Smoke free zone?

[observer]

Is the MP for Warrington S, advocating a total ban on smoking, anywhere (ww news)? Perhaps her Government could consider banning their sale in thefirst place - oops forgot, they would lose ?billions in tax, wouldn't they?!

[Bonzodog]

Perhaps her Government could consider banning their sale in thefirst place - oops forgot, they would lose ?billions in tax, wouldn't they?!

 

No No No! Don't ban it!!!! I'll have a 12 month smoke free set of lungs next week so I need all the tax revenue the govt can get, to pay towards my health care & pension now I'm going to live to a ripe old age!

[sheila]

Just heard today that there will be a ban on smoking in cars with children in, on alfresco dining and beaches,so that will make it almost smoke free,as there has been a ban on smoking in other ares for a few years now,so it will be limited to your own homes soon I think

Sheila

[Paul Kennedy]

Is the MP for Warrington S, advocating a total ban on smoking, anywhere (ww news)? Perhaps her Government could consider banning their sale in thefirst place - oops forgot, they would lose ?billions in tax, wouldn't they?!

 

About ?8 billion.....and a lot more tobacco comes into the country illegally avoiding duty altogether. Thought they might encourage people to smoke in order to increase revenue, mind you they will also have to hope people die as a result quite rapidly rather than linger around and need expensive care on the NHS.

[tara_dad]

When tobacco was first introduced into Britain, it was blamed for mental

deficiency, physical deformity, moral turpitude and everything else that

hails from the vocab of an Irish nun. In short, pretty much all the things

marijuana is blamed for these days.

And of course cigarettes give you cancer. Obviously they do, and plenty

of other nasty stuff, besides (like yellow fingernails). But you do have to

die of something ? that?s kind of a rule ? and at this rate, for most of us,

that thing is going to be boredom.

All Your car-maintenance keeps a beautiful but non-

eco-friendly E-type on the road, belching carbon and killing more people

in an afternoon than the Khmer Rouge.

 

 

Take salt (go on, let your hair down!). You like salt in your food, but

despite the facts that

 

it is your food

salt has been around for millennia

and salt is actually known to be a vital element in our diet

 

some doctor has decided that it?s not good for you.

 

But that?s not all. When you persevere with your filthy salt addiction,

your neighbours shun you for your irresponsibility. You are, they argue,

wilfully neglecting your obligations to your wife and children. When you

die of a heart-attack (in your late 60s), you will be abandoning your

dependants, leaving them defenceless and alone in a big bad salt-

snorting world.

 

There will also be clinics for meat-eaters going cold turkey; circuses

featuring acts like The Incredible Full-Fat-Milk-Drinking Weirdos;

Facebook groups called When I Was Young, We Were Positively

Encouraged To Play Contact Sports.

 

We will end up with pubs where you not only cannot smoke, but you

can?t drink, can?t buy a steak and chips, can?t use metal cutlery, and

definitely cannot eat mixed nuts from a bowl on the bar-top.

 

Think I?m over-reacting? (I am being ironic for the slow ones who will post one liners )

 

So, not only does public hysteria lead to the irrational banning of

perfectly normal things in the fullness of time, but it is also a cause of

desperation, moral decay and, eventually, illegal behaviours. Uphold the

ban on smoking in public places, and soon enough reasonable middle-

aged accountants will be mugging grannies to fund their pepper habits.

 

 

 

So lets look at what the government will lose and will go on other things like the car I hope and vat

1) Tax revenue raised on these sales amounted to ?9.9 billion - ?8.0 billion in excise duty plus ?1.9 billion in VAT.

2) HM Revenue & Customs estimate that in 2005/6 NUKDP consumption lost them revenue of between ?2.8 and ?4.3 billion.

3) 4,927 people are employed by the UK tobacco companies

4) A 2004 study by DTZ Pieda estimated a further 80,000 jobs among suppliers and in wholesale, distribution and retailing were dependent on the UK tobacco industry

5) Pubs have been closing seven times faster than in 2007

6) Research shows 1 in 5 people are visiting pubs and bars less frequently than they thought they would do following the smoking ban.

