Reader views (32)

 Add your view

I would like to know where the figures come from. As a recently retired GP, I know that many smokers hvae managed to stop smoking following the introduction of the smoking ban in Scotland.

- Smcc, Elderslie, Scotland

@Andy H

In that case I am sure you will agree with Amanda Sandford of Action On Smoking and Health (ASH) writing in the New Scientist December 2007.

"ASH (UK) endorses your conclusion that bad science can never be justified. ASH, unlike some organisations, has never asserted that a single 30-minute exposure to second-hand smoke is enough to trigger a heart attack, and we are not aware of any UK health advocates who have done so."

That study was not paid by tobacco companies but the independent survey company RAND and the US Government. I came across the article on Dr. Michael Siegel's blog who is an anti tobacco activist, here is his profile in his own words.

"I am a physician who specialized in preventive medicine and public health. I am now a professor in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department, Boston University School of Public Health. I have 20 years of experience in tobacco control, primarily as a researcher."

- Dave Atherton, London

You're certainly right there Dace.
There was nothing wrong with catering for everybody with separate rooms/ventilation.
Oh no - common sense and accommodating everyone doesn't make sense in a puritanical world.
The drinkers are certainly next - they were in fact first by the puritans, but the puritans realised they had to trash the hospitality industry first to get at them.
Just look at the roots of the anti-smoking industry - they are from the temperance movement of prohibition.

- Marie, UK

A "right" cannot be something that must be obtained at the expense of others. I have a right to my preference in air quality, but you are not required to provide it for me.

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. ~ Edward Abbey

- Kayci, Kentucky, USA

Thank you for actually reporting this Anna, and to the paper for allowing it to be printed.
I think the majority of people have already worked out, and, there is enough information debunking the so called "miracle" reduction in heart attacks due to the ban. Christopher Snowdon has written a great book called Velvet Glove, Iron Fist, it is full of information.

Did the old "temperance movement" use so much misleading information as this new lot. The propaganda that has been going on is nothing short of scandalous.
No-one was ever banned from investing their own money into smoke-free venues, were they? Spain has the right idea (they are not alone in the EU either) ventilation/air filtration should have been one of the ways forward, for those who wish to socialize together, smokers and non-smokers alike.
It should have been the owners of venues to choose whether to be smoke-free or not. I for one will never forgive this government.

How many of the deaths below were smokers? were they included in the "smoking related" deaths.

The myth of the smoking ban ‘miracle’
Restrictions on smoking around the world are claimed to have had a dramatic effect on heart attack rates. It's not true.

- Mandyv, cambs

The smoking rate was tumbling, until all the anti-smoking propaganda. The propaganda has made smoking more attractive, and getting rid of anti-smoking groups will not only see the rate fall again, but it will save the taxpayer millions.

- Chas, Home Counties

Another set of fabricated figures to suit, like them or hate them cigarettes are legal, so how did this government manage to ban a LEGAL product on PRIVATE property, thats what pubs and clubs are privately owned, people are invited in they dont have to cross the threshold or work there. Trouble is none of the current political parties believe in freedom of choice or private property rights so who do you vote for, personally I dont think I will bother, they are all the same.

- Donnie321, Derbyshire

Andy H, London, what part of, "In the USA a recent peer reviewed study by Wisconsin and Stanford Universities has been published on smoking bans and heart attacks." had anything to do with your quoting of statistics? Are you suggesting that the two major Universities are in the pocket of the tobacco industry.

I'm an ex-smoker who LOVES smoke free environments, but your kind of misdirection and innuendo works AGAINST reasoned arguments. Even truth, used to misdirect, is ultimately seen as a lie when the reality is made plain - something you should remember. Your point was a good one, but it needed to be in context to be of value.

- Rogan, Irving

Mark Burton
You say that you smell of cigarette smoke for days !! Why not try washing occasionally !!

- Iris Beltram, Earth

A wise man once said,first they will target the smokers,then they will turn on the drinkers. - Dace, london

He can't have been that wise as there were laws on drinking way before there were any on smoking.

