2

Donald Remfrey

Once upon a time smoking was not known to cause all the illnesses that it does.And science has now proved that passive smoking is just as dangerous.So the non smokers have the right to live without being poisened by smokers.I agree that pubs could be left out of the ban,but you would have to ensure that only smokers work in those places,and would have to accept liability for illnesses caused by working there.I have often thought,if you can’t go to a restaurant for a couple of hours without smoking then you must be pretty well gone!Ever see anyone smoking in a court of Law?
As an ex soldier I was surrounded by the heaviest of smokers,but most of my old pals have realized their folly,and risk to their health,and are confirmed non-smokers!I notice these days that in nearly all the homes of friends etc I visit all smoking is done outside!

Report abuse

4

Peter Roffey

It seems as if there is a little “mis-information” going on in Alderney. I heard the organisers of the march claiming that Ireland had done a u-turn on their smoking restrictions. If so it is the first I have heard about it. On the contrary I understood that they had both extended their smoking control measures to banning advertising and lobbied for the introduction of EU wide restrictions on smoking in public places. Have I missed a 180 degree policy change or is someone spouting non-sense?

Report abuse

6

Student Bob

It’s kind of ironic that they all got some fresh air and exercise whilst campaigning against the smoking ban.

Report abuse

8

Bill Gibson

As has been said above,second hand smoke as a danger to health is a myth

see Dr Jerome Arnett Jr. MD Heartland Institute http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23399/Scientific_Evidence_Shows_Secondhand_Smoke_Is_No_Danger.html

Dr Gio Gori The ETS Fraud http://www.data-yard.net/brussels_speeches/gori.pdf?b1b7cb08

We now have The International Coalition Against Prohibition (TICAP) who will fight Prohibition measures on a global scale.

http://www.antiprohibition.org

Freedom2Choose is a member organisation of TICAP

http://www.freedom2choose.org

Report abuse

10

AY

How about freedom of choice for those who don’t want to breathe in second-hand smoke and come home stinking like an ashtray after a night at the pub????

Report abuse

12

MrsPinthepantry

Hi Robert!

Wow you’re chairman of your very own website!
You must be very important.

Unfortunately even though someone has just about managed to put cPanel and WebHost Manager (WHM) on your server there doesn’t really seem to be any content about the dangers of your pub losing money, just internal server side stuff.

Oh well, I just hope this isn’t another farce like http://www.guernseyairportfirmen.com ?

Report abuse

14

Andy

they may be called pubs, but as with restaurants they are not council or state owned. They are privately owned and the proprietor should choose what legal activity takes place on his own property. No-one is forced to enter a pub or restaurant, nor is anyone forced to work there.
If non-smoking venues were so popular, why the need to make them compulsory? If you want to avoid smoke look for a non-smoking venue, or open one yourself. That is choice, Government diktats and criminalisation isnt!
And smoking is healthier than Fascism!

Report abuse

16

Student Bob

Andy!! You can help me – I’ve been trying to open “Student Bob’s Crackhouse and Playscheme” in Les Amballes for a few months now, but apparently there is some sort of legislation against me selling crack to preschoolers. Now, like you, I maintain that if NOT taking cocaine is so popular, why the need for legislation? What about freedom of choice? I mean, if you DON’T want your child taking crack, then by all means, don’t bring them to my playscheme, but don’t criminalise pro-choice parents.

I’m at my wits end! What should I do??

Report abuse

18

Bill Gibson

I am a lifelong non-smoker, intent on smoking out the truth.

It is time that the islanders received some education on the Smoking Ban issue.

This book comes highly recommended

http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=1

Report abuse

20

Charles11

For many years, smoking was blamed for most cancers, but statistics show that the smoking rate has decreased while many cancer rates have increased. It’s time for so called ‘experts’ to do some proper research into the real cause of cancers. I believe that the main causes of cancer are old age and genes.

Report abuse

22

Student Bob

Charles, it’s just maths really, statistically more smokers are contracting and dying of cancer. Cancer rates up. Smokers down. Simples!!

Report abuse

24

Bill Gibson

Ah, here we go again … for the sake of the children. Yes this is one of the readons so many bars have closed on the mainland … but why have children in an adult environment I ask.

The solition is simple, modern air management systems remove 99.97% of airborne particulate including tobacco smoke … problem solved for as little as £1750.00 Signs outside the venue advising that smoking is allowed would then offer the choice to those who do not wish to enter, allow market forces to decide which businesses survive of close.

Report abuse

26

Charles11

Student Bob. You have shown how statistics can be twisted to suit the cause. Don’t trust statistic. One day real science will prove what really causes cancers.

Report abuse

28

Nick

“And science has now proved that passive smoking is just as dangerous”

Just find me any scientific study that supports that. Not even the WHO has endorsed that fable.
Give me the name of one person that has the cause of death as “second hand smoke.”

Report abuse

30

Nick

In my humble opinion, public houses are privately owned businesses, and it should be up to the business owner to choose rules about the consumption of legal substances. The States could obviously make smoking illegal which would mean almost the same result. However legislating these types of bans does seem to smack of a Nanny State legislating based on vociferous lobby groups. If a private establishment had the choice, it would be very interesting to see how many banned smoking and how many allow it.
Personally, I prefer non smoking establishments, but that should be kept as a personal choice until the substance is banned. I’m sure it’s illegal to smoke cannabis in a pub!

Report abuse

32

andy

Ah student Bob i see playing the children card.
The largest study ever conducted by the World Health Organisation on passive smoke exposure produced a negative effect on children. This means that it has a protective effect. Nonsense of course, but so is the fact that it harms people. The studies are unreliable and show no significant correlation with harm either way. The ban on the mainland was brought in by adding the numbers together until they could produce a small risk.
As stated before no-one is forced to go in or take children into a property where smoking takes place. The difference between Crack cocaine, is that tobacco is legal! Alcohol is legal, but you are not able to open a kids drinking club. Get real man. Adults should be able to work things out between them. They dont need blanket bans, they dont need state interference, and they dont need a wrecked hospitality trade and social isolation that bans bring with them.

Report abuse

34

The Man

Ahh I see the Bob Fleming brigade is out in force on this one.

Andy, you ask Arnald where his sense of compromise is??

If he has asked someone in an establishment to refrain from affecting their personal space by smoking and is met with “do you want to take it outside”, I’d say its the smoker at fault there would you not??

Arnald has touched on the key issue here, personal space, everyone should have the right to enjoy their night out and not have their personal space invaded, be it by smoke, or another persons fist.

Like it or not some people cannot tolerate second hand smoke. I have had asthma from an early age, which the doctor informed me is likely to be caused by passive smoking because I wasnt born with it. (both my parents smoked, and whilst they didnt blow it my face and always tried to keep it away from me, it didnt stop a perfectly healthy kid from gettnig Asthma).

Whether you like it or not smoking IS an infringement on other people, the ban wouldnt be coming in force in most (forward thinking) jurisdictions otherwise.

Part of the reason for the ban has been touched upon by Arnald, smokers tend to be very very belligerent and stubborn when asked if they could be more thoughtful as to the direction of their smoke, perhaps if they had been more thoughtful there wouldnt have been so much call for a ban. So enjoy the winter and your phlegm shelters guys.

Report abuse

36

Arnald

Don’t get me wrong smokers. I smoke. The issue is not the drug taking, but the detriment to others exposed to the delivery system.

The argument about establishments choosing what happens works up to a point, but then it wouldn’t be a pub anymore. It would be a club for smokers.

That may have worked if it had been introduced decades ago, but the privilege that society lends to libertarians has been abused.

I wholeheartedly agree about ‘banning’ being a sledgehammer/nut situation – I argue against bans, but this is not a ban about drug using, just where, when the public doesn’t want to be exposed to it, one can indulge the unhalation of noxious gases, toxic aromatic hydrocarbons (mmmm pour me another pint of benzene my good fellow, force that child to have some too), and highly addictive alkaloids.

More addictive than cannabis alkaloids.

So it would be OK if me and my twenty avante garde drummers set up and practice in your pub for a few hours? What? Hurts you ears does it? People won’t like it? You’re the management and what you says goes? Don’t like my attitude? I’m barred? But I’ll get wet doing it outside. It’s like fascism!

Welcome to Alderney. Home of contradictory nonsense.

Report abuse

38

Student Bob

Charles. You’re thinking of Jimmy Saville.

Report abuse

40

andy

How can an irritant to a few be a criminal offence on private property? Restaurants and pubs are private property- there is no beed or obligation to enter. Why dont any of you banwhatidontlikeeverywheres answer this point!Some people have reactions to strong perfume.
Some people dont like gay bars or curry. Should we ban these places because those who dont like them should be able to go wherever they want at any time and expect their personal choices to be respected everywhere?

This ban will remove the freedom for people who enjoy smoking to socialise in comfort anywhere outside their own homes. Anywhere! OK some people dislike tobacco smoke. But is it really fair that it should be a criminal offence for smoking to take place in every pub and every club because of this particular preference?

