Fears over funding of smoking ban in Scotland
Katrine Bussey
The success of the smoking ban could be in danger because of a change in the ways councils are funded, environmental health officers will claim today.
As part of its new deal with local authorities, the Scottish Government is ending the ringfencing of much of their funds. However, the body representing environmental health officers claimed that, with cash no longer being earmarked for specific areas, funding for enforcing the smoking ban may be at risk.
Leaders of the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland (REHIS) said environmental health officers from some councils had contacted them after failing to win assurances that the money would continue to be used for front-line enforcement of the law.
REHIS president Robert Howe warned the success of the smoking ban - which came into place in March 2006 - could be in danger. "I fear that this could be the thin end of the wedge," he said.
"While the smoking ban has enjoyed overwhelming support from both the public and proprietors of premises, that is partly because the prospect of enforcement has been in the background and, even then, some enforcement has been necessary.
"Although the continued funding is intended for front-line enforcement, the cash no longer has to be accounted for, and we believe financial pressures will tempt some local authorities to spend the money elsewhere."
Mr Howe added: "The ban on smoking in public places is the most significant public health intervention in Scotland for decades. Resources must continue to be deployed on the front line, or the smoking ban could yet fail."
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "The smoking ban has been a resounding success in Scotland. Since its introduction, the vast majority of Scots have complied with the new legislation. And there have been a limited number of breaches.
"The Scottish Government's historic concordat, which is providing record funding levels for local authorities, ensures a new deal between national and local government, and that the money we are investing with local government delivers on our shared objectives right across society."
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Eddie D, Scotland on 12:17am Mon 4 Feb 08
Since when is the smoking ban a resounding success in Scotland. I don't think the Landlords would agree and the Government statistics are just propaganda. Visit http://www.Innthecol
d.com and the TRUTH will be revealed in time.
Since when is the smoking ban a resounding success in Scotland. I don't think the Landlords would agree and the Government statistics are just propaganda. Visit http://www.Innthecol
d.com and the TRUTH will be revealed in time.
Posted by: Tim Clarke, Lancs on 12:32am Mon 4 Feb 08
Good old funding of bans - cash often has to be found from elsewhere. Cash earmarked for things which are actually important, things which reap tangible and measurable rewards.
An example: it has cost £30m this year to enforce the ban in England and Wales. By what amount does the police's pay offer fall short by? The pay offer they were promised? I'll leave you to guess. If there is a police strike south of the border, we'll know which piece of legislation to blame.
Good old funding of bans - cash often has to be found from elsewhere. Cash earmarked for things which are actually important, things which reap tangible and measurable rewards.
An example: it has cost £30m this year to enforce the ban in England and Wales. By what amount does the police's pay offer fall short by? The pay offer they were promised? I'll leave you to guess. If there is a police strike south of the border, we'll know which piece of legislation to blame.
Posted by: Carlos Em, Glasgow on 12:36am Mon 4 Feb 08
Exactly since when?' ie never otherwise no need for enforcement!
Also www.freedom2choose.i
nfo to find out the truth about the ban and the lies spewed to bring its introduction- this ban deserves no more money wasted in enforcing it which could be deployed to combat REAL crime- not petty ones like smoking!
Exactly since when?' ie never otherwise no need for enforcement!
Also www.freedom2choose.i
nfo to find out the truth about the ban and the lies spewed to bring its introduction- this ban deserves no more money wasted in enforcing it which could be deployed to combat REAL crime- not petty ones like smoking!
Posted by: mandy vincent on 12:44am Mon 4 Feb 08
£30 million to police it, sounds really successful then?
Look at how many real lives could have been saved for £1 a day I believe.
Blood clots 'needlessly killing 10,000 a year'
By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor
Last Updated: 2:29am GMT 21/11/2007
Snip~
DVT causes about 27,000 hospital deaths each year and patients who have had surgery, who are over 40 and have another illness such as cancer are most at risk.
What an absolute scandal. The majority did NOT want an outright ban, it is based on lies and scaremongering.
8th August 2006 the HSE in their document OC 255/15 article9 state
for some strange reason hmm it has been changed to OC 255/16 Paragraph
14
" HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to second hand smoke to the raised risk of contacting specific diseases".
We need to get this ban amended to include ventilation,
freedom2choose.info -- need your support
Warning: Anti-tobacco activism may be hazardous to epidemiologic science
http://www.epi-persp
ectives.com/content/
4/1/13
http://petitions.pm.
gov.uk/smokinglicens
es/ ends in October 2008
These could do with some support please,
www.innthecold.com 1000 Pubs in 90 days, can you help with this one?
uk.youtube.com/watch
?v=Bn6zye0nh8w
£30 million to police it, sounds really successful then?
