that both smokers and heroin addicts have voluntarily chosen to give up their habits?

There is nothing you can say to disprove that, that very statement screams that addicts do have free choice and they do exercise it.

You are wrong all the claims of pomposity in the world do not change the fact that addicts can and do voluntarily give up their habits.

You even say "that addicts do not have a choice and find it hard to give up" to find it hard to give up they must have made the choice to give up in the first place!

Seems to me your woodworm's are growing by the minute!
79

Tag,

13/10/2009 18:34:50
78 Soapy
"is it not true that that both smokers and heroin addicts have voluntarily chosen to give up their habits?"

Some have.

Some haven't been able to, and have been killed by their habit as a result.

That's not freedom.
80

Scottish Eric,

13/10/2009 18:47:07
Soapy
Tag is dead right about your pomposity. You have abandoned the Edinburgh News after leaving me with the following order

'My best advice to you Eric is for you to strike your colours, surrender your sword with your honour intact'

I have ignored your order. I don't take orders from people who put their own need to justify smoking above the needs of parents wanting to protect their kids.
81

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 13/10/2009 19:31:01
#79/80.
Tag and Scottish Eric, have presumably come to realise that soapy, like his mate chas., form what is known as a lost cause.
82

soapy1,

13/10/2009 20:21:32
it is as it says advice since when is advice an order? besides you obeyed a non order quickly enough! The day that any civilised person heeds the words of any one that bullies berieved parents will be the day the world ends.

"Some have." Your post 79 Tag no more to be said is there?

Those who died as a result of drug addiction chose their lifestyle, they were aware of the risks, they accepted the risks, they were free at any time to change their lifestyle, they chose not to. It is true that it was a poor lifestyle to choose and personally I would not advise them that they choose it but it was their life not yours and not mine, they made their choices and they lived and died by them.

Speaking of choices and deaths, 79% of the united Kingdom are non smokers, of those killed on our roads by drunk drivers what percentage of these drivers are smokers?

ASH claim that the battle is won and that there is no debate on smoking. Why are you debating a non debate David?
83

Tag,

13/10/2009 21:25:37
Soapy 82
You've got to get out and get some mates old pal, this post is most surreal.
"they were free at any time to change their lifestyle, they chose not to"
You really don't understand addiction, do you?

"It is true that it was a poor lifestyle to choose" - I was referring to people addicted to smoking. Are you now advising people not to smoke?

Are you living with Charlie in La La Land?

I can't wait for your next post, it's like being stuck in a lift with Edward Lear on absinthe
84

english charlie,

13/10/2009 21:56:26
I went to a pub today and it full of smokers inside. About £4 a pint, but hardly room to move, because they allowed smokers inside. Mind you it was in Belgium.
85

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 13/10/2009 22:12:58
#84, chas. Winfield.
Perhaps chas. would like to take himself off to Belgium permanently, along with soapy and tug, rather than have to tolerate all these British pubs with room to move.
86

soapy1,

13/10/2009 23:02:07
I understand addiction more than you understand choice Tag.
Addicts are capable of making choices Tag or are you suggesting otherwise?
Obviously the entire post was not surreal you only quoted part of one line! Oh and just because I choose a particular lifestyle it does not mean I would advise anyone to do likewise. I would not advise anyone to take a job dealing with suicides yet I do that now and again or dealing with drunks and oh yes addicts!

Were you really referring to smokers Tag?

Just what were you doing in a lift with Edward Lear on absinthe, you do know taking absinthe is a criminal offense don't you?
Is there something you're not telling us?
It would explain why your thinking is so cloudy.

87

soapy1,

13/10/2009 23:40:35
Please! Are you paying David? could I have a few grand spending money as well?
88

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 14/10/2009 11:05:34
#82, soapy.
Perhaps I have a sadistic streak, and enjoy seeing soapy, chas, tug f et al experiencing a thrashing. Or there again, it might just be good sport, even if it's all too easy to shoot fish in a barrel.
89

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 14/10/2009 11:12:57
#87, soapy.
Soapy should have no problem earning a few bob by entertaining the natives with his bizarre performances, but might be well advised to make sure that he takes out adequate medical cover, as lengthy stays in foreign hospital can be expensive.
Bye!
90

Tag,

Paisley 14/10/2009 11:40:56
Soapy 86
It has been a few months since I was last in a discussion where soapy posted and I had forgotten the need for extreme clarity, therefore my post 83 was a little unclear.

When I said ' I can't wait for your next post, it's like being stuck in a lift with Edward Lear on absinthe' I meant that Soapy was like Edward Lear on Absinthe. Their written styles have many similarities.

Anyway, back to the madness
"Addicts are capable of making choices Tag or are you suggesting otherwise?"
The 'choice' to give up smoking is not an instantaneous decision type of choice that I would agree that everyone can make (like shall I have a cup of tea).

Giving up smoking, for someone addicted to smoking, has easy parts and hard parts. The reason that many people addicted to smoking are unable to maintain their choice to give up smoking is the high relapse rate caused by the addiction calling them back minutes, hours, days or weeks after they stop. The same thing happens with people addicted to alcohol and heroin. You should know this if you work with people suffering from those addictions.


So someone exercising a choice to stop smoking is only really FREE if there is no addiction that will come back and get them restarted after making the decision. And we know that this is exactly why so many people addicted to smoking aren't free - the addiction gets them back into smoking time after time.

