Reader views (51)

 Add your view

Frank,
none of my immediate family smoke. Some in-laws do, but I've never mentioned it to them. Yes, I am popular, thanks!
Many smokers admit they're addicts. A 'fix' is just the vernacular term for it when an addict indulges. It's not an insult - my sister even jokes about getting her chocolate fix. Why do you have a problem with the word, are you sensitive about your addiction?

"All that matters to them is that they don't like it and the rest of us MUST fall in behind their likes and dislikes."
You mean the way the majority had to 'fall in' with the smoking minority's likes, before the restrictions?

"I've no doubt you're an ex smoker."
No, I'm a never-smoker. And making assumptions about a stranger based on prejudice doesn't help your case.

"It's the lies and petty name calling that annoys us smokers."
I'M not name-calling. But according to YOU, I'm one of 'these people' who are closed-minded and uncaring. That's not very nice.

Lies? Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Why would the WHO lie? To what end? They want to save lives. In fact, the government, by going along with the medical establishment to reduce smoking, stands to lose tax revenue.
Smokers, on the other hand, who want to smoke wherever they like, have something to gain by poo-poohing the studies which show ETS is harmful.

"Please realise that our patience wears thin".
Is that a vague threat, or a symptom of nicotine withdrawal?

- Tarn, london, 14/12/2009 19:46
Report abuse

Well, this thing is still open, so why not carry on....
Lyn,
but cars aren't a risk on their own. Accidents are caused by dangerous drivers, bad conditions, or just bad luck. Most journeys are safely completed. However, health experts have said that there's no such thing as a safe cigarette.
As for the pollution caused by cars etc, I'm no more keen on that than you are. But motor vehicles are, unfortunately, a necessary evil. (Even for you. How else do you think your fags get to the shop?)

I really don't care if people smoke. That's their choice, and none of my business. I only care if they make others breathe it. I'm not anti-smoking. I'm just anti-smoking-in-public.

- Tarn, london, 14/12/2009 15:57
Report abuse

Junican,
dunno about 'rapidly dissipated' - if I'm walking down the street behind a smoker who's many yards ahead of me, I can still smell it strongly. If someone lights up on the end of the platform and I'm nowhere near it, I can smell it. And my sense of smell is nothing special, nor am I on the lookout for smoke. I just notice it from a long way off. My friends say the same, that it really hangs around.

Then what exactly does your 25% increase apply to? I don't follow you. It must apply to something, and in the case of smoke, that must mean the illnesses caused by it - heart attacks, cancer etc. Statistics don't exist in a vacuum, something must be measured.
I applied it to heart attacks because that was easy to research, so I used them as an example. I wasn't saying that is the only thing the risk applies to.

I'm ok with agreeing to disagree, but it would help if I actually understood your position ...

- Tarn, london, 14/12/2009 15:19
Report abuse

@ Tarn.

My apologies.

When I said 'absolutely negligible', I really ought to have said that I was specifically referring to tobacco smoke outside. As you no doubt know, tobacco smoke (as with any other smoke) is very rapidly dissipated.

But I do not agree with your direct application of 'a 25% increase in risk' to an increase in risk of heart attacks etc.
The 25% increase is a STATISTICAL increase. For example, if a risk is 4%, then the increase of 25% would increase that 4% risk to 5%.

I could go into detail about the smoking risk, but it would lead us into some quite complex and lengthy discussions. I think that we should simply agree to disagree.

- Junican, Bolton, UK, 11/12/2009 20:15
Report abuse

Junican,
yes, I know it's about passive smoking. I started out there and got sidetracked. That can happen in a discussion. I'm sorry that forced you to 'moderate' me. As for having plenty to say, well, it beats working...

"Studies have said that the RISK of harmful effects from passive tobacco smoke is increased by 25%....... as compared with what? One can only assume that the as compared with what is 'the absence of tobacco smoke'.
But if the increased risk is from 'nothing' to 'absolutely, totally and utterly negligible', where is your argument?"

As compared with what? Well for example, the average 10-year risk of heart disease for a woman my age is 3%. For men it's 10%. With passive smoking, you say that goes up by 25%. (Study results do vary on the subject. Some go as high as 80%, though one doctor thinks it's only 2%. He didn't do a study though.)
Even only looking at heart disease, 25% added risk on an existing 10%, or even 3%, is significant. Add cancer, (which health experts say is soon to take over 'biggest killer' status from heart disease, fueled by rising tobacco use in developing countries) and the significance can only grow.

Yes, the risk without smoke is compared to the risk with smoke. But where you go wrong is in assuming that the absence of smoke = a 'nothing' risk. It clearly doesn't. So that 25% is not 'absolutely, totally and utterly negligible'.
Look, we may not be able to remove all risks. But why not try and control those we can?

