Earlier this month protesters marched through the streets of St Anne, Alderney, to voice opposition to the proposed smoking ban.
THE President of the States of Alderney yesterday tipped the balance in favour of banning smoking in enclosed public places.
The island’s 10 politicians were split over whether to introduce anti-smoking legislation before Sir Norman Browse, a former surgeon, stepped in.
The President, who is not obliged to vote when the States is divided, said: ‘I have voted because I think voting for [a ban] does more good for the whole island in every conceivable way.
‘I hope I have made the right decision – we will know in future.’
Earlier in the evening Richard Willmott made an impassioned speech in favour of introducing the ban, which will outlaw smoking in pubs and restaurants and see the island follow in the footsteps of Guernsey and the UK.
Mr Willmott said: ‘Nobody doubts the need for clean water, so what about clean air? For us to gain a reputation as Britain’s only smoking island would be very sad indeed.’
John Beaman led the anti-ban members. He said the legislation was unnecessary and would lead to pub closures.
‘We should concentrate our efforts on educating young people about the dangers of smoking. A ban will only damage the licensed trade. We do not have to copy Guernsey and the UK.’
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details.
Article posted on 14th January, 2010 - 10.08am
86 Article Comments
What a sensible decision, I just cannot believe that it was really that close. You only have the read what effects smoking and passive smoking has on people’s health to know this is the correct thing to do. My father died from smoking related cancer, so I think I am qualified to have my say despite what others may think.
Report abuse
I bet no one will report the pub closures, the unemployment and social isolation in a years time.
I predict there will be a 10% reduction in MI admissions one years on.
So as normal ‘doctor knows best’, even though he’s not obliged to. Perhaps the paper can tell us how often he has before.
Report abuse
I think it’s sad. Most people in the UK/Guernsey voted against a smoking ban but the government did it anyway. This will ruin Alderney’s pub trade and all because of this nanny state we now live in where the States feel they have to control everything and protect every person from every little danger. The amusing thing about the smoking ban is that most non-smokers will go outside into the smoking area to join their friends!! Bring back smoking in pubs!!!
Report abuse
I am from Alderney. The bottom line over here regarding pub closers will be the costs involved in running a bar/restaurant & the fact that there are too many bars/restaurants open for the size of population. The ban will not affect anything to do with trade after 2 months when people have got used to it. The islands population on a good day is 2,500 and to be honest having roughly 18 bars/restaurants for this population is a joke. The only plus is that soon you will have clean air in all of them.
Report abuse
“Most people in the UK/Guernsey voted against a smoking ban”
Where can i find the numbers on this. I was never asked to vote for or against smoking but i definitly woudl ahve voted against.
I think the ban is a great thing, the only downside being the number of people standing outside pubs smoking and the fact that it’s now really unpleasant eating alfresco as your normally surrounded by tables full of people puffing away.
Are there really that many people who won’t go out any more because they can’t smoke in pubs or is it just that the nations habits are changing and people are going out less.
Could it be that the number of pubs going out of business has something to do with the major economic issues we are currently facing?
Report abuse
Robert Foul-Menendez.
Interesting that you are now an expert in ’social isolation’ I think we can all see that this is extremely likely to be true!
Report abuse
To J
Where else are we supposed to go then? It’s bad enough outside the pubs when you get the anti-smoking brigade walking past and emphatically waving their hands in front of their faces making “urgh” noises. Why is it smokers are treated like memebers of some diseased colony? Although I do agree with you on voting against (as a smoker I certainly would have)but we were offered no say in the matter.
Also you say about the pubs closing due to the economy, but the state of affairs was fine when the ban first came in over here, and how many out of town pubs went bust within a few months?
Report abuse
Can any smoker explain to me why their right to dump toxic chemicals into the environment is greater than my right not to be contaminated with those toxic chemicals ????
Report abuse
Hurrah, hurrah , hurrah !!!!. I love Sir Norman Browse – he has got some balls.
Totally agree with “Aurignais” – ( read their post it is 4th one down ) it will be other factors that close pubs not the smoking ban.
Personally, as an Alderney girl I am absolutely thrilled and look forward to June 1st 2010.
Also, I will not vote for ; John Beaman, Ian Tugby, Peter Allen, Geoff Sergant and Tony Llewllyn if they do decide to stand States election .
Report abuse
Loss of trade (although inevitable) is no reason for not having a ban. And anyway, if poeple want to stay home because they can’t smoke in the pub then let them, it’s pretty childish if you ask me.
“The amusing thing about the smoking ban is that most non-smokers will go outside into the smoking area to join their friends!!”
Isn’t that their choice though? Whereas before they had none.
Report abuse
Jenni – “Most people in the UK/Guernsey voted against a smoking ban but the government did it anyway.”
Actually they did not, because there was no referendum.
Most people welcome the ban and think that it has made socialising more pleasant.
Funny how the only people to say they are from Alderney (and therefore the only voices that really count) are in favour of the ban.
Report abuse
You cannot blame loss of trade on a smoking ban just as climate change cannot be blamed only on CO2 or heart attack admissions being directly due to smoking.
There is no direct single factor cause and effect and trying to prove or disprove based on that fact is terrible scientific practice.
Which is why people do it, pick some pseudo-science which looks plausible to the uninformed.
Nobody can dispute that smoking is bad for you, yet these threads fill up with pro-smokers (under the banner of pro-choice) try to prove that it isn’t. They try to say passive smoking is a myth because there isn’t any study (that they will accept) to prove it exists.
Surely a lungful of carcinogens is a lungful of carcinogens no matter who it was who lit up. I can’t find a study to support that so I’m sure RFM and friends will disagree.
The long term effects of a smoking ban are still unclear and due to other factors there will likely never be a clear cause and effect that people can point to one way or the other.
It won’t stop people with an agenda to drive traffic to their sites or sell books from stuffing local forums with their conspiracy theories though…
Report abuse
Excellent news – will now book a holiday to Alderney.
Report abuse
Well done and wishing you every success in implementing this. In the UK and other places in Europe the positives have certainly outweighed the negatives and for those ready and up for the change you will reap the rewards
For smokers – Create areas to meet the challenges of the weather. A key positive will be how many cut down on amount of cigarettes smoked.
