Thank You Gerald.
I've read all the back-slapping reports from our leaders (and betters) so it's good to read something telling us what we know to be true - their grand plans have downsides.
One downside they will never admit to is the 100% correlation between smoking bans and political blindness.

This hack defends his out-dated libertarian beliefs by claiming the smoking ban has cost thousands of lost jobs in the licensed trade? According to him, who cares about the tens of thousands of lost lives! Smoking outwith public places is just an inconvenience to these Old Holburn Diehards! What perverted logic?
Lachie Todd.

The filthy anti social habit has gone. That is the main thing. All the alternatives were hog wash and the smokers know it. Personally, I much prefere the cleaner air in the pub, and dinsaurs like GW can kill themselves if they wish, as long as they are not killing ME.

It's good to see someone standing up to the health fascists and the PC brigade. There is no scientific evidence that passive smoking damages anyone. Their so-called "scientific proof" is yet another example of junk science.

In any event, what happened to freedom of choice? Nobody forced anyone to go into a pub where they allowed smoking. Nobody forced anyone to work in a pub that allowed smoking. However, the health fascists and totalitarians can't allow people freedom of choice. After all, where would it all end?

The ban was one of the best things ever to happen in Scotland. Thankfully England will implement a smoking ban in July and hopefully before long it will be worldwide. I actually enjoy going into pubs now and being able to have a drink and a chat without my clothes stinking from other people's unacceptable and anti social addictions.
The Scottish Executive should tighten up the legislation and make it illegal to smoke within 10 metres of any public place, then we wouldn't have to put up with smokers blocking doorways. They should also ban smoking while driving. If it's illegal to comb your hair, eat a sandwich or talk on a mobile while driving, it should be illegal to smoke as well. Finally it should be illegal to smoke in the presence of children. No child should be subjected to cigarette smoke and if that means people being unable to smoke in their own homes then so be it. Well done Scotland and well done the Scottish Executive!!! Keep up the good work.

#5 Another totalitarian control freak?

The Scottish Government (I refuse to call it the 'Executive') should send the REAL facts to every household in Scotland. Not the manufactured facts, not the facts that they WISH were true, but the real facts.

They should also institute a nationwide reading excercise so that those who find it hard to read facts and absorb them, can get help. That way, we can maybe rid ourselves of clowns like #5, who obviusly don't have a clue about what they're talkng about.

Also, where are the democrats? Why not have smoking and non smoking pubs? I'll tell you why! We don't have them because the health fascists are afraid that the craic just might be in the smoking pubs! Then what would they do? They would have a choice and we know that totalitarians hate choice!

we should bring back asbestos too......

#6 Oh you're too kind Guga!! :-)

Good article Gerald. One slight correction though. It was Sir Austin Bradford Hill who devised the studies that would go on to show an increased risk of some forms of lung cancer in smokers. Richard Doll, at that time, was his junior assistant.

It's also worth mentioning that if the epidemiologists had stuck to his original criteria then we wouldn't have a smoking ban as the evidence doesn't match up with his rigorous standards.

bring back child and slave labour - banning it is another piece of red-tape on business and the glorious free market.

abolish all health & safety namby pamby nonsense as well

Are these people the same ones who were campaigning to keep slavery on the basis that without slaves, slave traders and plantation owners would go out of business?

#10
I hope you don't really want to abolish all health and safety namby pamby nonsense as well because here is what the Health and Safety Executive have to say with regard to passive smoking.

"HSE cannot
produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the
raised risk of contracting specific diseases"

#2,3,5 You might like to read this as well. Then read it again, until it sinks in that whatever this smoking ban is based on, it is certainly not on a sound scientific basis.

Well said Gerald. All of it. Its about time. Where have you been for the last year? We needed sensible, truthful, and accurate writing like this many months ago.

You didnt say enough about the social isolation this infantile, unjust, un-thought out ban blights us with. I think we will reap that particular whirlwind soon enough.

The anti smokers on here are predictable and tedious. They have no understanding of the science, for if they did, they would have to agree that there is no scientific basis for a smoker ban.

Lachie 2. As somebody who holds "outdated libertarian (or at least liberal) beliefs" I would ask you to substantiate your claim of 10s of thousands of lost lives from passive smoking. I also have an outdated belief in facts. That the banners case depends on Lachie's figures being true can be shown by Jack McConnell's similar word to Holyrood that this would save a thousand libves as year - a deliberate lie which the other MSPs pretended to believe.

In fact the initial & heavily disputed, American claim of 3000 deaths a year from passive smoking translates to 50 for Scotland's population. However since the majority of exposure is in the home it would be pushing it to claim pubs as as much as 20. However since at least 93% of smoke can be removed by modern air conditioning systems we are at 1.4 Scots per year as an absolute maximum. Using the same calculations it is clear that hte number of excess pneumonia deaths from people leaving war pubs to stand outside in midwinter, or even excess exposure at home from staying home well exceeds.

This has absolutely nothing to do with public health - it is pure bullying.

I was the only then LibDem willing to speak for individual freedom on this matter. http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2006/09/smoking-ban-...

I don't care if passive smoking hasn't killed a single person - or given them bronchitis, emphysema etc etc. I can have a pint now and not come out of the pub with my hair and clothes stinking of smoke. No "rights" have been taken away - smokers have every right to smoke in their own houses or outside if they wish. It's got nothing to do with "political correctness" (the last refuge for those whose arguments are answered) and to claim your "human rights" have been breached because you are asked not to inhale burning leaves in the company of those who don't wish to join you makes a mockery of genuine breaches of human rights

#15 - would you not agree that the human rights of publicans have been breached in that they are being forbidden to allow a legal activity on their own property?

I am delighted for you that you enjoy smokeless atmospheres however a blanket ban was not the only method at hand to achieve such measures.

