Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Up in smoke

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 10 September 2006
IMAGINE that cigarettes were a brand new product. How would you market them? They're expensive, addictive, will give you twice as many wrinkles as a non-smoker and in the long term they'll ruin your health. Surely it would take an advertising genius to sell even a single packet?
If only it were that simple. The health message is out there, stamped on every packet that's sold. Cigarettes are deadly, but they're also legal. And for Scotland's young women, they're not just available - they're irresistible.

Recent figures show that 14% of Scotland's 15-year-old boys are regular smokers. For girls the figure rises to 24%. This might sound like a straightforward case of girls growing up faster, but there are repercussions. Women are also catching up with men at the far end of the smoking story. The incidence of lung cancer in men has fallen by more than 40% in the last two decades, but for women it continues to rise. In fact, lung cancer kills more British women than breast cancer does. Feminism has brought many perks, but when it comes to smoking, do women really want equality?

"The overall trend is away from tobacco in society, but it's slow because it has such a pervasive hold," says Maureen Moore, chief executive of ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) Scotland. "It's the only legally available consumer product that kills half the people who use it in the way the manufacturers intend."

Moore points out that although advertising tobacco is banned, there is a well-resourced industry doing its best to promote cigarettes. "There's still a hangover from smoking being considered a cool and glamorous thing to do, the way you see it in the films of the 1940s and 1950s."

Flick through any glossy magazine and you'll find images of musicians and actors looking rebellious, nonchalant and, yes, cool with a cigarette as an accessory. Whether it's Scarlett Johannsen puffing her way through Lost in Translation, Kate Moss having a fag backstage at a fashion show or Johnny Depp being interviewed about his plan to set up an airline where smoking would be mandatory, the link between smoking and glamour is a hard one to break.

It's too easy to say that teenagers start smoking because that's what their favourite stars do, but it is part of the overall picture. Professor Amanda Amos, head of health promotion at the University of Edinburgh's medical school, recently completed an extensive investigation into Scotland's teenage smokers. She says that many factors influence someone's decision to take up smoking, including the beliefs and attitudes of the individual, the immediate role models of friends and family, and physiological factors in terms of addiction to nicotine. At a societal level, she says that media images of smoking, the cost and accessibility of cigarettes and the government's smoking policy all play a part.

One of Professor Amos's key findings was that most young people who take up smoking never imagine they will still be doing it later in life. "Young people will say, 'Well, I'm only a social smoker,' and that means they smoke at weekends, at parties and friends' houses. Then they start to say, 'I'm becoming a real smoker,' when they begin to smoke daily and they move into smoking on their own."

Ben Youdan, chief executive of No Smoking Day, points out that two-thirds of smokers start before the age of 16. He says that one of the primary reasons for this is that smoking is an expression of being grown-up and taking risks. "Girls are becoming much bigger risk-takers than boys in all sorts of different health and social behaviours. Smoking is just one of these risks," he says.

"If you talk to young women about their smoking and ask them if they think they will still be smoking when they're 30, the vast majority say no. But the reality is that one or two cigarettes borrowed off a mate who's old enough to buy them, or pinched out of your mum's packet at home, very quickly becomes an addiction, and suddenly it becomes very hard to stop."

The research suggests that there are differences between teenage girls' and boys' attitudes to smoking. Sport plays a large part in dissuading young men from smoking, says Professor Amos. "They're more involved in sport. They watch it, talk about it and are therefore concerned about the impact smoking might have on their fitness," she says.

Being successful in sport helps form part of teenage boys' identities; it's a source of friendships and has an importance in their lives to a much larger extent than for girls. For young women, appearance and creating an image are more important. "Girls might use cigarettes to look older. They mature physically earlier and also tend to get older boyfriends, so going out and smoking fits in with that. We've also seen far more girls drinking far more alcohol. Smoking just fits in with that whole lifestyle."

One long-held belief that keeps women of all ages hooked is that smoking keeps you slim. Faced with a craving for both a Twix and a Marlboro Light, the cigarette wins on the basis that it has fewer calories. Certainly, the many photos of supermodels existing on cigarettes and champagne seem to provide anecdotal evidence that this theory works.

Moore says that believing in cigarettes as a slimming aid is misguided. "What actually happens is that smoking interferes with the metabolism so that a girl doesn't reach the weight she would normally have reached, and she may tend to put on more weight when she stops," she says.

Unlike calorie-counting, smoking is a lifestyle choice that has abysmal health repercussions. But when you're 16, these risks can seem distant. "Many smoking-related diseases take a long time to develop, so someone who starts smoking might only begin to show symptoms after ten or 20, or even 30, years," says Moore. "For a teenager, that's quite hard to get your head round, whereas looking cool and being slim and fitting in with the right crowd now is powerful."

Ann Kerr, the health improvement programme manager for NHS Health Scotland, specialises in tobacco misuse, and she says that the issue of girls and smoking is an area of major concern. "I don't think that young people realise just how addictive cigarettes are until they try to stop," she says. "We have always run two strands of campaigns, one addressing adults and one addressing younger people. That is something we will continue to develop."

Moore agrees that some of these strategies have been highly effective, such as the Stinks campaign, which made much of the fact that smoking makes you smell bad - not an attribute any self-respecting teenager would want. "But I think the tobacco industry has been very astute about targeting its messages and its market," she says. "The health promotion side is just catching up and countering it with positive images and information."

But some would argue that demonising smoking simply makes it more attractive. For example, Death Cigarettes - a brand launched in the early 1990s that featured a skull and crossbones on the packaging, along with the warning 'Cigarettes are addictive and debilitating. If you don't smoke, don't start' - enjoyed huge cult success among teenagers. Neil Rafferty, of pro-choice group Forest, says that many anti-smoking measures have served to make children more curious. "It will go full circle. Smoking will become fashionable again because so many figures in authority are telling you that it's wrong," he says. "A more sensible approach would be to say to kids, 'Smoking is something that some people do. It's not cool, there's nothing particularly good about it, but there's nothing particularly evil either. It's a normal thing, but it's really bad for you.'"

Curiosity and rebellion are not the only reasons why young people start smoking. Professor Amos's research found that for teenage girls smoking was a way of dealing with stress, relationship problems and low self-esteem. Research carried out for No Smoking Day shows that this trend continues into adulthood, with 48% of women smokers, compared with only 35% of men, reporting that they would not be able to cope without cigarettes. The same research found that stress is a significant trigger for women who have already quit to start smoking again.

Tobacco might help women cope with stress, but the benefits are wiped out by smokers having reduced fertility, a greater risk of osteoporosis, a higher risk of miscarrying, and babies that will be on average 0.25kg (8oz) lighter than those born to non-smoking mothers. In terms of sheer vanity, the fact that smoking results in extra wrinkles is enough to make most women regret that they ever started.

The longer you smoke, the more the health risks grow. While breast cancer is a disease that is openly talked about and sees plenty of fundraising to help fight it, lung cancer kills more women in Britain. Smoking causes up to 90% of lung cancer cases, and - although it's not polite to say so - there seems to be a blame culture, which hints that developing lung cancer is your own fault.