- Tarn, london, 11/12/2009 16:27
Report abuse

Tarn seems to have an awful lot to say. In summary, what he says is this:

1. Smoking is bad for you and therefore it is OK for the government to ban it in public, substantially enclosed places.

Well..........No. That is not what the smoking ban is about. The reason that smoking is banned in public places is not because smoking in itself is bad for you. It is because PASSIVE smoking is perceived to be a bad thing. The enjoyment of tobacco, in itself, is not perceived by the government as a thing to be banned. Therefore, any argument that you make regarding passive smoking cannot in any way rely on the effects of ACTIVE smoking.

2. The ban is totally, utterly and completely about PASSIVE smoking. It is about the putative harmful effects of PASSIVE smoking. SMELLS are irrelevant. The SIGHT of tobacco smoke is irrelevant. People standing in pub doorways is irrelevant.

The whole argument about passive smoking is dependent upon the facts. IS PASSIVE SMOKING HARMFUL?

Studies have said that the RISK of harmful effects from passive tobacco smoke is increased by 25%....... as compared with what? One can only assume that the as compared with what is 'the absence of tobacco smoke'.

But if the increased risk is from 'nothing' to 'absolutely, totally and utterly negligible', where is your argument?

You seem to be an intelligent person. Disregarding smells, children, cars, etc, what is your answer to the above?

- Junican, Bolton, UK, 11/12/2009 02:06
Report abuse

"I do not frequent pubs often though, even though they are smoke free, partly because the entrances have too many smokers loitering around them puffing away. The pubs must push the smokers further away from the entrances, so as not to deter non-smokers from entering."

Eureka! We finally have the answer to the question all of us have been asking since 01/07/2007 i.e. what happened to all the smoke-haters (as distinct from normal non-smokers) who said they were going to go to the pub more often after the smoking ban and then were nowhere to be seen, while pub after pub closed down?

If you really can't face going into a "smokefree" (yuck!) pub because there are a couple of people smoking outside, I would put it to you that you never liked pubs, you never really wanted to go into pubs and you still don't want to, but you just like the thought that nobody is smoking in them. Unfortunately ridiculous attitudes like yours are far too prevalent these days.

- Rick, London, 10/12/2009 16:59
Report abuse

Sheila: There's little point in asking these people if they care. They don't. If they were really open minded and interested they would have aquainted themselves with the facts and figures. They don't. Other than quoting a selected couple of surveys that they like, they havn't.

All that matters to them is that they don't like it - usually couched as 'can't stand it' - for whatever reason and the rest of us MUST fall in behind their likes and dislikes. The fact that there was, nationally, little demand for smoke free pubs (otherwise they would have opened!) completely passes over them.

Don't waste your breath.

- Frank, London, 10/12/2009 14:04
Report abuse

Tarn
The street would not be crowded with smokers if we weren't forced outside, but had venues that catered for smokers. Therein would be the choice and the streets would much freer from smokers. Anti smokers have caused the smoking on the street to the extent that it is now.

Cars are useful, smoking isn't? I would suggest that cars are responsible for far more deaths than smoking is. For me and many others, smoking is, in fact, useful as I explained in my previous post. Besides, people were smoking long before cars became a 'necessity', so perhaps we should keep the smokers and ditch the cars, after all, they do far more damage to the climate, if you believe that con as well.

As for everything can kill, yes it can and that is why many people have the attitude that they may as well enjoy life while they can because tomorrow they could be knocked down by a bus!

It seems to me that to have known so many friends and immediate family, the majority of whom have smoked, if smoking was the killer you are making it out to be, then some of them should have succumbed to illness and/or death to a smoking related illness. The only one to die of cancer was my first husband, however there were many other contributory factors.

Smoking may be addictive to those who have an addictive personality - I do & admit it. Anti depresseant drugs are also, mostly, addictive. I would rather stick to smoking than be on medication for the rest of my life, but don't have that choice!

- Lyn Ladds, Worcestershire, UK, 10/12/2009 14:02
Report abuse

To The writer of this article and to Tarn, you appear to be proud of your stance on this subject. With regard to children and more importantly teenagers, smoking is a very visible thing and in banning it everywhere I can only assume that this will result in a far bigger percentage of youngsters turning to drugs after all it must be relativly easy to pop a pill or snort a substance. Are you happy to encourage our teenagers to turn from relativly harmless tobacco to a mind blowing illegal substance.
With regard to business. Are you happy that thousands of pubs and clubs have closed as a direct result of the smoking ban. I,m sure many of the landlords must have been totally stressed seeing their business fail and their livelyhoods gone,but that situation will be lost on you as you probably have a regular monthly pay cheque deposited in the bank. How many of them have since suffered ill health because of this.
With regard to the elderly are you happy that a lot of these people are now confined to their home, unable to frequent their usual haunts, whether that was their local pub or Bingo hall. They are now sat at home lonely. Does that please you? Are you happy that elderly smokers living in care homes are stuck outside in all weathers just to enjoy something that gives them a little bit of pleasure and has done for probably 50 or 60 years. A friend of mine, 87 years old,in one of these places developed pneumonia and has since died.Me? I am totally ashamed to see this happen

