UK Smoking Ban Poll
Sunday February 25, 2007
The blog about the smoking ban, which is due to start in the UK from 1 July 2007, caused some comments and emails. The ban will stop all smoking in public places, such as restaurants, pubs, and bars, so I am keen to find out more about your opinion on this subject. Please vote in the poll below and leave a Comment, if you have more to say.
How do you feel about the upcoming UK smoking ban?
1) Looking forward to it - I hate smelling of smoke
2) Not happy - drinking and smoking go together
3) Dreading it - I can't kick the habit
4) Not bothered either way
(see results)
How do you feel about the upcoming UK smoking ban?
1) Looking forward to it - I hate smelling of smoke
2) Not happy - drinking and smoking go together
3) Dreading it - I can't kick the habit
4) Not bothered either way
(see results)
- Image: © MindExpansi0n@morguefile.com
Comments
One of the most irritating things in the pubs was sitting next to a smoker, blowing smoke in your face when you were trying to enjoy your lunch. What a pain, glad it now over with.
There is no significant danger in SHS what-so-ever, as was even pointed out in the U.S. in a major Federal Circuit court ruling, forcing the EPA over there to remove all wording stating that SHS was harmful at all and in which ruling the presiding Federal judge, himself a non-smoker and smoke hater, called the EPA’s findings based on “junk science”, his exact words.
In fact, there are NO studies indicating SHS is harmful and the entire thing is based on “opinions”, “opinions” bought and paid for by the big pharmaceutical companies who advertise night and day in the U.S. for drugs to “cure” everything, including smoking - such as nicotine and anti-depressants. They are cleaning up and the media is making a fortune selling all those ads. Why would anyone disagree?
As for the politicians, the FDA in the States is funded nearly 100% by the big pharmaceutical companies and it is no secret in Washington, D.C. that the employees for the FDA are actually told what to do - by you guessed it - drug company officials, who pressure everyone in the FDA, the White House, even the Surgeon General.
If everyone is of the same “opinion” though, then “nod-nod-wink-wink”, everyone shares in the huge amount of money flowing in through the Robert Johnson Wood Foundation, through ASH, which on their website posts a “Pledge of Allegiance to the Ten Commandments” - and who better suited for taking the biggest lie of the century, that of SHS “harm” and turning it into a crusade world wide than ASH - all on the tab of the big drug companies, for whom this entire effort is just an “investment” with calculated “returns”.
The Chinese have had an increase in cancer rates over the last twenty years, corresponding to the explosion of vehicular traffic there. In the past, they had a smoking population of over 50% and one of the lower cancer rates in the world - for decades.
So what happens is ASH and the others are over there forcing them to accept the “truth” that it is really SHS behind the increases in cancer, nothing to do with the increase in vehicular traffic.
Meantime, in Europe and the U.K., people continue to waft down plumes of car exhaust while kvetching over a hint of scent from a pinch of tobacco burning.
Anyone who still believes that SHS is a harmful substance is living in the past, the past of Hitler and his gang, who were the first to manufacture “evidence” and call “second hand smoke” “harmful” - it was his invention after all and a way to divide and conquer - create fear where none be had and take over an entire country.
Tobacco isn’t even advertised and is tucked away out of view for the most part these days.
Meantime drugs and their ads appear everywhere, day and night, including for nicotine and anti-depressants, the two biggest profit makers for them - if they can only keep up the pressure, keep everyone from smoking.
Well that is what is REALLY going on here and the media - they are lapdogs - feeding in the trough of $$money$$ - for all that ad revenue - they haven’t the guts to do any real journalism on this - just repeat government sponsored propaganda.
And to me, that is the real story behind all of this, THE STORY OF THE CENTURY - all a LIE - and ALL hidden away - IN FRONT OF EVERYONE’S EYES - like the emperor with no clothes - nobody saying a word!
I am not going to really expand on the last comment. Second Hand Smoke/Passive Smoking is an inventions and the harm alleged has no basis in fact. Please visit www.freedom2choose.co.uk to learn the truth.
Forget whether it is or isn’t harmful to your health (and I believe it is). It’s just hideous to have to endure a smoker at the table next to you in a restaurant or pub. Hurrah for smoking bans!!