The primary message is found here;

"“ In philosophy generally, empiricism is a theory of knowledge emphasizing the role of experience in the formation of ideas, while discounting the notion of innate ideas.
In the philosophy of science, empiricism is a theory of knowledge which emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to experience, especially as formed through deliberate experimental arrangements. It is a fundamental requirement of scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on “a priori” reasoning, intuition, or revelation."

Consistent positive correlations can only be recognized if we can absolutely assure the possibility of bias is less than the predicted result.

In ETS calculations it would be a real stretch of the imagination to presume confounding effect and linear regression is defined so precisely without defining the variations of the suspect cause or the exposure levels? The arrogance of anyone in the profession to believe the precision of the method has been honed to accuracy within a .3 increase which can demonstrate dedication much more than accuracy or expertise,

The confounding base is the same so how can we test the accuracy of the theory when the confounders are all of common design.

The randomness of the modeling process as well as the data has all but been eliminated is it any surprise the results find similar numbers?

More incredible is the formation of conclusion which agrees the level of increased risk with the complexity of a single life's experience can be defined to a level E&K numbers are insignificant yet the .3 level is judged as significant proof?

The precision suggests impropriety and that impropriety is found in the collusion within the major group who demand recognition because of their station alone.

One cannot believe empirical proof can be

#15 What a spoilt brat you sound.

Thank you Mr Warner,
Your article restored my trust that truth will prevail and will give many hope.
I stopped believing we are the cause of global warming, after they raised the woolly mammoth from blocks of ice and vegetation was beneath it.
But it seems woe betide anyone to even think any different. Scientists have been threatened, why? Because truth will lose money, an obscene amount of money.
The smoking ban is social engineering, causing intolerance and hatred, within a year.
How is that healthy?
The elderly did not even have a voice; many do not have access or knowledge of computers.
I cannot even imagine how they must feel.

What is really scary is how easily propaganda can turn people against each other, destroy the very character of a Nation and ignore the real needs of its citizens.
The Anti-smoking establishment have powerful people to help push them. Drug companies seem to want every niche in the market for their nico’ products. Plus, of course, the profits from medicating the damage from social exclusion.
I would just like to say before I am accused of it. I have no ties with Big T; I have no shares in Big T; I’m simply a smoker.
Something really stinks here? Not just what smokers are being told they do.
This so-called New World is going backwards.

#8 Andy, asbestos has not gone anyway, it is still on your walls ARTEX in your furnishing and many other places. Google Asbestos dangers, while you are there you may want to google, diesel, radon, chemicals in the home, air-freshners, perfumes, prescription drugs, ect ect, just put in dangers after everything, Including water.
There are publicans fighting for choice of ventilation, in Fife.
Lying to children, with propaganda and scare-mongering, is far worse and makes for a dangerous world than so called ETS.
Being blinkered to the point of hate will not get to the truth.
freedom2choose.co.uk for tolerant non

#15 The legislation was not brought in so your nostrils would not be offended, it was brought in under the lie that passive smoking kills.

You should also be aware that smokers are not free to smoke outside if you happen to work for an employer who has taken Kerr's additional guidance advice, where he encourages employers to ban smoking outside even when on legitimate breaks.

Neil #14 is perfectly correct, it is bullying, plain and simple.

One important point is missed in the propagation of science.

Can we consider risks now to be cumulative ie; risk 1 + risk 2 + risk 3 = total risk

In political lobby terms fear + fear + fear = compliance. Bin Ladin swears by it.

Can any risk be considered significant or a risk at all when a number of larger common and unavoidable risks also exist?

Support of " Second Hand Smoke" [ETS]"??? What mental miget could even consider the burning of leaves to be a major harm worthy of the fear it inspires? How much does it cost to create such a reality should be the more pressing issue and what logic allows Tax dollars to flow into the pockets of fear mongers? more apropriately apraised as domestic terrorists.

The term originally coined by Hitler himself. Today risk theory is most significantly found among those who equate risk to smell. Wouldn't they make a fine investigative team?

If it didn't work out, they could always get jobs as dim witted politicians.

We truly have nothing to fear but fear itself, bank on it,

That is of course if your terror taxes leave any thing for yourself worthy of a trip to the bank.

Murdoch #15

What a strange view of human rights you have.

You have no human right to a smell of choice in someone else's pub. It's a perfect example of the bigotry and selfishness of anti smokers that they invent a human right to some non existent fresh air in other people's property and they are not happy with non smoking buses, airplanes, taxi's, libraries, restaraunts and non smoking sections in pubs; they want every buillding in the land to smell exactly how they want it to regardless of the owners wishes. They wont even let the smokers have their own little room out the back somewhere.

It's not about health, the 150 biased anti smoking studies on passive smoke can't even show it to be as harmful as drinking 3 cups of coffee, it's about obsessive, self righteous control freaks.

Absolutely brilliant! The first serious attempt to improve the health of a country, and fight an addiction that kills thousands each year and we get the "my rights" brigade coming out hiding behind the scientists and their "debates". Smoking is a foul, costly, anti-social habit carried out by fools. The difference in pubs, clubs and other buildings is fantastic.

Frankly, I don't care about arguments between scientists. The ban should have been brought in years ago. Before it, non-smokers had no rights to go out for a drink or a meal without sitting next to selfish idiots who obviously felt that they had the "right" to make others smoke. If our ban was ever to be repealed, we and our children would regret it, I assure you.

GB

Okay GW and all you lovers of personal liberties. Here's a scenario for you.

