Right to choose smoking or non smoking

Whilst I agree that non smokers should have a right to choose a non smoking environment, smokers and pubs should also have the right to choose otherwise.

Pubs should be able to apply for a licence for smoking, which would be reviewed similarly to other licences such as opening hours and entertainment etc. 

The effect of the smoking ban is well known, with smaller, local pubs going out of business.  This is pushing drinkers into large town centre pubs, contributing to the violence and disorder often seen in and around these pubs. 

There is also increasing evidence for a link between higher rates of domestic violence and the smoking ban.  Just Google this if you don’t believe it!

By allowing the licensing authorities to decide which pubs can have smoking areas it would be easier to control drinking areas and behaviour.

Similarly, where sole traders use their vehicle for work, they should be allowed to apply for an exemption to smoke in their vehicles.

An outright ban is undemocratic and unfair on those that do want to smoke.  Non smokers can go to non smoking pubs, smokers can go to smoking areas in smoking pubs.  Everyone happy? 

Why is this idea important?

Whilst I agree that non smokers should have a right to choose a non smoking environment, smokers and pubs should also have the right to choose otherwise.

Pubs should be able to apply for a licence for smoking, which would be reviewed similarly to other licences such as opening hours and entertainment etc. 

The effect of the smoking ban is well known, with smaller, local pubs going out of business.  This is pushing drinkers into large town centre pubs, contributing to the violence and disorder often seen in and around these pubs. 

There is also increasing evidence for a link between higher rates of domestic violence and the smoking ban.  Just Google this if you don’t believe it!

By allowing the licensing authorities to decide which pubs can have smoking areas it would be easier to control drinking areas and behaviour.

Similarly, where sole traders use their vehicle for work, they should be allowed to apply for an exemption to smoke in their vehicles.

An outright ban is undemocratic and unfair on those that do want to smoke.  Non smokers can go to non smoking pubs, smokers can go to smoking areas in smoking pubs.  Everyone happy? 

That people who wish to associate together should not be forbidden to do so.

It is one of our most basic freedoms that we can associate together in any way that we wish. If individuals wish to congregate together to discuss some imposition of the government, they can do so. But the government have made it illegal for people who enjoy tobacco to congregate, unless they comply with the government’s edict not to enjoy tobacco together, unless they are in a place which is not a place available to the general public.

 

But, it is of the greatest importance for us to understand that the government has NO authority whatsoever to decide in what circumstances citizens can congregate. The right to congregate is sacrosanct.

 

It follows therefore that the government have no right whatsoever to stop a publican providing facilities for people who enjoy tobacco to meet and talk and enjoy their tobacco. The health of the population as an amorphous mass is irrelevant.

Why is this idea important?

It is one of our most basic freedoms that we can associate together in any way that we wish. If individuals wish to congregate together to discuss some imposition of the government, they can do so. But the government have made it illegal for people who enjoy tobacco to congregate, unless they comply with the government’s edict not to enjoy tobacco together, unless they are in a place which is not a place available to the general public.

 

But, it is of the greatest importance for us to understand that the government has NO authority whatsoever to decide in what circumstances citizens can congregate. The right to congregate is sacrosanct.

 

It follows therefore that the government have no right whatsoever to stop a publican providing facilities for people who enjoy tobacco to meet and talk and enjoy their tobacco. The health of the population as an amorphous mass is irrelevant.

PROHIBITION LAWS

LAWS TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM DOING THINGS THAT ARE  PERMITTED WITHIN THE LAW IS WRONG

FREEDOM IS ALL ABOUT SELF DISCIPLINE & BEING TAUGHT RIGHT FROM WRONG  IT IS NOT BEING DICTATED TO BY  GOVERNMENT OR  INDIVIDUSLS 

PROHIBITION ONLY DRIVES THINGS UNDER GROUND INTO THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS YOU ONLY HAVE TO GO BACK A FEW YEARS AND REMEMBER THE SILLY PROHIBTION LAWS OF AMERICA

HIDING CIGARETTE DISPLAY UNITS  WILL DO THE SAME HIDE IT AND THE YOUTHS OF TOMORROW WILL WANT TO TRY IT JUST TO SEE WHAT ALL THE FUSS IS ABOUT SMUGGLERS WILL HAVE A FIELD DAY  { ALSO  IF ITS NOT ON DISPLAY HOW WILL ANYBODY KNOW IFTHE DUTY HAS BEEN PAID }  & DON'T FORGET THESE SMUGGLED TOBBACO ITEMS MAY BE MANY TIMES MORE TOXIC THEN LEGAL BRANDS

Why is this idea important?