For Non-Smokers – In my case a night out used to mean returning home smelling of cigarettes and every morning with a really bad cough. Not any more
For Publicans – Adapt and be positive. In my former village up North with 10,000 people they had 10 pubs and now have 8 nicely refurbished pubs, 1 wine bar and an Indian restaurant. The wine bar is still called the Brown Horse adapted to the change in Market as challenge is to attract those adults who had stopped going. It is a success. The Indian restaurant was a first and fits better in the premises than the pub ever did.
Living in Guernsey my wife suggested visiting Alderney as a 45 year old Guern she had never been but I said no as having been 3 times did not feel it would appeal given her previous displeasure of being smoked on.
Report abuse
Dean
Loss of trade is not inevitable as how many of those who went to the pub will still go and it shoul be looked at as an opportunity to bring in those who have given up the pub? My family is a good example as here in Guernsey, the inlaws and their Friends who never went to the pub since the 70’s now go to the 2 pubs in their area for the meatdraws on a Friday and Saturday as they love the social interaction and with smoking in place would never go in. Opportunity is there to attract others so the strong will survive and create better places for a good social
Report abuse
Sorry Matty
I actually meant that i would have voted against smoking in public places i.e. i’m in favour of the ban.
Smoking is a disgusting habit wiht has a negative affect on everyone around you. Even if we ignore the numerous health affects.
The smell of cigarette smoke is horrible and not something i want to have wafting around me when i’m otu with my friends.
Not a frequent occurence but definitely not uncommon is when a smoker accidentally burns a whole in my clothes while holding their fag by their side in a crowded room.
smokers will come back and say why not ban drinking which has numerous health effects but drinkers can drink till they come home and the only people they harm are themselves.
I think smoking should be banned totally as i really don’t see the point or benefit.
Actually it would be great if someone could tell me what’s so great about it?
Report abuse
The debate is now over – no more smoking lobbyists comments please – it is signed, sealed delivered and coming soon !!!!!
Hurrah – three cheers for Sir Norman you fabulous little man !!!.
Vote Sir Norman for president – ooops he already is !!!!!! LOL
Report abuse
Well done Alderney,you did the right thing,whatever gets thrown at you.As an ex smoker(and in the Army we smoked like chimneys)I noticed the immediate difference,as most of my comrades,when we packed smoking in.And I have said it before,and I’ll say it again,if you can’t go out for a nice meal in a restaurant for 2 or 3 hours without smoking,then you must be in a pretty poor state.And its lovely these days to go out for a meal without someone spoiling it for you by puffing smelly smoke across your plate!By the way,I was born in Alderney,my grandfather had a fish and chip shop,ran a boarding house,and was the Town Crier.He knew where the best fish could be caught,and the tastiest rabbits could be shot,bet he would have appreciated the clean air on his premises!But of course,in those days,no-one thought about health AND
smoking!Might just pop over this Sept when in Guernsey,any tips for a smokeless meal?
Report abuse
@PC
I am basing my assumption on the trends seen in the last few years (the BBPA estimated beer sales down 7% in the first year of the ban) in the UK. You are basing your argument on the habits of your in-laws!
There are many factors contributing to the increase in Pub closures, and the smoking ban is definitely one of them. The point I was making was that these closures and loss of trade is not a valid argument against the ban.
Report abuse
This is not just about pubs! Offices, works vehicles etc. I worked for one of Alderneys supermarkets where smoking was/is allowed in the office, warehouse, vans and freezer/store room and it wasn’t nice having to put up with it. If the management were non smokers it probably wouldn’t have been allowed. Same goes for eating out, will be good to have dinner/lunch without having to change clothes and bathe afterwards.
Report abuse
Matty, you ask why the need for a ban. I was reading a piece of research that sums it up perfectly. I will not bore the anti smoking fraternity with the detail, just the adstract which basically says, you have to ’stigmatise the plebs who smoke or smoking cessation policies won’t work.
‘In recent years, addictions policy has stressed the need to counteract stigmatization in order to promote public health. However, as recent observers have noted, through the widespread implementation of tobacco ‘denormalization’ strategies, tobacco control advocates appear to have embraced the use
of stigma as an explicit policy tool. In a recent article, Ronald Bayer (2008) argues that the mobilization of stigma may effectively reduce the prevalence of smoking behaviors linked to tobacco-related morbidity
and mortality and is therefore not necessarily antithetical to public health goals. This commentary takes up this question of whether stigmatizing smoking may ultimately serve the interests of public health.
Through an examination of the unique contours of tobacco control policy, we suggest that stigmatizing smoking will not ultimately help to reduce smoking prevalence amongst disadvantaged smokers – who now represent the majority of tobacco users. Rather, it is likely to exacerbate health-related inequalities by limiting smokers’ access to healthcare and inhibiting smoking cessation efforts in primary care settings.
Smoking, stigma and tobacco ’denormalization’: Further reflections on the use
of stigma as a public health tool. A commentary on Social Science & Medicine’s
Stigma, Prejudice, Discrimination and Health Special Issue (67: 3)
Kirsten Bell a,*, Amy Salmon b, Michele Bowers c, Jennifer Bell d, Lucy McCullough
In short it doesn’t work.
Report abuse
At last Alderney joins the real world!
Report abuse
Robert FM – you ARE boring the ‘anti smoking fraternity’ and just about everyone else quite frankly. Just stub it out won’t you…
Report abuse
Good morning, I represent the internet pressure group FreedomFromFreedom2Choose. The members (me and my cat – Smokie, he’s so cute and cuddly) have been lobbying UK government for some time towards our aim of ridding the internet of pro-smoking propaganda.
Armed with just 5 different blog account logins, an ability to find meaningless statistics and medical studies and having lots of time on my hands FFF2C will not stop until the good people of Guernsey are free to discuss smoking online without being bombarded, belittled and insulted by bitter (did you see what I did there? Bitter, you know like the drink!! LOL!) English publicans.
I will be posting a FFF2C petition soon with the aim of collecting over 10 signatures which I will then use as leverage with the authorities to get F2C BANNED FROM TEH INTERWEBS!!!!!!
Report abuse
There is a simple solution to this.