As for the background of bans, they have come and gone for the last 500 years. They are nothing new and certainly not progressive. What they do create is intolerance, hatred and social division.
They also are a fantastic marketing ploy for drug companies(Nicorette etc) who fund the health lobby and the junk science that promotes bans in the first place.
The same sequence of events is happening with alcohol.If you enjoy a drink, dont expect the same freedom to partake in the future.You are next!

Report abuse

42

Robert Feal-Martinez

MrsPinthepantry, it is my experience that only anti smokers use multiple names to post their vitriol, those of us who believe in freedom to choose see no reason to hide behind false names.

As for the website, I was advised yesterday that the server host has had a serious fire which has destroyed dozens of servers, sadly meaning the site will be down for some time.

As this article has once again shown, it’s the smoke ‘wot’ done it. May I suggest you look up the principles of particle science. You may well understand that there are solutions to the perceived notion that ETS a) is harmful, b) cannot be removed from the air.

But I am sure you will be able to find an article by ASH or similar to convince you that there are air born particulates that can defeat the principle. It won’t be true of course, but the what the ‘heck’, it’s all about health isn’t it, not the smell, or the smoke.

By the way Student Bob, Charles II is correct. Roy Castle was the one suggesting his Lung Cancer was due to passive smoking, not even his doctors, or any other doctor since has made the claim. It is time he was allowed to rest in peace, surely after all this time at least one more musician who played the clubs should have died from PS induced Lung Cancer.

Report abuse

44

The Man

“Roy Castle was diagnosed with lung cancer in January 1992, and underwent chemotherapy and radiotherapy before going into remission in the autumn of that year. Castle, a non-smoker, blamed his illness on years of playing the trumpet in smoky jazz clubs.”

“His widow Fiona worked with the charity for many years after her husband’s death, and was a key figure in campaigning for the British smoking ban which came into effect during 2007 and has seen smoking banned in virtually all enclosed public places.”

Report abuse

46

Arnald

So can I spray perfume in your pub, some of which will go in your food and face and clothes and eyes?

No one has died from passive perfume spraying so should be fine.

What about if my perfume happened to be a pesticide? That industry rigourously defends that coating the planet in death causes any side effects in humans. So that’ll be a yes.

Ah yes, of course. My clothes are made from rotting fish. Would you let me in?

Your smoke gives me a migraine, would you stop?

Can’t answer/Won’t answer. Smoke outside, that’s what you would say if it the original laws stated that. Or don’t you think there should be any laws about anything?

Have you ever followed the logic through?

Report abuse

48

The Man

Andy

I may be missing the point here, but if a pub is private property, then why is it short for “Public House”??

Report abuse

50

Charles11

BBC 27/09/2000. ‘In a letter received by the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation on Tuesday Fiona Castle announced her resignation as patron of the charity and demanded that her late husband’s name be removed from its title’.
As Robert says ‘It is time he was allowed to rest in peace’. Let him be remembered for being the great artist he was, and not be used for anti-smoking propaganda.

Report abuse

52

MrsPinthepantry

Hi Andy/ Robert (or may I call you Randy?)

Congratulations on posting the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen on the internet!

This story has not “reached the mainland” all it’s done is reached your website.

So you’re not the same person?

You’ve posted a link to http://freedom-2-choose.blogspot.com

Robert Foul-Martinez runs http://www.freedom2choose.info/ (but that website is of course on fire!)

However the blogspot one actually bears the legend “A blog supportive of the organisation called Freedom2Choose. Any resemblance to that organisation is purely coincidental.”

This is heading towards the surreal!

Report abuse

54

Student Bob

andy, posting the story on your blog doesn’t count.

Besides, other than you and your (no doubt very proud) mum, who’s going to read it?

Whilst we’re on about freedom to choose, where do you stand on the proposal to ban legal highs? And going back to “Student Bob’s Crackhouse and Playscheme” don’t you agree that it should be the child’s choice to take crack? Do you want to sign my petition to legalise crack cocaine for the under 13′s?

Report abuse

56

russm

Freedom of choice should rule when the choice does not directly affect people in the way that smoking does.

Pre the smoking ban I would be in a restaurant about to start my main course when the next table having finished theirs would light up cigars with the resulting smoke blowing straight in my face thus ruining the meal. I also remember being in a pub with my wife when a young woman stood behind me lit up and held a cigarette away from herself but a few inches from my face. I politely asked her to move it away from my face and she replied ‘if you don’t like it, move.’ This was quite typical of how smokers treated non-smokers and it is now so much more pleasant to go out and not have to put up with being assaulted by smoke.

Report abuse

58

MrsPinthepantry

Hi Student Bob!

Actually Randy’s blog has 8 (yes 8!) readers, why I bet more people read our nonsense on here…….. although I have the suspicion that some of those 8 might be yet more pseudonyms, you know of the type that “those of us who believe in freedom” don’t use???!

JL daaaarhling!

Interesting that you brought up UKIP, our new friend Robert/Andy/Randy Foul-Martinez is one of their biggest members.

Mrs P – Defending freedom and the truth since round about tea-time – blog coming soon…………

Report abuse

60

andy

Mrs P and Sparrow/student Bob, you still fail to answer the question about private property and what is a LEGAL product.Instead you resort to trying to ridicule and to divert from this point.
We are talking about criminalising what is legal and a matter of personal preference. We are not talking about going back to past days of restricting other freedoms(twisted irony there Sparrow). We are not talking about legalising anything, but criminalising something(twisted irony Student Bob). And i am not Robert, i just use the internet to research viewpoints beyond those preached by the state and the lobby groups they pay to indoctrinate you Mrs P.Or are you part of a fake charity/lobby group who hate the fact that there is still a British territory where the people insist on running their own lives?!
Compromise is venues where you can smoke and venues where you cannot. A total ban on adults using a legal product on what is actually private property is an insult to freedom and those who gave their lives to free us such diktats.

Report abuse

62

Student Bob

Now you see Bill, the first link basically says that the Scottish HSE will not except legal claims for health problems arising from ETS in their property, and fair enough, the damage done by ETS could arise from any number of places. They DO accept that ETS causes a health risk though. Great work.

The final two links aren’t worth reading. The Heartland Institute has several employees of Philip Morris – the global tobacco company – on its board of directors and in its PR department and Dr Gio Gori worked as a consultant for the National Tobacco Industry and his research was funded by Brown and Williamson Tobacco!!

At the risk of repeating myself, where’s all your peer-reviewed evidence from random clinical trials??

andy – Again, where do you stand on the proposed ban of legal highs?

Report abuse

64

andy

Bob
where do you stand on a landlord being able to decide if smoking is allowed on his property?

Where do you stand on smoking venues and non-smoking venues as opposed to no choice atall?

Where do you stand on prohibition?

Legal highs? Personally i think this criminalisation is adding to the unwinnable war on drugs, where 80% of all crime is drug related and keeps increasing. New legal highs will soon follow anyway, and the situation perpetuates and exacerbates.

Report abuse

66

Dave Atherton

Never forget the longest (38 years) largest (118,000) study into passive smoking, conducted in California by Professors Enstrom/Kabat. It was peer reviewed for accuracy and published in the British medical Journal.

“Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.”

“Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, primarily asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, has been associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, but the evidence for increased mortality is sparse.”

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

Report abuse

68

Robert Feal-Martinez

MrsPinthepantry, thank you for so adequately proving my point. You have clearly shown those on this site who I am. I am a life long never smoker, who happens to run a pub motel, which has been affected by the smoking ban. Someone who has looked at the science and using scientific principles decided that PS is a myth.

So who are you, other than a fish hater, a financial services hater. In fact a resident local press activist.

Report abuse

70

Bill Gibson

Student Bob

If you had read the first document you would have noted that it was created by the UK Health & Safety Executive, but then you have a lot to learn

The studies have been peer reviewed and have found to have virtually no causal relationship in increaseing the risk of health issues, the main cause of our resperatory ill health is as a result of outdoor air polution and genetic links.

Report abuse

72

bobby

Surely if they ban smoking in the pubs then smokers will just have to smoke outside? not that much of a hardship for them is it?!

and if anything the number of smokers will decrease, thus losing the island revenue in duty on tobacco? do you really think alderney, guernsey, jersey, the uk, and other countries thought ‘I know, lets ban smoking and lose ourselves lots of revenue’.

well, not unless they were going to save it elsewhere. maybe their health service would save money.

those against the smoking ban, do you think all these places have just brought in a ban with no checking of evidence etc??

Report abuse

74

Student Bob

Hi Dave, glad you could join us. Shame you had to bring up Enstrom and Kabat again though!! After all, since it was published it has been widely discredited with both the BMJ and BMA apologising for the publication of the paper, stating that the evidence was “fundamentally flawed”. There’s also the fact that the authors received a grant of over USD200,000 from Philip Morris – the evil global tobacco company. Hardly impartial eh??

Bill!! Good morning. Yes, the report was written by the UK HSE, the part YOU told us to read referred directly to the Scottish HSE – have you actually read the report yourself?!? You should!! It might help you understand the impact of ETS.