LAWS TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM DOING THINGS THAT ARE  PERMITTED WITHIN THE LAW IS WRONG

FREEDOM IS ALL ABOUT SELF DISCIPLINE & BEING TAUGHT RIGHT FROM WRONG  IT IS NOT BEING DICTATED TO BY  GOVERNMENT OR  INDIVIDUSLS 

PROHIBITION ONLY DRIVES THINGS UNDER GROUND INTO THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS YOU ONLY HAVE TO GO BACK A FEW YEARS AND REMEMBER THE SILLY PROHIBTION LAWS OF AMERICA

HIDING CIGARETTE DISPLAY UNITS  WILL DO THE SAME HIDE IT AND THE YOUTHS OF TOMORROW WILL WANT TO TRY IT JUST TO SEE WHAT ALL THE FUSS IS ABOUT SMUGGLERS WILL HAVE A FIELD DAY  { ALSO  IF ITS NOT ON DISPLAY HOW WILL ANYBODY KNOW IFTHE DUTY HAS BEEN PAID }  & DON'T FORGET THESE SMUGGLED TOBBACO ITEMS MAY BE MANY TIMES MORE TOXIC THEN LEGAL BRANDS

Scrap the ban

The thought of losing my local, relaible independent shop seems completely un-justified and unnecessary and after reading through some of The Retailers comments on this site it only re-inforces my view.  Its is people's livelihoods at threat here and communities are formed around local shops!!!!

Cigarettes are still a completely legal product and surely by putting them 'under the counter' it will only make them more taboo?!

I like being able to pop to make local shop and like my freedom of choice and don't think that in this day and age that should be taken away.

Why is this idea important?

The thought of losing my local, relaible independent shop seems completely un-justified and unnecessary and after reading through some of The Retailers comments on this site it only re-inforces my view.  Its is people's livelihoods at threat here and communities are formed around local shops!!!!

Cigarettes are still a completely legal product and surely by putting them 'under the counter' it will only make them more taboo?!

I like being able to pop to make local shop and like my freedom of choice and don't think that in this day and age that should be taken away.

pub smoking

ITs REDICULOUS  TO FORCE CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE JUST BECAUSE THEY SMOKE IN THE EARLY DAYS  PUBS HAD DIFFERENT ROOMS FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE IE BAR / LOUNGE / SNUG / THE SMOKE  etc

SO WHY WONT THE GOVERMENT ALLOW SUCH THINGS NOW A SMOKE ROOM COULD BE SET ASIDE IN MOST PUBS TODAY AT LITTLE COST TO THE PUBS THEY COULD HAVE LARGE INTERNAL GLASS WINDOWS TO MAKE CUSTOMERS PART OF THE PUB WITHOUT IMPOSING THEIR SMOKE ON OTHERS

Why is this idea important?

ITs REDICULOUS  TO FORCE CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE JUST BECAUSE THEY SMOKE IN THE EARLY DAYS  PUBS HAD DIFFERENT ROOMS FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE IE BAR / LOUNGE / SNUG / THE SMOKE  etc

SO WHY WONT THE GOVERMENT ALLOW SUCH THINGS NOW A SMOKE ROOM COULD BE SET ASIDE IN MOST PUBS TODAY AT LITTLE COST TO THE PUBS THEY COULD HAVE LARGE INTERNAL GLASS WINDOWS TO MAKE CUSTOMERS PART OF THE PUB WITHOUT IMPOSING THEIR SMOKE ON OTHERS

That those ideas which have received the most votes and comments specifically as regards the smoking ban) should not be dismissed in the new version.

On 1st July 2010, one W HOG introduced and ‘’idea’ which he entitled “Repeal and Change the Smoking Ban”. Since then, at today’s date, there have been 978 comments and 1178 votes. The comments are very largely repeat contributions, but the vast majority of the votes must surely be single, individual votes.

Most pollsters would be happy to agree that such a large number of people would provide a view of the opinion of the public with around 90-95% confidence. Thus we can say that some 60% of the people agree with the motion.

 

However, the Your Freedom site has been deliberately set up in its voting system to disallow such a conclusion since there is no possibility of voting ‘against’ the idea – you either vote a little bit ‘for’ or you vote a lot ‘for’ (one star up to five stars). Nevertheless, most people who dislike an idea vote ‘one star’ – meaning that they do not rate it, and so I think that it is reasonable to say that the majority of voters favour the ‘idea’ that the Smoking Ban should be amended at least – 60% of voters ‘rate’ the idea a good one. Also, we should note another similar idea: “ ‘Ban’ smoking ban in pubs……give landlord choice….” This idea had 413 comments and 859 votes. In this case, the vote was 80% rated as good. Also, there have been dozens of others, also rated over 80%.

 

The confidence level of the statistics indicates that the matter of an amendment to the ban is important to the people. In the consideration of the results of the consultation, these facts should be recognised.

 

Since the Smoking Ban, pub closures have accelerated. They have accelerated in turn, one after another, in Ireland, Scotland and England-and-Wales. In the face of such evidence, it is a travesty of reality for ASH to claim that their statement in 2003/4, that pub business would increase by leaps and bounds if smoking was banned, was anything other than a downright lie.  We must also bear in mind that ASH and Co were financed and directed by the unelected Professors of Physicianism who took over the Department of Health some years ago. 

