Smoking ban sparks protests
6:30pm Wednesday 4th July 2007
Comments (134) Have your say »
A PART of the smoking ban which could see people who work from home having to put up no smoking' signs has been branded as "the nanny state gone mad" by a local politician.
The ban came into force on Sunday, and means that smokers can no longer light up in any enclosed public places.
But non-smoker Sandy Walkington, the Lib Dem parliamentary candidate for St Albans, says the ban could even creep into people's homes.
He says his wife Francesca, who runs an architectural practice from their home, has received advice from the Federation of Small Businesses saying that home offices where more than one person works, should display a no smoking sign.
Sandy, who also uses the office, said: "I don't want to put up a No Smoking sign in my own house - it is a listed building and we are not required to put up signs saying no murder', or instructions not to commit any other crimes.
"My wife Francesca has one part-time employee based with her, and I work from home too. We use what used to be the dining room. It is our home. People aren't allowed to smoke - whether in the office or anywhere else. If anyone wants to, they go out into the garden. We tell them that and anyone coming into a house will ask before they light up.
"I hope the law enforcement authorities will have better things to do with their time than enforcing this silly rule."
St Albans Conservative MP Anne Main has also seized upon the smoking ban as a stick with which to beat the Labour Government. In a Parliamentary question she pressed for an answer as to whether large scout tents would need to put up no smoking signs as they were large enclosed structures being used by the public.
She said: "I am pleased I voted for this ban in Parliament and whilst fully supportive of the principles and aims of the ban I have some reservations about the implementation of it, such as the requirement on all public places and businesses to display no smoking signs.
"Also, I am worried that there appears to be a gathering momentum to even ban smoking in areas such as parks, which in my opinion is contrary to a sense of fairness to all citizens - smokers and non-smokers alike.
"The Government has assured me that they are committed to a review of the legislation. Any people who are having problems or have a view on its implementation should make me aware so that I can let the Government know about their concerns."
Your Say YourSt Albans & Harpenden Review
Eddie d, Scotland says...
11:06pm Wed 4 Jul 07
This country has gone mad. Get rid of ASH and the other Anti-Smoking Brigade organisations and give people the Freedom of Choice.
How much public money has been and will continue to be wasted by this Government who have been conned by the Anti-Smokers.
Gordon Brown said he would listen to the people, then get this ban amended to allow smoking rooms in pubs and clubs or give Landlords the choice to be either a smoking or non-smoking pub.
IGNORE THIS STUPID BAN UNTIL THE
LAW IS CHANGED
Jenny, London says...
11:13pm Wed 4 Jul 07
Funny that they only really finally understand it when it affects them directly, isn't it?
Not too surprising to discover that they're more concerned about the facade of their property than the fact that elderly people are being chucked out into the cold and rain, or that people who fought to protect our freedoms will now spend their evenings indoors rather than out socialising. No. Their precious house frontages are far more important than that.
I don't know how the LibDems have the cheek to use the word 'Liberal' in their name. There is no major party that will speak up for our right to live our lives as we choose.
Healthism is the new fascism.
We don't all want to live to be 100+ Some of us are mature enough to accept that we cannot control everything that happens to us, and that we WILL all die one day. Some of us would just like to get through this life with a few of our pleasures intact, rather than be socially engineered into an obedient little, super fit master race.
This law has nothing to do with health. Anyone who believes that wants their head read.
Chris, SouthWest says...
7:38am Thu 5 Jul 07
As far as stupid signage and intrusion is concerned a friend lives at a farm where not a single worker smokes but they have had to place dozens of signs on every door into sheds, stables, storerooms and vehicles. The signs are a simple display of uncontrolled fanaticism & bullying by avid anti-smokers who high-jacked this country with their lies and exaggeration.
They have made a criminal of an 80 year old I saw today as he watched the world go by smoking his pipe in the shelter he has used for over 40 years. This is the inhumane action of a morally corrupt government.
Donnie, UK says...
9:19am Thu 5 Jul 07
Robert Feal-Martinez, Swindon says...
9:32am Thu 5 Jul 07
co.uk). Our site is now being flooded with requests to help and donations for the fighting fund, but we still need more. Together we can make some sense of this senseless legislation.
Steve, St Albans says...
9:35am Thu 5 Jul 07
J Stewart, England says...
9:45am Thu 5 Jul 07
Reynold, London says...
9:53am Thu 5 Jul 07
Smoking kills. It kills 50% of smokers prematurely and is responsible for the gaping chasm in death rates between rich and poor.
It's disgusting that someone thinks their 'freedom to smoke' is more important than someone else's 'freedom to not die early'.
This is the bleating of the predictable whingers who spend their lives on barstools. 2 months from now the only people who will be complaining will be the martyrs who couldn't be arsed to get prepared for the ban.
Anon, St. Albans says...
10:04am Thu 5 Jul 07
And where do all the dogooder non, anti-smoking fans think the government will get their lost taxes from when all these people stop buying cigaretttes and alchohol?
Eveyones civil liberties, freedom to choose and human rights have been infringed by this legislation and the sooner it is amended the fairer to all.
Zitori, London says...
10:19am Thu 5 Jul 07
Robert Feal-Martinez, Swindon says...
10:57am Thu 5 Jul 07
Smoking kills. It kills 50% of smokers prematurely and is responsible for the gaping chasm in death rates between rich and poor. I actually fail to see how smoking bans will remove the inequality because smoking increases among the socially deprived groups according to ASH. As for 50% being premature that is complete rubbish the average morbidity of 60% of smokers is 70 plus with 50% of those living past 80. The art of ASH and the health zealots to brainwash is always apparent on these types of threads.
www.freedom2choose.c
o.uk, Pro Choice, not Pro Smoking.
David, New Mills says...
11:08am Thu 5 Jul 07
tiresome, moans and whinges from the same familiar few. Until the revolution comes, learn to live with it.Vive la liberté du tabac!
Belinda, says...
11:26am Thu 5 Jul 07
Few?
David, New Mills says...
12:26pm Thu 5 Jul 07
jim lawler, east kilbride scotland says...
12:59pm Thu 5 Jul 07
pubs and bingo halls shutting,millions of our people now denied a long time enjoyment of their social choice,smoke police, snitch phone
lines fines and warnings
all these because our know betters in parliament have not got the brains to have a just and more reasonable act
this is an outrage
Carlos, says...
2:19pm Thu 5 Jul 07
Paul, Wells, Somerset says...
3:31pm Thu 5 Jul 07
City of Wells, Somerset...
The Cathedral Green, Wells, Somerset
Saturday 14th July 12 Miday.
Tel 07885437854 Or 07722852224
Donal McCarthy, says...
5:47pm Thu 5 Jul 07
Because that, precisely, is what it is.
Lesley Dove, Hampton, UK says...
7:38pm Thu 5 Jul 07
I am delighted about the ban, it will be great to have the freedom to try out going to a few more places I was unable to go before because of the smoke!
David, New Mills says...
9:19pm Thu 5 Jul 07
s/Charles should not assume that "hits" on a website are a measure of support. I occasionally visit those of the so-called BD and F2C, but am not inclined to support either. I am pleased that his English has apparently improved so markedly, but would prefer not to be addressed as "Dave", as I'm neither his mate, nor leader of HMG's official opposition party. Ha capito?
David, New Mills says...
9:25pm Thu 5 Jul 07
David, New Mills says...
9:35pm Thu 5 Jul 07
How do you say "ackers" in Erse?
Carlos, Putney says...
12:34am Fri 6 Jul 07
David/New Mills- Well I know some might be moles but there cant be that many. I occasionally visit ASH and indeed the late Tobacco.org and dont support them either. Ill call you Dave as you do share a lot in common with him. Hai capito ora?