Top Tip
Smokers: Fed up with people forcing you into social isolation? Instead of smoking in enclosed public places, extract the tobacco leaf out from the cigarette paper, cook up in a spoon with some watered down brandy, and inject straight into the vein. Hey Presto, the pub experience without the noxious fumes!!
Report abuse
R F-M
As a smoking, pro ban supporter with locally despised socio-political opinions, I can hardly count myself as a member of a ‘fraternity’!
I spent the worst nine months of my life working in Swindon.
Report abuse
If only Roy Castle could caste a vote.
Report abuse
Personally I wasn’t a big fan of Roy Castle – he was always blowing his own trumpet too much for my liking…………
Report abuse
RFM:
I was trying to think of ways to reason with you. But there are none. So I will make this as painless as possible for you: your views are old fashioned, irresponsible, and unwanted in our modern, health conscious world. Your arguments are void and irrelevant. Move on.
Report abuse
I wonder how many of the sanctimonious, smug champions of ” breathable air for all” will be practicing what they preach by locking their cars and throwing away the keys. A little jaunt up Victoria St in the car throws more crap into the air than a hundred smokers do in a week,(or is that a different “breathable air for all”?. And since we want to be so much like the UK perhaps we could petition for our own nuclear deterrent,( paid for from the profits of the gambling industry naturally).
Report abuse
Flamer:
What a ridiculous analogy. To make your analogy relevant or comparable we would have to be talking about banning smoking whilst walking up Victoria Street, or driving your car in pubs. Clearly, neither are topics for discussion as they are as ludicrous as your post was.
Report abuse
Flamer. Prove it.
Report abuse
You may be onto something there, Flamer.
The EU would listen to us if we had a warhead or 200. Get Dave “The name’s Jones, Dave Jones” Jones on the case.
Report abuse
Truth Man
To make my “analogy” relevant I should have said
“A little jaunt up Victoria St in the car throws more crap into the air than a hundred smokers do in a week”. Oh I did! Maybe you should try reading the comment before posting your reply. PS , its more of a comparison than an analogy
Report abuse
Flamer has a point.
I drove up Victoria St in my prototype cigarette powered car by a staggering coincidence it used the same number of cigarettes as one hundred smokers do in a week.
Sorry about that.
I’m now working on an external combustion version that uses flame posts from forums via a sterling engine.
Toodle pip
Report abuse
Has anyone noticed how the bigots are rambling in much braver terms now the ban is in. As for Sir Norman Browse, quote “a former surgeon, The President, who is not obliged to vote when the States is divided, said: ‘I have voted because I think voting for [a ban] does more good for the whole island in every conceivable way.
‘I hope I have made the right decision – we will know in future.’” well what can I say someone who just sealed the fate of freedom without even being sure his decision is the right one.
Report abuse
Its not all about banning smoking, its about freedom of choice. As a President he should be looking after the people of Alderney and taking their opinions into account which he has clearly not done otherwise the ban would not have been passed. It states in the journal that Sir Norman was not sure if he made the right decision well surely that says it all, should he have voted if he was not sure? If a person was on trial would he have sent them down, not being sure? well I am not sure I want a man like that running Alderney especially when do you ever see him in the pubs. For all those who think that Alderney needs to get in the real world, well lets face it would it be Alderney if it did? I dont think so, I would hate it if we were like everywhere else and if you respected Alderney you would to. Half the people who have allot to say dont even go out so what difference does it make and then they do there are places they can go. How would those people feel if it was their son, daughter, brother, sister loosing money cause people wont drink in their pubs. Knowing how the public feel why would the peoples states vote the way they did? We pay our taxes, we work in Alderney and we make money for the island, why dont we get to vote on decisions like this? Good luck cleaning the streets and having lots more noise at night with people outside, who is goiong to put ashtrays outside for smokers? oh I think the floor at least you have something new to complain about.
Report abuse
Er, Kate, surely President Norman HAS taken everyone’s freedom into account?? Non-smokers can now enter a pub without being poisoned, and smokers have the freedom to stand outside the pub.
Surely MORE people now have MORE freedom than before the smoking ban??
Report abuse
Flamer:
You need to look up the word analogy! You tried to draw a comparison, and tried to show how your odd example corresponded to the topic being debated… that is an analogy. And like I said, it was a poor one at that.
If you don’t like or understand the word analogy then try this on for size:
“What a ridiculous comparison. To make your comparison relevant or comparable we would have to be talking about banning smoking whilst walking up Victoria Street, or driving your car in pubs. Clearly, neither are topics for discussion as they are as ludicrous as your post was.”
And while you’re typing, go on, take Student Bob up his challenge. Prove what you said is true. You won’t be able to, because again, it is absolute tripe.
Report abuse
my view you are soooo wrong…….im sorry your dad died of lung cancer but smoking is a choice. i wish pubs and hotels had been given the choice to be either smoking or non smoking. then we are all happy, the smokers have somewhere to go for a fag with beer in warm and non smokers can have meal and drink with no smokey atmosphere….im getting sick of being told what i can or cant do when smoking is not illegal
Report abuse
Hi Melissa, surely smokers can still go for a beer and a fag, they just have to nip outside for that cigarette?? Where’s the problem with that??
Report abuse
Seriously guys! It doesn’t even really matter about the health issues. Most pubs used to be horrible places to be with all that smoke! It’s not that big a deal to pop outside for a cig, it really really isn’t.
Report abuse
At this time of year it is a bit when it’s freezing cold, and theres no outdoor heating in some places. The summer is fine, out in beer gadens and so forth, but oh wait, the non-smokers come outside and moan at us there. Trust me I had this a few times at the Terrace over last summer, if you don’t like it, go back inside!
Mellissa, I agree with you totally. I know some pubs where there’s hardly any bar staff at some points because they’re outside smoking with us.
Report abuse
Has anybody thought that the reason pubs close is because they are something left over from an age gone by. Most Pubs in Alderney have 1/2 dozen old boys sat their with a roll up in a world of their own. Perhaps Alderney will wake up to the modern world and see peoples preferences change as do fashion and any other social aspects of life. Don’t worry Alderney the millenium is just around the corner! You will soon be in the same century as the rest of Europe and perhaps attract people to see the Islands beauty and not to sit in a nicotine stained boozer choking to death. Liven up abit and look to the benefits there is more to life than a couple of smoking old guys stood in the cold street when the rest of us are enjoying the good social life and a drink inside.
