Tuesday
May082007
Another step towards prohibition
Tuesday, May 8, 2007 
The war on tobacco continues with anti-smoking campaigners today renewing their campaign to restrict - and ultimately ban - smoking on film and television. According to ASH, any film that features 'smoking scenes' should be preceded by strong anti-smoking ads; and films containing 'tobacco images' should carry an 'adult' rating. Actors, added the director of ASH ominously, are also accountable. My response ("Films have to reflect real life. In most of the western world, a quarter of the adult population smokes and I don't see why films shouldn't represent that, as long as it's not totally gratuitous.") is included in this BBC report.
Reader Comments (82)
I fully support the smoking ban - it can't come soon enough for me - but this is completely ridiculous.
John. I wonder why you support the smoking ban but not this, both are facets of the same thing - to get people to stop smoking.
Will you support the inevitable ban of smoking from beer gardens, outdoor public places such as parks and beaches and even in people's cars?
Of course he will.
25 years ago they "just" wanted short haul flights to be smoke-free. Then they "just" wanted trains to be smoke-free. Then buses. Then taxi's. Then offices. Then pubs. Then parks. Then beaches. Then sports stadia. Then private cars. Then whole towns (see Calabasas and Belmont in California). Then whole countries (look at Bhutan).
All thats left is outside.
And they want that too.
Look back to when it all began with those "short-haul flights".
Now look where we've ended up.
The problem with showing cigarette smoking on television is that it projects an image that 'smoking is normal' and without consequence. No amount of smoking in films will ever persuade me to start but the same cannot be said of impressionable children and teenagers who are at a critical time in their lives and easily influenced by role models.
Television and film characters do have the power to very subtly persuade and influence, even if they don't mean to. I do think that television and the media have a responsibility to reduce the risk, as much as possible, of their actions leading to young people falling victim to tobacco addiction.
Utter nonsense.
Smoking IS normal. For the love of God, please do some research. Tobacco has been used medicinally for over 6000 years. I am reasonably sure I will not contract Alzheimers or Parkinsons Disease, or suffer from colorectal cancer, or ulcerative colitis. I know asthmatics that use tobacco to relieve their attacks. Even the WHO said in their IARC study that the children of smoking parents enjoyed a protective effect. They said that these kids have a 22% LESS likely chance of contracting lung cancer. Of the 70 studies that I have in my possession, 28 indicate protection, 24 indicate a very slight risk elevation, and the remainder say nothing of import. Almost 90% of these studies were paid for by the health jihadists.
Tobacco didnt kill anyone until post-1930, when, coincidentally, industrialisation took place, and millions of carcinogen vomiting vehicles appeared on our roads. A recent Swedish study is crystal clear. The nearer you live to a main road, the higher your chances are of contracting lung disease and/or upper respiratory disorders.
How do you explain the rise in lung cancer despite the fall in smoking prevalence?
How do you explain the ratio of smokers in China versus their longevity?
How do you explain the vast numbers of smokers (over 60%)in Malta versus their lowest LC rates in the world?
Can you prove, without a doubt, that smoking tobacco has ever killed anyone, anywhere, ever? (The DoH, ASH, the EPA, CDC, the WHO and all the rest cannot. I know. I have asked). When, (and if) you can bring solid proof, I want to see that you have removeded the other 300+ confounders first.
SHS, by default, is a myth wrapped up in a hoax surrounded by a scam. Dupes like you fall for the fairy tale hook, line, and sinker.
You see a smoker and immediately assume that they will die of lung cancer. In reality, even smoking 20 cigarettes a day, I have a 92% chance of NOT contracting lung cancer. I have recently seen figures to suggest that moderate smokers live marginally LONGER than non smokers. Shock! Horror!
I have studied the "evidence" for over two years now, and I find it pathetic, at best.
I have crunched the numbers. I can live with risk.
Robert, smoking IS normal. 25% of the British population smoke and I actually find it offensive that you're suggesting that our behaviour is somehow ABnormal.
And lets be clear on this. Do movies and TV encourage a change in behaviour in young people? If so then perhaps we should concern ourselves more with the violence that is rife in movies aimed at young people.
I saw Spiderman 3 the other night. It's phenomenonaly violent and for the most part there's very little consequences for the violence. Spiderman gets kicked from pillar to post and always gets up for more. 2 of the main characters are killed, one by being stabbed through the chest, the other by being blown up (quite graphically I might add) - and that's certified 12A.
But all that's OK, what we SHOULD be worrying about is if someone's having a ciggy.
