Add Comment

This article says it all really. Freedom to Choose have been right all along. Ventilation/Filtrati on linked to a Regulated Indoor Air Quality Standard was the solution to passive smoking and the removal of 99.97% of all harmful 'toxins'. Smoking bans were never necessary and the destruction of businesses and social isolation could have been avoided. Isn't it time the SE and HMG reconsider the arm both physical and economical they are doing. www.feedom2choose.in fo to find out the truth

I'm a chronic asthmatic of long standing. I recently invested in a domestic steam cleaner which, apart from "perking up" the LOOK of the carpets and other soft furnishings, has had a remarkably beneficial effect on my condition. I can't say that it's a panacea for everybody, but if you haven't tried it, you'd do well to consider it carefully as a means of limiting the effects of what to me is a very debilitating condition.

I think it is ironic that these asthma sufferers are looking for ventilation now that the pubs have turned theirs off. Surely open fires, body odours, flatulence and cheap perfume smells are as likely to aggravate their condition as cigarette smoke. Yet they pushed for a ban on smoking when smokers and some publicans wanted improved ventilation systems with even a licensing scheme for smoking premises. This would protected them from all of the above. Instead, the ashmatics are still not going to the pubs and the smokers have stayed at home. The result is that pubs are closing and those that are open are cutting costs such as running expensive extractor systems. We smokers have had our enjoyment and businesses ruined based on lies put about by Asthma UK and ASH so are unlikely to have much sympathy. My sympathy is for the motorists who will be next on their list of people to target and villify.

This suggests to me that filtration systems could be used in pubs or cafes designated for smoking.

[quote]This article says it all really. Freedom to Choose have been right all along.[/quote] They've got water filters in the swimming pool, does that make it aright to **** in the water?

Economic Migrant I am sure you would agree that it would be foolish to ban peeing in the pool and then turn off all the water filters. Yet this is more or less what is happening in pubs. Because there is no smoking there are assumed to be no contiminants. The air quality is still a problem regardless of the absence of smoke.

Well said Belinda. The pubs have stopped installing and using the filtration systems and as a result the smells have worsened. However, they will not turn them back on because smoking got the blame for all ills while only being responsible for a fraction. This article proves that at the very least there are other causes of asthmatic attacks which cannot be blamed on smokers. When the health fascists admit this then maybe the whole issue of air quality can be addressed. Maybe then we could have pubs with filtration systems where smokers and asthmatics can both go without one impinging on the other.

Interesting study, showing how non-smokers can further reduce their risk of serious heart or lung disease. So does it prove the same air filters would also remove the risks from tobacco smoke? No - the study only looked at non-smoking households. And does it make it any more practical to allow smoking sections in our pubs? Again, no. Publicans would still have to have a separate room or pay to construct an enclosed smoking section. They'd still have to buy the ventilation equipment. They'd have to find a way to ensure the smoking section was cleared and cleaned without subjecting staff to passive smoke. The ventilation equipment would have to be 100% effective, not just when brand new, but every day. And publicans would have to have the equipment switched on whenever the smoking section was open. So they'd presumably have to stump up for additional inspection visits to check the equipment was being used and was working fully efficiently. That's quite a lot for publicans to pay for - especially those who apparently can't afford to switch on their ventilation equipment at all now.

Economic Migrant I am sure you would agree that it would be foolish to ban peeing in the pool and then turn off all the water filters. Yet this is more or less what is happening in pubs. Because there is no smoking there are assumed to be no contiminants. The air quality is still a problem regardless of the absence of smoke.

Apologies for the double posting. I would leave the economics of air filtration to the licensed trade, Rollo! The article suggests that isolating one contaminant is not the problem and [bold]even in a non-smoking environment[/bold] there is so much contamination that the use of air cleaning equipment for a moderate amount of time increases lung functioning significantly. There is absolutely no reason to assume that tobacco smoke would be beyond the capacity of most ventilation equipment. to deal with Similarly, if the general air is so full of toxins, are we sure that the presence of tobacco smoke in the air is going to increase the toxicity of the environment significantly in bars? Is the simple act of servicing tables going to put bar staff at more risk than they experience in unfiltered air or for that matter when walking down the street?