Sandy, Manningtree says...
10:58am Fri 6 Jul 07
Belinda, says...
11:37am Fri 6 Jul 07
David, New Mills says...
1:16pm Fri 6 Jul 07
Nobody mentioned "moles", just visitors. Yes, I often don't wear a tie either. Lei ha capito anche?
David, New Mills says...
1:20pm Fri 6 Jul 07
Belinda, says...
7:38pm Fri 6 Jul 07
hoose.co.uk/news1.ph
p?id=271.
Seriously, even the Chinese are reading about it: http://english.peopl
e.com.cn/200707/03/e
ng20070703_389690.ht
ml
fergus, Edinburgh says...
10:59pm Fri 6 Jul 07
I know I'm exaggerating...to make a point. The smoking bans are also brought in to make a point: the point that pressure groups, like ASH, are able to dictate government policy with scare stories to keep us all in line (there are plenty of examples).
mandy, says...
11:17pm Fri 6 Jul 07
Inciting that kind of hatred, is healthy is it.
I ripped up my organ donor card after reading the things you had posted.
The Lilac Hamster, good name, are they vermin?
Now they really did cause me lots of problems a few years ago. A shame my doctor was so blinkered to my smoking, he never even asked if I had pets in my house, not helpfull
Carlos, Putney says...
1:58am Sat 7 Jul 07
David, New Mills says...
7:54am Sat 7 Jul 07
Must be a very secret backlash.When's the bubble going to burst?
David, New Mills says...
8:02am Sat 7 Jul 07
"Cravatta". I think Chico Marx called it a "neckatie".
David, New Mills says...
8:10am Sat 7 Jul 07
David, New Mills says...
8:18am Sat 7 Jul 07
shane, worksop says...
1:24pm Sat 7 Jul 07
Dieter Dirla, Henley-on-Thames says...
11:15am Mon 9 Jul 07
Karl, St Albans says...
5:42pm Tue 10 Jul 07
I do agree that people should have the choice whether to smoke or not but being an ex-smoker I prefer a non-smoking place because I can now smell how awful cigarette smoke is.
However, smoking has not been banned, only smoking in an enclosed public space due to the effect of second hand smoke on others. Smokers can go home and smoke. Smokers can go out and smoke. They just can't smoke in places where other people are forced to breath in their smoke. This would seem common sense in the same way that it is illegal to drive at 100mph. Yes, the person who is most likely to be affected by your action is yourself and you have the right to choose that but it is probable that your action will affect someone else.
I agree that when I was a smoker I would have found this problematic but I would have got used to it soon. I remember smoking being OK on the tube in London but when the Kings Cross fire occurred smoking was banned and I couldnt imagine how I was going to cope travelling for an hour without a cigarette. A few months later I had no issue with it at all.
Now you could argue that the Kings Cross fire was actually caused by bad management of the station or reduced funding as it is believed that the fire was caused by a cigarette butt dropped into piled paper waste that had been accumulating due to the station not being cleaned properly but I think most people would agree that the risk was too great to continue to allow smoking on the underground.
It is dictation but it is not an act of a "nanny state". That would be if they made it illegal to smoke to protect people who would otherwise have smoked. The aim of this enclosed public place has been to protect non-smokers.
As a non-smoker I found that very few pubs were non-smoking until this ban certainly none of the good pubs. This was due to most publicans believing that it would reduce their turnover. Well if they are all non-smoking then non-smoking pubs wont lose clients to other pubs that allow smoking.
Looking for the silver cloud for smokers (of smoke?) youll smoke less so youll save money, you may live a few years longer and may have a better quality of life through better health as you get older. And some of you may, of course escape the slavery of lighting up every time the pangs start!
Dieter Dirla, Henley-on-Thames, UK says...
1:28am Wed 11 Jul 07
No, actually, just reasoned argument, from me anyway.
>>>It is dictation but it is not an act of a "nanny state". That would be if they made it illegal to smoke to protect people who would otherwise have smoked. The aim of this enclosed public place has been to protect non-smokers.<<<
The ultimate aim is to stop people smoking in their own homes as has been demonstrated very clearly here and in other countries. Look at the research results of the many studies and you will see for yourself that there is no conclusive proof of a link between passive smoking and an increased risk of cancer, I have. It is perfectly clear from the actual scientific results of these studies, including the research done by the World Health Organisation which could not establish a link. This article in the Telegraph might remove the blinkers from your eyes:- http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/news/main.jht
ml?xml=/news/2007/07
/01/nbook101.xml
Paul Toole, Wells, Somerset says...
1:50am Wed 11 Jul 07
Please read my dilema...its crazy...
http://www.thisiswel
ls.co.uk/displayNode
.jsp?nodeId=222650&c
ommand=displayConten
t&sourceNode=241504&
home=yes&more_nodeId
1=223370&contentPK=1
7737079
I'm organising a protest march with plenty of media attention, and it would be great of you out there in helping our cause to pop along...
http://www.freedom2c
hoose.co.uk/news_vie
wer.php?id=283
Karl, St Albans says...
6:33pm Wed 11 Jul 07
By re-reading my post you may notice that I never deny that this issue is over-dramatised. I also point out, however periphrastically, that smokers have been blamed for situations which were not, in my opinion, their fault .
On the other hand I would suggest that the proof of a link is very hard to determine when everyone is exposed to smokey atmospheres. Even non-smokers have relatives and friends who smoke, as do I. My ex-girlfriend was 40 a day and my brother is 60 a day.
I would also suggest that cigarette smoke whether passive or active is likely not to be the only cause of lung cancer, further adding to the difficulties of providing absolute proof.
However, irrespective of statistically proven links between passive smoking and lung cancer it is indisputably proven that chemicals in cigarette smoke cause cancer. Not least by the dramatically increased statistical incidence of cancer among smokers.
It therefore follows that whether or not there is an indisputably proven link between passive smoking and an increased propensity to lung cancer, it is likely that there is. For you to suggest that the lack of proof that passive smoking is harmful is proof that passive smoking is harmless is not logical.
As I said in my previous post, I support your freedom to choose to smoke. However, as an ex-smoker I am glad that I now have a greater choice of where to go without having to breath in smoke. While this largely did not bother me, I am grateful that it will now never bother me again.
Dieter Dirla, Henley-on-Thames says...
8:56pm Wed 11 Jul 07
Dieter Dirla, Henley-on-Thames says...
9:21pm Wed 11 Jul 07
I'll be the bald guy wearing a black T-shirt emblazoned with the words
"PROUD SMOKER........" (I don't wanna spoil it for ya)
I smoke in my van too, my van, my choice, my right.
Keep the faith Paul, with every over zealous action they take, the resentment grows, even amongst the tolerant non-smokers as I've been finding out from people I've spoken to. Fascism by it's very nature of mistrust and deception will destroy itself in the end, it's just that I have grown impatient, I will not be made to feel like an outcast. When I smoke I do so with pride.
I am proud to stand up for the rights and freedoms that more than 100 thousand British people sacrificed their lives for during the second world war and I'll be damned if I will allow them to have died in vain.
Karl, St Albans says...
1:26pm Thu 12 Jul 07
Can a risk of death be blown out of proportion? If it was proven that someone with AIDS, knowingly and without informing a sexual partner or using a condom infected that partner who later dies they would likely be prosecuted for manslaughter. If a passive smoker dies of lung cancer caused by passive smoking, such as it is believed of Roy Castles death, who should be in court? Both of these situations are difficult to prove but the second also provides a protection by numbers of the smoker. Logically, the police cannot arrest every smoker that the person ever breathed the smoke of.