Alex likes to exercise his personal liberty of playing music loud all day and night, but can't because of breach of the peace laws.
Brenda likes to exercise her personal liberty of driving on the wrong side of the road, but can't because of driving laws.
Calum likes to exercise his personal liberty of showing his appreciation of other people by fondling them, but can't because of harassment laws.
Donna likes to exercise her personal liberty of smoking wherever she wants, but can't because of public smoking laws.

If you're so worried about Donna's rights, why aren't you also worried about the others'?

#23-
Alex is can go to a nightclub or studio where loud music is the norm.

Brenda can go off-roading.

Calum can go to a swingers club.

Donna can't go to a smoking bar.

15 "I don't care if passive smoking hasn't killed a single person ....I can have a pint now"

Spoilt brat seems the appropriate description. The fact that the vast majority of customers disagree, otherwise non-smoking pubs would have been common on a purely commercial basis doesn't matter as long as you get everything you want.

I suppose the First Minister lying to Parliament doesn't matter to you either?

# 24 ah-ha - the non smoking pub argument! The fact was that a non smoking pub wasn't commercially viable as long as others would allow smokers in. Now they are all in the same boat, so non smokers can go anywhere they like. The thing is, smokers can also still go anywhere they like. There can really be no argument about comparing rights here. If a smoker and a non smoker want to go out for a drink to a pub, that is one "decision". A smoker can have no realistic expectation that he/she then has the additional "right" to "decide" to make me smoke at the same time.

#22,

How convenient for you.

A law is enacted, based (supposedly) on solid science. When that foundation of "solid science" is shown for what it is, utter rubbish, in you come with pathetic statements that you dont care for the science as long as your sense of smell isnt offended.

Sorry, boy, thats not how it works. Most laws are based on logic and morality. This law possesses neither.

All this law has created is division, bigotry, and open hatred for a minority of people carrying out a legal activity, (endorsed, punitively taxed, but sanctioned), by a petty minded, inept government.

Just because you dont understand the science it does not give you the right legislate against a smell.

Or will you now campaign to have the remaining 400 + carcinogens removed from public houses that serve food? Will you campaign to have water, milk, and coffee banned because, scientifically speaking, they have a much higher risk than second hand smoke? Thought not.

Unsurprisingly, you too, are a small-minded bigot.

Which do you think the more appropriate definition; of political science being used to promote rule by fear?

A]
Kleptocracy (sometimes Cleptocracy) (root: Klepto+cracy = rule by thieves) is a pejorative, informal term for a government that is primarily designed to sustain the personal wealth and political power of government officials and their cronies (collectively, kleptocrats).

B]
A plutocracy is a form of government where the state's power is centralized in an affluent social class. The degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low. This can apply to a multitude of government systems, as the key elements of plutocracy transcend and often occur concurrently with the features of those systems. The word plutocracy itself is derived from the ancient Greek root ploutos, meaning wealth and kratein, meaning to rule or to govern.
C]
Ochlocracy (Greek: ??????at?a or ohlokratía; Latin: ochlocratia) is government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of constitutional authorities. In English, the word mobocracy is sometimes used as a synonym.

It would be fun to see the promoters of Global warming or smoking bans claim they support democracy. The goal of advocacy through HIA health intervention is to undermine elected officials and silence all debate. Democracy finds it’s strength in the debate. Political science education tells students in order to maintain integrity, support the right or the left and always avoid the center, which is Mussolini’s domain. That which gains support by taking the most popular proposals from both sides [Poll results] and goes in the third direction [forward going strategies of sustainable development.] Health reform divines all things are connected to health outcomes.

Are you fearful yet? Give them time, they will get to you sooner or later.
And no one was left to speak for me…

25 "the non smoking pub argument! The fact was that a non smoking pub wasn't commercially viable as long as others would allow smokers in"

Precisely my point.

Personally I don't like pubs which have REALLY loud music on so my practice is not to enter.

If it is purely a matter of convenience then I should have an equal right to stop their speakers on the off chance I might visit.

Come to that, since I get a bit annoyed at idiots who want to tell us what to do, perhaps, for my convenience, ASH might wish to campaign for a ban on pubs allowing pains in the posterior who like banning smoking into pubs - so that I may enjoy the human right of a pint without where I won't suffer from passive loudmouthism.

I hope that this article heralds the start of unbiased reporting on the smoking issue by the media. Until now the impression that has been given is that the ban in Scotland has been welcomed by all and is an unqualified success. A recent poll conducted by Populous found, however, that the majority of Scots still favoured restrictions. Those who want a complete ban are actually in the minority. Either they are foolish people who have unquestioningly taken on board the risible "facts" about ETS or they are selfish, refusing to allow that some areas - which they need never enter - should allow smoking in order to accommodate the 25% of the population who smoke and their tolerant non smoking friends. I hope that the deception being practised becomes increasingly exposed in the media.

Gilbey's Boy, and others, seem to be confused over the difference between 'it's a proven health risk', and 'I don't like the smell'. The former, on which the legislation is based, is far from soundly proven, and the latter is a subjective point of view, which is hard to dispute, but scarcely a good foundation for making laws. I don't like the stink of chip fat in a pub, or going home reeking of it, but I don't advance it as a health risk (although, how many carcigonens are there in the stuff?), or expect Big Brother to ban it.
Of course, if we had proper ventilation and extraction in our pubs and bars, as in Belgium, for example, we could all live together in harmony - but that reeks of compromise, which the New Puritans are unable to countenance...

We were repeatedly told by antismokers that non smoking pubs were both popular and commercially viable. The vast majority of the public, we were told by the propagandists, wanted this legislation. If that was the case then why were there not more non smoking establishments pre ban? If there was a market for something so popular there would have been businesses all over the country going no smoking, staying no smoking and making a profit by being non smoking. Many tried, discovered that it wasn't viable and returned to the norm.