Look at how many real lives could have been saved for £1 a day I believe.
Blood clots 'needlessly killing 10,000 a year'
By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor
Last Updated: 2:29am GMT 21/11/2007
Snip~
DVT causes about 27,000 hospital deaths each year and patients who have had surgery, who are over 40 and have another illness such as cancer are most at risk.
What an absolute scandal. The majority did NOT want an outright ban, it is based on lies and scaremongering.
8th August 2006 the HSE in their document OC 255/15 article9 state
for some strange reason hmm it has been changed to OC 255/16 Paragraph
14
" HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to second hand smoke to the raised risk of contacting specific diseases".
We need to get this ban amended to include ventilation,
freedom2choose.info -- need your support
Warning: Anti-tobacco activism may be hazardous to epidemiologic science
http://www.epi-persp
ectives.com/content/
4/1/13
http://petitions.pm.
gov.uk/smokinglicens
es/ ends in October 2008
These could do with some support please,
www.innthecold.com 1000 Pubs in 90 days, can you help with this one?
uk.youtube.com/watch
?v=Bn6zye0nh8w
Posted by: Rollo Tommasi, Edinburgh on 1:30am Mon 4 Feb 08
Funny how in the minds of these flatearthers, "Government statistics are just propaganda" but the truth can apparently be found on freedom2choose's website. If only that were the case. In truth, F2C continue to rely on misrepresentation, misstatement and misinterpretation.
Mandy, for instance, keeps referring to that phrase in an earlier HSE document. Her attempts to make something sinister out of nothing still mean nothing. The paragraph she refers to simply warns inspectors about the difficulty in relying on epidemiological evidence about passive smoking in enforcement action in court. Removing that sentence doesn't change that. More to the point Mandy - why aren't you so keen to tell people that the very same HSE document also states "There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban"?
Mandy also describes it as an absolute scandal that 10,000 people a year are dying unnecessarily from blood clots. Yet evidence tells us that passive smoking is responsible for the deaths of possibly twice this number of people each year.
I take it the Innthecold campaign will visit a representative sample selection of pubs, including winners from the new laws? And will they also visit a few cancer and heart disease wards in hospitals up and down the country to discover more about how horrible these conditions are and how passive smoking contributes towards them?
Environmental Health Officers play a very important role in all sorts of things - food safety, HMO licensing, waste issues, etc. It's notable how they've chosen to highlight smoking law enforcement over other services in their press release - an indication of how much they think it will attract the sympathy of the public.
Funny how in the minds of these flatearthers, "Government statistics are just propaganda" but the truth can apparently be found on freedom2choose's website. If only that were the case. In truth, F2C continue to rely on misrepresentation, misstatement and misinterpretation.
Mandy, for instance, keeps referring to that phrase in an earlier HSE document. Her attempts to make something sinister out of nothing still mean nothing. The paragraph she refers to simply warns inspectors about the difficulty in relying on epidemiological evidence about passive smoking in enforcement action in court. Removing that sentence doesn't change that. More to the point Mandy - why aren't you so keen to tell people that the very same HSE document also states "There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban"?
Mandy also describes it as an absolute scandal that 10,000 people a year are dying unnecessarily from blood clots. Yet evidence tells us that passive smoking is responsible for the deaths of possibly twice this number of people each year.
I take it the Innthecold campaign will visit a representative sample selection of pubs, including winners from the new laws? And will they also visit a few cancer and heart disease wards in hospitals up and down the country to discover more about how horrible these conditions are and how passive smoking contributes towards them?
Environmental Health Officers play a very important role in all sorts of things - food safety, HMO licensing, waste issues, etc. It's notable how they've chosen to highlight smoking law enforcement over other services in their press release - an indication of how much they think it will attract the sympathy of the public.
Posted by: Eddie D, Scotland on 1:45am Mon 4 Feb 08
There is no danger in SHS, even ASH have admitted the whole thing was false.
There is no danger in SHS, even ASH have admitted the whole thing was false.
Posted by: Eddie D, Scotland on 1:53am Mon 4 Feb 08
Talking of propaganda, has anyone seen the Jill Pell Heart Attack Study which said that the Smoking Ban had reduced Heart Attacks by 17 percent ( splashed across the media on 10th sept 2007 ).
Talking of propaganda, has anyone seen the Jill Pell Heart Attack Study which said that the Smoking Ban had reduced Heart Attacks by 17 percent ( splashed across the media on 10th sept 2007 ).
Posted by: Rollo Tommasi, Edinburgh on 2:10am Mon 4 Feb 08
Eddie: Most evidence strongly suggests danger in SHS. What exactly did ASH say (I sense yet another pro-smokers' misquote coming up)?