Bob F-M, of course the scientists received bursaries from pharm companies. This is how 95% of research is funded. Why, look at Enstrom and Kabat, Arnett and Gori!!! All funded by tobacco companies. If you’re going to dismiss work that is funded by pharm companies with a vested interest in a smoking ban, surely you should also dismiss work funded by pro-smoking parties? Or is it one rule for us, one for you?? Besides, was there ever any link between the members of the scientific panel and pharm companies directly invested in anti-smoking products?? Nope.

Andy. Now I’m confused. You’re AGAINST the freedom to choose legal highs, but FOR freedom to choose not to have to stand outside to smoke?!!? Perhaps you need to change your blog – http://www.freedom2choosebutonlywhatIwantorwhatbenefitsmybusiness.org.

Anyhoo, in answer to your questions….
1. I believe that if a landlord is going to invite the public onto his property then he has a duty of care which includes upholding the laws put in place to protect the vulnerable.
2. I don’t understand how you have no choice in non-smoking venues?? You’ve surely got the choice to stand outside?? Why can’t you stand outside?
3. As I said earlier, I’m anti-prohibition. This isn’t about prohibition. If someone stopped you smoking outside, THAT would be prohibition. As it is, you just don’t want to stand outside. That’s not prohibition, that’s laziness.

Report abuse

76

Charles11

Student Bob said ‘Bob F-M, of course the scientists received bursaries from pharm companies. This is how 95% of research is funded’.
US drugmaker Pfizer has agreed to pay $2.3bn (£1.4bn) in the largest healthcare fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice.

The civil settlement also relates to allegations that Pfizer paid bribes to healthcare providers to induce them to prescribe four named drugs.

Who trust Pharmaceutical companies?

Report abuse

78

guernseygal

I am a smoker myself and do not mind the smoking ban, I do agree however that the landlords should have had freedom of choice whether to ban smoking in their pubs or not. In guernsey there are a lot of out of town pubs that have thei regulars who used to enjoy going to the pub for a pint and a ciggie and taking their freedom of choice away has had a detrimental effect.

It seems that the smoker just has no choice as on many occassions since the smoking ban I’ve witnessed the anti-smoking brigade passing comment about how disgusting it is to be smoking outside, we can’t win!!! I can’t deny that smoking had a bad effect on a persons health but again it’s personal choice!!

I am a part time barmaid and nowadays i can’t fathom out which is worse, the smell of smoke in the air or the stench of someones fart when they drop one right by the bar!!! That upsets my personal space so should we put a ban on that too?!!!!!

Report abuse

80

Student Bob

Charles, I’ll see your USD2.3 billion, and raise you USD246 billion.

USD246 billion is the amount the tobacco companies agreed to pay out from 1998 for 25 years for misleading the public about the health risks of smoking.

But all this is digressing again.

Charles, why can’t you stand outside and smoke, why don’t I have the right to a smoke-free pub and where is your peer-reviewed IMPARTIAL evidence to support your claim that SHS is lovely really.

Report abuse

82

Charles11

Student Bob. Why can’t you stand outside and drink, why don’t I have the right to a alcohol-free pub?
In case you haven’t noticed Alcohol Control
have already started on restrictions on alcohol. Do you really want to be controlled?

Report abuse

84

Frank

Good on yer, Alderney. Far too much of this thoughtless ‘banning’ tripe crept in over the past 10 years!

Report abuse

86

Student Bob

Bob, I’m certainly no more economic than you!! The 2003 paper was indeed initially funded by the ACA. You fail to mention that Enstrom was funded from as early as 1997 by Philip Morris. The ACA gave E&K access to their databases for the research, but at that time, also told the pair that their research method was fundamentally skewed in favour of ETS being harmless. This bias was the reason for the withdrawal of funding and the reason for the subsequent widespread discrediting of the paper and the apologies from the BMA and the BMJ headed by Dr Smith.

I mean, seriously. Is this really the best you can do?? Three discredited papers paid for by the tobacco companies? Go back to running your motel.

Charles – Because pubs don’t have an off licence. Now, why can’t you answer my questions?? Why can’t you stand outside and smoke, why don’t I have the right to a smoke-free pub and where is your peer-reviewed IMPARTIAL evidence to support your claim that SHS is lovely really.

Report abuse

88

Dave Atherton

Student Bob

You either are crass, ignorant or plain misleading the readers. The Enstrom/ Kabat study was funded from 1960-1997 by the American Cancer Society (ACS). Also all the data was supplied by the ACS. When they had come up with the “wrong results” the ACS abruptly and cynically withdrew funding. The tobacco companies paid 5% of the total costs, mainly for publication costs, on the basis they did not have sight of the results.

You have deliberately set out to mislead people.

Report abuse

90

JL Seagull

blah blah
What part of “YOUR SMOKE IS POLLUTING MY SPACE” don’t you understand?

If i want to indulge in a habit that smells bad, causes illness and coats everything in a filthy miasma would you let me do it in your space? Something like smoking plastic bags, shredded into a handy rolling mixture (Fag 2.0). Or cigarette shaped industrial effluent dischargers.

What is the difference between having an open toilet in the middle of the room and people smoking?

you lot don’t have the brains to mount a decent argument using logic and real life.

Arnald’s got you spot on. Stooges for Suits.

Why aren’t your pubs doing well? Maybe you should blame those very businessmen you support for trashing the free market. Your booze is too pricey. That’s the issue. Not fags.

Report abuse

92

Arnald

“Live & let live in freedom as it used to be before the Nanny state ruind the entire social life of the nation thats what most of us want. Well at least 75% of the adult population do anyway.”

You’re completely wrong. Utterly deluded.

Look at the timescales. Individualist consumerism has caused all that. The nannying is a direct result of reckless short termism and exploitative practices caused by a rush for profit instead of sustainability.

Stick that in your gel cap and suppositorise it.

I suppose giving women the vote was ‘nannying’ too?

SOCA laws? Nanny laws.

It’s daft misappropriation to spout exerpts from the Mail/Express.

Robert Feal-Martinez
I suppose CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas either then.

Report abuse

94

Charles11

Student Bob. Where have I said that ‘SHS is lovely really’? You make thing up as you go along. Maybe too much drinking, which is why you cannot see Alcohol Control gathering pace?

Report abuse

96

Student Bob

I was paraphrasing Charles. You got an answer for me yet?? Why can’t you stand outside and smoke, why don’t I have the right to a smoke-free pub and where is your peer-reviewed IMPARTIAL evidence to support your claim that SHS isn’t harmful and helps keep kitten fur extra-fluffy.

Report abuse

98

Charles11

Student Bob said ‘It was reported recently that butchers and fishmongers are closing down at an even higher rate than pubs’?
Have you a link to this report?

Report abuse

100

Student Bob

Charlie, you STILL haven’t answered my question!!! WHY can’t you stand ou… aw, forget it.

You can’t substantiate any one of the ridiculous claims you’ve made.
You can’t answer a simple question.
You bring nothing to this thread but digressions about alcohol-free pubs (They’re called cafes btw).
You’ve done more to prove the need for a smoking ban in the last two days of posting than any academic paper I’ve read.

I’m out.

Report abuse

102

The Man

Oh good, at least Meerkats are allowed in the vision for fascist Britain.

Report abuse

104

Robert Feal-Martinez

The Man: Public House question. Let me ask what makes your home a private place. Because it is privately owned. Do you consider a supermarket to be a public place, of course not it is privately owned as are pubs. The name is simple because the Public are allowed in. Why are Public Libraries so called, not because they are public places but because the Public are allowed in.

Don’t quite know what your reference is to a fascist Britain. Certainly not UKIP’s, we want a Britain run from Westminster, not by the unelected civil servants in Brussels, we want to welcome those from other shores that have something to offer Britain, we do not want to have an open border policy which allows millions free access to our ‘services’, as a matter of right. That is unfair and not sustainable.

Britain’s fascism is being created by the three main parties who support the EU.

But getting back to the smoking. I would urge the people of Alderney not to follow the mistakes of other countries and vote for real choice in pubs and clubs. Freedom to Choose is vital to democracy.

Report abuse

106

Arnald

They haven’t answered any questions, either.

Why should you have freedom to discriminate against non smokers?

Landlords serve the public therefore anyone should be able to go and buy a drink. You want to discriminate against the majority.

Your argument is nonsense. Utter gibberish.

Report abuse

108

Bruce McC

Soapy, ventilation blah blah blah. Tell me, how will your ventilation system stop the smoker sat next to me blowing smoke in my face? That’s possibly one of the stupidest comments on this thread.

Robert, why hasn’t the smoking ban affected coffee shops? Turnover for all the high street chains has doubled since the ban was implemented. Could it be because they don’t have to compete with the discounted booze available from supermarkets? Your argument is redundant.

Report abuse

110

Charles11

Bruce McC. ‘why hasn’t the smoking ban affected coffee shops? Turnover for all the high street chains has doubled since the ban was implemented’. If this is true, then it shows that the smoking ban is the blame for the closures of the thousands of pubs in the UK. By the way it is far cheaper to buy coffee from supermarkets and make your own cuppa at home.