We were also assured that there was a whole legion of people sitting at home, twiddling their thumbs waiting for this legislation to be enacted before they would enter a pub again. Where are they now? They are conspicuous by their absence.

That's not to say there shouldn't be provision for non smokers. There should be in this day and age enough tolerance and there is the technology to allow both smokers and non smokers to socialise together without all this hatred and lies. But the Government prefers the division option and seems to revel in encouraging this.

If Governments are allowed to get away with passing laws by sheer propaganda and bogus science, what else can they get up to? We're on a very slippery slope if this is allowed to go on unchallenged.

23 your arguments fail becase legislation enforced wiyh guns are a means of last resort.

Why would you stand against making a choice of what youi are epossed to by regulation in short a sign on the door.

You are comfortable forcing others to stand in the cold while you giggle all comfortable inside?

You do noy suport equalityu you support hate and nothing in your inapropriate comparisons can justify that.

Public health supports the sales of it's financiers. selling addictive chewing gum in exciting new flavous advertising to the kids.

Smoking bans are not about health as proven in ASH tirades talking not about the ETS numbers but to solve the numbers of smoking related mortality enhansed with promotions in quit or be punished.

Is thatr really the kind of governmet you support?
As the gov gives in to this terrorist campaign they surender their ability to refuse the next one. How many courts and jails will we need to enforce perhaps hundreds of new laws in the making? And guess who gets the bill?

By promoting hatred of those who smoke do you believe calling them stupid or killers of babies that will help them find the internalizing necessary to quit?

By selling the hatred and stereotyping of smokers the non smokers are not alone in learning the lesson.

The cure is the poison and proof can be seen as smoker numbers are again climbing for the first time in five decades.

Well done

32 - What's that in English?

This article by Mr Warner should open up a debate which up until now as far as the Media are concerned has been very one sided in favour of the ban.
Some of the posts refer to the hatred being generated by this one sided coverage and the posts by ban supporters would confirm this view.
There are some very strong arguments being put forward regarding the validity of the Science involved surely the debate should be taken forward on this basis, rather than referring to people as stupid and stinking

Sounds to me that the anti's are on the run. Their vitriolic, bad mouthing and, invariably, disgusting invective appears to be on the rise.
Keep it up lads, it can only strengthen the cause of freedom of choice.

33

What's that in English?

Clearly over your head, go back to sleep.

I will wake you up if we need some intolerace, injected into the discussion, to spice things up and promote more agresive motivation.

Politrical pawns are useful but only when used as prescribed.

Mr Warner: CISWO is Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation.

Mr Kerr has repeatedly said that he knows nobody who doesn't support the ban. He has refused at least three invitations to attend meetings with opponents of the ban. Therefore we can confidently say that he sees only what he wishes to see.

hey, why not ban booze for a change? it's real bad for the liver and the brain and makes people daft (at least temporarily), let alone dangerous. and about pub staff: imagine you really want to be a miner. but it's dark in a mine and loads of dust everywhere. what do you do? you DON'T become a miner! smoke in a pub is an inconvenience you must be prepared to put up with if decide to work in one...

#14 and #19

Do you think licencing laws are bullying? What about being forced to drive at 30mph through towns? Or maybe having to wear a seatbelt in a car or a crash helmet on a motorbike - is that bullying too?

Jay 29 and others, this article is indeed a major step forward in Scotland, however much is going on. There are meetings all the time in and around Fife. On is being held tomorrow in Glenrothes. The media is taking notice finally. The two links below are radio interviews one I did in England and one Bill Gibson of F2C Scotland did. On in both the voice of reason won the day.
http://filexoom.com/files/2007/2/21/60086/F2C-on-3Countie...
http://filexoom.com/files/2007/2/21/60086/Fife-BillG-Scot...
I also did an Interview with SKY which was played on a number of occasions throughout Friday. We have been featured in the Mail, The Sun, The Mirror this week also. Freedom to Choose will build on this success. I have meetings scheduled in London, Bootle, Wigan and elsewhere over the next few weeks. Please visit our site www.freedom2choose.co.uk. Donate to our fight, your money can directly to out solicitors. Passive Smoking is a lie and cause social isolation, social divisiveness as these types of sites show and harms the very fabric of business. What is perhaps more important to say is that total bans increase smoking. Partial bans with choice have the effect of continuing downward trends. If this was really about health then Politicians would re-think, but it's not it's about social engineering. Alcohol is next, closely followed by food, then no doubt a bigger attack on cars (Browns already started. Do you want Democracy or Fascism. The choice is yours F2C is the answer.

#24 Neil

"The vast majority of customers"? Care to put some figures to that?

How sad that it is impossible to debate without those against smoking being so viscious.
Mr Warner has presented a well written article, with food for thought for the whole anti smoking situation.
It would appear anti smokers have other things in common. In future we should be able to recognize them by the following characteristics.
Promotion of hatred, malice, libel, defamation,
selfishness, persecution, inequality, discrimination,
scorn and ridicule, to name but a few.
Frederich Hayek said "More harm and misery has been caused by men determined to use coercian, a moral evil, then by men intent on doing evil."
This writer has presented a good paper where the arguments should be respected in any debate.
For those who think they have 'won'. remember also the words of Benjamin Franklin:-
"Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither.
Diana Reid

#43 Diana Reid

Right ... It's those in support of the smoking ban who are "so vicious" . Apparently we are, in addition to being "spoilt brats", promoters of "hatred, malice, libel, defamation, selfishness, persecution, inequality, discrimination, scorn and ridicule".

What were you saying abouts arguments being respected, Diana?

Bobfm (41)

"Total bans increase smoking". Got any evidence to back up your soundbite?