- Jilly, London

My my, don't Jim and Kate (above) sound like fun, compassionate people to be around. I bet they both own hyper-polluting cars too.

This issue is really about smell right? It has been pretty well established that you are unlikely to become unwell from second-hand smoke. The people who don't smoke aren't smell free themselves. I would rather smell cigarettes on someone than a celebrity perfume.

So how come the non smokers feel triumphant at the ban, but still press fo it to be banned in public spaces. Will we be richer as a society when this has surely come to pass?

- Cole, London, England

So at last the NHS has told the truth about smoking bans helping to stop people from smoking,they don't, all we need now is for them to tell the truth about SHS,because as we all know now SHS does not harm, so Kate,London, you were in no danger before the ill thought out smoking ban was forced onto the country,as we have also seen the so called Claims of heart attack reductions have been proved to be Bogus,the smoking ban has done Nothing for the countries Health and Nothing for the countries Wealth,it must be changed asap,time for some common sense to be shown.

- Tug Wilson, skegness,england

Phase two: No alcohol to be consumed in any public place,including bars,to protect the non drinkers from drunk drivers and drunk yobs. A wise man once said,first they will target the smokers,then they will turn on the drinkers,that is why as a drinker,ill never support them against the smokers.Soon tax on alcohol will equal that on smokes.

- Dace, london

I'm with Dom,London.
It's a great smokescreen!

- Steve, London

Second-hand smoke does affect your health: hence the legal defence of the tobacco trade is that it told you on the packet it would kill you and you went ahead and smoked it anyhow. There are an average of 200 carcigens in each cigarette, ranging from the pesticide on the tobacco leaf through to the bleach in the paper. Only a dimwit would think that smoke breathed into the lungs is only damaging if you are holding the cigarette rather than sitting next to someone holding the cigarette. Labour always comes last to the table last and always reinvents the wheel: if it followed the line of other countries which successfully implemented the ban first, it would have left the loophole of smoking being permitted on premises licensed to sell tobacco: in South Africa there are some very classy 'Cigar Bars' which sell cigars, play jazz and serve great food - things like this would have kept the smokers happy whilst protecting the rights of every one else not to be exposed to dangerous toxins.

- Roz, France

The smoking ban has been the cause of hundreds of pubs and bingo halls to close down. The old boys who love a pint and a smoke now find themselves at home with no company and hundreds of publicans and bar staff are now unemployed. This ban was about the government showing us who's boss, nothing to do with health reasons. The greatest British institution of our time - the local pub, has beocme extinct. Yet another example of Blair/Brown's Broken Britain.

- Kay, London

Here's a stat for you Dave Atherton:-

"A review of published studies found that tobacco-industry affilation was strongly correlated with findings exonerating passive smoking; researchers affiliated with the tobacco industry were 88 times more likely than independent researchers to conclude that passive smoking was not harmful".

- Andy H, London

A puff off smoke in the air - another example of "do gooders" not having any idea. Figures are manipulated every way in which to supposedly demonstrate the plusses and minuses to win people over. I wonder what would happen if Brown and his do gooders banned cars, after all they contribute more pollution into the environment.

- Peter, Vienna, Austria

I am a social smoker, weekends only with beer! I happen to agree with the ban on smoking in public places, it is a much nicer atmosphere for all I feel.

However if people continue to smoke or indeed there has been an increase in the up take under the age of 35, it is only because people loath being told what to do by a big brother society. A society that has been engineered by a totalitarian communist government who rule top down.

These (mostly unelected), idiots in government would by no means be out of place in Russia or China.

- Frank, Home Counties, England.

Smoking is as addictive as illegal "hard" drugs. If anyone expected a ban on smoking in pubs to cause any measureable number of people to give up, they're fools.