- Sheila, uk, 10/12/2009 13:04
Report abuse

Tarn’
While we are on the subject of exhaust fumes v tobacco smoke. Anyone who thinks they are breathing in healthy clean air absent tobacco smoke is seriously deluded. How do you think airborne viruses spread?

David King wrote:
“I have never smoked in my life, other than involuntary passive smoking around the losers who smoked near me, mostly back in the days before smoking bans came in.”

In pre ban days what was there to stop you and other like minded people opening up a smokefree pub?
Answer: nothing whatsoever.

It was never Compulsory to smoke in pubs. It was something the landlord allowed people to do.

- Adam, Suffolk, 10/12/2009 12:07
Report abuse

Lyn,
choice of venues means we don't have to breathe smoke? No. The street is a 'venue' I can't avoid using, nor can I avoid breathing smoke there. That's what Sexton was talking about.
As for polluting drivers (yes, it's a deflection. What else is it, when you point the finger elsewhere?) It's not a valid comparison. Cars are useful, smoking isn't.

'Everything can kill'? Well, that's no reason to hasten it deliberately. By that argument, everyone might as well go jump off a cliff, after all, it's going to happen anyway.

Sure, you can point to heavy smokers who've never been ill in their long lives. Those people are healthy despite smoking, not because of it. Good for them, their genes must give them an immunity. But most people (me too) can point to smoking friends and family who are ill or dead because of it. Smoking is estimated to kill half it's users, and many more will have debilitating illnesses. Maybe some folk have a resistance to it, but they are the minority. It's not fair to expose everyone to the risk, as most probably aren't immune.

I've been medicated for depression and panic attacks. I'm not ignorant of the subject. But if you're depressed since the restrictions, even though you can still smoke at home & outside, might it be that your addiction is partly to blame?

Rick,
there's enough evidence to convince me and the Government that passive smoke is bad. Better safe than sorry when lives are at stake. 'I told you so' would be no compensation.

- Tarn, london, 10/12/2009 10:39
Report abuse

I thought the NHS was established to treat any and all sick people ; not just people-who-got-sick-in-a-manner-
we-don`t-disagree-with. Shall we make it so the NHS only
treats healthy people?Or should we just close it down now.
To everyone in favour of banning smoking I offer this advice;tread carefully,eventually they`ll get to something you enjoy,and you`ll have no power to do stop them because we`ve forsaken the rights of the individual
for the so called betterment of the state.

- Danny, london, 09/12/2009 23:18
Report abuse

An extension to the smoking ban should be brought in as soon as possible. It really is disgusting to have to walk past those who choose slow suicide (and the slow murder of those around them) outside shops, restaurants, pubs and workplaces. But the smoking ban that exists must be enforced, and enforced at places where smokers get away with their filthy habit unhindered, such as at bus shelters, on public transport (occasionally) and on station platforms. "No Smoking" means you cannot smoke there, so why are so many smokers either too thick to understand that or else illiterate. Or else they deliberately want people to hate them.
I have never smoked in my life, other than involuntary passive smoking around the losers who smoked near me, mostly back in the days before smoking bans came in.
Life is much better without people smoking, and so much nicer in restaurants and pubs.
I do not frequent pubs often though, even though they are smoke free, partly because the entrances have too many smokers loitering around them puffing away. The pubs must push the smokers further away from the entrances, so as not to deter non-smokers from entering.

- David King, London, UK, 09/12/2009 22:52
Report abuse

Tarn, to continue, I had missed previously responding to your comment "And why does it matter if smoking is the 'sole cause' of death or not? The operative word is 'death' - it kills." Living ends in death, falling down the stairs can end in death, everything and anything anybody does in their day to day lives has the potential to end in death!
With regard to citing pollution, it is not a deflection at all, with choice of venues, smokers and non smokers can carry on their lives not affecting each other, however with vehicle fumes, anyone who ventures outside, or indeed who has a window open, especially near a busy road, is subject to the toxins from the fumes of those vehicles - no choice! Of course, more people drive cars than smoke and anti smokers would not want to give up their cars, would they.
Regarding anti depressants and depression, unless and until you have experience it, I suggest you are not qualified to comment. I have never been off work sick, except for depression and then only since the smoking ban. Most non smokers I have worked with are frequently off sick and the smokers are not. I have never been on medication for more than a week, for a tooth abcess until the smoking ban since when I have been on anti depressants and due to the lack of funding for the mental health services, there is no likelihood of my coming off them in the forseeable future. None of my family, 80% of whom smoked, has cost the NHS a penny in smoking related illnesses.