Smokers do have a choice of where to smoke. At home, outside or in private vehicles. Prior to this ban, out of 7 public houses in my village, only one had a non-smoking area and that was a small area being used for food, with uncomfortable seating and no atmosphere. There is a perceived link between smoking and drinking. Therefore the problem with a choice to allow or disallow smoking is that no publican would have taken it up as they feared losing trade to the pub down the road.
Amongst the problems of a partial ban would have been difficulties with certain buildings not having separate areas. Many of those would have been pubs, often listed and so unable to adequate internal partitioning. What do you do? Tell them to stop trading?
As regards the fact this was brought in in Summer Yes I was thinking that myself as I passed a pub last night that never used to have outside tables. It now has 3 or 4 and they were all being used by smokers. To note though that the pub was also full of people who were not smoking at that moment, whether or not they were smokers, I didnt ask. I think youll get used to the Winter. Youll just know that if you go out you will have to deal with not smoking. If you are such an addict that you cant deal with that then youll suffer standing outside or youll stay at home.
Well the nice day in the Summer point is farcical wherever it was reported. If it has been reported that this is happening then Id ask if it was not just sensationalist journalism. The arguments about other peoples smoke does indeed apply but then the responsibility lies with the non-smoker too. Two steps away for a smoker outside and you cant even smell the smoke. Implemetnting a ban outside would also naturally call into question whether we should ban all but particulate free exhaust from vehicles.
The medical treatment thing is an old argument. It is not as simple as, I have paid enough money in cigarette tax, in my lifetime, to cover any medical expenses due to smoking. This is not a 1-for-1 calculation. Some smokers, who have a little bronchitis for the year before they die will have overpaid tax but like the insurance charges you pay for your car the total monies collected have to cover everyone. A couple of examples
My step-father smoked cigars for about 4 years and got cancer in his gums. He had to have his teeth removed and a false tooth plate, provided by the NHS. He then had sinus cancer and had to have surgery and chemo-therapy for that. Last year he was admitted to hospital for lung cancer and had to have half a lung removed. Afterwards he had to have extensive rehabilitation therapy and is now on continuous medication. Due to his medical condition the local council is paying for my grandmothers care home as the rule in their area is that when a person is on medical benefit they cannot recoup the cost of care from the equity in the home they are living in, despite the house my step-father lives in being owned by my grandmother. He did not nearly pay enough tax in those 4 years to cover all the related costs and I havent even mentioned the cost to industry of the time he had to have off from work due to his illnesses.
I, on the other hand, smoked for 22+ years, so paid a great deal of tax but have had to have significant dental work due to gum recession and have had blood clots without any clear reason other than poor circulation caused by smoking. I was also submitted to hospital suffering an asthma attack caused by smoking while I had (unknown to me) a lung infection. I may have paid more tax than the treatment I required but its not certain.
My grandfather smoked for approx 7 years while he was in the army and at 76 had a heart attack. During tests, they found cancer in his lungs and decided that, although they could operate with a reasonable chance of curing the cancer but because of weakness due to the recent heart attack he would have died. So rather than operating and actively killing him they just gave him morphine against the pain and let him die. Due to him having smoked many years ago when tax was less, it is unlikely that he paid enough in those 7 years for the medical care he received.
Now despite the above being emotive, the rational argument is that in some cases the tax paid will exceed the requirement for hospital treatment but in many case it will not. Taking into account secondary costs such as costs to industry in time off work etc. I would not be surprised if the tax covered the total cost of only a small number of smokers.
Medical treatment needs to be prioritised. It is logical to prioritise due to need but if further prioritisation is required then treating a smoker for a smoking related disease that is necessarily self-inflicted at a lower priority than a non-smoker for an accidental injury or illness seems logical to me. On the other hand I can see that this is a dangerous road to go down so would not condone it. If a person is diagnosed with lung cancer but swears they are not a smoker, who makes that call?
Smoking in cars is not banned yet. However, if a person is smoking while driving then is that any different to using a mobile phone? It is still something which takes the drivers concentration from the road. Many times, I myself have dropped a cigarette in my lap while driving and jumped and wriggled and moved around till I managed to stub it out or pick it up. Thats not dangerous to other road users?
If the car is stationary in a safe position then, as with mobile phones, it would seem rather stupid to ban that but of course, as with smoking at home, there is a good argument that the insurers should increase your premiums to take account of the increased risk of fire :o) They could then reduce the premiums for the non-smokers. Currently, non-smokers are subsidizing the risks taken by smokers. I myself have dropped off and dropped the cigarette I was smoking into the bed thank goodness for modern fire retardant materials! My father burned his bed linen to ashes but thankfully my Mum was quick with the bucket of water and prevented it spreading.
As I said, I support your freedom to smoke but you have to consider the effect you are having on others.
Smokers simply do not take responsibility for the full extent of the effects of their addiction.
Paul, Wells, Somerset says...
3:46pm Thu 12 Jul 07
There is now such a divide in society between Smokers & Non smokers, it seems the government really has done it worst this time. Some people surely are brainwashed.....sham
e!
Karl, St Albans says...
4:16pm Thu 12 Jul 07
It amazes me now, the firm belief that a smoker has that they are actually enjoying a cigarette when in reality they are just relieving the cravings caused by the nicotine itself. I was fooled for 20 odd years myself!!
Alan Carrs material is very good for helping you to understand your addiction
http://www.allencarr
.com/central/article
/107/google-search-d
iscount
I fail to see what the government has to do with that though. Surely thats between you and the nicotine and surely the divide is a natural reaction by non-smokers due to smoke being potentially dangerous.
Would you actively persuade your kids to smoke?
paul, Wells, Somerset says...
5:51pm Thu 12 Jul 07
Potentially dangerous..?....Wher
e's the proof? do you have any documentation?
The government has destroyed the simplist practice which this country stands for, being freedom & Democracy
Karl, St Albans says...
6:06pm Thu 12 Jul 07
Are you seriously claiming that there has never been any evidence to suggest that smoking causes certain diseases?
I pity you your enslavement!
Karl, St Albans says...
6:16pm Thu 12 Jul 07
Lung Cancer
http://www.mrc.ac.uk
/YourHealth/StoriesD
iscovery/Smoking/ind
ex.htm
Mouth and Throat Cancer
http://info.cancerre
searchuk.org/news/pr
essreleases/2006/aug
ust/198924
Bronchitis & Emphysema
http://www.mrc.ac.uk
/YourHealth/HealthAr
ticles/ChronicObstru
ctivePulmonaryDiseas
e/index.htm
And I have not even mentioned heart disease, stomach ulcers, circulation issues that have various effects etc.
John C., Switzerland says...
11:52pm Wed 18 Jul 07
I just get this funny feeling that you are not an ex-smoker and may just be a supporter or whatever of this brainwashing club known as ASH. It's just an impression, I do admit. It's just that fanaticism seems to shine through your posts and all individual thought processes seem to have died.
Luckily, the majority of people who have posted seem to see things differently.
I will light up my smoke and say a silent prayer that your thinking will clear up over time.
Karl, St Albans says...
7:36am Thu 19 Jul 07
I'm not a member of ASH. I really know anything about them though I can see they've riled the smokers on here somewhat.
As I have posted previously, I do support your right to smoke.
My though processes certainly have not died. I do, however, have a reasonable of personal experience of smoking related diseases and indeed had negative effects of smoking occur to me and nearly kill me so I'm sure you can appreciate that I would not want to promote smoking.
Would you advise your children to start smoking? To take up smoking bacause it is such fun and harmless to them?
paul, Wells, Somerset says...
5:46pm Thu 19 Jul 07
Karl wrote:Woul you advise your kids to go out drinking and get involved with anti social behaviour?