7) The BII has also stated that traditional working men?s clubs and bars, which serve little food, have been most affected and a proportion can be expected to close (trade has dropped by 7% facts from the British Beer & Pub Association figures compiled by CGA Strategy, May 2008)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?Christopher Ogden, Chief Executive of the TMA commented: ?We are not opposed to restrictions on smoking in public places. Smokers, however, should have available to them places where they may smoke without inconveniencing others. It is perfectly possible to achieve this, as is the case in the majority of EU Member States?.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[tara_dad]

"At least the ACS no longer claims that passive smoking raises the risk (according to its website). The same cannot be said of other anti-smoking groups. Rather than accepting that the studies had been flawed because they had failed to adjust for HPV infection, they continue to take them at face value.

 

 

 

 

 

What most excited them was the supposed finding that passive smoking was as hazardous, perhaps more hazardous, than smoking itself. A recent study on breast cancer had shown a higher risk for passive smokers than smokers. In truth, smoking of any kind was not a risk factor for breast cancer, as even the American Cancer Society accepted. Nonetheless, ASH released a press release titled 'Secondhand tobacco smoke more dangerous than smoking itself - implications for women especially frightening' (11) and Stanton Glantz described the finding as "the most important scientific development in the last 10 years" (12).

 

 

 

 

 

Discredited though they now were, the cervical cancer studies supported their bizarre belief that secondhand smoke was more deadly than smoking itself and the anti-smoking groups were quick to embrace it. Their motives were clear. Having banned smoking in virtually all indoor places, their attention turned to the outdoors but to ban smoking in the open air required persuading the public that secondhand smoke was exceptionally toxic. Further 'evidence' for this wacky idea appeared in the form of the Helena heart attack study (co-authored by Glantz) which claimed that heart attack incidence fell by a whopping 40% once smoking was banned in bars and restaurants. Not accepting for a minute that this study too might be fatally flawed, the anti-smoking groups used this as further evidence that secondhand smoke was far more dangerous than had been previously thought. Glantz also wrote an article titled 'Even a little secondhand smoke is dangerous' (13) and claimed that 30 seconds of exposure could kill.

 

 

 

In 2006, the Surgeon General told the American public that there was "no safe level" of secondhand smoke exposure. Secondhand smoke had become the most deadly entity known to man".

 

read for your self at http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=63

 

 

 

some more FACTS

 

Caroline Flint (the Minister for Health at the time the smoking ban legislation was being discussed) stated in a Parliamentary Publication ? quote:

 

?Given the evidence about the impact of passive smoking, we are concerned that the decision to ban smoking in public places may represent a disproportionate response to a relatively minor health concern. It may be that the unstated objective of policy is to encourage a reduction in active smoking by indirect means. This may well be a desirable policy objective, but if it is the objective, it should have been clearly stated.?

 

 

The founders of Action on Smoking and Health, the Royal College of Physicians expect to achieve a smoke-free society in the next 20 years.

 

By this, it means that nicotine will be delivered to smokers via patches and gum ? that is, to those who have failed to stop smoking or are unwilling [/i]to quit.

In the interests of public health ?targets?, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is already widely prescribed, and in many cases this means publicly subsidised. Pharmaceutical companies benefit from public subsidy: they have a real interest in the promotion of smoking bans, and in the expected moves to restrict high street tobacco sales, which are significant tools in the promotion of their products. It means nothing to them that they are waging a trade war on the back of public funds and simultaneously depriving the public of the freedom to choose.

Source: The Government?s Public Health White Paper Cm 6374.

 

The House of Lords, when discussing the passing of The Bill, concurred with Caroline Flint ? quote:

 

?The evidence we took on passive smoking leads us to doubt whether government guidelines on risk management have been properly implemented. In particular, the purpose of legislation should have been defined more clearly and greater attention should have been given to available scientific evidence, the relative merits of alternative policy options and the impact of legislation on personal freedom and choice. Failure to consider these matters properly has resulted in the introduction of a policy that appears to demonstrate a disproportionate response to the problem. Lessons learned from the progress of this legislation should be used to ensure that future policy responses are transparent, evidence-based, and proportionate.?

 

Smoking bans do not achieve their ultimate goal of reducing active smoking; they just cause social, economic and political chaos:

Pubs are closing at unprecedented rates, and in Ireland, we learn that smoking prevalence has shot up from 27% to 29% and the Irish national statistics office have confirmed that zero lives have been "saved" by their ban.

 

all above are FACTS and can go on and on

[disgusted]

 

Think I?m over-reacting?