Smoking bans are passed because of the lies and fraud that say secondhand smoke is harmful, NOT because little antis don’t like it and are too lazy to exercise their freedom of choice and not enter an establishment that allows smoking. Therefore, these bans are illegal and immoral and everyone–to preserve liberty, freedom of choice, and personal property rights, whether you dislike smoke or not–should be against these bans. If you’re gullible enough to believe the lies that secondhand smoke is harmful, then you need to do some real research instead of falling for every lie the anti-tobacco groups spoon feed you.
As a nurse (I’m now 62) I know how very little is known about cancer except naming different types by appearance.
The cures have not changed either, it’s the knife or poison.
Research remains a multibillion dollar world wide industry.
One type is labelled that smokers get it, then Heather Crowe and Dana Reeves who never smoked get it.
Edwards, one of the US presedential hopefuls has a wife cured of cancer who now has it back in her bones for which there is no treatment.
Let’s face it, they still haven’t got a clue about the disease. So how on earth can they pinpoint a cause.
In 1963 my father died of cancer on his 50th birthday. Since then I have watched carefully for any sign of a break through with sparse results.
I would challange any doctor in the world to stand up in court and point to an xray of a cancerous lung and identify the cause.
So what is all this anti smoking hype.
We all know that governments world wide don’t care about our health, otherwise they would have fixed our health services years ago, not just make promises at election time. The tax on cigarettes has always been so heavy that smokers cover the cost of any health care they may need from birth to death with that alone. They do not have a choice between state and private, they pay up front.
So when anti smokers started all these smoking bans, I had to ask myself, what was the governments hidden agenda.
Now there is another problem which is known for sure to cause death, injury, distruction and disease. It is Alcohol.
Now I hear in England they will be closing down many pubs, the breweries are seeing the writing on the wall from north america. Just look at all the pub closures in Ireland.
So it now appears the agenda is the road to prohibition. The anti smokers are patsys, their zeal promoting the governments anti liquor cause. They have been duped, and now, because of their stupidity, everyone must suffer.
Their campaign is the direct cause in North America of thousands of lost jobs, bankruptcies, livelihoods gone, divorce, fines, dismissals, the list is endless.
I cannot stress enough that in 45 years I have seen nothing to give me any confidence that they will ever find a cure for cancer, or identify the cause of any particular one. Once in a blue moon they come up with a winner like cervical cancer, and I wonder is it luck, or design to pacify the public for all the money poured into research.
It’s probably the world’s biggest employer.
So before you gullibly follow like sheep
into a smoke free future consider what I have said.
Lost freedoms are very hard to recover.
Your local is very important for social contact, where joys and sorrows are shared. Your cafes and restaurants are
places to go and meet and treat your friends.
Would you give this all up for some unproven rumour and let the government control your only opportunity to escape from the pressures of life.
Protect your freedom, protect your jobs.
Fight this smoking ban, whether you smoke or not, for the sake of freedom.
Diana Reid
I am a medical researcher in the UK, and have been studying passive smoking for over 14 years. I have published several papers of our research which shows conclusive evidence of passive smoking resulting in cancer. You are living in a dream world if you think there is no proof, Jason. Each time you light up in public you are killing people. Shame on you too, Diana.
Brian - if what you say is correct, how come anti-smoking activists cannot provide any names of victims of passive smoking? They have been asked on many occasions and have failed to do so.
Well Brian, I have lived too long and seen to much research to place any reliance in a speach like yours. All my life I have watched researchers contradict each other, and as for ’studies’ not worth a dime.
I could point out all the flaws in your argument, but I always find people like you have a closed mind. Only results that provide a cure impress me.
As for your research, I guess you’ll be out of a job now that the government is convinced you’re right. You’ve had a good run for your money, 14 years wages in research isn’t small potatoes, can you afford to retire now, or which area of research will you move on to next.
Keep it in the cancer field, that way you’ll always be employed.Diana Reid
I have published several papers of our research which shows conclusive evidence of passive smoking resulting in cancer. Brian De Rogarth
Please provide the titles of the papers and/or links to them. Would be interested in seeing this “conclusive evidence” since virtually every other study I’ve seen on the subject the conclusions are statistically insignificant.