Report abuse

112

jim lawler

well done marchers.
just one problem might arise when your fight is won.
how is ALDERNEY going to cope with likelyhood of thousands of extra tourists when the news gets out that smokers and friends will have a free choice to enjoy a cigarette in your lovely resort,as well as the non smokers who still have a choice.
as us SCOTS say LANG MAY YOUR LUM REEK

Report abuse

114

The Man

So, because smokers have more money to spend we should allow them to smoke wherever they “choose”??

Thats elitist right??

BTW the facist comment, and the “public” house comments were meant as jokes, but there appears to have been a sense of humour bypass.

Report abuse

116

Robert Feal-Martinez

It never fails to amaze me that the anti smoking lobby always resort to personal insults. That is the mark of a lost argument. So let me see if I get this right.

Providing smoking and non smoking venues is unfair because the non smokers can’t go into the smoking venue, and one assumes the vis versa logic, which clearly doesn’t hold up, to choose not to do something is, well, is a choice.

I will also take my leave of this thread as the circular argument rather makes one dizzy, however three facts.

1. Passive Smoking has killed no one.
2. Smoking bans reduce choice in hospitality because thousands of outlets close.
3. Thousands of jobs are lost and lives destroyed.

Is that a price worth paying based on a lie.

Report abuse

118

Alderney visitor

I visit Alderney a few times a year as a “Tourist” , I was on Holiday on the Island when a previous “anti smoking ban march” was held and by pure coincidence present during the Protest last Saturday. The March appeared very sedate and acceptable as all marches should, unlike the previous March which included Children (incuding a Mother with a Child in a Pushchair which was very sad to see)!!!!

I also watched a clip on Channel News showing a Lady from Alderney stating that “the majority of Islanders were against a Ban”, yet whilst standing in Victoria Street I counted 47 Marchers ? The lady being interviewed said a Petition had been signed by over 500 people against the Ban, even allowing for Children how is 500+ a majority of the reported 2200/2400 Alderney residents ???

As for her comment regarding the rise Tourist visitors because they liked the Smoking in Pubs etc. Just where did she dream that up from ? I can assure her she is totally kidding herself ! If it has been implemented and working in Dublin why not in Alderney?

Having lost my Mother to Cancer through 40 years of Smoking and seeing my Father currently on Oxygen (Emphysema) for 18 hours a day, again through 45 years of Smoking I have first hand experience of the repurcussions of Smoking. Admittedly I have never Smoked, but lived the first 21 years of my life taking in my Parents Smoke, which is blamed for my Asthma by the Medical Profession.

Most people are aware of the Law Suits against Tobacco Companies, I await with interest when the Pub/Bar Staff in Alderney start Legal Action against their Employers for Causing them to have serious Diseases later in Life due to exposing them to Smoke !

Some good comments for and against here, but the ChannelNews interview did the cause and Island no good at all.In fact made it look foolish.

Report abuse

120

JL Seagull

When it comes to ventilation well I speak from experience too. It’s a neat invention called “outside”. The last thing you want in a pub apart from bullying drug addicts is a fan the size of heathrow airport that takes half the coal in China to power.

There’s the door. Job done.

Report abuse

122

The Man

1- You cant confirm that.
2- Choice of hospitality is actually increased, because now non-smokers (the majority of the population iirc) can go into any pub without fear of health issues or coming out smelling like an ashtray.
3- Absolute load of rubbish, clearly you are unable to entertain the view that you maybe wrong on this so have to resort to sensationalist nonsense (although I am not surprised).

As for personal insults, well you are the sensitive one arent you! Did somebody touch a nerve?? If so, then clearly whatever has irked you must be based in truth.

Right I’m off to the pub (I go more since the ban, odd eh!)

Report abuse

124

Charles11

Student Bob. You say that thousands die, because of passing smoking and yet no expert has yet been able to name one.
I can’t remember any non-smoker rushing outside to avoid cigarette smoke, before the smoking ban, even though they had the freedom to choose to. Alcohol was sold cheaper in supermarkets long be for the smoking ban and yet few pubs closed then.
I’ll have bet with you. I’ll sit in a car, with windows closed, with a few friends smoking, if you would sit in a car, with windows closed, and with a hose connected to the exhaust and fed into the car. I bet I will last the longer.

Report abuse

126

Bill Gibson

Alderney Visitor

Legal cases aganst employers have already taken place, the most high profile of which was:

The European Commission recently defended a Court Action when the Court ruled in their favour in the K Labat v Commission of the European Communities(01) (Case F-77/07) when the pursuer claimed that her husband had died as a result of Second Hand Smoke at his workplace while employed by the Commission.

Official Journal of the European Union
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:079:0035:0035:EN:PDF

Now as the EU Commission was able to show that there was no association between SHS and resultant death, then it is clear that this issue has nothing to do with health but everything to do with increased profitability of the Pharma Companies who have funded the Smoking Ban Campaigns globally for many, many years.

Report abuse

128

Robert Feal-Martinez

Finally, on your ridiculous ventilation argument, I propose an experiment. We’ll make my garage airtight then lock you in with one of your ventilation systems and my car, the mighty Bobmobile, running. I’ll stand outside in the fresh air as a control. The first one to die loses and posts an apology for being such an ignorant, selfish and delusional muppet who should stick to running his pub/motel.

I simply have to comment on the above. What an incredibly stupid post. I hate to point out the blindingly obvious but how to repair garages actually code with the exhausts fumes whilst repairing cars and tuning engines etc. Here’s a clue they use ventilation systems.

I would like if I may to alter the challenge slightly. The same garage without ventilation pumping in exhaust fumes, and a similar garage pumping in ETS in the same volume. Guess which one I would choose to be in. Now if you believe in the 30 minute expose will cause me to have a heart attack then agree to the challenge. I know which one of us would be dead.

Now the deaths from passive smoking. Please post a link to one solitary piece of research that says ETS/Passive Smoke kills thousands every year, not may result, could result, we estimate, we believe, it is our opinion, research tends to suggest. A categoric statement that passive smoking kills.

I’ll save you the trouble 150 pieces of research later, and four years of looking there isn’t one, because it’s not true. Not even the respect of the primary cause death certificate argument.

Report abuse

130

Student Bob

Bob!! You’re back! Great.

So, you’re turning down my experiment? That’s a shame.

I believe i did cite a paper that directly linked ETS to approximately 4,000 deaths in the UK? Have you tried reading it?

Or there’s the Philip Morris website (evil global tobacco company which makes cigarettes from kitten tears), which confirms that SHS is a health risk and it should be the personal responsibility of smokers to ensure that they are not endangering the health of those who are affected by the smokers choice. Oh! I’ve got a link for that one… http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/PMINTL/pages/eng/smoking/Secondhand_smoke.asp

Tell me Bob, or Bill, or whatever, why isn’t it YOUR responsibility? Why are you better than everyone else?

Anyway, before I provide you with a short list of impartial, peer-reviewed studies and random clinical trials that I’ve got to hand, I figured I should respond to your whinging about insults, I guess this is the ‘fascist’ jibe? I was merely repeating, and watering down what the former chairman of the UKIP, Robert Kilroy-Silk called members of the UKIP, was it “right-wing bunch of fascist nutters”? I can’t quite remember….

Here’s some evidence for you to ignore anyway, my favourite is still the study I cited earlier, the Scottish one, and I’ve not included my other fav, the kiwi study, but check some of these out on the Medline database anyway….

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

Robert. Bill. Care to provide a single piece of impartial, peer-reviewed evidence that SHS is lovely really?? I’ve given you dozens to prove that SHS is evil, you’ve given us nothing. Care to explain why you can’t simply stand up and go for a smoke outside?

Report abuse

132

The Man

The most pathetic thing on this topic is the amount of Alias’s one person has to use to try and get his point across yet still failing.

Some people just dont like being wrong.

Come on Bob, I’ll join you for some SHS free fun at the pub, leave this muppet and all his alias’s to his sandbox where he is king of the world.

Report abuse

134

Charles11

Today, in The Scotsman newspaper:
‘The World Health Organisation places alcohol in the top three most dangerous drugs (alongside cocaine and heroin) and yet for decades the alcohol industry has raked in billions of pounds in profit from this drug’.
WHO are the organisation behind the worldwide smoking ban and are obviously going to push for alcohol bans, now.
You will be healthy, or else.

Report abuse

136

JL Seagull

Robert F-M
No. It’s your argument that is rubbish. No one is stopping smokers smoking. They’re protecting staff, and all our health. You don’t answer any of the questions asked of you, you just reply in pompous “We Must Serve The Landed Gentries’ Every Whim” thinly veiled diatribes against progression.
I bet you were horrified when farmers had to install sinks so that visitors could wash their hands of all that safe E coli that is harmless.
Or when pilots were first told they had to have a parachute.
Or when lead was taken out of petrol.
What planets are you on?

Charles the Eleventh
What is wrong with saying alcohol is toxic.
IT’S THE TRUTH YOU NUMPTIES.
I’m hoping it will open up the wider debate on recreational drugs and level the guidelines to proper science and not this quasi-posturing by juvenile libertarians.
Right wingers are so hysterical!