Soapy I await your response with anticipation.
91

soapy1,

14/10/2009 13:01:20
So you are saying then that when smokers give up they wonder zombie like into the nearest tobacconist to buy smokes then because they can do nothing else, are you suggesting that a smoker who chooses to give up is not allowed to to change their mind or reassess his choice? Surely not Tag, that would mean you advocate the removal of free choice! You would not do that would you Tag?

The scenario is similar to a driver who refuses the drink that will put him over the limit and then says all right just a half then before climbing into his car and killing mom pop and junior? I wonder if the fact that 79% of these cretins are non smokers has sunk in with those who crow that smoking kills?

Would you like to see the costs to the NHS cut for the treatment of the victims of drink drivers (79% of whom are non smokers) just as you want to cut the costs of smokers to NHS who by the way pay a surplus into that same NHS making that 79% Dependant on the revenue from 21% of the country as tobacco tax is ringed into the NHS?

Now I do not mind the taxation too much, putting all that money into the NHS saves lives except where it used to persecute minorities, look at the advantages if smokers were not persecuted, more money for wards, accident units, drugs , doctors, nurses, effective cleaning so patients do not have enter a lottery of death from c-diff ect. Even you must agree these are all positive benefits, even you must agree that such measures will save lives.

Of course you are free to disagree, it is your choice, I choose using my tax to save lives and improve services, people like you are denying the NHS the opportunity to save lives, every £ spent on adverts that no one takes any notice of and which only serve to distress children, every £ donated to charities that seek to persecute and not help real victims is a £ that could save a life.

The Charity ASH has claimed the battle is won, there is no debate on smoking if this is true why then does Deborah Arnott and
92

soapy1,

14/10/2009 13:02:11
The Charity ASH has claimed the battle is won, there is no debate on smoking if this is true why then does Deborah Arnott and Sheila Duffy keep writing to the papers as if it is not?
If it is won why is there a need for ASH?
These government funded organisations merely waste money on an issue they say they have won! Money that could save lives by improving our hospitals. Care for our elderly and those who cannot care for themselves is that not what real charities do Tag? If you are the humanitarian you like to think you are you would be supporting those aims and not persecuting minorities like some modernistic Brown shirt.

Does that sound like victory to you Tag? Is that why you and I debate a cause that ASH says does not need to be debated because it is won?

ASH may choose to write in to say I am wrong that is good as it will open up the debate along another axis, they may choose to ignore it and accept the risk that people will begin to believe I am right, Most people may be wondering why if they are right they dare not debate the issue in public or even if they are actually needed. Something for David Cameron to consider as he ponders who to cut to save money.


93

english charlie,

14/10/2009 13:07:13
#90 TAG. So anybody who can't go without a habit, like drinking alcohol, playing sports or anything else for more than a few weeks is addicted?
If somebody really wants to stop a habit they will do so.
94

Tag,

14/10/2009 19:55:47
Soapy 91
You either can't or don't want to understand. Other readers of this discussion will draw their own conclusions. As David says, you and Chas are a lost cause.

Although still rambling and irrelevant, the rest of your is less bizarre than before - have you had some pub therapy?
95

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 14/10/2009 19:59:11
#93, chas. Winfield.
Chas. apparently hasn't yet grasped the difference between ceasing to indulge in a habit and renouncing an addiction, despite Tag's best efforts.
“If somebody really wants to stop a habit they will do so” Agreed, however renouncing an addiction is not quite so easy.
96

Scottish Eric,

Falkirk 14/10/2009 21:48:56
Soapy 82
After 'advising' me to leave the discussion at Edinburgh News you haven't been back.
You are trying to spread your ill-informed nonsense here, so here's the post from Edinburgh News you have conveniently avoided -

I have no intention of bullying anyone, and you should remember that there have been 4 members (past and present) of pro-smoking group Freedom2choose posting against me on this thread. One of them has been shown to be telling lies, and has gone away.

The problem here Soapy is that you don't care about anyone but yourself.

This whole debate is about a vain attempt to grant yourself absolution. You tell us you did everything you were advised - I have never disputed that.

Evidence in the past wasn't as strong about smoking and SIDS. It is very strong now.

You and your group are trying to stifle evidence about the significant risk of smoking in pregnancy and smoking near babies for a cause that isn't a noble one.

IF PEOPLE LISTEN TO YOU INSTEAD OF THE SIDS CHARITIES, 180 BABIES COULD DIE IN THE UK EVERY YEAR.

That is based on the estimates provided by FSID after consideration of the whole evidence base (not snippets, not cherry picked phrases)

These babies would probably survive if the mother stopped smoking during the pregnancy and nobody smoked in the presence of the child in its first year.

You seem to be able to mentally dismiss the evidence because ALL OF THE SIDS CHARITIES present it as advice.

Why do you think they give the advice in the first place? It is because of the evidence.

The Canadian SIDS Charity have a 33 page summary of the evidence about smoking that they have considered to come to their conclusion. It is available here http://www.sidscanada.org/images/Smoking.pdf.