 

 

 

.

Yes.

[wolfie]

I think he's over typing also

[tara_dad]

Wednesday, 26, Nov 2008 05:30

 

 

head lines MP smokers to be given special shelter

 

Complaints from smokers in Parliament about having to light up outside during London's freezing winter have prompted plans for a House of Commons smoking shelter.

 

Workers and politicians in Westminster only have a limited number of places to smoke since the smoking ban.

 

Fierce conditions during the winter have made daily puffing routines anything but pleasant.

 

The issue has been raised on numerous accounts, and now English Heritage, the Westminster city council, and the Commons Administration Committee are working on plans for an affordable and simple Pugin-style smokers' sanctuary.

 

Promising to be the "Taj Mahal of all smoking shelters," as one MP put it, the design style is named after Augustus Pugin, the architect of the Houses of Parliament.

 

A budget has yet to be fixed for the project, though the excited boasts hyping the space as Britain's first "neo gothic smoking shelter" show fervent interest in the task

[tara_dad]

 

Think I?m over-reacting?

 

 

 

.

Yes.

 

 

like i said

[asperity]

This was just one bad law in the list of many bad laws made by this incompetent administration so no suprise.

[inky pete]

I never saw a problem with the compromise position of allowing pubs which don't serve food to choose whether or not to be smoke free.

 

Reataurants, ok the ban makes sense. I, like many smokers, don't like smoking at the dinner table.

 

.....and before anyone says that it's about the staff's rights to work in a smoke free environment, maybe I should point out that it has been found to be legal to discriminate against a smoker when interviewing for a new employee - so perhaps allowing pubs to operate a "smokers only" employment policy would redress this balance ever so slightly.

[observer]

Carefull Inky, that sounds too much like common sense! When this matter was first raised on here, a rational proposition was to have smoking rooms in every pub/club, with non-smoking staff excluded - aside from them being absolutely chocker (incl non-smokers); everyone would have been happy. But no, that wasn't good enough for the health facists; they want everyone to fit in with their lifestyle ideals, living longer lives in order to collect the pensions that society can no longer afford.

[Bazj]

well I just like going to the pub and not coming home stinking like a venezualan gipsy. I am an ex 40+ a day smoker who has a wife and 22 year old son who both smoke and who both stink.

 

Disgusting habit; I would advocate to ban it everywhere because it doesn't just affect the smoker it affects everyone. It affects the people in the same room as smokers. It affects people in the room next door and the one next door to that. Not only that it affects the kids strapped in the back of the car while mum and dad have a fag in the front seats.

 

This is the one thing I would applaud this government for (nothing else mind you) and they should extend it further.

 

You can't have "smoking rooms" in a pub to appeal to personal choice. What happens if a non smoker wants to sit with his 4 mates who are on a night out and they all smoke? It is his personal choice to sit in there with them but it doesn't mean he can't and won't sue the pub for damaging his health. Who collects the glasses if the "smoking" barmaid is off ill? you can't ask a non smoker to do it so do they shut the room for the night?

 

Too many issues crop up with partial bans and half hearted attempts at apeasing the smokers. What is wrong with going out for a fag anyway? everyone sits together in a smoke-free place and every 30 minutes or so, the smokers nip out for a fag.

 

If smokers can cross the Atlantic on a plane for 8 hours and not have a fag, why is a few hours at a pub (where at least you can go out for one unlike on a plane) so much of a problem?

 

There used to be a saying that there is no smoke without fire..... now it should just be "there is no smoke........"

[observer]

Who's forcing the non-smoker to sit with his three smoking mates? Sure, if non-smoking rooms were provided, a sizable percentage of users would be non-smokers (based on experience). As for flying, many smokers have given that up as well as the pub. As for the passive element; many folk are killed by passive drinking; either by being hit by a car or by a gang of p**s heads out on the town - so are we going to ban booze too?! BTW the smell of a canned up drinker - stinks too.

[Bazj]

True enough and I don't do the latter to a great extent either.

 

I hate to break it to you, but if you're a smoker, you stink. I am not trying to offend anyone (as my opinions often do), but it's true. Smokers just smell bad. I don't care what you spray on your clothes or what mint you pop in your mouth. You just can't cover up the smell of smoke.

 

 

and you just gotta love this cartoon......

