World No Tobacco Day: stats life
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 
Tomorrow (May 31st) is World No Tobacco Day. No surprise, then, that "new research" should appear today predicting "major lifestyle changes when England goes smokefree". According to the press release that has just landed on my desk:
The report by the British Thoracic Society and Action on Smoking and Health finds that one quarter of smokers aged 18-24 are intent on giving up smoking before July 1st 2007 and a further 25% plan to quit by July 2008 ... London is leading the drift away from smoking as 40% of smokers in the capital say they intend to quit within a year of England going smokefree.
The report also forecasts a change in the atmosphere in pubs that goes beyond air quality. One adult in four expects to go to the pub more often after the change in the law and the trend is highest among women and 25-45 year olds.
Martin Dockrell, lead author of the report said, "We are only just beginning to understand some of the health and social benefits that will come with smokefree legislation. This is developing a real head of steam with support edging up towards 80%. Even smokers are coming round to our way of thinking with almost 40% supporting the ban and only 42% opposing it."
According to Mikis Euripides of Asthma UK:
"Smokefree legislation is clearly great news for people with asthma and good news for business too. 82% of the 4.1 million people with asthma in England tell us that other peoples cigarette smoke triggers their asthma and many cannot go out to pubs and restaurants without the fear of a serious asthma attack. For these people, 1st July cannot come soon enough and many will be counting down the days."
I've spent the afternoon responding to these claims in a number of interviews. Now, I'm interested to hear what you have to say.
Reader Comments (46)
Five things to say:
1. Ventilation not segregation
2. Why is the government trying to create a master race and encourage a less tolerant society to boot?
3. How is it that the generations surrounded by the greatest amount of smoke in history have been the longest-lived?
4. It's not the years in your life it's the life in your years.
5. Antismoker: 'Quitting smoke will add ten years to your life'.
Committed smoker: 'Yeah but the last ten years are crap anyway'.
Promises, promises. Smokers, and the ban fans are full of 'em.
Smokers, I have found, will say just about anything to get people off their backs about smoking. Until two years ago, anyone with a clipboard asking me if I planned to quit smoking would have been told "Yes! I am a pathetic addict and what's more, I am murdering innocent people".
Two years on and I can hold my own with GP's and professors, so the freaks at ASH worry me not a jot. Having researched the science, I find I can live with the risks.
Then we get to the promises of the non and anti-smokers who swear by Almighty God that they will be down the pub in their millions. This is perhaps the biggest lie of all, and Licensees will lick their lips and grease their tills in preparation for this onslaught of new drinkers. And, if Scotland and Ireland are anything to go by, it will happen. The trouble is, the "invasion" lasts for around four weeks. The novelty soon wears off. They go back home to their knitting and stamp collecting, and get involved with new campaigns to remove more freedoms from other minority groups. After that, the Licensees are looking for their loyal and faithful smokers, only they have by now gotten used to buying booze at a fraction of the cost from the local supermarket, and quite like being able to do what their ancestors have been able to do for five centuries: have a smoke with their favourite tipple, indoors, warm and comfy, and away from the passersby who now feel they have a right to glare and call us nasty names. The hatred is open and its coming your way. The choice is to grow a thicker skin, or stay at home.
Running in and out of a pub grows old very fast. Not so bad when the sun is shining, but come winter, it is sooo much easier to say "You know what? I'm just gonna stay home. Cant be arsed with all that in and outing".
This is a wee side note:
We just lost one of the two bingo halls we had in a 20 mile radius. The local paper reported it today. The older generation are distraught as it was, for most, the ONLY opportunity to meet with friends and socialise. The closure affected 700 customers and around 6 staff. So under-reported are venue losses, the editor, in his Opinion column, incorrectly states that our bingo hall is the first casualty. He has not been following the story as intently as he perhaps could have. Scotland has lost 17 bingo halls, several working mens clubs, and around 130 pubs and clubs.
I must be living in a different country. I need to come home and invest everything in a pub so I can grab a piece of the coming boom.
