1

Island Girl

I have not heard of one person saying ” I came to Alderney this year for my holiday so, I could smoke in a public area “!!!. Absolute rubbish that tourism will suffer when and I hope to god that Alderney does brings in the smoking ban. The major factor in the decrease of visitors is the cost of getting to and from Alderney.
Let’s hope that The States Of Alderney vote for the smoking ban to happen on June 1st.

Report abuse

3

beanjar

Sorry I forgot to add, we have had the ban in Guernsey for a while now it is now an real pleasure to go to a restaurant/ pub without being contaminated with cigarette smoke.

This is not just my opinion but it is also the thoughts of many people who are non smokers and even smokers.

The majority of UK and Guernsey residents have got used to the smoking ban, and would be more inclined not to enter an establishment if there was smoking taking place.

So it is absolute rubbish to say that tourism will suffer.

Report abuse

5

Bob

Here in Chicago, there are over a dozen small neighborhood bar within 2 miles of my house that ignore the two year old Illinois ban to stay in business.

Report abuse

7

Shirley

Having been coming to the beautiful Island of Guernsey for over 30 years with friends and family I shall be sad to stop.
I certainly do not intend standing out in a street to enjoy a perfectly legal pastime that does absolutely no harm to anybody. That is unless you believe the myth of so called ‘second hand smoke’ that was invented by the giant pharmaceutical companies in order for them to make billions of dollars in nicotine replacement therapy. ALL the studies trying to prove the ‘dangers’ are paid for by these drug companies. Anybody that believes that a wisp of smoke is harmful should live in a bubble as there are common everyday products that contain far more chemicals than the humble cigarette.
Goodbye Guernsey tourist trade.

Report abuse

9

Thomas Laprade

There is absolutely no reason to have smoking bans in this country.

Owners can put a sign in their doors:
“This is a smoking venue’
‘This is a non-smoking venue.’
This solution gives owners and customers choices

http://thetruthisalie.com

Report abuse

11

chas

I agree with Lin that there should be freedom of choice. In the UK, thousands of pubs have closed and about 100,000 of staff have been made unemployed.
If pubs and clubs were allowed to choose between smoking and non-smoking venues or separate rooms (with ventilation) there would not be such closures.

Report abuse

13

GGG

I am appalled at Lin Maurice’s comments!

Has she never heard of passive smoking? she really needs to get into the 21st century. Smoking is no longer tolerated and should not be encoraged. It is a health hazard.

If the customers must smoke let them do it outside or provide a smoking shelter for them.

Report abuse

15

Ants

The UK smoking ban has been a disaster for the pub trade, Lin Maurice is absolutely right to take a stand against this thing. Whenever smoking bans are introduced their is always loss of businesses, those pubs that survive cling on in the hope that things will get better whilst watching their takings, their customers and that once happy atmosphere dwindle away.

Take pride Alderney in being unique. Don’t let the anti-smokers have their way, keep freedom and choice alive on your lovely island.

Report abuse

17

The Man

Helen

Do you honestly take into consideration which detinations have smoking bans before you make your holiday choice??

“Lets go to Columbia, theres a high risk we could be kidnapped, but at least we can smoke in public”

Report abuse

19

beanjar

GGG I totally agree with you.
I find it sad that there are so many amateur medical so called experts in this forum who ignore the evidence given by real experts to the dangers of smoking/passive smoking.

I have just googled ” Benefits of smoking ban” and have come up with information from many top medical experts, suggesting that there are many deaths from passive smoking, both at home and also in the working place ie bars, restaurants etc.

They also give statistics showing that deaths from smoking relative illnesses have been reduced by over 15 % since the smoking ban was introduced.

Just how you can ignore this beats me, except that most people on this forum are more concerned about profit than health which is very sad.

Report abuse

21

GGG

@ Phil and Ants

You are antiquated in your opinions. as is Lin Maurice.

Smokers endanger other peoples lives through passive smoking.

Smokers also stink and have no regard to the litter they cause by dropping their fag ends anywhere and everywhere.

In other countries, including some towns in the UK, you can be fined £80 for dropping fag ends. Lets introduce that in the Bailiwick and get rid of the litter smokers cause.

Smokers are selfish and have no respect for the majority of people who do not smoke.

Both my parents smoked from an early age and died horrifically from smoking related diseases. Their quality of life for the last few years of their lives was very poor. They had difficulty breathing and had all sorts of other problems.

Do not impose your dirty habit on other people.

Report abuse

23

Jenny H, North Yorks

I don’t know how many public houses you have on Alderney – it looks to be a very small island to me – I saw it from the air, travelling back from Jersey. However, where you have a much higher density of public houses on the British mainland, it’s become clear after two and a half years that the draconian blanket smoking ban has absolutely destroyed traditional pubs and clubs. Now, 57 are closing per week and this figure will shortly rise to 65 per week. Had there been some form of compromise (ie. choice), many venues would still remain open today. If wet-led pubs had been allowed to retain a smoking room/area, they would have retained their regular customers. Now that we are experiencing ‘Arctic’ conditions, the public houses in my area are empty so businesses must be suffering. This is a ill thought-out piece of legislation which has been badly implemented. You have been warned.

Report abuse

25

John

@ James Hock

What planet are you from?

Smoking is banned in public buildings here and in the UK and, since the ban, I have never seen anyone smoking in a pub or restaurant.

Anyone who does so must want their brains testing as it is a quick way to an early death. I do not mind people smoking but do so in your own homes or where you do not cause disconfort to the majority who do not smoke.

Smokers also utilise the majority of the Health Services resources. I hate paying taxes just so a smoker with emphysema can use up valuable health resources better suited for someone who has not caused the diseases themselves.

Smokers are weak willed individuals who are quite willing to impose their disgusting habit on other people.

wake up and smell the roses. Oh sorry you can’t because of the smokey fug all around you!!

Report abuse

27

Nat

Overall I think the smoking ban in Guernsey has been successful, although perhaps the closure of several pubs has been related to the ban.

However, I personally think publicans should be able to choose whether to have a ban or not. If as an individual I don’t like a place because it’s smoky, then I would choose not to go there. We don’t have the right to go to a private business and demand it’s non-smoking.

Report abuse

29

Nat

@ John. To be fair, smokers contribute a huge amount of revenue through the extremely high taxation on their drug. Plus they die earlier, so the state doesn’t have to look after them in old age!

Report abuse

31

John

Nat

Good point

Report abuse

33

bcb

Its about time all you selfish non-smokers started taking up the habbit aswell. That way there would be no arguments, pubs would be full every night (good for business) and just think how much it will help us out of the black or grey or whatever colour it is at the moment hole.
I also think its about time you non-smokers started to cough up (excuse the pun) a bit towards the cost to smokers as your getting yours for free :).

Report abuse

35

Student Bob

Hey Phil J!! You say “why should there not be smoking pubs and non smoking pubs? That way you have the choice of which pub you enter.”

I say, why can’t you simply go outside and smoke?? I mean, that way non-smokers AND smokers are equally able to enjoy the same pub!!!

Report abuse

37

TL

I just love the illogical argument that, on the one hand the smoking ban is supposedly killing off pubs and then, on the other hand, the solution is to divide pubs into two camps of smoking and non-smoking so that they reduce their potential customers!!

The simple fact is that pubs are generally forced by market forces to accept whoever walks in the door – and so unless there is a smoking ban, all non-smokers are forced to socialise in a foul environment and go home smelling like an ashtray. The smoking ban allows non-smokers to socialise unaccosted by the stench of cigarettes and allows smokers to socialise and pop outside whenever they need a ciggy – so it accomodates both groups.

My experience of living in the UK is that the smoking ban there has been welcomed by the vast majority of people. The same is true in Guernsey. The pathetic moaners are just the small minded minority.

Report abuse

39

Tug

So Lin wants Freedom of Choice for all and the anti-smokers want to Control all, take your pick,but as far as the smoking ban in the UK is concerned,it has been a total failure to the country,no benefit to Health,no benefit to Wealth,but i do find it hard to believe that the anti lot still try to convince everyone that the dangers of SHS are real,when with just a small amount of research everyone can see for themselves that the massive amount and the Majority of All research tells us the “claims” of SHS dangers are no more than a Myth.

Report abuse

41

lets go funfree

Why should tobacco smoke be the only smell to be criminalised in public places? Cheap perfume(contains carcinogens), spirits(class A carcinogen), air fresheners(infinitely more carcinogens than in tobacco smoke),cooking with olive oil(higher carcinogen level than tobacco smoke),sorry restaurant owners.
I just cant stand any of these noxious smells, and i have a right to breathe clean air wherever i choose or do not choose to go. Ban them all and the filthy, disgusting perpetrators.