Hello John I'm not a member of ASH. I really know anything about them though I can see they've riled the smokers on here somewhat. As I have posted previously, I do support your right to smoke. My though processes certainly have not died. I do, however, have a reasonable of personal experience of smoking related diseases and indeed had negative effects of smoking occur to me and nearly kill me so I'm sure you can appreciate that I would not want to promote smoking. Would you advise your children to start smoking? To take up smoking bacause it is such fun and harmless to them?
Listen, this can go on and on......
There is as yet no prove on passive smoking.
The government brought in the law to protect workers and not the public or the smoker.
Using an air filtration unit clean the air 99.70%, which is cleaner than a non smoking venue.
I think the main argument here, is that the government didn't give people the vote or even choice on this subject.
The governments tobacco control authority in Ireland has seen a rise in smokers by 2% since last year, so along with loss of jobs and venues being closed, i see the smoke ban has no effect.
Karl, St Albans says...
9:50pm Thu 19 Jul 07
I've answered your question, please answer mine. Would you advise your kids to smoke? Spend £5.50 a day to take a risk with their health.
With regard to what the main argument is - if the act is dangerous then it is the responsibility of people who want smoking to continue in these places to prove it is not damaging to others health.
Potentially causing someones death by a crippling disease is not a game chap. It is also not a risk that is worth taking to fuel your addictive enslavement.
There is nothing wrong with you smoking, just don't pollute my air any more than it already is hey.
Air filtration units take a period of time to clean the air, so that point is moot.
Paul, Wells, Somerset says...
12:13pm Fri 20 Jul 07
It wont be long now until the Government will be forced into making exceptions with regard to the smoke free law.
If i had children (which i dont) it will be entirely up to them as to if they wanted to smoke. PROVIDED....they were of age!!!
I still throw the subject that people should be able to decide for themselves if they want to frequent a smoking/non smoking venue, and still contest that passive/second hand smoke has conclusivly not been proven to cause death.
As you say, i know i have the right to smoke, and you also have the right not to enter a smoking venue, thus keeping everyone happy and content.
Perhaps you'd like to watch a BBC news link
http://news.bbc.co.u
k/player/nol/newsid_
6900000/newsid_69055
00/6905541.stm?bw=bb
&mp=wm&news=1&ms3=6&
nol_storyid=6905541
Karl, St Albans says...
1:30pm Fri 20 Jul 07
1 person who has made 101 who smokes? My Uncle smoked 40+ a day and was up and down ladders until he was 95 then he dropped down dead of a heart attack. Until that point he certainly seemed fit thoguh I didn't live with him so I don't know the real facts. I notice in the clip they don't mention how much she smokes either.
This clouds the point though - for every person who reaches a high age with no issues there are tens, perhaps hundreds who don't.
Of course this refers to smoking and not passive smoking and the risks and high likelihood of crippling or fatal diseases is proven. With smoking any health issues you get, yourself, are self-inflicted so please do get on with it. I don't judge you to be in any way bad for that though I could point out that, as their role model, you are teaching your children to be smokers. You are leading them to a life of enslavement to a drug that gives them no pleasure bar relieving the symptoms the drug itself causes and cerainly kills people and certainly reduces their quality of life.
With passive smoking it would be expected, even if it remains as yet unproven, that those effects are to someway, to some degree, being inflicted on those around you. Potentially killing those people around you.
How could anyone validate that act. It is effectively manslaughter, like getting into a car drunk.
I already answered the point about some establishments becoming non-smoking and some remaining smoking but to re-iterate. It simply did not work to date. Pubs always had the option to become non-smoking if they wanted to. Every establishment remained smoking in order to protect their business.
In St Albans there was only one pub that I know of that was non-smoking before the ban was announced (Wicked Lady was it on the way to Wheathampstead?). That's of over 150.
In my village only one of seven had even a non-smoking section, as I highlighted before.
The fact is that by cleaning the air you are not being harmed, not even potentially. By allowing smoking you are risking killing people.
If the pro-smoking lobby provided independent evidence that passive smoking categorically does not cause any illness and maybe the debate should be re-opened. Showing that it is not proven that it does is just not enough.
Paul, Wells, Somerset says...
2:32pm Fri 20 Jul 07
But lastly, allow me to draw your very kind attention to the following article from the Health & Safety Executive to be reviewed next in 2011.
A tout a l'heure!
http://web.archive.o
rg/web/2006111007551
8/http://www.hse.gov
.uk/foi/internalops/
fod/oc/200-299/255_1
5.pdf
Paul, Wells, Somerset says...
2:33pm Fri 20 Jul 07
Sorry i forgot, i will be quicker for you to go straight to article 9
Karl, St Albans says...
2:57pm Fri 20 Jul 07
The hse article that it supposedly refers to in not found on the hse website. Perhaps it was there once, perhaps it never was?
It has certainly never been proven that passiove smoking is harmless. If you look at the British Medical Journal website or the British Medical Association website you will see that there have been plenty of studies that have found passive smoking to be dangerous.
A brief is here -
http://www.bma.org.u
k/ap.nsf/Attachments
ByTitle/PDFsmokescre
en/$FILE/BehindtheSm
okescreen.pdf
Whatever you choose to believe though, the fact remains that it is better to protect other people and threaten your addiction than protect your addiction and threaten other people.
You stand to lose comfort, they stand to lose their lives.
Paul, Wells, Somerset says...
3:18pm Fri 20 Jul 07
Karl wrote:The article has been withdrawn for the simple reason HSE have told their departments to destroy the article....WHY???
Well the web.archive.org website is not accessible from work as it is classed as a computer system risk. Not trying to give me PC cancer too are you ;o) The hse article that it supposedly refers to in not found on the hse website. Perhaps it was there once, perhaps it never was? It has certainly never been proven that passiove smoking is harmless. If you look at the British Medical Journal website or the British Medical Association website you will see that there have been plenty of studies that have found passive smoking to be dangerous. A brief is here - http://www.bma.org.u k/ap.nsf/Attachments ByTitle/PDFsmokescre en/$FILE/BehindtheSm okescreen.pdf Whatever you choose to believe though, the fact remains that it is better to protect other people and threaten your addiction than protect your addiction and threaten other people. You stand to lose comfort, they stand to lose their lives.
We know the reason why!! Pitty that the chosen few including yourself don't open your eyes and smell the coffee that we're all being lied to!!
END OF!!
Karl, St Albans says...
4:16pm Fri 20 Jul 07
You can't honestly expect me to trust an article that no longer exists or expect me to believe it has been removed in some conspiracy. You'll notice the website I provide is there and hasn't been removed.
Addictions are known to make one paranoid you know :o?
The issue is simple:
Pro smoking in enclised public places: Allow you to smoke in enclosed public spaces to make your addiction more comfortable but risk killing other people or reducing the quality of their life through smoking related illness.
Anti smoking in enclosed public places: Smoker takes his addiction elsewhere but people protected from the harmful effects of his smoke...
...including the provision of role models to impressionable children who may see it as trendy, suave or mature to smoke.
The kids will now see shivering drowned rats standing outside desperately feeding their addictons like so many heroine addicts desperately injecting.
Or, of course, just stay at home or get into your private vehicle and smoke?
John C., Switzerland says...
12:14am Mon 23 Jul 07
I see that you are the resident Ashite on this site. While appreciate that it must be difficult getting through life without the ability to think, you really must start to be more original. Nobody believes your rants anymore. We have seen what happens when fanatics get their way. 'nuff said.
In disgust, yours truly. John.
Karl, St Albans says...
7:37am Mon 23 Jul 07
I don't belong to ASH. Even if I did though, why would that make my points any less valid?
Why are you even interested if you live in Switzerland?
Enough has been said though, I agree on that point.
If you can't see why the ban is a good idea from all the information to had then you are a commited smoker who is in self-denial.
Paul, Wells says...