By the way, Brian, I was born and raised in England, did my training there, still have lots of conatacts in the medical and research fields. My eldest son lives there,so if you’d like to give us more details he can follow it up, your research facility, the papers you published. With my contacts and him being there on the spot it should be no problem to see your work.
Diana Reid
I think we’ve had some interesting points raised here but I would like everyone to remember this exchange is public and manners should always be used. I am surprised to hear so strongly from the ‘pro smoking’ camp. It is interesting to hear about so much research into the subject of SHS (secondhand smoke). I live in London and fully support the culture of going to pubs, especially the ‘local’ (your regular pub), but I look forward to the smoking ban as it is simply unpleasant to have your clothes smell so bad after 5 minutes in a pub or café. After a trip to my local I have to wash my coat too as the smoke is so thick. I now have to consider which cafes to use as I have found my baby’s pushchair smelled of smoke after sitting in a non-smoking area of a café. Even if you could convince me there was no harm from smoking the after-smell on clothes and hair is plainly disgusting. Even when I smoked I hated this. Roll on 1 July 2007.
I bet the smokers who’ve posted above believe there isn’t global warming neither, and that Nasa never landed on the moon. Or maybe they’ve got shares in cigarette and detergent companies. Sorry, you wanted manners. I’ll do like they do on Have I Got News For You and say “allegedly”?
Laura, legislating ‘irritation’ laws like these are fine with you?
People who enjoy alcohol in pubs are also irritating. Obesity is irritating. Fireplaces and grilling food is irritating. Meat consumption is irritating. Certain brands of vehicles are irritating. Incandescent bulbs are irritating. Private property rights are irritating to those who don’t have property.
These are slippery-slope laws that strip rights from the people.
When will you say ‘enough is enough’?
It may be too late for your freedoms when they come after something you have.
This is Neo-Communism.
This is not about smoking…
All my life smoking was everywhere. Even in the grocery stores years ago. Over the years it was gradually removed until it was mainly where there was food and drink. In fifty years we came a huge distance without any legislation.
I think the way smokers have gone with the flow so far has been fantastic.
What I don’t like is the fact that some non smokers want to take everything away, to propel us into a smoke free world when time was doing the job very nicely without any of this spitefulness.
Smokers didn’t demonstrate when smoking stopped in all the stores, or the theaters, on the buses and trains, may be they should have.
In our town, already half the coffee shops had gone smoke free without any bans. Was that good enough, oh no. Along come the anti smokers with their own agenda. Selfish to the core, and with no consideration for all smokers had already given up, no care for the business owners losing trade and going bankrupt, no consideration for the landlords with all their empty premises.
Suddenly it was their way or the highway
not content with having half the town smoke free they had to go for a complete ban.
No matter what health shield you all hide behind, to have left nowhere for smokers to meet at all has to be the epitome of one of the most self centred
nasty campaigns I have ever been unfortunate to witness. Diana Reid
Again, more interesting comments and views have been raised. Gil - I don’t believe I said I was irritated by smoking and I certainly think a smoking ban is more than an ‘irritation law’. I have really missed going to my local since becoming a parent. It’s the smell, the breathing problems and basically all of the respiratory issues that I’m concerned with. I haven’t read any of these research papers on whether smoking does or doesn’t cause cancer but I can say from personal experience it does affect breathing ability both while in a smoky environment and after. I think suggesting banning smoking is Neo-Communism is somewhat over the top. I’m sure there will be ways around the smoking ban - private homes becoming bars, etc - but I am still looking forward to 1 July.
So, Laura, what is wrong with freedom to choose. Why does everywhere have to be smoke free. Why not a mixture, some smoking some not, or do you think you are more important than me.Diana Reid.