Report abuse

43

mandyv

No-one has ever been banned from investing their OWN money into smoke-free venues, but the antis will want them all smoke-free, it is not their money to lose is it?

Scarlett, your symptoms sound familiar, check out – ourlittleplace.com chemicals -

3. BENZYL ACETATE (in: perfume, cologne, shampoo, fabric softener, stickup air freshener, dishwashing liquid and detergent, soap, hairspray, bleach, after shave, deodorants)
Carcinogenic (linked to pancreatic cancer); “From vapors: irritating to eyes and respiratory passages, exciting cough.” “In mice: hyperanemia of the lungs.” “Can be absorbed through the skin causing systemic effects.” “Do not flush to sewer.”

For all those who just love the fresh air they think they are getting.

For all those who just love a drink, you are next to be “denomalised” so good luck with that one -
“By harnessing benzodiazepines like diazepam, the chief ingredient in anti-anxiety med Valium, Nutt sees a future of drinking without becoming addicted, belligerent or — and here’s the kicker — intoxicated. Using one of thousands of possible benzos, researchers are working to tailor a colorless, tasteless synthetic that could eventually replace the alcohol content in beer, wine and liquor”.

Report abuse

45

Chris F J Cyrnik

Good luck to those level headed people on Alderney that will have no truck with a bullying smoking ban…dreamt up by witless and intolerant politicians, aided and abetted by anti-smoking zealots.

Watch out! There are one or two ASH employees posing as different people making their usual comments.

Chris F J Cyrnik

Report abuse

47

LooseBruce

Smoking bans are not imposed to make people stop smoking. They are there to protect workers from second-hand smoke. That’s a debate in itself!
Just like the second-hand pollution/poisons from cars, trucks, buses, aeroplanes, power stations, alcohol and FOOD! I do not see bans in these areas.
I have travelled this globe and the smoking bans have crippled many tourist areas, e.g, Hawaii, ROI and Croatia to name but a few. (I think Croatia are considering a relaxtation soon because of the effects of the ban?)
Remember freedom is the word. Not de-normalisation. I drink, drive A 4 X 4 and smoke! I and a bad person.
What is the problem with smoking and non-smoking bars? What is the problem with freedom to choose? What is the problem with live and let live.
Oh to be so pure!!

Report abuse

49

beanjar

Extract from Wall Street Health Journal.

“A new study from Scotland provides what public-health experts in the U.S. say is the strongest evidence yet that public bans on smoking — being debated in several locales — improve health by reducing exposure to secondhand smoke.

According to the study, which appears in Thursday’s edition of the New England Journal of Medicine, hospital admissions for heart attacks and acute coronary problems fell 17% overall, and even more for nonsmokers, in the year after Scotland banned smoking in public places.

“There has long been a claim from smokers that they are affecting their own bodies, and why should the public care?” said David Cohen, director of cardiovascular research at Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo., who wasn’t involved in the study. “This shows that the public should absolutely care … that is an incredibly powerful finding.”

The study found that nonsmokers accounted for 67% of the overall reduction in heart-disease hospitalizations, said Jill Pell, the University of Glasgow professor who led the study. Nonsmokers saw a 20% reduction in their hospital admissions following the ban. Smokers’ admissions were down 14%.”

Sorry, but to all of you amateur medical experts, how can you argue with that.

Report abuse

51

lets go funfree

Sorry BEANJAR,you need to read behind the ‘science by press release’ in the mainstream media.

http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=65

All of these ‘Heart Attack Miracles’ have been exposed for being misleading and junk headlines to justify draconian bans based on junk science.
This is the whole point of this debate. Alderney can make a difference and not be fooled by the scam behind illiberal smoking bans. Let choice prevail and let communities co-operate with each other rather than be controlled by state diktats.

Report abuse

53

Rick S

“Sorry, but to all of you amateur medical experts, how can you argue with that.”

Because it’s rubbish. It’s based on the data from only 9 hospitals, not all of them – and when the full data is analysed, it’s clear that the drop was nearer 8%. But surely that still proves that smoking bans work? Well, no – the heart attack rate had been falling before the ban anyway, and the drop in heart attack admissions was pretty much in line with drops in previous years.

Or, as the Times put it in their article “Worst junk stats of 2007″,

“Smoking ban cut heart attacks in Scotland by 17 per cent”, researchers and politicians trumpeted to the world in September through press releases, a conference and interviews, all faithfully reported. It was the ban what done it, they said… until six weeks later when official data halved the drop — to 8 per cent — against a trend immediately before the ban of a 5 or 6 per cent drop, and a fall a few years ago of 11. All of which makes it hard to be sure what, if any, effect the ban really had. The researchers went strangely silent.”

Report abuse

55

Robert Feal-Martinez

Take it from me as a UK publican with motel, and restaurant the smoking ban in the UK has cost me 50% of all of my business. 5000 UK pubs and clubs have closed and over 100,000 jobs lost.

I had to smile at the GSK comments, the tobacco companies love big P, they provide them with the nicotine for the smoking cessation products. Big T are in a win, win situation. Hence local authorities in the UK have pension fund shares in Big T.

But digest this bit and say Big P are actually helping smokers or picking their pockets.

The conclusions of Moore and colleagues about nicotine replacement therapy seem to be slanted.1 With a long term smoking cessation percentage of only 1.6%, you can hardly call nicotine replacement an “effective” intervention. Although the 1.6% abstinence rate is better than the 0.4% achieved with placebo, how can one call the 1.6% success rate with nicotine replacement “effective”?

The logical conclusion from this systematic review and meta-analysis is that nicotine replacement was a dismal intervention. Most smokers (98.4%) failed to achieve long term sustained abstinence with it.

I cannot think of another intervention for which a 98.4% failure rate would be considered a success.

Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b1730

Michael Siegel, professor1

1 Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02118, USA

mbsiegel@bu.edu
Competing interests: None declared.

1. Moore D, Aveyard P, Connock M, Wang D, Fry-Smith A, Barton P. Effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy assisted reduction to stop smoking: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2009;338:b1024. (2 April.)[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Report abuse

57

James McLaughin

That study was completely discredited and was never published despite repeated attemts to see it. Jill Pell, the author has been refusing even to answer her phone. She is a laughing stock. Scottish government figures published later showed the real decline as 6 percent, much the same as the decline in previous years. 2009 however the heart attack rates were back up again higher than they were before the ban.
beanjar, try googling “scottish heart miracle”.
MacLochlainn

Report abuse

59

Vellocatus

Beanjar 3.51pm- Sorry, but I can easily argue with that!!

Every study that I know of, that claims heart attack benefits as a result of smoking bans has been well and truly discredited. I suggest you read ‘http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=1 on the web to start with where Pell’s study and others are fully explained. You will see how the public are being conned to believe that smoking bans are beneficial. When there IS NO evidence that this is correct – only rhetoric!!

If you want some facts; Over the last 60 years+ anti-smoking campaigners have deceived the public, and have been successful in a massive reduction in smoking over that time – BUT try to find ANY benefits? If you want to find out the truth on the web you must look deeper and beyond anti-smoker propaganda (there is masses of it – explaining why it is so easy to find).

As an example; All Cancers have continued to rise year on year despite the reduction in smoking and is now at epidemic proportions. Less smoking HAS NOT RESULTED IN ANY REDUCTION in cancer incidence “More than one in every three women and nearly one in every two men will contract cancer in their lifetimes.”(Prof Eysenck 1997)
Official stats; Registered malignant neoplasm’s (cancers) in England and Wales;
1991 – 212647
2006 – 309700
New cases of Lung and Bronchus cancers USA official stats;
2000 – 164,100
2008 – 215,020
Increase – 50,920 (31.03%)

Child asthma, still alleged to be caused by smoking is also at epidemic proportions today – a condition that was rare when almost everyone was a smoker. One in 11 children has asthma today and it is the most common long-term medical condition. The UK has the highest prevalence of severe wheeze in children aged 13–14 years worldwide. http://www.asthma.org.uk/news_media/media_resources/for_journalists_key.html

Conversely brain degenerative diseases are also increasing – smoking is known to help prevent these diseases. Eg. http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=468bcddd-fbc9-433c-b39d-3b5ae582a1db

Smoking is beneficial to children in this study;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11422156?dopt=Abstract

I’m afraid that the smoking ‘harm’ claims are no longer as simple as ‘’the debate is over’’, the actual results do not match the anti-smoker rhetoric/estimates. Hindsight is proving the harm claims to be fallacious. Evidence suggests smoking harm, where ill health is blamed on the individual, was invented to protect polluting industry years ago. It now also enhances the profits of the pharmaceutical industry, Rabid, fanatical anti-smokers have merely hopped on the bandwagon for a free ride to boost their bloated egos!

Look at the real evidence and refuse any more to be a gullible puppet to fat cat corporations – don’t let them get away with it! Demand that research is made into real cancer causes!

