Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Crackdown on rowdy drinkers

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

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:
18 October 2006
A TWO-PRONGED attack on drinking outside pubs and nuisance drinkers has been launched by city chiefs.
Strict new licensing rules will mean that customers will be banned from taking alcohol on to the street after 11pm.

And a city-wide bylaw which gives police powers to arrest those drinking in public places at any time of the day is to be used to crack down on antisocial behaviour.

Both moves, which are expected to be in place within weeks, are primarily aimed at tackling the spiralling number of complaints about noise outside pubs and clubs in the wake of the smoking ban.

But they won't apply to beer gardens and other private outdoor areas attached to licensed premises.

The new outdoor public drinking bylaw, which it is hoped will be in place before Christmas, will give police widespread powers to arrest rowdy drinkers, including those who refuse to move back inside

licensed premises. Those arrested will face fines of up to £500.

At present it is left to individual managers to set the rules on whether drinks are allowed to be taken outside.

Although some places have introduced new rules to restrict numbers in the wake of the smoking ban, large crowds can be seen outside many bars and nightspots.

The council and the city's licensing board are looking at making it a condition of all premises licensed after 11pm that customers are banned from taking their drinks on to the streets.

Senior councillors and officials behind the initiatives believe they will give the city vital tools to help them cope with a rising tide of complaints from people living near licensed premises.

A spokeswoman for the city's licensing section said today: "The licensing board will be asked in the near future to consider amending the existing conditions attached to premises with regular extensions of hours, to prevent drink being taken outside the premises for consumption after 11pm. Such a condition cannot by law be imposed for earlier in the day and that is why the bylaw is necessary."

The bylaw will give the police the power to arrest anyone who is causing a nuisance by drinking outdoors and fails to stop when asked to do so by an officer.

Senior police officers have previously complained that legislation covering breach of the peace offences does not give them enough power to tackle drunken troublemakers.

But the council has been against bringing in a blanket ban amid fears about the damage it would do to the city's tourism image.

The council and the police have insisted it will not be used to tackle people having a quiet drink in city beauty spots, or to confront those drinking outdoors who are not causing a nuisance.

However it is hoped the bylaw and the planned new licensing condition will discourage crowds of drinkers from loitering outside licensed premises, the source of most of the complaints following the smoking ban.

City licensing leader Phil Attridge said today: "There's not much that can be done in Edinburgh at the moment to stop people standing drinking outside.

"We hope this new bylaw will help the council and the police deal more easily with places that are causing a problem with the volume of people outside.

"We didn't want to go down the same road as Glasgow, where the offence is committed as soon as you drink outside, but this bylaw should help tackle some of the problems we've seen without the need for a blanket ban."

The Evening News revealed earlier this month how at least one complaint a day about noisy smokers is being made to the local authority on the issue.

Councillor Sheila Gilmore, the city's antisocial behaviour leader, said: "The bylaw is not just for the city centre, it's intended to be used across the city.

"In some other parts of the country it is against the law completely to drink outdoors unless in pavement cafes, but we didn't want to be seen as killjoys.

"The police have told us that their officers will use their own judgment in every individual case and that a commonsense approach will be taken."

A spokeswoman for Lothian and Borders Police told the Evening News: "We will be duty-bound to enforce the laws as set down by the Scottish Executive, working alongside the council, but we would not like to make any further comment at this stage.

"We would welcome additional powers to help address antisocial behaviour and would actively take enforcement action where required in response to any complaints made by members of the public."

A total of 180 complaints have been made in the six months since Scotland's smoking ban came into force, of which 132 were in the past three months alone.

Council chiefs in East Lothian wrote to every licensed premises in the area in July because of complaints about noisy smokers congregating outside bars and clubs. East Lothian has a bylaw completely outlawing drinking outdoors, except in designated public places.

Plans for the bylaw have been at the centre of talks between Edinburgh council, the police and Scottish Executive officials for years.

It emerged earlier this year that the Executive was blocking the bylaw because it was out of step with blanket bans in other parts of the country. The Executive backed down and approved in principle the wording of the bylaw.

The full article contains 922 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

mr chips,

18/10/2006 11:18:05

DONT come to edinburgh,we dont want you,
the EXECUTIVE SHOULD BAN THE HOGMANY PARTY IN THE CITY.

2

Paul Voltaire,

18/10/2006 11:38:28

Personally, I feel it should be an offence to drink outside a pub. Surely the point of a pub is to drink inside it.
If you need a ciggie, tough!!

3

ian Moran,

Leith 18/10/2006 11:42:07

this will be devastaing to the Poles who love to drink in the street- sometimes even right outside my house!

4

Dave,

Western Isles 18/10/2006 11:45:11

Ban the word ban!

Bl**dy kill joys. Brown paper bag sales will go through the roof.

5

derek,

18/10/2006 12:00:17

Sorry, its the anti-smokers fault.

They wanted a ban, where did they think smokers would go..did they really think everyone would just stop.!!

You can't have it both ways, if you don;t want people smoking inside then you have to let them smoke outside.

I still think the police should be concentrating on more serious matters, like solving crime perhaps, not telling people to be quiet.

Watch out Edinburgh, we'll soon become a laughing stock!!! if we're not already!

6

Mark1,

18/10/2006 12:04:30

why not just ban pubs and all forms of entertainment while you are at it.

Obviously sipping a glass of Wine OUTDOORS is totally dangerous and irresponsile and people are dying left right and centre because of these people.

Lock em up for life I say.

7

Mikey,

18/10/2006 12:07:46

Another case of the moronic minority being pandered to by the PC brigade. No smoking in pubs, no speaking outside them, no enjoying yourself at all! Is this what Edinburgh has reduced itself to? A city ruled by a bunch of PC weirdos?

8

Xena - Warrior Princess,

Edinburgh 18/10/2006 12:16:08

Yes Mike it appears so... but only until the next elections for the Council and Executive. Both deserve to be tossed out on their ears for bringing about this sad, sorry state of affairs.

9

Toon Army,

Edinburgh 18/10/2006 12:21:06

I've just heard the latest.... Edinburgh residents to be banned from streets 24 hours a day to prevent anyone considering even remotely talking or interacting or having fun with anyone else. I mean really? What next??

It appears that edinburgh city council think they're running a small town and not the Capital of Scotland, the most Cosmopolitian city in the country, an international tourist destination and one of the best places in the world to live. The only good thing is that we'll be voting these small minded fools out of office in May. Rejoice!!!

10

Jack the lad,

18/10/2006 12:21:29

Best if you read the whole thing guys .....

"The bylaw will give the police the power to arrest anyone who is causing a nuisance by drinking outdoors and fails to stop when asked to do so by an officer. "

11

PC Plod,

18/10/2006 12:21:32

banning politicians would be the obvious solution. what we really need is a referendum at the same time as the elections next may on whether to abodon/change the totally undemocratic smoking ban - would'nt cost anything as the election is being held anyway (unlike the politicians and their numerous consultants and advisors) and would signal that our masters are prepared to allow democracy even if it doesn't fit in with their plans hatched at publically funded dinner parties. Come on jack and co - if you believe in democracy, have a referendum!

12

Chuck P,

18/10/2006 12:21:47

I've said it before and i'll say it again. Sound proof smoking bubbles with bluetooth intercoms is the way forward.

13

Anthony,

18/10/2006 12:21:54

This is a great idea, fine them. There is nothing worse than seeing a whole load of Jaykays standing outside a pub drinking themselves to a drunken stooper. It is no better than seeing Alkays dossing in Gorgie Road.

14

Toon Army,

Edinburgh 18/10/2006 12:23:51

Oh and by the way good to see the smoking ban has done the job in reducing the amount of people smoking in Scotland. Cigarette sales up 6% since March!!

Well done to the Scottish Executive for another well thought through, considered, piece of legislation.

15

Brandon,

18/10/2006 12:28:25

Can't drink outside after 11? Whats the big deal? Just drink in the pub? In the dead of winter it would take someone really hard-core to want to drink outside after 11pm in the freezing cold.

Also after 11pm I can bet letting binge drinkers about outside the pub with glass bottles is never going to be a clever move. Who sits enjoying a glass of wine outside at 11:30pm in the street?