A Brilliant piece by Gerald Warner, spot on. Passive Smoking the big lie. In 1989, the EPA issued a public notice stating categorically that ETS “is known cause of lung cancer” but without providing its analysis of published data. It was pressed to do so and the result was its report of 1992. The report was subsequently challenged in the courts where the e EPA was found to have knowingly, willfully and aggressively disseminated false information with far reaching regulatory implications in the US and worldwide. Judge Osteen found that the EPA had:

“Changed its methodology to find a statistically significant association… In conducting the ETS risk Assessment, EPA disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers…Gathering all relevant information, researching and disseminating findings were subordinate to EPA’s demonstrating ETS a group A carcinogen.”

Second-hand smoke is not a proven killer. There have been no, ZERO, studies that can show second-hand smoke to have a risk ratio higher than 3.0 (the universally accepted epidemiological minimum needed to classify a substance as a health risk). Second-hand smoke rated as 1.19 (1 being no risk at all) whereas chlorinated water ranked at 1.5 and whole-milk at 2.5. Furthermore, the study that managed to prove second-hand smoke has a risk ratio of 1.19 has been discredited for "cherry picking" (the art of including only evidence corresponding to the outcome desired - fiddling).

YOU ARE NEARLY 11X MORE LIKELY TO DIE FROM FLU VIRUS THAN FROM FIRST-HAND SMOKING - and the FACT there is NO evidence SHS has caused or causes ANY diseases, let along Cancer, that makes it even LESS likely a cause of death to anyone - SO THEN WHY THE BANS - IF NOT BASED ON LIES, HATE AND INTOLERA

Rollo 47#
Try http://www.otc.ie/fig.asp?image=fig_1.1.jpg
Smoking - March 2004 at start of ban 23%
Smoking - March 2006 two years after start of ban 25.5%
but don't forget it's a success because they've had high levels of compliance, it's popular with loads of people, barperson's lungs are cleaner etc

Kris (49)

If you're using Irish Office of Tobacco Control figures, then why are you not using these statistics: http://www.otc.ie/fig.asp?image=fig_1.2.jpg?

Their own website says that the "12-month moving average trend provides a smoothed pattern to the data to give a better picture of smoking behaviour over time" than the figure you referred to does.

The 12 month trend shows that, despite some upward movement lately, smoking prevalence in Ireland has consistently been lower than it was in March 2004, when the ban was introduced in Ireland.

Scallywag, I take exception to your description. I found myself plunged into the rat race full tilt several months ago after a period of calm. I am horrified at the aggressiveness, lack of manners and general unhappiness that I experience. There is something very wrong in our country nowadays - my suspicion is that beneath a facade real values are crumbling. Smoking bans, based on lies and fed to a disgruntled and increasingly ill educated populace contribute to the demise.

Jay,

I think it is more basic than that.

I think smokers are the new n******, w***, r*******, k**** and s****. Since time began, there have always been bigots and racists. The smoker ban just opens the floodgates for nasty people to unleash their venom on a new minority group that is unprotected by the law, as is evidenced above. All of the groups I named so horribly above, are, thank God, protected from abuse.

Now we have a government that openly encourages our fellow citizens to report the filthy smokers. An unintended consequence, to be sure, but I have to deal with it every week.

I dont relish the stares, the sneers, the remarks or the ridicule.

Nurturing hatred in this way cannot be good for society.

The step from hatred to violence is a very short one.

Mark my words. Something wicked this way comes.

And it is all baseless. All so that some jumped up numpty can leave a "legacy".

Its a crying shame.

Rollo you want to know about the Irish - make sure you have your speakers turned on

http://www.myspace.com/sadireland

"The root of the problem that sees such an extraordinary move by the Irish government lies in the failure of the great experiment which removed personal choice and attempted to turn Irish bars into health clubs, the introduction of the draconian smoking ban. Instead of people flocking to bars as promised, once profitable pubs have closed in the hundreds as people stayed away due to lack of interest in non smoking sterile pubs bereft of customers and atmosphere. Hardest hit have been provincial towns and villages where the pub was the focal point of social gatherings and interaction."

http://www.sadireland.com/booze_bus.htm

Colin, Yes, I agree. People who would be horrified to be accused of xenophobia, homophobia or racism are quite oblivious to the fact that they are guilty of bigotry which is based on the acceptance of misinformation and propaganda. My point was that smokers are the new witches. In 17th Century England when the society was undergoing economic, religious and political turmoil, witch-hunting reached its zenith, whereby old, unprotected women were made scapegoats of the disaffected in the community. I think that there are many angry people in society nowadays, the legacy, perhaps, of many years of misguided policies. The more cynical among us mght even accuse the Governmet of encouraging division in society. At any rate, smoking bans excerbate the climate of intolerance and selfishness in society. Since society depends on living in harmony with other members of society the more that division is created, the more that the society is in danger of crumbling, altogether. Nothing changes, unfortunately, but those who welcome smoking bans for their own convenience will only find that more and more becomes outlawed, with ever increasing cost to freedom. I hope that I don't live to a ripe old age to see it.

Rollo 50# Simply because it uses bare data whereas data smoothed over a long period reduces the impact of recent trends. Had the smoothed graph been based on only the previous 3 or 4 months of data rather than a year I'm sure it would give a truer impression.
You might also take into account studies describing the 'Rebellion Effect' such as "The Effects of Smoking Ban Regulations on Individual Smoking Rates" by Hielke Buddelmeyer &
Roger Wilkins "Interestingly, we do find a significant ‘rebellion’ effect amongst 18 to 24 year old smokers, with the introduction of smoking bans found to increase the likelihood that they continue to smoke."

Diana #43

Bravo,

Please continue to add your comments, they make a mockery of all the bigots whose comments I have to bear.