Report abuse

61

James

According to a recent NHS Information centre report one third of smokers (around four million people)no longer visit pubs in the evening, because of the Uk smoking ban.
Millions of others also go out less often. The ban has caused around 100,000 needless job losses in UK hospitality and nearly five thousand pub closures together with bingo halls,cafes and working mens clubs.
Well done Alderney for having some common sense, what is needed is restrictions on smoking a choice of non smoking and smoking venues to suit everyone. Blanket smoking bans like the one we have here in the UK just don’t work, smoking rates remain about the same here as before.

Report abuse

63

muzeek

marley states….

“There is NO PROOF that smoking kills and absolutely NO PROOF that SHS does the remotest harm to anyone.”

What qualifications and evidence do you have in order to state the above.

Report abuse

65

beanjar

chas

I think Roy Castle would disagree with your comments, anyway I together with others on this blog are not saying that smoking should be banned.

I just want to go where I like in public and not have to put up with the smell and fumes of cigarette smoke, I like breathing fresh air that’s all.

By the way my partner died a slow death from cancer a few years ago and I visited Bulstrode House the cancer centre near the PEH many times, and it certainly opened my eyes.

Finally can you explain to me why the Government put health warnings in cigarette packets, is it just another big conspiracy against smokers..

Report abuse

67

chas

beanjar. I thought that everybody now know that Roy Castle’s claim of passive smoking causing lung cancer is false. Like millions of others (at that time) he thought that the only cause of lung was due to smoking. Neither his doctors told him that nor did he have an autopsy when he was alive.

Report abuse

69

Student Bob

Yay!! Bob Foul-Martinez is back!! i wondered how long that would take…

Great meta-analysis there Bob. Here’s a quote for you “Meta analysis is about as inaccurate you can get. No self respecting scientist would hold their hands up to this.” – Robert Feal-Martinez | September 12, 2009 at 9:18 am available at http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2009/08/31/alderney-takes-to-the-streets-in-protest-against-smoking-ban/

Make your mind up….

Report abuse

71

Robert Feal-Martinez

Yes I remember the thread and how often your ‘arguments’ were shot to pieces by many posters.

I do not understand your comment about meta analysis. I have always said that meta analysis is only effective if the study model is identical in every way. The studies I site, are independent stand alone studies, when looked at as such show no causal association between passive smoke and serious ill health (only minor irritation). It is known that those who claim meta analysis often use a 90% confidence interval and then fail to achieve the desired 3+ Relative Risk.

Arnauld, I do not and have never smoked, I do not advocate smoking, I would be perfectly happy with a tobacco ban. What I do not accept is that someone else’s smoke will kill me.

It is a fact that there is a gene type which predisposes the person to tobacco as a trigger to cancer, which is in us all. If Government really wanted to stop people dying from smoking they would give every single smoker the option to be screened for the gene. This process would cost pence, not the 2 billion + that smoking bans have already cost, and the £300 million per year on going cost and the billions potentially lost to the revenue.

Faced with, ‘you have the gene’, most I believe would stop.. Surely that fits in with your desire.

F2C are do not have any financial links with Big T. Can that be said of the likes of ASH and other anti smoking groups. The Roberts Wood Johnson Foundation (Johnson and Johnson the biggest purveyor of smoking cessation products)has given in excess of 1.5 billion dollars to smoking cessation products, out of altruism or for the tens of billions profit generated by those groups promoting cessation.

What is more moral.

1. A 98.4% Failure of smoking cessation products.

2. A potentially 100% success rate of a gene identification test.

3. Government and big P, saying they are about public health, whilst denying a real solution.

4. Big T who market and sell cigarettes, which everyone must now know have the potential to kill.

You decide.

Report abuse

73

Sue

An interesting debate that demonstrates the apparent lack of knowledge on the subject of the majority of anti smokers (who appear brain-washed by the media) and the pro smokers who seem to have taken the time to research the facts rather than taking statements at face value. Whether it be smoking, alcohol or fatty food, you surely can see we are being manipulated and if you do the research there is always someone making money from it!
Sadly, it’s the antis making the personal and very rude remarks and clearly not able to argue against having a choice for establishments – judging by the characters here, I prefer not to socialise with anti smokers thanks – I prefer listening to well-thought out, intelligent conversation not vicious drivel -

Report abuse

75

Michael J. McFadden

Heh… Beanjar ignored all the careful references and extended analyses that were made in response to his challenge “you can’t argue with that!” and picks out just a single statement that shows he can’t even read a simple bar graph!

Beanjar wrote:

“RTS states…
“As for the “Scottish heart attack miracle” that was widely publicized a year after their ban, I’m afraid heart attacks in Scotland are now at a higher rate than they were pre-ban.”
==
RTS would you please advise me of your medical qualifications that enable you to state the above. ”

Er, Beanjar, his “qualifications” were successfully completing grammar school where kids are shown bar graphs from about the third grade onward. Go back and look at the graph of Scottish heart attack data provided in my Velvet Glove reference in my posting above. See:

http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=65

and focus on how the bar AFTER the ban is TALLER than the bar BEFORE the ban. What that means is that the number was higher. The height of the bars reflects the value of the numbers: higher bars mean more heart attacks, shorter bars mean less heart attacks.

Oh, Beanjar, no comment on my note about the IOM study?

- MJM

Report abuse

77

TL

The passive smoking arguments are a diversion, and will never be settled one way or the other.

For me, the ban is about anti-social behaviour.

If someone was throwing bricks at house I would ask them to stop. If they did not stop (maybe because as far as they were concerned they had the right to choose to throw bricks at my house) then I might be forced to ask the courts to issue an ASBO.

The smoking ban is an ASBO for the smoking community. Once upon a time smoking was so prevalent that non-smokers simply had to suffer in silence as their senses were assaulted by the foul stench and choking fug. Thankfully, the majority of society has moved on, seen smoking for what it is and rejected it.

We are now in a position where the majority want to say that they do not want their meal or night out ruined by smoke. Unfortunately, the rabidly selfish attitudes displayed by some smokers on this forum are a perfect example of why the majority cannot simply ask the minority to stop doing it near them (just as the house owner has difficulty asking the yob to stop throwing bricks). And so we need an ASBO.

As a PS, the ‘best’ comment above is the one that argues that smoking is beneficial to children. You really don’t need to argue against comments like that.

Report abuse

79

Robert Feal-Martinez

Lyn, I could be wrong but I don’t recall any pro choice poster either stating Smoking wasn’t a trigger for lung cancer, or in fact promoting smoking as a life style choice. Personal experience tends to cloud ones judgement. Roy Castles widow simply hasn’t moved on and has sadly and cynically been manipulated by the anti smoking lobby.

As for Greg Lance Watkins what can one say other than read his blog: http://caterpillarsandbutterflies.blogspot.com/ not the article about another blog. He has been banned for life from the mentioned blog, any guesses as to the source of the complaint to John Lewis. He is also a cancer victim.

I am afraid as always in this type of debate as has been said, the anti smoking lobby always resort to insult and abuse, whilst the pro choice lobby simply try to educate by reference to real analysis.

Report abuse

81

Robert Feal-Martinez

Vera Lynns, with respect a pretty pointless post. No one is denying that there are cause and effects to most things in life.

If one looks at the science involving social policy decisions one can see endless examples of ‘corrupt’ behaviour whether by scientist or by the organisations buying the ‘research’.

Objectivity is about sifting the wheat from the chaff. Global Warming ( Government funded) scientists have lied (University of East Anglia). 31000 (non Government paid scientists) do not believe that MMGW is a threat to the planet.

And yes Government/WHO/EU etc do fund ‘publicity’. The EU is trying to force through legislation that give them the power to shut down websites ( the legislation is so loose that could even include shutting down small political parties).

Global Governance and the New World Order is openly spoken of by the likes of Obama, Brown, Sarkozy etc. Ten years ago the mere mention of New World Order would have branded you a ‘nutter’.

So think on an amusing sarcastic post but nevertheless a pretty accurate assessment of what really goes on.

Report abuse

83

Student Bob

Hi Bob, if by “your ‘arguments’ were shot to pieces by many posters.” you mean, “swamped by a deluge of uninformed, and unsubstantiated lies and pro-smoking fairy tales”, then I agree.

I thought the previous thread had established that passive smoking DOES and HAS killed and all your pro-smoking propaganda was funded by the big tobacco companies?? Time to go home Bob.

Still no-one can explain why smokers aren’t able to exercise their freedom2choose to simply stand outside and smoke??

p.s. Bob, your business isn’t suffering because of the smoking ban. It’s suffering because of the global recession – you may have heard of it. And, possibly, because people are drinking cheap supermarket booze at home, rather than in your pub.