Why is this idea important?

On 1st July 2010, one W HOG introduced and ‘’idea’ which he entitled “Repeal and Change the Smoking Ban”. Since then, at today’s date, there have been 978 comments and 1178 votes. The comments are very largely repeat contributions, but the vast majority of the votes must surely be single, individual votes.

Most pollsters would be happy to agree that such a large number of people would provide a view of the opinion of the public with around 90-95% confidence. Thus we can say that some 60% of the people agree with the motion.

 

However, the Your Freedom site has been deliberately set up in its voting system to disallow such a conclusion since there is no possibility of voting ‘against’ the idea – you either vote a little bit ‘for’ or you vote a lot ‘for’ (one star up to five stars). Nevertheless, most people who dislike an idea vote ‘one star’ – meaning that they do not rate it, and so I think that it is reasonable to say that the majority of voters favour the ‘idea’ that the Smoking Ban should be amended at least – 60% of voters ‘rate’ the idea a good one. Also, we should note another similar idea: “ ‘Ban’ smoking ban in pubs……give landlord choice….” This idea had 413 comments and 859 votes. In this case, the vote was 80% rated as good. Also, there have been dozens of others, also rated over 80%.

 

The confidence level of the statistics indicates that the matter of an amendment to the ban is important to the people. In the consideration of the results of the consultation, these facts should be recognised.

 

Since the Smoking Ban, pub closures have accelerated. They have accelerated in turn, one after another, in Ireland, Scotland and England-and-Wales. In the face of such evidence, it is a travesty of reality for ASH to claim that their statement in 2003/4, that pub business would increase by leaps and bounds if smoking was banned, was anything other than a downright lie.  We must also bear in mind that ASH and Co were financed and directed by the unelected Professors of Physicianism who took over the Department of Health some years ago. 

Smoking in Public Places bill

i think they should amend this law so that if a property wishs to have a smoking section indoor so be it.

A lot of pub/clubs have shut down becuase of this stupid bill all becuase a small amount of Doo Gooders complained.

People have a choice where they sit in a pub they dont ahve to sit in the smoking section if they dont want too..

People in this country have turned into a nation of whiners

Why is this idea important?

i think they should amend this law so that if a property wishs to have a smoking section indoor so be it.

A lot of pub/clubs have shut down becuase of this stupid bill all becuase a small amount of Doo Gooders complained.

People have a choice where they sit in a pub they dont ahve to sit in the smoking section if they dont want too..

People in this country have turned into a nation of whiners

that a public enquiry should be initiated regarding the smoking ban.

I am calling for a public enquiry into the smoking ban.

A new study has revealed that The Smoking Ban has indeed been responsible for the decimation of our pubs – there is no doubt about it.

We must put this into context.

Prior to the smoking ban, ASH, funded by the Health Dept and Others, assured the hospitality trade, as a result of various studies and surveys,  that their trade would not suffer if smoking was banned. This has now turned out to be false.

Not only that, but the ban was rushed through using parliamentary tricks which belittle our nation and our democracy.

Further, various physicians have recently been quoted as accusing parents of child abuse if they smoke in the presence of their children.  

I say: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! The denormalisation and demonisation of smokers must cease!

Why is this idea important?

I am calling for a public enquiry into the smoking ban.

A new study has revealed that The Smoking Ban has indeed been responsible for the decimation of our pubs – there is no doubt about it.

We must put this into context.

Prior to the smoking ban, ASH, funded by the Health Dept and Others, assured the hospitality trade, as a result of various studies and surveys,  that their trade would not suffer if smoking was banned. This has now turned out to be false.

Not only that, but the ban was rushed through using parliamentary tricks which belittle our nation and our democracy.

Further, various physicians have recently been quoted as accusing parents of child abuse if they smoke in the presence of their children.  

I say: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! The denormalisation and demonisation of smokers must cease!

take away the idiotic smoking ban

why is there a smoking ban in the first place? most people would say it is a health issue, and anti smokers are forever whinging about fag smoke,the health aspect for non smokers has never conclusively proved and has largely been manufactured. .a big proportion of these whingers drive cars, who seem quite happy to drive around blowing vile exhaust fumes everywhere (inside and outside) it is quite evident that these fumes ar e vastly worse then fags, therefore these people should have absolutely no right to complain. for those too ignorant to understand it is very easy to put all this to the test in the public eye and sort out this matter once and for all. we could invite these whingers to a large tv studio with one or two cars inside also, we could then close all the doors and windows and switch on the car engines,all this could be done on prime time television, is there anyone who is clever enough to tell me what would happen next? my smart money is on these whingers being brown bread in a short while.. i also have a clear message to this government. labour lost the last election because of two major issues .the smoking ban and too much immigration. a lot of smokers will not ever vote labour ever again and a lot of people because of the immigration. i dont see a lot of change from these two government damaging policies, clearly the voters got it wrong again, seems to me we aught to look towards the bnp and suchforth at the next election, its a fair assumption more people will go down this path if things carry on like they are. people are getting increasingly cheesed off with government bullcrap, and they will show you this at the polling booths