Just one last point beer sales may well have dropped since the smoking ban was introduced but wine sales have increased which has a better margin for pubs so their profit should increase. Lets all just get on with life and stop the useless bickering non-smokers enjoy your night out and smokers get over it.
Report abuse
Matty
Ever think why the bar staff smoke??
They probably became addicted to it through passive smoking whilst serving bar in a smoking establishment.
Seriously, I’m confused, I have no idea why anyone on earth would smoke anymore, now that we know what damage it does, allied to the price of it.
People dont go round paying other people to punch them, so why would you voluntarily PAY to damage yourself, shorten your lifespan and become unhealthier??
Sure pregnant women have smaller babies, and overweight women can use smoking as a weight control device but other than that???????
Or is it because you look cool???
Or perhaps you dont feel you pay enough tax, so you feel you need to help the government out??
Or is it just plain good old fashioned addiction, at which point you have to ask yourself “why am I such a weak person that I cant stop myself”
Seriously, in 50 years, smoking will just be a nasty part of our past, consigned to the history books, and not a moment too soon either.
Report abuse
who cares about the smokers freedom of choice it stinks and I don’t want to smell the stuff or come home recking of smoke.
All you drug addicts go some place else to smoke….
Report abuse
Well said Micky cohrs and while you nicotine junkies are about it can you please refrain from the equally vile habit of leaving your filthy butts all over the place. I don’t include in this criticism those tidy smokers who WANT to give up (70 per cent according to national UK figures although some of the tobacco company stooges who post on these threads will disagree).
Report abuse
How selfish of you Micky cohrs. Smokers should have the freedum2choose how you smell when you go home ;)
On your second point, perhaps they can open a wheeze-easy where they can flout the law together.
Martino, I believe the cigarette butts all over the place are some kind of protest over the ban and not because (some of them) are antisocial litterbugs.
I try not to Tar people with the same brush, to use the expression and I know many people who smoke (as well as many who have managed to give up now that pubs are not full of passive smoke). Most of them do not complain about having to pop outside for a cigarette and in most cases they time it via a trip to the bathroom or to the bar!
Meanwhile I and others have the freedom2choose to go to the pub without having our eyes watering from the smoke building up in the poorly ventilated bars over here, the ones that the most vocal posters opposing the bans will never visit.
Report abuse
“All you drug addicts go some place else to smoke…”
I think that should have finished “…and leave the sanctimonious non-smokers to take their currently more socially acceptable drugs in peace”
Report abuse
Big Si…
Yeah, but my pint will not make you stink, or poison your lungs. Ok?
Report abuse
If the choice is between being a ’sanctimonious’ non smoker who chooses a healthy lifestyle and is sentient enough to at least acknowledge that there’s enough evidence out there to suggest that just because a drug is legal, doesn’t mean it can’t KILL you (and seriously damage the health of others) or a or a self centred, deluded, in denial addict who thinks it’s ok to poison myself and those around me with my particular drug of choice because I WANT to and it’s legal, be paying the Government god knows how much in additional taxes so I can slowly kill myself and risk becoming a financial and emotional burden on my loved ones as and when I succumb to a horrible, long, painful illness or death, thus depriving myself (and them) of the chance to enjoy the many, many other things in life that actually MATTER apart from me and my addiction – like watching my kids grow up and counting my many blessings -then I’ll choose being sanctimonious every time.
Report abuse
I take it then you’re denying that alcohol has any ill effects? And there was me thinking that alcohol can cause cirrhosis and hepatitis, and can cause anti-social behaviour and violence, (you only have to see the current manslaughter case to see the effect). Or does that not count as damaging the health of yourself and others?
The Government should have taken a common-sense approach to the banning of smoking in pubs, and enforced a ban anywhere that food is served, and where food is not served, licensees should have been given the choice of making their pub, and advertising it as non-smoking or smoking, giving customers the choice of which establishments to frequent, and giving bar staff the option of whether to work in a smoking or non-smoking environment. Additionally, any pub designated as “smoking” could have been forced to install air scrubbers, to re-circulate and clean the air.
Smoking bans are an erosion of civil liberties. If the Government were solely concerned with the health of smokers, they would ban the importation and sale of tobacco products.
Report abuse
Morning Simon.
How can you possibly argue that smoking bans are an erosion of civil liberties?? Surely smokers still have the ability to stand outside and smoke AND non-smokers can enjoy their right to sit in a pub and not have to inhale poisonous fumes and leave stinking like an ashtray.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Surely more people are enjoying more freedom with the smoking bans in force?? No-one is stopping you smoking, and I don’t have to stink of stale cigarette smoke.
Report abuse
it is not an erosion of my civil liberties if I am prevented from defecating in the street.
it is simple enforcement of good manners.
Report abuse
Simon. If I appear to have no grasp of civil liberties, perhaps that’s because many years ago, I accepted that, as a non smoker and someone who can stop at a couple of drinks, I was in an apparent minority, and didn’t have any.
I loved going out, but my social life was plagued by cigarette smoke and drunken morons who shouted, heckled, fought and puked in and out of the pubs and clubs. Socialising felt more like going into battle than an opportunity to have a pleasant experience, so I just gave up going out and got on with my life. Plain and simple.
Now, many years later, times have changed. The Government has decided to crack down on smoking and excessive drinking, and at last, perhaps all the other people who can control their animal urges and hedonistic need for gratification regardless of the cost can also enjoy a social life.
I am yet to see one poor ol’ failing publican on any of these forums stating how they would be willing to spend the 1000s of pounds your proposals would require.
Perhaps that’s because of lost profits thru cheap supermarket booze, the recession, changing attitudes and a lot of other factors, or perhaps it’s just because it’s cheaper and easier to keep their profits in their pockets, and have you stand outside and smoke for free.
Report abuse
This reminds me of people complaining that their right to free speech has been infringed because their comment is moderated or they are denied access to a forum.
You have the right to free speech, you don’t have the right to force people to listen (or read it etc).
Likewise you still have the right to smoke but you don’t have (and never had) the right to force the people around you to breath in that smoke.