- Lyn Ladds, Worcestershire, UK, 09/12/2009 20:50
Report abuse

Tarn

Cancer is not an illness caused by smoking; smoking MAY play a part for some people, but not all. Many people who smoke heavily all their life, as many of my family have, have lived to ripe old ages and never been ill. Most have died in their mid to late 90's, one was 100. Likewise, none of their children or spouses who did not smoke had any ill effects.

With regards to my daughter; I grew up with both parents and a grand parent in the home, all of whom smoked. My brother and I were hardly ever ill and that, for me, is still the case now. My brother, however, who does not smoke, drink, swear or anything else is always ill, as are his children - all 4 of them, despite them being sporty. I do not believe for one moment that my daughters' health has anything to do with her growing up in a smoking household - it is far too much of a coincidence that her poor health happened within a few months of the smoking ban!
As for the health of others, I have a friend who cannot go out to pubs because perfumes set off an epileptic fit - I don't see anyone rushing to ban perfume or aftershave. I hate the smell of stale, secondhand beer, but I don't expect to go to a pub and find that beer drinking has been banned. As a smoker, like all other smokers I know, we are asking for choice, which means that there be venues for non smokers and venues for smokers, the latter being staffed by smokers. I know many non smokers who would happily populate the smoking venues.

- Lyn Ladds, Worcestershire, UK, 09/12/2009 20:36
Report abuse

Tarn, I said that the Wiki article appeared to have been written by ASH, I meant that it was very similar to the way ASH cherry-pick their statistics, ignore any fact that don't find their agenda and generally come up with unverifiable assertions rather than anything concrete - in other words, it was people singing from the same anti-smoking hymn sheet, and was therefore in no way reliable. I didn't actually mean that I thought ASH had written it.

The article is not comprehensive (as mentioned elsewhere, many surveys have been left out) and certainly gives the impression that any other views are worthless. The highly respected Enstrom and Kabat study is spoken of as amounting to a tobacco-industry funded scam and aspersions are cast on Enstrom's integrity (when the editors can bother to spell his name correctly!).

Valid references? Well, the documents linked to do exist, but there seems to be a preponderance of articles featuring the name "Glantz" - that'll be Stanton, the fanatical anti-smoking activist who set the ball rolling in California all those years ago and has made a fortune from his obsession. There's no way you're going to find a balanced assessment by going through those references.

- Rick, London, 09/12/2009 17:29
Report abuse

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. But 'corrections' which are malicious or wrong are removed as vandalism. So if somebody corrected it, er, correctly, from what Wiki say, the correction would stand.
You instantly decide the article was by ASH. Based on what? It's anonymous. But since the article is comprehensive, gives more than one viewpoint, and has valid references, why does it matter who typed it up? Whatever. I only mentioned Wiki as a one-stop place for the links. You don't like that, try Google instead - no 'activists' wrote that.
(As a matter of interest - what would these 'anti-smoking activists' have to gain from their supposed activities? I can only guess it's about saving lives. How evil of them. They must be stopped!)

Bottom line, there are enough studies showing a likely link between passive smoking and illness, to make 'better safe than sorry' a reasonable response for an individual, or a government.
Die-hard smokers may insist there's no definitive proof, but between the WHO (among others), and addicts who don't like to be told 'no', I know whose advice I'd rather take.

- Tarn, london, 09/12/2009 16:50
Report abuse

Tarn: What Wiki does NOT cite are the 77 surveys that show ETS to be harmless and the 9 that claim a beneficial effect. Neither are the 35 remaining gone into in any depth to show the paucity of their claims. If you check them you'll see why. The confidence interval had to be reduced to achieve the increase as otherwise they were all within the CI and, therefore, statistically insignificant. The highest claim is for 24% which, if believed, lifts a 'risk' to a non smoker from 0.01% to 0.0124% (see Richard Doll).

I trust when you state people needing 'their fix' you realise you refer at one time to 80-90% of people probably including your own family, that needed 'their fix'. You must be popular.

I've no doubt you're an ex smoker. Well done and good luck saving all that money and tax, just don't expect everybody else to accommodate it for you.

It's the lies and petty name calling that annoys us smokers and please realise that our patience wears thin.

- Frank, London, 09/12/2009 16:18
Report abuse

The arrogance of it!

Why Mr sexton should feel that he has any sort of right to stop me doing something that I enjoy, which has a minimal effect on other people is beyond me.