Oh dear, good for business again. Fantasy land we can never leave you or let's live life in a Disney bubble!
Whilst I appreciate these organisations interest in working on behalf of their clients, remaining willfully misinformed or even stupid is not to their credit.
Colin, thanks for that. This nasty little Big Pharma/ASH/nu-labor wheeze will hit old people hardest of all. A forgotten minority: soon to be lonely and invisible now that their social-hubs are being taken away from them.
It's hitting care-homes, too. The social-areas in these establishments are to become O.O.B. to those who like a fag with their chat, so it'll be condemned-to-quarters for them, like errant children.
These are the last people nu-labor and their bosses should be patronising [to paraphrase John Reid] and ordering around.
Those who fought for the freedoms now being taken away by the wagging-fingered tentacles of our masters. Effectively criminalised for not shaping up to the zeitgeist of health-paranoia.
Not aspirational. They don't sell newspapers. And according to the Big Lie, anyone who smokes isn't supposed to have made it past 60 anyway.
Why of why is this "good for business" line still being trotted out? Is there anyone left who doesn't really (though some may pretend to) believe it's a lie.
SOME pubs will do better, others, and in the case of Scotland that's 40% will do worse - and some of them to the point where they close altogether.
Scotland only lost 130 pubs - Scotland should think themselves lucky it was ONLY 130. We got a very mild winter and very good summer. Had the weather been generally worse I imagine that number would be higher.
I've told the Landlord of my local that there is NO WAY he will catch me outside his establishment having a puff. I refuse to be treated like a dog caught in a kitchen! I have already ritualy burnt Paul McKennas' Quit Smoking Today book (the wife bought it years ago). I intend keeping my fridge and larder well stocked with with beer, lager, cider and wine. I already have a mega expensive espresso machine as I have long since given up with cafe's and the really good thing is that at my place smoking is allowed throughout!!
So it's World No Tobacco Day today - 31st May. I'm already celebrating this, with a cup of coffee and accompanying cigarette! I have been reading through the comments above and wish to have my say! :)
Good for Business - Thanks, Colin, for some realistic statistics. You mention 130 pubs plus clubs plus bingo halls closing and that's just after a year or so of your ban. The population of England is probably x10 that of Scotland - so in the first year, perhaps about 1,000 pubs should close down and very many working men's clubs (where most punters enjoy smoking).May I add, this may be just in the first year after the ban. I regularly go on my travels around West Yorkshire which has masses of pubs and clubs - driving over to Wakefield yesterday I noticed at least two public houses which have recently closed down (prior to the ban) and more are struggling to make ends meet. These are areas now where unemployment is rising rapidly due to a variety of factors which I won't go into. One of my regular haunts here in North Yorkshire is closing because the landlord knows most of his regulars are smokers and after the summer tourist season, he won't be able to make ends meet. The 'pub to let' sign is on the premises as I write.
Money to spend - I went up to my local on Monday evening (Bank Holiday) after 9pm - in my youth 20 years ago, pubs used to be packed with people buying drinks and smoking and enjoying life and bank holidays were a great sociable occasion. The town was practically empty and why? OK, visitors had been during the day, but people now simply do not have the money they used to have to spend on going out. They are bound by mortgages and debt - and this applies particularly to the 25-45 age group! Whoever comes up with these statistics must live in fairyland. People who believe the pubs will be packed with non-smokers after 1 July are deluding themselves because very many people simply to not have the financial means to socialise.
Elderly people. It is disgusting how elderly people are being treated. My father (81 years old and a cigar smoker) was recently told off for smoking a cigar at a coffee morning. He was told that he was 'setting a bad example.' I've never met a more upstanding, hard-working, decent person in my life - someone who served his country in the armed forces, lost family members in the war and provided for his widowed mother and younger siblings from the age of 14. As well as this, I help him with financial aspects and found that the government has decided to tax his pension at the rate of 22% up from 10% yesterday and he'll receive no tax rebate. All this things disgust me and they all contribute to my desire to do something to act against the bad treatment of people in this country. I know lots and lots of elderly people who enjoy a quiet smoke - and some are pushing 90!! They lived through the war and fought for democracy, lost loved ones and suffered deprivation - and for what? Ban this, ban that, and be robbed in their old age.