Some 4,500 people are diagnosed every year with lung cancer in Scotland, and incidence rates here are 48% higher in women and 34% higher in men than in the rest of the UK. Only one in five patients will still be alive one year after diagnosis. New drugs mean progress is being made in treating lung cancer, but health promoters hope that similar gains will be made in persuading people not to take up smoking or to quit if they do. There has recently been serious discussion about raising the legal age for purchasing cigarettes from 16 to 18, while the ban on smoking in public places has led to a huge increase in calls to smoking-cessation helplines. "Nearly all smokers are ambivalent about smoking. They see pluses and negatives," says Professor Amos. "But these wider things - not seeing tobacco ads, not being so exposed to smoking, the price of cigarettes, providing cessation support - make a difference. We have really moved forward in the last few years in Scotland."

Moore backs the notion that it will take wider cultural change to really make an impact on women and smoking. "Every household in the country has someone or knows someone who has been affected by tobacco-related illness," she says.

"But it has been accepted for so long. The overall picture is that smoking rates are dropping, and 70% of smokers who are surveyed say they want to quit. Tobacco would never make the shelves today as a consumer product. But as a nation we have grown up with it and now we're having to wean ourselves off it." r

Lung cancer: the facts


• Lung cancer is the biggest cancer killer in Scotland and was responsible for almost 15,000 deaths in 2004.

• Each year, around 4,500 people are diagnosed with the disease, and incidence rates are 48% higher in women living in Scotland than in the rest of the UK.

• Lung cancer is rarely diagnosed in people under 40, but the incidence rises greatly thereafter, peaking in the 75-84 age group.

• Although the overall incidence of lung cancer in men has fallen by more than 40% in the last 20 years, in women the figures are increasing. More women in the UK die of lung cancer than of breast cancer.

• Symptoms of lung cancer include breathing difficulties, coughing up blood and chest pain, symptoms that are often confused with those of other illnesses.

• Smoking causes 85% to 90% of lung cancer cases. Your chances of developing lung cancer depend more on the length of time you have been a smoker than on the number of cigarettes you smoke each day.

• X-rays and CT scans can be used to diagnose lung cancer, but it takes about ten years for a lung cancer tumour to become detectable.

• Treatment options include surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and new treatments such as Tarceva. About 85% of patients will be in the advanced stages of the disease and will not be suitable for curative surgery.

• For most patients with lung cancer, the prognosis for survival is poor. Only 20% will be alive one year after diagnosis, falling to 6% five years after diagnosis.

• As soon as someone stops smoking, the risk of developing lung cancer starts to drop. About 15 years after stopping smoking, the risk of getting lung cancer is down to that of a non-smoker.

Smoke and mirrors


MANY products have been recommended over the years as being essential in a beauty regime, but a cigarette isn't one of them. Smokers have about ten times as many wrinkles as non-smokers. Squinting through tobacco smoke and puckering your lips around cigarettes speed up the appearance of lines near the eyes and mouth. A smoker in her 40s could have as many wrinkles as a non-smoker in her 60s.

Smoking decreases the flow of nutrients to the hair, leaving you with dank, lacklustre and smelly locks. It also reduces the amount of blood flowing to the skin and dries it out. Over time, this means it loses elasticity, and the lack of essential nutrients results in a dull, unhealthy complexion. And as for your fingers, it will take more than fake tan to hide those yellow stains.

Smoking also has some unexpected effects on the shape of your body. It causes changes in the glands that secrete hormones, meaning that smokers store more body fat around the waist and upper torso than on the hips. The resulting high waist-to-hip ratio is associated with a heightened risk of developing diseases such as diabetes, coronary heart disease and high blood pressure.

It's not just the colour of your teeth that can be affected by smoking. Cigarettes also increase your chances of developing gum disease, which can lead to bad breath and premature tooth loss.

Quitting smoking lowers your chances of developing psoriasis, a chronic skin condition that can be uncomfortable and disfiguring.

Benefits of quitting smoking


• Within 20 minutes, blood pressure and pulse return to normal and circulation improves, making hands and feet warmer.

• Within eight hours, the chances of a heart attack start to fall.

• Within 20 hours, carbon monoxide clears from the body and oxygen levels rise, increasing energy.

• Within 48 hours, the body is free of nicotine and senses of taste and smell improve.

• Within three days, breathing is easier as bronchial tubes begin to relax.

• Within a few weeks, fingers lose yellow stains and skin looks better.

• Within three months, circulation is improved.

• Within three to nine months, lungs are clear of most of the mucus and tar that have accumulated over the years. You feel fitter and are free of coughs and wheezing.

• Within five years, the risk of a heart attack has fallen to about half that of a smoker.

• Within ten years, the risk of contracting lung cancer has fallen to half that of a smoker, and the risk of heart attack is the same as for a non-smoker.

Celebrity smokers past and present


FROM Audrey Hepburn daintily puffing away in Breakfast at Tiffany's to Uma Thurman using cigarettes as a chic accessory in Pulp Fiction, smoking has always been associated with on-screen style. Some of the strongest film and TV characters ever created would be lost without a cigarette - look at Sybil Fawlty, Patsy Stone in Ab Fab and Carrie Bradshaw in Sex and the City for starters. And for many of the actresses in question, being a smoker isn't just part of the act.

Before the Second World War, when the dangers of smoking were not fully realised, many Hollywood stars were known for their love of cigarettes. Marlene Dietrich advertised Lucky Strike and Lucille Ball was sponsored by Philip Morris cigarettes, while Rita Hayworth and Lana Turner used smoking to help them perfect the femme fatale look. As for notorious smoker Bette Davis, actor Henry Fonda once said, "I've been close to Bette Davis for 38 years, and I have the cigarette burns to prove it." Unfortunately, many of this generation of leading ladies had to face the repercussions of tobacco-related diseases, including Barbara Bel Geddes and Betty Grable, as well as Jackie Kennedy.

Today's icons have continued to smoke, despite knowing all about the damage it will do to their famous faces. Kate Moss, Charlize Theron, Sienna Miller, Kate Winslet and Cameron Diaz are just a few glamour girls who have been photographed fag in hand, while Drew Barrymore admits that she started at the age of just nine.

But there are a few who have managed to quit. Salma Hayek gave up, despite developing a taste for nicotine while filming Frida Kahlo. Charlotte Church quit after realising it was affecting her voice, and former model Christy Turlington not only gave up but became a high-profile anti-smoking campaigner.

Case studies


Dorothy Boyle

Lung cancer research nurse, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh

ASK anybody what causes lung cancer, and they'll say smoking. Cigarette packets spell it out - 'Smoking kills' and 'Smoking causes cancer' - so the feeling often seems to be that if you smoke it's your own fault if you get lung cancer. But what people don't look at is the reasons why smokers take up the habit in the first place.

Research has found that women start smoking early due to the need for social status among their peer group. This pressure to conform and look good means that girls often continue smoking as a way to help them stay slim. Adult women smoke to help boost their confidence - one survey found that 61% of women in Scotland who smoked felt they were emotionally dependent on cigarettes, while 48% said they felt more confident in social settings with the aid of a cigarette.

Back in the 1970s, the tobacco industry investigated why women smoke, and used the results to produce female-orientated cigarettes - slimline, menthol and low-tar versions, with packets in light colours - and sponsored events such as the Virginia Slims tennis tour.

There is a ban on advertising tobacco in the UK now, but you still see cigarettes in films and magazines. Younger girls taking up smoking now don't use low-tar cigarettes, so they get hooked more easily. Research shows that women develop an addiction to nicotine and an addiction to habitual smoking more quickly than men, and when trying to stop the withdrawal symptoms are worse.

