<<Back to most read

 Add Comment

So! let me get this right...........Beli nda! Freedom to Choose (Scotland) does not welcome this fall in admissions? Are you for real??

It's just "free to choose" to dump their fumes on those who don't want them. Must make them feel better somehow.

The total reduction was 17% -the drop in admissions for non-smokers was 20%. In the corresponding period in England, where there was no ban, the drop in admissions was 4%. In Ireland, in the year after the ban, the drop was 11%. Yes, the drop is sudden, but most unlikely to be random.

Any indication of improvements to Scotland's health have to be welcomed. At the same time I would personally take the statistics with a pinch of salt (low sodium of course) as there was never any risk that the Executive would release figures which cast doubt on the efficacy of the latest round of social engineering. It would be interesting to get an accurate picture of the reduction in the volume of tobacco sales as a more precise indication of the success of the measure.

"The total reduction was 17% -the drop in admissions for non-smokers was 20%. In the corresponding period in England, where there was no ban, the drop in admissions was 4%. In Ireland, in the year after the ban, the drop was 11%. Yes, the drop is sudden, but most unlikely to be random." The reduction measured was 17% true, but it was cherry picked from just 9 hospitals. The corresponding statistic from England was taken from all the hospitals. Can you see where this is leading? The Ireland drop of 11% was calculated over a year after the ban but then compared to only 9 months of the previous year. Using these very obviously fraudulent methods of calculation, any researcher (and I use the term lightly) can come up with whatever answers they want to strengthen their case. To anyone with a jot of common sense, these stats are meaningless.

What has to be good news for most people seems to upset the smoking lobby. I wonder why?

"Freedom to choose"....what an extaordinarily ironic name . This luxury is not afforded to non smokers who are in the proximity of smokers. It is slightly ghoulish that an apparent reductiion in sudden death should be greeted with disdain by lobbyists for smoking. It has been stated so many times it is becoming exhausting but for you Belinda I will give it one more go. Smoke if you choose by all means. Smoke as much as you want. Please do not smoke anywhere where non smokers are forced to breathe your second hand smoke. It's simple, it's fair, it's reasonable.

Freedom to Choose welcomes any drop in admissions or any improvement in health (of course!) But we believe that to get such a dramatic change over the course of a year is not believable, especially in the face of conflicting evidence. Specifically if you compare ten months preceding late March with ten months following it, you are bound to get skewed results, both in heart and in respiratory conditions.

I....gasp....object. ...wheeze...to these......cough...c ough.....lies. Ouch...what's that pain in my arm....splutter.

These studies have not been peer reviewed thus ought to be taken with a pinch of salt. Why is it antismokers just lack common sense? Here's proof with the comments- nothing coherent! Kaye Belinda is a nonsmoker. Let the publicans decide thats the free market! F2C for the free market and a Regulated Indoor Air Quality Standard!

[bold]"Please do not smoke anywhere where non smokers are forced to breathe your second hand smoke. It's simple, it's fair, it's reasonable" - says Kaye (above).[/bold] [italic]italic[/italic] Exactly, Kaye! That's all smokers have been asking for - i.e. pubs where smoking is allowed and pubs where smoking is not allowed. Thus, both sets of people can make a choice that best suits their lifestyle - and one is not impinging on the other. That seems fair and logical; but of course fairness and logic do not apply to the anti-smoking fascists who want to bend everyone to their own view of how people should live their lives.

Seannair the prochoice lobby are just more realistsc and dont believe in such miracles. Not as gullible as you.

Well said Myles glad you see the utter hypocrasy of the antismoking arguments!

Cough..splutter..... .wheeze.

[bold]Cough[/bold] ...the ..[bold]splutter[/bold] ..argument..is lost....[bold]wheeze[/bold] ..[bold]wheeze[/bold] ..give me a second I'll be [bold]f[/bold] ....wheeze..[bold]ine[/bold] .....it was lost....[bold]cough.[/bold] ..and....you should...[bold]hack.[/bold] ..let it....g .....[bold]wheeze[/bold] ......o.