Report abuse

85

bcb

TL
I was pleased to read in your post you used the word SOME as i am one of those that get fed up with hearing comments like “all smokers are selfish” amongst many other things as if everyone that smokes has no respect for the non smokers. One thing that is clear to me is most people who smoke wish they had never started or now wish they could give up. I am also aware that most smokers dont have a problem with the ban and many actually welcome it. Dont tar every one with the same brush as i think many would be surprised at the ammount of smokers who are on the side of the non smokers. Its just a small minority that gives a bad impression with their selfishness, a good example are some of those on here. Smokeing is drug addiction its aa simple as that and i will be glad when i kick this stupid drug.
off for a fag now :)

Report abuse

87

PC

As a non smoking businessman who travels extensively I was based in Italy during its smoking ban and they have done it in my view far better than anywhere else
1. Bar/Eating area = Non Smoking
2. Back Room with no bar converted to smoking area. Do not have an area then smokers go outside.
This worked very well and whilst pubs had to change and some did close down, the result became more modern bars that everyone including workers had a choice.
As for the lies, damn lies and stats we can all work with stats to our own agenda
65 per wk closing or an additional 65 per wk, recession, competition factors? In my parents UK Town centre, 1 pub has closed out of 10 and that was struggling for years without parking and being in wrong location.
It will take a couple of decades before any stats can really see the result of change not 2 or 4 years and in 2030 when most 50year olds are dying of alcohol related illnesses we will be all be wondering why we did not limit the alcohol consumption..In future we will all have to blow into a breathiliser and will not be served if over the drink purchase limit :)
Note – I do not want to breathe in cigarettes and having seen 3 grandparents die of lung cancer (one never smoked) but would like everyone to have somewhere within an establishment. Bars have family areas etc so smoking areas without staff is the way to go

Report abuse

89

Lyn

@ Robert Feal-Martinez

Sir, it is quite obvious that you are a smoker and have never had to deal with the death of a loved one through smoking related diseases.

You state that personal experience clouds one’s judgement but I would say that it puts into focus the fact that smoking does kill. Your comments about Roy Castle’s wife are cruel and you should be ashamed of yourself.

As for advertising up until the 90′s the TV’s and Magazines were full of adverts extolling the virtues of smoking. Until recently F1 motor sport relied almost solely on cigarette advertising to keep it running along with TV rights.

Smoking was always placed on TV in soaps, plays and films and shown as the “sexy” thing to do. You really are in denial if you cannot recognise that smoking was advertised as a life style choice.

Ask yourself why you started smoking? was it to appear big to your friends? was it because your parents smoked? Was it because your favourite TVstar smoked? Any of these? I am sure it was not because you believed it to be a healthy habit that would make you smell better and enable you to improve your sporting prowess.

Despite losing both my parents at an early age to smoking related diseases I do not wish to take the enjoyment of a cigarette away from smokers. I just do not want them to impose their habit on me. If I have a drink i do not affect anybody else around me but those who smoke impose their smoke on everyone around them.

So many people on this site have tried to justify smoking through medical research. they are all a lot brighter than me and obviously have a lot more time on their hands to read such research. All I know is that smoking kills and should not be inflicted on others.

The disregard that smokers have for the public at large is displayed by the huge amounts of cigarette butts that litter St Peter Port’s streets. is it too much effort to put your cigarette butt in a litter bin? Same for drivers who smoke – why do you think that throwing your butt out of your car window is not littering?

Smoke if you want to but please do not impose your smoke and litter on the rest of us who have no desire to smoke and can see the dangers in doing so.

Report abuse

91

Robert Feal-Martinez

Where to start, Lynn, never smoked in my life, had a father that smoked 60 a day and siblings who all smoke. Grew up in a fog filled house. Why should I be ashamed on pointing out Roy Castle stated he has contracted Lung Cancer from passive smoking, his doctors didn’t agree. As for the rest of the post given that I have never smoked not a lot of point in responding.

GLW what is offensive about pointing out your cancer, it merely puts into context your motivation, it’s called, in scientific terms declaring an interest. As for being banned from Junius, your having a laugh, he/they are your altaego.

Scarlett at the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, as you clearly do not digest simple fact, having encountered your posts previously, I do not and have never smoked, and I am not pro smoking as a simple google will reveal.

And yes given that I am open and transparent as to who I am unlike the vast majority who attack my post, I have lost money from the smoking ban, as have tens of thousands of other business people not just in hospitality. Many highly trained professionals in ‘streesful’ jobs have moved to countries where they can work and smoke leaving the UK needing to ‘bring’ in replacements, who experience shows are not as good. Guess that’s why most of the ‘high tech’ expertise now comes from smoking allowed countries.

Report abuse

93

sue

For heaven’s sake – I can’t see any smoker here asking to blow smoke in your face, just some flexibility for proprietors (bars or restaurants) to be able to offer a separate area for smokers or even to be a wholly smoking establishment – what is wrong with that? Nobody is insisting that anti/non-smokers come into these premises – staff have the choice whether to work there or not so WHAT is your problem – do you want every pub/club/restaurant all to yourselves? You’ve already shown you can’t fill them! Tell me how having separate buildings will harm anti-smokers, tell me why you want to deny any choice please ? Are we not grown-up enough to make our own minds up on the risks we take daily and need people like some of those patronising plebs on here to tell us what we may or may not do!

Report abuse

95

TL

sue – I respectfully refer you to my first post on this thread.

Report abuse

97

Scarlett

More comments on the Robert FM official blog….zzzzz……

you really should write a book with all this time you evidentially have on your hands, Robert, or perhaps you’re considering running for election in Alderney, as there’s obviously not a lot going on in Swindon at the moment.

Maybe if you spent more time focussing on your business and having a life in the real world instead of spending most of it scanning the net for opportunities to spout your anti-smoking ban nonsense (or other subjects you feel so informed on that it merits almost FOUR AND A HALF THOUSAND posts on – check out the Morning Advertiser forums if you’re feeling brave, guys) and amateurishly dabbling in politics, you wouldn’t be losing so much money….

talking of which, Robert, my business (which doesn’t depend on people’s ‘right’ to kill themselves and other’s with their addiction) is making a fantastic profit at the moment, and increasing year on year, so if we’re assessing my intellectual ability to absorb facts (like, err, THE SMOKING BAN IS IN PLACE, ALREADY..) in terms of financial success, then I’d say I’ve rather stolen a march on you, there.

Sorry.

Report abuse

99

MrsPinthepantry

I’m getting passive small business failure by spending too much time reading the big BFM’s ill informed ramblings.

Anyway Bob didn’t you know that the studies you cite are part of a left-wing Zionist conspiracy?

Read between the lines man.

READ BETWEEN THE LINES!

Report abuse

101

Michael J. McFadden

If I may jump in to a couple of responses…

Student Bob, oddly enough I’ve found that nonsmokers seem reluctant to be polite enough to accompany their smoking friends outside and shiver along with them. Any idea why?

Also: if you were shown why the two studies you cited were pieces of junk would you accept it or simply throw mud at whoever exposed their weaknesses?

To the anonymous poster “Scarlett” who claims to be doing such a successful post-ban business, do you have the courage of Bob FM to stand up for what you say and name yourself and your business? There are some out there who are just internet fakes, too false or too cowardly to stand behind what they believe and state. Bob isn’t one of them…. are you? It also helps to know what competing interests folks may be hiding when they post on these boards. I could pop up as a “Pub Owner In Guernsey” and swear that my wife left me, my dog died of carcinogenic alcohol fumes, my 13 half-wit children are now all on the dole, and my gardenias wilted all because my pub closed due to the smoking ban… and no one could prove I was lying.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

Report abuse

103

Lotty

I live in Alderney. I am 22 years old. I don’t smoke.I go out with my friends to the pubs ( some of whom smoke) because it is the only entertainment in Alderney !!. But, I would love to see the ban in place I hate reeking of others smoke but, enjoy the social aspect of pub life. I really enjoy it when we go into The Belle Vue one of the only two non-smoking pubs on the island (can’t afford to drink in The Braye Beach and most young locals don’t get a great welcome there either)and my friends don’t object they just go outside smoke. Most people hate change and that is the problem. People will adjust to the ban quite quickly as smokers in Uk, Guernsey and Jersey did !!. It has become second nature to those people now and it should become second nature to Alderney people.
I certainly think Mr.Beaman who is minister for tourism is wrong in trying not to ban smoking completely. He should be ousted from his post immediately. And I certainly won’t be voting again for him !!.
Geoff Sergent – what planet is he from ????. Banning smoking in public from April to Sept – errrrr helloooo !! . Again I won’t vote for him next time.
And let’s be totally honest – Lin Maurice was not voted back to the States Of Alderney after she re-stood for election so her views aren’t that widely liked here. Most Alderney people are afraid to declare they want the ban as the smokers lobby is very vocal and quite high profile. The silent majority are there just not rocking the boat and hoping that the ban comes in !!.
I know this post will now be subject to nasty comments from all the pro-smoking people who have written on here But, I was born, live and work in Alderney. Respect my views too !!!