12:29pm Mon 23 Jul 07
But Karl, i think your a huge idiot who is sadly in denial....
Karl, St Albans says...
1:56pm Mon 23 Jul 07
In what way am I an idiot? I'm sure everything I've written on here is either proveably true or my personal thoughts.
I certainly feel an idiot in that I smoked for 22 years and inflicted smoking related illnesses on myself at huge expense.
Modern day costs of this habit? ... well I used to smoke at leats 20 a day. 40 sometimes on the weekend.
Lets say £5 per day, so the minimum you would be spending over the next 22 years on your habit, if you last that long and if the prices were frozen = £5 x 364 days x 22 years = > £40,000
That's a lot of money for you to burn!
paul, wells, somerset says...
3:08pm Mon 23 Jul 07
I remarked about you being an idiot because you totally dismissed Clause 9 on OC/255/15.
The law on smoke free areas was brought in on the phoney evidence they had on passive smoking.
You may be a reformed smoker,( The worst of all) but you might lapse back into again someday...then i'm sure you'll agree your freedoms have been taken away
Karl, St Albans says...
4:03pm Mon 23 Jul 07
The document was not available to me as it is on a site that my company considers is of questionable security. I have therefore not seen clause 9. However, as I have confirmed, I dont care if it has not been proven that passive smoking is harmful but I found a number of documents on the British Medical Association website that confirms that it has been proven.
As smoking oneself has been proven to cause a number of life diminishing and potentially fatal illnesses it would seem totally illogical for passive smoking to be harmless. Proof of a causal link is likely to be very hard to show but the reports on the BMA website confirm that it has been proven statistically.
If the BMA are posting this information I think this is unlikely to be phoney information.
I am a reformed smoker but, as Ive said in almost every post, I support your right to smoke, I just dont support your right to gamble with other peoples lives. What is so wrong with you smoking outside or in your car, if its cold, or just staying at home?
John C., Switzerland says...
11:52pm Mon 23 Jul 07
I grew up not far from St. Albans and I have a brother who still lives near too. I always liked St. Albans so I suppose it is a bit of nostalgia to join this blog. If I had known that it was reserved for local residents only then I wouldn't have been so presumptious.
The document Paul was refering to can be found on the web site from www.freedom2choose.c
o.uk
Even you will be able to understand that it has been altered and re-released as number 16. Their blunder has been deliberately "disappeared", Pinochet style. Read some of the other information and you will see that up 'til now you have made rather a lot of INvalid statements!
This is a group of NON smokers and smokers who are not affiliated to the tobacco industry in any way.
I have two grown up children who are both non smokers BY THEIR OWN CHOICE. If I had tried to ban it then they might not be. Ask any phychologist and they will tell you that the role model of the parents is not so important, peer pressure, and the confidence to withstand it, is.
In Ireland the percentage of 15 to 18 year old smokers has increased from 18.5% to 21.5% since the ban. 1400 pubs have closed down and 25000 jobs lost, mainly in rural areas. Ireland now has a new desease called "social isolation".
I think you would have to agree that this is a brilliant sucess.
I also still think you are an Ashite but it doesn't really matter.
Try to keep an open mind, it's the only one you've got.
Karl, St Albans says...
4:34pm Tue 24 Jul 07
The document Paul was refering to is still not available to me. The site to which the link refers is deemed unsafe by my IT security department.
I could however see the newer document and see nothing in there that is contentious with what I have written, though, of course you are going to tell me thats because of the documents clean up. This was not the disappearance of a human being so you are exaggerating with the Pinochet comment. This is indicative of the smoking related stress you guys are under.
I did notice that you are a member of the websites team and have sworn to publicise it, so I take it your posting is part of that promise. I notice also that one of the team is an ex-salesman of smoke filtration systems for pubs and bars and admits freely to having lost his business.
Perhaps all the non-smokers you claim are on the site team used to make their living one way or another from smoking? Manufacturers of the various smoning related paraphernalia: ash trays, lighters, cigar clippers, tobacconists themselves, hypnotists that promise to remove your addiction for a handsome fee, etc.?
I am glad your children dont smoke. The wisdom of the young? At no point did I say you should ban you r children from smoking, I only stated that one of my reasons for giving up was to be a good role-model for my Son. It would be very difficult to advise a child not to smoke due to the health risks and financial slavery of the addiction while puffing on a cigarette.
There is no disease called social isolation. This is a description in social science of people not communicating or socialising enough and used to be used in connection with distant communities in rural locations. I have also heard it used with reference to the increased use of computer games amongst children. The smoking ban has not caused this as if people wanted to go out and socialise they could. The smoking ban certainly does not ban social activity. I havent smokes in several years and yet socialise quite happily more so now that the ban has increase the number of places I can comfortably go to (OK sorry flippant pre-ban I socialised quite happily).
You seem to be mixing up the issue here.
The issue is about whether someone should have the freedom to smoke but be banned from inflicting diseases caused by smoke on others. I would much rather inflict the disease of social isolation on some nicotine addicted people than serious, potentially fatal diseases on others.
Open mind? You are a fine one to talk. You sound like Golem, My precious!
paul, Wells says...
11:11pm Tue 24 Jul 07
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT DISEASE CAN BE PASSED VIA PASSIVE SMOKING....Its a huge con
Karl, St Albans says...
7:51am Wed 25 Jul 07
Please have a look at the bma web links above and you will see that there is a statistically proven link between passive smoking and the diseases in question.
But coming to motive...something you guys haven't explained from your addictive prisons is why non-smokers and ASH want to stop smoking. If it were financial, would it not be simpler just to accept hush money from the tobacco industry?
John C., Switzerland says...
12:15am Fri 27 Jul 07
It is a waste of time trying to debate anything with Karl. As an Ashite he seems to have no knowledge beyond the little red book of chairman Glantz.
He is not an ex-smoker , he has no relations who have suffered illness from a smoke related desease. This is pure Ashite propaganda for the gullible.
He has no knowledge whatsoever of Ireland or the situation that exists there now. He has no understanding of the average Brit and how long it takes to get him riled.
I joined freedom2choose on the 26th of July. I have never joined a political party or any other group in my 55 years on this earth. Having heard the total lying crap that this guy gave out, I revised my thinking and decided that I had to draw the line.
I am a brit and proud of, this guy is not a brit and doesn't understand what that means. The people of St. Albans do and that will always ba a mystery to him. I hope that he will put his jackboots back on, click his heels twice and go back under his stone.
PS. The idiot quotes from Lord of the rings. He has possibly seen the film but obviously hasn't read the book. J.R. Tolkien was a smoker, Gandalf and Strider smoked. The Hobbits Pipin and Meriadoc enjoyed "Longbottom leaf" when they found it.
The mind boggles!!
The other thing, ASH want control the same as the nazis did. You don't need hush money from the tobacco industry, you are taking far more from RWJJ!
Karl, St Albans says...
10:13am Fri 27 Jul 07
The nicotine is confusing you, in addition to you having no riposte.
You speak of ASH using propaganda, yet continue to use the propagandist term Ashite. This is self-contradictory. I am no member of ASH and have indeed had relations who have been badly affected by smoking. My grandfather certainly died of a smoking related disease, as did one uncle.
I did a web-check on Glantz and he appears to be a professor who wrote a paper on suspect activities of tobacco companies based on leaked papers. He doesnt appear to have been a chairman. I can only imagine this is a further propagandist statement, trying to associate him with a negative view of Chinese communism?
I do actually know a few Irish people who have welcomed the change there but I dont really care about that as each country has the right to its own law making.
Being British, I do know about the average Brit. I have also not lied in any of my postings. Though clearly the postings project my point of view, I have given my reasons for having those views. I would imagine that the members of ASH have been riled by investors in the tobacco industry earning large amounts of money from the misery, illness and death of others, very possibly relations of theirs.