Report abuse
For those who would like to see the sort of arguments, accusations, and suchlike that anonymous posters engage in when discussing this subject (including several of the posters in this present thread) and see general lack of response/respect given to named and known individuals who offer referenced arguments and reasoned responses to them, just visit the thread for the story at:
http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2010/01/07/former-member-rounds-on-states-over-the-smoking-ban/#comment-60088
I think that’s better than clogging up this board with all the same arguments, but you will note that discussion on the other board was closed before I was able to respond to the last several comments to my by the anonymous “Student” folks or Mrs. Pin. I can add that response here if they wish.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Report abuse
Michael J. McFadden
Just go away you silly person
we are all getting bored of you now (i think).
Report abuse
Nah, Michael J McFadden. No-one cares what you think.
Besides, how do we know that Michael J McFadden is your real name??
Report abuse
I have recently completed an experiment.
I took 30 dogs into a room and had them going on 100 marlboro reds each over eight hours.
I sat in that room and felt the love.
It was apparent that after the experience I was only 20% less sick than the sickest beagle I used in the trial.
I attributed 10% of that sickness on the ten pints of beer I had consumed concurrently, factored in the psychological damage of observing a dog smoking (and playing billiards), and assigned a variance of +/- 3% sickness for the harsh lighting in my lab.
The obvious conclusion was that detrimental effects on my well being had nothing to do with 3000 fags wafting in my general direction and everything to do with a left-wing conspiracy with roots in Nazism, man made climate change drivel and Barack Obama.
And not allowing myself, or the dogs, comfort breaks.
The sound of thirty dogs sighing was worth it.
Report abuse
Student Bob
I agree with you, but if someone was using a pseudonym, why would they pick Michael J McFadden?
Just a thought.
Best regards and keep posting.
Otto Q Cheese-Grater
Report abuse
Erm, obviously you care Bob seeing as you reply to every MJM post.
Or are you just wanting to prolong the rally in the game of ’spouting-drivel-tennis’ which you’ve both been subjecting these forums to?
Report abuse
Oh noes! Just when you thought it was safe to go back on the internet………..
Anyway, where logic fails try a conspiracy!
“you will note that discussion on the other board was closed before I was able to respond” no it wasn’t Mr. Mcfadden darhhhling you had at least 6 days to respond, look at the dates on the last posts.
Still if you insist in continuing to make yourself look like a loony by poking your nose into our affairs whilst knowing nothing of our culture, history and probably even where we are on a map then carry on dear.
Report abuse
bcb, hard to see how I’d be boring with my rapier wit and stylish looks. :> Plus look at all the doorways I’ve opened to new worlds of information and thought!
Bob, As I said in my last comment to Mrs. Pin on the other thread would you prefer smoking discussions where only one side was heard?
As to knowing who I am, you could always “Contact the Author” through http://www.Antibrains.com to see I’m imitating myself (Hey, it’s the sincerest form of self-flattery!) and then maybe go on to look me up in the Philadelphia phone book to give me a friendly call and ask how my gonads are gargling.
Meanwhile however, have you completely given up on finding even a SINGLE substantive criticism of any of the material at http://TheTruthIsALie.com or making even a single attempt at defending what the antismoking researchers did as noted at http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/2210.html
I’m waiting…
– MJM
Report abuse
Dot Comma – thank you for another thoughtful and insightful contribution.
Report abuse
er, Mrs. Pin? Did I say anything about a “conspiracy”? I was simply apologizing for my inability to respond to you on the other board after being away for a few days. Here’s what I had written to you:
===
Mrs. Pin, all I can say is that you have done a far better job than I ever could have of proving my point (i.e. that your charges of my cut and pasting boilerplates here were false):
All your “tiny URL” pointers point very clearly to examples where I have NOT simply cut and pasted extensive boilerplates. They share common phrases, or occasionally even common sentences, but aside from one or two very specific and merited examples dealing with identical story situations or pointers to what I feel are exceptionally good URLs for responding to certain questions, my postings are all highly unique onto themselves.
One of your URL searches in particular was enlightening:
http://tinyurl.com/yejse2g
because it shows clearly how on board after board, for Antismoker after Antismoker, none has really been able to step up to the bat and offer any substantive criticisms of my writings even when specifically invited to do so.
Thank you Mrs. P!
- MJM
Report abuse
To the pro smoking MJM. You are swimming against the tide of both public opinion and scientific opinion with your increasingly tedious postings from the other side of the pond and you come across, wittingly or unwittingly, as a stooge of an industry that is directly responsible for millions of premature deaths and terrible diseases.
Just today the British government has announced new plans to curb this noxious poisonous drug that you are so keen to defend. The Italian government is looking at measures to stop the toxic leach out of poisons from all those millions of horrible fag ends and the Finnish government is even looking at the possibility of a total ban on this deathly product, supported by a raft of measures to help their poor smokers kick their life destroying habit.
I am in my 50s but I hope I live long enough to see the day when people will say: “And to think, this stuff was actually legal until ????”
Report abuse
Firstly I still note that MJM still hasn’t managed to prove that passive smoke in an enclosed public area with poor ventilation is not harmful to non-smokers. Remember that rightly or wrongly the ban is in effect and thus it is up to you to prove conclusively why it should be removed.
Secondly there are no long term studies on the health benefits of a smoking ban in the Bailiwick of Guernsey (because you can’t have a long term study when only a year or so has passed since the ban).
Thirdly you assume that smoking was the single factor in any study which cannot be the case when looking at human studies outside a lab environment. The other single factor argument being thrown around is that local pubs are closing due only to the ban and ignoring cheap booze from supermarkets etc.
Fourthly my local pub is far more popular since the ban so going on single factor logic (if smokers can use it then so shall I) I can state that the smoking ban must be a great success over here (nothing to do with the meat draws, savings club, card evenings etc they run to reward loyal customers).
Speaking of a great success, I suggest you turn your brain dissection onto the UK government.
“A plan to halve the number of smokers in England over the next 10 years has been unveiled by ministers.
Measures being considered include removing branding from packets and banning cigarette vending machines.”
I’m sure being unable to look at the brand of ciggies you are slowly killing yourself with or the inability to buy them from a machine won’t hamper your freedom to choose.