Report abuse

105

MrsPinthepantry

Hi Lotty darling.

What a great post, refreshing change to hear a voice actually from Alderney!

Hopefully Robert Foul-Martinez will respect your views as an islander. Somehow I doubt it, expect a few links to random blogs, a dollop of paranoia and a smattering of propaganda ‘proving’ your opinion is not valid.

Report abuse

107

Robert Feal-Martinez

‘I know this post will now be subject to nasty comments from all the pro-smoking people who have written on here But, I was born, live and work in Alderney. Respect my views too !!!’

Lotty I think with respect you need to read through the posts, there may be one or two snide posts from some who claim to be pro choice (not pro-smoking), but my experience over 5 years involvement in this issue is that the majority of the ‘hate’ posts come from pro-ban, anti smoking, Pharmaceutical funded groups.

You are entitled to your view, which is as valid as anyone else’s. You are merely indicating your dislike of the smoke rather than trying to justify, what frankly what is 95% of non smokers objections, by introducing fallacious science. I respect that.

All I would say is that ‘your issues’ can be resolved in other ways without your friends being relegated to being second class citizens. You seem if I may say so a sensible person who has not tried to obfuscate your views, so I would ask you to read the attached link. Do a little research to find alternatives which would satisfy your dislike of smoke whilst still retaining choice for others. http://www.sharp.ca/products/ion/technology.asp

Report abuse

109

Robert Feal-Martinez

The plot thickens: You will recall I analysed the data of the Italian study quoted by Student Bob. Now we find that there has been a more up to date study;

Published Study Finds No Effect of Smoking Ban on Heart Attacks in Tuscany, Italy in First Year After Ban
A peer-reviewed study published in the European Journal of Epidemiology has concluded that there was no significant effect of the smoking ban in Tuscany, Italy on heart attacks during the first year of implementation (see: Gasparrini A, Gorini G, Barchielli A. On the relationship between smoking bans and incidence of acute myocardial infarction. European Journal of Epidemiology 2009; 24:597-602).

This is the first published study to report no significant effect of a smoking ban on heart attacks.

Rather predictably if one puts the research reference in google it does not come up, except in relation to Professor Siegels site:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/

However the older one ‘claiming’ a reduction as posted by Student Bob does.

Report abuse

111

Robert Feal-Martinez

Oh dear Scarlett such a childish and ill informed post. Had you bothered to do any research you would have realised. I took up the cudgels of Freedom to Choose long before the smoking ban had come into to being. Freedom to Choose the organisation was set up in February 2006 a full 17 months before the English ban.

Strangely I predicted my trade would only be affected by 5% but it was blatantly obvious that ‘boozers’ would be greatly affected as would members club. So no I didn’t enter the foray as an embittered Publican.

I was wrong about my trade loss, and underestimated the effect on others.

But of course this is not about me this is about whether on such a small Island that is heavily reliant on tourism pubs and hotels will survive this ban, 10 to 20% won’t but I guess in your selfish world Scarlett that’s fine.

Which rather makes the rest of you post totally irrelevant once again

Report abuse

113

MrsPinthepantry

Hey Bob FM darling!

Just had a look at your femdom2choose website…….. interesting.

I love your petition to overturn the smoking ban, it has 250 signatures.

250 signatures Bob, in how many years?

Maybe if you apply meta analysis to those 250 people they become statistically significant? How many people live in the UK again?

There are going to be more posts on this thread soon than you have signatures, time to give up maybe?

Report abuse

115

TL

That’s the second Douglas Adams reference on this site in the last two days!

Report abuse

117

Scarlett

‘But of course this is not about me…’

Isn’t it? I thought it was ALL about you, Bobby ol chap – judging from the endless amounts of opinion you feel entitled to bore us with – which makes my comments entirely relevant.

I am still quivering in anticipation of the ‘world according to RFM’ novel regarding the fact I work in the SAME industry as you, support the ban, and am making a fine profit…but then, my clientele would rather spend their spare cash enjoying my top banana service than wasting it on fags, which might go a way to explaining why I am gaining whilst you lose.

Talking of which – selfishness – well, I’m in business to make money, if that’s what you mean, as are most people who work for a living. What are you in it for? Charity donations?

Anywho, must fly, I’ll pass the baton back to the majority of people on this forum who are doing a fine job of ensuring you’re not the last to post, though I suspect you are hoping to better your personal best of 2500 posts, you ol devil! ;0) Best, S.

PS. If you need a bit of moral support, why don’t you see if one of the 250 people (out of the whole of the UK?!! Nice stats, Mrs P in the P – oo-err!) who’ve signed your petition would be willing to join in?

- missing you!

Report abuse

119

Truth Man

I can totally understand why so many people are opposed to the ban… it’s because it’s a new, and radical idea (well, at least it is in Alderney).

I lived in the UK when the smoking ban was introduced there, and I was a smoker at the time. I was strongly opposed to the ban and honestly believed it would destroy businesses, and I thought pubs would not be the same without the ‘atmosphere’ created by the lingering smoke.

Well, now, with the benefit of hindsight, I can say I was absolutely wrong. The ban is excellent, and pubs, clubs, restaurants are all the better for the ban.

Give it a go Alderney, you might even like it.

Report abuse

121

Michael J. McFadden

Scarlett wrote, “the Pimpernel never reveals his identity! He is secure enough within himself to go about his business discreetly” Interesting. Somehow I never considered the concept that folks who were secure within themselves prefer to hide their face behind masks. Odd how I’ve missed that. By the way, I think I have a bit more hair than “Mini-Me.”

Student Bob meanwhile says “Michael J McFadden – I can tell you exactly why non-smokers choose not to accompany their smoking friends outside. It’s because passive smoking kills you and it smells.” Really Bob? How about pointing me to just ONE study that shows that accompanying a friend outdoors for a few minutes while they smoke “kills” anyone? Go ahead…. make my day.

TL wrote, “No-one would realistically expect there to be a fall in heart attacks within one year of the introduction of a ban.” Really TL? Then why have those arguments pushed SO strongly in virtually every discussion preceding governmental ban impositions of the last five years or so? Are you saying the ban supporters are fundamentally stupid and push arguments that “No-one would realistically” believe?

TL is however honest enough, in his anonymous way, to very accurately reveal the true motivation for these bans: “governments wish to make smoking less appealing to those who may be tempted to take it up and also inconvenient to those that do so that it encourages them to give up” TL is correct. And if the bans were being passed on such an honest basis I might not like them, but I’d have a lot less strength in criticizing them. However, in reality, they’re passed on the basis of lies. Why? Because governments know that if they were honest about the motivations most people would resent that degree of government interference in their private lives for a social engineering goal.

Actually, every paragraph of TL’s posting seems quite professionally done and in line with the carefully and perfectly phrased professional propaganda of ASH et al. Of course it wouldn’t be proper to question his motives… perhaps he is a regular poster here and elsewhere on many and diverse subjects, or perhaps he is actually well known for who he really is and his lack of competing interest in this subject and I’m simply unaware of the fact.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

Report abuse

123

TL

MJMcF – oh you make me laugh! thank you for complimenting my “carefully and perfectly phrased” post. The fact that you see conspiracy theory in reasoned argument just shows how bonkers you are.

Regular users of this forum (did you notice that it is for a local paper for a jurisdiction in which you apparently do not live or have any interest?) will know that I have varied views on numerous local issues. Maybe if you start having reasoned views on the merits of paid parking or how great it is that the Cobo car park is cleaned up, then people may listen more. You (and your sidekick BFM) are the only ones with an agenda here.

Anyone who needs to question the need to use an alias on an internet forum has lost the argument. There are many legitimate reasons for anonymity, especially in a small island community.

By the way, has your book sold more copies than there are signatures on BFM’s petition?

Report abuse

125

Truth Man

@ Michael J. McFadden:

I have to ask, are you honestly suggesting that there is doubt over the damage passive smoking does to a person’s health? I’m talking about the regular passive smokers here, and therefore let us not forget that 50% of the proposed law is aimed at protecting people within the workplace. I don’t know your profession, but I cannot see how anyone could suggest that protecting a person from, say, a 40 hour week of passive smoking, would be a bad thing?

And just one more point… many people on many sites throughout the world seek to use a name other than their own when posting publicly. For me, it’s a privacy issue and has no bearing on the validity of an opinion.

