Smoking: problem solved
Sunday, April 22, 2007 
Former US paratrooper Greg Billingsly sent us the above image. Greg points out that while the outgoing US Surgeon General's 2006 report called for a total ban on smoking in enclosed public places, it also admitted, in a section called 'Technological Strategies for Controlling Secondhand Smoke', that there ARE ventilation technologies available to minimise the (alleged) hazards of secondhand smoke:
"The concept is straightforward: process a portion of the air locally and remove secondhand smoke constituents with commonly used devices mounted on ceilings. The devices use the principle of electrostatic precipitation to remove particles or a series of filters to remove particles and odors. New devices have become available recently and include ultraviolet-activated photo catalytic systems that oxidize vapor phase organic compounds. With the addition of filters to this configuration, these devices could also remove particles. However, widespread application of these systems to effectively control secondhand smoke exposure in buildings has not yet been demonstrated."
In other words, the technology exists to accommodate smokers without inconveniencing non-smokers - but it hasn't been fully utilised. One solution is to insist that proprietors who want to accommodate smokers have to apply for a license. In order to get that license they would have to install an approved ventilation system. If some businesses can't afford the technology - tough. They'll just have to be non-smoking. But that shouldn't be a problem. After all, how many times have we been told that smoking bans are good for business? The UK may have ignored this option but we are hopeful that the EU will take a more pragmatic view when it considers submissions to its Green Paper Consultation, ‘Towards a Europe free from tobacco smoke: policy options at EU level’. Don't bet on it, though.
Reader Comments (12)
Licensing for smoking in bars and restaurants? Why not, they are already licensed to sell alcohol.
I advocated this solution in Scotland in 2004 but the licensed trade didn't think a total ban in enclosed spaces would come about so carried on with the "voluntary" approach. We have ended up where we are because the publicans are divided and not genuinely concerned about the consumer's interests – and because big tobacco was unwilling to fight for its customers, while big pharma with its nicotimne patches was.
Ventilation, especially as you describe it, has always been the solution but it has never been tried properly.
Unfortunately the antis have done FAR too good a job of rubbishing ventilation - to the point where even the BBC claimed it would take a 40mph gale to bring SHS down to "safe" levels.
I am heading to Houston on Wednesday and have agreed to try and drive up to Dallas to go and have a beer with Greg. I think he might just be the only human being on the planet that has read the SG's report. He has found out some remarkable things that the headline grabbing Richard Carmona failed to point out. In the report, a whole list of maladies previously thought to have been "caused" by ETS are exonerated (sp?). These, I would have thought, would have been reasons to be cheerful, but instead, Carmona urges non smokers to "stay away from smokers". Can you imagine the outrage if that had been "White folks, stay away from Blacks"? Smokers....always the whipping boy.
It will be good to meet Greg. He has a huge determination to right this wrong, more so than many people I have come across.
Another good find, Greg. Well done.
Ventilation is not an attractive option to the anti-smoking lobby because anything that encourages people to smoke, even if they can do so without bothering non-smokers, is seen as bad. Put simply, they do not want people to smoke. Period. Forget passive smoking, smoking bans are primarily designed to make it as difficult as possible for people to smoke so that, over time, smokers will gradually give up. That is why, despite years of trying, it has been almost impossible to get ventilation on to the political agenda. BTW, the ventilation companies didn't help themselves - most were far too busy privately trashing each other's products to get together to promote their corner.
"Forget passive smoking, smoking bans are primarily designed to make it as difficult as possible for people to smoke"
I've read comments by ASH representatives that have let this little gem slip. There's also the 10 year plan as laid out by the head of ASH in the US where he envisions a world where even seeing someone smoking is a rarity.
These are people who are so convined of their own righteousness that any means necessary are fine and dandy to get other people to conform. And this IS what it's all about; using legislation and social pressure to make some people fit *their* ideal.
Before anyone accuses me of the same thing I'll say now that IF they'd proven passive smoking to be dangerous then I wouldn't be anywhere near as vocal about it.
Yes please let the owners decide. But...
No. There is no excuse for licensing. If owners want to invest in air cleaning technology that is their business and if they want to allow smoking on their property that is their business, and only their business, too.
Stop trying to appease ASH and their ilk. They are not good sane people who are well meaning but just a little misguided.
Since when, over the last ten years, do we, the electorate, get a chance to actually tell our government what we want?
After all, we should all by now realise that Nanny knows best, and the more evil tasting the medicine is, the better it must be for us.
Installing adequate ventilation is far too easy an answer, how on earth could the government earn money out of that one? They could impose a large tax on the actual product, but given the fact that a ventilation unit probably lasts at the very least, ten years, it wouldn't exactly be a money spinner for Mr Brown and his yobbos would it?
I think the government response would be more in the line of them being forced to bow to public pressure, even though they have never bowed to anything in all the years they have been in power, unless it is dressed in ermine of course, and paid handsomely for the privilege of such a robe. But, and it would be a pretty big but, in order to try to help children never to take up the foul habit (not the ermine one), they feel they would need to double, if not treble, the tax on cigarettes.
Now there's a nice little earner in waiting isn't it, could even pay for New Labour's next election campaign..
Tut Tut we are ALL CHILDREN and so naughty for having a ciggie. What about those smelly cars out there? What is this country coming too? God help us all from going insane. No one has the right to enter my home and strt to tell me what I can do. I need a ciggie to help with my owrn out nerves from this wretched nagging fom everyone. I dont drink but if we choose to have a ciggie thats our choice. Amanda H
How about the problem when young people become drug addicts, because they smoked simple cigarettes and latter they decided to add cannabis in tobacco. If they did not smoke tobacco, they would not use cannabis!!! Smoking tobacco attracts young people to use cannabis and latter they use heroin, cocaine, opium etc.
Ex-smoker: I think the technical term for your post would be; a load of claptrap.
There is no link between smoking and heroin use. People don't just one day decide to add some cannabis to their cigarettes. In actual fact the link is often the other way around. Joints rolled with cannabis resin are also rolled with tobacco. Nicotine is WAY more addictive than anything that's in cannabis and if you smoke enough joints you're going to pick up a nicotine habit.
Cannabis *can* be considered a gateway drug, but that's purely because its illegal status. The person you buy your cannabis from will likely sell an assortment of other drugs, which makes it awfully easy to experiment.
This is really becoming an aboslute Farce. it should be down to the owner of the pub or hotel to say whether one may smoke. There will be a huge outrage I reckon and more people will stay at home. What ever happened to Ventilation? No one is going to order mylife I can tell you No Its my life . It really makes me so cross. How about all these cars ? vans and Lorries? If any one tells me in the street I cant smoke I will explode. This is a NANNY country now Amandah
Amanda, true, it's not just a nanny country,it is a pathetic country now! People standing outside pubs smoking stand more chance of killing themselves breathing in car fumes than suffering from the effects of tobacco. Also, if people are subjected to the fall-out from power stations, they are more likely to suffer ill-effects. We are not allowed to 'live' and express ourselves any more - we are being reduced to having a mere existence! Don't do this, don't do that! Do things this way - do things that way. And, it will get worse!