Here at the hospital, people who have been diagnosed with lung cancer do talk about smoking, and we always offer them smoking-cessation classes and nicotine patches. It's never too late to quit: even after getting lung cancer, stopping smoking will increase your chances of survival.

We need to tackle the issue of teenage girls and smoking. Giving up is difficult, but we will do everything to help people who want to. The one message I would like to get across is that there's no blame culture here for smokers with lung cancer. We won't tolerate a blame culture within the NHS.

Lucy Caldwell, 33

Marketing manager, Edinburgh

I STARTED smoking at 19, when I was at university. I was a social smoker to start off with, and then it became a habit. When I was a student I was probably smoking about 20 cigarettes a day, but I cut back to about ten after I graduated and started working.

I did enjoy smoking for a while, but when I wanted to stop I realised that it wasn't going to be easy to give up. I was 25 when I made my first attempt. I was getting ahead in my career and had started to live a healthier lifestyle, going to the gym and all that, and smoking was affecting my fitness. I wasn't able to quit at the first attempt - I tried a couple of times with nicotine-replacement patches, but I didn't have much success. Then a friend recommended Allen Carr's How to Give up Smoking, and that's what worked for me.

I didn't quite believe the book would work while I was reading it. You are supposed to keep smoking up until you finish the last page. But then, miraculously, I did stop when I finished it, and I have never felt like starting again. I found that the book attacked all the beliefs I held about smoking and how difficult it was to give up, and it convinced me that I could quit without side-effects.

That was seven years ago, and it does feel like a major achievement. But I do really understand how difficult it is for people to quit. I think that the smoking ban in public places is fantastic - I never liked sitting in smoky restaurants even when I was a smoker, and I think it'll go a long way towards helping other people give up as well.

Jenine Armand, 34

Retail merchandiser, Earlston

I FIRST tried smoking when I was 13, but I didn't start properly until I was 15. My parents didn't smoke, although my grandparents did.

Young people copy what older people do, and seeing celebrities smoking can glamorise it. I remember having one cigarette, then buying a pack of ten, which lasted a week. Then a pack of ten lasted a day, then I went on to 20 a day. I got hooked at quite an early age.

I enjoy smoking, but I want to stop for health, financial and cosmetic reasons. I have tried to give up many times. I had hypnotherapy in my mid-20s, which worked, temporarily at least. I've also tried nicotine-replacement patches - I'm just about to have my third attempt with those. I stopped for a year and a half about three years ago, after doing patches, but it must have been a crisis or stress that made me start smoking again. Cigarettes are the first thing you go for when you're stressed.

I definitely think I have an addiction to nicotine, but I know smoking is also a habit - from buying cigarettes and carrying a packet with you, to smoking when you're on a night out, to just having something in your hand. Not having cigarettes on me would be like going out without my jewellery.

I spend a fortune on cigarettes, but if you're a smoker you will always find money to smoke.

Health-wise, 19 years of smoking are going to take their toll, and that's a concern. I've read about wrinkles and seen photos in magazines of 60-year-old women smokers, and I don't want to end up looking like that. I eat fruit to be healthy, but then the cigarettes deplete your vitamin C.

The smoking ban has affected my smoking pattern - I've got a company car, so I can't have a cigarette in that any more. But it doesn't stop me - I just light up at different times. I think that if you have an addictive personality, you'll be all or nothing, regardless.

The full article contains 3882 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 07 September 2006 1:50 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Tobacco , Smoking issues
 
1

BeeGee,

Lockerbie 10/09/2006 13:30:08

Maureen Moore has openly lied throughout this debate...and yes I have the proof. She has on many occasions stated that it takes winds of hurricane or tornado force to clear a room of Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Where is her proof I ask...she would no doubt point to a statement made by James Repace on one of his so called lecture tours as her evidence. She has also stated that there is no safe level of air quality where ETS is concerned. Wrong again I am afraid, the U.S.A. Occupational Safety & Health Administration has clearly set out a safe level of indoor air quality. This lady is a menace to society who will not accept any invitation to debate the various issues in the public arena but seems to command too much media attention for the good of the nation.

2

claire,

10/09/2006 13:36:47

here we go again!!! is there no end to their demonisation tactics??? All the usual smokers stink, smokers cant get an erection (families of 10 were common when men smoked untipped cigs and worked down mines) smokers die younger (go tell the smoking oaps). Why on earth do they want us to live so long!!! that would be no good for the state of the old age pension! Im exhausted listening to them all banging the same old drum! Ok its bad, we know but who the hell are they to tell us what we can and cant do? Stop selling the bloody things if they are that bad and be done with it, then we can all live in cloud cookoo land and wonder when to sort out our first skiing holiday and bungee jumping for the over 90s! I think Ill have another cig while I contemplate what Im going to do with that extra 80 years i'll have if I give up!!!

3

Donnie,

10/09/2006 17:53:17

I realy dont know how Maureen Moore gets away with the things she says. So smoking kills half of the people who do it, I havnt noticed 7+ million of the 14 + million people that smoke dying every year and if this statement were true why does it only kill half of smokers why does it not affect the other half? Smoking is never listed on a persons death certificate so where do they get their figures from. ASH never goes into battle with the Tobacco Industry they target the consumer instead, demonising them, persecuting them, harrassing them making life as miserable as possible for them for doing what buying a perfectly legal product of which 75% of the cost is tax. ASH are the tobacco taliban, we dont like smoking so therefore you carnt do it because we say its not good for you. Removal of choice is always the way of a dictator and a bully. People who want to remove the freedom of others to do and think as they please are communists. Commrade Moore should realy stitch a red star on her attire.

4

David from New Mills,

New Mills 10/09/2006 20:21:03

#2,Claire 77.
Claire's obviously having another bad day, but I would just confirm for her benefit once more that I am not Bungo.
She seems to have a problem in accepting simple facts or perhap is uncomfortable with the possibility that there may be more than one articulate anti-smoker.
I know that medical science has made great strides, but I shouldn't imagine that she really believes she might live to the age of 122.
She seems also to have adopted Charlie Chuckle's propensity for multiple exclamation marks, though thankfully not his inappropriate use of block capitals, but ignores the standard convention of beginning sentences with capitals.
Mind you if she had asked if I am Me Bungo Pony.........

5

claire,

10/09/2006 21:41:27

Hi Me Bungo Pony/David, you fell into my trap!!! I purposely didn't start my sentences with capitals as I knew you would spot it a mile off! lol I rather like the exclamation marks, they're very effective!

Back to the point we are spouting about, I wonder how long before ASH and Co run out of things to blame us for? They are really starting to scrape the barrel and big pharma are getting plenty of adverts screened for their pharmaceutical rubbish. Mark my words - smoking rates will increase after the ban. Crafty government need to keep big tobacco performing well so that their pensions are safe! Have a pleasant evening!

6

Seasider,

Blackpool 10/09/2006 22:21:46

They seem to stereotype every smoker! saying we are all going to get the same problems,i know a lady who is seventysix years old who has smoked since she was sixteen and looks well and has hardly a line on her face! so it just goes to show were not all going to look like prunes if we smoke!