I am a Brit, who chooses to live in Britain, not an ex-pat who has given up his country, albeit possibly temporarily, to make a little extra money abroad making me, very possibly more patriotic than you so that argument is moot. I do indeed understand what being British means. Being British means being born in Britain or becoming naturalized British though I fail to understand the relevance of this line of argument to the point in question.
I really dont understand the jackboot point. Is this some tribal or racial reference to my first name being a modern German name? Maybe the click-heels comment is a reference to Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz? Though Im sure that was click-heels three times or am I mistake? or maybe the point is again a tribal or racial issue you have, heel clicking being part of the stereotype of a German salute.
Yes, the characters in Lord of the Rings smoked. This was written at a time when people did not understand the full implications of smoking. Perhaps, if it was written more recently, only the Orcs would have smoked. Sauron might have been a tobacco magnate. In any case, it is a work of fantasy so I fail to see the relevance of the point. I only quoted because it was amusing that you sounded like Gollem, who is clearly suffering an self-destructive, addictive response to contact with the ring, mirroring your self-destructive, addictive response to inhalation of tobacco smoke.
The LongBottom leaf was also a clearly a reference to Marijuana. If you are smoking this then it is perhaps no wonder that your mind boggles ;o)
You state that ASH want control the same as the nazis did. Are you seriously suggesting that ASH want to kill millions of people based on minor genetic variation?
I personally would consider the two quite opposite. One used poisonous gas (in addition to other means) to kill millions of innocent people where the other, I understand, is attempting to prevent poisonous gases being inflicted in millions of innocent people.
That is really quite an offensive part of your post to anyone of the Jewish community or who has relations who died in the Second World War.
Its not clear what RWJJ is but I doubt they have the spend of the tobacco industry.
John. C., Switzerland says...
10:56pm Fri 27 Jul 07
I live on the border to germany and played football in a german team for 15 years. I also lived 5 years in Frankfurt. Most of my best friends are german. You really don't know what you are talking about.
I spent the first 7 years of my life in Golders Green and my first school was a jewish school. At that time my friend were jewish. Our next door neighbours were jewish and we all got on brilliantly. What on earth is up with you.
You equate "longbottom leaf" with majuyana because you don't understand what it is really about.
Get somebody older that yourself to explain it.
I come from the tolerant end of the scale, you come from the intolerant end.
I understand that ASH have said that you must always have the last word as that is supposed to give a good impression. We know all about that. We know all about people like yourself.
Bigotry will get you nowhere in the end.
In my personal opinion, you are an insult to humanity.
Karl, St Albans says...
11:45pm Fri 27 Jul 07
Erm - yes - Longbottom Leaf is well renowned to imply Marijuana, though Tolkien denied it (a little too strenuously perhaps?). But pray do tell what it is "really about"?
How old do you think I am John? You seem to imply that I'm a child yet you also imply that I belong to ASH. Now I presume the two aren't mutually exclusive but I am not a child.
You're not really tollerant are you? I mean you are quite aggressive in your posts depsite me being quite logical. You can't come back with a logical argument so you come back with meaningless aggressive posts.
ASH may have a policy that they try to write the last comment but how would I know? You sound very stressed and very paranoid. This is your addiction talking.
In what way am I being bigoted? Again you are being self-contradictory. I certainly don't deny your beliefs just the validity of any evidence you have put forward.
You think I'm an insult to humanity? Why?
You are a very strange man John.
John C., Switzerland says...
11:45pm Sun 29 Jul 07
Karl, St Albans says...
8:24am Mon 30 Jul 07
Paul, Wells, Somerset says...
6:30pm Mon 30 Jul 07
Can you please let me know if you and others will be able to attend, so I know roughly the numbers.
The media will be covering this event, this is our second march here in Somerset, and I think as long as we keep this going in the public eye, we'll be winning all the time.
Take a look at the following link, this was the previous march held in Wells in July.
March in Wells
So once again, please do let me know if you can attend by emailing me at:- opposetheban@aol.com
All the best.
Paul
Karl, St Albans says...
6:46pm Mon 30 Jul 07
Enjoy your day but don't go lighting up in the pub now... :o)
JC, Switzerland says...
1:15am Wed 1 Aug 07
In this is poor old Karl right. It is about the only thing he has been right about so let's give him his due.
www.freedom2choose.c
o.uk is getting close to 200'000 hits a day and membership is climbing exponentially. Have a cry Karl.
Karl, St Albans says...
7:57am Wed 1 Aug 07
Fortunately, now that the ban is in place, this will decrease. As you would like though, I'm sure there are many more people who will die of smoking related diseases yet, before the long term effect.
Hmmm - 200,000 - 0.3% of the population. I doubt somehow that the government will re-introduce smoking, risking the lives and health of millions for so few.
Oh - and the site you gave me for the HSE document is not available, even outside of work so I wonder if it ever did exist?
Paul, Wells, Somerset says...
10:17am Wed 1 Aug 07
Why dont you contact HSE directly and enquire about OC 255/15 and comapare it to OC 255/16
You obviously clearly don't understand figures, perhaps your still using a abacus?
Figures show that since last year there has been a rise of 2% in smokers in Ireland- so is the ban working?
Ironicly figures are to due to decrease here in the UK in Oct when the age smoking goes from 16 to 18....so i guess that will be the next SPIN story that the smoke ban has worked.
Karl, St Albans says...
10:58am Wed 1 Aug 07
One is: someone who entertains by japery - well that's not me.
Another is someone who is foolish; who acts without thinking. Well I have expended much thought on the matter so thats not me either.
I would suggest though that this would cover someone who takes dangerous risks without thinking.
Clearly this covers yourself.
Smoking is known to cause seriously debilitating illness yet you are foolish enough to smoke. You get no true pleasure out of the act of smoking and the only perceived pleasure you get is the relief of the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal, which the habit of smoking has itself caused in you.
In addition to your own foolishness, you wish to inflict this potential harm on others! You are not only foolish but a danger to those around you.
Incidentally, the link you provided to the HSE document suddenly started working shortly after my post this morning so I have now seen it. Section 9 only confirms what I had put in a post myself that a causal link is difficult to prove. It advises HSE inspectors to be careful about taking proceedings against businesses unless those affected are known to be pregnant or already have smoking related illnesses that will be directly exacerbated by passive smoking.
So, lets just recap You have no basis of argument from whatsoever to imply that second hand smoke does not cause illness in others. You can only say that it has not been categorically proven.
I, for one, would not wish to take the risk with the life of any non-smoker to allow you to inflict that harm upon them, whether just mild bronchitis taking them off work for a few days or lung cancer killing them.
Smoke if you wish to at home, in your car or outside where the wind will disperse the poisons.
JC, europe says...
11:22pm Sat 4 Aug 07
JC, europe says...
12:39am Sun 5 Aug 07
Nigel bray, says...
2:43am Mon 6 Aug 07
Sleep tight folks
Karl, St Albans says...
11:27am Mon 6 Aug 07
There is not one piece of evidence that shows SHS to be harmelss. You repeating that it has been proven does not make it so where is the evidence? SHS is statistically proven to cause serious, debilitating and potentially fatal illness. The HSE document only advises inspectors not to take action except in easily proved cases.
Are you seriously suggesting that inhalation of smoke that proveably contains chemical cancinergens (e.g. benzene) and carbon monoxide has been proven to do no harm?
What on earth has neo-nazism got to do with smoking and what statistics are you referring to? Are you seriously suggesting that there is some evidence that the smoking ban is anything to do with Nazism.