Poppy - very good 5 points made - yes, society is becoming very intolerant - picking on the elderly, vulnerable and smokers (easy targets) - however, remember, even a worm will turn.
In this article you mention that Mikis Euripides of Asthma UK thinks this ban will be a saviour to all Asthma suffers. In live in Gwent which had the highest number of cases of both Asthma and Sinusitus suffers in the UK. I have suffered from the latter for nearly 50 years and Asthma for 7 years. It may surprise him that I am a smoker of over 40 years. Although, I only have on average 3 -4 asthma attacks a month.I have only ever had one attack in an enclosed space. I work in a bakery and this was caused by flour and not smoke. The suffers I know of that would be affected by smoking is if they are using Oxygen instead of an inhaler. Fortunately, I don't have this chronic condition. Howewer, I worked for 5 years with a chronic suffer who smoked. Strangely, she never had an attack during that time whilst smoking or being around smokers. In fact, at weekends she could been found in many smokey pubs with never any problems. Like me and many fellow suffers, our are confirmed to bus, train stations and other places where fuel pollutiom is heaviest.
Thanks to the biased plonkers in society, our lives have to compromised to sheer ignorance.
When the ban was introduced in Wales Dr Brian Gibbons - Health Minister of the Assembly calmly claimed that this ban was not
Sorry I didn't realise the restriction of words.
an attack on smokers. In some ways he is correct. What started this ferocious attack was that Labour lost a safe seat in the Blaenau Gwent constituency. This was due to their insistence of putting their own preferred candidate at a General Election. As some readers will know, they lost heavily to Peter Law the Independent candidate. They thought they could win it back after Peter's death but they miscalculated the support he had and therefore widow has taken over the Assembly seat. Since then, Labour have behaved like spoilt little kiddies and are hell-bent on destroying both the Welsh economy and that of all the UK. Tony Blair only pushed through the Bills for us to separate assemblies for the 4 nations was to push through his policies and pass the buck onto ours.
The only thing that amazes me is that everything causing poor health is blamed by tobacco is that MRSA and its derivatives have been missed. Surely, tobacco has to be blamed for the sheer lack of man power in the hospitals. When half-witted examples of accountants running health services instead of medical professionals it should surprise even ASH that they are ruining the Health of this once glorious nation.
Slightly off topic for this thread, but very relevant to to the overall issue, I'd love to know how other people score on this test I just did.
http://tinyurl.com/2bfrdu
I have not read all the stuff on the site but I expect I would agree with most of it. I'm not trying to be anyone's "mentor" either. (perish the thought)
I scored 75.
87 here.
91... but the questions are somewhat leading.
I took it twice. 1st time I got 95 second 97. I agree that some questions don't have other possible options but they are not as leading as other similar tests I've done.
Bugger!
Does that make me a fascisto....?
You aren't on the subject of the smoking ban but it might be that you would be on the "other side" on issues that are really very similar but you don't currently think so. For instance do you think that recreational drugs should be illegal? Personally I would tend to discourage their use but I would use persuasion and would never resort to force.
I scored 95. Outside of wanting laws against murder, rape, theft (and that also applies to tax!), violence, enforced medication and abject cruelty (can't think of anything else right now) - I'd pretty well want society to be allowed to take it's natural shape according to the choices of individuals. So if people wanted to take drugs I'd let 'em. Wouldn't choose to myself, but how others choose to live is none of my business AFAIC.
I dont mind who uses what recreationally as long as the user is aware of the potential risks. Education is key, but both sides of the story have to be explained so that people know the upside and the downside of drugs..
I work for a Dutch company and visit my head office once a month in the Netherlands so I am sold on the idea of legalising soft drugs.
Colin I think if we lived in a genuine free society such education would be well taken care of and wouldn't require taxes to pay for it.
Dont get me started on taxes Bernie...