Diana - freedom to choose is important but where is the freedom for the staff who work in all the smoky pubs, restaurants, cafes, etc? Are they not entitled to be able to breath freely while working? If pubs would go smoke-free without legislation that would be great but it seems we need this to be able to move forward. I miss going to pubs. I want to go to pubs! I’m British and feel I’m missing out on my cultural heritage! I’ve been discriminated against because I don’t want to smell of smoke. Whereas a smoker can go to a smoking and a smoke-free pub just as a meat eater can go to a carnivorous or vegetarian restaurant, as I don’t like smelling of smoke I’ve been made to stay away from pubs. Less than 100 days to go. Hip, hip hooray!
Laura,I do understand how you feel, I am
British, born and raised, spent more than half of my life there. But in Canada we already had a choice, things were moving that way anyway,as I said, we used to be able to smoke everywhere.
As for the staff, nothing wrong with employing smokers and non smokers in
the appropriate pub is there? Don’t tell me none of them smoke.
Your restaurant comparison is quite good except that vegetarians would choose vegetarian restaurants, and meat eaters their own type.
So if the choice was there, a smoker could go to a smoking pub, and a non smoker to a non smoking one.
As for not liking tobacco,my mother was really allergic to smoke, in a confined space with a smoker her whole face puffed up like a baloon. But she was fine in a restaurant, no reaction.
My youngest son is an asthmatic. Once again we are considerate, and always have been. We are not inhuman, just ordinary folk who want to puff in peace.
Diana Reid
I think the freedom to choose argument is pretty bogus. Yes, I could choose never to eat out or go to a pub because I don’t like the smoke messin’ with my food and drink. I figure, smokers have had their day. It’s out turn now.
I could also lament my loss of “freedom” to roll up my fist into a ball and break someone’s jaw with it.
But here are lots of things that aren’t particularly dangerous that we don’t do in public. You’d probably get thrown out of the bar for taking off your trowsers, too, and that act has probably not caused a death in months.
It’s true that the motivation for smoking bans is predicated on health, but also, the pendulum swings. Like bellbottoms and progressive politics, it’ll come back, just wait. Of course we’ll be smoking marijuana in public then, because it’s been declared healthier…
james
Diana - It seems unfair to impose segregation but we also need consideration for all. I remain amazed that as a nurse with a father who died of cancer, a mother allergic to smoke, and an asthmatic son, that you would still wish to smoke. This is not a personal attack just a comment from the outside when faced with these facts. Realizing that others can be affected by smoke it seems strange to want to continue. I look forward to nights out with my friends who do smoke but who are also excited about the forthcoming smoking ban so we can have nights out together! We don’t want to go to separate places - we want to be together and they are willing to compromise as they feel there will be benefits. My father smokes 40-60 cigarettes a day (yes, 60!) and he is looking forward to the smoking ban. He knows his local will be a better place from July.
I have to take exception with the people who are leaving comments and saying that secondhand smoke poses no danger to nonsmokers.
Secondhand smoke is composed of two types of smoke. The first is called sidestream smoke, which is the smoke released from the burning end of a cigarette or cigar, or from tobacco burning in the bowl of a pipe. The second is called mainstream smoke, which is exhaled by a smoker.
When nonsmokers are exposed to secondhand smoke, they inhale many of the same cancer-causing chemicals that smokers inhale. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,000 chemical compounds, including more than 50 cancer-causing chemicals, and at least 250 chemicals that are either toxic or carcinogenic. (And before anyone argues that the U.S. Surgeon General’s report has no bearing on life in the UK, I’d just like to point out that basic medical science is the same in both countries.)
Both sidestream and mainstream smoke are dangerous to nonsmokers. For example, because sidestream smoke is generated at lower temperatures and under different conditions than mainstream smoke, it contains higher concentrations of many of the toxins found in cigarette smoke.
Secondhand smoke has been designated as a known human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Secondhand smoke also is listed as an occupational carcinogen by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
In 2006, the U.S. Surgeon General released a report saying the health dangers of secondhand smoke to nonsmokers was indisputable. Further, the report makes clear that the only way to protect nonsmokers’ health from secondhand smoke is a smoke-free environment. Separate smoking and nonsmoking sections won’t do it, and neither will air filtration systems.
Smoking is legal, and people have a right to smoke in their own homes or in open areas, but smoking in any sort of confined space is exposing others to serious health risks that they have chosen to reject and have a right to avoid.