I don't assume to tell others that their vices offend me and because of this there should be a law against it. Smokers pay there social cost through a levy of 76% tax.

State interference has encroached far enough into the average person’s life. I know what I do is basically killing me but there is ten thousand other actives which I could partake in which would be damaging to my health and/or potentially fatal. We expose the youth of our country to these habits, what is the difference?

Over half of the population is over weight. Does Mr sexton feel that these people should be banned from leaving the privacy of their homes, so the youth of the UK doesn't think obesity is socially acceptable?

- Harry, Battersea, 09/12/2009 14:38
Report abuse

The wikipedia page on passive smoking is written by an anonymous group of anti-smoking activists. Any attempts to correct obvious factual errors, such as the claims that smoking bans result in an instantaneous reduction in heart attacks, are not allowed. Quite why anonymous contributors should be regarded as a reliable source of information about anything, I don't know.

- Jonathan Bagley (Real Name), manchester,UK, 09/12/2009 13:24
Report abuse

"To those who still don't want to believe that passive smoking is dangerous, try checking the Wikipedia article on the subject."

Ah, the ever-reliable and authoritative Wikipedia. I've just looked at the entry on "passive smoking" and it appears to be written and edited by ASH.

- Rick, London, 09/12/2009 12:21
Report abuse

Lyn
that's not how Death Certificates work. The direct cause of death is given - not the behaviour which led to it. So no, you won't find 'smoking' as a cause of death, any more than you will find drinking, overeating, or crashing while driving too fast. What you WILL find is cancer, liver disease, heart disease, or multiple injuries. One can't point at death certificates and say, 'See, smoking doesn't kill', any more than one can use them to prove
driving isn't dangerous because cars are not mentioned.

And why does it matter if smoking is the 'sole cause' of death or not? The operative word is 'death' - it kills. Sure, it kills people who are vulnerable because they have other health issues, too. Does that make it ok to add to those issues with passive smoking?

Deflecting the argument by citing road pollution is essentially the same as saying, 'He's doing it, so why can't I?' But that's not a valid excuse. Two wrongs don't make a right, both problems need solutions.

Fags help the depressed? Yes, I hear that COPD cheers people up no end! I'd rather my taxes pay for a few anti-depressants than for extra health care when the depressed person's smoking makes them sick. Not to mention the people around them, too.
As for your daughter, have you thought that the cumulative effect of all that smoke might have caught up with her? Doctors stopped telling patients tobacco smoke was good for the lungs many years ago. It's not a cold cure, for sure.

- Tarn, london, 09/12/2009 10:50
Report abuse

Mr Sexton is right.
To those who still don't want to believe that passive smoking is dangerous, try checking the Wikipedia article on the subject. It cites a lot of studies. And that's just the easiest place to check. You can google for studies yourself, if you don't trust Wiki. Trust me, there are a lot of results. The evidence is compelling. Of course there may never be proof that smokers are willing to accept, because that would mean accepting that they are deliberately harming others every time they light up around people. Smokers aren't cruel, they just need their fix. Therefore denial is necessary.

However, given the existing evidence, any government which cares for the health of it's people (or, more cynically, which wants more of them alive to vote and pay taxes) must err on the side of caution and restrict public smoking. This is happening in increments, and eventually smoking will be a rare sight.

As for the 'human right' to smoke, there's no such thing. There's certainly no human right to harm others while doing it. Of course smoking is legal and an adult choice, but making others breathe it is indefensible. And unless you smoke alone in a field or in a hermetically sealed home, it's inevitable that others will have to breathe it.
Mr Sexton also seems to be right about the increased aggression of smokers, judging by the comments. You all seem very angry with the people you are harming. But don't we have the right to object to breathing dangerous smoke?

- Tarn, london, 09/12/2009 09:34
Report abuse

"Children should not grow up thinking that's normal”. That’s right wrap them up in cotton wool as usual. Every time I hear the anti’s say think of the children it reminds me of this quote wrote by Adolph Hitler in Mein Kampf AKA the intolerants handbook.

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."

- Adam, Suffolk, 09/12/2009 09:14
Report abuse

Where is the proof, in terms of death certificates, stating that 114,000 die per year from smoking? Not one DC shows smoking as a cause of death, because it cannot be ascertained that smoking is a sole cause of death!

People complain about smokers being outside and that they have to 'wade through a fog of smoke' to gain entry, but how come they are not bothered about the far greater risk of much higher and more dangerous toxins spewed out by vehicles? One local cafe, last summer, had a chap saying he would love to sit outside in the fresh air, but there were people smoking! It was pointed out that the tables were only about 8 feet from the High Street, so how fresh did he expect the air to be?