Well done Student Bob, Belinda, The Man and all for seeing through their cod intellectualism.
People can choose: not to smoke, or to walk a few yards to a designated shelter. YOU GET A SHELTER. WHAT MORE DO YOU ADDICTS WANT?

Even children as young as twelve could understand that!!!

Report abuse

138

JL Seagull

I only do teaparties in well ventilated rooms. It’s a free country after all!
Children as young as twelve may never grow up knowing well ventilated rooms if we let the miserable non smoking communists destroy our way of life.
Those ventilators are a modern wonder, cruelly repressed by Diktats, Gulags and Stalin’s ZaNuLiebour (I know all the UKIP tricks, me) government apparatchiks. It’s Euro-SEPTIC!!! (One for R Perrot, that one, oh go on Rodge, you know you fancy yourself as a ‘humourist’)
Lock up those twelve year olds! Show them a picture of an extractor fan, before they hyperventilate.
And relax.

Report abuse

140

Robert Feal-Martinez

MrsPinthepantry, at least as far as I am concerned, I am just one single poster. I have no reason to be more than one person. I know the facts about Passive Smoke, clearly as always the anti smoking lobby have no provable argument therefore insult and divert. Something I am use to.

I don’t smoke, I have never smoked, I do not advocate smoking and would happy to see tobacco banned. That still does not justify the lies of the anti smoking lobby.

Report abuse

142

JL Seagull

My word there’s some thickos around.
By your definitions, soapy, car drivers shouldn’t have to care about pedestrians because they’ll be on the road and it should be a right to do whatever you like. If pedestrians don’t like it they should go elsewhere.
Stop condemning people to death with your rubbish. Do your drug rituals away from the faces of people that don’t want it near them. It’s called being polite, something that YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND quite obviously!

Back to school you lot. Failed.

Report abuse

144

Belinda

Soapy, one of the defining features of a civilised society, is the fact that as a social group we regulate and control ourselves. This is why murder is a criminal offence – despite it removing the “freedom to choose” to take another person’s life. Similarly, as a society, we recognise the risks and adverse consequences of alcohol, so its sale is only allowed from certain premises, and to people above a certain age.

Illegal drugs – should these all be legalised? Following your argument, yes they should. The drug is not dangerous – it is only dangerous when someone uses it in a way which affects their body/mind. A gun is not dangerous – until someone picks it up and uses it. Are you advocating the end of restrictions on the sale, ownership and use of guns? Your argument runs that way….

However, your argument fails because you say that it is all about free choice, and you talk about risk, and personal responsibility. A cigarette or cigar is not dangerous, as long as it remains unlit. Light it up and it releases a huge amount of toxic chemicals and particularates. Those exposed to the second hand smoke are exposed to that. And it is not just the customers….people work in pubs! It is not fair that any member of staff should be exposed to SHS. If nothing else, bring in the ban to protect people who work in these environments.

But that isn’t part of your utopia is it? The libertarian argument only travels as long as you get your own way, and to hell with any one you trample over in the process. It is infantile. Grow up. Understand that part of being a member of society, is that sometimes you have to give up a little comfort for the wider good.

Seagull is right – back to school. And that would be to the Infant Department.

Report abuse

146

Student Bob

Robbo, I’m sorry, you are truly, deeply delusional. Our argument is that passive smoking is bad. I thought I had proven this?? Did you not see that link to the Philip Morris website I posted earlier and the dozens of papers that say that passive smoking kills?? Have you read them yet? How are you qualified to comment without having read the evidence?

Our other argument is that smoking bans are a necessary evil. Obviously, the world would be better if we were able to self-regulate, but as we can see from the ignorance displayed by the pro-smokers on this thread, you cannot be trusted not to respect my freedom 2 choose NOT to inhale second-hand smoke.

Despite the mountains of evidence I’ve provided to support our argument, no-one has provided one, single piece of decent evidence to support yours.

No-one has explained what the big deal with standing up, going outside, smoking, then returning to your pint is either.

No-one has explained why you should have the freedom 2 choose to smoke, but I shouldn’t have the freedom 2 choose not to inhale your second-hand filth.

Like I said Robbo, if anyone has no provable argument on this forum, it’s you. That’s why I think you are delusional, ignorant and selfish. Why can’t you provide the evidence? Why Robbo, why!? I’ve been asking for days!!!!

Soapy – I had a word with a mechanic mate in the pub at lunch, he says that they attach hoses to the exhaust pipes of cars to extract the fumes. Awesome eh? I’m totally in favour of a similar idea for smokers. One hose on the ol’ cancer stick, the other on their mouths. Job done…. Hang on… no wait…. wouldn’t it be easier to just go outside?! Cheaper too I reckon…..

Charlie – I’d refer you to the countless papers I cited earlier.

Frankly, I’d say that’s Thisisguernsey.com All Stars – 1 : Right-wing Fascist Bunch of Nutters – 0

Job done. Pub anyone?

Report abuse

148

The Man

SB

Yep, I’m happy with 1-0, a win is a win

Mmmm a nice cool pint in a smoke free pub, Nice.

Report abuse

150

Charles11

I keep seeing people stating that they have evidence that passive smoking kills. Could anybody show me where just ONE so called ‘expert’ has been able to give a name of just two or three persons who have ben killed by second hand smoke? Until any so called ‘expert’ can name names, then it proves that deaths caused by passive smoking is simply anti-smoking propaganda.

Report abuse

152

herman

What is it that makes non-smokers so arrogant that they can freely say that smokers should be happy with shelters provided. If you replace the word smoker with black, muslim, poor people or jews you would maybe understand how intolerant everybody has become. There is a place for everybody and no smokers wants to be able to smoke everywhere, but asks for a place where he can. Non smokers can choose not to go here. So again everybody has freedom of choice again and arrogancy is banned.

Report abuse

154

Belinda

Please, please will one of the “anti ban” posters respond to my questions:

(1)Do you believe that smoking has no negative health connotations, and nor does second hand smoke?
(2)If this is right, why is there a limit on the age for purchasing cigarettes?
(3)Do you advocate smoking whilst pregnant?
(4)Do you advocate smoking around small children?
(5)Do you advocate children smoking?
(6) Finally, do you have children? If yes, will you use them as evidence that SHS has no negative health impacts by ensuring that you subject them to SHS (solidly) for 12 hours every day (just like non-smoking bar staff are), to prove that you really and truly believe that you are right?

Report abuse

156

JL Seagull

soapy
It’s because I’m bored of the wittering. You said this:

“No one has disputed the fact that in a smokers room or pub where children are excluded and which is run by smokers for smokers where only smokers are affected are a solution…”

It has been disputed. It would be discrimination. Non smokers would have to stand outside the establishment that sells pints to have a pint. Where’s my freedom?

I go to a pub to enjoy a drink. I can smoke anywhere, i can’t sit in a communal room and get the ‘pub vibe’ in my living room. Smoking does not enhance the experience.

Where’s my freedom?

Go down the private club way if you want, but that’s not what you’re saying. You’re saying you want to tell other people where they should drink. No one is telling you you can’t go in a tobacconists and buy tobacco without someone discharging noxious chemicals all over you.

Oh and RFM. Smoking bans only remove the choice to be antisocial and unhealthy. You would object to someone urinating in your food in a restaurant wouldn’t you? there’a a law against that.

It is the smokers who have got this topsy turvy. I smoke lots and my house stinks and my lungs are black. i don’t want to export that thanks, to innocents.

Report abuse

158

Charles11

There are some really gullible people about. They read passive smoking kills, even though nobody can name any, and they believe it.
I prefer facts, not statistics and assumptions.
Some anti-smokers try to make out that they are smokers and I have to laugh.
Some even believe that it is illegal for under 18s to buy cigarettes, which shows how little they know about the subject.

Report abuse

160

Charles11

Latest news from Britain. A complete ban on alcohol advertising. Eventually there will be a call for alcohol to be ‘out of sight’, as a display would be a form of advertising. There will also be restrictions on opening times for pubs. This is following the same lines as tobacco advertising.
WHO have said that alcohol is the third most drug, after cocaine and heroine.
Drinkers, you have been warned.

Report abuse

162

JL Seagull

Charles the Eleventh
News from the rest of the world. So what?
It IS a dangerous drug. Do you want the World Health Organisation to handily forget about it?

Those pathetic obituaries you get in pubs ‘celebrating’ the life of an old regular are testiment to how publicans view the world. Get em in and kill em for profit.

Report abuse

164

Robert Feal-Martinez

Charles 11. The creeping cancer of abolitionists.
What was the name of that leader who controlled peoples every being?

Belinda your inability to understand realities is astounding. I haven’t read any comments on here saying smoking wasn’t harmful, nor allowing children to smoke, or be present where smokers are etc etc. Passive smoking is a minor irritant to those with pre-existing conditions. It does not kill anyone.

Report abuse

166

Belinda

Soapy – I am obviously headed down a terrible road as yes, I quite agree with the BMA proposal to ban the advertising of alcohol, am in favour of initiatives being taken by councils in the UK to curb the effects of binge-drinking and agree with the prohibition of advertising “junk food” during children’s television programmes.