For more information, you can check out these two articles, which also have links to other resources:
U.S. Surgeon General Reports Indisputable Dangers of Secondhand Smoke
http://environment.about.com/od/healthenvironment/a/sg_smoking.htm
The Basics of Secondhand Smoke and its Effect on Human Health
http://environment.about.com/od/healthenvironment/a/second_smoke.htm
Laura, first of all I came from a non smoking quaker background, so there is no way either my father’s death or my mother’s allergy could by any stretch of the imagination be attributed to smoking.
Secondly, I have three children,only one asthmatic, who through an accident was born two months early, hence his health problems.
Thirdly,I have had friends all my life who never smoked, and would not dream of lighting up around them. My own sister is an example. I don’t smoke around her.
As for James comment “It’s our turn now”
I can just see him throwing a punch in a pub, hopefully not one I’m ever in.
I just hope you’re not in for a bitter disappointment Laura, as my son Danny says,who lives in Tunbridge Wells, pub attendance is on the decline.He thinks this is the beginning of the end of them
which is sad,because as we have found here, the greatest loss is the social side. Diana Reid
Diana, You are obviously a caring and considerate person so it seems a shame that you would extend the courtesy of not smoking to your loved ones but not to a stranger.
I think when James says “it’s our turn now” he feels liberated by the smoking ban giving him freedom to go to all the pubs and restaurants he may well have been avoiding due to the smoky environment.
I think times are changing and I can’t be the only one who has avoided smoky pubs for some time. I hope the ban is liberating and brings back many people who have missed the social aspect of British pubs. I guess only time will tell. I hear that bars have never been busier in New York since their smoking ban.
Larry, Thank you very much for bringing your expert knowledge on the subject and reference sources for us all to see. This should help us have a balanced opinion.
To all of you here, this is my final comment. It appears that we are at an impasse, anti smokers on one side pro choice on the other. So I rest my case and move on, for life it too short for futile arguments. No matter how careful we are of our health we are all going to die. No amount of government legislation can prevent that happening.
My point has always been freedom to choose, so I will leave you with this
thought from Georges Ripert:-
The man who lives under the servitude of
laws, takes, without being aware of it,
the soul of a slave.
Good luck to you all. Diana Reid
I hardly ever visit a pub,although after work or shopping visit one of the few cafes left in our large town to allow smoking there I can relax, smoke meet friends,I have one favourite, people young and old meet there every day some lonely their only chance of having a chat. for myself I have a wait of 2 hours before I travel home usually after a working day that begins at 7.30 am,I choose to wait to go home as I an still coming to terms with the loss of my mother who I nursed in my own home I nursed her myself 24 hours a day I miss her so much it hurts,perhaps this is my way of dealing with it not wanting to go home but to be with others some with a story to be told, its not all gloom and doom but to listen to others and maybe help even with a smile or a light for their cigarette or general chit chat,its a warm happy welcoming place to be and all the staff smoke too.I feel ok smoking there as its all smoking as there is a completly seperate floor that is non smoking both very well ventilated,it is always busy as its one of the few places you can smoke the majority being non smoking cafes,coffee shops.there is a choice and thats how it should stay I wouldnt feel comfortable smoking at a small place that allowed smoking because of consideration for those that do not smoke but to be with others that do and feel comfortable and welcome by all.I would like that choice for both sides to stay,as I realise its not only smokers that want to chat meet friends some maybe lonely, and want that camaraderie this way we both have that for the time being.
The US Surgeon General didn’t read his own report. Nearly every study dealing with secondhand smoke mentioned within concluded “statistically insignificant”. Do the research and read the report. BTW, the ex-SG–who left soon after that final, fraudulent report of his–now works at a health spa in Nevada. Go figure.
For those who love your locals, aren’t you going to be sad when they close within a year of the ban? Look to Ireland and Scotland, if you don’t believe it. Smokers don’t patronize where they can’t smoke. Contrary to what the anti-tobacco groups say, all you antis don’t arrive in droves to save them.
Do you also complain of fireplaces, grills, and lit candles? If not, why not? Smoke is smoke. There are more carcinogens in wood smoke than tobacco smoke. Look it up!