Report abuse
MJM “for Antismoker after Antismoker, none has really been able to step up to the bat and offer any substantive criticisms of my writings even when specifically invited to do so.”
Err no, I think you are a bit confused. Probably too much carbon monoxide in your blood, gone right to the brain. Other than from Foul-Mendendneneeez the majority of posters criticise YOU my friend. Michael J. McFadden you have a filthy, stinky, poisonous habit, no amount of link posting or statistic quoting can change that.
Why won’t you answer Student Jim’s questions? I think he more than ’steps up to the bat’ with clear, logical reasoning; yet you ridiculed him for being semi-literate. It’s pretty obvious to all that this is far from being the case.
Why are you so interested in the Channel Islands anyway?
Report abuse
Martino, LOL! I’m not sure if your post is meant to be satirical or serious, but let me take it as serious for argument’s sake. You speak of my being a “stooge” for “pro-smoking” while meanwhile your own posting, in one short paragraph, manages to include the words “noxious,” “poisonous,” “toxic,” “poisons,” “horrible, “deathly,” “poor smokers,” and “life destroying” ? Heh… ok… satire I guess, but hey, you’ve captured it perfectly and it’s something you see all over the net: people who start out sounding rational and scientific and then as their writing continues you see the brainwashing and regurgitation of the hate sound bites they’ve been fed simply creeping into every statement. Sad, and scary.
Jim, actually the onus for conclusive proof was a slipper for the foot of the pro-banners: they were the ones disrupting people’s lives, destroying businesses, and promoting an atmosphere of hate and fear without adequate grounding. Obviously anyone enclosed in a small enough area with poor enough ventilation will be harmed by the materials produced by any burning material – be it birthday candles, hamburgers on a grill, cigarettes, a fireplace, etc. In terms of any reasonably accepted meaning for the word “harmed” all of those problems are well taken care of by decent ventilation. Your question is akin to pushing for a ban on patio dining and challenging your opponent to prove that lying in a tanning bed all day every day for their lifetime wouldn’t hurt their skin.
Your second paragraph doesn’t apply to anything I’ve said: I refer to the plethora of studies done elsewhere. Free Choice supporters could as easily have asked for specific proof about Guernsey before the ban.
Your third argues “single factor causality,” a good standard for medical or economic “proof,” but not something I generally argue. Economically, the extraordinarily sudden and sharp increase of UK pub closures from 3/week to TWENTY SEVEN per week in the year the ban came in is persuasive however: the closures increased by 1,000% but the booze price differentiation certainly didn’t. A related, and also very clear, example of ban economics can be seen at:
http://arclightzero.web.officelive.com/Documents/MNGraph.pdf
{Note to Mrs. P: you’ll notice that once again I refer you to a site without advertising or “hit-count” concerns}
Re cig-branding: not something I really care about much, but they should do the same with beers. Get rid of the colorful labels and ads, and simply have each bottle given a white label with three black letters: Drink XQZ beer!
Still haven’t been able to come up with any specific substantive criticisms yet I notice.
Not surprising.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Report abuse
People should stop responding to this moron because your giving him exactly what he wants, PUBLICITY.
Report abuse
MJM – you seem to think that you have scored a point by the fact that we are not challenging your writings (as opposed to what you write on here). The point is that we haven’t even bothered to read them as we don’t care what you have to say. Why should we? You have no connection with these islands. Your opinion counts for zilch.
You have come on here to argue against a law that has already been introduced. We, who are either located in that jurisdiction or in a “sister” island which also enacted the law recently, have told you why we (and the vast majority of the population) welcome the law – and for simple reasons that have nothing to do with medical research.
That is democracy.
What have your writings got to do with anything?
Go away.
Report abuse
Yes, MJM I did use the words “noxious,” “poisonous,” “toxic,” “poisons,” “horrible, “deathly,” “poor smokers,” and “life destroying” in my last post and, yes, I was and still am deadly serious.
Furthermore I am 100 per cent confident that people like Sir Liam Donaldson, as well as your own US chief medical officer, and indeed our own Bailiwick MoH Dr Bridgman – all top medical professionals with far more knowledge and insight and expertise and objectivity that you could ever dream of possessing – would be entirely happy to associate themselves with my descriptions of the health effects of cigarettes.
You are indeed a stooge of the cancer stick industry, whether you like it or not, and you are even more deluded than I first thought – the wacko who loves tabacco!
Report abuse
Well hello again Mrs. P! I actually just answered your question on another board, but since you don’t like links I’m afraid I must give you fair warning that the following paragraph is a cut and paste from there:
“what happens over there, or anywhere for that matter, in this fight is of concern everywhere. The “Tobacco Control” people hold multimillion dollar mega-conferences every three years to plan out and coordinate their activities on a world wide scale. The Free Choice folks can’t afford those sorts of extravaganzas, OR the money spent on TV ads and fancy press release campaigns, but we CAN expose the lies of the antismoking movement here online where we have an equal shot at the microphone.”
As for answering questions, and not receiving much in the way of answers to my own, I would again refer folks to our extended discussion over at:
http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2010/01/07/former-member-rounds-on-states-over-the-smoking-ban/#comment-60088
where they’ll see not only numerous answers to questions, but also a fair number of examples where you have charged me with various things, been shown you were incorrect, and then moved blithely on without a hint of an apology.
Again, not surprising.
- MJM
Report abuse
Funny stuff Michael J. McFadden as I assume that link is a joke? Otherwise it’s just another post that shows you really have no idea about our lovely little islands.
A link to data about smoking in casinos, very relevant. Do you want some data about the exponential deterioration rate of the reinforced concrete in German bunkers? Or how about a study into how many loony grockles it takes to ruin a forum. Both of those will be of as much use to you in the US as your graph of sad chain smoking gamblers is to us.
Much more relevant data to Guernsey and the positive effects of our smoking ban can be found here:- http://tinyurl.com/yk73×99
J’espére que vous avaïs apprins tchique chique chaose.
Report abuse
Micky, I’m as happy as the next student to enter into a long, drawn out debate on the pathophysiology of smoking and passive smoking related health problems and the ethics of smoking regulation, but you bring absolutely nothing to the table!! Thanks for linking to the previous thread, where you continued to shirk any serious discussion!!