As for hospital admissions - something else that is kept very quiet is the increase in people suffering from depression, anxiety and other mental health related problems due to the smoking ban, the numbers now on anti depressants, which cost the country a fortune, not to mention the time off work that many of these people need. Smoking has been a form of self medication for these issues for years, but is now taken away in social situations!

As for passive smoking in the home, since the smoking ban my daughter who works in a pub has had numerous colds - if she is lucky she has a cold free week between. When she was at home with both parents smoking and in pubs with smoking, she was never ill! ETS is harmful is it? She is certainly a lot sicker without it!

- Lyn Ladds, Worcestershire, UK, 09/12/2009 07:31
Report abuse

@ Liberal(sic) & Proud

Maybe you'd like to look at these two sites to hammer the nail into your unquestioning acceptance of massaged data and spurious statistics:

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/12/no-change-in-trend-in-heart-disease.html

and

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/

And then read one mans view of what the smoking ban has meant to him:

http://frank-davis.livejournal.com/

Maybe, just maybe, you and all the other 'useful' idiots will realise that swallowing propaganda with no inherehent basis in fact will eventually lead you into some sort of Marxist/Communist utopia* where even your individual choice is negated by the State.

You and the writer of this incitement to hatred will no doubt think you are very big and very clever to de-humanise a section of the population but you're not, you are simplistic, cannon fodder for those that wish to bring you under a yoke of tyranny.

I bet you beilieve in AGW too, don't you?

*Utopia = Greek for a place that does not exist.

- Griblett, England, 09/12/2009 00:56
Report abuse

Are you suggesting a 'final solution' there by any chance David?

Anti-smokers are often (and rightly so) referred to as Nazis, but hate being linked to the term, and prefer to avoid it. You've done well to make the meaning more true by introducing the word holocaust.

Closer to home in Ireland, smoking rates are now up by 4% after their longer smoking ban. No doubt the UK will follow suit. Also, I see that you don't care to mention how certain states in the US have been relaxing their bans. It's strange that these references have been conveniently ommitted.

- Helen, Lancs, 08/12/2009 21:57
Report abuse

I have never read such a load of rehashed old tosh, If SHS is so harmful how come the longest lived generation alive today is the one that was subjected to SHS everywhere they went, even Hospitals provided ashtrays to patients.
It is not really about smoking it is about control, if it works in this example believe me it will be extended, we have seen it starting with obesity, and now a new one Drive 5 miles a week less to save the planet, soon it will be rationed mileage with increased road taxes.
It is high time that individual preferences were left alone, Nanny has become Bully, and all based on pseudo science, which discredits real science and does it no service at all.

- Laughsoutloud, Leicester, 08/12/2009 20:19
Report abuse

It would seem that Irish smokers have picked up some allies from the non-smoking contingent, as the smoking rate in the country that pioneered national smoking bans has now reached a high of 33%. Maybe it's the (ironically) increased visibility of smoking, now that one must puff in the street. Or perhaps it's a reaction to the shrill, and increasingly intolerant, tone of antismokers like David Sexton that prompts folks to think "If they're right, I don't want to be."

- Chris, Farmingdale, NY, USA, 08/12/2009 18:10
Report abuse

Despite the "fact" that 2 out of 3 people (this number must by definition include some smokers who clearly don't feel very "aggressive") I can't help noticing that your article seems to have been read almost entirely by smokers who think you are talking nonsense. Where are the rabid antis now? Cowardly when outnumbered.

- George Speller, Keighley, 08/12/2009 18:00
Report abuse

We have an incresingly large proportion of the population who are over 60. Most of those will have been smokers for part of their lives and will certainly have been reared in the smoke filled homes and offices of the 40s and 50s but why aren't they dead ? According to this brainwashed idiot we all should be. We aren't because SHS is harmless. Bring back Merrie England and lets be rid of these nazi gloom merchants and control freaks. Lets have CHOICE and tolerance and bring back smoking rooms in pubs and clubs. Lets have honesty in publication of scientific data not propaganda and lies.

- Sue, London UK, 08/12/2009 17:53
Report abuse

"In parts of America, such bans have already been introduced. In much of California, smoking has been banned in state parks, in playgrounds and on beaches."

Hmmm. Strange this notion that we should follow California. I am dual citizen and I work on assignment in both London and the United States on a continual basis. The FACT is, in cities such as San Francisco one CAN smoke in many bars in a designated smoking area
partitioned by glass, within the main bar area itself.

Strange how that fact is not made common knowledge in the UK. It's about time people this country got a grip on far, far tougher sentencing on drug dealing and escalating knife/gun crime that are desimating London and other Cities across the nation.

However broken Britain continues it's quest of aiming for easy targets, whilst impotent and shirking in it's clout, wrapped up in political correctness and devoid of responsibility for sorting out the real messy stuff.