The only problems I can see are the dangers for women who might leave their drinks inside when they go out for a smoke - but everyone should know not to leave their drink unattended these days.

16

ChrisC,

18/10/2006 12:33:47

Malcolm - You're comment is not quite accurate. The council is to issue permits that will allow appearances in public. If you're fat, a smoker, ill-educated, not sporting a national flag or dressed in blue & white, not member of the executive or associated organisation (the list goes on) you will not be allowed to let the city down with your prescence on the streets of 'new-edinburgh'.

17

Arnie,

Newington 18/10/2006 12:44:14

I can't say I like the phrase "Breach of the peace" for arresting someone as its remit is far to wide and appears to cover everything. Regarding the ban it in itself isn't to bad but it is more another straw on the camels back regarding bans which are undemocratic and cause as many problems as they solve.

18

Brendan,

Edinburgh 18/10/2006 12:46:47

OK so we stop people taking drink onto the street after 11pm - No smoking indoors means smokers must smoke outdoors - so if you are a smoker; after 11pm you leave your drink indoors and nip outdoors without your drink.

Are you quieter when your drink remains indoors?

If female, would you be prepared to laeve your drink indoors while you step outdoors.

Well thought out yet again by the Executive.

Thankfully the elections are not too far off.

19

Sam Ballpoint,

18/10/2006 12:49:10

Legislation which then renders this plan, erm, pointless:

'WORK on a multi-million-pound bid to transform one of Edinburgh's most historic thoroughfares is set to get under way within months.

The year-long project to open up the Grassmarket to people rather than traffic will see a new pedestrianised area created in front of its famous cafes, bars and restaurants.'

Edinburgh Evening News

20

Brendan,

Edinburgh 18/10/2006 12:57:58

Think it's worth pointing out terms such as "Noisy Smokers", as currently used in the EEN, are unfair in the extreme.

The smoking ban means anyone wishing to smoke (and drink in a public place) must smoke outside.

Non Smokers are just as Noisy only they are not forced out on the street.

21

Sarah,

Edinburgh 18/10/2006 13:09:07

Benson, you're wrong again - it wasn't worth pointing out.

22

Douglas Lampkin,

18/10/2006 13:11:16

In general, I think smokers have accepted and adhered to the ban with minimal fuss. Their reward? More legislation to marginalise them. I'm not surprised, though, the anti-smoking lobby make Christian zealots look like rational and tolerant bunch.

23

,

18/10/2006 13:14:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 114767, Article id was mapped to record!
24

Driven demented ,

Edinburgh 18/10/2006 13:15:21

Just ban smoking all together and be done with it.

25

,

18/10/2006 13:28:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 114805, Article id was mapped to record!
26

Xena - Warrior Princess,

Edinburgh 18/10/2006 13:30:30

And thank you Benson. Yes I think it was worth pointing out. There is a sh*tload of sad wee men on this posting today.

27

dyon gollins's back,

The Maltings 18/10/2006 13:36:45

I think that drinking outdoors is a great pleasure and can be seen daily all over the mainland of Europe so I can't see the point of banning it. Being roudy, unpleasant, violent or putting the Lièges into a state of fear and alarm is anti-social and in its extreme criminal activity anywhere and should be dealt with as such whether fuelled by drink or otherwise. Banning drinking as such is irrelevant.

28

Cant use my name anymore-Alex,

Prisoner of the Machine 18/10/2006 13:47:05

Big fuss about nothing. Nip out for a fag in between drinks, and continue to socially interact with other people who have nipped out for a fag between drinks and what changes? Nothing in terms of noise and numbers of people.
Soooo whats next, a ban on groups of more than 1 person outside a pub after 11pm?
That ought to do it. and Dave 5 is correct, Im tired of the word ban too. I knew it would happen eventually, they start with banning some minority activity,( hunting) then they move on, it becomes a drug, and its only a matter of time before they have banned something that you enjoy

So no matter what it is YOU SHOULD STOP supporting BANS. you are encouraging them, one day it WILL affect you.

29

.,

18/10/2006 14:12:06

Is this going to resolve the issue?
My understanding so far...

1) Smokers have to stand outside the pub to smoke.
2) Whilst doing this they do exactly the same as people inside the pub and talk, laugh and generally socialise.
3) Some complete muppet has pinpointed the cause of this noise as them having drinks outside.

Now, has anyone ever tried making noise whilst drinking? Apart from gargling. It's difficult, isn't it?
So what does this ban do? Does it stop people going outside for a ciggie? Does it stop them talking?
No. So, er, what's the point?

I'm not a smoker, and to be honest I quite like smoke free pubs but this smacks of lack of thinking through of the original legislation and it's full consequences.
What next? Maybe we'll get a ban on leaving drinks unattended to avoid a spike in spikings (sorry), or an increase in people shouting at bar staff for removing unfinished but lonely drinks?

I've cracked it! Compulsory purchase orders for the properties of those who complain about noise and we can run sleep deprivation experiments on the dirty evil smokers making all this noise. No wait, they're all outside the pub shouting raucously aren't they? Hold on, we've not thought this out properly either, have we?

My personal view is that we introduce a ban on people complaining about noise from pubs. If you didn't want to live somewhere where people would be outside shouting drunkenly, why did you choose to live near a pub? Eh?

30

Gordon McMahon,

Germany 18/10/2006 14:20:39

"I think that drinking outdoors is a great pleasure and can be seen daily all over the mainland of Europe "

That's not quite true Long John. Baden-Wurtemberg has a similar law to the one proposed by Edinbugh City Council. No drinking outside after 11, midnight on Fridays and Saturdays. I have never seen this to be a problem here. Even in summer it's getting a bit cool by 11pm for outside drinking. However, I do agree with the rest of your post. Street rowdiness can be and should be dealt with under existing laws. As for the smoking aspect, if you cannot finish your drink - if you are concerned about it being spiked by the morons who do such things - and then go outside for a smoke, then you should be seeking medical advice about your addiction. No, I am not an non-smoker nor an anti-smoking person.
Cheers, Gordon

31

Nittenman,

18/10/2006 14:39:26

Re #18 , presumably you have the mental capacity to co-incide your need for nicotine with the end of your drink, do you go around the pub / club with your drink glued to your hand and surely you cannot be taking the drink to the loo with you.

32

Moray Stewart,

Edinburgh 18/10/2006 14:40:22

Jan: "Just ban smoking all together and be done with it", yes good idea - it worked well for heroin.

33

Bite-Back,

18/10/2006 14:44:03

I fear for this country , I really do , be under no illusions here, if this carries on I think this country will explode into an orgy of violence and civil disobedience not seen for many years, you cannot take the populations civil rights so lightly , is some of this being done to prepare us for islamic rule or at least make this country more appealing to people who practice this religion, I know that there was a fatwa issued against smoking,of course any alcohol is out as well.

When do we ban pork and bacon because it's unclean, or anything else the clerics tell them to ban, I wont be adhering to any ban on anything that has been banned to appease any religious group, nor will I vote for any party who supports any form of religous interference in my life.

The World is in enough of a mess because of all this, I wont let it touch my life in any way shape or form.

Smoking ban, dont make me laugh, it was the start of the slippery slope of totalitarianism and the re-emergence of policy derived from religious interference by a global institution who nobody has any say in, siezed upon by the Scottish Executive as a feather in their collective marxist see you jimmy caps, so I will carry on smoking as a protest against religious persecution, what was it that started in Edinburgh all those years ago because of something that was said outside the Tron!

34

,

18/10/2006 14:49:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 114993, Article id was mapped to record!
35

Darrell,

18/10/2006 14:56:54

We have a great way of dealing with people drinking in the streets in the USA.
We run them over with our SUVs.

36

christopher,

18/10/2006 15:01:20

yep, we are all going to be living in a PC dictatorship before you know it.... sh*t we already are.

so many points on here hit the nail on the head. you know the fresh air effect when you have had a few bevvies, you sit in a pub all day long having a great time, walk home and remember nothing. the problem here is these rules come from folk who do not live like those they wish to control. there are ample products on the market that would condition the air anywhere every 15 minutes. why can't there be a heavily ventilated smoking area or better still smoking pubs and non smoking pubs would that not solve the problem.