Charlie says you're an expert so none of this should be new to you. I've read it and there seems little there to give any glimmer of support to smoking not being very important in many cases of SIDS. How can you remain so firmly in
97

Scottish Eric,

14/10/2009 21:49:45
continued from 96
Charlie says you're an expert so none of this should be new to you. I've read it and there seems little there to give any glimmer of support to smoking not being very important in many cases of SIDS. How can you remain so firmly in denial about the importance of smoking and SIDS NOW (not back when you suffered your own personal tragedy) when the evidence is so clear?
98

english charlie,

14/10/2009 22:13:28
TAG. Don't you believe that a habit could be stopped if somebody really want to?
99

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 14/10/2009 22:25:44
98, chas. Winfield.
Could chas. perhaps absorb #95?
100

english charlie,

14/10/2009 22:28:10
Eric. You didn't reply for a few days about SIDS so thought that you finished 'debating' on that site. Haven't you seen the latest: 'MORE than half of babies who die in their sleep are lying alongside a parent'?
They still don't know the reason, so are blaming something else now.
101

Scottish Eric,

15/10/2009 00:15:48
Charlie
33 pages of summaries of proper, medical evidence here http://www.sidscanada.org/images/Smoking.pdf.

Not stuff from newspapers, vitamin sites, David Icke, quacks, weirdos, tobacco industry or 30 years ago.

Just an assessment of the current evidence by a national charity which is trying to eliminate SIDS for the benefit of families and babies.

Something that you, your sidekick and your PRO-SMOKING group freedom2choose are trying your best to hinder.
102

Scottish Eric,

15/10/2009 00:58:47
#100 Charlie
"Eric. You didn't reply for a few days about SIDS so thought that you finished 'debating' on that site."

I was away for less than 2 days.

Can't you tell the truth about ANYTHING?
103

english charlie,

15/10/2009 09:20:52
#102. Eric. 10th Oct to 12th Oct is two days. Maybe not two full days, but then you would argue black is white?
This story is not about SIDS. If you want to argue about SIDS go to the right story:
http://news.scotsman.com/health/Nightfeeds-on-sofa-can-be.5730086.jp
104

Scottish Eric,

15/10/2009 10:08:12
#103
You didn't say 'a day'
You didn't say 'a couple of days'
You said 'a few days'

Round here people normally understand a few to mean more than a couple.

Does it mean less than two where you come from?

"This story is not about SIDS" - no, it is about Scottish children fighting against tobacco propaganda.

Your pro-smoking group's efforts to whitewash smoking's role in SIDS is tobacco proaganda.

105

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 15/10/2009 11:00:06
#103, chas.Winfield.
“A few” normally signifies more than two in Pleasantville also, so perhaps those in La La land have their own concept of time scales, as in most things. Also the other thread to which chas. refers was headed “MSP slams tobacco idea”, so wasn't really about SIDS until RF-M directed it along those lines, and chas. and soapy chose to prolong the issue, to which Eric responded accordingly.
106

english charlie,

15/10/2009 12:59:58
When Eric and David's little anti-smoking group lose an arguement, they revert to trying to give an English lesson.
This story was written by Sheila Duffy, spouting her anti-smoking propaganda.
107

soapy1,

15/10/2009 13:41:02
You are of course right Eiic this story is not about SIDs so why did you raise the topic of SIDs?

As pointed out is there a point reference spelling and grammar, Does spelling and Grammar add anything to to a debate on smoking or have you now taken to bullying those who are not blessed with perfect English as well as those who lose children through natural causes?

Herr Goerbals tactic of painting defeat to look like victory has failed, the fact remains that and it has been pointed out before he too used children keep their parents in line just as you advocate, just as ASH and the NHS does. It is shameful that children are being used by the anti smoking lobby as political footballs to coerce their parents through moral blackmail to renounce a free choice, just what are you teaching our children? That the practice of blackmail is right?
That they can lie to buy cigarettes with immunity while the shopkeeper loses his living and deprives his own children a decent standard of living.
That if they can tell the authorities that their parents smoke their parents will be sorted, that they can gain retribution by ratting out their parents?

Truly this is the stuff of National Socialism, it worked for Hitler, do you honestly believe that the state knows better what is best for a child than the parents who know and love their child?
Do you believe that because the state says it is right that it is?
The state is made up of people, fallible people, and the use of children to force political will is wrong, you know it as well as I do, you also know and yet you are willing to deny Hitler was condemned for doing what you are doing using children for political gain, to force an unjust law onto the people.

This is what you support, and I say you are wrong by every definition wrong.

108

Scottish Eric,

15/10/2009 14:30:37
Ah, we're back to nazis.

Instead of you reading the evidence at http://www.sidscanada.org/images/Smoking.pdf we're back to trying to justify your love for smoking on the basis that adolf didn't like it in his later life (having smoked from age 8 to 35 according to some).


IF PEOPLE LISTEN TO YOU INSTEAD OF THE SIDS CHARITIES, 180 BABIES COULD DIE IN THE UK EVERY YEAR.

That is based on the estimates provided by FSID after consideration of the whole evidence base (not snippets, not cherry picked phrases)

You are being used as a pro-smoking propaganda puppet
109

soapy1,

15/10/2009 15:15:47
This is not a thread that concerns SIDs, your objection to Charles posting about SIDs was noted and actually I agreed, I also pointed out that it was in fact you who raised the topic which you do not deny so again why are you raising Sids for the third time?

You clearly have no views on the use of children as a political football or perhaps more accurately agree with that abuse of our children so what is your point?

If you do as I suspect agree with the political abuse of our children then you are indeed in agreement with Nazi Ideology.

Your deliberate foray off topic proves to anybody with a free thinking mind that you have no case to offer in regard to youth smoking, that like some charities you are willing to abuse our children for political expediency.

