Democracy in action.

I’m in favour of the smoking ban.

But on the other hand, it wasn’t exactly an election pledge, was it?

Should policy be decided by where the First Minister goes on holiday?

Let’s hope he doesn’t go on holiday to…

...I shouldn't finish that sentence.

Watch this space: mevbrown.org.uk

"There is an unholy alliance between the media and government in Scotland, they are both run by the middle classes. There are a lot of working people out there who, when they finish their working day, want to relax with a pint and a cigarette, and they don't want to be treated like second-class citizens."

Because as we all know it's the working classes who own the breweries and public houses. There's no way that this is the middle classes looking out for their profit lines by exploiting the working classes health is there?

Heard it

When they brought this ban in they should of left it to the bar owner to out a sign up on the door saying this is a smoking bar if you dont like it you dont have to enter The MSPs voted to have a smoke room in the Parlimaent and for a very few of them its a work place whats the difference between them and us

I believe that the European parliament has a smoking room for its members, would that translate to any bar forming a Serious Smokers Club and offering them the same facilities. I reckon that is the way to go, if the council decides against it, you could always appeal to the EU, you reckon they will give up their little den of iniquity because of Edinburgh Council or Scottish MSPs

the smoking ban is one of the best things lib/lab have done...its greeeat

I don't smoke but was interested when visiting a coffee shop in Toronto a few years ago. In the shop, for smokers they had a perspex room where you could go for a smoke. That way smokers could their fag and non smokers could not smell the smoke. As a non smoker I was happy. So for a small investment, that might be a way round it.

Ah somebody that believes in democracy and choice for both types of customers, they can have my vote just on the principal of "you are free to make a choice", we are supposed to live in a free country.

#7,

I doubt the former employees of over 100 pubs, 14 bingo halls, and several private clubs would agree with you.

I know that anyone with a basic understanding of science would disagree with you.

And I am absolutely certain that the 76% of respondents to the SE's own poll, who wanted restrictions, but not an all out ban disagree with you.

As Statsman rightly says, democracy in action.

The Publican Party have my support. That support will snowball as we reach D Day. Roll on May 3rd.

Bye bye Jack. Bye bye Andy. Enjoy life on the broo, like the thousands of former hospitality workers you felt compelled to "protect from SHS".

Those workers now have the ultimate protection, dont they?

Donnie..their policy of you are free to make a choice....under the present ban customers are free to make a choice...dont have a fag or go outside and have a fag..so dont waste your vote...Vote SNP you know it makes sense...

(8) In response..yes solutions are available but are repeatedly ignored by Government as they continue on their path of social engineering

http://www.tornex.com/datasheets/Tornex%20Cube%20DataShee...

11 What rubbish...Nicola Sturgeon was ready to drag Jack to the alter in her haist to have the Smoking Ban. She is such a silly wee girl...

I also have a choice, I prefer not breathing other peoples smoke, so please get real
I think other bar staff would agree

bill-alba, does the SNP believe that publicans should be free to offer both types of their customers non smoking and smoking facilities, i.e. separate rooms with ventilation, do they think that it is right to get up and give an old person your seat in a pub, but throw them out onto the pavement if they smoke a cigarette which is a legal product. I want to vote for a party that represents all of its citizens not just one section. I want to see all people treated equally not picked on because they do something that others disapprove of. If the SNP believe in true democracy then they can have my vote if not it will be cast else where

The lunatics are about to take over the cancer ward.

These bunch of jokers are undermining the stature of the Scottish Parliament...our parliament is a serious one, not one for cancer stick-smoking clowns...lets have serious candidates standing, representing serious issues, not a bunch of money-focused beer pushers...

Like the parliament itself, the ban is here to stay...get used to it...

19...A simple question, provide proof of this overwhelming evidence you write about.

the smoking ban has made smokers into modern day lepers who are being boxed into wee spaces what next have smokers stop smoking in there own homes so it does not affect others in there own house or down the street because it affects people who pass them on the street.