Tax Free Day (this year) is Saturday June 2nd. Isnt it wonderful? Every penny you earn from Sunday onwards is your own.
I dont recall who said it (one of the old US Presidents, I think) but I will misquote it here:
"A government that taxes to the tenth part should be considered harsh"
10% tax! It would be utter bliss! It would beat the hell out of the 52% I am paying now.
Scored 89, but what does that really mean? Am I freedom lover?...Or what?????
We are fellow travelers Colin.
This is a bit long but I think you will like it. It comes from a piece I am currently writing about human rights. The UN document referred to is the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
Slavery is prohibited by the UN document but it is not defined. "Slave" is usually understood to mean someone whose life is, involuntarily and unwillingly, more or less completely controlled by someone else usually for the purpose of work. The products of the labour of a slave are owned by the "owner" of the slave. It is obviously abhorrent as it violates the first principles above regarding self ownership.
This is okay as far as it goes but I don't think it precise enough. A slave may not be a slave for his entire life. It might be a condition that lasts for many years or for a period of months. It could be intermittent, a few months here and a few months there. However long it lasts it would still be slavery. The conditions that a slave has to live under can vary enormously too. Some might sleep in glorified dog kennels while others may live in a palace harem. So it is not the living conditions that define slavery. What is constant is that they are controlled in some way for the pleasure or gain of someone else without their own willingness or consent.
Slavery has been a curse for mankind in almost all ages and all cultures. The essence of slavery is the use of violent force on another person for gain. It is a violation of the non-aggression principle at the basis of property rights - Never initiate the use of force on another. The only acceptable use of force is in self defense.
I would like to suggest that one of the reasons for the prevalence of slavery even into the 21st Century is that it has been ill defined. Very often those who would define it are themselves proponents and beneficiaries of it. So here is a new definition that I think gets to the heart of the matter.
Slavery is the condition wherein a person submits, as his only apparent choice, to providing his labour, or the fruits of his labour, or other "services" to another person or group without his consent or willingness. The condition is maintained so long as the threat of violence that has been submitted to can be realized.
As far as I can tell all forms of slavery would conform to this definition. And any government that would accept this as a definition would immediately have egg all over its sanctimonious face.
Drugs, ALL drugs should of course be legal. Where is the "If it saves one life..." brigade when you want them.
Prohibition never, EVER works. In terms of drugs it creates a lucrative business for criminals. It costs billions in tax payers money, which has resulted in drugs being freely available to anyone who wants them.
Finally, it gets people killed - not only those wo overdose because of wild variations in purity, but also in terms of gang fights. Both gang members and innocent bystanders have been killed in these disputes - which often are prompted by their drugs business.
Legalising them is the only sensible option :)
But our dear masters know that, for instance, decriminalising heroin possession and making it available on prescription, would halve the number of burglaries... and thus reduce the demand for H.M. Govt. to be seen to be keeping the wolves from the door.
Scrapping the drug laws isn't just a sensible idea it is soundly immoral not to.
http://www.icanhelpit.co.uk/blog/default.asp
I couldn't disagree more about having a drugs free for all. If we just take one example, heroine, or diamorphine to use its medical name. It is a highly potent opioid analgesic with a narrow therapeutic index meaning that even a slight deviation from the therapeutic dose can lead to toxicity and death usually through respiratory depression. To complicate matters further, previous exposure will dictate tolerance and renal impairment will also need to be calculated from blood creatinine levels. Perhaps the local drug dealer could do this. He would also need to take account of any other drugs being taken to avoid serious drug/drug interactions.
Even if it was legalised who's going to sell it? I just can't imagine that we should just be allowed to pop into Holand and Barrett to buy some heroine. Neither can I imagine any pharmacist being willing to sell this drug for dubious purposes as they owe all of their customers a professional duty of care.
In the absence of approval from the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency all controlled drugs and prescription only drugs should definitely not be available for general sale.
I agree with a LOT of what has been said here- and I have already noticd many buses around my home town of Lancaster adorned with "clean-air in July" signs with a background of a sky.. because obviously the sky will be bluer when we all stop smoking.