Prof. Pell made her statement based on a report that has not been released in any medical journal and which has past NO peer review. The statement she made, is in this light, totally unethical. A case could also be made by counting the admission from the nine hospitals which had the most admissions in this time period and coming to the conclusion that the ban has caused n% more heart attacks. This would be, of course, equally rediculous. If the ban had any effect at all then this would not be seen for 10 or maybe 20 years. The "miracles" from St. Helena and Ireland have also been totally debunked as pure propaganda. It is worth noting that all three report were made public by leaders of fanatical anti smoker groups (ASH, STOPIT). It is time that these people were to just tell the truth and not misuse their positions to further their own agendas.

It is clear to me now that Passive Smoking is indeed a Weapon of Mass Destruction second only in its virulence to SARS, a Bug that threatened us shortly after the Millenium. In these days of Global Warming and Avian Flu it is to be hoped that our scientists will keep up all this good work and I look forward to a full and detailed analysis of these promising statistics.

There's a new patch for smokers. Its that bit of pavement outside the pub.

The Anti-Smokers go on about vile smokers, hating the smell of smoke etc so why can smokers not have separate pubs and clubs staffed by smokers. you wouldn't have to go anywhere near them and the smokers would be happy as well. Thats CHOICE.

[quote][bold]Eddie d[/bold] wrote: The Anti-Smokers go on about vile smokers, hating the smell of smoke etc so why can smokers not have separate pubs and clubs staffed by smokers. you wouldn't have to go anywhere near them and the smokers would be happy as well. Thats CHOICE. [/quote] You can...it's called your home. Have as many people and/or strangers round as you like, get ****, smoke yourselves blue and complain about the state of ......everything. That's choice.

Rob Keith wrote, "You can...it's called your home" Tell that to the publicans that are now no longer able to smoke in their homes.

[quote]Tell that to the publicans that are now no longer able to smoke in their homes.[/quote] How many publicans do you know who live in the bar or lounge? I don't recall tripping over his feet as he watched TV or bumping into his wife at the ironing board. What a stupid comment.

You lost get over it......wheeze.

Any fool knows that for a study to be of any credability it has to be over several YEARS not months. These people are being paid for by the taxpayer to produce this garbage and keep them in a job. All you have to do is follow the money trail to see who benefits from this and its not the people of Scotland. The stupidity of some people to believe anything never ceases to amaze me.

If this country was truly a democracy, then 1 in 4 pubs would be for smokers reflecting the fact that 1 in 4 adults smoke. I believe smokers and non-smokers alike would be happy with this. It is, therefore, patently clear that we now live in a dictatorship where fairness no longer exists. God help us all!!

It is ironic that today the government's Chief Scientific Officer is calling for a worldwide Code of Conduct and Ethics for all scientists to abide by. It is a pity that the author of this dubious research did not apply any of the Seven Commandments being advocated. It is plain for all to see, with one iota of intelligence, that this research is pure lies and propaganda to justify the smoking ban.

Belinda, I cannot wait to see the real results. Bill C, The fact that statement was even made just goes to show how much bull is being spouted, along with the corruption. It is a shame people put a smell above wanting the truth. That is not good for our children, lying to them is disrespectful. I thought this article from May 2007 was one of the reasons heart attacks were falling? http://thescotsman.s cotsman.com/index.cf m?id=676352007 New treatments help cut hospital heart attack deaths by 50 per cent LYNDSAY MOSS BHF will no longer need Donations then, if they really have found the miracle cure. freedom2choose.info for tolerant non-smokers and smokers alike Please help us fight the unwanted ban

Humm, a study that says 17% reduction since the smoking ban came in? How does this prove the smoking ban has anything to do with this apparent drop? You could just as easily say that there has been a 17% drop since last bonfire night, so then what would that prove?

Figures from 9 out of 360 or so hospitals in Scotland used in the survey - mmmm, representative then (not). I managed to cut down the number of cigarettes I smoke by 100%. Amazing results and not a nicotine patch in sight, not one penny to the pharmaceutical companies. How did I achieve this - simple I only reported the figures for 8 out of the 24 hours in the day.

Rob Kieth wrote.. "How many publicans do you know who live in the bar or lounge? I don't recall tripping over his feet as he watched TV or bumping into his wife at the ironing board. What a stupid comment" Do you live in your garden shed? I don't and I don't expect you do either, but just because we don't live in there it doesn't give anyone the right to tell you or me what we can and cannot do in our respective sheds. Ergo.. The bar and lounge and cellar and garden and carpark and every other area is still private property.