37

maggie,kitty,

AULD REEKIE! 18/10/2006 15:03:02

why dont they have, smoking pubs and non smoking pubs, then everyone is happy.

38

Joak,

San Diego, California 18/10/2006 15:04:48

Och away wi' ye....JIST BAN THE PUBS !!!!!!

39

christopher,

18/10/2006 15:08:04

nice on kitty

40

George F,

Michigan USA (Edinburgh Born and Bred) 18/10/2006 15:09:05

Nah we don't Darrel #36, stop kidding, we don't run over with our SUV's. We shoot them folks

41

Angus Mcdonald,

18/10/2006 15:13:04

We are the capital of Scotland yet we can't place a ban on drinking on the streets?Glasgow and Belfast have it in force!Why not the capital city?. Parts of the city are effectively no go areas unless you want trouble. Don't the stupid idots running this city realise this?

42

christopher,

18/10/2006 15:29:17

i dunno bite back, what was said outside the tron.... i agree with what you say BTW. but is it religious interference or someone trying to suck up to higher body?

43

mr chips,

nannyland 18/10/2006 15:31:45

38. Kitty, AULD REEKIE! / you say,,, why dont they have, smoking pubs and non smoking pubs,the answer to this is, that would be democratic,and we do not have a democratic executive, we have a nanny state executive with the opposition agreeing
to all their bullying nanny laws,whilst they have millions invested for their big fat pensions in tobacco companys.one law for them another for the idiots that vote them in .

44

Filled Rolls,

18/10/2006 15:34:13

I think it's fair enough. There are big crowds of people outside the boozers in the summer. Residents need consideration too.

Well done to the killjoys who brought in the smoking ban, empty pubs, and no-one enjoying themselves. Keep it up, soon everyone will be as perfect as you.

45

Bite-Back,

18/10/2006 15:40:30

Christopher 37* You are spot on, it is a PC dictatorship, but their going to be battered upside down by an angry electorate in the polling booths come the elections.

Personaly I am sick and tired of looking over my shoulder and worrying that I upset some over sensitive proponent of the PC ruling classes, we need to join together as a nation and fight them, most of the people I know respected their fellow citizens right to live their lives as free citizens, they liked the middle road, they liked compromise where everyones rights were observed and respected, we are being led into the abyss of totalitarian governance where every diktat is a sop to some group of PC whingers or other, it disgusts me and I despise those who seek to destroy our secular society and therefore remove our right to free association and freedom to choose how we live our lives free from harassment and interference from the state when it's in it's full poisonous flow, stigmatised and turned into the new pariahs to bring us into line with the islamic countries, why do we have a war on terror at all, if we are going to implement every Fatwa they issue.

46

christopher,

18/10/2006 15:44:09

yeah but what was said outside the tron?

47

christopher,

18/10/2006 15:45:14

or as arse bitingly boring john, they want us all out in our green houses, in our slippers by 8 every evening.

48

Laird o' Stockaree,

18/10/2006 16:02:56

Kitty 38 What an eminently sensible idea. Sadly far
to sensible for either cooncil or govt to even consider.
compromise is what it's called and that is not PC is it
Glad to see see too that the worst excesses of PC are now being seen for what they are fundementalist
puritanism.
Let's be honest here. As a smoker I know it is dangerous to me, I accept that secondary smoking
can be dangerous to others, and up until it was banned
tried to take non smokers needs into account, now I don't give a damn, why should I care about a society
that doesn't take my needs into account.
So now we have a City which bans smoking then raises it's hands in horror because people smoke drink and talk outside. A city which finds a reasonable answer to the sex industry then says you
can't drop your knickers.
So in the end you close all the pubs, clubs, lap dancing places, and massage parlours, bring in prohibition for illeicit drugs, tobacco, and alcohol
and gambling. Because all of these are in some way
damaging to peoples health, moral, emotional, financial, or physical. Oh and say bye bye to the festivals because no one will want to come to such a
dull boring lifeless place. oh and say hello to massive tax hikes. And acknowledge that the fundementalists, control freaks, and PC morons have won because we did nothing.

49

Jay,

Cleveland, England 18/10/2006 16:24:53

Arthur #50

As a fellow smoker I, too, am aware of the increased health risks to myself. May I suggest, however, that your smoking does not endanger the health of anyone else. The legislation is based on a myth. There is not one single study which proves a causal link or even a significant correlation between passive smoking and disease. The anti smoking lobby has been guilty of chicanery and their claims do not bear close scrutiny. The worst that can be said of ETS is that it is an irritant and, while I would not dismiss that factor as of little importance, the fact is that it is perfectly capable of being effectively dealt with by the sophisticated modern technology at our disposal. Not only are smoking bans an extreme and unpopular solution to all but intolerant anti smokers, the foundation which underpins them is fallacious.

50

dyon gollins's back,

18/10/2006 16:30:15

Whae's eaaten a' the pies?

51

BeeGee,

Lockerbie 18/10/2006 16:43:29

Arthur (50) I can tell you there is still much to fight for starting very soon. It is planned to field 8 candidates at the electons from the Publican Party. Should they be successful, they could hold the balance of power at Hollyrood and first on the agenda is to change the Ban to create Designated Smoking Areas with Ventilation.

52

Bite-Back,

18/10/2006 16:45:11

Christopher 47*

A 19 year old theology student, Thomas Aikenhead, walking past the old tron on a cold night he joked to his friends "I wish right now I were in the place ezra called hell, to warm myself.

After much debate a trial and an appeal he was hung by the neck on the 8/1/1697 on the road between Edinburgh and Leith for uttering that blasphemy, in his speech before being executed he said, "I can change the World, if they can stain me, or lay any such thing on my charge, so that it was out of a pure love of truth, and my own happiness that I acted, it is a principle innate and co-natural to every man to have an insatiable inclination to the truth.

Of course the enlightenment put an end to this sort of thing but it would appear to be making a comeback, in this country at least!

In some other countries it never stopped, so why should I as a humanist have to concern myself in any major way about policies that seem to be following islamic doctrines, I never asked for this, did we get the chance to vote for it, no it has been forced on us by a bunch of heretical politicians and various other unelected bodies and idiots.

53

claire,

18/10/2006 16:56:50

Moray - the pie eaters are next on the list! Plans must be afoot somewhere to slap a health warning on pies plus a large tax!! I wonder if you will have to be weighed on the way into a bakers and refused any cake or pastry if you are more than 3lbs overweight!! I can see it coming........ Oh and by the way, pie eating outside after 11pm will be punished with a heafty fine for you and the baker that sold it to you! Zieg Heil!!

54

Bite-Back,

18/10/2006 16:59:22

Arthur 50*

Spot on mate, this is not going to go away is it, lol lets batter them at the elections, we need to snatch control back from the traitors who dictate to us, who are selling us out to appease their PC friends.

Let them take the broken jaws instead of us, lets reverse engineer their fundamentalist minds and lay before the nation the liars that they have become, their refusal to allow some provision for smokers seems to suggest a punishment element in their thinking, punish them back.

55

Nicky,

Galashiels 18/10/2006 17:22:38

It ain't very fair to tar everyone with the same brush, we aren't all rowdy unsociable louts. Some of us are actually quite plausible folk.

56

Loraine,

London 18/10/2006 17:33:20

It is becoming clearer and clearer by the posts on this article and other similar ones over the past week or so that the Scottish people have had enough of the Dictating Executive up there.

We in England are going to be facing these same problems next year, which is why I joined with Robert Feal-Martinez and others to fight this Nanny agenda back in February this year. Our aim is now to fight HMG via a Judicial Review. Over the past few months I have been working closely with other members of our team north of the border and I atended a meeting in Edinburgh last month, where it became reassuringly evident that small groups all over Scotland are ready to fight back. I firmly believe that these groups will now grow, come together and take action against these draconian laws. If you wish to join the campaign, please visit our website at www.freedom2choose.co.uk - it only takes a minute to register and then if you navigate your way to the "Scotland The Brave" forum - you will be able to see our progress and make a active contribution.