Why is this idea important?

why is there a smoking ban in the first place? most people would say it is a health issue, and anti smokers are forever whinging about fag smoke,the health aspect for non smokers has never conclusively proved and has largely been manufactured. .a big proportion of these whingers drive cars, who seem quite happy to drive around blowing vile exhaust fumes everywhere (inside and outside) it is quite evident that these fumes ar e vastly worse then fags, therefore these people should have absolutely no right to complain. for those too ignorant to understand it is very easy to put all this to the test in the public eye and sort out this matter once and for all. we could invite these whingers to a large tv studio with one or two cars inside also, we could then close all the doors and windows and switch on the car engines,all this could be done on prime time television, is there anyone who is clever enough to tell me what would happen next? my smart money is on these whingers being brown bread in a short while.. i also have a clear message to this government. labour lost the last election because of two major issues .the smoking ban and too much immigration. a lot of smokers will not ever vote labour ever again and a lot of people because of the immigration. i dont see a lot of change from these two government damaging policies, clearly the voters got it wrong again, seems to me we aught to look towards the bnp and suchforth at the next election, its a fair assumption more people will go down this path if things carry on like they are. people are getting increasingly cheesed off with government bullcrap, and they will show you this at the polling booths

BAN SMOKING IN PRISONS

Smoking should be totally banned in all prisons – if you are convicted of an offence you shouldn't have the privelege of being able to smoke inside. A similar policy has led to a substantial cut in crime on the Isle of Man as word got around of teh new restrictions.

Why is this idea important?

Smoking should be totally banned in all prisons – if you are convicted of an offence you shouldn't have the privelege of being able to smoke inside. A similar policy has led to a substantial cut in crime on the Isle of Man as word got around of teh new restrictions.

rethink the smoking ban

the smoking ban should be withdrawn, the government claim it is their duty to protect peoples health that the ban is in place,if this is to be taken  seriously then why is their not a ban on cars for exactly the same reason? and as a matter of fact car fumes are significantly more of a health issue, and there is no escape either inside or outside, when will you lot stop being so sanctimonious? hope you also realise that you will lose the next election because of this. as for you mr clegg you are only where you are now by default so dont get carried away with your own self importance

Why is this idea important?

the smoking ban should be withdrawn, the government claim it is their duty to protect peoples health that the ban is in place,if this is to be taken  seriously then why is their not a ban on cars for exactly the same reason? and as a matter of fact car fumes are significantly more of a health issue, and there is no escape either inside or outside, when will you lot stop being so sanctimonious? hope you also realise that you will lose the next election because of this. as for you mr clegg you are only where you are now by default so dont get carried away with your own self importance

Stop the Health Dept wasting taxpayers money on television advertising.

Tonight, I saw a new anti-smoking advert of the TV. In this advert, a mum is seen smoking on her doorstep. In the house are a couple of children ((I am not absolutely sure of the facts because I only saw it once). A voice-over then says that tobacco smoke is invisible and gets everywhere. It then says "TAKE SEVEN STEPS".

There is an obvious implication in this advert that there is some danger to the children inside the house from the mum smoking on the doorstep. In reality, there is no such danger. None at all.

It is beyond my comprehension that the Health Dept can issue such garbage.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Tonight, I saw a new anti-smoking advert of the TV. In this advert, a mum is seen smoking on her doorstep. In the house are a couple of children ((I am not absolutely sure of the facts because I only saw it once). A voice-over then says that tobacco smoke is invisible and gets everywhere. It then says "TAKE SEVEN STEPS".

There is an obvious implication in this advert that there is some danger to the children inside the house from the mum smoking on the doorstep. In reality, there is no such danger. None at all.

It is beyond my comprehension that the Health Dept can issue such garbage.

 

 

anti smokers who drive

it is quite absurd for an anti smoker who drives  to say that he or she objects to having their clothes or hair stinking of ciggarette smoke, because i a smoker can say i object to their  stinking car fumes , which incidently is much worse anyway. if we have a smoking ban because of comments like this then i ask this government to implement a car ban

Why is this idea important?

it is quite absurd for an anti smoker who drives  to say that he or she objects to having their clothes or hair stinking of ciggarette smoke, because i a smoker can say i object to their  stinking car fumes , which incidently is much worse anyway. if we have a smoking ban because of comments like this then i ask this government to implement a car ban

That medical people should be mindful of their ‘Hippocratic oath’ and insist upon the truth, particularly as applies to the smoking ban.