Can I suggest that if you wish to continue polluting this forum that you provide some empirical, peer-reviewed, quantitative evidence that exposure to passive smoke does not affect short or long-term health?? And please, not just another bunch of links to random blogs (something that you criticised me for!!).
Can you explain where the non-smoker’s freedom2choose to enjoy a smoke-free atmosphere is in the absence of a ban?? Can you explain why smokers cannot stand outside for a few minutes before returning inside??
Can you explain why you criticise the use of pseudonyms, despite using one yourself regularly “Cantilouper”?? What benefit does my real name bring to this discussion??
Student Bob J McFadden.
Author of “Spin, Obfuscation and Lies. Dissecting Michael J McFadden’s Replies”
Report abuse
The patio dining analogy is totally spurious and you know it.
If I decide to give myself skin cancer by staying in direct sunlight all day without protection that is my choice (but people would rightly call me stupid for doing so). In your situation it is your choice to give yourself whatever illness you like from smoking cigarettes. At that level the analogy has some similarity.
But wait, the argument isn’t over the freedom to chose how an individual wishes to self harm but is related to the health of those people around them. Unless sunburn is somehow transmitted to nearby people when *you* decide to stay in the sun too long then the analogy is bunkum.
I’m glad you have finally admitted that smoking in confined places poses a risk to other people. I’ll also point out that not all pubs and clubs over here *can* have decent ventilation due to them having listed status (that is what happens when buildings are very old and have historical significance). Also there was a general unwillingness from landlords who could have added ventilation to spend the money just to support their furniture being full of cigarette burns (smokers have been their own worse enemies on the antisocial front). It is far cheaper to just ask smokers to step outside for a couple of minutes to “enjoy” their chosen poison.
As to your casino graph, it is another single factor comparison and it ignores other issues such as the increase of online gambling and reduction of disposable income in the same time period. I could however take those same numbers and make a comparison that people who smoke are more likely to have addictive personalities and thus more likely to gamble.
And again on the single factor comparisons you continue to bring up the rate of pub closures since the ban but ignore the increased rents and general downturn in the economy during the same time period. Trying to say that beer prices haven’t significatly changed doesn’t count as substantive evidence. Single factor “this has changed and this has changed so one must have caused the other” is completely ludicrous junk science.
You pick on Martino for using poison etc as a description of cigarettes (when it has been proven they are poisonous and no amount of argument from the pro smoking lobby can deny that) but at the same time you claim smoking bans “disrupt people’s lives, destroy businesses, and promot an atmosphere of hate and fear” but without any substantive proof!
The only businesses that have a direct causal effect from a smoking ban are people selling cigarettes (as more people finally give up) or the companies that make them.
The ban is in place in many countries and in 5-10 years time we will start to see some long term results (what? you were expecting results overnight? For shame MJM). Another issue is (for example on heart disease) trying to draw a conclusion on reduction of admissions based on smoking alone ignores other important factors such as the general increase in obesity. You also love to ignore the social benefits of the ban such as not being forced to smell like an ashtray after a night out.
So carry on your campaign of FUD against anti-smokers (I am not anti-smoking, I support your right to smoke at home or outside) but the facts you have provided don’t actually prove your position that passive smoking is acceptable. Medical experts not in the pay of the tobacco companies have made a far better case than your pressure groups.
I suggest you regroup and get ready for the eventual talks on an outright ban.
Report abuse
Heh, well Mrs. Pin, as shown before in that other thread, you DO have a sense of humor and for that I commend thee m’lady! However the gambling post was in direct response to your request that I answer Student Jim, which I did, again without acknowledgement. And the link of course was not supposed to have anything to do directly with your islands other than showing, as the pub closure example did as well, that a strongly time-linked single factor variable can indeed be meaningful.
And Bob, I believe your questions were dealt with quite well in the past as readers here or on that other thread will find… all except the one about Cantiloper, which I’ll address here. Cantiloper comes from the pre-Al-Gore days of the internet (still waiting for an apology from Mrs. Pin on that one, although her video was VERY cute!) when everyone, including me, was still rather frightened by the possibilities of the technology. When I first began writing about smoking issues I kept to it – simply out of the sheer joy of knowing the frustrations of the Antismokers who were so SURE that I must be a “tobacco company plant” but couldn’t track me down.
Around the turn of the century I realized the force of my arguments would be enhanced by supporting them with my real name. The only time I use Cantiloper on boards such as this nowadays is when the board engine limits names to 15 letters or less. Rather than be MichaelJMcFadde I’ll often go with my old name. However, if the issue is smoking-related I’ll still sign my real name at the bottom of the posts, as well as my competing interest, unless I’ve just done so in recent postings above.
In terms of providing you evidence Bob, what would satisfy you? A study showing passive smoking has no effect on lung cancer? How about a study showing that it protects children from lung cancer? Think of all the fun you could have proving that such a study came from the tobacco industry! Of course providing such a study *still* would not produce any substantive criticisms of my writings from you, since you most assuredly would have enjoyed skewering me with them over and over till your fingers bled in the last few weeks.
Still, if you *truly* felt such a thing would satisfy your question I can try to dig one up from my various files.
Mrs. Pin, maybe I’ll visit your “lovely little islands” next time I’m over there. I’ve visited with friends in various parts of England, Scotland, and Wales… but never your isles.
- MJM
Report abuse
MJM – I wouldn’t bother if I were you, you’ve not made any friends here to visit.
Report abuse
Michael J McLoony, if you had answered my questions, I wouldn’t have to repeat them. Are you refusing to answer them??
In terms of evidence, we’re all waiting!! I’m aware of the studies you are referring to, their academic worth and the subsequent apologies that were printed. So, c’mon.
As far as your witterings go. Everything you say is complete rubbish. Passive smoking kills. Smoking kills. Pubs don’t close due to smoking bans. They close because of cheap supermarket booze – that’s why the coffee chains are recording huge profits despite the ban. Freedom2Choose is only YOUR freedom2choose. Where’s mine as a non-smoker??