Robert says that it is wrong to portray smoking as normal as it could lead the younger generation to smoke. Has he not looked at the facts from Southern Ireland where the ban has been in place for some time? Smoking among the young is on the increase for the first time in generations. Why? Because everyone says that the 'Craic' is better outside with the smokers. Young people do not want to sit in a bar by themselves while their friends and relatives are outside. It is now 'Cooler' to smoke than it ever was as smoking had begun to get a reputation as something dirty and for old men. Now it is top of the hit parade again. So as for kids being influenced by smoking on tv or at the movies-it does not matter because when your ban comes in the same thing will happen as has happened here already.
Colin,
I'm just picking out the key points in your comment -
1. There is no 100% proof that smoking has killed anyone.
2. Smoking is medicinal
3. Smoking did not kill anyone before 1930
4. Parental passive smoking protects children.
So if I'm to believe this then I must obviously accept that government data on 100,000 smoking induced deaths per annum is a complete lie. The fact that 90% of lung cancer patients are smokers is just a coincidence. If someone exposed to passive smoking immediately has an asthma attack then that must just be a coincidence too?
Well, we can all relax then can't we. Smoking was never harmful or ruinous to health after all. I wonder how many people will be persuaded by this.
And yet prior to your ban Michael, smoking rates were falling. Same here in Scotland. Big Tobacco announced recently that sales had increased by 11%.
Meanwhile, pubs, clubs and bingo halls are shutting down left and right. I am certain England will match, or even overtake Irelands losses (over 1000 pubs) very quickly. The Hospitality Industry predict losses of 5000-8000 venues in less than 36 months.
I remain vigilant, and I am keeping tabs on lives saved by the ban.
The scores on the doors so far:
California-0.
New York-0.
Scotland-0.
Ireland-0.
Wales-0.
Northern Ireland-0.
Bhutan-0.
Robert,
1. There is no 100% proof that smoking has killed anyone.
Quite true. Diseases are multi-factorial. No doctor in the world can say absolutely, that a persons smoking caused their demise. There is not one death certificate on the planet with the words "Cause of death: smoking" on it. Prove me wrong.
2. Smoking is medicinal
If it wasnt, how do you explain the fact that 92% of Alzheimers sufferers are non or ex smokers? Why do smoking mothers never suffer from pre-eclampsia during childbirth? Why are 68% of Parkinsons sufferers non smokers? How did Jeanne Calment (a lifelong smoker) live to the age of 123? How did Fulla Nayak (she smoked "cigars and ganja") live until she was 125? How did George Burns (smoked five huge cigars a day) live to 99? How is it that smokers hold the world record for longevity?
3. Smoking did not kill anyone before 1930
Thats what the evidence says. Like I said, do more research.
4. Parental passive smoking protects children.
Not according to me. The mighty WHO said that. Why else do you think they tried so desperately to bury their 1998 IARC study?Their headline (when it was eventually published) said "Passive smoking kills", but if you read the study, and I have, many times, the study is clear: passive smoking does not kill. But that headline would not have gone down well.
Again, your lack of research shines brightly. The actual ratio of smokers & non smokers lung cancer is evenly split at 50% per group. If current trends continue, your lot will soon be overtaking my lot. You really ought to question why that might be. Dont you think?
I am happy to believe that your figure of 100,000 smoking related deaths is TOUTED by the DoH. I seriously doubt that it is true though. I concede that their smoking may contribute to their illness but is not, and never has been the single CAUSE. Again, prove me wrong.
SHS may be a trigger for a severe asthma sufferer. It may also be that there are industrial cleaners, strong perfume, or pet dander in the same atmosphere. SHS cannot, and does not CAUSE asthma. Asthma is an allergy. Allergies are caused by proteins. There are no proteins in tobacco smoke. You would therfore need to isolate only SHS and show that as a cause of asthma attacks. Too many other confounders. People are inherently lazy. They take the path of least resistance and blame smoking. Why not? It allegedly causes every ailment from impotency (please explain the Baby Boom) to sticky out ears.
Do yourself, and us, a huge favour. Carry out some research. And please, dont restrict yourself to groups with a vested financial interest. That would include HMG/DoH.
The truth you know, Robert, is a lie. Smoking isnt all bad news. You have been indoctrinated. You have been assimilated.
You are the Borg.
Colin. As far as I'm aware 83% of lung cancer victims are smokers and so will need some sources for your 50% per group figure. Cheers.
I'll dig it out for you.
This proves the 8% relative risk for a smoker, and has some other facts and figures you might be surprised by.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Editorial%201-4.html
Back soon with the other link(s). (I have so many now that I dont know where I filed it. I am having to search for it again).