19 You see I have repeatedly asked the Tobacco Control Dept in Edinburgh the same question and they have on every occasion failed to answer.
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.215/news_detail.asp

What a drama queen! Listen mate - people breathe in and out every day and guess what..? you breathe in what they've breathed out! Disgusting isn't it.
How sad that just because you can see tobacco smoke you think it is a bigger pollutant than the thousands of other invisible pollutants which you breathe in on a daily basis. Let's face it - tobacco smoke is 95% water.
Oh - and by the way - you certainly haven't improved your chances of living any longer as you live in.....errrr...China!!!!

I thought that Dragonhead was a Chinese bird. Just shows that I am getting older. I would have thought that China was the last place for a smoking ban. Personally I have no problems. I smoke, possibly too much. My children or grandchildren when they visit can sit out on the front lawn even when it rains. You PC brigade keep working at it, when you get rid of diesel fumes and the effluent from Chemical factories, come back to me.

"Drama Queen", did you say #23? I reckon it's Media 1 in diguise! It has the same ranting, fanatic style. If it's not him these two should get together. Had to laugh, though. You can just see this HUGE cloud of smoke looking around, spotting these two tiptoeing through the tulips, blissfully unaware that Chinese cities tend to be the most polluted in the world with air you wouldn't commit suicide with, cutting its way through the fug and leaping on them with a scream of fiendish delight as they collapse in a twitching heap, hacking and coughing from.......naw, it couldn't be anything to do with all that air pollution, could it? Drive a car, do you "Dragonhead"19? If so, stop calling the kettle black.

5 scouse, Baghdad / 3:42am 23 Feb 2007
'The MSPs voted to have a smoke room in the Parlimaent and for a very few of them its a work place whats the difference between them and us'
Is this true?
Is there web site I can visit that will have this information?

Nah - they got rid of their smoking room before the ban came in....same way as they decided not to provide any outdoor shelter for smokers at the Follyrood.
Am not Media1 but I tend to follow his discourse on a daily basis. Perhaps I am morphing into him ;-)

Cheez, Dragonhead is Media 1, wash your mouths out. I believe I should wait for Ferozoli to comment on this.

Hey AntiAnti, I didn't think YOU were Media 1. It was the "Drama Queen" that the smoke keeps attacking who sounded from the same mold as Media 1.......you know, the one who hasn't realised that it's the cars causing the pollution of the air.

Good - funny when the psychological effects of tobacco smoke take over and have people keeling over coughing and spluttering.
Amuses me so!
Standing outside the bus stop yesterday, some plooky looking 'yoof' had to cough every time he looked at me......Years ago, we would have called him a bit 'weird'. Now these 'weirdos' consider themselves the norm!!
What's the world coming to.

26 and 5

Maybe this is what you had in mind:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics//article14...

Dragonhead. You really ought to get your head out of the clouds. Presumably you have heard of Hong Kong. Maybe you have actually been there. Have a look at the pictures regularly published in the South China Morning Post and Hongkong Standard showing the pollution and extremely low visibility when a slight north wind prevails. Where does it come from, Guangzhou (used to be called Canton) and I don't think it's because of lots of Chinese smoking fags. I hazard that there must be umpteen thousand percent more cancer, tuberculosis producing chemicals than SHS causes, by thousands of cigars or cigarettes. It happens in the UK too, on any main street.
When you sort that out, come back and you will receive my endorsement.

they have my vote

Maybe Dragonhead can tell us how many innocent bystanders he slaughtered with his 40 a day habit?

Maybe he could offer some links to this "incontravertible" proof he has?

I have been looking for this proof for around 18 months, and I cant find it. I suggest he passes it on to the scientific community, as they have been trying to prove causation since 1954. 150 studies to date, (and I have them all) say the risk is negligible.

Its a myth. A hoax. A fairy tale. An urban legend.

Surely people wont actually vote in an election on the basis of smoking alone. Smokers always deny that their habit defines them or makes them self centred. Voting for a party in an important election, solely on the basis that they will let you funk up a pub, has to be about as self centred as it gets.

I wish some of you anti-smokers would come on our side, as can not you see that the Governments are telling lies and trying to put the whole Country under a dictatorship, no smoking speed cameras, id cards, black boxes in cars and many more thins, for Gods sake lets stick together, after all we do not hate you.