Belinda Had fun reading your double posting! Your first point is unproven. Actually, I'd say the full study's results are not proven, since they rely on a small and homogeneous sample for a limited period (48 hours) which doesn't take account of diminishing filter efficiency. But the results are certainly strong enough to raise real issues. I don't see the relevance of your second point. As far as we know, all of us - smokers and non-smokers - are subjected to these other contaminants. But research still shows the added risks of passive smoking. So a non-smoker who is exposed to these contaminants plus passive smoke is 20-30% more likely to contract lung cancer and heart disease than someone who is exposed to these contaminants alone.

That is not a significant increase in risk Rollo ... the initial risk (of non-exposed non-smokers) being so low. The government health committee SCOTH in 1998 put this risk at 10 in 100,000, and the additional risk from secondary smoking puts this at 12 or 13 in 100,000. Not a risk that would scare me very much. Furthermore such studies did not take into account background pollution ... since it looks as if background pollution in indoor areas has only just been acknowledged. Anyway I am out for the evening so you will hopefully be spared any more double postings.

I don't think the study was about filter efficiency anyway, but the muck in the air in a non-smoking environment.

Belinda - I realise you won't read this for a while. But my point is that that these contaminants should already be factored into the results of these studies showing the added risk of passive smoking. If we are all exposed to these contaminants, but people exposed to passive smoking are more likely to fall foul of these diseases, then these contaminants cannot be behind the added risk - it must be the passive smoke. And your stats do not get around the fact that an estimated 1,500 to 2,000 people in Scotland re likely to die in Scotland each year as a result of passive smoke-induced lung cancer and heart disease.

Heart attacks in 30 to 40 year olds has risen sharply in recent years. The number of smokers have declined every year for decades and the number of cars, lorries and buses on our roads have risen every year for decades. It is a fact that when exercising near diesel fumes one is likely to get a heart attack. I know where I put the blame on air polution.

Chas - nobody's claiming passive smoking is the only cause of heart disease or lung cancer. But what you say does not take away from the fact that a non-smoker or ex-smoker can reduce their risk of succumbing to these diseases by some 25% if they're not exposed to passive smoke.

Rollo, You claim that 1,500 to 2,000 people in Scotland will die from exposure to passive smoking each year. Prove it ! Actually, just prove that one person will so do. Don't feed us your discredited ASH propaganda but, better, tell us how smoking can be isolated as the sole cause from any condition that causes death. Show us the science that proves that direct smoking (much less the nonsense around ETS) actually causes a heart attack on it's own. Point us to a study that that clearly proves beyond doubt that, even in one single case, smoking could be identified as the sole cause of a cancerous growth. In the absence of such proof, spare us the fabricated scary statistics.

Fri 15th Feb Radio Five Live. Professor Julian Le Grand, the Senior Government adviser in health, said 'I don't actually think the arguments on passive smoking are all that strong'

Rollo, We've been over this before. An ESTIMATED 25% Increase or decrease in Relative Risk, based on a memory based questionaire asking people to try and guess to remember how much smoke they were exposed to (unmeasureable) during certain periods of there lives is just so ridiculous a scenario with respect to science that we shouldn't even be discussing it. To somehow get a law passed on these pathetic levels of relative risks at the 95% confidence interval just beggars belief to anyone except the most fanatical members of the anti smoking cult. (and I'm not including you amongst them) Ask any statistician if you don't believe me. The fact is that you cannot prove that passive smoking increases or decreases the risk of anything because the risks published are so low. That;s why there are so many contradictory results on this issue.

Mallon :You'll be reassured to know I've not had to look at the ASH website for my evidence. Here's the report estimating the 1,500-2,000 deaths figure: http://www.healthsco tland.com/uploads/do cuments/MortalityStu dy.pdf. Here's evidence of the dangers of passive smoking: http://www.advisoryb odies.doh.gov.uk/sco th/PDFS/scothnov2004 .pdf. And in case you think this is simply the product of some biased scientists, the fact is that even the tobacco industry realise that passive smoking presents real dangers - a fact they've tried to hide. This quote is from a US judge in USA v Philip Morris, etc (http://www.tobacco. neu.edu/litigation/c ases/DOJ/20060817KES SLEROPINIONAMENDED.p df, p.1239): "Defendants [i.e. Philip Morris and other tobacco companies] recognized that secondhand smoke contained high concentrations of carcinogens and other harmful agents. Defendants also recognized that the research from the public health community showing that ETS caused disease was persuasive evidence of the harmful effects of secondhand smoke and could be adverse to their position. Most importantly, research funded by Defendants themselves provided evidence confirming the public health authorities' warnings that nonsmokers exposure to cigarette smoke was a health hazard." Thankfully decisions about smoking laws are made by people more wise and open-minded than you, who appear to be quite content to run the risk of allowing hundreds of people in my country and yours to die each year for the sake of a very small freedom.