The 'Hippocratic Oath' was established about 2500 years ago by the Greek philosopher and doctor, Hippocrates. Essentially, it commits a 'physician' to promise not to use his skills to do harm and to respect his teachers and to pass on the knowledge faithfully.

An ‘update’ of the Oath was created in 1964 (not that long ago really) by Dr Louis Lasagna. The Oath is essentially the same, except that it brings in the idea of ‘prevention’ being better that ‘cure’.

Here are a few quotes from the ‘modern’ Oath:

“”I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow””

“”I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism””

“”I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure””

 

“”I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery””

 

Here are my views regarding the failures of the medical profession as regards the smoking ban:

 

  1. As regards sentence number one in the Oath, physicians are distorting the truth of their elders and passing on junk science to their juniors.
  2. That physicians are using their position of trust to gain pecuniary advantage from drugs companies by ‘over treating’ smokers who want to quit.
  3. That physicians are exaggerating and distorting their knowledge of tobacco smoke and spreading untruths. And that they are allowing the spread of untruths knowingly and willingly, and not publicising the untruthful nature of information being disseminated. For example, the statement, “There is no such thing as a safe level of second hand tobacco smoke” is an absolute lie – (unless you also say that there is no such thing as a safe level of air).

PHYSICIANS MUST NOT DISTORT THE TRUTH, NO MATTER HOW DESIRABLE THEY THINK THAT THE FINAL SOLUTION (THE END OF TOBACCO SMOKING) MAY BE.

Why is this idea important?

The 'Hippocratic Oath' was established about 2500 years ago by the Greek philosopher and doctor, Hippocrates. Essentially, it commits a 'physician' to promise not to use his skills to do harm and to respect his teachers and to pass on the knowledge faithfully.

An ‘update’ of the Oath was created in 1964 (not that long ago really) by Dr Louis Lasagna. The Oath is essentially the same, except that it brings in the idea of ‘prevention’ being better that ‘cure’.

Here are a few quotes from the ‘modern’ Oath:

“”I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow””

“”I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism””

“”I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure””

 

“”I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery””

 

Here are my views regarding the failures of the medical profession as regards the smoking ban:

 

  1. As regards sentence number one in the Oath, physicians are distorting the truth of their elders and passing on junk science to their juniors.
  2. That physicians are using their position of trust to gain pecuniary advantage from drugs companies by ‘over treating’ smokers who want to quit.
  3. That physicians are exaggerating and distorting their knowledge of tobacco smoke and spreading untruths. And that they are allowing the spread of untruths knowingly and willingly, and not publicising the untruthful nature of information being disseminated. For example, the statement, “There is no such thing as a safe level of second hand tobacco smoke” is an absolute lie – (unless you also say that there is no such thing as a safe level of air).

PHYSICIANS MUST NOT DISTORT THE TRUTH, NO MATTER HOW DESIRABLE THEY THINK THAT THE FINAL SOLUTION (THE END OF TOBACCO SMOKING) MAY BE.

Repeal the Smoking Ban

The smoking ban is a totally unnecessary government imposition on the lives of ordinary people and should be repealed. It is quite clearly the right of pub, club and restaurant owners to decide if smoking is allowed on their premises, It is nothing to do with government. The smoking ban should be repealed immediately restoring freedom and livelihoods to millions. 

Why is this idea important?

The smoking ban is a totally unnecessary government imposition on the lives of ordinary people and should be repealed. It is quite clearly the right of pub, club and restaurant owners to decide if smoking is allowed on their premises, It is nothing to do with government. The smoking ban should be repealed immediately restoring freedom and livelihoods to millions. 

WHY THE SMOKING BAN HAS FAILED AND NEEDS CHANGE

The smoking ban started as a way of protecting non smokers from "passive smoking" which was easy to acheive but  it ended as a way to punish smokers and non smokers as well. 1000's of pubs have closed and if you live in a village you do not just loose your pub you loose your only restaurant as well. 

It has been an ecological disaster.  I was talking to a publican whose pub now uses three times the energy it used before the ban to because he needs to heat the open air outside his pub for smokers.  A club in London this week announced that it had spent 1.8 million pounds on a smoking area with under floor and over head heating plus a hot air "curtain" all around.  Why not design houses with the radiators on the outside?

But of course there are the health benifits which we were told so much about, so why in the first 2 years of the ban did the cost of treating smoke related problems in the NHS rise by more than 10 times the rate of inflation.

France, Germany, Austria and Switzaland have learnt from the mess we have made of our legislation and all have seperate inside smoking areas as well as enclosed outside areas which are easy to light and heat when needed.

Why is this idea important?

The smoking ban started as a way of protecting non smokers from "passive smoking" which was easy to acheive but  it ended as a way to punish smokers and non smokers as well. 1000's of pubs have closed and if you live in a village you do not just loose your pub you loose your only restaurant as well. 