 

[inky pete]

Baz is right when he says that a partial ban with legally designated smoking rooms within non-smoking premises would throw up a number of problems. That's why I'm advocating a system whereby each non-food pub/club/snooker hall etc. is either one thing or the other. Even if a particular pub were to register as a smoking establishment it doesn't necessarily follow that the management would allow smoking in every part of it, just that they are not guaranteeing a completely smoke free environment throughout.

 

They could even designate special areas for the non-smokers. Since they enjoy fresh air so much, possibly outside with a nice canopy and maybe a few heaters.

 

Some pubs have relatively few smokers frequenting them, at others it's almost universal. Landlords know their own clientelle best and they are best placed to take the decision on which way to go. If only smokers - or those who are willing to indicate that they don't mind the smoke - are recruited as staff, then any liability issues would be minor. There must be ways round such things anyway - after all, our MP's voted to allow smoking to continue in bars at the Houses of Parliament. The staff there get exposed to smoke in the workplace.

[observer]

We're regurgitating the arguement but: the non-smokers were clamouring to have smoke free pubs were they; which means theoretically that 75% of folk (not that they all agree with the ban), were gagging to start using the smoke free pubs/clubs?! Reality check: they are now closing at the highest rate ever; due top lack of custom, so obviously, the health facists don't drink either!

[inky pete]

Wasn't it Wetherspoons who trialled going non-smoking before the ban came in?

 

If I remember right they were hoping that smoke free pubs would encourage the non-smokers to come in and spend money. Didn't work - the smokers went elsewhere and there weren't enough non-smoking drinkers to replace the lost trade.

 

Wetherspoons went back to being smoking pubs until the ban came in.

[Bazj]

it is a disgusting stinking habit which should have no place in our so called enlightened society. Record numbers of smokers are now giving up and it is now easier than ever to give up (except if like my wife you like to stink like an ashtray)

 

You can try and come up with all the fancy ideas of "non-smoking" or "smoking" pubs but that would have zero chance of succeeding and would probably force even more pubs out of business as landlords change their minds and staff depending on what the customers preference is that month.

 

Of course the smokers all blame pub closures on the smoking ban and never take into account the ever decreasing costs of buying 24 cans from ASDA or the fact that if you live anywhere within 100 miles of the channel ports; the chances of you buying beer or fags from a pub or even an off license is minimal. I do not drink that often but I can go to ASDA and buy 6 bottles of Corona for ?5.00 the same bottle of Corona in the Hoop and Mallet costs nearly ?3.00. Smoker or not, the obvious choioce is to buy 6 from the supermarket and stay in and watch Holby City!!

 

Next time you see a smoker, check out his fag packet and see if the health warnings are in English..... most I see are either Polish (bit of a political dig there!!) or Spanish (me mates went to Aya Nappa and brought me back 600 fags!)

[P J]

; many folk are killed by passive drinking; either by being hit by a car or by a gang of p**s heads out on the town - so are we going to ban booze too?!

 

No drinker ever intoxicated me by spitting alcohol down my throat against my will, nor have they deliberately thrown their booze over my clothing making them reek. :Baz J is correct when he says smokers stink, its a fact they do.

[observer]

So do boozers! Fact: if they had smoking pubs - they would be full; and the non-smokers could have non-smoking pubs to drink alone in!

[Bazj]

Fact: if they had smoking pubs - they would be full;

 

But they don't and won't so get over it.

 

Pack the fags in and go and enjoy a nice relaxing stink free pint in your local without having to infest the place with your filthy habit.

 

Why are all you smokers so bloody stubborn .... "well if I can't smoke inside the pub I'm not going" type of attitude. They all bang on about saving the traditional pubs but are now abandoning the very same places because they can't have their own way. It must be the addiction to the fags that clouds their judgement

[wolfie]

BazJ wrote

I hate to break it to you, but if you're a smoker, you stink.

 

And they know it, but unfortunately there is nothing that they can or will do about it because they are hooked

 

Why is it that a smoker sits with his hand outstretched so that the person sitting next to him inhales the smoke and not him

 

Why is it that most smokers drive with there windows open and then throw the stub out of the window.

 

And what about the bloke who was so horrified by what he had read of the effects of smoking that he gave up reading.

[observer]

Well Baz, as you've admitted living with two "ash trays", perhaps you need to escape to an empoty pub?!