Rollo, So this isn't true? "The blueprint for this campaign dates to 1975 when British delegate Sir George Godber instructed the World Health Organization on how to get smokers to quit.' As reported in "Passive Smoking: How Great the Hazard?", Sir George said, "it would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to the smoke in the air."

Iain: You're arguing over the size of the relationship, not the relationship itself. As I said in my last post, even the tobacco industry itself recognises the health risks of passive smoking. SCOTH's analyses of 1998 and 2004 reach very similar estimates about the level of that extra risk, even taking account of all the additional studies (Enstrom and Kabat included) which took place in the meantime. What if their estimate of increased risk isn't correct? If the real additional risk were 50%, that could account for 2,500-4,000 deaths per year. Even if it were half the extra risk estimated by SCOTH, the 500-750 deaths involved would be similar to the number of deaths in Scotland each year from road traffic accidents and MRSA combined. Scotland's choice has been clear. Our governments could have decided to take no action until the exact level of risk from passive smoking had been precisely assessed, and allowed thousands of people to succumb unnecessarily to horrible diseases. Or we could have accepted the truth that passive smoking threatens people's health and take appropriate action quickly. Thank goodness we chose the latter.

RW - If you're basing your whole argument on a quote by one person over 30 years ago (which was quite possibly taken out of context) and ignoring a welter of subsequent evidence, then I pity you. I would recommend you read the court case judgement I provided the link to above. i think you'll find many more compelling quotes there than what you offered.

Rollo, I asked you if it was untrue. Did people really set out to denormalise and devalue ordinary decent people on purpose.

The risks of passive smoking are hypothetical and spurious. Has it been proven conclusively that, for example, 5 people have been killed by it? Let's make it easier - 3, even? An EU report concluded that the items / airborne particulates which can reduce air quality number 900, including coal fires, air fresheners, cleaning products, open candles (!!!) and perfumes. They all emit carcinogens. Ironically, had pubs been permitted to continue allowing smoking with ventilation, the air quality in those pubs would probably be of a higher quality than the 'smoke-free' pubs we have currently. A University of Nottingham report recently concluded that modern day air management systems - which are not ridiculously expensive, and can be bought and installed in an indoor venue for less than £2000 - can reduce the levels of airborne contamination of the MRSA virus in hospitals by 96.4%. However, the anti-smokers would have us believe that ventilation, which has been proven to be capable of removing viruses, is ineffective in dispersing tobacco smoke. Hmmmm. Rollo - not all tobacco companies acknowledge the perceived risks of passive smoking. As for your evidence, you quote sources with no official regulatory power in this country. Just ask the tobacco companies (seen as you brought them into this). They attempted to force a judicial review over the findings of the 1998 SCOTH report - but couldn't, because - you guessed it - they are not an official regulatory body. Your American court judgement is worthless in relation to the legal system of Scotland, England, or any of the 'home nations'. I will, however, direct you to a precedent setting case which is relevant, which you'll doubtless be familiar with, but have been too selectively disingenuous to cite: McTear vs Imperial Tobacco. Of course, the passive smoking debate all comes down to one's own opinion re: epidemiology. I contend that a statistician / mathematician is eminently more qualified to interpret statistics than doctors (or glorified engineers like Stanton Glantz). In relation to your objections regarding the practicality of ventilation technology, as I put to you before, like environmental health inspections, and many health and safety inspections (and, indeed, your beloved smoking ban), it would be self-policing, and investigations would only take place if there were a specific problem. There would always be an anti-smoker willing to kick up a fuss if the ventilation equipment isn't working. And as for the cost - I'm sure many struggling landlords would be willing to make an initial £2000 investment if it meant they could stay open in the long run. Of course, 25% sounds quite alarming - but when put into context, even if one accepts that increased risk is accurate, that equates with an overall increased risk of contracting lung cancer and heart disease of a fraction of a percent. Should people not be permitted to work in and / or frequent environments in which they are able to take perceived risks? Of course, the precedent has been set. Now the perceived risk of a myriad of contaminants is known, they must all be extirpated from our pubs and clubs, no matter how useful the item in question may be (such as air freshener, or a nice warm fire, or an atmospheric candle, or polish. Get rid of them all - they can all impact upon health).