Actually no one dies or is harmed by passive smoke, just look at all the diesel and other fumes people breath in every day, the passive smoke in like the very small needle in the very big haystack, it’s the fumes in the air that kill, from car and factories not the little amount of passive smoke, I e-mailed the UK statistics site, the BMJ, BHF Cancer UK, ASH and the Government themselves, and they could not name one person, so where are all these people that are dieing and being harmed by passive smoking; no people are being harmed by passive smoking, and in a court of law you need evidence, this ban is based on “NO EVIDENCE” they will not get away with this. Why because there are not any people dieing because of passive smoking, as will prove below.

Why not smoking you may ask, Because UK Government statistics from 1970 to 2006 show smoking is in decline worldwide. in 1970, 45% of the UK smoked, now in 2006, only 25% smoke, that is means the total smokers in the UK in the last 36 years has nearly halved, HOWEVER cancer is on the rise, Between 1971 and 2003, the age-standardised incidence of cancer increased by around 17 per cent in males and 40 per cent in females.
See below, Scots, Irish, Italians, new Yorkers and New Zealanders smoking more because of smoking bans, but Spaniards smoking far less, because their ban is different, they can still smoke in bars, the bans in pubs and clubs are totally backfiring, and because of this 100,000 more people are lighting up and in the long run 10,000 more people will die, and in Ireland over 800 pubs have closed, what the hell will we see here, this is bad, can’t not the Governments see and

We are taking the Government to court, we “have” applied and got a judicial review, we are trying to get people to donate, the tobacco firms will not help, and we can not understand this, would you help, it's totally in your interests, just a £1 £50 or even £1000000.

http://www.freedom2choose.co.uk/judicial_review.php

http://www.freedom2choose.co.uk/index.php

We only ask for an amendment, (this amendment has been out to the Lords, we had 70 Lords for us but 210 against) separate smoking rooms and filtration and ventilation, we have so much evidence saying that passive smoke harms no one, I e-mailed the UK statistics site, the BMJ, BHF Cancer UK, ASH and the Government themselves, and they could not name one person, so where are all these people that are dieing and being harmed by passive smoking; if you would like any more please say.

We are,

http://freedom2choose.co.uk/

http://www.cheetham.cc/index.php?sid=5eb21cd2116603ea0d42...

If you’re from Scotland, Wales, England or N. Ireland PLEASE JOIN US.

http://freedom2choose.co.uk/mythbusters.php

Only 20% of lung cancers are caused by smoking, all top scientists say, fact not fiction.

http://freedom2choose.co.uk/index.php

Compares ETS with smoke from welding

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/01/double-standa...

Second-hand smoke in bars & restaurants vs. welding sm

It will have been fairly obvious if you've had children, bans to kids are appealing.
Seems like the Antis have done far far far more to promote smoking rather than reduce it. Given the obscene amount of money they have used to achieve, hatred, segregation, intolerance and an increase in smoking, what a total waste of money, with all that money they would now have a cure for cancer and other illness.

Here is the real report from WHO, which states passive smoking is no harm,
it needs to be read in full and this is “one” of the submissions of overwhelming evidence that we will use in the Judicial Review and Barrister Mr Gill is a Judicial Review specialist, also being taken into account is the 50 million wasted.

The World Health Organization's first study on SHS is a textbook example of the right way to conduct an epidemiological study. Unfortunately for them, it yielded unexpected results. They responded by doing a second one, a meta-analysis, that allowed them to extract the results they wanted. This is an analysis of their first study.

Fact: The study found a Relative Risk (RR) for spousal exposure of 1.16, with a Confidence Interval (CI) of .93 - 1.44. In layman's terms, that means Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 16%. Where you'd normally find 100 cases of lung cancer, you'd find 116.

-But-

Because the Confidence Interval includes 1.0, The Relative Risk of 1.16 numbers is not statistically significant. The real RR can be any number within the CI. The CI includes 1.0, meaning that the real number could be no increase at all. It also includes numbers below 1.0, which would indicate a
protective effect. This means that the RR of 1.16 is not statistically significant. A RR of less than 2.0 is usually not considered important and, most likely to be due to error or bias. An RR of 3.0 or higher is considered
desirable.