Colin, It's not true to say there is no death certificate with the words 'Cause of death: smoking' on it. On 17th December 1997, following a parliamentary question by Peter Bottomley MP, Tim Holt, director of the Office for National Statistics, gave the following figures for the number of deaths where smoking was mentioned on the death certificate as a cause of death in England and Wales:
Year Number of deaths
1993 2,038
1994 1,313
1995 1,080
1996 744
1997 686
These figures are very different to the 120,000 smoking-related deaths per year trotted out by government and health campaigners. What they prove is that it is extremely difficult for doctors to say, categorically, that smoking was the cause of death because, as you say, most 'smoking-related diseases' are multifactorial and some may even be genetic. It is very important, however, when discussing these issues, that BOTH sides of the debate get their facts right otherwise we shoot ourselves in the foot.
PS. Let's not get bogged down with lots of external links. The occasional link, perhaps, but this is a blog not a website or archive. God forbid it ends up like some forums with both sides firing endless links at one another.
I stand corrected then. Sort of.
I am happy to never supply links. Truth be told, I am tired of fetching & posting links for anti-smokers. How else do you prove a point though?
The problem I have found with the other side is that they will quote ASH endlessly, without bothering to look eleswhere.
I dont believe Roberts 90% figure because I have seen the ratio expressed differently, and fairly recently.
I guess he will have to go and find it himself.
Colin,
I will wait for your reference or source as to your claim that only 50% of lung cancer patients are smokers but I must say that I don't believe it at all.
So far as the absence of proof that smoking kills I don't think that you add to Forest's credibility by stating this. Just as an example, the tobacco industry denied for a long time that smoking caused lung cancer or was even damaging to health. You seem to be continuing with that stance. You've every right to take whatever view you like but I don't agree with you at all.
Asthma - people may already be predisposed to asthma through their genes but it is just common sense that smoke (direct or passive) asthma can trigger or exacerbate an attack.
Parkinson's Disease and Ulcerative Collitis - I am already aware that smoking may reduce the risk or afford some beneficial effect to sufferers of these diseases. However, the morbidity and mortality that smoking causes overall far outweighs the benefits.
Longevity - 50% (you would probably argue more) of smokers do not die from smoking induced diseases. This 50% may well go on to live to a ripe old age but it's more likely to be down to their genes, a healthy diet, stress free life etc rather than to smoking. I don't agree with you that smoking lengthens life.
Finally, if you genuinely feel that smoking is so good for health then you must launch a campaign to persuade more people, especially young people and teenagers, to take up the addiction.
Finally, and on a lighter note, may I go back to the original story that prompted today's blog entries - namely smoking on television and in films.
One of my favourite entertainment programmes is 'Shameless' on Channel 4. It features everyday life on a deprived and sink housing estate in Greater Manchester. One of the main characters is Frank Gallagher and just one last thought for the day - if smoking was banned on screen then Frank just wouldn't be Frank without a fag in his mouth.
Rob took issue earlier on with me about smoking being normal. I guess it all depends on what environment you find yourself in. Nobody has ever smoked in our home and it would definitely not be normal to do so. But if you asked anyone on the Chatsworth Estate in Channel 4's 'Shameless' if smoking was normal then of course it would be. In fact, if you said you didn't smoke that would be regarded as very abnormal indeed.
Robert,
I dont speak for FOREST. Are you here speaking on behalf of ASH? The BHF? CRUK?
I speak for me. I firmly believe that smoking is an adult activity, and I would be grateful if you did not attempt to put words in my mouth.
I do not actively promote smoking. It is not for everyone. You are either drawn to it or you are not. That it has some health benefits is undeniable. I do not care what you believe, I care only about what you can prove.
If I am wrong in anything I have written, I promise to return and apologise. There is enough misinformation surrounding SHS and tobacco without me adding to it.
A recent re-analysis of the 400,000 smoking related deaths in the USA using the SAMMEC programme has revealed that the smoking "victims" outlived the non-smokers by 1.9 years. The "victims" died at 71.9 years versus the non smoking group who died at 70 years. This would disprove the myth that tobacco is the number one killer, if its "victims" are living longer than the general population. (It may interest you to know that over 70,000 of these deaths ocurred in people aged over 85. Their deaths were still classified as "premature").
I noticed, Robert, that you avoided answering any of those tough questions I asked you.
Care to have a stab at them?
Robert, my objection to banning smoking from movies and TV is to do with the motivation behind it. The likes of ASH want to remove smoking from society and want to use TV show and movie makers to depict the world they way THEY want it to be - no one smoking anywhere.
To point it another way. The anti-smoking brigade want movies and TV shows to pretend 1/4 of the population simply don't exist.