Tim: I have stated more than once above that there are other contaminants in the air. But research still shows that exposure to passive smoking constitutes a clear risk in its own right. And yes, the 25% figure is alarming, because we get alarmed by the number of people who die each year from MRSA and road traffic accidents - and passive smoking kills more than they do. Don't know about the Nottingham study and happy to read that if you can provide a link to it. But BAA's experience shows that they spent hundreds of thousands of pounds installing tornex smoking units in Scottish airports before the new laws were introduced here - and still attracted numerous complaints about the smell of smoke (with the risk of associated carcinogens). Based on experience at Stansted Airport, these units cost about £70k each. And how effective would self-policing be? Before the smoking laws, few pubs I visited bothered to use or maintain their fans properly. And, by your own accounts, pubs seem very quick not to use ventilation equipment now. It would be unacceptable for any relaxation to take place without proper assurance that the protective devices were being properly used and maintained. Your continued questioning about people who have died from passive smoking is nonsensical. You know perfectly well that SHS will never be referred to on a death certificate, because it is not an illness or injury causing death. Tell you what. Even seen "Fell from a cliff" mentioned on a death certificate? I doubt it has. Just try jumping off a cliff and find out for yourself how safe it is. 2004 SCOTH Report. You don't know how to argue against it. So you refer instead to a previous SCOTH report. But even then you don't know how to argue against the content of the report. Instead you suggest that its views don't matter because it has no regulatory status. So does that also apply to your views, which have no regulatory status? And to Nottingham University's views? What exactly is your point? Sorry to say this, but you reveal total ignorance of the law. The quote I gave from the US court judgement was part of the findings about the facts of the case. It had nothing to do with the law of the land, and would have been the same had the District of Columbia applied the law of Scotland or England or wherever. As for the McTear case, Mrs McTear lost her case because the judge for several reasons. Lord Nimmo Smith felt he hadn't been given sufficient expert evidence about the epidemiology and that Mrs McTear couldn't prove that passive smoking killed her husband or that he regularly used Imperial Tobacco's products rather than other cigarettes. I noticed in a recent F2C editorial that Colin G supposedly quoted Lord Nimmo Smith as saying “smoking tobacco does not cause lung cancer”". Well he said no such thing. Read for yourself if you don't believe me: http://www.scotcourt s.gov.uk/library/cas es/NimmoSmithStateme nt.pdf. You see I keep telling you not to take everything your F2C friends say at face value, but do you listen? And forgive me for preferring the views of the scientific community (even the tobacco industry) on epidemiology over your homely thoughts. In any case, epidemiology needs people who know the figures (statisticians). But it also needs people who know the issues (medics). You can't expect statisticians to understand how illnesses work, how risks can be identified, possible confounding factors, etc.

Modern air management systems have been proven to remove more than 99.97% of ALL harmful toxins. There is no need for a total indoor smoking ban with options such as smoking rooms, that could be made available. I seriously doubt Mr Tomassi's claims, that passive smoking kills more than MRSA and road accidents. Support freedom2choose.info to get the unfair smoking ban amended.

Doubt the claims all you like, James. But I gave the source for my figures for passive smoking-related deaths above. MRSA kills around 200 people each year (although some people believe it may be behind more deaths). Road traffic accidents kill around 300 per year. If there actually is "proof" about modern air management systems as you claim, have you read it for yourself? I've not yet been able to find any, so please forward me relevant links.