Hard to believe there’s not already a few pubs and restaurants in all of London that are smoke-free. If you dislike the smell of cigarette smoke that much, why don’t you exercise your freedom of choice and patronize them instead of demanding that ALL places go smoke-free?
And, finally, Brian De Rogarth…still waiting for the titles and/or links to all those papers and studies you’ve done over the past 14 years to check out all your “conclusive evidence”. Funny how when I Google your name, even at Google Scholar, there is not one hit at either place. Hmm.
9 out of 10 cases of lung cancer occur in smokers.
Diana is desperately wrong is most of her posts. Being a nurse (who trained many years ago, before the majority of what we know now about lung cancer) is not a well placed position to comment on cancer research.
Cancer cures have moved on since then, survival rates have dramatically increased as has our knowledge about what causes cancer. We no longer rely on the “good lord” for advice, we do research now and cure ourselves rather than praying and hoping.
Even if there is any CHANCE that we may get cancer from SHS, it is not fair to push that risk onto others who cannot choose.
…and here’s some latest, ban-up-to-date research for Diana!
“Giving up smoking can reduce the risk of dying from the disease by up to 70 percent, new research published in the American Journal of Epidemiology this week shows.
The research by the Asia Pacific Studies Collaboration (APCSC) confirms that cigarette smoking substantially increases the risk of dying from lung cancer in both Australia/New Zealand (ANZ) and Asia, and importantly highlights the continuing popularity of cigarette smoking across large parts of Asia, including China, where the harmful effects of smoking are still not widely appreciated.
The study of 500,000 adults also shows that the risks of dying from lung cancer were about 20 times higher among women who smoke compared with male smokers, a worrying finding given the increasing trend for women to take up the habit in many countries.
One of the paper’s authors is Professor Konrad Jamrozik, from UQ’s School of Population Health.
“The importance of developing effective comprehensive tobacco control policies is highlighted by our research, which shows that if interventions only focus on prevention, then 160 million current smokers will die before 2050, with the vast majority of deaths occurring in China,” Profesor Jamrozik said.
“Inadequate knowledge of both the harmful effects of cigarette smoking and of the benefits associated with quitting is likely to explain much of the continuing popularity of smoking among men in China, where there are an estimated 320 million smokers.
“There are huge numbers of lives to be saved through campaigns to alert current smokers to the dangers of their habit.
“Effective action in Asia would help to head off a significant part of the projected one billion deaths from smoking that will otherwise occur around the world this century.”
Link:http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=66103
Well David, I had a moment to drop by between cigarettes and I’m afraid I only have one thing more to add.
Just like every living thing on this planet you have a life cycle, and like us all, you too, no matter what figures you publish or research you promote,
are going to die. I have held the hand in hospital of many a dieing patient.
An atheist questions his belief, was he wrong.
A believer in God, of any faith, prays.
My grandmothers generation believed they would go straight to heaven.
My mothers generation hoped they would go to heaven.
My generation hopes they don’t go to hell.
My daughters generation are nervous because they haven’t even been to church.
My granddaughter believes in fairies.
But nobody believes they are immortal.
Cancer of all types is world wide.
Causes of cancer are inumerable.
Treatment of cancer is brutal.
If the studies and research you promote was so successful, why are there so few cures and remissions. Why are we still using poisons and radiation to ‘cure’ it
Research is as the word says, and unless
it results in successful treatments and cures it is a non starter.
Work on an oncology ward and you will get a better idea of how little progress has ever been made in that field.
I will add a comment from a wise man years ago.
‘We are looking at the tumour not the cause. I believe one day we may find a bacteria or virus is the invader that causes cells to become changelings.’
Recent research into cervical cancer has proved him right,and now a vaccine exists. That and that only is successful
utilization of research, otherwise it is nothing more then another failed project.Diana Reid
Brian De Rogarth–Still waiting for the titles and/or links to all those papers and studies you’ve done over the past 14 years to check out all your “conclusive evidence”. If they exist, it should be easy for you to provide the titles and some links. If they exist, one would think you’d be eager for us all see this “conclusive evidence”.