- Gavin, London, 08/12/2009 16:29
Report abuse

Liberal and proud....Where do you get your info? as always with the anti lot,Wrong,as for the NHS budget,you would have to start paying for treatment if the smokers money was taken out of it. This hate that the antis show is on par with Nazi germany and as such should end now. There is a simple answer to all this,it is called CHOICE, we must have smoking and non smoking areas that give all people something they should have in a free country,that is the freedom of choice. Who but the most intolerant could not agree to that.

- Tug Wilson, england, 08/12/2009 16:27
Report abuse

The jury is still out ref passive smoking but one result of the non-smoking rules is the rise in obesity which also kills. Secondary obesity is killing many in the 3rd World due food shortages.
Makes as much sense as this article.

- Aylyn, Orihuela Costa,, 08/12/2009 16:17
Report abuse

I feel sorry for the non smokers, they miss out on all the best information traded over crafty fags in side alleys.
Not to mention the feeling of camaraderie us filthy lunged smokers have when confronted by what I like to call the epileptic sealion brigade. (wave flipper erratically in front of face and make barking noise).

and No, I can assure you. "I don't mind".

- Jimbob, Kensington, 08/12/2009 15:59
Report abuse

To Illiberal and Proud. Hospital admissions have done no such thing. In fact, in Scotland, heart attack admissions are now HIGHER than they were pre-ban.

If you're going to give out info, at least TRY and ensure it's accurate.

Repeal the smoking ban. It might not have brought people into the pub, but it certainly brought the crazies out of the woodwork.

- Rts, Halifax, 08/12/2009 15:55
Report abuse

".. but you can no longer have free treatment on the NHS .."
- Kerry, Purley


Only if people who:

- drink too much pay for their own treatment;
- take drugs pay for their own treatment;
- eat too much and become clinically obese pay for their own treatment;
- catch cancer from excessive sunbathing pay for their own treatment;
- etc;
- etc.

- Frank, Home Counties, England., 08/12/2009 15:20
Report abuse

It amazes me how many people believe the anti-smoking propaganda. As they say, tell a lie often enough and people will believe it.

- Chas, Home Counties, 08/12/2009 15:15
Report abuse

I'm still trying to find all the non-smokers going out for a smoke-free drink since the smoking ban was put in place. According to the Daily Post, "A year since the start of the smoking ban in Wales, pubs have closed and beer sales have plunged to their lowest level since the depression. Last night people in the pub trade said the ban had “hit licensed premises hard”.

When the ban was being discussed, many non-pub goers promised to start going.

Obviously, they were all lying.

At the time of the ban, anti-smokers claimed they stayed away because of the smoke, and that they'd all descend on pubs in droves once it was outlawed. So, where are they all? Pubs are closing or struggling because of the ban, and the promised hordes of non-smokers haven't materialised to alleviate it. My guess is, most of them are the sort of whingers who think mixing with the hoi polloi in pubs is beneath them.

They all said they would enjoy the smoke-free atmosphere so where are they? They're at home trying to think up something else to whinge about, annoyed that they can no longer give smokers evil glares while wafting a hand in front of their faces.

- Kate, London, 08/12/2009 14:31
Report abuse

“Extend the smoking ban or approve a holocaust”?

How appropriate to use the language of the Holocaust, when it’s the anti-smokers who are acting like Nazis.

Despite the assumption of the dangers of passive smoking, the jury is still out on how much of a risk it really is. In 2006, following the ban on smoking, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee published a report on the government’s management of risk. It concluded that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is not the threat it’s purported to be and therefore did not justify a ban. Moreover, much of the science which makes up the passive-smoking case fails to mention that smoking-related illnesses - like lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease - are the product of a number of factors, such as genetics and diet, in addition to the amount of exposure to tobacco smoke. Hence, anti-smoking Nazis can only refer to a ‘link’ between smoking and chest infections.

- Kate, London, 08/12/2009 14:29
Report abuse

Is anywhere free from the anti-smoking lobby?

This latest extension to the anti-smoking campaign is revealing. It shows how the notion of passive smoking has been used to justify ever-increasing intervention into people’s lives. First, anti-smoking legislation invaded the public house. Now, with the focus shifting to children, family life - already a target for all sorts of initiatives - has been made a legitimate site for state intervention on smoking, too.

Increased policing of our smoking habits is not a problem for smokers alone. Anyone who spouts ideas about managing adult habits attacks the fabric of our democracy, the right of capable autonomous adults to make decisions for themselves. For it is adults alone who have the legitimate moral authority to determine how best to care for their children and whether they light up or not, not anti-smoking moralists like these. A ban on smoking in cars may feel like a foregone conclusion, but it isn’t. We should defend adult decision-making and tell the government and its army of moralists to butt out rather than watch our freedoms go up in a puff of smoke.