This makes you no different to those who inflict physical or mental injury to the children in their care, no different to those who ran the Hitler Youth and the league of German girls and who like Julius Striecher hung for their crimes. Again I point out you will not be so fortunate that you will have to live among your victims.

I regret that as this thread nothing to do with SIDs I am unable to comment on anything in your post regarding Sids.


110

english charlie,

15/10/2009 16:04:53
'180 BABIES COULD DIE IN THE UK EVERY YEAR', but they cannot name one that has died because of SHS.
111

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 15/10/2009 19:20:55
#106, chas. Winfield.
If chas. or his cronies indulge in factual inaccuracies, they must expect to run the risk of being corrected accordingly. If he feels that Sheila Duffy spouts “her anti-smoking propaganda”, would he concede that chas. toes the party line by spouting “F2S pro-smokers' propaganda” in furtherance of his “arguement”?
112

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 15/10/2009 19:50:09
#107 & 109, soapy.
Oh dear, Godwin's Law once again is trundled out. If soapy cares to refer to the “MSP slams tobacco idea” thread, he will see that it was his mentor RF-M who at #21 alleged that 'early years childhood exposure is shown to have a positive effect on a child's immune system in later years.', which opened the door for Eric to riposte with arguments about SIDS, which thread Belinda, yourself and chas. were apparently keen to pursue at some length.
Soapy should perhaps note that Joseph Goebbels did not come from a deprived area of south Glasgow, and the correct spelling of Streicher. (Pronounced streyecher, not streecher.) If he wishes to make German allusions with some alleged air of authority, he really should take a little more care.
113

soapy1,

15/10/2009 20:53:10
Firstly Hitlers shield (Godwins law)is always trundled out to protect Nazi sympathisers not condemn them.

If your best response to my point is a spelling correction then you have no case at all do you, thank you however for conceding my point.

Goebbels origins are somewhat moot, the comparisons to him are not but then you are not challenging that. If you wish to discuss mentors I would suggest that R-FM is preferable to Adolf Hitler!

(No offense R-FM but my mentors are far more illustrious. If you look in please pass the respects of an old WAFU along to the Dolphin wearer that is your lad, without his protection and that of those with him I would not be able to do what I do.)

You talk of the F2C party line, Chas and I clearly disagree on the SIDs issue so tell me David is it that SIDs is off topic on this thread or is it that it is not off topic? both cannot be F2C policy David if indeed it is even F2C policy which I doubt, it does make a mockery of your contention of Chas and I are working for F2C, we do not even share the same policy!

In fact Chas and I have rarely acknowledged each other never mind actively co operated unlike the regular on thread co-operation you anti smokers indulge in which as can be seen makes no difference to the outcome whatsoever.

Your post has added exactly nothing to the debate except to expose your rabid desire to divert attention away from yet another lost thread.

It will take more than paranoia or diversions with spelling and grammar lessons to end this David. Your position is directly comparable to Nazi ideology nothing can alter that, you seek to bully people into your point of view by use of fear also directly comparable to Nazi ideology even your scientific proof originates from Nazi Germany paid for by Hitler himself nothing can change that either.

You do not deny that the anti smoking lobby is using our children as political footballs in fact you do not deny a thing except that you are a Nazi. I won
114

soapy1,

15/10/2009 20:55:22
I wonder if it is because you value your name more than those to claim to protect or is it because you know your cause is lost?
115

Scottish Eric,

15/10/2009 21:36:22
113 soapy

Google 'soapy nazi smoking'and you find most of the other threads where you resort to calling people nazis the minute you run out of arguments.

Godwins Law is commonly interpreted to mean that the first party in a debate to resort to calling the other nazi loses the debate.

You should know that because it has been quoted at you often enough.

I provide you with a link to 33 pages of evidence used by the Canadian SIDS charity in arriving at their decision that smoking is a major risk factor in SIDS and do you read it?
No, of course you don't.

You just call me a nazi.

This is, and has always been about you and your need to feel good about smoking.

This has always been about you getting trotted out by your freedom2choose mates to be 'outraged' when anyone suggests smoking might harm babies.

You have produced no evidence that rules out smoking as a major risk factor in SIDS.

You have NEVER said anything like "it is important that future SIDS cases are avoided"

You don't care about tragedies of the future and the families and children that they will affect. You just want absolution from your guilt.

Your pro-smoking group know and use that, and tell you where you need to take your indignant outbursts.

YOU are the political football Soapy, and your 'mates' are the ones who are using you.
116

english charlie,

15/10/2009 21:39:41
#113. soapy, the reason that we disagree is that we are independent and have different views, unlike David and Eric who have to work together to support the lies of ASH & Co.
117

Scottish Eric,

15/10/2009 21:53:50
116
The reason you have different views is more to do with you both being unable to understand just about anything you try to have opinions about.
118

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 15/10/2009 22:20:32
#113, soapy.
Oh dear, poor old soapy seems to have finally flipped.
What on earth does para. 4 mean?
#114. Huh???
119

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 15/10/2009 22:37:24
#116, chas. Winfield.
I do not “work together” with Eric, any more than with Arminius, Tag, Rollo, James Donald, or even Me Bungo Pony. Perhaps chas. could grasp the fact that a number of independent minds are capable of seeing through F2S's pro-smoker agenda, and are quite free to express themselves accordingly in an entirely uncoordinated. way, without having formed any kind of pressure group.
120

english charlie,

15/10/2009 22:57:15
#117. Eric, you only appear to have one opinion and that is on SIDS, which you know nothing about, except what you have read in a paper.
121

soapy1,

15/10/2009 23:05:52
Exactly why it is Hitlers shield David, because no one wants to be compared to Hitler a mechanism was devised to try to stop that happening!