What i am most against is how much of a scare-mongering this action has become. So many non-smokers now seem convinced that if they pass someone smoking in the street, then that smoker is deliberately trying to do them harm, when they are completely wrong- WAR kills poeple... and I haven't seen our government doing anything to stop that.
Three pubs in the Lancaster area have already applied for planning permission to have outdoor areas with shelter for people to smoke outside, which is good news (although I resent feeling like the cat who has been put outside for the night!) However, I doubt that, on a locely sumers day, non-smokers will be happy when the beer garden becomes the territory of the smoker.
Also, I was delighted to hear that the Peterborough Council has been given a "clean-air" award for imposing the ban one month before the rst of the country (http://www.peterborough.gov.uk/page-11559) and to be honest, I hope they enjoy their award while the people of Peterborough continue to smoke regardless until the actual ban comes in, I suspect.
Sorry, a note I forgot to mention, in regards to your entry, is that I am an asthmatic. I understand everyones asthma is different but smoking does not effect me one jot... however, I'm sure the now "asthma-friendly" pubs aren't going to start dusting more often (dust being the catalyst for most asthma sufferers) so I can still enjoy having an asthma attack in their unclean establishments, but I cannot have a cigarette!
Robert, you've made an excellent case for taking heroin off the black-market by decriminalising its possession. If users could get clean gear, and be informed as to the strength etc. and the appropriate dosages for their individual cases, we would see less deaths from accidental overdosing, and less illness caused by unscrupulous types cutting the heroin with rat-poison.
The means of delivery is debatable. But one practical solution occurring to me is that the user could be prescribed x amount by their GP, according to an assessment of their needs; this could subsequently be administered by practice-nurses, in much the same way as methodone is administered now. However; I would argue for self-administration, where appropriate. In contrast to the simplified media-picture, many heroin users are perfectly responsible members of society and, armed with the correct information, would go on leading dignified, responsible and independent lives, albeit with an "invisible" habit.
The problem with heroin-use for society is not anything inherently dangerous about the drug itself; rather it is the addictiveness of the hit, combined with high black-market prices. The combination of these two factors alone is the reason for much of the property-crime in this country.
Debbie,
Within days of your ban being enacted you will see complaints in the newspapers about smokers in the newly created beer gardens. It seems that the anti-smokers want to sit out in the sun and complain loudly about the stinky smokers. They want it all for themselves. Inside, and out. It happened here in Soviet Scotland, but not for a couple of months as our ban started in March. We had to wait for the good weather, and the predictable complaints.
Note that I use the term "Anti-smokers" rather than non-smokers. There is a huge difference. The vast majority of non-smokers are extremely tolerant of smokers, and my group in particular, enjoys a great deal of support from these wonderful people. Most non smokers see the bigger picture, and they know that they are next. The government will find a freedom to take away from them soon enough. Its what they do best. Tax and ban. Theft and oppression in equal measures.
Thank you also for confirming that asthma sufferers do smoke. I know of many that use smoking to stave off attacks.
These Anti-smoker misfits like 'ASH' have double standard. Did they argue against the fox hunting ban but all of them praised the smoking ban. Does that mean that us smokers are to be treated less than vermin. The only consistancy this government acted on was that neither foxes or smokers had any say in the matter.
Robert - so what? The multi-billion pound war on drugs is, and always has been failing miserably. Drugs are freely available to those who want them. Their illegal status means there is no regulations regarding its supply, quality or who sells it.
Making something illegal increases its impact on society rather than reduce it.
A government that supports the notion of individual freedom would not tell its population what they could or could not put into their own bodies, but seek to accomodate individual choice.
If heroine, or all drugs were made legal then places who sold it would spring up in no time, that's a non-issue. These places would have their income taxed, the product itself would also be taxed and thus provide revenue streams to fund rehab programs and educational programs about the effects of drugs.
Britain would be a richer country - with less crime. People who want to do drugs will do them regardless of their legal status.