I'm a non-smoker, and I much prefer smoke-free pubs. But I don't think an outright ban was right. They should have allowed for smokers' bars or "smokers' holes" in pubs with more than one room separated by doors. They could have permitted smoking in areas with effective air-extraction systems. The ban is yet another tentacle of the New Labour state, always seeking to treat us as children and to deny us any rights to choose for ourselves.

- Nigel, London

Alas the first casualty in the war on tobacco has been the truth. Cherry picked statistics and science by press release. In the USA a recent peer reviewed study by Wisconsin and Stanford Universities has been published on smoking bans and heart attacks. It covered 8 years, 468 counties in all 50 states and 217,023 heart attack admissions and 2.0 million heart attack deaths. The conclusions were:

"In contrast with smaller regional studies, we find that workplace bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases."

"An analysis simulating smaller studies using subsamples reveals that large short-term increases in myocardial infarction incidence following a workplace ban are as common as the large decreases reported in the published literature."

- Dave Atherton, London

Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer-official
By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent

" The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: 'There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.' "

And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws, air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University proves that secondhand smoke is up to 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations.

The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke
About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities if at all.This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke. (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured.

- Harleyrider1978, london in a smoke easy

I love the smoking ban, it has made my working life much better. As a non-smoker, working in public places I was always being subjected to second hand cigarette smoke, which made me feel ill at times. It's no fun going home smelling like an ash tray for days on end, if people want to smoke let them go outside and do it - I don't want my health harmed by them.

- Mark Burton, St Ives. Cambs

If smoking levels are the same as before the ban how is it that the rate of heart attacks has dropped by 30 per cent? Surely these heart attack drops are fabricated on the presumption that smoking levels have dropped. If smoking levels are up, so-called passive smoking exposure must have dropped too (unless we are expected to believe that upwards of 25 million people are leaving their homes up to 40 times a day to smoke in solitude outside). Even at the time the ban was brought in a Guardian editorial admitted that 95 per cent of passive smoking damage is alleged to occur in the home.

More people are smoking yet the heart attack rate has dropped by one-third. I wonder if they will look at their figures again.

- Belinda, Edinburgh UK

Reuben Camara, not really a good option as we'd all get walloped extra tax to make up the huge shortfall.

- Dom, London

When smoking was legal in pubs, you'd nip out for a joint & it would be obvious to anyone in the pub, including the staff, what you were doing. Not now as there are so many smokers outside. You see the ban does have some benefits.

- Dom, London

17,000,000 peeps in the UK choose to smoke.

Make the best of it! Nasty Brown will ban smoking altogether and it will be a criminal offence to possess cigarettes.

- Reuben Camara, Morecambe Compound, EUSSR

The smoking ban is the only useful thing New Failure have done since starting their ruinous rule of this Country.

- Peter, Harrow, UK

The ban has forced hundreds of pubs to close, and was ill thought out.

Every beer garden and entrance is clogged up with smokers now, and going out for a drink is crap as smokers are in and out spoiling gossip and banter, which what going to a pub is partly about.

I'm surprised that I even hear non smokers I know saying they hate the ban.

A solution like Spain would have been better where you have a choice of both smoking and non smoking.

Old people in social clubs who fought for the country have to go outside in the cold in winter, just beacuse MP's chose to renege on a promise to to ban it completely.

The ban was never about protecting public health, but about showing us all who is in charge.

If the ban was about protecting public health, surely the powers that be would also have adopted many of the other laws form America where the ban originated, such as proper life sentences etc.

The ban also excludes the House of Commons Bar, not avery democratic or fair exemption to have.

Do as we say, not as we do.

- P Staker, Londonistan.

It has been successful in closing thousands of pubs and ruining a great British institution.

- Squiz, Islington

As a non-smoker I welcomed the smoking ban because I expected it to do exactly what it has done - prevent me and other non-smokers from being subjected to second-hand smoke and protect those sensible enough to never have taken up the moronic habit in the first place.

- Jim, London

The smoking ban was not about getting smokers to quit, it was about protecting non-smokers from other people's smoke. It has been a resounding success.

- Kate, London

Add your comment