I also said that this thread is not a thread about SIDs and that I would not Discuss SIDs on this thread, is there some part of that statement you do not understand?

You seem to have a penchant for second guessing peoples motives sadly always inaccurately as you do not know how others think.

Unlike you Eric I cannot predict the future so I really cannot comment on what any given person will die of unless of course I was using the training that this country provided in which case it would be death by lead poisoning or I shot him before he shot me! Even then I would have but a few seconds notice if that.

"You don't care about tragedies of the future and the families and children that they will affect. You just want absolution from your guilt." Your quote Eric never have I seen such a pathetic attempt to move this topic away from its roots sorry Eric not today!

Do you not understand that more you badger children the more likely they are likely to experiment?

The more you proclaim that smoking harms them the more they are inclined to see what the fuss is about, you put smokers onto the streets in plain sight of the children what more blatant advertising of smoking is there Eric, what you should have done is allowed the publicans free choice, the smokers would be out of sight of the children would they not?

If smokers were allowed their own facilities run and manned by smokers for smokers they would not be on the streets would they Eric? The streets are the only place they can be Eric the law advertises cigarettes to children by your demand Eric, do not blame the smoker for a law they did not want, a law the anti smoking lobby demanded a law which advertises smoking to children.

Be my guest and work up an attack on that statement Eric, deny that is your law that advertises cigarettes to the children, D
122

soapy1,

15/10/2009 23:07:07
Be my guest and work up an attack on that statement Eric, deny that is your law that advertises cigarettes to the children, Deny also that some of the the children of publicans now have a worse standard of living than they did prior to your Law, that publicans and now newsagents are treated no better than the Jewish businessmen in Nazi Germany. Everyone can see the smokers on the street, everyone can see what I say is right, it is right in front of them and everyone knows who made it so, the anti smoking lobby achieved all of that. Not bad for someone who allegedly does not understand what he has an opinion about is it Eric?

Rarely do I have the opportunity to disagree with someone while supporting their general position Chas, in this case while our views may differ we share the same objective. This is why we do not trip over each other, we reach similar conclusions independently, with tolerance for our respective positions, the hallmark of civilised human beings.

Frankly ASH will not acknowledge their efforts Chas, they will not publically support them on any forum, it would mean they would have to debate and they do not do well in debate, their evidence is too flimsy to stand rigorous debate. Neither will they condemn their excesses, they need them to take the heat and sadly they are all too willing to do so.

Chas it is good to see like minded individuals around, "Hit first, hit hard and keep on hitting", as the gunners creed tells me, although I prefer the submariners creed, "Good hunting and a good bag."
123

soapy1,

15/10/2009 23:17:13
113,R-FM will know to what I am referring if he reads it, since it has no bearing on the topic per se but refers to something mentioned elsewhere of a personal nature then there is no reason that I need to explain it to you which is why the comment is bracketed.

114 ends the previous paragraph of 113. Now if you had politely asked I would have given you that information, but no you had to you had to make it personal, it is little wonder that I consider you to be a Nazi when you behave like one.
124

Scottish Eric,

16/10/2009 07:15:30
Soapy
I provide you with a link to 33 pages of evidence used by the Canadian SIDS charity in arriving at their decision that smoking is a major risk factor in SIDS and do you read it?
No, of course you don't.

You just call me a nazi.

You have produced no evidence that rules out smoking as a major risk factor in SIDS.

You've just started ranting incomprehensibly again.

I think we can take it that the pro-smoking clan (freedom2choose) don't want to help prevent further cases of SIDS if it means they have to give up smoking.

Soapy, bury your head in shame.

125

english charlie,

16/10/2009 08:48:21
Japan has the second highest smoking rate in the world and yet has one of the lowest number of SIDS.
A New Zealand report said that some SHS helps babies' immune system.
126

Scottish Eric,

16/10/2009 11:03:31
Charlie
You are so ill-informed and prejudiced that your posts should carry a health warning.

No sane person would advice people to expose babies to tobacco smoke.

You will do or say ANYTHING to promote smoking, won't you.
127

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 16/10/2009 11:10:14
#123, soapy.
Soapy's distended ramblings remind me of the convoluted clues on the Dusty Bin programme, or perhaps he's living the part of the Riddler in Batman.
So, what does #114 mean, exactly?
Perhaps continuing to take the pills will act as a palliative for his troubled mind. I really do hope so.
128

english charlie,

16/10/2009 11:43:04
Eric
You are so ill-informed and prejudiced that your posts should carry a health warning.

No sane person would advice people to expose babies to anti-smoking propaganda.

You will do or say ANYTHING to promote anti-smoking propaganda, won't you.

What do you dispute in 'Japan has the second highest smoking rate in the world and yet has one of the lowest number of SIDS'?
129

Scottish Eric,

16/10/2009 12:34:26
128
The trouble is Charlie that I am clarly far better informed on this than you are ever capable of being.

You can only debate in little slogans and daft questions.

I've read and understood the 33 pages of evidence on smoking and SIDS provided by the Canadian SIDS charity.