The health costs to the state of the adverse effects of smoking, drinking and obesity are spiralling. If people cannot be responsible, then the Government has to take action. Just as they do in setting safe speeding limits, because people can’t be trusted to drive safely, to insist on young people receiving an education, and in banning certain substances deemed dangerous to health.

No one is stopping anyone smoking, for goodness sake. Just asking smokers to take their toxic by-products outside!

One of my grandfathers fought in WW2, and one lived through the occupation here in Guernsey. They would be DISGUSTED to hear people like you using their sacrifices to justify your being allowed to smoke a cigarette in a pub. I am now entirely sickened by the utter nonsense that you, and the others are spewing out and just pray that this ban goes ahead.

Report abuse

168

Arnald

RFM
You don’t answer any questions.

Did you campaign against every single change to H&S laws in catering?
What about when seatbelts were introduced?
Do you complain that not being able to drive where you like is an assault on God given freedom?
When you’re in a public place is your urge for civil disobedience so great that you light up a spliff and wipe your nose on an old ladies’ scarf?

Where can I draw the line?

No one is stopping people smoking.

Soapy. Calm down. Of all the issues in all the world you compare this to nazism. It’s incredible.
A criminal can stash a pile of cash here and be accepted BUT DON’T MENTION THE POOR DRUG ADDICTS’ MISERY.
Get help.

Report abuse

170

MrsPinthepantry

Charles11:-

Belinda’s questions have nothing to do with ‘numbers’ she is asking for YOUR opinion, not statistics or a link to another blog. 5 of the 6 are answered with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ the other requires a short concise answer not a load of waffle about Communists, Maoists, Trotskyists, neo-Trotskyists, crypto-Trotskyists, union leaders, Communist union leaders, atheists, agnostics, long-haired weirdos, short-haired weirdos, vandals, hooligans, football supporters, namby-pamby probation officers, rapists, papists, papist rapists, foreign surgeons – headshrinkers, Wedgwood Benn, keg bitter, punk rock or glue-sniffers.

Not only won’t you answer the questions that are put to you, there is a further question tagged on the end of your post.

Are you a politician by any chance?

Report abuse

172

Robert Feal-Martinez

Belinda, my Father and Grandfather fought in the war, my son is RN and I was a policeman. I believe in Freedom and Democracy. Ironically service personnel were actually given cigarettes during the war.

Arnald I have absolutely nothing against legislation which is designed to say lives, that is shown to have some basis in fact. That is a totally different scenario to smoking bans designed to stop Passive Smoke which is virtually harmless to 99% of the population as I have repeatedly said.

Bruce McC there are those who believe in the ill effects of passive drinking, which you clearly think doesn’t exist, why is that then. Anti alcohol campaigners claim domestic violence, child abuse, drink driving can result as a result of alcohol consumption thus making the effects Passive Drinking.

Who decides in you mind what is unhealthy food?. Food like all other things taken in moderation is fine. You can’t just call things unhealthy because you may not like them.

That in essence is the problem with the anti everything lobby. Their freedom to choose is greater than mine. I cannot have a continual conversation with my friends unless I go outside with them, where is my freedom to choose.

Report abuse

174

Bruce McC

Charles11 – “there are over 2,000 more carcinogens in one measure of alcohol, than one cigarette”

Can you prove that?

Report abuse

176

Bruce McC

Robert – “I cannot have a continual conversation with my friends unless I go outside with them, where is my freedom to choose.”

I think your freedom to choose is when you said this bit… “unless I go outside”.

Report abuse

178

Ted

There are 20,000 more carcinogens in a bar of chocolate than in a pint of tobacco smoke and 2,000,000 more carcinogens in a litre of bottled water than in two low tar cigarettes.

Where do I get these statistics? I made them up; it’s what everyone else here seems to be doing.

Report abuse

180

Robert Feal-Martinez

So it seems that anti smokers cannot decipher answers unless they have a number before them so just to pacify them:.

(1)Do you believe that smoking has no negative health connotations, and nor does second hand smoke?
(2)If this is right, why is there a limit on the age for purchasing cigarettes?
(3)Do you advocate smoking whilst pregnant?
(4)Do you advocate smoking around small children?
(5)Do you advocate children smoking?
(6) Finally, do you have children? If yes, will you use them as evidence that SHS has no negative health impacts by ensuring that you subject them to SHS (solidly) for 12 hours every day (just like non-smoking bar staff are), to prove that you really and truly believe that you are right?

Answers (so you won’t get confused).

1. Part 1. NO. Part 2. No ( minor irritations as previously stated).
2. Because the law says so. Is having sex at 14 dangerous to a child’s health of course not, except of course with the wrong partner, but that is not age related. The law says they can’t (which incidentally I agree with before I get accused other atrocities).
3. Not really applicable, I’m not a woman. I have to say having seen the science in relation to nicotine crossing the placenta barrier, the jury is very much out some say it does some say it does, but in such minute dose as to be irrelevant to the health of the child. Finally some same the Placenta is an effective barrier against all cross blood contaminants. One would hope the woman would make informed choices. As an aside both my mother and father smoked, and I have 6 extremely health siblings.
4. Once again it is a matter of what you believe. Boffeta for the WHO in 1998 said early childhood exposure to cigarette smoke indicated no adverse effect and the results indicated a positive effect on building an effective immune system in later life.
‘The World Health Organisation commissioned International Agency for Research on Cancer to do a study on the effects of passive smoking.

By March 1998 the study had been completed and written up but remained unreleased, creating speculation that the results did not support the WHO’s view of secondhand smoke as a genuine health hazard. This suspicion was heightened when the Sunday Telegraph found a summary of the results buried in an internal WHO report. On March 8 1998 the newspaper published an article revealed that the researchers had found no statistically significant elevation in risk for those exposed to secondhand smoke as adults and found a statistically significant reduction in risk for those exposed in childhood. Entitled “Passive smoking doesn’t cause cancer – official”, the article not only reported the lack of association but, referring to the data on childhood exposure, reported that passive smoking “might even have a protective effect”.’

6. Of course a completely idiotic suggestion. For a number of reasons, smoking is not allowed in pubs, I do not smoke, and I do not know any bar person who works 12 hours, that would be illegal. However an American Health Department did research into bar workers exposure using respirators which acted like the workers lungs and inhaled the same air as the bar worker (it was attached below their mouths). The findings showed they inhaled the equivalent of 1/500th of one cigarette in an 8 hour shift in a smoking bar. That is the equivalent to 12 cigarettes a year. Calor Gas conducted a national high street pollution survey which stated that 15 minutes in Oxford High Street was the equivalent of smoking 2 cigarettes. So should I take my grandchildren shopping in Oxford High Street.

GP sorry for such a detailed reply, perhaps now Belinda and others will not keep repeating the same thing.

Report abuse

182

Charles11

David Goerlitz, a ‘Marlboro Man’ became a member of the Tobacco Control movement, but became disillusioned with them, because of the global corruption of them.
He wishes to continue his role with youths but firmly believes that when the age of enlightenment is reached that individuals should be free to make their own informed choice. He is endorsed by Hilary Clinton and it is hoped that soon both she and the President will also endorse The Brussels Declaration on Scientific Integrity.
He is also set to plan a North America Conference likely to be held in Washington DC to push for the Freedom to Choose.
Summary. He wants to carry on persuading children not to take up smoking, but without the lies of the Tobacco Control movement.

Report abuse

184

Bruce McC

Frank – ‘The surveys are there to be checked’? Where? Can we have a link? Or the name of the surveys or authors?

Report abuse

186

Martino

I think you’ve summed it up perfectly TL.
I’ve resisted joining the debate on whether passive smoking is/isn’t bad for human health (I think it is bad) but what cannot be doubted is that smoking is a foul, disgusting, filthy, anti-social habit.
When the smoking ban first came into force in Guernsey it really was a breath of fresh air knowing that you could go out at night, at last, without being subjected to disgusting second hand cigarette smoke.

Report abuse

188

Student Bob

Robert,

You continue to put forward twisted propaganda and lies for an argument without any form of legitimate evidence to substantiate your statements. I have repeatedly debated and established the complete lack of credibility for all of the sources and links you have provided and provided the evidence to support the pro-ban position.

Any right-minded person viewing this thread would see that the balance of evidence is entirely and indisputably in favour of the public smoking ban.

There’s a few last lies to wipe up, and I’m not going to answer them, I’ll let the evidence speak for itself…..