Report Unsuitable

MSP Patrick Harvie said spending 24 hours in Glasgow city centre was the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes. Oxford city centre has the worst air pollution in the country, according to a survey which compares inhaling the air there to smoking 61 cigarettes a day. So with all the toxins in the air, is a ban in bar and clubs, really worth all the time and money, as your breathing in toxins all day, the only difference with cigarettes, is you can “see” the smoke, when good ventilation could be far more useful. When good ventilation could be far more useful, and it can get rid of all the toxins in the air, I can prove evidence and links.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4401628.stm
http://archive.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/2004/08/27/9214.html

35 me bungo pony "Surely people wont actually vote in an election on the basis of smoking alone."

all of the main parties are made up of the most false people ive ever had the displeasure of listening to. they lie and talk utter bollox ( just watch the SE on tv to see them bickerink like kids trying to score silly points ) they make false promises and so on but, the way they line thier pockets is diabolical.

i was going to spoil my ballot but, hey, i smoke so what the hell, i'm gonna support this single issue party because i just might get something in return for my vote.

#35,

Self-centred? It wasnt us who threw 28% of the population out of pubs in all weathers.

Self-centred? Is it not down to the smokers themselves that this nasty ban is working?

Self-centred? Is it not the smokers who pay punitive taxes on a legal product? So much so, that for every treatment we need from the NHS, we also pay for four additional treatments for non smokers?

Self-centred? Was it not the smokers who went along with smoke free planes, trains, offices, taxi's, tubs & trams?

Self-centred? Is it not the smokers who allegedly die early to save non smokers from picking up the tab for our pensions?

Self-centred? Is it not the smokers who chip in an additional £10 Billion into the Exchequers pocket every year?

Self-centred? Is it not the smokers who, by their additional contributions, keep the basic rate of income tax at 24%? Without us you would be be paying at least 35%.

And do you thank us for any of this? Nope. You prefer instead to look a gift horse in the mouth. You prefer instead to vilify, insult and abuse.

If you want the definition of "self-centred" I suggest you look in a mirror.

what an idiot. does he not realise even 75% of smokers supported the ban. would not be suprised if FOREST or tobacco companies were giving financial backing. Even smoking rooms let smoke waft through and if he is serious that smokers would not smoke if they were walking through non smoking areas he is not living in the real world. Let him stand but it will be a one issue party as I doubt he will be able to debate anything else such is his stupidity.

as for colin # 41, we do not have a bottomless pit of health staff. no amount of extra money will provide this so we have a finite number of doctors to go round. So it makes sense to use the resources we have in a fair way and look after our health. It precisely this attitude has led to waiting time increases. there are only so may hospitals and staff. Bet those who become infirm due to smoking take the flu jag. They do not mind killing themselves but do not let the flu kill them!!

as for all those extra taxes i am glad smokers keep the NHS running . very altruistic. I will take all thye give me if they want to be so daft. never look a gift horse in the mouth

I'm not sure who you are calling an idiot, but I will presume it is one of the pro-choice posters. And it proves my point. The very best you can do is insult people. You forget that we are fellow human beings. There are many things worse than a little harmless smoke.

Are you suggesting that smokers are to blame for waiting times? A ludicrous suggestion.

And just where do you get this mythical "75% of smokers in favour" garbage? Check out the SE website. You will find that 76% of respondents to the consultation agreed that restrictions were favoured, NOT an outright ban. (and at least 50% of that 75% are non smokers).

Predictable rubbish from an anti smoking zealot-what you dont know you simply make up.

The SE promised us that 1000 lives per year would be saved "in each and every year following a smoker ban". Newsflash: the mortality figures for Scotland showed an increase. An additional 278 deaths in 2006. Surely that should say "It worked folks! We were right! 1000 fewer people died in 2006 due to the smoker ban!". The SE were wrong about each and every assumption they made about this childish ban.

They also promised that no economic damage would occur. Really?

We have witnessed a 5% increase in tobacco sales, across the board a 5% decrease in sales for the hospitality trade, 114 venues shut down, thousands of people added to the dole queues, and not one single life saved.

Nice work.

John(44),
75 % or more in the vote I saw were in favour of a partial ban not a total ban! you might as well say 75% of diners would be happy to eat outside in the cold night air, get real man!

#18 Daibhidh

I see this as good for democracy. With politicians more and more imposing things on society rather than engaging with people, this is a route to let them know how people feel.