I've read and understand the full BMJ report that you direct us to read about at #103.

All of this stuff that says people shouldn't smoke whilst pregnant or in the presence of babies isn't propaganda, it is based on wideranging sound medical evidence.

You come up with a cherry picked bit you've read about somewhere. I bet you haven't even read the original report that it came from. I reckon you are just being a good little lapdog and passing on soundbites that are being fed to you by your pro-smoking group.
130

Scottish Eric,

16/10/2009 12:39:07
#128

The SIDS Family Association Japan launched a SIDS prevention campaign in June of 1996 targeting medical professionals. In early 1997 a pamphlet was released that educated new parents about SIDS risk factors. These were distributed to hospitals and daycare centers. The pamphlet encouraged parents to do the following to lower the risk for their baby:

- Sleep the baby on the back
- Do not smoke near the baby or during pregnancy
- Breastfeed as much as possible
- Do not leave the baby alone when asleep

The pamphlet urges parents to sleep the baby in the same room with parents, to avoid leaving the baby alone, to avoid sleeping the baby in unusual places like a sofa, and to avoid soft toys and pillows in the sleep area.
131

Scottish Eric,

16/10/2009 12:44:30
#128

Perhaps the Japanese don't have people like you and Soapy trying to confuse the simple messages that could help parents reduce the risk of SIDS.

Perhaps Japan is less tolerant of people like you and Soapy who put their own need to smoke above the health of babies.

Perhaps more Japanese parents are willing to go outside to smoke when babies are in the house.

Perhaps a greater proportion of Japanese women are able to stop smoking whilst they're pregnant.

Perhaps you could do some research yourself Charlie, instead of your typical troll-like posts.
132

soapy1,

16/10/2009 14:47:13
Just which part of SIDs is revelent on this thread do you not understand Eric?

Every further demand to discuss a non related topic reinforces the fact that you have no answer to any question raised in regard to the topic at hand. That is my position so you can waste time debating with yourself or answer the questions relevant to the topic.

I have explained 114, making repeated demands to fog the issue under debate does not solve anything, I at least offered a solution to the problem of smoking which both of you have again ignored in favour of diversionary posts.

My suggestion is to remove smoking from outside pubs, off the streets where the health act advertises smoking to children back inside pubs where children should not be. it is not advisable to mix alcohol, children and traffic someone could get hurt.

Smoking is a legal habit, it is legal on the streets where children can see, surely it would be better as there is so much concern about children seeing smokers that smokers have there own pubs where the staff also smoke and children are not allowed? No non smoker need ever set foot inside unless they choose to do so, there would be no alleged risk to non smokers or children the only people allegedly affected would the smokers themselves or those non smokers who choose to be there.

This is common sense, a radical concept which has been around for a some little time but is largely ignored in favour of bullying minorities. Now we have a basis for rational discussion on how how to solve this dilemma.

I suggest that more benefit would be gained by discussing the proposal than wasting valuable time trying to divert the thread.
133

Scottish Eric,

16/10/2009 15:05:11
Soapy, back to your pomposity.

You could just come up with some evidence that smoking is perfectly safe for expectant mothers and around babies. Why don't you try that instead of these protracted posts where you dance around the fact that you know it is a bad thing to do but you can't bring yourself to admit it.

With regard to smokers outside pubs, there are very few people that I see standing outside pubs smoking that I would anticipate being regarded as a "cool role model" by a teenager. Normally they look like a pretty good advert for never starting. It might be different where you live in the English Midlands.

But you haven't even had a look at the canadian summary of evidence yet have you?

Because you know what it will say, and will stop you being able to deny the link.

And you won't be able to talk about nazis anymore.
134

english charlie,

16/10/2009 15:22:36
Eric. You read a few papers and think that you are an expert. Only yesterday, newspapers were still printing the lies about heart attacks. What experience have you actually had regarding SIDS, other that reading papers?
135

soapy1,

16/10/2009 17:18:59
you describe a serious proposal to end this dilemma as pomposity? You who is making no attempt to debate the topic at all.

Once again you ignore the proposal, you condemn it without discussion not a hint of debate.

What do teenagers see when they see smokers outside pubs smoking, they see adults doing something they are told they cannot do, some of them will try it to see what the noise is about, if the adults were inside the pub they would not see that, it would diminish their interest in smoking.

I do not understand your obsession with Canadian SIDs reports how do they relate to teenagers and children smoking?

That is the topic of this thread. I have offered a solution that is ignored in preference to bullying minorities. this is not a debate it is a joke, a sick joke where one side seeks only to bully or divert the topic away from its roots.

I understand your effort to stop the comparisons to the Nazis, god forbid that someone makes a true comparison between the anti smoking lobby the health acts and Nazi ideology it would make people think wouldn't it, freedom of thought is as much an threat to the anti smoking lobby as it was to the Nazis, the Nazis imprisoned or killed those thought freely, its a lot harder to get your Nazi doctrine across without the camps isn't it Eric?

Your Canadian SIDs study has no bearing on teenage smoking why would I even bother with it?
it is after all looking for a way to prevent them from smoking that is being sought,Smokers pubs where the young are not allowed fulfills that brief, without punishing anyone, without bullying anyone, it is a common sense compromise that would satisfy smokers and moderate non smokers alike, only the rabid anti smoking Nazis would object or in this instance completely ignore the suggestion.