7

BeeGee,

11/09/2006 10:22:04

Having thought long and hard...I yet again challenge Maureen Moore and Andy Kerr to an open public debate on the issues surrounding Smoking and Passive Smoking. This subject will not go away as businesses get hit hard over the winter months and will form considerable debate with the Scottish Elections looming next May.

8

David from New Mills,

New Mills 11/09/2006 12:39:24

#5, Claire.
I did not need the lack of initial capitals to identify Claire as she can be recognised from her literary style and repetitive onslaughts.
The use of exclamation marks and block capitals can indeed be effective when employed sparingly, but suffers from excessive repetition.
I have no problem with smokers continuing to feed their addiction, as well as the Treasury's coffers, as long as their effluent doesn't reach my nostrils.
Stay cool!
David, the agile escapee,not to be confused with Me Bungo Pony.

9

__-Steve-__,

11/09/2006 13:39:46

David me bungo !!!!!!!!!!

Nothing to add to the discussion as usual !!!!!!!!!

Perhaps you would like to propose a grammer and spelling test at the entrance to pubs. !!!!!!

10

Chuckles,

London 11/09/2006 14:18:28

Hi 8david/me bungo pony/ Llanarc here we meet again!!!! Rather a long article however!!!!

oh the usual ASH bulls**t being spouted again!!

Im afraid our friend Bill has the proof- problem is that ugly repulsive creature Maureen Moore is too scared to confront him or others- why?? Cos she knows she'd lose comprehensively!!!! And the her beloved smoking ban im terribly sorry would simply end up in the tip of history!! If lucky in a GCSE textbook!!!! Too basic for A-levels or International Bacalaureate(which i personally did)!!!!!!

7 Bill i agree with you the winter months will be key!!!!! Still the antis are being chickens!!!!

claire good to find you back on this site!! The exclamation marks are great!! Too right smoking rates will increase look at Ireland!!

Ventilation not blanket legislation is the key!!
7Bill sorry to bother could you put on this site the Spanish smoking law so our Dave could see!!

There it all works fine!! Except for Davids, Lilacs and Maureen Moores

11

claire,

11/09/2006 16:49:27

David - hate to correct you but you wouldn't expect anything less from me! "effluent" is defined as sewage being flowed out. However, effluence means to flow out. The word was in the right context but the word effluence and not effluent should have been used!!!! (dont you just love the exclamation marks!!!!).

It's time our mate Maureen Moore was hauled over the coals and made to prove her point. The thing is she can't do it can she!!! Is it so hard to have smoking and non smoking venues? She is going to be a very effective weapon in bringing the labour party down as there's 14 million people who are really upset about her severe lack of common decency and that's before we mention Iraq!!!!!! I think Ive got repetitive strain!!!!!

12

Chuckles,

11/09/2006 18:45:50

Yeah dave8 Claire's right!! Maureen Moore has a purpose- albeit a rather negative one- to bring down the labour Party!!!! Her only contribution to society!!!!

Moore cant prove s***!!

So hard dave to have different venues and separate areas!!!! Why so hard??

Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine- the list can go on- we live in a scary world!!!! Do you think the labour party has done anything to make this world safer?? Er no!!

13

David from New Mills,

New Mills 11/09/2006 20:13:25

#9, _-Steve-_ of undesignated abode.
I hate to be repetitive, but would confirm that I am neither Bungo nor Me Bungo Pony. Steve appears to share Claire 77's distaste of unpalatable facts, although he has still to attain Charlie Chuckle's degree of the misuse of exclamation marks.
In case he missed it, "I have no problem with smokers continuing to feed their addiction, as well as the Treasury's coffers, as long as their effluent doesn't reach my nostrils".
A simple "No smoking" sign will suffice.
Oh, and grammar is usually spelt with an "a" before the final "r".

14

Chuckles,

london 11/09/2006 20:17:56

Oh David13 you ignored my whole post and the points didnt you!!!!

Have the owner decide!!!!

Secondly this is not meant to be a grammar lesson is it??

15

David from New Mills,

New Mills 11/09/2006 20:37:42

#10,Charlie Chuckles.
Sorry, but his allusion to Llanarc I do not understand, and feel we have neither met nor corresponded in the past.
I don't feel obliged to reply to his diatribe, but would point out the requirement of the Scotsman not to be offensive. I have not met Maureen Moore nor Claire 77, but would not deign to label either as an "ugly repulsive creature". Use of personal insults merely sabotages his attempts at constructive argument. I am impressed by his sitting or passing (not clear which) the international Baccalaureate, though I do think it is spelt with a double "c".
I feel no personal animosity towards Maureen Moore, Lilac Hamster or any Me Bungo Pony clones.

16

David from New Mills,

New Mills 11/09/2006 20:56:15

#11, Claire.
I am genuinely indebted to Claire for pointing out the subtle difference between effluence and effluent, as I am always willing to expand my education, although I do still feel my choice of word was not inappropriate.
If the 14 million number refers to the number of smokers in the U.K., I'm not sure they are all willing to riot in the streets or attempt in some way to restrict Maureen Moore's right to freedom of speech. I agree you certainly suffer from some form of repetition.
Oh, and I don't think effluence is a verb

17

David from New Mills,

New Mills 11/09/2006 21:11:28

#14,Charlie Chuckles.
My post #13 was in response to _-Steve-_. Are he and Charlie one and the same?
I don't understand "Have the owner decide". Perhaps we should indeed revert to grammar lessons, let alone "A" levels or Baccalauréats.

18

__-Steve-__,

11/09/2006 23:06:14

David,

You were a bit vague; where would you like no-smoking signs posted? All places, some places, other people's places?

19

Chuckles,

london 11/09/2006 23:51:01

15 david so why do you refer to me as chuckles and claire as "claire77"?? That shows your bungo bongo whatever the name is!!!! Well in regards to Maureen Moore i havent met her but ive seen pictures to tell me!!!!

No by the way im not Steve!! And i passed my exams!!

"Have the owner decide"
means leaving smoking policy decisions to the owner providing they put out signs telling the public what their policy is!!

Steve18 i think he wants them anywhere the public has access to- including outside!!

20

David from New Mills,

New Mills 12/09/2006 08:27:04

#18, Steve.
Any preference of mine is superfluous as signage is covered by the Health Act, 2006, and I believe the coresponding Scottish and Irish legislation.

21

David from New Mills,

New Mills 12/09/2006 08:58:20

#19, Charles/Charlie.
My allusions to Chuckles and Claire77 do not prove that I am either Bingo, Bongo or Bango. They simply indicate that I have visited "filthysmokers.com", although perhaps I share Claire(77')s paranoia about multiple personalities? I am David of New Mills, and have no other noms de plume. I still don't understand references to Llanarc(?).
I have seen a photograph of Maureen Moore, and didn't consider her ugly, and certainly wouldn't deign to voice that opinion as a poor man's debating point. Perhaps ugliness lies in the eye of the beholder?
I didn't believe Charlie to be Steve, but he did refer to my #13 in response to Steve at #9, as if it were addressed to him, that is Charlie.
Well done! I passed my exams too!
Until such time as the appropriate current legislation is repealed or amended, decisions about smoking restrictions in enclosed public spaces are not the prerogative of the owner.

