Telegraph readers write ...
Thursday, July 2, 2009 
Further to our letter in the Telegraph on Tuesday, the paper has published some follow-up letters HERE.
"The smoking ban encapsulates all that is pernicious, mendacious and controlling about this most illiberal of incompetent administrations," writes Tony Hacker of Berwick-upon-Tweed.
"Commercial filters such as those in restaurant kitchens can filter smoky air constantly, to give a healthy environment," adds Matthew Dickins of Markbeech in Kent.
And Mart Gottschalk of Sutton Coldfield has this to say:
"There are two reasons why MPs will never amend the pub smoking ban.
"First, politicians (who drink only fine wines) despise ordinary people, and loathe their treasured institutions.
"Secondly, they know full well that when any two people are gathered in a pub, the first thing they discuss is how much they despise and loathe politicians."
Keep those letters coming ... dtletters@telegraph.co.uk
Simon Clark
Nothing we didn't already know, but the following parliamentary question was answered yesterday:
Mr Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will consult the public on their views on exemptions to the prohibition in smoking in public places for pubs and clubs; and if he will make a statement.
Gillian Merron [Public Health Minister]: Before the introduction of the smoke free law in England a commitment was given to complete a review after three years. The review will be carried out in 2010.
A (small) window of opportunity remains open.
Reader Comments (12)
In the margin beside these letters, under Related Articles, I read:
Greece to impose smoking ban on July 1 in third attempt to stamp out the nation's cigarette habit
And that is indeed what is being attempted. The claim that secondhand smoke is dangerous was always a fig leaf to hide the real intention behind the ban, which has been to stamp out the cigarette habit. It seems that European governments now feel that it is their job to tell their citizens how to live their lives.
Idlex is correct and the anti-smoking activists in the UK now rarely mention passive smoking as a health issue and tacitly admit that the ban was intended to make people give up. This causes them a problem when, as for example in the Telegraph, both smokers and non-smokers argue against bans on freedom of choice grounds.
The one writer supporting the ban is typical of many non-smokers and does have a valid point. Smokers will walk in and out of smoking rooms carrying lit cigarettes. I see it at work. They stand right outside the entrance door, whereas I walk 20 yards away (to a more pleasant spot). Why attract attention and dislike? As I've said before, there needs to be a guarantee of a plentiful supply of completely non-smoking pubs for the campaign to succeed.
jon - market forces will provide that guarantee. Before the ban I lived in a market town with some 14 pubs and six restaurants. All but one of the restaurants had chosen to ban smoking and have survived. In a neigbouring village I found that my pub of choice (one of three) had also voluntarily banned smoking. I have to say that I found the stench of sweat and stale alcohol so offensive that, even were I a non-smoker, I wouldn't choose to spend time there. What a strange society we've become when people are willing to tolerate a stagnant, foul smell but not the smell of a cigarette in passing. It only begins to make sense if you realise that people have learnt to be completely intolerant of smoke.
Whatever happens, it is important to show the second-hand-smoke scam up for what it is: a scam. There can be no letting up on that or the antis will always try and use it. In addition, the smoke intolerance factor is also part of the extensive brain washing process. The same people who complain about small whiffs of cigarette smoke will languish in front of barbecues and bonfires, warm themselves in front of coal and wood fires and merrily inhale the smell of candles and joss sticks.
Burning these items is still the burning of carbon based matter just as burning tobacco is and, moreover, in comparative low risk terms, most of them are far more dangerous than cigarette smoke. It is not only ridiculous but pathetic when people now complain about the smallest whiffs of tobacco smoke as though it is going to kill or seriously damage them.
Lastly, it is also a fact, as will soon be revealed, that just getting in your car and turning on the engine, produces carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides in quantities which MASSIVELY outstrip anything produced by cigarettes.
The Government will use "consultation exercises" to justify the continuation of the ban. ASHuk has recently quoted the results of a yougov poll which found 80% in favour. I've looked all over the yougov website, but can't find the results nor the questions asked. With the smoking ban it is possible to get any result you want, depending on the wording. For example,
"Do you believe that smokers should be allowed to endanger the health of those around them?"
or
"Is it reasonable that smokers cannot get together and form a smoking club, entirely staffed by themselves?"
Should I find out the details of this poll, I'll post them.
All this rubbish about the stink of tobacco or the stink of one's hair or clothing really rubs me up the wrong way. I wrote an article a year or two ago, entitled The Stink, which is about exactly that. For anyone who hasn't seen it, you can see it here http://peterthurgood-thetruth.blogspot.com/ and scroll down the page.
But what gets me is who is to say what stinks and what doesn't doesn't? I personally love the smell of Tobacco, especially cigars, and my clothes or hair or breath, never smell of tobacco, and I can vouch for that because I have a very strong sense of smell, so strong in fact that I can smell chewing gum a mile off (I hate it) but I don't moan about it all the time and say my clothes smell of it.
Some people love the smell of rubber tyres or asphalt, but again, I don't, but does that make it bad or stinky? Of course not, the only smell I would like to ban is the smell of the antis hypocrisy.
I completed a survey for YouGov today. Part of it gave a choice of two answers and I had to give one of them. I was told if I didn't know, then guess. Are YouGov surveys reliable? NO.
Peter Thurgood wrote: I can smell chewing gum a mile off (I hate it)... Some people love the smell of rubber tyres or asphalt, but again, I don't,..
I like the warm, rich odour of tobacco smoke. But I also like the smell of chewing gum. And I'm indifferent to rubber tyres or asphalt.
I don't mind most odours. The trouble starts when there's no escape from them. I once lived in a town which had a brewery in it, and every few months they'd engage in some process which filled the air with a quite powerful sweet smell. It wasn't unpleasant initially, but after three days during which there was no escape from it, except by catching a bus to another town, I came to utterly loathe it.
Maybe the review in 2010 will just be a review of all the consultations and polls conducted by the highly funded anti-smoking industry.
Let's face it, any review will exclude public opinion. When is public opinion ever taken into account?
We're certainly living in very sad and angry times.
Anti-smoking knows that if you tell someone an odour is disgusting often enough, they will agree. It is also what you are used to. I remember going into a relative's pub at the age of 6 and loving the smell. I didn't dislike the smell of tobacco on my dad's clothes. Americans and Australians smell of soap. The French smell of humans, but to Americans they are almost as bad as tobacco. All you can do is remind complainers that smell is subjective.
Yes Mary, I too am very suspicious indeed about it. They legislate a new law called an experiment (SBE) which comes up for review after three years. Very fair and democratic? Nah, it is part of a new game called 'Democracy' - have you seen the rules?!
I told my wife about the new game 'Democracy' - she reckons the present government bought it at a car boot sale and there were pieces missing but it looked good on the box.