Answer me this before you object to that - is the fact that your not a heroine addict directly related to the fact that it's illegal?
Hi Debbie great post.
Robert you've fallen over the line of rationality again. If the insane drug laws were really under attack your support for the status quo would be greeted with cheers by the gangster types who make the most profits on drugs purely because they are illegal.
http://www.icanhelpit.co.uk/blog/
Colin, just 2 points - firstly, I'd have no problem in sitting in any beer garden with smokers. It's just indoors I'd have an issue with.
Secondly, how on earth can smoking prevent or relieve an asthma attack? What is the mechanism of action?
Robert,
You have shown yourself to a little more tolerant than the dyed in the wool anti-smokers. I am simply repeating what I have seen in the press in summer months here. It may not happen in England but I seriously doubt it. There is a distinct pattern with smoking bans the world over.
Perhaps Debbie can tell us how or why smoking helps her condition?
Regarding asthma: I dont know. I just know that many asthma sufferers I have spoken/written to have told me that smoking offers relief. I dont pretend to understand the mechanism. What I do know is that asthma is an allergy, caused by, and triggered (mostly) by proteins. I also know that there no proteins in tobacco smoke. There are dozens of triggers for asthmatics, but the easiest to "finger" is tobacco smoke. Looking for other, more severe triggers, is obviously too much like hard work.
Rob, you've guessed correctly that I'm not a heroine addict. This is not simply just because it's a controlled drug.
Concerning the description of drugs being illegal or not, with the exception of one or two, they're all legal. They just need to be supplied as a 'Prescription Only Medicine'(eg diamorphine), sold under the supervision of a pharmacist (eg Hydrocortisone) or, like aspirin and paracetamol, just sold from ordinary shops and petrol stations.
Drugs and medicines for the wrong person or at the wrong dose can be exceptionally dangerous and certainly not to be bought like sweets.
Well, to avoid any more semantics I'll refer to the drugs as narcotics from now on.
People taking narcotics is not dangerous by any rational definition of the world.
I could agrue that mountain climbing or stock car racing or a host of other recreational activities are far more dangerous than narcotics.
Every weekend hundreds of thousands of people take ectasy and cocaine. millions smoke cannabis and 10s of thousands are heroine users.
In the latter case the biggest health impact and risk comes from the impurities - which is a function of its illegal nature.
By rendering heroine illegal it become MORE dangerous to the user.
But you seem to agree wholeheartedly that it is the government's job to protect you from your own choices. Personally I don't count anyone in Westminster more qualified to decide what drugs go into my body than I am.
And I don't do them - nicotine is my drug of choice.
Just so I'm clear on your position. Are you saying that narcotics should be illegal because they're bad for us? Is that the core premise?
People taking narcotics is not dangerous by any rational definition of the world.
That should be "word" and not "world". And I should point out that by saying they're not dangerous I'm NOT implying there's no increased risk, just not enough to qualify as dangerous.
Rob, many drugs, including narcotics, can be extremely dangerous and potentially fatal. They should not be freely available for dubious purposes. Where there is a genuine indication for their use,doctors and pharmacists need to be involved through the prescription route.
Well, as someone I know discovered that a rapidly worsening relative was being prescribed two drugs simultaneously that should never have been given together (she challenged both the doctor and pharmacist on this - the meds were changed instantly, and the pharmacist admitted the gross oversight but the doctor accepted no blame), I don't trust doctors or pharmacists to be beacons of infallibility.
Robert, you misunderstand - I'm not talking about just putting everything on the shelf and medication for a specific purpose I don't have any problem with a prescription system. Too much choice, too little information.
I'm talking about recreational drugs as I'm sure you well know and despite the hype they're not dangerous by any rational standard. If you want to talk about dangerous, let's talking about something like climbing Everest. Attempting to climb Everest means you accept a 10% of dying during the climb. Now THAT's dangerous.
Should be berate the Nepalese for allowing people to take this risk? If allowing people to use drugs is too dangerous to allow people to do then surely an activity that is four or five orders of mangitude more dangerous shouldn't be allowed?