It's no different to campaigners on hospital closures or the rights of senior citizens. The major parties simply don't care, so there has to be some mechanism to get the message across.

#mebungo, uk is run by USA and Brussels, so we should be able to vote for who we like.
The USA lives on Big Pharma drugs, 1 in 10 women are on anti depressants, being perfect is a tall order.
It is not just about pubs, it is about goverments controlling the people. You will not share the space in my house, you will not share the space in my car.
Those who do not understand where this is going, seriously need to do some homework.
The USA have brainwashed their citizens and incite hatred, because of a smell. That is not healthy for anyone.
Oxford is so polluted, it would be like smoking 60 ciggies, that is before you take your wrapper off the pack.
Some of you may not care about the truth, some of us do. If smoking is on the decrease, (or it was before the Antis spent an obscene amount of money on propaganda) and cancer is on the increase, it does not take a very high IQ to work out something stinks much worse than smoke.

Here is one on Prescription drugs.
Bad drugs and law suits
Fosamax Tequin Trasylol


Zyprexa
If you took Zyprexa* on or before March 2004, and you have developed diabetes, pancreatitis (inflammation of pancreas), ketoacidosis, hyperglycemia, seizures, diabetic coma, stroke, heart attack, amputation of a limb (due to diabetes), severe weight gain, or other medical conditions, you may be entitled to compensation
At least 8000 people have developed serious conditions after using the popular antipsychotic medication, Zyprexa (olanzapine). Eli Lilly has agreed to pay nearly 700 million dollars to settle existing suits from people who have been harmed after using Zyprexa.
This settlement is based on allegations that the Zyprexa label in use before March 2004 did not contain adequate warnings regarding serious potential side effects. In addition, published reports indicate that as far back to the 1950’s, studies tied the use of Zyprexa and similar drugs to increased risk of d

They've got my vote, and with any luck a million or so others...

42. john montgomery /75% of smokers supported the ban your arse, the numpy,s own poll showed that 78% of people, smokers and non smokers did not support a total ban, but as usual this was ignored by the pc nanny control freak executive.
If you are going to post on this subject please do a small amount of research, as you dont have a clue.

#41. Colin, Banff - Top prize for winge of the day from one of so many "noble" smokers. Incidently, the basic rate of income tax is 22% and has been for a while now.

Thank you James for a most constructive comment.

Since when has laying out a few uncomfortable truths become whinging?

Nobility is subjective. As is compassion. As is fair play.

2% out. Big deal. You got the gist, did you not?

Now, have you got any proof/evidence/links to bring to the debate, or are you content to mutter memetic aphorisms as well?

50- theyve certainly got mine- problem is I dont live in Scotland!!

35 Me Bungo- I have to say Colin is right- its time for antismokers(separate category from other nonsmokers) to give back something back! Anyway what happened to the land of the rabbit?

I do reckon though the party should be renamed the Scottish Libertarian Party and put out a few other policies!! Can they still do that?

May I remind all voters that the only party to oppose the smoking ban in Scotland was the Scottish Conservative Party.

www.scottishconservatives.com

55

and cameron has done a uturn, well actually he said he is not going to do anything at all so i supose he didnt even do a uturn.

#55,

Several links are dead, and when I searched for a statement concerning the smoker ban...I found nothing.

Do I assume that are happy with the status quo?

Do I assume they will do nothing to attract 1.2 million potential votes by amending this ridiculous legislation?

The Publican Party or UKIP are still the best bet. At least they are trying to restore choice to 28% of the electorate.

#5: Scouse

For information, the smoke room in the Parliament building is now closed. It closed about a fortnight before the ban.

#55: They may have opposed it during the vote, but ever since they have gone all quiet. Why is it not subject to lively debate in the chamber? Why doesn't any of the Tory literature mention it and decry it?

There's no point in just sitting back and accepting it. This needs action. Why hasn't anyone organised a protest where we have a day when all smokers light up in the pubs as normal? I'd certainly join in and so would many others. What are they going to do? Take the licences of most pubs in Edinburgh away? Arrest about 30% of the population? No. It would simply show the strength of feeling on this matter.

To be honest, I am very surprised that this Nazi state legislation has just been accepted by everyone like good little boys and girls.