Consider Eastenders. If the makers really want to strive for realism then come the 1st of July the main doors of the Queen Vic should be surrounded by smokers (especially in good weather) as that's what pubs look like wherever there's a ban.
Perhaps it's not integral to any plot but suspension of disbelief requires a certain amount of scene setting and whether a certain vocal minority like it or not a ban doesn't make them go away. Ironically it makes them even more visible and surely that SHOULD be reflected on TV.
Simon Clark states: Films have to reflect real life. In most of the western world, a quarter of the adult population smokes and I don't see why films shouldn't represent that, as long as it's not totally gratuitous.")
How on earth can you even mention someone going about a perfectly lawful pursuit, which smoking is (at the moment) as gratuitous? The word gratuitous, as I am sure you are aware, means "unwarranted, lacking good reason". I cannot see why anyone should need a "good reason" to smoke. One smokes for the same reason that one would have a drink, to relax and enjoy one's self.
When the word "gratuitous" arises in films which show "gratuitous" violence, or "gratuitous" bad language, I would say that could be classed as a fair comment, because neither of these actions reflect what most of us class as "normal" every day behaviour, and both can be arrestable offences. So please, Mr Clark, I know your intentions were not meant to be anything other than for the pro smoking lobby, but I think the use of the word "gratuitous" is association with smoking is just playing into the hands of anti smoking fascists.
Robert Evans states: The problem with showing cigarette smoking on television is that it projects an image that 'smoking is normal' and without consequence. No amount of smoking in films will ever persuade me to start but the same cannot be said of impressionable children and teenagers who are at a critical time in their lives and easily influenced by role models.
What else would you have banned on television in case it influences the young, Mr Evans, drinking perhaps, swearing, most certainly, how about eating junk food, then of course there is any form of violence, and murder, most definitely, fast and bad driving, and of course drug taking, and what about adultery and having affairs?
There must be hundreds of things which we all hope our children and their children will not grow up to do, but banning the showing of these things, never helps. It is a well known fact that driving things underground, only tends to make them more glamorous to the young and vulnerable. If you are really interested in helping the young and vulnerable, then campaign for better education for them, and I am not talking about indoctrination, which many people see today as education, I am talking about real education, based upon real facts, which can be proven, not spun to meet a set of figures.
As a P.S. On this, did you happen to see the remarkable documentary last night on Five, entitled "The Return of the Tribe", which followed a group of natives from Papua New Guinea, who visit London. Several of them were seen with a cigarette hanging between their lips, smoking for much of the programme, both when they were in their own country, and whilst they were here in London. Would Mr Evans say that they too should have been stopped from smoking, which was as natural to them as drinking a glass of water, whilst they were making this marvellous documentary?
I would not trust any statistics published about smoking-related deaths - after all,we were told to expect about 13,000 people per year coming into the country after 2004. Some people need help with their basic mathematics skills! I suppose my grandfather died of smoking - he fought in France in the trenches (WWI) in 1916 and 1917, fought for King and country and democracy, was injured, came home, went back to fight again, contracted malaria and died eventually in 1965 aged 78 - but I bet it was smoking that killed him!
Colin Grainger's article is first class, full of facts, and every one provable.
The problem is Colin, as I am sure you are now well aware, trying to talk facts to an anti smoker, is like asking a blind person what they think of your new red tie. They just will never see it.
They become angry and shout and swear, and their best argument, is usually "I am sorry I just do not believe you". It is like trying to put your argument across to a three year old child, they can only see things which personally affects them, they do not like school, for instance, so why should they have to go?
Children, we can give way to, they are too young to understand. Our best argument where children are concerned, is to try to educate them, but when we try the same tactics with the anti smokers, they become angry and abusive.
So what should we do? There are more of them (anti smokers) than there are of us smokers, so should we just sit back and let them bully us into submission? No way, I am always willing to stand up to bullies, and I am pleased to see that there are other people, here on this website, that are also ready to stand their ground.
Keep on quoting the facts Colin, and one day, just like the pounds and ounces Nazis have had to overturn their ruling, I am sure we will as well.
Getting back to the original debate about banning smoking on T.V. and in films. America is renowned for prohibition and the extreme was reached in the A Team where the utmost violence was used but no one ever got killed. America is now one of the most violent countries [not at war] in the world. Is it because the children do not realise the dangers of weapons and even take them into schools and shoot their classmates. Prohibition does not work. Many films such as Trainspotting, Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction etc show hard drug use and smoking. Would it still be alright to show some one injecting heroin or sniffing cocaine but not allowed to show them having a cigarette? Is a joint o.k. so long as they do not use tobacco to roll it? The whole thing is just pathetic.