Rollo, I note you roll out the same old tired reports stating things like, "it is estimated that ..." or "Doctors now agree that ..... " and all that nonsense. The SCOTH report and subsequent advice to Government are long on rhetoric and propaganda and short on proof. You miss my point so by way of explanation, heart disease, cancer and all other conditions that the anti-smokers want associated with smoking are multi factorial - that is, that are not caused by a single factor but by many. It is believed that it is the interaction of several things together that cause the problem. As importantly, all your so called evidence is based on epidemiological studies. Epidemiology is a method of studying monofactorial diseases - that is, conditions caused by a single trigger. It is completely unsuitable for the study of smoking related illness unless of course it is utilised to arrive at a pre-determind conclusion. But the human brain works in mysterious ways and when people really want to believe a load of lies, perhaps to soothe their own phobias, then an inexact science, cleverly manipulated by persons with vested interests to contrive a set of figures showing what you always suspected, it becomes understandable why these ignorant smoking bans might happen. They are wrong, based on lies and will probably be adjusted to reflect reality as time goes on, but they have done some serious damage to our social structures. But, to return to the point, name one person you know of who died of secondhand smoke - either in Scotland or anywhere on the globe.

Rollo. Let us assume that passive smoking does kill and let us also accept that over a quarter of the adult population smokes. To have smokers standing huddled in doorways or in the street in groups is surely more dangerous to the non smokers than having them in separate premises altogether. You say that employers would have to ensure that the staff were not exposed to second hand smoke but this would not matter if they themselves smoked. Throughout the U.K. and Ireland there are thousands of unemployed barstaff who smoke. They have lost their jobs as a direct result of this legislation and would be happier to work in a smoking bar than draw the dole. So maybe the answer is not smoking rooms but smoking pubs with huge signs like on the packets telling people that they could die coming in. Kids would be banned but food served as smokers do eat also. Everyone would be happy and no more complaints from neighbours about noise, no more mess outside pubs and no more whinging from non smokers about having to pass through a cloud of smoke just to get into the pub. Most of all smokers would be happy. Why is this option not acceptable?

Rollo, I don't know what to make of you. Can you tell us a bit about yourself? Are you a scientist? A frustrated clerical worker with too much time on his hands? Concerning passive smoking and lung cancer: antitobacco claims something equivalent to the following. Track the lives of groups of 1000 non-passive smokers for 20 years and the average number who will get lung cancer is about 4. Track groups of 1000 people who live with a smoker for 20 years and the average number who will get lung cancer is about 5. If we accept this claim (I don't) then, on this basis you are suggesting that bar staff, probably smokers, who have chosen to be bar staff and have been made aware of the health claims, should be prevented from walking into a highly ventilated smoking room a few times a night to collect glasses. Most smokers would agree to bring back their glasses. This wouldn't be good enough, would it? Do you think the cleaners are still at risk the next morning? As for passive smoking and heart disease, which is even more dubious: the authors compare air filtration with giving up active smoking. A bit of ETS is neither here nor there. It's dirty air that appears to be the problem - not smoky air.