Here’s some examples of real, peer-reviewed, empirical evidence…
Cook, D. G. and Strachan, D.P. Summary of effects of parental smoking on the respiratory health of children and implications for research. Thorax 1999;54:357-366
Sargent RP, Shepard RM, Glantz SA. Reduced incidence of admissions for myocardial infarction associated with public smoking ban: before and after study. BMJ. 2004;328:977-980
Iribarren C, Darbinian J, Klatsky AL, Friedman GD. Cohort study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and risk of first ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack. Neuroepidemiology. 2004;23:38-44
He J, Vupputuri S, Allen K, Prerost MR, Hughes J, Whelton PK. Passive smoking and the risk of coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:920-926
Allwright S, Paul G, Greiner B, et al. Legislation for smoke-free workplaces and health of bar workers in Ireland: before and after study. BMJ. 2005;331:1117-1120
Eisner MD, Smith AK, Blanc PD. Bartenders’ respiratory health after establishment of smoke-free bars and taverns. JAMA. 1998;280:1909-1914
Farrelly MC, Nonnemaker JM, Chou R, Hyland A, Peterson KK, Bauer UE. Changes in hospitality workers’ exposure to secondhand smoke following the implementation of New York’s smoke-free law. Tob Control. 2005;14:236-241
Mulcahy M, Evans DS, Hammond SK, Repace JL, Byrne M. Secondhand smoke exposure and risk following the Irish smoking ban: an assessment of salivary cotinine concentrations in hotel workers and air nicotine levels in bars. Tob Control. 2005;14:384-388.
Barnoya J, Glantz SA. Cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke: nearly as large as smoking. Circulation. 2005;111:2684-2698
Sasco AJ, Secretan MB, Straif K. Tobacco smoking and cancer: a brief review of recent epidemiological evidence. Lung Cancer. 2004;45(suppl 2):S3-S9.
Office on Smoking and Health. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services; 2006.
Eisner MD, Klein J, Hammond SK, Koren G, Lactao G, Iribarren C. Directly measured second hand smoke exposure and asthma health outcomes. Thorax. 2005;60:814-821
Houston TK, Person SD, Pletcher MJ, Liu K, Iribarren C, Kiefe CI. Active and passive smoking and development of glucose intolerance among young adults in a prospective cohort: CARDIA Study. BMJ. 2006;332:1064-1069
Moshammer H, Hoek G, Luttmann-Gibson H, et al. Parental smoking and lung function in children: an international study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;173:1255-1263
Janson C, Chinn S, Jarvis D, Zock JP, Toren K, Burney P. Effect of passive smoking on respiratory symptoms, bronchial responsiveness, lung function, and total serum IgE in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey: a cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2001;358:2103-2109
Bored yet??
Report abuse
Jim, the patio dining analogy is most certainly NOT spurious. Sunlight is a Class A Carcinogen. There is, using the tobacco smoke model, “no safe level of exposure.” Despite your claim of individual choice the justification for the ban would be exactly the one used to justify the smoking ban: the protection of innocent young workers being forced to work in a carcinogenic atmosphere. To claim that I said sunburn is transmitted to people from other people is, in your own word, “bunkem.”
Many landlords would be quite happy to meet reasonable ventilation standards: except that the government has refused to provide such. Here in the States proposals to clean the air inside of Free Choice bars so that it would be cleaner than the air outside or the air inside of smoking banned bars is routinely denied: the goal is not clean air, the goal is social engineering.
Re Casino graph. Heh… oh yeah, online gambling and disposable income just purely by tarnation’s luck happened to kick in their effects at the precise moments that the smoking bans kicked in. Re Pub closures: the average was three per week for the two years before the ban. Then suddenly, amazingly, it increased by ONE THOUSAND PERCENT just when the ban clicked in. Did beer prices go up by a thousand percet that year Jim? Amazing how that happens everywhere, eh? Any excuse in a storm, right?
Jim, you seem to lack a basic understanding of the term “poison.” Virtually anything, in sufficient concentrations, is a poison in the normal sense of the word. Tobacco smoke in the concentrations normally encountered in any decently ventilated bar or pub, is not a poison in such a sense. You ask for proof of the disruption of lives and destruction of businesses? Of course any such “proof” I might provide will be dismissed as inadequate by you, but for those wandering by with an open mind, I’d suggest examining the information at two links. The first, at:
http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/economic.html
provides a number of examples of statistically oriented studies. The second, for those who ascribe to the wise “figures lie ‘n liars figure” guideline, consists of pure individual factual examples, many of which are supported by direct statements from the people who know the best: those whose lives and livelihoods were indeed impacted:
http://www.smokersclub.com/banloss3.htm
We’ll see if Jim gets beyond the third line in these links.
Bob, your questions were adequately answered and people can read the entire exchange on the other thread, as well as seeing the complete failure of any of the seven Guernseyans to even attempt to come up with substantive criticisms of my work.
- MJM
Report abuse
Michael J. McFadden.
More loony links to another one of your own websites and a study that you wrote!
How is that going to convince anyone?
This article more accurately illustrates the environment that pubs and restaurants are trading in on both sides of the pond and re-enforces the points made by Bob and Jim about price and the recession driving the market, NOT you cancer stick addicts.
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2010/02/recession_has_people_switching.html
Report abuse
No reply.
No evidence.
I’d say that’s Student Bob – 1 : Delusional Michael J McLoony – 0
I’m off for a lovely smoke-free pint.
Report abuse
I have seen the light through the clouds of fag smoke!!!
MJ McLoony you have convinced me that tobacco fumes are as pure and as natural as sunshine and that it is only an excess of them that might, just might, cause us any harm at all…
There, will you now go back to wherever you came from and find some other poor little corner of the world to enlighten with your wonderful rays of wisdom?
Report abuse
Michael J. McFadden Substantive criticism?
OK.
You are a loony.
Hubert Leaf-Zabagli – Founder member of FreedomFromFreedom2Choose
Report abuse
Mrs Pin, I notice that, as has been the case in every instance so far, you’re completely unable to offer any real criticism of content. People are welcome to read the research I offered, and they can read the news story you offered as well. Then they can decide which has more substance.
Heh… and the anonymous Bob wrote, “no evidence” in the face of a detailed listing of over 350 actual named businesses with their actual named individual loss figures and quotes from their actual named owners. LOL! I couldn’t make this exchange up if I tried!
btw… are all Guernseyans as polite to visitors as the sample here?
- MJM
Report abuse