Peter I dont think there's as many antismokers as you think- only a few are setting the agenda. Between this forum, forces and F2C it feels good there are people standing up against such nasty unpleasant bullies. And children must not be taught through scare tactics. I was once taught to hate communists when I was small and told that they "ate children" - now how many facts are in that?? Err zero.
PS about the film thing- what next- ban alcoholbeing shown in films?? But cannabis and heroin- oh yeah anrent they so real?
I've never heard of John Evans before and he's certainly not my brother.
To respond to the many comments and dubious statistics quoted yesterday there is a danger here of getting bogged down in a never ending statistical slanging match.
However, I would just say that any doctor in the country will tell you that smoking is ruinous to health. With the exception of a tiny minority, the whole nation knows this to be true. To deny that is like insisting that the world is flat.
Having said that, I do and have always respected smokers' rights to smoke. All that is asked is that smokers refrain from inflicting their smoke on others in enclosed public places. If we can't agree on that then thank goodness that the 1st July is nearing and new laws are coming to the rescue of common sense.
Ah common sense - that grand non-argument that always seem to be brought out as a kind of catch-all justification. In general I find it brought out when people lack a cogent argument.
The problem with common sense is no such thing exists. Or rather, there are six billion versions of common sense. In some cases there's overlap, but not always.
Whilst you *may* respect smoker's right to smoke (not that I was aware that such a right existed), it's a shame you don't have the same respect for the very real property rights of pub and restaurant owners, many of whom will be forced out of business after the 1st of July.
If Robert respects our right to smoke but not in public places why are we not allowed smokers bars, clubs, restaurants etc? Large warning signs about the dangers of entering would be on the outside so as not to pollute any unsuspecting non smoker. Privately owned and run, where is the problem? Does he support this option or is he afraid that if this happened then these places would blossom. If so many want a smoke free environment then have most places. Just leave us a couple.
I have read on here the so called "dubious statistics" which Robert Evans refuses to accept or even listen or look into, and I, like so many people, know beyond a doubt they are correct. How can you indulge in a serious argument, when you repudiate every statistic that is offered to you as evidence, and rubbish the argument by calling it a slanging match?
You will not accept facts, yet you say that "any doctor in the country will tell you that smoking is ruinous to health", to which you then add, "With the exception of a tiny minority"
You try to stop any and all argument against your theories by saying that if we argue with you it becomes a slanging match. What would Mr Evans have us do, simply agree with everything he says and offer no argument against him, even though we support our arguments with hard facts?
He goes onto say that "the whole nation knows this to be true. To deny that is like insisting that the world is flat". I have never seen or heard of any poll in which the whole nation took part, so where Mr Evans dug that little gem up from I don't know.
Mr Evans (bless him) tells us that he has always respected smokers' rights to smoke. But, all that he asks is that smokers refrain from inflicting their smoke on others in enclosed public places. Well isn't that kind of Mr Evans, there is no talk of improved ventilation in enclosed places in Mr Evans world, just stop it or else! How kind!
I was visiting someone in hospital recently, and I saw old people, some in wheelchairs, forced to sit in a communal area outside the building in the freezing cold and rain, in order to smoke a cigarette. When I told this story to another anti smoker recently, they answered by saying that it was probably smoking that put these old people there in the first place, so it is their own fault, and they should suffer the consequences. What a caring world we now live in!
There are may more dangerous things facing us today than a whiff of cigarette smoke, such as vehicle emissions, which effect all of us, especially young children in pushchairs who are at the same height at the vehicle exhausts, especially with lorries and busses.
I wonder how the anti smoking Nazis would react if cars were banned, would they still stand up for their so called clean air, like they do now? I doubt it very much.
Thanks for the support Peter.
I learnt very early on in this War on Smokers not to post data that was unverifiable. I maintain that I still have not broken my own golden rule.
I notice that anti-smokers completely ignore the questions they dont like, they respond with rhetoric, and avoid the science like genital warts.
Robert Evans is no different in those respects.
No doubt he will refute my laymans diagnosis but I am convinced that he suffers from two syndromes: one is called Mistaken Certainty, and his other ailment involves uttering Memetic Aphorisms (quoting without thinking).
Both are dangerous and restrictive. Neither are conducive to intelligent debate. The good news is that both are curable with some diligent research, the ability to remove those comfy blinkers, and opening ones mind to other possibilities.