Only by joining together throughout the country can we make an impact and send "Mary Poppins" back to where he belongs - in 1909!! A new and better Freedom To Choose Website is in the making and hopefully will be up and running in the next few weeks.

57

Kiltedlad,

18/10/2006 17:45:07

I really hate to say this but I do know what is coming next from the Government and I know Edinburgh will have open arms to adopt it. There will be credit card like card issued to those over the drinking age of 18. When you ask for a drink the card will be swiped and if you try to ask for more than 5 in a 24 hours period you will be refused. This is to stop excessive drinking and improved health. Don't we invade countries with dictators ?

58

__-Steve-__,

18/10/2006 17:48:07

And then we have the ID card looming and next the silicon chip implanted into the back of our necks not to mention the ration books for alcohol that the government have recently been discussing.

They will know if you're late to bed !

59

Donnie,

Nessie Land 18/10/2006 17:49:05

The stupidity of these people never ceases to amaze me. For one it is not only smokers that want to sit outside a pub particularly on a warm night its non smokers and smokers. Pretty soon there will be a law of no association outside pubs every day another freedom is lost. We have entered the era of the Soviets. Politicians have got to learn that once they have been voted in this dosent mean they can tell you how to live your life and just keep bringing in laws that are neither wanted or required. Vote these control freaks out and start living again.

60

Antonio Grispo,

Sicily 18/10/2006 17:59:20

In Italy, France and the Netherlands’s people can drink outside and have a cigarette no problem. But it seems that in this country, people can’t seem to behave themselves and act with etiquette. People here tend to drink themselves unconscious.

The problem is not the people being able to drink outside; the problem is the "Rowdy drinkers” that spoil it for the law abiding ones with etiquette.

61

Bite-Back,

18/10/2006 18:57:59

Remember, we are talking about people outside premises because (mainly) they have to go out to smoke, others will follow their mates to carry on the conversation, heres another thing that happens, when large groups of people,who have been in the club drinking, then go outside to smoke, there are rivers of urine flowing down the pavements because there are no toilets outside, it must be one of the worst thought out things they have ever done.

62

cameron,

18/10/2006 19:09:21

If you walk past a pub these days all you see is people standing outside puffing away coughing and spluttering and the amount of fag ends on the pavement is a real eyesore.

63

Donnie,

Nessie Land 18/10/2006 19:18:10

I vote we ban tobacco altogether and put up everybodies income tax by 10p in the pound, shut the pubs and stop all sale of alcohol, put income tax up another 10p in the pound, then sit and listen to all the whining of anti smokers, anti drinkers when they have to start paying up the costs of lost revenue. We can all then be mindless drones getting up, go to work, eat lettuce, drink water go to bed, sex only on a Saturday when you havent got to get up for work on a Sunday. Retire at 67 on a pittance - migh dosent the future look rosy.

64

Laird o' Stockaree,

18/10/2006 19:20:56

Cameron 67 you self righteous sanctimoneos snobby
control freak. what the hell else did you expect.

65

cameron,

Amsterdam 18/10/2006 19:24:58

69 Arthur-if you only knew me,ha ha,
but it,s true

66

Angela,

18/10/2006 19:28:48

We should banish all the smokers to Crammond Island and let them party there. At least nobody will hear them or see them.

67

not allowed my name anymore,

18/10/2006 19:31:34

its all our own fault, we sit back and let it happen, no ressistance at all.

sure their is a group putting a challenge in via a judicial review but, we (smokers) could have went out our way to make the ban a nightmare for the authorities.

the english may do something though, remember the poll tax.

68

Ex-Saltire employee,

18/10/2006 19:34:58

Let's ban alcohol too.

And cream cakes, not healthy!

While we're at it shall we also ban rubbish collections before 10am for those who want a long lie.

Also worth considering is arresting those who use an umerella while it's raining incase it pokes someones eye out.

I alomst forgot! No hot food in outdoor areas incase a passer-by feels hungry.

69

Laird o' Stockaree,

18/10/2006 19:50:23

Jay 51 I take your point, but before the ban I took the action I describe in the hope that if enough smokers behaved similarly then the control freaks in the anti smoking lobby might be more inclined to the compromise solution to their problem. Sadly like the moning spoilt brats they all are this did not work.
I am not as sure as you about the secondary smoking research but am aware that reported effects are both negligible and exaggerated. And yes both compromise and technology offer a combined solution.
Bill 53 Thanks for your support, and I wish you well, sadly I live in England and won't be able to vote or I would if I still lived in Edinburgh. One thing though if the fight is just starting now I fear it is already to late.
Bite back 56 I can echo your sentiments and thank you to for your support. but the problem I have with what you say is this. Who are THEY. are they not so
faceless , anonymous, and pervasive throught all mainstream political parties, the opinion formers and
master manipulators whom we dare not know. We need to know who we fight else we lash out inneffectivly in the dark.
Lorrainne 58 Excellent at last some organisation perhaps you should get together wit Bill 53 but don't
make it a single issue organisation, rather stand and
fight on constitutional freedoms.
Alex 59 Sadly this prophet is probably right unless we do something about it. We must remember that
we smokers do not have a monopoly on freedoms, right and choices and act with others who feel threatened by P.C. and the nanny state.
Steve 60 you've watched Tripods too much but who knows you too could sadly be right.
Donnie 61 Thanks for your input too. but there are to many of the buggers every where. Let's face it
you don't get very far in mainstream politics unless you are a control freak. We who are not will fail because we have no wish to control others even the
contol freaks.
Cameron 68 Awa wi ye man tak y

70

cameron,

Amsterdam 18/10/2006 19:58:33

74 Arthur-
chokin for a fag by any chance,instead of a ban on fags in your local maybe they should turn a broom cupboard into a wee smokin room for you and yer pals and put a sign on the door -Gas chamber.

71

mr chips,

THE DAM 18/10/2006 20:21:29

75. cameron, Amsterdam / amazin the nanny numptys like yourself we get oan here,go to the nearest cafe in amsterdam and tell them to put their joints oot,oh i thought not, PC NANNY COWARD.

72

BeeGee,

Lockerbie 18/10/2006 20:24:54

Arthur (74) Loraine & I are already well down the road in the fight for Freedom tto Choose. We have even been to meet Members of the House of Lords and ahve many supporters there from both sides of the border and Cross-Party members.

Do as has been suggested by Loraine & visit the web site. You will find the chat good with a lot of information from around the world that is updated daily.
There is a petiotion that can be downloaded so get your copy and get it round your pubs...there is one for Scotland as well, so come on folks get the signatures in.

73

mr chips,

glasga 18/10/2006 20:25:10

75. cameron, Amsterdam /Your comments are that of a brain washed little no mark, that will go along with anything the pc brigade preach to you.

74

cameron,

Amsterdam 18/10/2006 20:32:35

76/78
away en boil yer head or the 2 of them for that matter

75

Loraine,

London 18/10/2006 20:37:15

Arthur 74

There are not so many of the buggers as you think.It is just that it is they organised themselves well and we all sat back saying it would never happen. ASH have admitted that they played a confidence trick on the Government in an article published in the Guardian the day after the Bill received Royal Assent in England. (I will post a link if anyone wants to read it) For my part, I know a lot of people, many of whom don't smoke but I have only ever met one Anti-Smoker in my life and even he ended up admitting that he would not care if pubs/clubs were left to decide their own policies. Also, remember the media in this fiasco - very few have been brave enough to come down on the side of democracy and fair play - they are all worried about their political correctness and also have been duped by the few but very vocal anti-smoking zealots.

BTW Bill is already part of our team - believe it or not we are working together hand in hand on this. May be a first in years but it is happening!!

Remember - if we win the Judicial Review in England - it opens up a whole new can of worms for the Scots and, indeed the Irish, where, despite the claims of success, the ban has even struck Dublin now and as far as I am aware 35 or so pubs closed in the last few months. We have been researching this for months - we can succeed - we just need to wake up more people to the fact that we mean business.