There seems to be a preference for labour in scotland but let's face it, if it wasn't for labour, this stupid ban would never have been entertained. A Tory majority would have kicked it into touch or booted it out on a whip vote if their hand was forced.

Segregated areas, smoking and non-smoking pubs, fair enough. Give us a choice.

#58, Petrol Head,

It isnt apathy, you know. Its shame.

This farce has been going on for almost four decades now. Even the toughest minds will bend under the pressure, the guilt, the vitriol that we have endured ever since they (the rabid anti smokers) couldnt get people to quit what is, to 99% of us, a remarkably pleasurable experience. So they invented second hand smoke. Then they invented the science, then they invented the cure-the smoker ban.

All the time they made us feel like pariahs.

For me, that ended in December 2005. I am no longer guilty of anything (now that I understand the science), I am no longer ashamed (now that I know I am not a mass murderer) and I no longer worry about offending anti smokers. I am still courteous, but I can be defiant when it is necessary.

Once we all feel the same way, we will triumph.

Hmmm. Let's just get this straight. These people are saying their freedom not to have to go outside "like cattle", trumps other peoples right not to be killed with cancer causing toxins from their cigerretes. So what are people who would prefer not to die to do? Ah - they should probably go outside...like cattle?

#60, Anthony,

Show us proof that people are killed by SHS. No study has EVER proved causation. If you cant prove it, stop making stupid statements.

The scientists, and the medical world awaits.

Admittedly some cattle are made to stand outside. Admittedly some would-be smokers are made to stand outside. However, that is the end of the resemblence. Cattle are content to chew on their herbs, and do not require to set them on fire and suck them into their lungs, thereby causing severe damage to themselves and other members of their species.

Perhaps smokers come off as more considerate with regard to flatulence, however. That would make for an interesting political campaign.

11. bill-alba, fife . I was contemplating voting snp this time round but after reading your pathetic paradiod undemocratic mince ,they have no chance of getting my vote .
roll on may.
vote the publican party.

at last. I am delighted with this news & I wish the Publican Party all the best. They have caught on to the 'unholy alliance' & they would get my vote! Go & give the Hollyrood hypocrites (who are an affront to democracy) a run for their money.

62. Nathaniel, USA / A very stupid comment you make.

#52. Colin, Banff - every bit as constructive as your feeble arguments
"Self-centred? It wasnt us who threw 28% of the population out of pubs in all weathers" - swings and roundabouts. Think of the tan they will get in the summer and in the winter......som decent pubs have shelters.

"Self-centred? Is it not down to the smokers themselves that this nasty ban is working?" - not really no as there is a measure of compulsion.

"Self-centred? Is it not the smokers who pay punitive taxes on a legal product? So much so, that for every treatment we need from the NHS, we also pay for four additional treatments for non smokers?" - simple mince.

"Self-centred? Was it not the smokers who went along with smoke free planes, trains, offices, taxi's, tubs & trams?" - they had little choice other than to comply.

"Self-centred? Is it not the smokers who allegedly die early to save non smokers from picking up the tab for our pensions?" - How noble of them but I think few smokers choose "slow suicide" for this reason.

"Self-centred? Is it not the smokers who chip in an additional £10 Billion into the Exchequers pocket every year?" - Again they do so because they have no choice not because of generosity.

"Self-centred? Is it not the smokers who, by their additional contributions, keep the basic rate of income tax at 24%? Without us you would be be paying at least 35%." - I can see no proof of this so perhaps you could provide this (given that you don't know the current basic rate is 22% and do not mention the starting rate of 10%, I suspect not)?

"And do you thank us for any of this? Nope. You prefer instead to look a gift horse in the mouth. You prefer instead to vilify, insult and abuse" - I do not see that any thanks is due. Before the smoking ban when I even mentioned the possibility of its introduction in my local, I was subjected to tor

James D – We happen to have a proportional representation system designed precisely to give smaller and minorities a chance at the polls with the list system. The publicans are standing in the knowledge that no other party is canvassing on the smoking ban issue. This is why they are not standing against constituency MSPs – because they know that people don't vote primarily on single issues. People can use their first vote on bread-and-butter issues (unless they want to boycott all the major parties) and the second vote can be used to save the local hospital or other issue without the support of popular parties.