NoBanJjan You are totally wrong. You ask any non-smoker and they will tell you that the freedom to choose is ALL pubs being smoke free. Smokers are being very selfish asking that a FEW pubs be open for smoking.

here in queensland the state gov recent smoke bans .quite severe re no smoking where food is served and not within four mtr from front door of shop premises . it hit the outside cafe badly re the morning cuppa and fag or as they say a cup of poison and coffin nail whilst in victoria/melbourne its not too bad for smoker..basically its look up..can you see the sky..well have your smoke also you can sit at pavement tables re drink/eat in victoria and smoke. then many hotels were making smoking rooms out of bars re service hatchets to bar service and no food so puff away. but i do think victorias state laws keep most smokers and non smokers happy .but not so here in queensland

[quote][bold]Eddie d[/bold] wrote: The Anti-Smokers go on about vile smokers, hating the smell of smoke etc so why can smokers not have separate pubs and clubs staffed by smokers. you wouldn't have to go anywhere near them and the smokers would be happy as well. Thats CHOICE. [/quote] I 100% agree with you a friend of mine went to spain and there they is non smoking places and smoking places but if a place hold more than 100 people they must be ventalation and how it works is the same as our 24 hour drinking was done you put what you want you place to be and then you are excepted or refuse but it works or another way is bring back the old style pubs where you had a lounge for the non smokers and a smoke room for the smokers and that also worked now that is CHOICE

Myles in Edinburgh, his comment is straight and to the point. Adults make decisions for themselves, or at least should be allowed to, and not to be subjected to the fanatical rantings of those who suffer an obsessive hatred of their fellow beings who have made the choice to smoke. This is not a pro-smoking doctrine, simply a pro-choice statement. The issues involved are not really connected to smoking at all, but to the runaway lunacy of our politicians, party politics, fundings, and the social engineering policies of our international pharmaceutical companies. Anyone with half a brain, knows that compromise is available to all, a choice of smoking and non-smoking pubs, clubs etc, and an indoor air quality standard and regulation for all establishments. The message is always clear, don't go to where you don't want too, change the channel, have tea or coffee, its always our choice. Sadly, there is no compromise with lunatics and 'Control Freaks', particularly when vast sums of money are involved, donations too 'Party Funds' ,junkets, ,,,,holidays,, just call them conferences simply to be P.C. and not too upset them, by being able to think for oneself, those WHO KNOW WHO THEY ARE. Scottish Gov/Exec, they are still fighting over that. Lol. Smoke is sublime in purity in comparison to the stench emanating from these unelected organisations such as ASH and its associated quangos, that has created an environment of anger, hatred and division, but that is their agenda.. Look at all the idiots we get on these forums venting their obsessive hate of cigarettes themselves, as well as the smoke and the smoker, this legislation is designed to create these psychologically obsessed into the frame and destroy sensible debate and compromise, again part of that social engineering planning. For example read the above comments from the likes of Rob Keith, with his juvenile ' wheezy' coughs and you find someone who is either seriously ill or with serious psychological problems, either way more to be pitied than scorned. However no contributor to a debate relating to some of the most important issues in front of the Scottish people, and they are about freedom and tolerance in a modern Scotland.]

I think people fail to recognise what a [bold]disaster[/bold] this drop in heart attacks is for Freedom 2 Choose and their tobacco industry chums. They were hoping that there would be no health benefits so they could continue to tell us that smoking is a liberty, not a health, issue. Hence the pathetic and feeble arguments from their members in england, who feel it necessary to come and tell us Scots that we should continue to drop like flies just so they can continue smoking in england.

#Tag. The concept of it all, flew over the cuckoo's nest a long time ago, as it has for you also,, what 'disaster' are you really so stupid too believe, 'Freedom of Choice' is a means too promote Heart Attacks. You appear to talk about 'liberty' and 'health' with a low level of understanding of either. Your English equation simply makes your comment soaked in 'ignorance', I don't really wish to be rude, but I would ask that you do some proper research before you make lunatic statements.