It has been an ecological disaster.  I was talking to a publican whose pub now uses three times the energy it used before the ban to because he needs to heat the open air outside his pub for smokers.  A club in London this week announced that it had spent 1.8 million pounds on a smoking area with under floor and over head heating plus a hot air "curtain" all around.  Why not design houses with the radiators on the outside?

But of course there are the health benifits which we were told so much about, so why in the first 2 years of the ban did the cost of treating smoke related problems in the NHS rise by more than 10 times the rate of inflation.

France, Germany, Austria and Switzaland have learnt from the mess we have made of our legislation and all have seperate inside smoking areas as well as enclosed outside areas which are easy to light and heat when needed.

repeal the smoking ban

repeal the smoking ban, it is unnessesary as the health risk to non smokers is vastly over exagerated . the population are being lied to by the government.the truth of it all is is that its just become trendy and cool  to be an anti smoking loony, it also raises nonsense situations such as, people travelling on public transport  moaning about ciggarette smoke yet the transport they are carried in is more deadly via exhaust outlet  than smokers anyway

Why is this idea important?

repeal the smoking ban, it is unnessesary as the health risk to non smokers is vastly over exagerated . the population are being lied to by the government.the truth of it all is is that its just become trendy and cool  to be an anti smoking loony, it also raises nonsense situations such as, people travelling on public transport  moaning about ciggarette smoke yet the transport they are carried in is more deadly via exhaust outlet  than smokers anyway

My Idea is that until the smoking ban is amended buy all smoking products in Europe.

Nick Clegg & Co laughs at the idea that smokers should be treated as human beings,  we are expected to pay huge amounts of tax and shut up.

My idea is not to pay for any LEGAL smoking related product here,  in our own country where we are treated in such a vile manner.

Buying cheaply, leagaly  from the rest of Europe will withdraw all tax that finds its way to such as ASH. 

Smokers have no choice,  no say and until we are given this can vote with their money and refuse to be taxed,  Legal, simple and very effective. 

I would never have thought the EU could be useful,  still wouldn't vote for it.

Why is this idea important?

Nick Clegg & Co laughs at the idea that smokers should be treated as human beings,  we are expected to pay huge amounts of tax and shut up.

My idea is not to pay for any LEGAL smoking related product here,  in our own country where we are treated in such a vile manner.

Buying cheaply, leagaly  from the rest of Europe will withdraw all tax that finds its way to such as ASH. 

Smokers have no choice,  no say and until we are given this can vote with their money and refuse to be taxed,  Legal, simple and very effective. 

I would never have thought the EU could be useful,  still wouldn't vote for it.

Smoking in Public Houses

Amend the ban by giving licensees the right to open a 'smoke room' on condition that signage is clearly indicated at entrances so that those of the public who may be offended by the smoke would obviously keep clear. As a retired licenced victualar with more than 25 years in the trade, I come across many of my old customers,many of whom are none smokers, who comment about the loss of atmosphere, especially because so many are in and out for a 'drag'.

Why is this idea important?

Amend the ban by giving licensees the right to open a 'smoke room' on condition that signage is clearly indicated at entrances so that those of the public who may be offended by the smoke would obviously keep clear. As a retired licenced victualar with more than 25 years in the trade, I come across many of my old customers,many of whom are none smokers, who comment about the loss of atmosphere, especially because so many are in and out for a 'drag'.

WHY PUT MORE OUT OF WORK

In the first year Scotland band smoking over two thousand pubs went out of business, if each of those employed 3 staff, 6000 out of work, how many have been put on the dole since the overall ban was introduced in England and Wales.

How many tobacco workers would be out of work, how many drivers out of work, the list of people that would end up on the dole and that’s just our country, would be criminal.

Note to all in favour of an overall ban!

DO YOU WANT TO PAY MORE TAX?

Why is this idea important?

In the first year Scotland band smoking over two thousand pubs went out of business, if each of those employed 3 staff, 6000 out of work, how many have been put on the dole since the overall ban was introduced in England and Wales.

How many tobacco workers would be out of work, how many drivers out of work, the list of people that would end up on the dole and that’s just our country, would be criminal.

Note to all in favour of an overall ban!

DO YOU WANT TO PAY MORE TAX?

Stop the Government acting against the majority wishes of the people

The largest response is to amend the smoking ban. Nick Clegg say they will not repeal the ban and he won't amend it either – yet it is what the majority of the people want. He was not elected to act against the people's wishes.

Why is this idea important?

The largest response is to amend the smoking ban. Nick Clegg say they will not repeal the ban and he won't amend it either – yet it is what the majority of the people want. He was not elected to act against the people's wishes.

There is no such thing as compromise

I disagree intensely with the idea of fully bringing the death penalty back; it is an outdated and cruel concept, as we have seen with the uproar in Iran over the stoning of the adulteress. However, I also believe that a compromise is necessary. If one commits a catalogue of treasonable offences- say, trying to blow up a plane or try to kill the Queen- then they should face the death penalty if they are British citizens and if there is plenty of evidence to show, and not suggest, that a serious crime has been committed.  