Robert, you brought up the Boffetta paper?
“In March 1998, British American Tobacco orchestrated a campaign to undermine the Boffetta study on passive smoking and to cast doubt on the SCOTH report which was published at that time. The findings of the Boffetta study were misreported by the Sunday Telegraph which had accepted uncritically BAT’s interpretation of the results.” From http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/health/reports-05/her05-01-12.htm

Dr Boffetta’s paper actually proved that “the inescapable scientific conclusion is that environmental tobacco smoke is a lung carcinogen”. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/188062.stm

Robert, you claim, at worst, that passive smoking is a ‘minor irritation’?
“Secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causing conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.” from http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/PMINTL/pages/eng/smoking/Secondhand_smoke.asp (that’s from Philip Morris, the people who make Marlboro and B&H and the rest)

Charles11 asks repeatedly for names of those killed by passive smoking. Sadly, data protection and human rights laws means names aren’t available, but nevertheless here’s the first court case proving that “secondhand-smoke exposure can led to the death”
http://www.physorg.com/news121691990.html

But it’s not just about one person… “Secondhand smoke causes almost 50,000 deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year”
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

thisisguernsey.com All Stars – 2
Right Wing Bunch of Fascist Nutters – 0

Is this really all you’ve got guys?? C’mon, give it your best shot…..

Report abuse

190

Robert Feal-Martinez

“The autopsy clearly indicates she died from asthma,” Rosenman said. “There was no other cause of death. Her death is consistent with what we know about exposures in bars like this. We know asthmatics are more susceptible to irritants and other particulates in the air.

“We know that particulate levels from secondhand cigarette smoke in bars like this reach sufficient levels to set off an asthma attack.”

And what part of irritant to pre existing conditions didn’t you understand from my previous posts. However tragic this death is, I simply do not believe that she would not have been aware or her ‘triggers’. My son had childhood Asthma and we knew exactly what to avoid.

I have read the Morris stuff. What you don’t explain of course is that made this statement to escape huge corporate loses from fines. In short they were bribed.

So I quote the study from Boffetta and you quote a BBC news item very impressive. And the Scottish Parliament whose health advisers are ASH. And as for the one about 50’000 deaths I am willing to wager, and I haven’t yet looked that the text will say, we believe, we estimate, it is our opinion etc etc .

Report abuse

192

Robert Feal-Martinez

Well that didn’t take long then the 50’000 deaths claim came from a document called Proposed Identification of ETS as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Now the intent is clearly in the title. ETS exists now prove it.

This is a huge document of 526 pages and whilst it was published in 2005, the death ratios are based on research conducted in 1997/8. Long before the most recent guidelines by ASHRAE on work place pollution in May 2007.

Page 520 is the page to look at, and aside from the blindly obvious lack of scientifically significant relative risk ratios of 1.68 at a 95% confidence interval, the starting point for the research was based on an assumption, not fact, not empirical science. How do I know. Because it says so.

“In the following calculations, it is assumed that the general population is exposed at the same rate, and that the effects of exposure to ETS at home and at work are similar.”

So Student Bob it is a mathematically model, based on an unprovable assumption, revealing relative risks which are scientifically insignificant, which are in turn used to calculate why a group without a control have died.

Definition: Junk science. http://tinyurl.com/m5hgsv

Report abuse

194

Charles11

Student Bob says ‘data protection and human rights laws means names aren’t available, but nevertheless here’s the first court case proving that “secondhand-smoke exposure can led to the death”
He says names aren’t available, then gives a name in a link. Millions die of asthma and because one person dies of asthma in bar, this proves that passive smoking kills. Really?
Another own goal by Student Bob.

Report abuse

196

Greg Lance-Watkins

BFM – trying to bury the truth by swamping the factual comments with your multiple personalities?

As usual.

Report abuse

198

Student Bob

Oh Charles11, you’re an idiot. The woman who died isn’t named in the link. Really, sometimes it is better to keep quiet and let people assume you’re a fool, rather than post on an interweb news forum and remove all doubt…. It’s okay, we’ll chalk your faux-pas up to more lies and propaganda from the anti-ban nuts. And why the morbid and irrelevant fascination with the names of the innocent killed by your selfishness?

Robert. I’ve read the study. Boffetta finds a definite link between passive smoking and lung cancer. Would you care to deny that?

You suggest that Philip Morris and presumably BAT feel obliged to publish warnings about second hand smoke to escape ‘huge corporate fines’. Why would they be fined though if everything you claim is true??

Surely they could march into court with their evil heads held high and proclaim that cigarette smoke has killed no-one??

This, of course, is a laughable point of semantics. The point on which both you and Charles11 hang your tenuous arguments. Technically, smoking has killed no-one. What most people with half a brain, and any judge or jury will appreciate is that it is a catalyst for existing conditions. This is why Philip Morris and BAT post warnings about second hand smoke. This is why it is rightfully banned in public places.

Would you like to be the one exercising your freedom2choose whilst the young woman next to you collapses and gags to death from an acute asthma attach instigated by your tobacco smoke??

At the end of the day, you still can’t provide any evidence and even the tobacco companies themselves acknowledge the risk of SHS and support a ban.

Report abuse

200

Student Bob

It is worth saying that I’m suitably impressed that Bob FM read 526 pages in about half an hour, and staggered that in the 526 pages he only found one sentence that he could twist to his advantage!

What I like about that paper Robert, is that it’s a lit review of about 75 other papers (including your man, Boffetta) researching the negative effects of ETS. The mathematical model is based on the cumulative findings detailed in the preceding 519 pages, so, it’s about as accurate as you’re going to get.

Report abuse

202

Charles11

Student Bob. OK, so the link doesn’t give the name, but do you still stand by your ridiclous statement that because of privacy laws, names and causes of deaths are not given when somebody dies?
You are so gullible to believe that out of millions of people, who have died from asthma, one died in a pub, so the cause of death was because of passive smoking. You are such a fool to believe this.

Report abuse

204

bcb

Charles11
Your fighting a lost battle mate. Its not even a case of smokers rights or smokers v non smokers because most of the smokers i know actually support the ban, including myself and i`m a smoker. I dont blow smoke around my daughter and when she is old enough to visit a pub i would hate the thought of a load of drug addicts filling her lungs with somthing she doesn`t want in them. You dont need any research to tell you how bad it is for you as giving up for a while will show the difference in how much better you feel. I think its just pure common sense.

Report abuse

206

Greg Lance-Watkins

I lie in here, beside the whitewashed wall,
My hair is gone, my head is bald,
The room is sterile and it’s very cold,
Wish you were here, Dad, I need someone to hold.

I can’t breathe, I’m on a machine,
It goes whirr and click, it’s such a din,
I’ve got lung cancer, it’s all black inside,
When Mum says smoking causes cancer, Dad, I think she lied.

I never lit up, even when you did,
I just sat next to you, a small little kid,
You huffed and puffed through your life, Dad,
And Mum always looked so very sad.

My friends asked me to smoke, but I never did,
Because Mum told me from young: smoking is stupid,
It soots up your lungs and blackens your teeth,
So when I see a smoker, Dad, I anger and seethe.

You smoked two packs a day but you’re still healthy and strong,
I hate smokers, Dad, but I never thought you wrong,
I love you, Dad, I always sat next to you,
And I know that you always loved me too.

The room here is cold, I see you through the glass,
And I think back to long ago, Dad, of times past,
Of the memories, I recall as much as I can,
There’s always been a cigarette, Dad, stuck inside your hand.

I remember the fun things, Dad, all the times we had,
But as I look at you from here, you look so very sad,
You’re not smoking, Dad, no cigarette I can see on you,
Maybe it’s just the hospital, and this is the ICU.

My breathing becomes laboured, I don’t think I’ll live,
Well, I tried my best, I gave all I had to give,
But one thing, Dad, I cannot comprehend,
I’m not a smoker, so why is my life about to end?

Report abuse

208

Jonny-LC Gull

So long and thanks for all the fish, Charles the Eleventh.
RFM, you’ve been rubbished by a twelve year old (sorry Studious Bob, 12 is the magic number. Even children as young as twelve know that).

So let’s recap:
You haven’t got an argument.

The freedom2choose is a function of social acceptability. Do you therefore want to a return to legalised rape within marriage because “many have had their social lives decimated” (thanks Rich G)?
Or what about racial segregation? After all, man with gun historically had the freedom2choose whether they oppress for profit or not. Still do.

Big Tobacco is now lying and cheating in the thrid world, peddling death on the uneducated. You cannot possibly have any integrity if you don’t want these mass murderers brought into line under strict medical regulation.

Still choice, just educated.

That is teh future for democracy. Educated decisions by educated peoples.

That’s why we need those taxes folks.

Report abuse

210

MC Escher

Student Bob says ‘Sadly, data protection and human rights laws means names aren’t available’.

Clearly Bob, you know less than nothing about the Data Protection Law. It ONLY applies to living people.

Report abuse

212

Frank

MC Esher: Well said, that’s exactly what all this is about. However, the pendulum is starting to swing the other way.

bcb: In my pubs, there are split views. Some smokers do think it a good idea and many non smokers don’t. – I discount the guy sat on a stool at the end of the bar, middle aged and dressed like a teenager in shorts, trainers and T-shirt with a no. 1 haircut who loudly proclaims that he’s ‘a smoker and thinks its a good idea’ We’ve all seen them.

The common denominator is that few of them all buy into the health argument. That’s seen as rubbish. And health was the quoted reason.

Report abuse

214

Robert Feal-Martinez

Sorry for the delay in responding, BT have shown their usual excellent customer services.