[quote][bold]Rollo Tommasi[/bold] wrote: Tim: I have stated more than once above that there are other contaminants in the air. But research still shows that exposure to passive smoking constitutes a clear risk in its own right. And yes, the 25% figure is alarming, because we get alarmed by the number of people who die each year from MRSA and road traffic accidents - and passive smoking kills more than they do. Don't know about the Nottingham study and happy to read that if you can provide a link to it. But BAA's experience shows that they spent hundreds of thousands of pounds installing tornex smoking units in Scottish airports before the new laws were introduced here - and still attracted numerous complaints about the smell of smoke (with the risk of associated carcinogens). Based on experience at Stansted Airport, these units cost about £70k each. And how effective would self-policing be? Before the smoking laws, few pubs I visited bothered to use or maintain their fans properly. And, by your own accounts, pubs seem very quick not to use ventilation equipment now. It would be unacceptable for any relaxation to take place without proper assurance that the protective devices were being properly used and maintained. Your continued questioning about people who have died from passive smoking is nonsensical. You know perfectly well that SHS will never be referred to on a death certificate, because it is not an illness or injury causing death. Tell you what. Even seen "Fell from a cliff" mentioned on a death certificate? I doubt it has. Just try jumping off a cliff and find out for yourself how safe it is. 2004 SCOTH Report. You don't know how to argue against it. So you refer instead to a previous SCOTH report. But even then you don't know how to argue against the content of the report. Instead you suggest that its views don't matter because it has no regulatory status. So does that also apply to your views, which have no regulatory status? And to Nottingham University's views? What exactly is your point? Sorry to say this, but you reveal total ignorance of the law. The quote I gave from the US court judgement was part of the findings about the facts of the case. It had nothing to do with the law of the land, and would have been the same had the District of Columbia applied the law of Scotland or England or wherever. As for the McTear case, Mrs McTear lost her case because the judge for several reasons. Lord Nimmo Smith felt he hadn't been given sufficient expert evidence about the epidemiology and that Mrs McTear couldn't prove that passive smoking killed her husband or that he regularly used Imperial Tobacco's products rather than other cigarettes. I noticed in a recent F2C editorial that Colin G supposedly quoted Lord Nimmo Smith as saying “smoking tobacco does not cause lung cancer”". Well he said no such thing. Read for yourself if you don't believe me: http://www.scotcourt s.gov.uk/library/cas es/NimmoSmithStateme nt.pdf. You see I keep telling you not to take everything your F2C friends say at face value, but do you listen? And forgive me for preferring the views of the scientific community (even the tobacco industry) on epidemiology over your homely thoughts. In any case, epidemiology needs people who know the figures (statisticians). But it also needs people who know the issues (medics). You can't expect statisticians to understand how illnesses work, how risks can be identified, possible confounding factors, etc.[/quote] There are indeed other contaminants in the air, as this report concludes, and several reports have concluded. Indeed, I am sure you are aware of the report that breathing in the air of Oxford is equivalent to smoking 40 a day. And I'm also sure you're aware of the Australian report concluding that the carcinogenic effects of the dispersal of printer toner can impact the lungs in much the same way as ETS. There's a deadly hazard at every turn isn't there? But this is what happens when you take JS Mill's Harm Principle to its logical conclusion. Definitive figures are available for the number of deaths from road traffic accidents. This is perhaps not the case with MRSA as some alleged gerrymandering of the figures has occurred there as regards death certificates. Nevertheless, individuals who have been killed by such factors can be found. This is not the case with passive smoking. Just what is the number of people who have died from passive smoking? A recent EU TV advert put it at 19,000, whereas last year it was only 11,000. Are we meant to believe it has nearly doubled in a year despite the smoking restrictions in place across the continent? Of course, you completely ignore the fact that the majority of European countries have successfully implemented smoking restrictions rather than a total ban, many of these countries requiring ventilated smoking rooms. If they can manage it, what makes you think Scotland or England can't? So, because tobacco can still be smelled - given that its smell does linger and sticks to furniture, etc. - you have concluded that the technology was ineffective? Are you slavishly adhering to the WHO doctrine that smoke-free air is measured by the inability to smell or detect trace elements of tobacco? If so, most pubs would fail under such criteria, even after the smoking ban, due to the number of people smoking in close proximity of doorways (and before you say it, no, this is not sufficient reason to ban smoking near doorways), or the landlord smoking in his private residence adjoining the pub. The assurances that the devices were being maintained would be the fact that it would be unlawful not to maintain them. You really have no argument against this, as the ban has demonstrated that self-policing can effectively take place. It is not nonsensical. If you wish to accuse smokers of causing others' deaths - which you have quite categorically asserted in this very comments section - then you should be able to provide a few names of people we have killed. Falling off a cliff may not have appeared on a death certificate, but it doubtless has been the basis for coroners' court verdicts of 'accidental death' or 'suicide' caused by 'falling from' of 'jumping off' a cliff. Vacuous comparison. 2004 SCOTH report - I haven't read it for a while, but I do not believe it called for a total smoking ban. Indeed, Sir Richard Peto claimed has claimed that he does not agree with smoking bans. The unbiasedness of the committee is questionable, given that it was chaired by a former board member of ASH, and had sitting on it two current board members of ASH. The only point I was making (I admit, I made it with rather disproportionate force), was that it has no regulatory authority. Nothing more, nothing less. So the case didn't set a precedent in America? Quite pointless you bothering to cite it then. (Although perhaps not, because to evidence causation in civil cases relying upon epidemiological evidence, according to American judicial guidelines typically require an RR of more than 2.0). He hadn't been given sufficient expert evidence about epidemiology? Didn't Sir Richard Doll testify? The case set the precedent that epidemiology is insufficient to prove causation in a court of law. It's interesting that you say that epidemiology needs statisticians. I've seen very few epidemiological reports on passive smoking which involve the contributions of statisticians.