The same idea of compromise applies to smoking; pubs are designed for adults and not children. Therefore, there should be either a smoking room, or one should be able to smoke indoors. This decision is entirely up to the pub management and the landlord. The pub should pay nothing for smoking to be legalised indoors. Restaurants, buses, trains and cabs should remain non-smoking. There is no compromise; it is all or nothing. The preponderance of the population would like a cigarette with their pint; politics goes on and on about Human Rights, well, where have at least some of the smoker's rights got to?

Why is this idea important?

I disagree intensely with the idea of fully bringing the death penalty back; it is an outdated and cruel concept, as we have seen with the uproar in Iran over the stoning of the adulteress. However, I also believe that a compromise is necessary. If one commits a catalogue of treasonable offences- say, trying to blow up a plane or try to kill the Queen- then they should face the death penalty if they are British citizens and if there is plenty of evidence to show, and not suggest, that a serious crime has been committed.  

The same idea of compromise applies to smoking; pubs are designed for adults and not children. Therefore, there should be either a smoking room, or one should be able to smoke indoors. This decision is entirely up to the pub management and the landlord. The pub should pay nothing for smoking to be legalised indoors. Restaurants, buses, trains and cabs should remain non-smoking. There is no compromise; it is all or nothing. The preponderance of the population would like a cigarette with their pint; politics goes on and on about Human Rights, well, where have at least some of the smoker's rights got to?

Ban Smoking in Public, not Private, Places

Smoking in public places shoudl be illegal. Isn't it already banned you say? Yes, but, absurdly, only on some private property, where people have a choice to be.

Out on the street, where one often has to be at some point, it is allowed (including outside offices and pubs where ironically it is banned).

(No, you don't "have a right to go into a pub and not passively smoke" as I have heard it argued – you are permitted entry by the landlord/manager at their discretion.)

I would reverse the ban on smoking on private property – i.e. the rules on smoking int he workplace, leaving employers to decide on their own policies – no-one has been forced to work anywhere since the abolition of slavery!

Instead the ban should apply to publicly owned space.

(I am not a smoker!)

Why is this idea important?

Smoking in public places shoudl be illegal. Isn't it already banned you say? Yes, but, absurdly, only on some private property, where people have a choice to be.

Out on the street, where one often has to be at some point, it is allowed (including outside offices and pubs where ironically it is banned).

(No, you don't "have a right to go into a pub and not passively smoke" as I have heard it argued – you are permitted entry by the landlord/manager at their discretion.)

I would reverse the ban on smoking on private property – i.e. the rules on smoking int he workplace, leaving employers to decide on their own policies – no-one has been forced to work anywhere since the abolition of slavery!

Instead the ban should apply to publicly owned space.

(I am not a smoker!)

Declaring smoking bans, as Toxic risk factors

One of the topics the anti-smoker cartel will always avoid like the plague [pun intended] is the topic of medicinal smoke. They tell us that the principles of dilution and evacuation by environmental controls don’t work. Yet if we look at the safeguards in place in a safe room? When a contaminant is released, the most efficient means of evacuating that toxin from the room is to inject particulate fog and evacuate it with air continuously until the toxin is no longer in the room but now trapped in the particulate that left before it had a chance to settle on other solid objects that remain in the room.

In a smoke free environment the toxicity of airborne contagions become much more deadly, because there is a reduced level of particulate to collect them. In the reductions of indoor ultra fine particulate the same is true. Your dosages of a much more dangerous form of particulate than is found in cigarette smoke are tremendously increased.

Cigarette smoke if you can follow the consistent portion of legitimate unbiased research over the years, is evacuated by bodily functions over time. This is why they tell you if you quit, over time your health risk will eventually align with those of a non smoker. Ultra fine particulate such as coal and diesel particulate remains within the body and accumulates, because the lungs are powerless to evacuate it.

Black lung is entirely evident during autopsy whereas cigarette smoke is virtually undetectable, with no connection to the pictures in your mind that Public health has been painting for years [smokers lung?], a surgeon can’t tell if a person smoked for decades or if they never smoked by visual inspection. They have no problem at all telling that someone worked in a coal mine or in a diesel engine repair shop. Just like asbestos it becomes an irritant which leads to breathing ailments and the eventual total destruction of your lungs with no viable treatment, beyond making you more comfortable as the process of destruction continues.

Utilizing tobacco smoke particulate to reduce the risks of both viral infections and ultra fine particulate exposures, is a taboo subject because the Public Health entourage doesn’t feel comfortable. They in fact become quite violent in their reactions, to what they consider damaged thinking.