In defence of Robert at least he is entering into a debate with us smokers and has shown some regard for our rights and feelings. If more non smokers would at least listen to us -even if they do not agree- then maybe we could reach an accommodation that would suit everyone. However, the bulk of the antis are sitting around smugly watching smokers in Ireland, Wales and Scotland go outside while rubbing their hands waiting for the English to be next. There has been many discussions about free speech on this blog and Robert has every right to his views even if contrary to the majority on this site.Long may the debate continue as us Irish both North and South never had one.
Definitely Micheal if only we could- well by that I mean the antismokers- who i see as a separate category. Im sure something could be reached by simply excluding the fanatical fringes of the ASH brigade. Robert's presence shows this forum is democratic. Im sorry about Ireland not having such unbiased debates in a media setting.
Ok I was just asking- seemed a bit of a coincidence two like-minded people with the same surname- well I guess Evans is a common name. Well depends on which doctor- most will tell you smoking isnt exactly good for you yes.
The one thing I disagree is that smokers should be allowed to operate their own venues if they so wish. I happen to respect the rights of property owners and managers to have what's called choice.
Robert has every right to his opinion, and I would never argue otherwise.
The problem, as Peter has eloquently pointed out, is that Robert brings nothing to table, then says simply "I dont believe you". Unfortunately for Robert, this really isnt about belief. Its about scientific fact.
If he is going to state his opinion, thats all well and good, in future I will read his opinion and leave it at that. I wont bother with rebuttals, but if he is going to argue the finer points, we are going to need a damn sight more than "I dont believe you".
I apologise if I seemed harsh. Its just that I have learnt to identify anti-smokers and I have learnt that they all have a similar mindset. The fingers in the ears while chanting "La la la la la" nonsense just doesnt do it for me anymore.
I loved reading all the posts.
Colin stated earlier about all they wanted, planes ect.
That is what makes us angry about where it is going. Even more so when people say "smokers only have to step outside". How far outside though,for the NHS staff,not even in their cars. They probably eed a car to get to where they can smoke. I cannot believe the unions are not fighting for the workers who already have seperate smoking rooms.
There are still many employers who do not realise how far this ban goes. How many elderly have a clue.
Brilliant posts anyway
Colin accuses me of bringing nothing to the table and proving nothing. I have re read his incredulous list of claims from yesterday and these do not prove anything at all.
The assertions and figures that I have quoted are already widely accepted, reported and well aired. If even half of what Colin claims to be true had an ounce of credibility surely it would have filtered through to news programmes, newspapers or at least the medical journals by now. The onus is really on him to actually prove his claims.
The only thing that Colin appears to actually prove is that he is capable of a stressed up rant. If his powers of persuasion were even 1% of this then the in door smoking laws would have been repealed yesterday.
It is for others to judge whether I 'bring nothing to the table' and do not contribute to these debates. If this is the view of the established contributers to this web log then I will accept that with good grace.
If each day's motion is then followed by nothing but 'Hear, hear' then it's hardly a debate is it? I await your verdict.
I have dozens and dozens of links Robert, and they prove every point I have made so far. Simon has asked that I do not post too many and I respect his wishes. Its his house, his rules.
I am never satisfied if I can only find one source so I cross-reference. I now have a black belt in internet research. I have written to, and had responses from, many many doctors, professors and respected scientists over the last 24 months. This runs contrary to your firm view that "no doctor would agree with you" statement above.
I dont wish to be mean, but you seem to get your "facts" direct from fag packets. A great deal of my research was done on the BMJ website, at the WHO website, JAMA, ALA, AHA, FOREST, Philip Morris, the BHF, CRUK, Gallaher, Imperial, BAT, ASH, the DoH, the CDC, the EPA, uncountable legal websites, LiveScience, Forces, the Smokers Club, and TobaccoAnalysis to name but a few. I researched diesel, Radon, radioactive particles in our atmosphere (there are more than 750 BILLION of those bad boys just waiting to be breathed in. Just one particle will grow you some lovely tumours and kill you stone dead. They came from Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Three Mile Island, Trinity, New Mexico, nuclear accidents like Chernobyl etc). Industrial pollution, vehicle emissions, aircraft emissions, all thousands of times more deadly than tobacco smoke.
Yet people like you choose to blame cigarette smoke? OSHA (the US version of our Health & Safety Executive) cannot get enough smokers in a room to generate enough smoke to harm anyone. Nowhere, ever, have they been able to get tobacco smoke to get close to the PEL's (Permissable Emission Levels) that they set. Speaking of whom, you might want to go and spend some time on the H&SE site. Even THEY say that no proof of SHS exists, certainly not enough to bring a legal case. Looks like they forgot to inform SCoTH prior to them recommending a smoker ban, incidently, you might just want to have a close look at that particular "independent" committee. Take a look at who pays them fat salaries and consultancy fees.