- Kate, London, 08/12/2009 14:23
Report abuse

Oh Dear the pro smokers are in a bit of a tizzy aren't they?
How's this then, you can carry on puffing away, but you can no longer have free treatment on the NHS for diseases primarily connected with smoking.
Oh, and anyone with cancer from secondary/passive smokers can sue any/all smokers until they squeal.

- Kerry, Purley, 08/12/2009 14:12
Report abuse

Wow, all the loons are out today! Smoking kills and it is no more a human right than assault or public 'self-abuse'.

Tug - for info, in the 2 and a half years since the ban the number of admissions to A&E for heart attacks has dropped by 20%. So it has had a significant effect on the nations health (not to mention the NHS budget).

If you want to smoke do it at home. And while you're at it, google cognitive dissonance.

- Liberal And Proud, London, UK, 08/12/2009 14:00
Report abuse

I think anyone who openly incites hatred toward their fellow men should be locked up. A truly disgusting article which should never have been printed. Totally sick to death of all the nutters that have surfaced since the advent of Nu-Labour,s leftist policies. Roll on the election when hopefully we can elect a decent government who will put a stop to this madness.

- Sheila, uk, 08/12/2009 13:59
Report abuse

"It's hardcore now."

So it would seem. This is probably the most unpleasant piece of hate-fuelled, irrational bigotry I've yet seen from the minority of fanatical anti-smoking busybodies who take it on themselves to dictate other people's behaviour and who are deluded enough to think that they speak for the majority of the population.

- Rick, London, 08/12/2009 13:24
Report abuse

David Sexton.....What rubbish, The smoking ban has been a complete failure,it has done nothing for the Health of the country,nothing for the Wealth of the country,since the ban smoking rates are Up all over the country,there will be a reform of the smoking ban because it is wrong,the "claims of the danger of secondhand smoke are just that,claims,when it comes to telling the truth about SHS,this government and the anti-smoking lot are very quiet,sorry to tell you this David,smoking is on the increase thanks to the ban and at the end of the day it is all about Adult choice,something the anti-lot do not want to hear.

- Tug Wilson, england, 08/12/2009 13:19
Report abuse

Those non smoking brainwashed gurus are not happy with dictating to everyone in this country how they can socialise and who they can socialise with in any so called public place, now they want to take there dictatorship to the streets, and they dont call this discrimination? they are not happy with the destruction of thousands of social clubs and pubs, and the loss of thousands of jobs because of this governments actions now they want to add to the pointless attack on people who smoke, millions of people like me is already feeling disciminated against with this governments ban anymore attacks on our freedom of choice, equality and liberty and things could get very ugly in this country.

- Clif E, London UK, 08/12/2009 12:56
Report abuse

Can we ban people wearing smelly perfume please? And those with BO? I'd like to ban fat people too, and while you're at it, can we ban those silly huge hummer-style buggies? And Simon Cowell is very annoying. As for people who play frisbee with their horrible whining offspring in the park, begone! And anyone whose initals are DS? What must it be like to have to put up with your fellow man, with all his foibles, when you yourself are so very perfect!

- Lewis, London, 08/12/2009 12:44
Report abuse

'That's always the result, a straightforward reflection of the proportion of non-smokers in the population. *Smokers have no allies at all among non-smokers.*'

Polls are notoriously open to abuse and no one wanting serious answers gives them any weight. I can think of many non-smokers who disagree with this vile witch hunt of smokers.

Every year 600,000 people die in the UK, of which roughly a quarter are smokers, most of them over 75 years of age. What is your actual evidence that the 100,000+ die directly as a result of smoking?

- Belinda, Edinburgh UK, 08/12/2009 12:16
Report abuse

If what you are suggesting is a complete ban on open air smoking then this isa once more a fascistic infringement of smokers rights.
I have agreed not to smoke on airplanes,I have to endure 12 hour trips from China to london,I have to endure in the U.K.and most of Europe and the U.S.A non-smoking in bars,clubs,restaurants,shops,etc;and now you want us smokers to not light up in the open air.
A more humane and rights attitude would have been to allow smoking in closed areas of airports as in Beijing.Some pubs could have had smoking,I agree that the majority should be non smoking.This could have been left to the individual establisments.The same could have been done in restaurants.
As in all things the non-smoker remains totally dogmatic against the smoker.Hence I may not have any rights at all.
If I want to kill my self as a smoker that is my human right.
I just wish these non-smokers a good non smoking Happy Christmas and a happy non-smoking New Year.
I may give up but I would not bet on it.

- Denis Regan, harbin china, 08/12/2009 10:00
Report abuse

Add your comment