Report abuse

127

Student Jim

If the argument against banning smoking in enclosed public places has been reduced to “it wasn’t a 10% reduction on heart attack admissions it was only 8%” or “Show me a study that shows why non-smokers don’t join smokers outside” or “The smoking ban has closed pubs if you ignore all the other factors” then I think the loony pro-smoking lobby are stubbing themselves out.

Fact is that smoking damages your health and arguing about how badly is a waste of effort.

The title “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains” amuses me because I would think the hospitals spend more time dissecting Smokers’ Brains, hearts, lungs and other organs…

Report abuse

129

Truth Man

Michael J. McFadden:

Two points (in amazement!)..

1. Your point re patio dining was, I suspect, made tongue in cheek. If you make the point seriously you continue to do a very good job of discrediting yourself and your pro smoking peers. You cannot possibly compare the effects of a naturally occurring phenomenon that is the sole source of life on earth (the sun) and a man made product that is the biggest cause of one of the biggest killers in the world (cigarettes)!!

2. Anonymity: The only person I see on this thread trying to discredit another person due to their use of anonymity was.. wait.. Oh, it was you! Come on man, stop with the poor arguments and badly thought out posts.

Report abuse

131

Student Bob

Michael J McFadden, you are, sir, hilarious. Have you actually bothered to read any of the papers you refer to??

The IOM one, for instance, says… “Smoking bans are effective at reducing the risk of heart attacks and heart disease associated with exposure to secondhand smoke, says the Institute of Medicine’s report Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Cardiovascular Effects: Making Sense of the Evidence. The report also confirms there is sufficient evidence that breathing secondhand smoke boosts nonsmokers’ risk for heart problems, adding that indirect evidence indicating that even relatively brief exposures could lead to a heart attack is compelling” http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2009/Secondhand-Smoke-Exposure-and-Cardiovascular-Effects-Making-Sense-of-the-Evidence/Press-Release-Secondhand-Smoke-Exposure.aspx

The Italian study I have already argued against with Big Bob FM. It uses the same data as the many earlier studies that show a 10% reduction in AMI, but uses a new and unratified method of adding up to show that the AMI reduction is smaller than that claimed (but still evident).

And the NBER study was funded by the tobacco companies!!!

People like you do more harm to your cause than good. Go home.

Report abuse

133

Scarlett

Well done chaps, we’re all doing a sterling job of keeping staunch Alderney anti smoking ban supporters, poor ol Mikey McBonkers and Bobby Feale Wotsisname, something else to do apart from weave baskets and wait for their next batch of meds from nursey to turn up in an UFO…….

by the way, did you both manage to find Alderney on the map yet? It can be a total ‘mare to find, especially if it’s the first and only time you’ve even noticed the island existed.

OH!!!! Hang on, everyone!! Looks like the reason Bobby’s abdicated his throne here isn’t because he’s decided to accept defeat gracefully (or take his meds), but because he’s decided to switch to the ‘Alderney stubs it out’ forum……

DON’T WORRY, BOBBY, ME OL MUKKA – we’re coming!!!!

Report abuse

135

Michael J. McFadden

Oh, Bob, I’m sorry. I forgot to respond to your comment regarding the Italian study. Hopefully in that case you managed to read more than the press release. You may have noted from the study that it was performed with a Poisson model of the
monthly time-series, adjusting for seasonality and comparing different models with linear and non-linear longterm trends and was very carefully done.

Somehow you seem to have misunderstood their findings though. Note these standardized rates for years 2002 through 2005:

2000 – 1.00
2001 – 1.04
2002 – 1.07
2003 – 1.04
2004 – 1.03
2005 – 1.00

Now if the smoking ban had kicked in at the start of 2003 you might have had a case. Unfortunately for you it didn’t come in until 2005… where the drop showed virtually no difference from the sort of drops and increases of the preceding years. The authors note, “this study did not find a comparable effect of the smoke-free law on the incidence of AMI [acute myocardial infarction] during the first year after the implementation of the ban.”

Bob, perhaps you have a somewhat different analysis to offer? Did you want to compare the linear and non-linear analyses?

Or wasn’t that covered in the press release?

- MJM

Report abuse

137

Hubert Leaf-Zabagli

MJM – Smokie wants his answer, not an attempt at a smilie face.

Regards,

Hubert Leaf-Zabagli – Founder member of FreedomFromFreedom2Choose

Report abuse

139

bcb

My god give it a rest.

Report abuse

141

Student Bob

Michael J McFadden, the press release for the IOM study is a nice bite-sized, accessible to everyone, synopsis of the article. Not everyone has Athens access to international healthcare journals. Their correction is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, showing only a 14% reduction in overall AMI incidence. The simple fact remains that AMI reduce when smoking bans are introduced.

Great work listing some numbers on the Italian study – as you say, their smoking ban wasn’t introduced until 2005, the fact you omit any figures for AMI after this date speaks volumes….!!

Do I really need to discuss the NBER study in the face of your threats?? Do some research. And decide if you trust a bunch of economists to give you healthcare advice.

Obviously, we haven’t seen it, but if you have evidence that passive smoking and smoking generally are good for you, you should share it with these guys….

“Philip Morris International believes that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places” from http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/pmintl/pages/eng/smoking/Secondhand_smoke.asp

“We [British American Tobacco] support regulation that accommodates the interests of both non-smokers and smokers and limits non-smokers’ involuntary exposure to ETS. We favour restrictions on smoking in enclosed public places and we accept that there needs to be regulation” from http://www.bat.com/group/sites/uk__3mnfen.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO52AMJ4?opendocument&SKN=1

One final thought…. How do you feel about the exploitation of tobacco farmers? You know it costs about USD1 to produce a kilo of tobacco, but on average the tobacco farmers only receive USD0.70?? Rather than campaigning to poison children with your second-hand smoke, why aren’t you campaigning for fairtrade tobacco and honest remuneration for tobacco farmers?? Why Michael J McFadden, Why??

Report abuse

143

Michael J. McFadden

Truth, of course I’m the only one pointing the finger about anonymity. You certainly couldn’t point it at Bob Martinez or me – in case you haven’t noticed, we are NOT anonymous: we stand behind our statements publicly.

As for my focus on heart attacks, that’s because Student Bob trotted out the two studies that he thought would prove his position regarding bans: BOTH of which were heart attack studies. For cancer studies, I’d suggest you examine the table at:

http://www.nycclash.com/Philly.html#ETSTable

and pay particular attention to the World Health Organization’s findings at the bottom.

Now, on to Student Bob’s arguments. Bob, you seem to completely, blatantly, and deliberately misstate the new IOM findings: They did NOT find a 14% drop. They found an 8.0% drop. And that drop was LESS than the 8.2% drop that was seen in the pooled, largely non-banned comparator group. If it indicated ANYTHING (which it really did not) it would be that smoking bans CAUSE heart attacks… since the post-ban drops were LESS than the average.

As for the Italian numbers, you wrote, “their smoking ban wasn’t introduced until 2005, the fact you omit any figures for AMI after this date speaks volumes….!!”

It does indeed: It shows that I actually read the study instead of depending upon an advocacy group to feed me sound bites. The study itself only provides the figures up to 2005. No “omission” on my part at all. Maybe you’d prefer figures from Scotland, where the initial post-ban drop (which was about the same as the drops in the previous ten non-banned years) was followed in the second year by the FIRST INCREASE IN TEN YEARS for their heart attack rate: again a finding that might lend some support to the argument that bans are killing people. See the graph and analysis for corroboration at:

http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=65

Do I need to discuss the NBER study? No, I have no problem with it. It was you who accused the researchers of being in the pay of big tobacco, which leaves you with the potential problem… unless you have solid evidence of such. I have no connection to NBER other than emailing one of the authors two or three times. As for quotes from Philip Morris or BAT – heh – YOU might believe those guys – I don’t.

And finally, please point out where I have been “campaigning to poison children.” I’d say that’s a fairly serious charge to make against someone.

Re tobacco farmers: once we fix the problems and damage caused by the lies of the antismoking movement I believe they’ll do a lot better.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

Report abuse

145

Martino

I think you may have hit the nail on the head Mrs P.
Throughout this debate I’ve been wondering what motivates these two, who appear to me to be like a couple of sad flat Earthers, constructing ridiculous pseudo scientific ‘arguments’ and manipulating the data of proper scientists to show us that if we sail far enough from our cosy little islands we will indeed fall off the edge of the world when we reach the horizon.
As you say, Mrs P, it may be all about profit at the end of the day and, if so, they might not be as sad or as mad as I first thought.

Report abuse

147

Michael J. McFadden

Mrs. PinThePantry wrote, “MJM – Of course you don’t want to be anonymous on here, it’s part of your business model to be visible on-line.”

LOL! Pin, you know very little about publishing. Believe me, writers do NOT make money by posting hundreds of words in specifically reasoned arguments and responses to obscure news boards on little islands!