22

ChrisC,

12/09/2006 08:59:02

Leaving apart all the back-biting of other posts and get back to the facts.
No paper gives the Pro-Chioce lobby or smokers so much space as this paper gives the well-funded anti-smoking movement.
Are the exagerations, lies and the social division promoted by these articles rewarded in some way?

It seems amazing that the way of life of millions of their countryfolk is thought to be unacceptable by the privileged. Public money is diverted from Department of Health and NHS funds to demonise citizens whilst DoH and NHS incompetence is the root of a failing health system held together only by the dedication and hard work of the undervalued health workers.
Any Government that is incapable of respecting the perceived needs of its people destroys democracy.

23

__-Steve-__,

12/09/2006 09:29:00

Chris (22)

You raise some excellent points.

Yes the propoganda is rewarded; health scares sell newspapers, they also sell billions of pounds of vitamin supplements, sun creams and plastic cigarettes.

The politicians need to be seen to be doing something. Blair promised to transform the health service before coming to power by pumping money into it; he was forced to admit that didn't work and the health service was in crisis but instead of saying he got it wrong he told us that the crisis was our fault for getting ill. The former chairman of Nat West did a report stating that the nation needed to be healthier to avoid further crisis in the health service and the government jumped on that bandwagon. Thus was born "healthy living" and the war against drinkers, smokers and fat people.

They seem to completely ignore the fact that the same number of people will die or be treated in hospitals; unhealthy people will just be there sooner and more people living into 'old age' will cost more not less.

24

not allowed my name anymore,

12/09/2006 12:01:34

divide and conquer

soon smokers will be hated by the majority, then the fatties will be demonised then hated by the majority. drinkers? yup, them too.

who will be the majority then? with all the hate going on, the police will have to step in.

give it 20 years or so, my predition........regret, that will be the majority.

25

Chuckles,

London 12/09/2006 19:07:54

David21 guess your tastes are pretty low!!!!
Perhaps go to a mediterranean country and youll see wat im talking about- she(MM)'d be too ugly there!!!! Well done for passing your A- Levels or whatever the Scottish equivalent is(i dont know much about Scotland myself) im only 1/32 Scottish however!!!!

Well such property rights killing legislation should and must be destroyed as soon as possible!!!! Cos bars and restaurants are not public!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So let the owner decide and customers decide with their wallets thats democracy!!

About true public places though it is the government's decision- that is hospitals, airports, train stations and public transport!!!!!!!

So im sorry to say your wish of "clean air" (difficult to define) is something that you are ramming down peoples throats so draw a line and respect owners rights!!!!!!!!!!!!

26

Chuckles,

London 12/09/2006 19:08:32

note sorry too many exclamation marks!!!!

27

David from New Mills,

New Mills 12/09/2006 21:17:20

#25/26.
Charlie Chuckles would appear to be more than a little stressed out, perhaps from overwork in the circus ring or as a children's entertainer?
However, I shall endeavour to make some sense of his postings and reply accordingly.
Charlie has no idea of what my tastes may be, and I didn't realise that the Med. was the province exclusively of sylph like figures, or whatever his concept of beauty may be.
I would repeat that contributions should not be offensive, either towards M/s Maureen Moore or contributors.
His congratulations regarding my academic qualifications are noted, but somewhat belated in view of the passage of time subsequently.
Not sure that Charlie knows much about anything, and his 1/32 Scottish genealogy is presumably a mere accident of birth.
I would repeat that if he is not happy with current legislation, he should endeavour to have it changed or repealed and not confuse legislative restrictions with market forces.
The definition of enclosed public spaces is contained within the relative legislation for those who care to seek it.
Not clear about the clean air definition, but would repeat that " I have no problem with smokers continuing to feed their addiction, as well as the Treasury's coffers, as long as their effluent doesn't reach my nostrils".
As a change from endless exclamation marks, may I suggest he intersperses these with the ampersand and hash keys. This would then approximate to the convention employed by those depicting Tom and Jerry and other cartoonists to indicate expletives, and is probably akin to the recalcitrant child being banished to his room without Ovaltine and muttering "Damn, poo, jobby, toley, weewees, knickers" under his breath.
May he sleep well, with or without the Ovaltine.

28

Chuckles,

London 13/09/2006 00:01:34

#27
Charlie dosent work in a circus!! I thought David did!!

My concept of beauty involves tastes- both looks and personality as well!!!! As i say ive only been to scotland once years ago so i dont know much about what Scottish tastes for women constitute!!!! But i guess not too high since no offence but there's better looking races in general!!!! Though of course there are exceptions and i do personally know many good looking Scottish women!!

Well i thought Dave had feelings for free speech obviously not- arent i allowed to say that in my opinion Maureen Moore is ugly??
Or is she a goddess for having "saved"(put out of work) the bar workers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Well i know people who are trying to have the stupid law repealed!!!! Cos such businesses should be governed by market forces!!

How are PRIVATE clubs public????

you think your nostrils dictate everything?? In nfact id so love to blow cigar smoke up your nose- unfortunately i wouldnt do no harm!!!!

29

Chuckles,

London 13/09/2006 00:04:47

#27 again sorry didnt reply earlier too busy watching football!!!! Both my teams won comftorbly so nothing to complain about!!!!

30

claire,

13/09/2006 00:34:46

David 16 - effluence is a noun as is effluent. Who the hell mentioned verbs?? You should have used the word effluence. Instead, you used the word effluent which is exclusively liquid waste and sewage!!!!!! sorry, its those damned exclamation marks again!!!!! Hope you are having a pleasant evening. I am still completely convinced that you are our very own Me Bungo Pony and if not how do you know lilac??

31

__-Steve-__,

13/09/2006 08:30:29

David (27)

It is interesting that you caution Charlie for his comments on Moore's appearance, which is clearly his personal opinion and one shared by many others. You are happy, however to be guilty of the same sort of generalisation when it suits; you have repeated many times that you have no objection to smokers as long as it doesn't reach your nostrils, indicating that you think smoke smells bad. This is another personal opinion and is not shared by everyone.

Your double standards are confirmed by the fact that you never point out generalisations, personal attacks or grammar corrections to other anti-smoking posts, only to those with which you disagree but have no on topic argument with which to counter. Keep up the good work; it is nice that readers can see you have no argument or constructive comments on the subject; just a 'holier than thou' attitude.

32

Chuckles,

London 13/09/2006 09:35:03

Steve31 perfect description of David!!!! Such double standards!! So true he has a holier than thou attitude thats all there is to him given his argument is baseless!!
Dont you agree i have every right to critisize Moore's appearance when David is talking simply smoke smelling bad and that it should be banned for his personal opinion!!!!

David(27) by the way heres proof that ventilation works:

http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/378607542/m/...


But youll probably say its biased given it disagrees with you so i wont bother saying much more!! Youll probably say its set up by special interests- is ASH and other antis groups not set up by such??

33

Chuckles,

London 13/09/2006 09:55:32

You think this is ok: throwing people onto the streets:

http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/378607542/m/...

34

Chuckles,

London 13/09/2006 10:03:14

Sorry David27 again just showing proof above of what a bunch of human filth or cockroaches(whichever description suits you better) antismokers really are!!!!

35

Chuckles,

London 13/09/2006 10:18:17

david27 again- this could be you or lilac:

http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/378607542/m/...