Kris (55)

I find it strange when so many of the anti-ban posters have complained that research on SHS is flawed that you're so happy to tout your Heath Robinson interpretation of statistics as being more valid than the OTC's own commentary. The fact remains that smoking prevalence in Ireland has consistently been lower since the ban came into effect than in March 2004. I may add, though, that this is even the case using your own interpretation - the average of the figures for Oct-Dec 06 appears to be about 0.5% less than the rate in March 2004.

The point you draw from Buddelmeyer & Wilkins may be true. But it is only one of a series of effects that the legislative changes has brought about. Another, for instance, will be the fact that it is a lot easier for recent ex-smokers to resist the urge to light up in a smoke-free environment than in a smoke-filled establishment. To suggest that smoking prevalence must be increasing just because young people might rebel against a ban is deeply flawed.

I don't believe he was suggesting that smoking prevalence was increasing because young people might rebel against a ban, the point is that smoking has never looked so rebellious to young people thanks to ill thought out legislation!

The smoking ban had nothing to do with concern over the consequences or otherwise of smoking but everthing to do with the need for some chest thumping by the Executive to show us all that they're in control.

It was a political decision and not one to do with a concern for our safety.

I think it is safe to say that smoking bans do not decrease smoking rates to the extent the anti-smokers told us they would before the ban.

Using the chart posted you can say smoking rates increased or decreased depending on which bit of the chart you use.

Even so, after 3 years of a ban the current smoking rate from that chart for Ireland shows that smoking rates are indeed currently increasing and have been since feb 2005.

#62 well said Gordon And they have already convinced gullible employers to ban workers smoking in the open air!

Why? Because big man Kerr told them too.

This is the most pernicious part of this crusade, encouraging organisations to go beyond the legislation by introducing ludicrous guidance that encourages councils etc. not to enter a house where someone has smoked within the last hour and to forbid employees from smoking outside while on work premises.

What is the point of that? There is no health argument, just do as we say, or else risk losing your job.

Those that say this is the best legislation passed by the Executive need to hear the full story.Gerald Warner has made a great start today. After being made aware of all the facts, and vile consequences of "the greatest piece of health legislation for a generation" anyone who still supports this unneeded ban seriously needs there head examined.

Rollo
The smoothed otc figures show the 'cumulative' figure for the previous 12 months and indicate a figure that is more representative of a time 6 months before. If we are trying to compare March to March it would be more appropriate to compare September to September since the previous 12 months would 'balance' around March.
It is obvious though that trend is upwards and for the past 12 months has been at least 1% higher than the February 2005 low.

Iain (60)

Remember how this aspect of the discussion started. Bobfm of Freedom to Choose said that "total bans increase smoking". I simply asked for evidence. None has been forthcoming. The Irish experience shows the opposite of what Bobfm claims. There was an upward trend there for a while, but that ended a year ago and smoking levels have never hit that level since. And at all times, smoking prevalence has been lower than before the ban was introduced.

In other words, Bobfm and Freedom to Choose's claims that research on SHS are lies might have more weight if they were truthful in their own use of statistics.

Have now just seen Kris' comment 64. After saying at 55 that "Had the smoothed graph been based on only the previous 3 or 4 months of data rather than a year I'm sure it would give a truer impression", he's now saying that a different 12 month average would be more appropriate. If the ongoing trend was upward, the monthly figures should have been consistently higher than a year ago. In fact, the figure only exceeded the April 2006 high in one month.

Gerald Warner's own article started with stats from a limited and self-sampled survey by SLTA which can hardly be called either objective or accurate, and yet was presented as such.

It's such a shame this debate has shed so much heat and so little light. And it's also a shame that no pro-smoker has ever been able to offer an answer to the question posed by me at 23 and Murdoch at 40 as to what makes the right to smoke wherever you choose so very special that restrictions on it are wrong, when other restrictions on personal freedoms are willingly accepted.

Gordon: You should ask them yourself. And please don't tar all "pro-ban supporters" with the same brush.

You want light, Rollo?

Here's 100 watts.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/newspapers/sunday_times/...

69: A quick look via Google suggests your 100 watt bulb has quickly blown: http://www.ashscotland.org.uk/ash/ash_display.jsp;jsessio...;

"There were reports in October 2006 that cigarette sales in Scotland had increased by 5% since the implementation of the smoking ban.

* This was based on an internal Scottish Grocery Federation (SGF) survey which only sampled 17 stores.
* After it was reported in the press, the SGF issued a retraction that admitted their survey should not be used to draw conclusions about cigarette sales."

Gordon (72):

If you're telling me that the ASH statement was wrong, that the SGF survey actually sampled a lot more than 17 stores and that they did not issue any retraction, then I'll happily consider your evidence.

But if you're simply trying to tell me that if something comes from ASH it must be wrong, I'm afraid you'll have to try harder than that!

Like I said, light rather than heat.....

#66 Rollo
Gordon beat me to it, but I would like to add.
We cannot light up we whenever we feel like it, planes, cinemas, public buildings, trains, buses, coaches, ect.
it will not stop at the pubs anyway as many of us are aware of that. Fanatics do not stop.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2006/08/08/bc-smoking.html
Victoria patio patrons face possible smoking banLast Updated: Tuesday, August 8, 2006 | 2:01 PM ET
CBC News
There could soon be a ban on smoking on outdoor patios at restaurants and bars throughout Greater Victoria.
The directors of the Capital Regional District vote Wednesday on whether to begin a public consultation on a possible amendment to its Clean Air Bylaw.
Many pub and restaurant owners who have patios say the regional district is going too far, complaining that they've already spent thousands of dollars creating outdoor smoking areas.