Still think SHS is deadly? Do you still think we can only blame tobacco for all those cancers and all those diseases that non smokers contract as well?
Anyone who has spent any time at all looking for another culprit will tell you the same thing. There is no way on earth that tobacco is SOLELY to blame for mankinds ills. There is no way you, or anyone else can discount all those other sources. The only difference is that you want to drive a car, you want to jet off on your holidays, you probably even prefer nuclear power, but your hatred/intense dislike for tobacco smoke absolutely will not allow you to consider anything else.
Robert, if you cant be bothered checking out the real, unbiased, abundant science, then dont. Just follow the money instead. Thats all this crap really boils down to in the end.
Its not about your health or mine. It never was.
Its about money, greed, control, and power.
Wow, what a great post by Colin Grainger, yet again. Talk about bringing something to the table, the table needs to be pretty tough to withstand that lot.
But hold on, Mr Evans doesn't want us to congratulate anyone on great posts does he, from what I read, Mr Evans is asking us for our verdicts on what he actually contributes to this table.
All I can say to Mr Evans, is that when you place your contribution down upon the table, please be careful not to leave a nearby window open, it could so easily blow away.
It appears that the only things of value on the table are arguments that oppose the new smoking laws. Anything else is viewed as most unhelpful.
So far as anything being blown out of the window is concerned, well that's passive smoking in England on the 1st July.
Does anyone know if the bookmakers are taking bets on the legislation being overturned? I wouldn't put a single penny down if they were. The battle to rid indoor public places of second hand smoke has been won and, like it or not, that's democracy in action.
Robert, you are aware that we don't live in a democracy.
And as for "we won and there's nothing you can do about it". Should I point out the 18th and 21st ammendments in the US?
Any law that is passed can be repealed or modified - it only take people willing to pursue that goal.
Of course people on this site are going to oppose the smoking ban, just as they would oppose a ban on drinking, or a ban on using imperial weights and measures, if it hadn't been just overturned After all, this site is called Taking Liberties... The Free Society blog, and most of the people, like myself, do not want our liberties taken away from us, we are passionate about that, we believe in freedom. We do not try to force non smokers to smoke, and we do not avocat forcing non smokers to take to the pavements in order to breath what they would call "cleaner air" (like they do us).
All we ask is for places for smokers and places for non smokers, how can that be wrong?
Mr Evans' argument is never supported by hard facts, it always seems to rely on what he sees as the majority of people believing in. Years ago people believed in witches, and burnt or drowned women who didn't fit in with popular belief at the time. Can you imagine what would happen today if we still worked along those principles? Mr Evans would have more to worry about than inhaling tobacco smoke, it would be more like the smoke from burnt witches!
Almost every week we read or hear something where yesterday we were told we would die if we did this or did that, and the next day it is proven wrong...oops, sorry..you can go out in the sun after all, as we now know that we all need vitamin D, or is it E? Where is Nanny going to stop?
Look at prohibition in the USA, that was going to solve all their problems wasn't it? Fortunately, they finally saw sense, and overturned that law as well. I do not enjoy being dominated, and I suspect the vast majority of people on here, do not like it either. We are grown ups for Christ sake, and capable of making our own minds up, so please Mr Evans, is it bad enough having to be forced by a government whom the majority of people in this country did not vote for, to do something we do not agree with, but then to get someone like yourself trying to make it sound as if it should be meekly accepted, without any substantial facts in its favour, is very hard to take to say the least.
I enjoy a debate or an argument as much as anyone, but I do not base my arguments on statements such as "everyone knows" and "like it or not" etc etc. Can you prove your facts, Mr Evans, or can you disprove the facts that have been shown to you on this website? And more importantly, why are you so against freedom of choice?
I'm not against freedom of choice at all. I have already acknowledged your right and freedom to smoke.
Where we differ is that when the rights of smokers to light up are in conflict with the rights of non smokers to breathe smoke free air (indoors) then I would argue that the latter must prevail.
Robert,
I will respect, and even defend your right to breathe smoke-free air, as long as you return the courtesy.
I want to be able to exercise my right to visit bars and clubs where the air isnt to your taste. Where adults can relax in a warm, dry and friendly atmosphere. Where adults (out of sight of little Britney and little Brad) can use their legal products.
I just need to ask (its another tough question which you have a 100% record of ignoring so far), why do you need ALL bars, restaurants and clubs to be smoke-free? There are some 50,000 licensed premises in England, do you want them all smoke-free just on the off-chance that you might possibly perhaps maybe want to pop in someday?
Colin, I do return the courtesy of your right to light up on condition that your smoke is not inflicted on others.