Student. Meta analysis of epidemiology is about as inaccurate you can get. For a meta analysis to be effective every single study needs to be conducted in exactly the same way, using the same confounders, same controls etc. No self respecting scientist would hold their hands up to this. Re Boffetta. I posted an exact extract from him conclusions. You posted news reports of press conferences, and there in lies the problem. Press releases rarely in regard to ETS reflect what the research says rather what the WHO etc would like the research to say. This is of course why I choose to read the studies. As for the report thank you for acknowledging what I posted reflected the fill report. Do you accept that a 1.68 RR ration is scientifically insignificant, because the American Cancer Society apparently do. So I rather think your own argument falls if you believe this is the best available evidence. I have always believed that by looking at the conclusions of a study is a quick way of evaluating it. There was simply no need to read anything early they condemned themselves.

I note the insults abound now from the anti smoking lobby. How very predictable.

Report abuse

216

Charles11

Student Bob. When you leave school and learn to live in the real world, you will learn not to believe everything you read in newspapers.
I have lived on this earth for nearly 70 years and have NEVER EVER seen or heard of anybody dying because of passive smoking.
How many people have you seen die, because of second hand smoke?

Report abuse

218

Robert Feal-Martinez

HPV Causes Lung Cancer. Student Bob will love this, it contains lots of studies over 50 I think, blaming non smoker lung cancer on HPV. But true to form the establishment are having non of it.

Just a taster:

Since the 1980s, a small but steady trickle of research (mostly non-U.S.) has implicated human papillomaviruses as a cause of lung cancer. HPV DNA has been detected in over 21.7% of non-small cell lung cancers. It was not established that HPV causes 100% of cervical cancers until 1999, so the prevalence of HPV is probably underestimated in these early studies. If HPV is the true cause of only 20% of lung cancers, this would equal over 30,000 US cases, or ten times the number of pretended secondhand smoke deaths, annually. This is also nearly three times more than the approximately 12,000 (CDC) new cervical cancers in the U.S.! Because smokers and passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, the anti-smokers’ studies, which are based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, automatically falsely blame the extra lung cancers cancers caused by HPV on smoking and passive smoking. The health establishment has officially ignored the implications of this research, including the Surgeon General, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the California EPA, in their ETS reports on smoking and secondhand smoke. Therefore, these officials are guilty of scientific fraud.

http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm

Report abuse

220

MrsPinthepantry

Hi Charles 11!

Guess what? I might be a few years short of your supposed 70 here on this earth but I have personally have never seen anyone shot, stabbed, glassed, die in a car crash, overdose on Jenkem or pass on from eating too much cake.

Does that mean these tragic events don’t happen just because I didn’t personally witness them?

Report abuse

222

Belinda

Hey Charles – I haven’t ever seen anyone stabbed, and I don’t know anyone who has been stabbed and who died as a result, but guess what – I believe it happens. I did have a lovely godmother who died earlier this year from complications relating to emphysema. Have you heard of this horrible disease? It’s nasty, and usually effects smokers, but my godmother wasn’t a smoker. She was a social worker though and spent a good deal of each working day exposed to second hand smoke. Cause of death wasn’t emphysema, as it was complications relating to this. But everyone knows that the emphysema was the real cause, and why it was that she contracted this.

You sad lot can carry on all you like, and try to tell me that the sky is pink and the sea is orange, but I know that smoke is bad, whether I am inhaling, or whether someone is puffing it into my face.

I note that noone has volunteered their children to prove that second hand smoke is safe! Kind of refutes any arguments you are trying to make.

Report abuse

224

Arnald

Give up Charles11. Be a man, eh.

Report abuse

226

Charles11

MrsPinthepantry. The report in the Times is just more anti-smoking propangada.
If you go to the HES (Hospital Episode Statistics) website, you will see that the number of heart attack admissions dropped by 2.8% before the smoking ban and by 2% after the smoking ban. Therefore, the smoking ban made no difference.

Report abuse

228

Robert Feal-Martinez

Arnald. I think you are being childish, so you dismiss over 50 studies, that have nothing whatever to be with smoking bans or passive smoking but merely investigations into HPV, and their conclusions indicate 21/7% of lung cancers are caused by HPV.

Classic denialism.

Charles11. Last year Amanda Sandford of ASH had to concede the fallacy of the English results on Heart Attack admissions was a fallacy in a live radio into debate with me. She and the DH claimed a 40% drop. What she and they didn’t say was that was just one hospital. They also failed to say that only 60% of hospitals had been included and the average drop was 3% less than the previous year.

When we added back the other 40% and removed the top and bottom result, (standard mathematical procedure when averaging) the actually result was an increase in admissions since the ban of 4%.

Report abuse

230

Charles11

David Goerlitz 12 September, 2009, 22:11
Well said, and better yet HONEST. Finally a voice of reason. My name is David Goerlitz and I am the former Winston Man. I have severed all ties with the tobacco control movement I was associated with up until 12 years ago and then went independent for the very reasons you bring forth. There is no reason in the world with all our technology and brainpower that we have not been able to come up with something more reasonable, fair and logical than the crap and junk science the anti-smoking power hungry zealots are throwing at us . The media has to be held accountable as well, as more and more evidence has been uncovered showing the lies and corruption being used by tobacco control as we know it. The attitude that ,…just because your eyes see it….the ears hear it….does not mean that the mind has to believe it. Keep up the good work Simon and thanks for keeping me angry enough to help change these draconian laws and bans. Looking forward to working with TICAP, Freedom 2 Choose, and Forces International to help make the changes necessary so that dignity and respect can once again replace control, prohibition and coercion. David Goerlitz (former Winston Man)

http://www.thepublican.com/comments.asp?storycode=65092

Report abuse

232

Robert Feal-Martinez

Frank, even more Jackonory this week from ASH etal:

Heart attacks plummet after smoking ban

The ban on public smoking has caused a fall in heart attack rates of about 10%, a study has found.

Researchers commissioned by the Department of Health have found a far sharper fall than they had expected in the number of heart attacks in England in the year after the ban was imposed in July 2007.

In Scotland, where the ban was introduced a year earlier, heart attack rates have fallen by about 14% because of the ban, separate research has shown. Similar results are expected in Wales where a third study is still under way.

…

However it would seem the research hasn’t even been done yet. Don’t you just love it. I suspect the major media will not cover the retraction:

Correction: Heart attacks plummet after smoking ban, ASH Daily News 14th September 2009

We have heard that the figures reported in the Sunday Times yesterday (and now circulating elsewhere) are not based on any research conducted to date.

The impact of the smokefree legislation on heart attacks is being analysed by Anna Gilmore and team at Bath but they have no final results yet.

Their findings will be available next year in time for the three year review of the legislation.

Report abuse

234

smokinghot

I think Gsy should have a march to cancel the ban!!

woop woop!

Report abuse

236

Martino

Why don’t you come over and organise a Guernsey march smokinghot? I can guarantee that it’ll be the worst supported march in the island’s history and that you would probably double the numbers if you were to pop across the Channel to take part.
For your information, the laughably named ‘Save our Smokers’ group held a march before the Guernsey ban came into force and it was pitifully attended. Since the ban most of the local smokers who were against have come round to the view that it was the right thing to do and that they would not like to see it overturned.
I’d just like to finish by saying that I won’t be posting any more on this particular thread. I think we islanders should just let it rest now and let you UK tobacco junkies huff and puff among yourselves.
You really are a sad lot!

Report abuse

238

Charles11

Robert. The 10% heart reduction was ‘leaked’ to the press around the world, but how many will show the ‘correction’? Few if any, and this is why the gullible believe ASH and Tobacco Control.

Report abuse

240

Len Oval

Pfft! I think smoking should be banned outright. I cannot believe people would march to voice their right to poison others with their own bad vice. 60 people aint much though and I am certain there would be more people for stricter smoking restrictions that against.

Report abuse

242

JL Seagull

There’s really only one way to settle this….

Report abuse

244

chris

Charles11, that’s precisely why they’re so afraid of any sort of compromise that would satisfy both smokers and resonable nonsmokers. Here in the US they talk about a “level playing field”. Translation: a pub that allows smoking will do better business–even with nonsmokers.

Report abuse

246

Bruce McC

Charles11, why half? That’s a typical anti-ban, selfish suggestion. Only a fifth of adults smoke, so surely the only fair division is to allow smoking in one in every five pubs?

Report abuse

248

chris

Bruce McC: I’m sure lots of people would consider having 1 pub in 5 a vast improvement over 0 in 5. You’re forgetting, though, that the percentage of smokers is a good deal higher among regular pubgoers. Also, what are you going to do when that one smoking pub is doing well and the 4 nonsmoking ones aren’t?

Mrs. Pinthepantry: Don’t know what you mean by “young people.” You can’t possilility mean those considered too young to be in a pub. I believe there are statistics from Ireland showing youth smoking to be up. At any rate, anyone who knows anything about young people knows that they have an inconvenient tendency to do things that are forbidden. As columnist Lynn Samuels wrote, if we really didn’t want kids to smoke, we’d give them packs of cigarettes and tell them they were good for them.

Report abuse