Even publicans are beginning to recognise that well ventilated pubs or smoking rooms are a better solution than what they currently have now and that is according to their trade magazine whic
136

soapy1,

16/10/2009 17:33:07
which by and large supported the ban.

The supermarkets too are blaming the smoking ban in their own defence against the anti alcohol lobby, the anti smoking lobbies enemies are getting larger and more powerful by the day Eric. the anti lobby is being divided slowly but surely cut into manageable chunks for the slaughter to come.

The smokers have fulfilled their role as Leonides at Thermypolae, Salamis is coming Eric, like Xerses and his Persian empire it will be rolled back and defeated, democracy again will be safe freedom to choose you own lifestyle will be returned to those it has been stolen from.

Unlike the Nazis you admire and support so much you will not be hung but will have to live among those you persecuted a far worse fate than your mentors suffered.
137

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 16/10/2009 20:06:39
#132, confused old soapy.
Apart from apparently confusing me with Eric at #118, just how has he rationally explained his #114? I can make little sense of his ramblings in #132, 135 & 136 taking in Nazi, Greek and Persian history along the way, so will leave Scottish Eric to try. Perhaps he will be more astute than I, or perhaps just more tolerant of imbecility.
138

soapy1,

16/10/2009 21:41:20
I am sorry that you lack a classical education you have missed out on so much however that is not my fault is it David?

I notice that you still ignore English bits which refer to a solution hey I don't mind at all it's less work for me, It does of course demonstrate that you are not looking for a solution which wins my case with minimum effort so thank you for that.

Scottish Eric has his own problems if he had my education he would understand why but then when you try fight someone who applies a different set of rules and who has a different agenda it is little wonder that that you two come across the way the you do! Sadly I do not have the time nor the inclination to provide either of you with an education especially when my type of education gives me the advantage. You have miserably failed to grasp who or what your opponent is, even if you did it would take a lifetime to learn enough to fight it. You do not understand because you have the wrong education, you do not see what is happening here, if you did then it would not be happening.

You throw out guesses, make wild statements never noticing what points get through or even if it is me making them, while you rant and rave despite hints given to you because it is so sickeningly easy to beat you I am getting what I want, safe in the knowledge that you will receive no help from ASH and company who release their press releases but never debate them, they know if they did the pro choice lobby will crucify them, why do you think they leave it to you?
You are expendable, both of you, do you think they care if I label you as a Nazi?
Your families might but they do not, I do regret that your families may be tarred with the same brush, they have done me no wrong but then that is not my decision, it is yours!

I will let you go now David, just as I always do, because it suits me to do so, because when you return I know that you will be beaten again, every time you are defeated it is an defeat for ASH, irr
139

soapy1,

16/10/2009 21:41:57
I will let you go now David, just as I always do, because it suits me to do so, because when you return I know that you will be beaten again, every time you are defeated it is an defeat for ASH, irrespective of whether you are affiliated with them or not, it does not matter, you support their aims, beat you and I beat them. As the Meerkats say, Simples!
140

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 17/10/2009 09:38:26
#138/9.
If soapy feels that “my type of education gives me the advantage”, perhaps he could ponder over his allusion to “Herr Goerbals” at his #107. Somehow, I'm glad we attended different institutions.
His display of paranoiac megalomania would only lead me to suggests that he seeks a protracted course of professional psychoanalysis, while there's possibly still time.
141

soapy1,

17/10/2009 12:33:31
We did attend different institutions David, the ones I attended taught free thinking.

Do you really believe you can win a debate by claiming your opponent is insane instead of looking at the solution offered? That stance only demonstrates that you have no desire to find a solution, it demonstrates a total lack of ability to think freely! It demonstrates that like the Nazis the anti smoking lobby seek not a fair and equitable solution but to impose their will on society.

Yes my institutions taught how to make comparisons too!
142

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 17/10/2009 15:11:21
#141,soapy O.
Not only does “Herr Goerbals” soapy not know the solution, he can't even identify his problem. Does his concept of “free thinking” merely embody that in line with his his distorted views? Hope he'll ask his G.P. for a referral soon for some specialist attention.
143

soapy1,

17/10/2009 15:56:31
So what about this solution then David? How could facilities for those who wish to smoke, free of children hurt children? You are quick enough to dismiss the Idea simply because I present it aren't you? How about some logical objections?
144

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 17/10/2009 17:23:41
#143, soapy O.
Good of soapy to share his “solution”, final or otherwise, with us, but regardless of just who has proposed it, I would remind soapy that children can be present in pubs, and that many adults would wish to avoid soapy and his ilk blowing their filth in our faces. Apart from “It's the law, stupid!, I trust these objections to be sufficiently logical, and that the surgery won't be over busy on Monday a.m.
145

soapy1,

18/10/2009 09:16:49
Personal abuse David? I'm not surprised that you would resort to that given how bad your argument is!

So you think it is stupid to provide smoking facilities and keep children out allegedly for their own protection then! Why would you wish to have children present where a dangerous drug like alcohol is served David?

Those who would wish to avoid smokers would drink in the smoke free premises would they not so where exactly is the problem David, as solutions go it is eminently better than what we have at present.

Children belong in youth clubs, and other organisations or kindergartens where they could learn some social skills, football teams etc where they can get some physical exercise which is better for them than lounging around in pubs watching adults getting drunk is it not?

Of course you will find a reason for holding our children back because it defeats the idea of smoking facilities but then David I expect nothing less from you.