Irrespective of their emotions and comfort levels, the logic and science is squarely on the side of increased health risks by a tremendous degree, in a smoke free environment. If tobacco smoke is thought to cause the deaths of 3000 in a 300 million population as a lifetime risk perspective [requiring a lifetime of exposures at very high levels in order to see even one] and the same population produces by a shorter process of exposure and immediate effect 35,000 deaths per year by common flu alone. Think of all the other things in your life that could cause mortality by inhalation exposures. The odds that someone in a crowded bar or stadium might cough or sneeze and infect a greater number of those present, than would be possible in the same venue with cigarette smoke present, requires a pretty twisted evaluation process, devised in corruption and emotional trash to argue against.

So do the Public Health “experts” in their current rendition, offer increased protections or increased risk, when the predominance of what they study and profess, is based in purely emotional analysis, as opposed to science and legitimate unbiased observational skills?

We already know the answer to that one. What is missing is a way to divide the soothsayers emotion tested rhetoric, from the professionals with something real to say, so we can judge fairly among the many “the sky is falling” promotions, understanding which one should be taken seriously, or as the growing norms are demonstrating today; in reaction to all alarm bells; we simply shrug and open another beer.

The world has not gone mad around us, the opportunists are simply growing more efficient in the production of propaganda.

Clearly the self regulation of mainstream media groups, considering the sources of their funding in the financially conflicted behemoth ad agencies, is simply not working out. Currently we are trapped within an environment where politics guides scientific oversight. While emotionally enhanced promotions, are destroying the very sustenance of personal and parental autonomy.

Vote them all out; allowing the medical mafia and big pharma / big Oil prosecutions to begin.
 

Why is this idea important?

One of the topics the anti-smoker cartel will always avoid like the plague [pun intended] is the topic of medicinal smoke. They tell us that the principles of dilution and evacuation by environmental controls don’t work. Yet if we look at the safeguards in place in a safe room? When a contaminant is released, the most efficient means of evacuating that toxin from the room is to inject particulate fog and evacuate it with air continuously until the toxin is no longer in the room but now trapped in the particulate that left before it had a chance to settle on other solid objects that remain in the room.

In a smoke free environment the toxicity of airborne contagions become much more deadly, because there is a reduced level of particulate to collect them. In the reductions of indoor ultra fine particulate the same is true. Your dosages of a much more dangerous form of particulate than is found in cigarette smoke are tremendously increased.

Cigarette smoke if you can follow the consistent portion of legitimate unbiased research over the years, is evacuated by bodily functions over time. This is why they tell you if you quit, over time your health risk will eventually align with those of a non smoker. Ultra fine particulate such as coal and diesel particulate remains within the body and accumulates, because the lungs are powerless to evacuate it.

Black lung is entirely evident during autopsy whereas cigarette smoke is virtually undetectable, with no connection to the pictures in your mind that Public health has been painting for years [smokers lung?], a surgeon can’t tell if a person smoked for decades or if they never smoked by visual inspection. They have no problem at all telling that someone worked in a coal mine or in a diesel engine repair shop. Just like asbestos it becomes an irritant which leads to breathing ailments and the eventual total destruction of your lungs with no viable treatment, beyond making you more comfortable as the process of destruction continues.

Utilizing tobacco smoke particulate to reduce the risks of both viral infections and ultra fine particulate exposures, is a taboo subject because the Public Health entourage doesn’t feel comfortable. They in fact become quite violent in their reactions, to what they consider damaged thinking.

Irrespective of their emotions and comfort levels, the logic and science is squarely on the side of increased health risks by a tremendous degree, in a smoke free environment. If tobacco smoke is thought to cause the deaths of 3000 in a 300 million population as a lifetime risk perspective [requiring a lifetime of exposures at very high levels in order to see even one] and the same population produces by a shorter process of exposure and immediate effect 35,000 deaths per year by common flu alone. Think of all the other things in your life that could cause mortality by inhalation exposures. The odds that someone in a crowded bar or stadium might cough or sneeze and infect a greater number of those present, than would be possible in the same venue with cigarette smoke present, requires a pretty twisted evaluation process, devised in corruption and emotional trash to argue against.

So do the Public Health “experts” in their current rendition, offer increased protections or increased risk, when the predominance of what they study and profess, is based in purely emotional analysis, as opposed to science and legitimate unbiased observational skills?

We already know the answer to that one. What is missing is a way to divide the soothsayers emotion tested rhetoric, from the professionals with something real to say, so we can judge fairly among the many “the sky is falling” promotions, understanding which one should be taken seriously, or as the growing norms are demonstrating today; in reaction to all alarm bells; we simply shrug and open another beer.

The world has not gone mad around us, the opportunists are simply growing more efficient in the production of propaganda.

Clearly the self regulation of mainstream media groups, considering the sources of their funding in the financially conflicted behemoth ad agencies, is simply not working out. Currently we are trapped within an environment where politics guides scientific oversight. While emotionally enhanced promotions, are destroying the very sustenance of personal and parental autonomy.

Vote them all out; allowing the medical mafia and big pharma / big Oil prosecutions to begin.