76

cameron,

Amsterdam 18/10/2006 20:40:38

and by the way anybody who stands in the rain when its freezin cold just to smoke a rotten stinking fag or something else for that matter needs treatment,

77

Gaudd,

Edinburgh 18/10/2006 20:41:52

Antonio, I don't think anyone is complaining about drinkers having a quite drink and a quick cancer fix. The problem as usual comes down to those who can't handle their drink, drink too much and are served by pubs until they find handing over money too much of a co-ordination problem.

Kitty, having smoking pubs and non-smoking pubs would probably only work if everyone you socalisied with either smoked or did not smoke. All smoking pubs have been tried and no one minded the rights of non-smokers then; "they can stay at home" was the cry. Now the boot is on the other foot but the refrain remains the same.

Well done Arthur for your noble stance against the fascist destroyers of your pub fag. Personally I can think of 1001 other issues of far greater importance that merit a people's campaign but fair enough. Forget Iraq, smoking in pubs it is.

78

Bite-Back,

18/10/2006 20:44:40

Arthur 74*

Like all these things you have to go back to the beginning, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control which the UK signed up to on the 16 of June 2003 and was ratified on the 16 December 2004, it's a Global phenomena.

http://www.who.int/tobacco/fctc/text/en/fctc_en.pdf

Did anyone agree to this?

79

cameron,

Amsterdam 18/10/2006 20:53:08

74 76 78-arthur/dan/rab
GLASGOW-the heart attack,cancer,and stroke capital of europe,soon to be the world.
I wonder why,be brave die young.

80

__-Steve-__,

Nottingham 18/10/2006 20:54:42

Steve (82)

What are these rights of non-smokers in someone else's pub that you talk about?

Neither you or smokers have a human right to smells on someone else's property and the simple fact is that when left to market forces non-smoking pubs were simply not popular. The boot is not 'on the other foot'; it was never on the smokers foot in the first place; it was where it should be.... with the landlord.

81

CANUCK,

Toronto 18/10/2006 20:59:04

Having just visited Edinburgh, I was taken aback by the behavior of the drinkers and the amount of drink being consumed outside of the pubs. Whilst drinking outside a pub or bar should not be a problem and certainly not prohibited however it is assumed that clients should know how to act and behave responsibly.
I was this lack of responsibility and respect towards the others wanting to sit and drink quietly or just passing bye that was a complete put off. It makes one too uncomfortable to consider revisting the historic parts of Edinburgh

82

GARY BARNA,

18/10/2006 21:31:48

This ain´t Salou or Lloret De Mar. This is downtown Edinburgh in it´s natural. Don´t confuse one thing with another, you can,t get away with this in a cold and windy city in Scotland.Forget your summer hols and come back to reality.Drinking outside!!! What next? Street barbecues in the high street?

83

Laird o' Stockaree,

18/10/2006 21:37:33

Lorainne Bill, you know you have my support and I will sign the petitions and do what I can when I get the message board authorisation, and get my pdf reader behaving itself. For everyone else pro or anti smoking
consider this. It is the inability of the antis which have made the smoking issue so prominent for me it has become the focal point of the wider issue of protecting democracy and freedom. Although I smoke and drink I never have socialised in pubs all that much so the ban
does not affect me much. That does not mean that I have not been aware of the erosion of democracy and freedom which has resulted in the polarisation
and intolerance in society which affects us all.
In truth no one in this country has any rights because we have no written constitution. defining and protecting these rights. this is what is needed
so that future govts cannot easily erode matters any further. But I suspect this is far to boring and abstract a subject to excite the apathetic masses who have sat back and let it all happen.

84

Michael J. McFadden,

Philadelphia PA USA 18/10/2006 21:45:53

Several comments:

John wrote, "The bylaw will give the police the power to arrest anyone who is causing a nuisance by drinking outdoors and fails to stop when asked to do so by an officer. " If that wording is accurate, note that the nuisance is simply being defined as "drinking outdoors", nothing to do with noise etc. It sounds like a backdoor way to outlaw such drinking while covering it up under the noise concerns.

And Gordon wrote, " if you cannot finish your drink ... and then go outside for a smoke, then you should be seeking medical advice about your addiction." Exactly the same thing could be said if the government decided to outlaw drinking in restaurants. Alcoholics could simply "nip outside for a few gulps between courses" and if they had a problem with that then go see a doctor about their "addiction." (Don't try to argue your drinking doesn't affect others: ethyl alcohol is a highly volatile Class A Carcinogen. See the British Medical Journal at: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/330/7495/812#105082 "Secondary Smoke, Alcohol, and Deaths" )

And finally, Christopher, Kitty and others posted roughly, "Why can't they just have smoking and nonsmoking pubs and everyone would be happy?" The answer to this is that the antismoking extremists of ASH and elsewhere simply want everyone to stop smoking: that is the one true underlying reason for these bans. The "health effects" of secondary smoke on staff etc are just the window dressing designed to get the laws passed. Allowing pubs where the owners, staff and customers were all smokers or all allowed to smoke would completely shatter the effect of marginalizing and denormalizing smokers.

As Lady Elaine Murphy put it in an email to me regarding the House of Lords vote, "You and many others hav

85

Michael J. McFadden,

Philadelphia PA USA 18/10/2006 21:46:45

Several comments:

John wrote, "The bylaw will give the police the power to arrest anyone who is causing a nuisance by drinking outdoors and fails to stop when asked to do so by an officer. " If that wording is accurate, note that the nuisance is simply being defined as "drinking outdoors", nothing to do with noise etc. It sounds like a backdoor way to outlaw such drinking while covering it up under the noise concerns.

And Gordon wrote, " if you cannot finish your drink ... and then go outside for a smoke, then you should be seeking medical advice about your addiction." Exactly the same thing could be said if the government decided to outlaw drinking in restaurants. Alcoholics could simply "nip outside for a few gulps between courses" and if they had a problem with that then go see a doctor about their "addiction." (Don't try to argue your drinking doesn't affect others: ethyl alcohol is a highly volatile Class A Carcinogen. See the British Medical Journal at: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/330/7495/812#105082 "Secondary Smoke, Alcohol, and Deaths" )

And finally, Christopher, Kitty and others posted roughly, "Why can't they just have smoking and nonsmoking pubs and everyone would be happy?" The answer to this is that the antismoking extremists of ASH and elsewhere simply want everyone to stop smoking: that is the one true underlying reason for these bans. The "health effects" of secondary smoke on staff etc are just the window dressing designed to get the laws passed. Allowing pubs where the owners, staff and customers were all smokers or all allowed to smoke would completely shatter the effect of marginalizing and denormalizing smokers.

As Lady Elaine Murphy put it in an email to me regarding the House of Lords vote, "You and many others hav

86

Michael J. McFadden,

Philadelphia PA USA 18/10/2006 21:47:56

(Sorry about the double posting. My error. Feel free to remove one of them as well as this.)

87

Fiona,

18/10/2006 21:49:56

OK, I'm a non smoker and always have been. However, I think this no smoking in pubs is a load of crap! I thought we had laws against discrimination in this country? If the government are so concerned about people's health, then why don't they outlaw smoking all together. Oh yeah, cos they'd loose all the money they make in taxes.

And which deluded person thinks that making people leave their drinks inside will make them any quieter? Hello? If they've been drinking all night anyway and are being rowdy, I don't think it will make much difference whether or not they're drinking for the two minutes they're out there. Also us non smokers still have to walk past the cloud of smoke to get into the pub, so I don't quite see how it benefits our health that much. If you're in a mixed group of smokers and non smokers, half the none smokers land up outside too, cos otherwise you can't chat to your mates.

And as for good old Cameron from Amsterdam... All very well for you to critisize us for whinging, but then you have a government that lets you have sex at 12, drink at 16, smoke hash in its capital and have a red light district. For us poor people stuck with our current uptight, fun-spoiling government, we have a reason to complain!

88

__-Steve-__,

Nottingham 18/10/2006 22:01:04

Michael (90)

Well said Michael and thanks to people like you more and more are beginning to see this for exactly what it is.