146

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 18/10/2009 20:34:50
#145,soapyO.
After the depth of banality to be found in soapy's long, rambling, incomprehensible postings, I think I've been very restrained in “abusing” him. In case he hadn't realised, I haven't started on nasty yet.
He should know better than to try to revert to the bad old days of smoky pubs and workplaces. F2S dinosaurs may not appreciate the present status quo, but, regardless of their preferences, smoking restrictions were well overdue, and welcome by the majority.
Children can certainly do all the things soapy favours, but can also be taken to pubs by responsible parents in family friendly establishments. They're no longer all spit and sawdust, (or smoky dens), you know.
Discouraging children from adopting the unhealthy habit of prior generations should “hold them back” from a lifetime of misery and ill health.
I'm sure Doc. will be sympathetic and helpful!
147

soapy1,

18/10/2009 23:50:35
So why then cannot smokers have their own for facilities just for them then?

If children are in family friendly pubs then they are out of the way of smokers aren't they?

There is no reason at all why this should not be so unless of course you discount bigotry.

There is no valid reason why one in three pubs cannot be wet pubs that do not sell food or admit children and allow smokers. Problem solved. Such pubs would make a profit solely on smokers, the non smokers would be free to enjoy non smoking and family pubs without the smoke. There is no practical reason why this is not an acceptable solution to smokers and non smokers alike.
148

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 19/10/2009 10:00:53
147, soapyO.
#1. They do-outside the pub.
#2 Agreed, because the smoke is outside.
#3 Provisions of the Health Act, 2006.
#4. The licensed trade had years to provide for non-smokers, and largely took the easy course of displaying “Smoking allowed throughout” signs, thus providing for the lowest common denominator. Belatedly, the government removed the decision from them and introduced universal smoking exclusions in substantially enclosed public places. Soapy's “solution” may well be of appeal to diehard nicotinics, but has no more merit than smoking and non-smoking supermarkets, shops, buses etc.
To sum up, smokers had their chance to consider others around them and literally blew it, so now “suffer” the consequences. I trust soapy gets it at long last.
149

soapy1,

19/10/2009 12:46:17
The question was in reference to separate facilities as in apart, like smokers in one pub and non smokers and families in another!

None of your points cover that! Most moderate non smokers do not have an issue with that solution David, non smokers get the non smoking facilities and smokers get smoking facilities where the owner and staff smoke, there is no risk, no smokers crowding doorways, children do not see the smokers really it is win/win for almost everyone! The exception being those who demand their lifestyle be imposed on everyone. Oh and it's nice to see you can post without the abuse thank you for doing so.
150

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 19/10/2009 18:59:26
#149, soapyO.
They are apart, as non-smokers and smokers without lit cigarettes are inside, and those smoking are outside, thus each group has its own facilities.
I've never “demanded” that smokers choose my lifestyle, just that they they exercise their freedom to choose their's away from my nostrils.
It's good to see that soapy can actually post without a long, rambling diatribe.
151

english charlie,

19/10/2009 19:15:44
soapy. Why do you bother? You will NEVER get a sensible answer from David.
152

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 19/10/2009 20:02:51
#151, chas. Winfield.
Chas. seems to be confusing “sensible”, i.e. ”sensitive, easily or readily affected or altered” with subservient”, i.e. toeing the F2S party line. So much for Suffolk education.
How's the 911 Club doing these days?
153

soapy1,

20/10/2009 12:44:39
So because someone smokes you say they cannot enjoy civilised surroundings?
So because someone smokes you say that they cannot have their own facilities where they may enjoy their habit while protecting those who choose not to indulge or children who are left to run riot while their parents tank up on booze. how very enlightened you are, put the children at risk why don't you?

My suggestion at least would keep them safe from the alleged harm from smoke but no, you know best David, better to have them looked after by half drunk parents near a busy road where the risks are higher for them. better that mom or pop has a little too much to drink before driving their bundles of joy home with their judgement and faculties impaired and kills some innocent soul or their children in the process.

You are right David let us do as you suggest! There we agree, are you happy now?

I at least am willing to condemn anyone who declines an opportunity to provide a compromise which respects the integrity of those who do not be in a smoke laden pub, the day is coming when those who take little Johnny or Jenny to the pub will also be labeled as bad parents just as smokers are, when that day comes and they realise that what the smokers have been arguing has come to pass that they the drinkers were next, along with those who enjoy their food you and your kind will be in a very small minority, it will be you and your kind vilified, you will become the "new smoker" the target of mob rule incited by people just like you who do not like what you do, just as you do not like what I do, you who have brought this plague upon our houses you who cannot fight the majority of the country and win.

You do not have to be Nostradamus to see where this is going David, if you wish to avoid this future start compromising now before it is too late.



154

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 20/10/2009 19:56:48
#153, soapyO.
Smokers are quite free to enjoy “civilised” surroundings, as many pubs have heated shelters, with comfy seats and plasma t.v. screens.
I don't condone children running riot in pubs, as responsible parents will make sure they behave properly, and consider others, as smokers should do. Perhaps it's all a question of upbringing and breeding. Nor do I condone drivers, with or without children in tow, being over the alcohol limit.
So yes, I am happy to be able to visit fug free pubs, without having to be kippered, which to me was akin to hell, just as going without a fag seems to be to hardened smokers. The difference is that the problem is not of my making.
May soapy have a peaceful night, with no bad dreams about Nostradamus and mob rule

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.