John, you are a looney but then isnt any smoker? All smokers are committing suicide by a method that is highly likely to be painful and harrowing for themselves and their family and they pay for the privilege!...and they derive no pleasure f
Nigel - Yes of course non-smokers die every day but with this ban, hopefully far fewer will die of smoking related diseases inflicted on them by other selfish members of the population, in order not that they can feed their habit but just so that they can feed their habit more conveniently.
nigel, 120-187 says...
11:58pm Mon 6 Aug 07
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Karl, St Albans says...
6:43am Tue 7 Aug 07
But you know:
1. You don't have to read them.
2. If you're going to respond it would make sense for you to proffer an argument that supports your cause.
Unfortunately there is no argument to support smoking as a sensible or enjoyable thing to do or to argue the validity of allowing you to smoke in enclosed public places.
Maybe one day Nigel, when you get a serious smoking related illness, or someone you care about does, you'll wake up.
nigel, says...
3:18pm Tue 7 Aug 07
Nigel, says...
3:22pm Tue 7 Aug 07
Karl, St Albans says...
4:32pm Tue 7 Aug 07
Post 2: I dont need to masterbate I have a partner who satisfies me and gave up smoking before it caused me to become impotent
nigel, says...
1:46am Sun 12 Aug 07
Karl, St Albans says...
12:07pm Sun 12 Aug 07
Of course, you will die and as a smoker you are likely to die of a smoking related disease, significantly earlier than you would have had you not smoked and are highly likely to suffer serious debilitation before you die.
Wishing to inflict that on others is wrong - simple as that...
nigel, says...
5:56pm Mon 13 Aug 07
Karl, St Albans says...
7:14pm Mon 13 Aug 07
As I said before, if you smoke and think this has anything to do with freedom, you are a looney. I have nothing against you being a looney but just keep your smoke out of others way.
Kill yourself, kill your family but leave the rest of us alone.
You get into a car and you are driving a weapon but that weapon has other useful purposes. It enables you to go about your business; make money, fetch your kids, follow a romantic life, etc.
You light up a cigarette and it does nothing but momentarily assauge your desperate nicotine cravings and kill you. If you smoke in the company of others, especially in enclosed spaces you threaten to kill them too.
The only people who truly benefit from your obsession are the tobacco companies, their investors and people in secondary industries, like ash tray manufacturers. Not an investor yourself are you Nige...or have a business installing air-con??
The galling thing is that you wish to inflict this slow death on others and state that it is your right and that it is a loss of freedom!
The only freedom you have lost is to kill and maim.
nigel, says...
5:49pm Tue 14 Aug 07
Karl, St Albans says...
10:14pm Tue 14 Aug 07
Oops - I forgot, you can't! The cravings probably got the better of you and you had to light up...
what has stalin got to do with anything. You do write a lot of tosh.
I have lots of mates. You're killing yours of course every time you light up in a room with them there.
nigel, says...
12:12am Wed 15 Aug 07
Karl, St Albans says...
1:12am Wed 15 Aug 07
Nigel, at the very least you are killing yourself but please do follow the links I gave above including this one to the British Medical Association -
http://www.bma.org.u
k/ap.nsf/Attachments
ByTitle/PDFsmokescre
en/$FILE/BehindtheSm
okescreen.pdf
There is plenty of proof. It is just a matter of whether you wish to read it.
But my argument is not whether it is proven that you are killing anyone. My argument is that you should not have the right to take that risk without proving categorically that passive smoking does not harm thsoe around you.
Until you do that you are acting irresponsibly by smoking in enclosed spaces with others.
I guess you're another one who would give your 16 year old kid a packet of fags for their birthday like John?
nigel, says...
11:44am Wed 15 Aug 07
Nigel, says...
11:53am Wed 15 Aug 07
I live in belgium. the smoking ban started last jan. Bar owners we're losing so much money that they decided to defy the ban and allow smoking with a small none smoking area. Even the none smokers agreed to it. So thats how its stands now. The belgians stood up for thier rights. The english? Chickens writing letters of protest as bloody usual
Karl, St Albans says...
12:49pm Wed 15 Aug 07
Hold up - so bars and pubs, whose primary source of revenue is the sale of drinks with a seondary source of revenue of meals and snacks are going to close down because of not being able to generate their tertiary revenue of tobacco sales? In any case, the law does not ban them from making those sales. It only bans poeple from smoking in the enclosed public parts of their premises. The pubs in my area still sell tobacco products and cigarette paraphernalia: matches, cigarette papers etc.
Imagine when the litigation culture really kicks in in this country, which it has already started to do. Non-smoking bar staff who contract smoking related diseases will be able to sue the bars they work for, which will cause them to close. There's no way that you will legally be able to sign away your right to a healthy environment at work so the publicans will always be exposed to this.
In a fast food place, as a customer, you choose to purchase a product that, within reason, you know is not health promoting. You have made a conscious choice and have not be pressured into eating it apart from by your own lack of will-power. If a fast food product was found to contain a cocktail of poisons, in the same way that cigarette smoke indisputably does then the fast food place would be closed down so why are tobacco products still on sale? By your own argument they should not be. This line of argument is only relevant if the government banned tobacconists or fast food shop customers grabbed non-fast food eating passers-by and forcefully rammed greasy burgers down their throats. Hence this angle of argument is moot.
If you smoke in a location where a non-smoker breathes. That non-smoker breathes in the smoke which contains known carcinogens such as Benzene and known poisonous chemicals such as Carbon Monoxide. Clearly cigarette smoke is dense in particulates, hence it being called smoke which causes obstructive lung diseases, such as emphysema and bronchitis. Now you are pushing those substances into the lungs of the non-smoker. You are therefore responsible for any harm that act does to them. Follow the link I gave you and you will find the results of various research projects that advise there is, at the very least, a statistical link between degenerative, fatal illness and second hand smoke.
All you get out of smoking is a reduction in nicotine cravings and a self-inflicted slow death. What does the non-smoker get? The slow death inflicted on them and a reduced quality of life in the run up to that death.
You then state that the ban is a reduction of your inate freedom. Well no-one's actually stopped you from smoking, so why is your freedom impeded? The only freedom that has been taken away is the freedom to smoke in enclosed public spaces. Public places that non-smokers should be free to go. To smoke in such a location is completely irresponsible. However, due to it traditionally being allowed, it seems to you to be OK.
Well it is not OK. Kill yourself, kill you family and friends but keep your smoke out of other poeple's lungs.
nigel, Brugge says...
12:01am Thu 16 Aug 07
karl, St Albans says...
12:26am Thu 16 Aug 07
Yes, smoking kills - glad you noticed. It kills you, your friends, your family, strangers around you, upon whom you wish to inflict your smoke.
Now disprove that!
Nigel, says...
7:49am Thu 16 Aug 07
.SOLID....PROOF.....
TO.....BACK.....UP..
.....YOUR.........CL
AIMS . You just dont like people do you karl
Are there any others who would like to talk about the real issues here. I for one am sick of Karls mentally challenged views.
Please some one. Laughing at karl was fun at first. But then a idiot is too easy to ridicule
I don't care, i don't care land says...
10:44am Thu 16 Aug 07
Karl, St Albans says...
11:15am Thu 16 Aug 07
No proof that smoking kills or that passive smoking kills? Your English skills are not very good are they Nigel? Typing in capital letters does not improve them.
I wont bother proving that smoking kills the smoker as thats been known for too long for you and any readers to not be aware. I can do if you need it.
As regards second hand smoke, I would have thought it was self-evidential that if smoke is known to be harmful then smoke in the lower concentrations of SHS is less harmful but still harmful . Ive provided links to the British Medical Association web site that provides the results of numerous research projects that show that second hand smoke kills above but to give you a couple though
"The increased risk to non-smokers of lung cancer from secondhand smoke (SHS)
was estimated at 24% in the overview of 37 studies and 4626 cases commissioned
by SCOTH in 1998. An almost identical increased risk estimate emerged from
the recent overview of 46 studies and 6257 cases carried out by the International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)."