89

Gaudd,

Edinburgh 18/10/2006 22:17:32

Arthur, let me get this right, you wrote: "it has become the focal point of the wider issue of protecting democracy and freedom." Here's me thinking that ID Cards, the various so-called anti-terrorist acts, postal voting fraud, corruption etc were just a little higher up the scale than having the right to pollute a pub. When viewed alongside the other acts of this government don't you think your priorities are a little skewed?

90

cameron,

Amsterdam 18/10/2006 22:19:35

92 FIONA-
I,m not from here i,m from there but i live here and there and go up and down,as for the government here, there is also alot of opposition to the redlight district,coffieshops etc because they beleive it causes problems.
The people who live in the centre are quite affected by junkies,how would you like to go out to work in the morning and have to step over people with needles hanging out their arms.
It,s true the night life here is ok but it is a tourist trap designed to relieve you of your money, and to be quite honest the only difference between there and here is that here it,s more visable and there it,s undergrond.
I,m not a smoker but here you go to a koffieshop buy it and walk away,there if you want to buy hash you have to come into contact with dodgy people trying to sell you everything from hard drugs to fakegoods.Having sex at 12 ,i.ve not heard of that.

91

ChrisC,

18/10/2006 22:27:41

Steve (94) The position up or down might depend upon whether you're well and truly 'skewed' standing outside a pub.
Unlike other legislation the smoking ban has had an immediate and tangible effect upon 25% of the electorate and has affected many of the other 75%.

92

__-Steve-__,

Nottingham 18/10/2006 22:29:58

Steve (94)

Its not a "right to pollute pubs"; it's the removal of property rights. Which is equally as bad as ID cards.

93

Gaudd,

Edinburgh 18/10/2006 23:07:02

Unlike other legislation the smoking ban was introduced in a bid to reverse pretty appalling health statistics, not as part of a shambolic government's obsession with control and authority. Whether you agree with that or not the reasoning behind the legislation is far removed from that behind ID cards.

25% of the electorate may have been effected, other far more dangerous legislation rushed through Parliament will directly effect 100% of the population and is doing so now. I simply find it ridiculous that someone can hold up this topic as a base upon which to start rolling back Blair's growing police state. Like I said, priorities. Its about as ridiculous as the Countryside Alliance numpties who sat silent for decades as services in rural areas were decimated, yet when they were prevented from ripping small foxes apart suddenly declared they were the defenders of the stable after the horse had long since bolted.

And Steve, I don't know about property rights, but as far as I was aware pub landlords, for the most part the major brewers, have a whole host of legislation to adhere to, one more law on top of all that is hardly crushing their property rights beneath the marching jackboots. I see Glasgow plod are going to spot check bars to make sure that only those vertical and able to say which planet they are on are served alcohol...property rights? Surely a landlord has the right to pour as much drink as he or she sees fit down a drunk's throat.. no? Well so much for property rights. I'm not allowed to play music at full blast in my own home at 3.00am with all the windows open..who cries for my property rights?

I also liked this from Michael: "Social engineering of a free people by a minority of fanatics is something that should never be acceptable in a democracy." Ok, for one thing we aren't a free people, never have been, never will be probably. For another thing social engineering is pretty much state policy, hence the restricted new

94

Julian,

18/10/2006 23:11:41

Fiona # 92, the answer to your question is obvious but I will give it anyway. The government does not ban people from smoking because that is the individual's choice (there may be a revenue raising incentive as well). They banned smoking in public places because of the risks of passive smoking. And to say the risk from walking past smokers going into the pub is much the same as standing in an enclosed space with dozens smoking around you is, to put it politely, grossly ill-informed. It also smells, not of smoke, but of someone stating something plainly untrue to suit their argument.

95

Julian,

18/10/2006 23:21:16

Steve, nice narrative. A bit cynical to say we are not a free people. Freedom is surely a relative thing. If you think about it, we are actually quite free in this country to say and do what we want within reason. We do also have recourse to Europe for our human rights if we fell they are being infringed. I would settle for "fairly free". I do agree on your social engineering point. From Michael's quote you would think we were being plunged into a scene from George Orwell's 1984. I hardly think banning people from smoking in public places has much to do with social engineering or fanatics...at a stretch it might be considered a small infringement on our freedoms.

96

proud pict,

far, far away 18/10/2006 23:29:39

Well said Tom #73 - the idea of a scottish bozzer with no smoking area is unrealistic , people outside pubs will increase assualts and antisocial behaviour.

While people leaving drinks unattended will open up an oppertunity for drink spikers, and disputes over "who's drinks who's".

there should be designated smoking and non smoking pubs with a licence and air conditioning specifications (or an open windae?)

What r they going to ban next? music?

97

mandyv,

Cambs England 18/10/2006 23:53:43

Auld Reekie Post 1- so not worry about that because i would not dream of spending my hard earned money, out side your pubs thanks.

Anyone heard on the news because i have not about the increase in cancer since they have had there ban- it was 1 in 10 now it is 1 in 3, probably not important enough to mention.
Please read it Cameron. What exactly was stopping you opening a non-smoking pub before the ban.
That was allowed wasn't it, or would you have got fined for doing so.
http://www.huntsvilleforester.com/1161182398/

Thank you for the voice Lorraine because it is the only one I have had.
www.freedom2choose.co.uk

maybe they could build some tunnels for our legal highly taxed product nice and comfortable though so our tolerant non-smoking friends could join us, nice ventilation.
Smokers to the left - Chubblies to the right - let perfection through- hmm now who does that remind me of, who wanted perfect people. Who does not learn from history.

98

__-Steve-__,

Nottingham 19/10/2006 06:23:18

Steve (98)

The ban is nothing to do with health; if it was the government would have introduced an indoor air quality policy to remove some of the 400 known indoor airborn carcinogens that have nothing to do with smoke.

Blasting your music at 3am is nothing like smoking in a pub. As your neighbour I would have no choice in whether I heard your music but I do have a choice whether to enter someones property or not if I don't like the sort of entertainment or environment they provide. Telling the owner of a property (whether that be a pub or a lorry) what legal activities he/she may allow is the first step in the erosion of property rights; how long will it be before it or other things are banned in private homes?

The landlord doesn't pour drink down a drunks throat, the drunk does.

You seem to agree that the erosions of freedom are bad but that this is the wrong torch to be waving. The lies over the passive smoking myth by an unelected group of anti-smoking bigots and the denormalization of 14 million people is reason enough for me.

99

Ned Wideback,

some distance away 19/10/2006 07:09:06

__-Steve-__, the government is right to denormalize smokers. Statistics show that people who smoke are four times more likely to steal or commit hate crimes and if I'm inside a pub I 'd rather such people were on the outside.

100

BeeGee,

Lockerbie 19/10/2006 07:56:36

Ned (104) Proof of your statistical statement please.

101

Loraine,

London 19/10/2006 09:15:54

For the benefit of those who still believe that the Government are doing a good job protecting us from ourselves - have a think about this.
Last week, in Kent, a young 10 year old lad was taken from the school dining room, named and shamed in front of his classmates, and made to go and eat his lunch in the headmasters office. The reason for this was that his parents had broken the rules by allowing one too many snacks. The lunch box consisted of a sandwich, a piece of fruit, fromage frais, bottle of water , pack of cheese snacks and a small cake. It was the latter 2 items which had broken the rules of the school.
I feel for this boy with all my heart - how must he have felt? I have a ten year old myself and if his had happened to her, there would be no way I would send her back to that school to face her peers. Fortunately his Dad had the sense to contact the press, who in turn had the sense to publish the story. Will the school authorities and HMG be happy if this lad ends up anorexic do you think?? No they won't - not because they are sorry for what they have done but because he will be a burden on the NHS!!!
So the denormalisation of eveything enjoyable to millions of individuals is Ok is it? If only they had let well alone, a natural progression would have occured with the right education about drugs,alcohol,smoking and food etc. It had already started to happen - and now look - cigarette sales have increased in Ireland and Scotland when before the ban they had started to decline. I rest my case.