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&f...
“This was my first appeal to local media for help. I contacted all the local media about this crisis. They all knew it was wrong, but would do nothing to help our elderly smokers. It was 8 below zero when I sent this email.”
From: behindbars@comcast.net
To: news@sbt247.com
Subject: Sick and elderly Americans forced into sub zero temperatures
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 18:10:42 +0000
Today elderly smokers all over this county and many others are being forced outside in sub zero temperatures because they are smokers. These nursing home patients have lost the right to smoke in their OWN homes and now must be wheeled, carted, or given a helping hand to face the brutal cold. These are Americans who have no voice. These are the forgotten ones.

Homes, cars, parks, beaches, work<

If Rolo would like, we could look to the big picture in smoking stats. Since 1960 in North America and I would bet the picture is similar throughout the industrialized world. There has been a stable .7 decline in smoker prevalence. In 50 years the first indication of a stall in that pattern corresponds to 6 months past the date the World Health Organization Tobacco treaty came into force. The stall and increase is seen in every place a smoking ban is implemented.

The decline is actually an illusion, ban fans like to use to sell their stock. The number in North America is almost exactly the same as it was in real numbers of smokers since 1957. The number has been held stable, with the same number quitting or dying as those who start.

Population increases lower the smoker prevalence numbers. This makes it entirely dificult for the con men to explain, why smoking related diseases have increased so significantly.

They hide from the fact the majority of those diseases are demonstrated in the numbers which should be dropping, but are actually rising doubled trippled and quadrupled in some cases. The vast majority of so called smoking related diseases are not in any way caused by smoking.

If we measure the effects of smoking bans, those who start smoking are balanced against those who die plus those who quit.

If the numbers are rising or remaining stable with promotions of higher mortality rates, does this not in reality prove anti smoking rails are actually failing to produce anything but failures. Higher mortality figures indicate less are quiting.

The prevalence increases although only a few percentage points represent hundreds of thousands of people.

The rising stats claiming higher mortality rates are proof enough, these people like ASH and others feasting of the public trough are self serving leeches that offer no societal benefit? What do they bring? Fear, hate and divisions sum and total.

Do you really fear the

BTW Rolo I have read the studies and consistently they show when you force smokiers to drink and smoke outside the controlled environments in bars. Smokers drink elsewhere primarily in private homes. The ban fans deny bar sales are droopping and have been caught on many occasions proping up the numbers in liquor sales by adding in the take out sales. Demonstrating increased business.

The increases consistently demonstrate in three major areas; drinking smoking and violence all increase significantly every place a ban has been implimented.

I can send you a violence study from verified police sources, in no way connected with the tobacco industry. Which demonstrates the increases in violence including in one city where the ban was repealed and those increases quickly dropped to previous levels.

Be carefull what you wish for, because you just might get it.

One thing is clear from all the pro ban people.
It's our turn now, so get out.
The very thing you have complained about for years, the selfish smokers with no consideration for others,postions are now reversed. Now you have become what you said we were, but there is a difference. In our case there was just smoking everywhere. We did not march into the pubs and kick out the non smokers. We did not keep asking you why you didn't smoke. We did not ridicule you for not lighting up, or sneer because you didn't.
We did not call you stupid morons, stupid self centred pigs. We did not break your windows or vandalize your property. We did not make threatening phone calls to you or slash your car tires. All this has happened to me personally.
Would you like me to lie down so you can stone me to death.
Promotion of hatred is uncivilized. It degrades society, and those in history are looked back on as shameful members of our past. No matter that a thing starts with good intentions, when it ceases to be a promotion of well being and degenerates into
open fanaticism we are all the poorer for it.
None of us can claim to be perfect, we all have our own preferences which others may not like.
One eating loudly with their mouth open may put another off their meal.
But if we are going to develop a pack instict, and cast out those whose habits offend us, then we have
adopted the psyce of The Lord of the Flies'.
In short, we are no better than animals.
Intollerence is like a disease,passing from one to another with the speed of plague. Today smoking, tomorrow alcohol, then obesity, perfume etc.
As Kevin said, be careful what you wish for.
Diana Reid

I do apologise to Rolo for not responding. I do have a business to run. That said it is apparent that no amount of evidence will ever satisfy a pro ban anti smoker. The reality in Ireland is that smuggling of cigarettes and tobacco is at an all time high according to Customs, the fact remains however you try and dress it up smoking according to the Irish Government has increased by some 20'000 mainly young people. Tax receipts for tobacco has increased by 4%, at a time when the level of tax remains static. There can be one of two explanations for this. Either their are more smokers, or smokers are smoking more, and secondly that the Irish are so perverse that they are buying all these legal and illegal cigarettes and throwing them away just to create the illusion of increased smoking. The reality has been told. Passive Smoking is a myth, and total bans increase smoking whereas those with choice continue the downward trend. Amand Sandford from ASH when in live discussion with me on radio had nothing to offer other than trotting out the usual WHO, SCoTH stuff, when I rebutted that, her only answer was 'complete rubbish'. Very professional response from the Director of Research.
Robert Feal-Martinez
www.freedom2choose.co.uk

Sadly, the article, which purports to be factual, lacks even a modicum of factual information. Instead, it comes across as a petulant adolescent rant.

#16 GET A LIFE!

#80 David,

The saddest thing about this article is that it had to be wriiten in the first place.

Uncomfortable as it is, it simply proves to me that Scotland has a huge number of bigots. It also proves that as a nation, toleration of fellow citizens is now a thing of the past. Both of which are caused by ignorance.

Now, if you want real examples of petulance, just re-read any post from an anti smoker on here.

David A. There is but one fact that is important and that is Passive Smoking is a LIE. Once you acknowledge that all else becomes clear. As F2C frequently point out. If you want to know the truth follow the money, it leads back, to Johnson and Johnson, Welcome Smith Kline and a variety of other drug co's who make smoking cessation products, and buy of Governments with 'freebies'. The Truth is Out There as Mulder would have said.