Many narcotics available on the black market are actually a lot less harmful and less addictive than either cigarettes OR alcohol. Why is cannabis or ectasy outlawed - both are relatively benign on the human body, neither is addictive. Yes, the can cause some long term damage if abused, but then so can most things.
Something to chew over regarding Asthma. I've been asthmatic all my life - long before I started smoking.
At the age of 19 I was prescribed a Ventolin Inhaler. I used Ventolin (Salbutamol) until just over 2 years ago when just before Christmas I forgot to get a repeat prescription and ran out. One thing and another I wheezed my way through Christmas and New Year - and survived. I thought if I could go a couple of weeks without an inhaler, I could go longer. I found if I did start with an asthmatic attack a couple of cups of coffee stopped the attack very quickly. To this day I haven't used an inhaler.
When I first started using an inhaler, my now ex-husband, himself an asthmatic said that they were addictive. I have no doubt that inhalers are addictive.
I still smoke but at the age of 50 I regularly cycle to and from work and everywhere else. The asthma no longer bothers me, apart from the occasional wheeze if I'm working amongst dust.
My opinion is that many people have been well and truly brainwashed by the big pharmas and the medical profession into believing that they are asthmatic and need inhalers to survive. Many do, but many don't.
Like I said, something to chew over.
I seem to recall reading somewhere, years ago, that herbalists have traditionally recommended smoking herbs to alleviate asthma because the act of smoking 'relaxes the chest muscles'.
A friend of mine's mother developed asthma for the first time about a year after she quit smoking. She used to stop her mother's asthma attacks by making her laugh. Her theory was that asthmatics have attacks because they are trying to gulp more air into already full lungs, and that what they really need to do is expel air (which laughter achieves). I don't know if that would apply to all asthmatics, but it certainly worked for her mother.
Fellow smokers, I hope you will forgive my comments.
I can’t understand why there hasn’t been greater anger shown about the impending smoking ban on July 1st. On that day the social life of millions of people who enjoy smoking (I’m a pipe smoker of 37 years), particularly when going out for a drink – will effectively be destroyed forever.
We will be ostracised…treated like some kind of pariah, not worthy of social contact…made to go outside and indulge our guilty pleasure in some makeshift shelter. Yet the Chancellor will still be quite happy to take our £10 billion in taxes. We all understand that non-smokers need their own space inside a pub or restaurant. Well that’s fine but what about smokers having their space inside too, properly ventilated of course!
I therefore strongly believe that someone must be prepared to go into a pub, possibly with support from other smokers, and light up. Then invite the landlord to call the police when smokers refuse to put out their cigarettes or in my case, a pipe.
You must be prepared to be arrested, and subsequently refuse to pay the fine. The situation that arises then would be quite ridiculous – would the government be prepared to see decent ordinary people, imprisoned for simply defying a smoking ban?
This kind of action however needs to be properly organised and ongoing over a period of time – would you be willing to go that far. If not then our fight will be easily lost!
Chris F J Cyrnik
You would have thought that banning us from smoking in enclosed public spaces from lst July this year would be enough for the anti smoking brigade. But, No!! Did you catch
a piece on this morning's news talking about monitoring the amount of smoke that would drift in from outside a pub to inside - a calculation quoted as 4 cigarettes smoked in an hour by 100 people? Not a lot of faith in us all qiving up then!!
What I didn't realise until today was that the ban on smoking legislation has a built in review in 3 years and, from the comments made in this piece, the antis obviously have an agenda to continue their persecution of smokers. The Professor who was speaking wants no smoking near any buildings and, I presume, would like to see us being banned from smoking at home
This really is the thin edge of the wedge and we need to continue our opposition to further
erosion of our liberties as smokers
Simon, what are future plans and do we need to
be more visible as a group? I am sure we all put our case individually as smokers as and when we can, but we are facing a continuing onslaught here. As many commentators on this site have said our non smoking friends and colleagues do not have a problem with our habit and we should use this to help us
Carol Boucher