36

David from New Mills,

New Mills 13/09/2006 13:05:14

#30 Claire.
Claire at #11 said "effluence means to flow out."
Both Me Bungo Pony and myself have denied we are one and the same, but she will persist in her delusion.
I do not know Lilac Hamster.
At #21 I stated "They simply indicate that I have visited "filthysmokers.com" ", hence my allusions to Lilac Hamster.
Me Bungo Pony has not been contributing of late. Perhaps if he were to do so, Claire might at last be convinced we are two people, or she may just continue to believe it to be a case of two noms de plume for the one contributor.
Hey ho!

37

David from New Mills,

New Mills 13/09/2006 20:53:51

#31 _-Steve-_
I have no problem with Charlie/Charles or anyone else expressing a personal opinion on the attractiveness or otherwise of M/s Maureen Moore, Darth Vader, or John Prescott or any other individual. Such comments simply detract from the force of any argument.
My aversion to inhaling tobacco fumes is not purely a matter of personal distaste, but is shared by many others as is evident from numerous contributions to different discussion forums. If _-Steve-_ finds this hard to accept, on request I shall find examples and give him references.
By the nature of argument and discussion, it is more normal to correct or rebut those of an opposite viewpoint. I do not tend to congratulate those of the same opinion, as this does not further dabate, but I do feel that the anti-smoking lobby, "zealots" or otherwise, does tend to make cogent, reasoned, and thoughtfully constructed arguments.
Readers of these postings are probably quite capable of deciding for themselves whether my arguments have any validity.

38

__-Steve-__,

14/09/2006 08:33:10

David (37)

In post 27 you said... "I would repeat that contributions should not be offensive, either towards M/s Maureen Moore or contributors". Could you point out where you have ever said anything similar to an anti-smoker who calls smokers filthy, stinky lepers or would that, as you say, be rebutting "those of the same opinion" as you?

I completely respect your aversion to smoke and understand that there are others like you. What I do not respect is the view of some of these people that they have a human right to smells of choice in someone else's pub. If there were indeed a lot of people with this aversion I'm sure there would have been many non-smoking pubs without a need for a ban.

With regard to the anti-smokers making "cogent, reasoned, and thoughtfully constructed arguments"..
perhaps you could enlighten us with one. Can we start with the passive smoke myth? The 150 studies on the subject show no risk to a scientifically recognised standard, real measurements show the contents of smoke to be over 1000 times below safe levels and more harmful chemicals are produced when frying a steak.

If you think the anti-smoking movement makes "thoughtfully constructed arguments" perhaps also you could explain why they vehemently oppose smokeless cigarettes which have been shown, in Sweden, to elimante all but one known risks to smokers. Why also do they oppose an indoor air quality policy? Wouldn't eliminating many of the 400 known indoor carcinogens that have nothing to do with smoke be beneficial to health? Could the fact that they would have to ban cooking before they could ban smoking under such a policy have something to do with the fact that they oppose it? Would you consider it a "cogent" argument if someone called you a child abuser for frying a steak in front of a child?

Zealot is not the word; bigot would be more appropriate to describe the intolerance of these people.

39

Chuckles,

London 14/09/2006 11:48:55

Steve(38) spot on!! Exatly how on earth are the anti-tobacco zealots making coherent arguments by opposing anything other than 100% smoking bans imposed on private property owners against their will??????

40

David from New Mills,

New Mills 14/09/2006 14:54:00

#38 _-Steve-_
A refreshing change to see an argument not permeated with personal insults and repetitive exclamation remarks, so in reply:-
I am not familiar with his quotation, but while I certainly regard smoking as a filthy habit, I do not regard smokers per se to be filthy and stinky, and certainly do not condone use of the emotive term "lepers", any more than Charlie's "self righ(t)eous cow" in another thread. Such remarks merely detract from the force of any argument the correspondent has to make. I trust this answers his point.
The "someone else's pub" argument is irrelevant in that pubs along with other businesses are covered by the legislation. The licensed trade largely, under the AIR system, chose to maintain the status quo, by employing "Smoking permitted throughout" signs. The legislation removes that easy option, but hasn't imposed a ban, merely restrictions.
Both sides on the smoking issue have argued at length on the harmful effects of passive smoking. I do not propose to continue that debate, which I find as useful as discussing how many angels could stand on a pinhead. HMG has chosen to listen to the hypothesis of the detrimental effects and framed the legislation accordingly.
If the pro-smoking lobby, its allies, proponents and defendants believe the legislation approved by both Houses of Parliament to be based on flawed evidence, they are entitled, in a democracy, to further their cause at the ballot box, by seeking a judicial review, or referring to the European Court of Human Rights.
I have no personal problem with people choosing to stick smokeless tobacco up their nostrils or any other of their bodily orifices.
Indoor air quality can easily be improved by smokers going outside. If people want to ban public cooking, see options outlined two paras. above, though personally I've never been a great lover of barbecues.
I feel the emotive term "child abuser"

41

David from New Mills,

New Mills 14/09/2006 15:10:24

#39 Charlie/Charles,London.
See #40 regarding the private property argument. Public houses are covered by the legislation just as much as other enclosed public places. He should study the legislation for the appropriate definitions. If he's still not happy, see available democratic options as in #40 above.
I would point out that "private" properties are subject to many regulations and statutes. Planning and building regs., fire regulations, public and environmental health requirements spring readily to mind.
It is not the prerogative of the "private" property owner or entrepeneur to opt out of those regulations he doesn't care for. Life just ain't that simple in the real world.

42

__-Steve-__,

14/09/2006 15:27:27

David (40)

I accept fully your opinion that you do not agree with terms such as leper and child abuser and I'm pleased that you see this to be wrong; these are however terms and opinions stirred up by the movement that you support and described as having "thoughtfully constructed argument".

I think that you would agree that in the main smokers have made way for anti-smokers in all walks of life other than the social environment.

I disagree that the 'someone else's pub' argument is invalid; property rights are at the heart of democracy. The Licensed Trade should be free to set any legal activity it wishes within property they own so the fact that they chose a 'smoking throughout' policy was a clear sign of public wishes and market forces. The legislation is not a restriction, it is a ban on smoking in other people's property which has resulted in closures, loss of sales and jobs.

I'm not sure there is a "pro-smoking lobby", I've never seen anyone campaigning for smoking on buses. The pro choice lobby is indeed forcing a judicial review.

You may wish the passive smoke argument to be closed but unfortunately it is not; the reason you didn't answer my points is that they are facts that the anti-smoking lobby choose to ignore in favour of made up sound bites like "no safe level of exposure"; which of course is ridiculous.

Indoor air quality is not "improved" by smokers going outside and that should only ever be the choice of the owner.

Finally as I pointed out; it is not the smokers who are in the main inconsiderate; many restaurants, some pubs, many workplaces, cafe's and public transport were smoke free; many smoking pubs had non smoking rooms or areas. Smokers were quite happy with this and the selfishness lies with those who now seek to remove smokers from everywhere. That is bigotry.