Hmmm, an interesting collection of emails while I’ve been away. There are Mallon and Jon, who weave their homespun theories about epidemiological studies without any reference to supporting evidence. Mallon is also apparently expert enough to claim that the SCOTH report was short on proof. Apparently I should take him at his word on this. No - show us the evidence! There’s Debtman, who believes that a special exception should be made to health and safety laws, which apply without exception in other workplaces, so that they’re only voluntary in pubs. So bar staff should be allowed to expose themselves to smoke if they want, should they? What next? Should we allow construction workers to choose to work without helmets? Should wee children be allowed to work up chimneys if they want? Four common factors link the latest comments from Mallon, Jon, Debtman and Tim. 1. They can’t provide any evidence challenging the epidemiological evidence of the dangers of passive smoking contained in the 2004 SCOTH report. 2. They can’t back up their claims that ventilation systems are safe with any evidence – even though I’ve twice invited people to provide me with evidence on this board. 3. They seem to live in some delusional world that the weight of public opinion is on their side. Really? The public have had plenty of opportunity to display any wrath they had. They could have voted for the Publican Party in the 2007 Scottish Elections – they bombed. Or they could have participated in National Smoking Day – and what a damp squib that was. 4. Most people would go out of their way to avoid even a small risk of harming other people. Whatever happened which removed this innate sense of human decency and concern from these individuals, so that they’re so prepared to disregard the wellbeing of others for the sake of protecting their right to indulge in an unnecessary selfish pleasure whenever and wherever they want?

Rollo, I am not sure how anybody can prove the effectiveness of ventilation equipment on a discussion board. The main story shows how ventilation achieved a signficant effect on lung function in an un-smokey environment. I am not going to argue about SCOTH's evidence in this post. But I think you do yourself an injustice in the latter two points. There are 60 million people in this country many of whom have strong opinions about this issue. If we believe that government and pharmaceutical interests have joined forces to mislead the public, we are hardly surprised to note that revolution has not occurred on this issue. Nonetheless, there have been many closures more than would have been expected, observations that, eg there are two clubs here not one now, and people don't like this. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous. Especially your last point is very discourteous. We are not refusing to protect people from a [bold]small[/bold] risk. We are not acknowledging a risk that we perceive to be [bold]neglible[/bold] . We are refusing to condone a situation that has allowed publicans all over the country an excuse to keep their air cleaning units turned off, so instead of good or even rudimentary ventilation we get no ventilation at all. And we are told that this solves all the problems. In our view the government has encouraged the exclusion of smokers and the result is that overall air quality is poorer, not better. There is absolutely no demand from freedom2choose or any other body that I am aware of for the right to smoke everywhere.

Rollo, I am not sure how anybody can prove the effectiveness of ventilation equipment on a discussion board. The main story shows how ventilation achieved a signficant effect on lung function in an un-smokey environment. I am not going to argue about SCOTH's evidence in this post. But I think you do yourself an injustice in the latter two points. There are 60 million people in this country many of whom have strong opinions about this issue. If we believe that government and pharmaceutical interests have joined forces to mislead the public, we are hardly surprised to note that revolution has not occurred on this issue. Nonetheless, there have been many closures more than would have been expected, observations that, eg there are two clubs here not one now, and people don't like this. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous. Especially your last point is very discourteous. We are not refusing to protect people from a [bold]small[/bold] risk. We are not acknowledging a risk that we perceive to be [bold]neglible[/bold] . We are refusing to condone a situation that has allowed publicans all over the country an excuse to keep their air cleaning units turned off, so instead of good or even rudimentary ventilation we get no ventilation at all. And we are told that this solves all the problems. In our view the government has encouraged the exclusion of smokers and the result is that overall air quality is poorer, not better. There is absolutely no demand from freedom2choose or any other body that I am aware of for the right to smoke everywhere.