You might also have some difficulty explaining the thousands of postings I made online on this subject between 1987 and 2003 when there was no book. Do you think my “business model” extended to “Gee, I’m gonna write a book in 15 years – better build a fan base!” Of course people like Pin and Truth would *love* it if I just posted anonymously – because then they could claim I was a big tobacco mole! LOL! Ever hear of “Catch-22″ guys? :>

Pin, you then went on to say that I “Spam forums and local newspaper websites all over the world…. Copy and past the same baloney in each one and make sure your name and book title are in every post.”

In case you haven’t noticed Pin, I’ve made about ten postings here, about 40 paragraphs, about 300 lines of text. Six of those ten cited my competing interest, four were signed simply – MJM – leaving six lines of 300 with my book title – rather poor advertising I would think.

Now Pin, you made a very specific charge in your post. If you’re a decent and honest person you’ll stand behind it. You claim I “copy and paste the same baloney in each” of the forums I go to. Well, you’ve got FORTY paragraphs of mine here, at least 30 of them rather substantial. Back up you claim and show 10 of them, hey, FIVE of them… Hey, even THREE of them being a simple copy and paste from someplace else!

If you’re honest then it should be no problem for you: you’ve evidently already done the research before making your charge, so it’s simple politeness.

Thank you.

- MJM

Report abuse

149

Michael J. McFadden

After showing me this informative video:- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8VTeDHjcM

“I had to come to the conclusion that in all probability you weren’t online much before 1995. Where were you posting for the missing 13 years?”

LOL! I’m tempted just to say “You got ME!” with that wonderful video m’lady! Heehee… many thanks for sharing! However, despite my appreciation of it I still feel it’s important to put my serious hat back on for a bit as I *have* had a few people who didn’t like my views over the years convince a few board moderators to censor me during crucial ban battles in various places.

Despite a feline-eous lacking, I was indeed on Quantum Link, a network shared by thousands to millions of C-64 computers, as well as CompuServe (at an outrageous 25 cents a minute!) and the Sears Prodigy network, as well as some local BBS’s from the mid 80s into the early 90s. However, I should note that I don’t think I was open about my name until some point in the 90s: at that time in internet history, NO ONE shared their name for fear some mysterious all-powerful computer-hackers would suddenly come in and steal your life – kind of like the magickal notion of a wizard/witch’s power in knowing your “true name” for a curse.

Re your “Advocate” however: If he’s competent I’m sure he would have told you that in relation to such charges, if they are followed through, the perfect defense is simply to show you spoke the truth. If your statement was true, then there’d be absolutely no need for any further concern or advocate consultation. Having said that though, I should go on to say that I don’t really consider your charge very “libelous” in nature: you spoke falsely, but you didn’t malign my character in any strongly significant way or cause me damages since I’m easily able to show that it can’t be backed up and it’s unlikely to be repeated.

However, I believe your Advocate may be somewhat lacking: at least in terms of internet activity. Thousands of postings made over a period of 20+ years (which might equate to under a dozen or so a week) hardly qualifies one as being a “spammer.” If we take the Wiki definition (not an excellent citation, but I’ll fly with it at the moment)at:

Spam (electronic) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

we see: “Spam is the abuse of electronic messaging systems … to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately”

Which would prompt me to ask your solicitor what evidence does he have, ANYWHERE, that I send “unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately” ? Your URL pointer (Very nicely done by the way!) shows quite nicely a great selection of largely or totally unique messages from me to many different news boards on many different subsets of the smoking topic. The vast majority of them are filled with information from various sources, none (that I’m aware of) contain undue inappropriate language or attacks, virtually none could be considered a simple cut and paste of any other and *absolutely* none would qualify as “unsolicited indiscriminate bulk messages.”

So, as always, I stand by my words. The question now to be answered however is: Do you? Please show where I “copy and paste the same baloney in each” of my posts.

Thank you.

- MJM
P.S. OK… ya may have me now… I’m probably going to send that cat video all over the place in an undiscriminatory bulk fashion… Damn it Pin! I’m not made of STEEL! ;>

Report abuse

151

Student Jim

Quick question for MJM

Do you agree or disagree that smoking causes serious health problems?

You’ve disputed figures left and right on specifics (such as heart admissions) but as far as I can see this core issue has been ignored.
Please don’t post another wall of text to avoid the question.

Report abuse

153

TL

MJM – you really are boring us. Please go away.

Report abuse

155

Hubert Leaf-Zabagli

Smokie is still waiting for his answer from Michael J. McFadden too.

MJM Seems to likes links and huge long posts full of twisted statistics but doesn’t like direct answers.

Hubert Leaf-Zabagli – Founder member of FreedomFromFreedom2Choose

Report abuse

157

Scarlett

MJM is coming from America, Martino, and many of us wish he would go back there. It could, tho, go a a way to explaining why he just can’t understand why a lot of people on this local forum debating local issues don’t want to have him here.

It’s such a shame that, as is common practice with his country, he is keen to spend so much time and passion invading us so he can inflict his views, REGARDLESS of whether they are welcome or appreciated, rather than deal with the many injustices that occur in his own backyard…..

…..anyone up for a debate on guns or shooting victims rights?

Report abuse

159

Michael J. McFadden

Student Jim, since you seem to be unable to read even three sentences in a row, I’m not surprised my “walls of text” intimidate you. Try going to http://www.Antibrains.com, click on the “Author’s Preface,” and read the third sentence for your answer. Heh… ya gotta love it when you try to answer peoples’ questions carefully and thoroughly and all they can come back at you with is complaints about too much text. LOL!

As for the Obama posting, yes: obviously if there is a SINGLE news story in a NUMBER of locations, and you are concerned about the topic of that story, then your postings to it in those locations will be quite similar. That’s not what’s meant by “spam” and I’m quite sure both you and your “Advocate” are aware of that. Come on gal! From your statement you should be able pull up a dozen examples from RIGHT HERE which is what you were talking about. So give us a few… or admit you can’t.

In terms of “denying poor children healthcare” … sorry, that shoe is on the NONsmokers’ foot. Nonsmokers would have screamed bloody murder if their taxes were increased enough to pay for the poor children: so Obama just taxed the smokers instead.

TL, I’m sure most smoke-banners would prefer I go away. I *am* a little bit “inconvenient” to their program, no? I’ve read the studies and am ready to call them on their lies, and not a dime of Big Tobacco money to try to dismiss me with. So sad.

Martino, I’ll be quite happy to politely answer your questions… *after* you’ve answered mine up above. To wit: “Please show a few specific examples of where I’ve “constructed ridiculous pseudo-scientific arguments” and “manipulated the data” to mislead people. I’m sure you can, right? Or you wouldn’t have said so.”

I’m waiting Martino. Thank you.

Hubert, I’m sorry. I thought your question was a joke. Evidently you must share Jim’s problem or I haven’t gone to enough trouble to direct you to my website. Go to http://www.Antibrains.com and click on “Author’s Preface.” You don’t even need to read all the way down to the third sentence. Just try getting through the second one. And then apologize to Mrs. Pin for encouraging me to “spread spam.”

Bob, you *do* realize that anyone reading this string of comments realizes how ridiculous your final statement above is, don’t you? All anyone has to do is look at a few of our exchanges and they’ll see your characterization is pretty much nonsense. I will give you credit for one thing though: you’ve finally realized you can’t fight the facts… so yes, go back to nose rings if you like.

Scarlett, the only people who don’t want me here are the ones in favor of forcing smoking bans on people in places where they’re not wanted. I have a number of good friends from my time over in the UK, and while none of them may be from Guernsey, they’re all quite happy with my visitations.

I have to admit though that I *do* find it kind of telling that even with SEVEN of you surrounding me here I’ve been able to answer virtually EVERY question and challenge put to me while virtually none of you has been able to answer ANY.

If you think about it, even just a little tiny bit, maybe that should tell you something. In any event I hope it provokes some thinking in any passers-by. Meanwhile, I am content to move on to other discussions if you are all as well… despite your lack of answers.

And I’d like to say thank you to the patient editors of The Guernsey Press who’ve been reading and moderating all this…. heh… I’m quite sure YOU would like to free your attention for your other stories as well.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

Report abuse

161

Student Jim

I would like to thank MJM for resorting to an Ad hominem attack rather than simply posting in this thread an answer to my very simple question.

Allow me to state that I have no problem with people posting detailed answers and can certainly handle three or even up to four sentences in a row before I have to go and lay down.

What I object to is people avoiding the question by posting huge chunks of fluff without any content.

It appears your argument basically boils down to “I admit that smoking is bad for the health of the smoker but I believe that passive smoke in enclosed spaces is totally harmless”.