43

David from New Mills,

New Mills 14/09/2006 19:59:36

#42 _-Steve-_
I am pleased that _-Steve-_ and I both deprecate the use of personal insults in debate, although he pointedly refrains from criticising Charlie's "self righteous cow" sentiment.
I do not support any movement, I simply have strong convictions shared by many others, but would not share all of their sentiments.
Smokers have scarcely made way for the majority as some act of kindness. Their numbers have decreased from a one time majority to a minority, and increased restrictions on smoking have simply relected society's changing attitudes.
Property rights are not being violated. The state is not seizing licensed or any other premises.
The licensed trade has no prerogative to flout legislation it doesn't like, as, while smoking itself is not an illegal activity, so doing in places as prescribed by legislation is, or will be, an offence . The legislation does not seek to ban, prohibit or outlaw smoking, merely to restrict where this may take place.
If anyone is concerned about employment in licensed premises, they are quite free to give them their custom, but without their non-mandatory cigarettes.
The terms "pro" and "anti" smoking may not be to _-Steve-_'s liking, but I simply use them as a rough benchmark to indicate which side of the argument people support. I am not anti smoking or smokers per se, only their selfish habit in my vicinity. (The "my nostrils" argument again.)
See my comments at #40 about the freedom of choice line. Non-smokers should be free to have choices too - the "my nostrils" argument once more.
The judicial review avenue is quite legitimate, only time will reveal its success or otherwise.
I do not wish the passive smoking argument to be closed. I have simply never taken part in it. I am not familiar with the various studies supporting or denigrating the "facts". I was simply pleased to see the legislation succesfully passed

44

__-Steve-__,

15/09/2006 03:21:09

David,

You clearly do support the anti-smoking movement by your comments on their integrity although you readily admit you have not looked into their claims. I never claimed smokers made way as an act of kindness, merely pointed out they have accepted all the non-smoking places I mentioned without a fuss. It is not that the term 'pro' is not to my liking I only seek to point out that pro would indicate the opposite of anti and in reality there isn't an opposite (no-one is seeking smoking to be allowed everywhere).

You are, by your own admission unaware of the science and therefore you see a smokers habit as selfish only because you don't like the smell; on that basis many peoples habits can be deemed as selfish and is thus a poor reason for supporting the ban. Non-smokers always had choices, if I were a vegetarian I wouldn't insist Macdonalds stopped selling meat because I had an aversion to the smell and any perceived health risk from the carcinogens it produced. So your nostrils argument is quite lame; you have no human right to smells of choice in someone else's pub, anymore than a vegetarian would in Macdonalds.

It's not that I don't agree with your suggestion that indoor air quality is improved by smokers going outside, it's the scientific measurements that don't agree. I would refer you to The OSHA standards on safe levels and to the Oak Ridge Laboratory's scientific measurements of real particles in real environments which found no difference in air quality between a smoking pub and a non-smoking restaurant.

Yes, the legislation was passed by a majority in parliament but against the wishes of the public and the promises made in the manifesto and without widespread consultation of the affected industries. Both sides of the argument were not considered in the health bill and the evidence was in the main supplied by biased anti-smoking groups with heavy reliance on flawed studies such as the EPA meta analysis; hardly democratic.

45

__-Steve-__,

15/09/2006 04:21:13

David, (cont'd)

Your last comment does not make you a bigot. You clearly indicate you have no problem with smokers you simply don't like the smell of smoke. When you say things such as "as long as they keep their habit away from my nostrils" however, this can be argued to make you a bigot; it indicates complete intolerance. There are many smells in life that I don't like although smoke is not one of them. I actually find the aroma of cigar and pipe smoke quite nice. The point is, our personal likes or dislikes are of little consequence over freedoms of choice and I would like to clarify a definition of that phrase because you have used it in a very strange way.

A publican risks his/her money and reputation to provide entertainment according to his/her freedoms of choice. The public then has freedom of choice to enter (or not) as an invited guest. An anti-smoker is not exercising a freedom of choice by insisting that everyone else adhere's to their personal choice; that is dictatorial, not a term related to freedom.

It would seem from your posts that you have a desire to frequent pubs but that your enjoyment is spoiled by the smell of smoke. This in itself is not unreasonable and if enough people agree with you it should be possible to create entertainment to your liking. Jumping on the anti-smoking bandwagon however is a 'cop out' for an intelligent man. Supporting a group that lies, wastes charitable donations and drives a hate campaign of persecution against a quarter of society simply because 'it suits' is just plain wrong and sets a dangerous precedent for a nanny government to ignore property rights and erode other freedoms such as diet and alcohol.

46

debbie,

glasgow 15/09/2006 11:22:15

I have a simple question for all of those who choose to be smokers - given your time over again would you choose the smokers path and would you want your children to be smokers? I rather think not.
I believe that we all have the right to choose but our children do not and that I believe is fundamental to the case for protecting non-smokers. Children learn by example and I do not believe there is a parent out there who would wish for their child to be a smoker and whilst there is the slightest doubt over the health effects of smoking. passive smoking and environmental tobacco smoke I know which side of the ban I am on.

47

__-Steve-__,

15/09/2006 11:36:06

Debbie (46)

You make good points but please bear in mind that smoking levels have been dropping for years through education on the health risks of direct smoke; lying to people about passive smoke can only damage that trend.

Bans don't work, there are 10 000 new smokers in Ireland since the ban. Guns and both hard and soft drugs are on the increase despite them being banned. People smoking outside bars and offices is a normal and daily image and a smoking advert for the youth; smoking inside licensed pubs or designated smoke rooms at work is not.

If you want to make something trendy with the young, either lecture them not to do it or ban it.

48

debbie,

glasgow 15/09/2006 12:20:19

I am sure that Roy Castle if he were here, may disagree with you on the dangers of passive smoking.
Whilst I agree whole heartedly with the notion that a surefire way to encourage our youth to continue smoking is to chastise them for it, where do most young people begin their smoking journey? With other young people in or now outside pubs and clubs. I cannot agree that standing outside a pub in the rain is an positive advert for smoking.
You make another important point around the accessibility of products either banned or age resticted. Surely in order to curb the number of young people, especially young women who are taking up smoking we must tackle far more actively, the issue of selling to under age children. I don't believe that there will be massive changes in the tobacco culture until it becomes apparent to our children, that smoking in any guise is not normal.

49

__-Steve-__,

15/09/2006 14:55:10

It's not always raining so the poor helpless image you desire is not always present and why would you think anyway that the youth wouldn't rebel against this obvious injustice to a quarter of the population?

It's recently been disclosed by the Roy Castle Foundation that Roy Castle probably got cancer from the on set props they used, as did many of his work colleagues.

I didn't use the word chastise, I said lecture and lie.

Bans have never stopped anything they have only ever increased them; especially with the young. When you add lies from the virtuous it is a recipe for disaster.

50

Patrick,

15/09/2006 16:10:44

Talk of children are irrelevant to this debate, as currently pubs are only frequented by Adults 18+, so they wont be in their to be influenced.

Maureen Moore's point of view that there is a well resourced industry funding the proliferation of tobacco, through glossy pictures of film stars, models and musicians smoking is trite. Does she seriously believe the tobacco firms pay Kait Moss to smoke?...