... Or the publican party, of course.

still it shows how twitchy smokers are becoming. proves ther point it is a drug addiction. good debate though but lets face it the non smokers have won again! good for denocracy as the majority do not smoke and have for too long put up with selfish smokers blowing their dirt in our faces. us non smokers have for to long put up with people trying to kill us. ha ha imagine all those idiots paying all those extra taxes to keep the NHS running - good on you keep it up. next time I have to go to a hospital I shall grovel and thank all smokers for being so kind. Think my post is daft then pro smokers should take a good look at their's

When they enjoy their Fags do they blow poofs o smoke?

Latest studies show that there are more Scots snorting crack cocaine than are smoking tobacco.

Are you one of those, John?

Or are you one of those binge drinkers, John?

Or are you just perfect? No vices?

How lovely for you.

69. john montgomery/You cant even spell democracy never mind understand the meaning of the word. There should be smoking pubs and non smoking pubs, if erses like your nanny paranoid pathetic self dont like the smell of smoke ,then go to some where that you like the smell, BROWN NOSE JACKASS.

The one thing that is consistent whenever a smoking ban issue is featured and there is an open forum the anti smoking/smoker hating zealots have no argument. Therefore their own course of action is to insult. It is for this reason that more and more 'ordinary non smokers are visiting pro choice websites, including www.freedom2choose.co.uk. We do not promote smoking we promote choice. Freedom for all citizens to socialise as a community without prejudice, fear or favour. Regulated Indoor Air Quality Standards cleaner and clearer than many outside areas (99.97%), surely is preferable to 80% clean air as has been shown by Dr Menzies (Dundee University funded by the SE) in his pre and post ban study. Voting the Publican Party or UKIP in a proportional system that you have is not a lost vote as has been pointed out, which is why the venom is out against these smaller parties, even more so since UKIP have double their potential share of the popular vote.
Robert Feal-Martinez UK Leader F2C

Me Bungo Pony wrote:
"Voting for a party in an important election, solely on the basis that they will let you funk up a pub, has to be about as self centred as it gets."

Colin, Banff replied:
"You prefer instead to vilify, insult and abuse.

If you want the definition of "self-centred" I suggest you look in a mirror."

I didn't vilify, insult or abuse anybody. I simply made a statement. You on the other hand .....

Chuckles wrote:
"Anyway what happened to the land of the rabbit?"

Hmmmm???

Chuckles wrote:
"I do reckon though the party should be renamed the Scottish Libertarian Party and put out a few other policies!! Can they still do that?"

They're not interested in Libertarianism. They're only interested in this one issue. Anything else would just be garnish to cover up the fact that it is blind self interest that motivates them.

Chuckles wrote:
"Anyway what happened to the land of the rabbit?"

I see, you mean Llanarc. I just got fed up with Nation States. It was supposed to be a game but it was basically a social club. Nothing much happened. So I now haunt Scottish Forums :)

I suppose I should thank you for being instrumental in the genesis of "Me Bungo Pony". If you hadn't asked me onto the other Forum, I'd probably still be called Llanarc (if I even bothered with forums) and MBP would never have existed. Cheers :)

#75,

I have to wonder why you are so against a political party forming to defend their industry?

Surely it says that the SE is not listening to their concerns. Having written to the SE and many MSP's, I know that they know nothing about the science surrounding what has become an extremely emotive issue. My letters were polite, courteous, and to the point. They raised legitimate questions about the fairness of this ban. Yet almost all of my letters were ignored. I received a couple of standard replies that implored me to go and visit various websites that were not helpful.

In England, of course, the "consultation" process was even more biased. HMG asked ASH for their opinion, which is rather like saying to Alcoholics Anonymous "What do you think we should do about alcohol. Should we ban it"? No prizes for guessing what the reply would be. That polls have been ignored, and one-sided consultations have been carried out is evident. And it will be challenged. It will be corrected.

So, movements spring up. Political parties are born. They wouldnt appear if there wasnt popular support. My guess is that these groups will garner even more support as May 3rd approaches. By then we will have a fuller picture on the ban damage.