102

ChrisC,

19/10/2006 09:20:23

Ned (104) is wrong. Figures suggest that around 80% of prisoners are smokers and you have used the ridiculous reverse illogic of zealots.
Steve (98) claims the results of varoius opinion polls show around 60% in favour of the ban but has obviously not studied those results that generally show only half that number strongly in favour,. The rest are moderately in favour NOT totally in favour as headlined in papers such as this. The figures were supplied by polling companies employed by anti-smoking groups and of course the questions were tailored to suit the required result. How else are the pollsters going to get repeat orders?
He also responded to a comment by newly isolated (96). He may not consider the smoking ban to be as major as other legislation and wrote "will directly effect". This does not invalidate the immediacy stated in the comment "the smoking ban has had an immediate and tangible effect upon 25% of the electorate".
The anti-smoking message was floundering through incompetence yet carefully contrived advice was offered to the executive.
What we are suffering from are the consequences of an over eager Executive who willingly listened to people claiming to have simple and immediate solutions to the percieved problem. The opponents warned of problems but were ignored by an propaganda blinded executive.
The problem of reducing smoking prevalence is complex yet even limited commonsense should suggest there is no single simple answer.
The sensible answer would be to encourage more smoke-free pubs and so continue the year on year fall in smoking prevalence. Instead of this we have seen immediate problems on the streets and a 5% increase in tobacco sales. Strangely enough tobacco sales in ban resistant Germany have fallen by 10.1% over the past year!
Evolution and education not bans are the proven weapons for the battle against smoking.

103

Donnie,

19/10/2006 09:31:09

You should ask yourselves who did win the second world war when 60 years on we are implementing the policies of this man

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1....

If you want to live in a facist state carry on voting for MPs and MSPs who bring in enforcement that was never declared in their manifestos and was never voted or endorsed by the masses.

When a service man has to stand outside the British Legion to smoke a cigarette just why are we sending soldiers abroad to fight for democracy. They make me sick

104

Laird o' Stockaree,

19/10/2006 09:34:11

To quote Steve Edinburgh
"Arthur, let me get this right, you wrote: "it has become the focal point of the wider issue of protecting democracy and freedom." Here's me thinking that ID Cards, the various so-called anti-terrorist acts, postal voting fraud, corruption etc were just a little higher up the scale than having the right to pollute a pub. When viewed alongside the other acts of this government don't you think your priorities are a little skewed?"

Yeh Steve, but who is doing the skewing. This is only my 4th contribution to this debate now standing at 105. This issue and the foxhunting deabte grab more
attention because they are issues which people feel
stongly about and have become more polarised than others. Of course they should be way down the list of issues for debate but it is not me who is skewing things. Just look at what makes front page news in the exaggerating and manipulative national media
There are many more issues worthy of greater debate and you mention some, but the great British
public is easily distracted and / or does not care enough to exercise its collective intellect.
Bill 105 I would not have graced Ned Kneejerk at 104 with a response. He is an obvious wind up merchant. There is even an Australian researcher
who asserts that Female smokers are more promiscuous than female non smokers therefore male smokers who must at least be more likely to have criminal tendencies gravitate to pubs where
women are smoking so they are assured of an easy leg over. Where are these peoples brains, and who
wastes their money financing such "research"

105

janemr,

19/10/2006 09:48:33

I am late joining this particular debate as I have been on holiday in Spain. It was very noticable & at times uncomfirtable having a drink in a bar where smoking is still the norm. The only option was to sit outside to have a drink and very pleasant too.
However does this mean that if it is a nice day and I feel like that I would like to sit outside for a drink here I can't. I am very much in favour of the smoking ban but I really don't mind being outside with them. I just object to smoking in enclosed spaces.

106

Greg,

19/10/2006 09:58:39

These arguments make me laugh.
Self-obsessed smokers, who are suddenly civil rights campaigners (on the one issue of having a fag / having a drink with their fag).

I suggest if you want to be taken seriously as a human rights campaigner, join Amnesty, do some serious donkey work in countries where people are killed for having beliefs, then come back here and use your reputation to tell us why you should be allowed to smoke (or drink and smoke) where and when you like.

That's if you don't feel slightly sheepish and self-important.

PS all you pseudo-political types out there. The "democracy" we live in is the loosest meaning of democracy this side of the United States (nice elections btw), and if you stop voting for your MSPs, nobody cares!
We are all serfs at worst, consumers at best.

107

Greg,

19/10/2006 10:03:35

PPS does anyone think the fact that cigarette sales have increased is because the heaviest smokers (primarily the elderly) now smoke at home to avoid smoking outside, and have more money to spend on fags because they're buying supermarket and off-licence booze as opposed to pub priced peeve?

More smokers I know in the pub 18-35 age bracket are quitting than ever before.

108

Robert Feal-Martinez,

Swindon 19/10/2006 10:19:15

Greg, civil rights and democracy are relative to ones life and experience. Whilst I would accept that this intrusion on the lives of 14 million Brits may not rank against those in other countries, nevertheless it should be fought against. In a democratic society, the rights of just one person should be defended and not sacrificed for the perceived good of the majority. Under Article 14 that is a breach of their Human Rights. Freedom to Choose, www.freedom2choose.co.uk, is fighting to retain that right. The selfishness and hate by non smoking zealots is creating a 'class' war, where in the end there will be only losers. Does Edinburgh seriously believe that people will flock to their 'new' Eutopia. If they do they are sadly deluded, tourism has been dramatically affected in all countries and states where draconian bans have been instigated. Smoking has risen, child health has declined and civil disobedience (ie lock-ins) are the norm and for what a blatant lie. ETS is an irritant that can be removed with good ventilation/filtration FACT. If it isn't why have the SE or HMG refused to take up the challenge of an indoor air quality standard and monitored it in the run up to a ban. Defending the third world is a noble cause ignoring democracy at home is a deceit.

109

Robert Feal-Martinez,

Swindon 19/10/2006 10:22:55

A PS to Gregs PPS, your comments in relation to smoking age is simply untrue, the increase in smoking numbers in Ireland are in the very age group you mention for a very simple reason, because it is now taboo to smoke in public, it has become 'cool'

110

Jamesbuchanan66,

19/10/2006 10:24:21

11pm is pretty reasonable it has to be said

111

Loraine,

Ltell us why you should be allowed to smoke (ondon 19/10/2006 10:29:58

Greg at 111 ans 112

You say "tell us why you should be allowed to smoke (or drink and smoke) where and when you like."

Please tell me me where we have said this??? We constantly say let people CHOOSE and so far I have not been able to get a logical sound reply from any Anti-Smoking zealot to this question. In fact I don't think I get a reply at all.

And also, who says the elderly smoke more??? I would not want to hazard a guess at the reasons why cigarette sales have increased, but it appears that they have, and at the end of the day wasn't the ban all about stopping people smoking for health reasons?? Employee health was never the real reason.

And for your information Greg, I very rarely go to pubs myself. This was just the last straw as far as I was concerned - I had been growing angrier and angrier about this Nanny State Government and so I decided to do something constructive about it rather than sit back and accept it. Amnesty may be something for me in the future but at the moment charity begins at home.

112

Laird o' Stockaree,

19/10/2006 10:37:11

Greg 111 & 112

We do not even live in a Democracy in the loosest
terms. We now live in a periodically elected dictatorship
in which you elect variants on the theme of control.
It is dictatorship because there is on this issue at least
not one major party which will represent the views of
25% of the electorate.
This is why I say this country cries out for a written constitution, defining and protecting the right of the
individual.
As it stands I do not have the right to smoke anywhere, but you don't have the right to stop me.
It does not need legislation marginalising 25% of the
people. It does not need state sponsored discrimination. Publicans have always had the ability
to ban anyone from their premises without reason,
therefore any publican could have used this power
to ban anyone lighting up, if they wanted to have a
no smoking pub. Does the fact that none chose to do so, not tell you something.

113

BeeGee,

Lockerbie 19/10/2006 11:23:31

Jane (110) The answer is very easy. By introducing an Indoor Air Quality Standard linked to Ventilation and Air Filtration we could all work and socialise together for the rest of our natural lives.

Businesses would then have the choice as to whether they complied with the Standards or declared their venue non-smoking. A market mix of venues would then appear and with good, clear signage at the venue entrance the patrons would also have the CHOICE as to whether they wished to enter or not.

This option has already been presented to both Hollyrood and Westminset and was totally ignored by those who have only one agenda SOCIAL ENGINEERING.