(http://www.dh.gov.u
k/prod_consum_dh/gro
ups/dh_digitalassets
/@dh/@en/documents/d
igitalasset/dh_41014
75.pdf)
there was a statistically significant increase in plaque size in the smoke-exposed cockerels.
(http://circ.ahajour
nals.org/cgi/content
/abstract/90/3/1363)
Opposite to evidence to prove that SHS is harmful, wheres the proof that it is harmless? apart of course from baseless rantings of nicotine dependants such as yourself, John and Peter.
Whether or not I like people is irrelevant to the topic but, yes, I do like people just not irresponsible people taking risks with the lives and health of others.
The real issue here is whether you should have the freedom to poison other people in public places or whether you should have the continued freedom to smoke but be denied the right to poison others.
It doesnt sound from your post as if you are laughing. It sounds more as if the nicotine dependence and related withdrawal effects between cigarettes, is unbalancing you, that youve run out of arguments and are perhaps realizing that in any case, none of your arguments are in any way convincing.
Karl, St Albans says...
11:18am Thu 16 Aug 07
Nigel, says...
1:20am Fri 17 Aug 07
Lets try a new angle on this matter.
Our govt brings in a ban on smoking to save peoples lives. Hum. This is the same govt who have spent billions of tax payers money killing untold thousands of Innocent people in Iraq. Now. faced with a choice of a bullit or a life time of fags. I think i'd stick with the weed
Karl, St Albans says...
5:34pm Fri 17 Aug 07
I don't agree with the war myself but it is clearly about ensuring that the country's fuel supply is maintained at an affordable cost for as long as possible.
There is also a human angle but I think that's an excuse. However, the war there is certainly not about deliberately killing people. If the soldiers didn't have to fire one more round, I'm sure the government would be very happy.
nigel, says...
5:50pm Sat 18 Aug 07
Anyone want some grown up dialogue please.
nigel, says...
12:02pm Sun 19 Aug 07
Karl, St Albans says...
9:54pm Tue 21 Aug 07
Freedom is and was allowed in public places. Just not the freedom to harm.
Now that we know that passive smoking harms your right to passive smoke and so your freedom to harm others in this manner has been revoked.
Get used to it :o)
nigel, says...
1:19pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Karl, St Albans says...
3:24pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Nigel, says...
11:48am Thu 23 Aug 07
Karl, St Albans says...
12:24am Sat 25 Aug 07
To repeat ... driving has a purpose other than just serving some unnecessary addictive craving.
Also, I do not drive indoors so there is natural dispersal of the exhaust.
In addition, much has been done to reduce the harmful emmissions of cars and my diesel is no exception on top of which, as a diesel, it uses significantly less fuel, hence gives out less emmissions than most petrol cars.
Are you saying that you don't drive Nigel?
nigel, says...
2:39pm Sat 25 Aug 07
nigel, says...
6:24pm Sun 26 Aug 07
Karl, St Albans says...
10:28pm Sun 26 Aug 07
And you hate aeroplanes?
You are clearly a loon Nigel. There is no relationship between my statements and if I ate any paint.
Leaded or unleaded?
nigel, says...
2:37pm Mon 27 Aug 07
nigel, says...
5:26pm Mon 27 Aug 07
Wouldn,t it be a reasonable idea to keep smokers and none smokers happy at the same time.
Try this. A small town has four pubs. Two none smoking. And two smoking. Surely that wouldn't be too much to ask?
But it wouldn't work. Why? Simple. The none smoking pubs would lose so much revenue they would soon shut down. Bringing the Karls of this world Jack booting across the road to take over our pubs. and so forth until there are no pubs for anyone. I may be wrong. (there's a sentence we wont hear Karl say) But i doubt it
Karl, St Albans says...
11:31pm Mon 27 Aug 07
Thankfully you argue my point for me. If non-smoking pubs are forced to become smoking by the mores of their clientelle then we must have the current policy to protect the public from such careless addicts as yourself. Otherwise non-smokers could not go out. One would be dependent on being a msoker tpo have a social life.
That is very unfair.
The current situation is that you are free to go out, just not smoke in a place thaqt it is dagerous to others.
nigel, says...
5:31pm Tue 28 Aug 07
So. because you didn't read my last post properly. I will ask you a simple and reasonable question. Why is it so hard for you to accept a fair solution of having pubs for smokers and pubs for none smokers? Then we can smoke without hurting you. And we wont have to listen to your robotic ranting. Its called democracy. Why do you hate that concept so much Herr Karl?
Karl, St Albans says...
6:03pm Tue 28 Aug 07
In St Albans, a city with more than 140 pubs only one was non-smoking throughout.
In my village, out of 7 pubs only one offered a non-smoking area.
If left to publican's choice, irrespective of the risks to their staff or themselves (if they don't smoke) they will make their pub smoking.
nigel, says...
12:29am Wed 29 Aug 07
Karl, St Albans says...
10:55am Wed 29 Aug 07
Perhaps smokers are in the majority among pub / bar drinkers or, as posted previously there is a perceived link between pub / bar drinking and smoking.
It's not really a kneejerk approach though. Nor is it fascist.
If you read the documentation a statistical link between passive smoking and smoking related illness has been known for some time. Some bars such as Wetherspoons have banned smoking at the bar for some time to show willing to protect bar staff form the effects though the decision was probably more to do with reducing the risk of high compensation claims.
As regards fascism - there are opposition parties so the accusation is not really relevant. The decision actually harms no-one and is not a restriction of freedom. It is a safety measure.
I used to love the old footplate buses that you could run after if you missed one and jump on at the traffic lights. Clearly there was a risk that people would slip and fall into the road endangering other road users. They had to go. In the same way, smoking in enclosed public spaces forces others to inhale your smoke. Perhaps some device that you put the cigarette in that contained the smoke and legally obliging smokers to exhale only into a smoke recepticle like a plastic bag of some sort would have been feasible but no-one invented such a system.
nigel, says...
3:11pm Thu 30 Aug 07
JC, says...
9:52pm Thu 30 Aug 07
nigel., says...
9:57pm Thu 30 Aug 07
I was hoping for a serious dabate but Karl came along.
Karl, St Albans says...
12:14am Fri 31 Aug 07
You guys are the unthinking slaves to your nicotine cravings, prone to falshes of anger if someone dares to suggest that your habit might be dangerous despite the irrefutable evidence.
nigel, says...
11:08am Fri 31 Aug 07
Karl, St Albans says...
2:30pm Fri 31 Aug 07
Sandy and his wife Francesca
In this section
- Brookmans Park body indentified as Janet Read
- Swine flu spirals in county's schools
- Harpenden Road crash victim dies in hospital
- Disabled Harpenden pervert's foot-fetish
- Who pays for MPs birthday cards?
- Child sex abuse images found on computer
- "A miserable failure"
- An evening with celebrities to be won
- Pupils return to school after swine flu scare
- 'Handful' of suspected swine flu cases at Harpenden school
Sponsored Links
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Mandy, cambs says...
9:49pm Wed 4 Jul 07
freedom2choose.co.uk members knew exactly where this was going, we just looked to the intolerant Californians.
Churches also have to put signs up, no-one smoked in there either. But obviously you can do other illegal things as there are no signs telling us not too.
I cannot believe those that fought for this ban to go through did not know the implications and hatred this would cause.
I will never trust those who are meant to serve us again.
None of the three major parties will get my vote for a long time to come.
You did not mind those who own their own pubs and venues putting sign on their homes did you.