The stark truth is that this ban has hurt more people than it ever purported to protect. You might want to follow this link to see what the HS&E have to say about SHS/ETS. I wasnt surprised to learn that they didnt feel it warranted special attention.

They admit that SHS is harmless.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/foi/internalops/fod/oc/200-299/255_...

This paragraph is particularly illuminating:

"9. The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemological evidence to link level

Calm, bairns, calm.

I dunna keen if passive smoking hurts you or no - but dey ir plenty evidence dat smoking Definitely hurts smokers. If da ban encourages even a proportion ta gie up - It will save 1,000s o lives.

It's the best thing The Scottish Executive is done.

And, it's a hell o a lot nicer ta be able ta geng oot an no hae your hair an claes stink o fag reik da nixt day. You fairly notice it in England - pubs is SO smokey. YUK.

Fair play ta smokers wha is 99.9999% abided bi da law. An fair play tae da Publicans Party - quite entertaining!

Tobacco sales reported to be up according to this report from October

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-2405003,00.html

It is true that the full year's figures are not in yet but we have to bear in mind that these figures refer only to tobacco sales here, not tobacco bought on holiday for consumption at home. Some people definitely smoke more, some may smoke less but if the overall smoking level is up it follows that the success of the policy is at least in question.

#77,

The problem, Derick, is that when you spend time researching other bans, Italy, Ireland, Scotland, you find that smoking prevalence increases. In Ireland, they have over 20,000 new smokers, all of them in the very target group they were hoping would not take up smoking, specifically, the 18-25 years olds. One of the unintended consequences of a smoker ban is that it puts smokers on the street-right where young people can see them. Most smokers are a happy laid-back bunch of people, so when you see a group of them having a fag and a laugh outside a pub (joined by their non smoking mates) what message does that send to our youth?

Worldwide trends also show that smoking rates were falling, slowly, but surely, year on year. Enter the control freaks who want us to live our lives on their terms, and a mini rebellion occurs. We "dumb smokers" do just the opposite of what they insist we should do. We smoke more. We dont quit.

You will find, as I did, that smoker bans have done more to promote smoking than any amount of advertising by the tobacco companies.

The right thing to do was to not interfere. Smoking rates would be reducing year on year, as they have been doing since the 1960's.

A spectacular own goal.

Well after reading all the anti smoking comments on here the main theme seems to be:-

I demand the right to a non smoking pub because I dont like the smell of tobacco

Fine you can have as many as you want but

I demand the right to a smoking pub because I do like the smell of tobacco

Smoking bans or any other type of bans on legal products do not belong in a democratic society. It is not for the non smoker or the smoker to determine what happens in a pub it is for the owner. People are invited into a pub by the owner not forced in.

This government is saying dont worry about heroin, crack, cannibis we have lost the battle so we will concentrate on legal products start with tobacco, then move onto to achohol.

forget the fact that cigarettes are banned in pubs and look at the bigger picture, you are being manipulated into agreeing with this principle just because you dont like smoking, but you forget once they have got away with this they will use the same principle on other legal products.

Dont be a mindless drone fight for democracy dont just throw it away.

The Great Professor John Brignell puts it admirably on his website "numberwatch".

Scroll down to

The Sound of the Jackboot is heard in the land

and Lest we forget

"In those long forgotten days, when the Conservative Party provided real opposition under the leadership of Winston Churchill, they launched a campaign against Labour “Snoopers”. The ex-servicemen, who brought Labour to power on a tide of hope, swept them out again when they realised that the freedoms for which they had made such sacrifices were being wilfully buried. Now the quality of our politicians is at an all-time low. They are venal and idle, responding to the loudest claques and errantly ignorant of scientific evidence.
The prequel to Orwell’s nightmare was not a violent revolution, but democratically elected leaders who simply did not care."

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2007%20February.htm

Read and learn then vote for a political party that is prepared to stand up for real democracy.

Ok Colin has basically answered your question about the Publican Party!

Cool- I think im also a member of Scottish forums! Im doncarlito!

Yeah I also got fed up with nation states- there wasnt much happenin- my friend is like dependent on it- as New france if youve come across it!

What does Me Bungo Pony mean? Anyway i thank you for naming your name because of me!

For the above I was reffering to Bungo 74 and 75 and Colin 76!