THe hospitality industry is not a PUBLIC PLACE but is collectively formed by PRIVATE BUSINESSES. The term Public Place has been derived as a result of certain Trade Bodies making a voluntary agreement called the Public Place Charter. This 'voluntary' word Public Place has somehow been legalised by Government without negotiation or discussion with the wider trade as the Trade Bodies can only represent their members and do not carry a mandate to represent the whole industry.

114

Donnie,

19/10/2006 11:39:03

Greg 111, I found your posting interesting, if most people who are heavy smokers are the elderly then obviously smoking does not harm your health!

Smokers are being killed for their belief the tally is I believe 4 to date since this law was brought in and expected to get higher.

If Amnesty is an organisation that picks and chooses whom it deems should not be oppressed it therefore loses its credibility - thanks goodness Liberty does not share your views.

You have also totally missed the point and principle which is not about cigarettes, it is about an elected body who start bringing in laws that were never stated or voted on in manifestos - laws on legal products. If government sells a legal product of which the cost is 75% tax then tells you, you cannot use it in a public place they are no better than drug dealers with exactly the same morals. These type of people are dictators who wish to impose their lifestyle upon others whilst at the same time lining their pockets with the proceeds of the sale. A true democratic society does not ban things just because it dislikes them. MPs and MSPs are supposed to be the servants of the people not their masters. Why do you think that so many people dont even bother to vote now, its because you can no longer trust politicans in this country, they tell you one thing and then once elected do another and get rich in the process. The fact is they dont care a jot about peoples health its one big PR exercise which is backfiring on them in a big way.

115

Ned Wideback,

some distance away 19/10/2006 11:48:21

Bill - it's well known that nicotine induces violent and desperate behaviour. It also turn your fingers yellow and makes your breath stink. People who smoke are standing outside pubs and clubs shouting their conversations because they think they are important and what they say is better than everyone else's opinion. All smokers are the same.

116

Colin Cataract,

Edinburgh 19/10/2006 11:54:53

you're right Bupf - if I had a pub, I'd rather it was full of old men drinking lager through their beards and counting their pennies out on the bar than young, good looking, educated sorts with money to spend

117

Donnie,

19/10/2006 12:03:41

Ned 120 - come to the conclusion that you have an inferiority complex. Garlic, onions and curry make your breath stink, plus people who dont clean their teeth and dont use a mouth wash have the same problem. Some people that dont smoke and lean over to talk to me have awful badgers breath. Its alcohol that increases the volume of a persons voice not a cigarette. If people are complying with the law and standing outside to smoke why are you still picking on them arnt they doing what you wanted them to do?

118

Jack the lad,

19/10/2006 12:33:10

There’s a plot hatching down in my local. A group of about 5 or 6 folk take a trip to a part of the town they are not known in. Two thirds of the way through their pint they all light up and refuse to leave until their pint is finished, then move on to another pub and do the same. Groups from other parts of town are invited to do the same. Starts this Saturday.

A quiet rebellion.

119

ChrisC,

19/10/2006 12:44:49

Jack (127) The growth of this movement should be assured if they use executive manure as fertiliser.

120

Donnie,

19/10/2006 12:46:08

Good for You Jack, Ghandi style revolution thats the spirit

121

Laird o' Stockaree,

19/10/2006 12:46:18

Jack 127 Although I get the feeling this is tongue in cheek, it's not a bad idea if there are enough doing it to
swamp the worst efforts of the smoke gestapo.
To expand further on this I have it from jury service
that whilst a publican has the power to eject or ban people from the premises he must allow you to complete consumption of what you have bought. If enough were doing it simultaneously in different parts
of a city the "gaspstapo" just wouldn't be able to keep up. I also understand that they have no right to personal details so if these were withheld what could they do.

122

Jack the lad,

19/10/2006 13:06:38

No tongue in cheek. Thanks for the tips Arthur.

123

Jay,

Cleveland, England 19/10/2006 13:37:19

Jack,

Are you planning to tip off the press? I would guess that some publicity would 'encourager les autres'!

124

Laird o' Stockaree,

19/10/2006 13:58:57

In that case Jack I wish you well and only regret I can't
be there to help. I suspect however from what I said
that if you refuse to co operate with the gaspstapo then
they may feel their only recorse is to call the police, who in their turn woud become pretty cheesed off with
callouts they could do nothing about, since the gaspstapo have no powers of detention you could be off.
At the end of the day law can only stand with the consent of the populace.

125

Chuckles,

19/10/2006 16:16:29

Great idea Jack!!!! Safety in numbers- but do it with the publican's consent!! if that happens its better- cos they hate the ban too!!!!

126

claire,

19/10/2006 19:48:25

Ned - have you just got a job in the smoke gestapo? Can you be seen in your local area with a rubber cosh patronising people outside pubs? I bet your a hoot to be out for the evening with!! Do you have the same grievances about cheap perfume and BO? You'll be a 5 star boy before you know it - do the smoke police have a special badge like they do in mcdonalds where you get a gold star for your authority? or does your mum give you a gold star for your sticker chart??

127

Bite-Back,

20/10/2006 04:29:02

127 jack

I dont know that such a plan would be very helpful, you have to think of the publicans and the staff in these situations, it would be unfair on them, they never had any say in it either, anyway that removes the choice element for people who do not wish to be in a smokey atmosphere, they have that right, it is about provision for people who want to be able to smoke without inflicting it on others, that kind of thing would kind of scupper the argument for a compromise solution to this.

128

__-Steve-__,

Nottingham 20/10/2006 05:16:31

Bite Back (136)

I don't think it scuppers the argument at all. Non-smokers do not "have the right" and neither do smokers; a businessman risks his money and makes his choices, people then have the choice whether to come or not. Market forces will decide and if it were true that the majority of people want this ban there wouldn't have been a need to ban it in the first place.

Many pubs and pub chains have tried non-smoking rooms and venues but in the main they simply haven't been popular enough; this is the reason the anti-smoking movement will not accept any compromise solution. They know that on a street with two pubs, one smoking and the other non-smoking, the non-smoking pub would not survive.

129

Chuckles,

20/10/2006 10:30:49

Steve137 say what you like about the antismoking movement they for sure hell are not stupid! Thats why they are so dangerous!

Of course they know they wont survive!!

130

Chuckles,

20/10/2006 10:33:49

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006...


Everyone please observe one minute silence in memory of Lord Harris of High Cross who this morning tragically passed away!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6067362.stm

131

Belinda-2,

Falkirk 20/10/2006 20:01:21

Don't see why it should upset the bartender, as long as they go thru the motions and call the smoke cops. In fact – they could do it themselves :-) – call the smoke cops, saying there were smokers present, and then get a few neighbouring pubs to do it too, a few cigarette butts from outside the door ...

132

Donnie,

20/10/2006 20:42:17

Neither do I Winnie - good luck to Jack and his mates make mine a double whisky and a couple of marlboro - the silent rebellion has begun.

133

John V,

Chester 21/10/2006 12:21:08

I see Ned "Wideback" at 120 knows all the clichés and none of the facts. Oh, so it's well known is it Ned that smokers are more violent etc is it? As Bill from Lockerbie said, let's seee some of your references so we can assess the veracity of your statements. As it stands, your "opinion" isn't worth a fig.

134

BeeGee,

Lockerbie 22/10/2006 18:05:08

Ned...where did you get your information from. Nicotine is a relaxant this is why staff in Mental Health Hospitals are against a Smoking Ban

http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/news/press_releases/only_one_...

This is also why you see so many people smoke before taking a flight, take it away from them, they turn to alcohol and then they may become violent.

135

Belinda-2,

22/10/2006 18:48:39

That is interesting Bill, and I would like to know more about links of this nature. Do the mental health staff accept the general argument in favour of smoking bans and feel that hospitals should be exempt, or just feel that smoking bans in general will make it harder for many people with mental health problems to readjust on recovery?

136

Chuckles,

24/10/2006 17:33:27

is this the last scotsman article on smoking??

137

David from New Mills,

New Mills 24/10/2006 22:32:13

Speriamo che no, Carlo.


 

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.