You appear to paint a very reasonable picture of allowing maybe just some pubs and restaurants to be allowed to continue with a smoking environment. I'm sure that we can agree that it would be inappropriate for the state or local councils to decide which venues may be exempt. So therefore it would have to be the business owner and as I have said before that would just take us back to square one of more or less ALL venues being smoking.
May I anticipate your next point that it should still be the property owner who lays down the house rules? This would carry some merit but only up to a point because these are still public venues and I feel that it is wrong to discriminate against non smokers who are in the majority.
If I were to hold a party at my house with perhaps 20 guests and one person were to ask me if I minded if they smoke I would be within my legal rights to grant permission. But regardless of my status as homeowner would it not be a whole lot more civil if he were to ask the other 19 guests too?
In a public venue with much anonymity it is easy to forget this civility especially if a good number of other people are smoking anyway. I believe that most smokers do have regard for others and that the 1st July will be respected.
If I still haven't answered your question then it is that I believe that allowing some venues to remain smoking would create loop holes in the law, would be unworkable and would undermine the new legislation.
I think the point being made is the new legislation goes too far and thus needs undermining.
If I have a party at MY house then it's implied that smoking is allowed. The guests will presumably now this in advance and if they don't, they'll find out soon enough. It's my house and thus, my rules. If anyone can't respect that then the front door is unlocked and they're free to leave.
What a smoking ban does is takes that power away from a landlord because he happens to sell beer to his patrons. It doesn't matter if they're ALL smokers, they're not allowed to reach an agreement on their own and are legally obliged to protect each other from each other's smoke.
Another point worth mentioning is there is no right to smoke, just as there's no right to smoke-free air. The sooner people realise that, the better, and the only rights in play are the rights of the bar owner, and it's those that have been eroded.
Despite your predictions of unworkability and back to square one, Spain is managing to quite successfully work the middle ground and has both smoking and non-smoking establishment, along with premises that cater to bother, with the smoking and non smoking section being completely segregated. So please, no more insinuations that a total ban is the only workable "compromise".
Worrying about environmental tobacco smoke is truly trivial in comparison with lots of other substances in our environement,namely and in particular,vehicle emissions and the burning of oil based fuels.
I shall refer you to the Gauderman Survey for one which was conducted recently in California and supported by Southampton University. This study provided very strong evidence to show that vehicle emissions severely hamper children's lung growth.
Now it is simply crazy to make a big fuss about a few smokers if you are then prepared to jump happily into your car and state as lots of anti-smokers do when confronted with this argument: "Oh, it can't be helped." In fact, that's the reasoning of the lunatic asylum.
In addition, having had to study emissions oil based fuels of late, it would require approximately 8.5 billion cigarettes just to match the nitrogen oxide emissions coming from one busy airport.
Lastly, if the miniscule emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and benzene coming from cigarettes were as dangerous as the anti-smoking lobby wants to make out, then an extrapolative comparison with busy roads would make the latter total no-go areas as people visiting them would be dropping like flies all over the place.
I would add that the "back to square one" argument is a self fulfilling prophecy. Two things spring to mind, one, a question, and the second is a statement:
If smoker bans were soooo popular, why has the market not reacted accordingly? Venues are amazingly fast when it comes to differentiators and if smoke-free was desired by so many, there would have been no need for a ban as the market would have adapted to cater for changing needs.
The statement concerns the change in demographics where smoking & pubs are concerned: although non-smokers make up the majority in any population, the ratios differ when it comes to drinking. Although we often see the percentage of smokers in the UK expressed as 25%, in pubs and clubs that number leaps to over 50%, in some cases it is around 80%. Check out those pubs with smoke-free areas, I guarantee you will find almost no-one occupying them. The numbers are swelled by light and social smokers.
In Scotland, there was an initial upsurge in pub numbers when those anti-smokers turned up, briefly, to crow about their "victory", and within days, those same people disappeared, never to return. All that fuss, lost business, and anguish so that a distinct minority could enjoy a couple of nights out before going back home to whine about something else. To prepare for their next crusade...
It seems to me that what is needed is "smoke-free nights", rather than a blanket ban. I wonder if splitting the week up between smoking and non smoking days would be a reasonable compromise. Pubs would quickly establish which were their most popular nights/days and would sort themselves out accordingly.
This would offer choice to all.
Why not grant licences for places to allow smoking. Strict conditions would have to be met and the premises regularly inspected. Not all businesses could afford or would want to invest in the technology so the antis would still have somewhere to go. Even if they did stray into such an establishment they would be safe as due to the extraction systems there would be less toxins in the air than in a glass of tap water.