51

David from New Mills,

New Mills 15/09/2006 21:03:56

#44/45 Re _-Steve-_'s nocturnal treatise, brevity now attempted. Not "supporter" of any (undesignated) anti-smoking lobby groups, just glad of statutory outcome.Never followed now historical "scientific" claims.If law "bad", save discussion judicial review? If
smokers can accept n/s places why brouhaha re pubs? App. benchmark labelling as before. Not just smell, also smoke in lungs, scorch marks off cigs.,carelessly flicked ash/abandoned butts.
Re Big Mac Q. would obey house/staty.rules and eat o/s or have veggy option indoors. Simy. with pubs "plastic glasses o/s "rule. Would exercise "freedom of choice" accordingly. No big issue.
Try pubs comparison Berwick/Gretna/Coldstream areas.Difference very apparent. I took part in consultation last year/lobbied MP/Tony Blair.No plebiscite but majy. of MP's passed law.This democracy.If law "bad",try to repeal/judicial review/emigration. No wish to send patrons outside-just their obnoxious by-products.
Pubs, just like Tesco/any business have no "guests",just customers/punters. Either can refuse my custom/me entry.
Happy to frequent pubs/Tesco, but notice Tesco and or. businesses not whingeing about new restriction. Why pubs special?
I "support" no group, well RSPB perhaps.
I don't recognise or favour any "hate campaign" nor understand "property rights" allusion. Can _-Steve-_ clarify?
Apologise to readers for truncated English but hope message still understood.
Unfortunately,_-Steve-_ and his camp followers seem to suffer from some persecution complex, always trying to draw parallels with Nazi (capital"n") oppression. Perhaps if Anne Frank and millions of others were still alive, they could perhaps talk him through oppression, vilification, hate campaigns etc. Having to smoke outside enclosed public buildings, pubs or otherwise, is, by comparison, a mere bagatelle.

52

Ozzy,

Dunkeld 16/09/2006 09:05:19

Health scaremongering helps the media and the television news companies. This helps to advertise £1,000,000's of patches, medical insurance, sun creams, etc. See the site below for information on cancer,
http://www.breastcancerworld.com/

53

Chuckles,

London 16/09/2006 12:34:37

David(51) Tesco and co are not whinging because they were smokefree by choice withut the ban and i totally respect that!! Their property- a fundamental concept of libertarianism is freedom of choice!!!! Tesco is doing well because of the ban- you know why- cos smokers instead of going to bars just get their cheap drinks there and take them home where they can drink and smoke!!

Also most nonsmokers have no problem with some places allowning smoking- only a few deranged brainwashed ones do!!!!


You know very well property rights you just pretend not to!!!!

I think there is a lot of similarity between you and Nazis such as snitch lines!!!! Why dont the antis start goosestepping!!!!
We smokers are made as pariahs and second class citizens!!!! We are treated like CRIMINALS!!!!

Do we throw old age pensioners on the street in the cold-no!!!!

Patrick(50) i think she does!! She probably believes tobacco is more dangerous than cannabis!!!! Now that tells you more about her!!!!

54

Chuckles,

London 16/09/2006 12:42:29

debbie(48) stop trying to seize the moral highground with roy castle!!!! I am sick and tired of hearing his name to oppress a segment of the population and the right of businesses to choose a policy that suits them and their clientele best!!!!

Do you believe in fascism or freedom of choice?? Which one???? Perhaps the former!!

We know smoking is unhealthy but so are many other things!!!! One such thing is car exhaust fumes!!!!

So stop this roy castle bull***t!!!!

Some of us enjoy smoking! I dont smoke much since every cigarette(when you smoke less) is something i enjoy!!!!

So for democracy's sake someone please remove this ban and preferabily those useless MSPs too!!!!

55

__-Steve-__,

16/09/2006 14:59:27

Debbie(48)

It is really irrelevant what Roy Castle 'thought' caused his cancer, that can only be subject to social attitude. There is no evidence that it was smoking; there is however evidence that passive smoke is harmless and there is also now evidence that his cancer was caused by something else.

You say you "don't believe that there will be massive changes in the tobacco culture until it becomes apparent to our children, that smoking in any guise is not normal."

There have been 'massive changes' already, 80% of men smoked in 1948, now it is less than 30%. Why are you convinced that change can't be made without removals of freedom and the denormalisation of a quarter of the population?

Cocaine, marijuana, guns in "any guise" are not normal, why are they rising ? Laws against them haven't eradicated the problem or even reduced it, why do you suppose that laws against smoking will?
An article in the Guardian recently reported on a London hospital who said 50% of the teenage admissions had cocaine in their system. Why didn't they listen to their mums?

Your argument that the youth will not do things that their elders deem as not normal is doomed. Didn't you or any of your friends ever do anything an adult told you that you mustn't do?

Do teenagers who take pills at the local disco think that it is legal and normal and their parents wouldn't mind? You may be certain that your children will never do anything you don't want them to and will happily live the life you choose for them, but most children will not. Banning it makes it trendy (see the cocaine example above) and look at the smoking figures in Ireland.

56

__-Steve-__,

16/09/2006 15:46:11

David (51)

I'm pleased to be back on normal time now.

You agree with the ban due only to your dislike of the smell of smoke. You repeat anti-smoking myths and you describe their arguments as "cogent" and "thoughtfully constructed". If you agree with their MO and spread their messages you are supporting their cause; therefore you are a supporter.

Smokers have accepted non smoking places, what they should not have to accept is the elimination of all smoking places but I'm sure you were just playing on words here.

I doubt that you would really continue to visit Mac D's throughout the winter if you were forced to eat outside but had to leave your drink inside. It's nice that you would obey such a law but it still wouldn't be right and your 'fight it in court' opinion is a cop out from meaningful discussion. The ban is what 'you' want irrespective of the livlihoods of millions of people and the wishes of millions of smokers and non-smokers. You say it's no big issue, you would exercise your freedoms of choice. Smokers don't have a freedom of choice; will a smoker have a freedom of choice to hold a 'smoking only' event and to smoke during it at a club that they own?

I repeat; you have no rights to tell anyone to go outside of someone else's property. You continue to express this 'wish' so perhaps you should fight for the right in court.

Pub's have no 'special' status, they like tesco should be free to impose the rules on their property as they see fit. For a definition on property rights perhaps you would like to begin by reading the Magna Charta, the basis of democracy.

I see your comments have fallen to unjustified childish insults again; Perhaps you would like to invite me along to your bird watching meetings or am I too camp?

Finally with your Nazi analogy; persecution is persecution and denormalisation and hate campaigns are the same or do the definitions of those terms apply only when it results

57

Chuckles,

London 16/09/2006 16:05:10

Steve(56) so Dave actually supports smoking bans because he hates he smell!! Well since when was that justified in determining policy?? By removal of freedom of choice, property rights, sending old age pensioners outside in all weathers..........

58

__-Steve-__,

16/09/2006 16:34:42

Charles (57)

Yes, that about sums it up Charles. He wants the ban regardless of what it does to anyone else because he dislikes the smell. Basically if he walks into someone else's pub in England where 99 people are gathered and happy to allow smoking he wants to be able to tell them all to get outside and calls this his freedom of choice.

He avoids responsibility or having to condemn throwing some old people out on the street by saying it wasn't him who made the law and if you don't like it go to court or emigrate.

59

Chuckles,

London 16/09/2006 19:54:47

Steve(58)yeah shows what a complete w****r Dave/ Bungo Bongo actually is!!

60

Patrick,

16/09/2006 21:34:54

53. Charles - So Charles do you really think she is paid by them?... (Kate moss).... Or were you just being sartiracal?... Or sarchastic even... :-)

Heres to a long life of enjoyment and smoking too... (please... no cheap gags about a lack of longevity now)...


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.