I am not an antismoker so at least my brain is safe from dissection, however I do not believe that passive smoke holds no health risks because from my own personal experience exposure to a room full of smoke makes me ill.
Physically ill Mr MJM, it is a simple fact that you cannot deny. I however cannot point to a study about my pub experiences so feel free to tell me and anyone who knows me that I haven’t had issues related to passive smoke and had to go home early from the pub whilst I could still see.

It might not have caused me to end up in hospital, and thus onto one of the studies you support or attack depending on who funded it, but it is a common thing that many non-smokers have had to endure over the years.

Report abuse

163

Michael J. McFadden

Let me answer each person discreetly so no one feels ignored or buried by “walls of text.” Bob wrote, “MJM, why can’t you answer Student Jim’s (great name btw) question here, on this forum,without trying to direct more traffic to your tobacco advocacy/conspiracy blog??”

Care to point to say.. hmmm… just three or four instances where I have “tried to direct” more traffic to my pages OTHER than when I cite them in direct response to the questions directed at me here? Of course I *could* simply paste “walls of text” from them — but then you’d complain about that instead.

You criticize my lack of evidence to support my “argument” but I have a feeling that you don’t even know just what my argument is. You didn’t even manage to get to the third sentence of the first page of material at my site. Why don’t you state, in your own words, what you think my argument is and if you get it correct we’ll see what I can dig up to support it. Meanwhile folks can read the 500 or so lines of material I’ve written here in response to the thousand or so lines of attack and make their own judgements.

You also wrote, “Michael J McNutter has spun the stats and dodged, ducked, dipped, dived and dodged any direct question.” and then listed what I gather are four such questions:

1) “Why can’t smokers simply stand outside?” No reason. And no reason why they should be forced outside. Now here’s one for you in return: Why can’t antismokers simply go to places that ban smoking and allow smokers and their friends places to have places that don’t ban it?

2) “How does standing outside limit freedom2choose?” You phrased it wrongly: it should be “How does being thrown outside for no sound reason limit one’s freedom2choose?” And I think the answer is fairly clear. Would YOUR “freedom2choose” be limited if I pushed the government to pass a law that you weren’t allowed to drink wine with a meal in a fine restaurant but were required to take it out to the back alley for a few quick gulps instead? After all, why should that be such a big deal? Sauce for the goose, you understand.

3) “Surely now non-smokers AND smokers can share the same pub BOTH groups now have MORE freedom??” Actually, smokers and nonsmokers shared the same pubs for hundreds of years without a problem until the nutsos got enough tax money to create a problem. Before Proposition 88 gave the wackies in California tens of millions of dollars in the late 1980s, antismokers were a fringe group that most normal folks wanted nothing to do with. Even the American Cancer Society regarded them in that way: when ASH/GASP demanded that the ACS ban smoking in its own offices they were dismissed for their “dictatorial” ideas.

4) And finally, you wrote, “Does passive smoking, directly or indirectly cause health problems?” For normal people with the levels of exposure found in modern decently commercial environments, no. If you disagree point to some strong contrary evidence that you’re willing to defend.

-MJM

Report abuse

165

Michael J. McFadden

Mrs. Pin, you will note that whenever I have posted links they are in direct response to specific points raised by people such as yourself. Again, I admire your Googling skills, but again, you’ve simply supported what I’ve said: anyone following your googles will find that I do *not* simply cut and paste boilerplate material indiscriminately around the internet. The one instance of such cut and paste I see is your patio dining google was actually someone with an anonymous name like yourself: someone named starling reposting an article of mine from the SmokersClub. That particular article was fairly well done however, and it was also posted in several other places by several other people on their own sites. I’ve always made it pretty clear to folks that if any of my writings can be of use in fighting smoking bans that they should fee free to use them… you’ll note I don’t charge. :>

The Communist Party quote was exquisitely important since I knew that the primary charge that would be leveled at me in 2003/2004 would be insinuations that I *must* be somehow connected to Big Tobacco. The same sort of mudslinging was always used against those who criticized the Korean and Vietnam wars – obviously they had either “swallowed the party line” from Moscow or were “parroting their Communist paymasters.” You didn’t see quite so much of that sort of thing in the UK, but it was big here in the States.

Heh… and look at that… right in your next paragraph you’ve fallen for their ploy. Please show me where I applied for funding from RJR. I once filled out a web page email form and asked them if they had any research resources or email lists that activists could use, but I’d hardly call that “applying for funding. Prove I’m not funded by BT? LOL! Easy: again, that’s EXACTLY why I put that at the VERY front of my book m’lady. I put it right up there and said to all the hundreds of millions of dollars of resources of the antismoking world: Here I am! Looky! No armor! Free shot! Come and take it if you can! And all they seem to have come up with is a ten year old email asking for research information! LOL!

As for your ending note, would you prefer smoking discussions where only one side was heard?

Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

Report abuse

167

MrsPinthepantry

Michael J. McFadden, keep going dear!

The longer you keep this up the more likely it is that Google is going to associate “Michael J. McFadden” with “loony” or “Michael J. McFadden” with “crazy pro-smoking advocate” or “Michael J. McFadden” with “Dunhill damaged dunderhead”

So carry on. I’m younger than you and I don’t smoke so statistically I’ll be posting here for much longer.

Report abuse

169

Student Bob

In the movie of thread, can I be played by John Cusack?? And Miss Student Bob should be played by Sienna Miller. Can I suggest Alan Partridge for the role of the crazy Michael J McLoony??

Micky, I must say, your constant protestations of ‘hiding behind fake names’ rings a little hollow. Don’t you still use the pseudonym Cantilouper??

Regarding your continuing failure to provide any real, peer-reviewed, empirical evidence, we were discussing the reduction in AMI admissions at the time. Right now we’re about to discuss the health effects of passive smoking – once again, you make some ridiculous statement with no evidence to support it, then ask me to provide the evidence to counter your argument – ready for you to use your spin, semantics and obfuscation to argue the point. Here’s a thought. YOU made the original claim YOU put up the evidence or shut up.

1. Thank you for confirming that there is no reason why smokers cannot stand outside. Furthermore, no-one is ‘forcing’ them out. They have the freedom2choose whether they go for a ciggie or not. As a non-smoker, I go to plenty of places that ban smoking. And have a thoroughly good time too, thank you. I have also exercised my right NOT to frequent smoky pubs, like the old Cock and Bull… that used to be terrible… Now, with the smoking ban, Steve the Landlord has the freedom2choose to serve both me as a non-smoker and all my smoking friends!! That makes him happy.

2. No, I phrased my question just fine. Once again, you are twisting and spinning the statement to avoid answering the question and make your own point.

3. Yawn. Pointless paragraph.

4. Prove it.

Report abuse

171

jaw

This comment is to encourage the Alderney people to oppose the useless and harmful planned smoking ban on your delightful and…free island.

Here in Geneva, our fight-the-ban protest group “The Geneva Dissidents” (in French only) is advocating free choice. Smoking may be unhealthy but there is no scientific evidence whatsoever supporting a so called “second hand letal smoke”. The headquarters of the World Health Organization who coined the fallacious expression “letal second hand smoke” are based in our city. So Good Luck to you all in Alderney. If you are sucessful in your pro-choice campaign, be sure we’ll come and visit you as numerous tourists at Easter !

http://www.lesdissidentsdegeneve.ch

jaw (Chairman)
easysmoke@gmail.com

Report abuse

173

Hubert Leaf-Zabagli

Oh noes! Another one……………..

Why do people with no connection to Alderney bother?

I strongly suspect the Michael J. McFadden & Bob Foul Martinez loony tag-team put poor old ‘jaw’ up to posting here anyway.

HEY JAW! “TOO LATE MY FRIEND IT’S NOW LAW!!!!”

Hopefully they heard that in Switzerland.

BTW Can you have a word and get the islands looted Gold back from your banks please? It disappeared into your countries bank vaults sometime in the early 1940′s. I quite fancy a new car and I reckon I should be able to get the one I want with the metallic paint, leather trim and lo-pro wheels if you can sort out where our stolen AU is. Tah very much in advance.

Hubert Leaf-Zabagli – Founder member of FreedomFromFreedom2Choose

Report abuse

175

TL

I do find it amusing that jaw is advocating free choice in French only!

so do the German speakers have to stand outside anyway??

John S – if you are referring to the UK drug adviser who resigned, he was drawing a distinction between absolute risk and relative risk that the public, the politicians and the media completely failed to understand. He was simply saying that the effect of drinking on society as a whole is greater than then effect of smoking cannabis. That does not mean that an individual will be harmed more by drink than by cannabis.

And anyway, it is not about the health benefits, it is about what is acceptable in society. The vast majority of society drink responsibly and enjoy it, so banning it is out of the question. Now, a very large part of society wants to enjoy its drinking in public bars without being accosted by smoke.

Report abuse