The real question is - what can be done about it? Are there any political parties prepared to stick their head above the parapet and make some concessions to the 25% of us who smoke?

I have no desire to go back to the old order - because that would be futile now - but allowing well ventilated smoking areas in public places would suffice I guess.

The green bandwagon has a lot to answer for. Any time politicians are confronted with logic and reason they hoist the green flag and accuse their tormentor of heresy.
I really, really detest the white-faced twisted lipped numpties who decided that nanny knows best and went for the most draconian ban they could think of. In practical terms it is even worse than Ireland in that it is policed much more rigorously.

I worked in Dublin until recently and some pubs in the city centre have 'smoking rooms' which are flagrantly in breach of the law. When I asked how this could happen I was told the establishments in question are in close proximity to the parliament and are frequented by Irish members of parliament who smoke !! One friend who owns a rural pub on the west coast of Ireland told me that the ashtrays come out as soon as the last 'visitor' leaves. It's a bit like the traditional French approach to crap legislation. They give the law a vague nod but ignore it.

However we can't do that - the roundheads are in charge. No doubt they will compile a smokers register and encourage people to turn in family and friends who enjoy the habit.

http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/story.php?story_id=411

This story certainly coincides with what we discovered here in Minneapolis / St. Paul where local smoking bans have led to the closing of over 100 bars and restaurants:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/01/100-bars-and-...

There is a better option available. Secondhand smoke should be regulated......not banned:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/03/secondhand-sm...

88 & 89 - Excellent points both.

David a writes;

" Sadly, the article, which purports to be factual, lacks even a modicum of factual information. Instead, it comes across as a petulant adolescent rant."

Oh and the much more enlightening

"#16 GET A LIFE!"

Do you have something to actually say here are are you just feasting on your own denials.

The article was well writen and expresses the facts as they stand. If you want to stick your head in the sand and protect the ignorance perpetuated; by well paid industry lobby groups who use you as a pawn. they increase bottom line profits, not only of the Tobacco industries but the entire market of addictive gateway drugs as well, be the fool or explain why reality is so hard to swollow

IN YOUR OPINION

If the world of parrots will alow you to express even that of your own valition.

I expect from you more parroted ad agency spin or compete silence as always.

When you ask the tough questions that can not be found in the play book that is the usual response

I challenge anyone singing praises for the bans with the same number of smokers for over 50 years, why have smoking caused diseases climbed so dramatically?

Is medical innovation useless?
Or are cigarettes more dangerous?
Tell me.

You can put aside the popular notion it is because it takes time for diseases to develop, because the non smokers added to the prevalence numbers would not get these diseases and therefore would not increase the numbers of smoking caused diseases.

Remember they state their case as 20% of total mortality is caused by smoking. Failure to realize the drop in smoker prevalence allows them to sustain the level of risk which does not exist any longer, due to their own claims smoking prevalence has dropped the studies are of groups in the past who smoked in much higher prevalence numbers.

You should also keep in mind, smoking has been around for much more

No brave souls here?

You want to know why I used the word " Pawns"

Here is an excellent example US Senator Kennedy is trying to get a bill passed which was co-authored by ASH's partnered band of thieves in co-operation with are you ready for this?

Phillip Morris???

A bill to protect Tobacco company interests for all time.

Spmsored by the American Cancer Society the Tobacco Free Kids network and a host of nortables in American High finance charities.

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/

With an FDA approval on the package cigarettes can become a safe and approved Government regulated product.

Only the smoke will be illegal and the cause of all our Health worries. A non entity which can never be held to account. Can you sue the smoke?

Makes as much sense as blaming the smoke. Fear of burning leaves make us all look like fools, while the main players divide their ill gotten gains.

The cause of the societal fear of burning leaves Fat pandemics, Bird flu, sars, Global warming and all the rest of the trash science we have been burried in lately?

For starters the UN partnering with profiters.
It was all downhill from there. Can we all repeat the words, illegal conflicted interests.

http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1999/en/pr99-04.html

So began the campaign of fear, You have come a long way baby.

Today hardly an industrial charity with more than a million in the bank is not partnered with the WHO. All hapily divining ways they can save us from our selves. Putting a little back in their own pockets at the same time doesn't hurt.

It is now in the trillions of dollars a year being paid from our pockets and tax dollars with the best yet to come.

The global warming scam will likely break our budgets for decades. The industries will hapily pay for the credits continue to pollute and pass the costs along with a little more for themselves to the consumers. Increasing bottom line profits just like the Tobacco companies did. While bragging about how they are saving the planet.

The best precusor of Health is personal economy. If this is about health why are all the lobbies focused on reducing your personal economy by encouraging higher taxes, fines and punishing consumer pricing?

IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.

Excellent comments Kevin.

I see you scared 'em all off.

Not used to common sense, truth, logic, or science, the anti's.......

Wow even I have learnt something tonight, thank you Kevin,
There are some wonderful informational posts on here.
Too many to mention.
Diana, it does not seem to take long for propaganda to take a hold, does it.
I see some people do not care if science is factual or not.
That is very worrying, surely the fact cancer is evil it benefits all of us to find the truth amongst the spin and lies.
The FDA and the Cancer society also had a lot to do with getting B17 laetrile banned I believe.
But that is another story

What makes the picture even more perverse is the fact population prevalence is also offset by live births and immigration.

If the population is still rising at .7% per year. The 1-2% increases in smoker prevalence is offset by those numbers as well, meaning the number of new smokers especially among the children is rising at an unbelievable rate. 3-4 times that of population increases.

That should be scary enough to get some of these ban fans off the bandwagon. if you think about the damage they have done already and how many billions of dollars it cost us to get there.

What will global warming or the anti fat campaign cost, and how far will they go in making an over weight person hate themselves?