Your comment about the Jill Pell study simply shows that we should not place too much weight on one set of results alone (whether we support or oppose the recent changes). Subsequent official figures show that heart attack admissions in Scotland still fell by 8% in 2006, the year the new laws were introduced - that's a much bigger fall than the average for recent years. And since the Pell study covered fewer hospitals and a different time period to the official figures, it's still possible that both are right.
It's ironic that Carlos and Tim complain about enforcement costs. I understand F2C's preferred solution is to allow enclosed smoking spaces. The costs of enforcing that would I suggest be considerably more. Inspectors would have to do what they do now - checking no illegal smoking. But they'd also have to inspect pubs to ensure that smoking areas were fully enclosed, that bar staff were not required to go into these areas and that ventilation was switched on and working fully effectively.
Eddie: Most evidence strongly suggests danger in SHS. What exactly did ASH say (I sense yet another pro-smokers' misquote coming up)?
Your comment about the Jill Pell study simply shows that we should not place too much weight on one set of results alone (whether we support or oppose the recent changes). Subsequent official figures show that heart attack admissions in Scotland still fell by 8% in 2006, the year the new laws were introduced - that's a much bigger fall than the average for recent years. And since the Pell study covered fewer hospitals and a different time period to the official figures, it's still possible that both are right.
It's ironic that Carlos and Tim complain about enforcement costs. I understand F2C's preferred solution is to allow enclosed smoking spaces. The costs of enforcing that would I suggest be considerably more. Inspectors would have to do what they do now - checking no illegal smoking. But they'd also have to inspect pubs to ensure that smoking areas were fully enclosed, that bar staff were not required to go into these areas and that ventilation was switched on and working fully effectively.
Posted by: Vimes, Ankh-Morpork on 8:33am Mon 4 Feb 08
Oh dear, how sad, never mind. An unnecessary piece of legislation, introduced by zealots, for zealots - hell mend them.
Oh dear, how sad, never mind. An unnecessary piece of legislation, introduced by zealots, for zealots - hell mend them.
Posted by: Belinda Cunnison on 10:04am Mon 4 Feb 08
Rollo, look at the graph. The drop in heart attack admissions was bigger at the end of the 1990s and the decline has been steady, not marked.
http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/magazine/7093
356.stm
Also consider this: Scotland's deputy chief medical officer, 'Peter Donnelly, said at the time of the study in September: "One of the most important findings is the reduction in heart attacks. We believe that the smoking ban was a large contributory factor to this drop." It is not clear on what evidence he could now make such a claim. Any claims of causation now look premature. Even the latest figures are provisional and subject to revision. Such claims are, in fact, positively damaging. What is unquestionably a good news story - the consistent and impressive decline in heart attacks in Scotland over many years - has become overshadowed by squabbles about the smoking ban. Worse, the true reasons for this success may be overlooked if too much credit is attributed to the ban on unreliable evidence. '
It is good news if funding for this ridiculous exercise in social engineering is no longer to be ring-fenced.
Rollo, look at the graph. The drop in heart attack admissions was bigger at the end of the 1990s and the decline has been steady, not marked.
http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/magazine/7093
356.stm
Also consider this: Scotland's deputy chief medical officer, 'Peter Donnelly, said at the time of the study in September: "One of the most important findings is the reduction in heart attacks. We believe that the smoking ban was a large contributory factor to this drop." It is not clear on what evidence he could now make such a claim. Any claims of causation now look premature. Even the latest figures are provisional and subject to revision. Such claims are, in fact, positively damaging. What is unquestionably a good news story - the consistent and impressive decline in heart attacks in Scotland over many years - has become overshadowed by squabbles about the smoking ban. Worse, the true reasons for this success may be overlooked if too much credit is attributed to the ban on unreliable evidence. '
It is good news if funding for this ridiculous exercise in social engineering is no longer to be ring-fenced.
Posted by: Belinda Cunnison on 10:05am Mon 4 Feb 08
Rollo, look at the graph. The drop in heart attack admissions was bigger at the end of the 1990s and the decline has been steady, not marked.
http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/magazine/7093
356.stm
Also consider this: Scotland's deputy chief medical officer, 'Peter Donnelly, said at the time of the study in September: "One of the most important findings is the reduction in heart attacks. We believe that the smoking ban was a large contributory factor to this drop." It is not clear on what evidence he could now make such a claim. Any claims of causation now look premature. Even the latest figures are provisional and subject to revision. Such claims are, in fact, positively damaging. What is unquestionably a good news story - the consistent and impressive decline in heart attacks in Scotland over many years - has become overshadowed by squabbles about the smoking ban. Worse, the true reasons for this success may be overlooked if too much credit is attributed to the ban on unreliable evidence. '
It is good news if funding for this ridiculous exercise in social engineering is no longer to be ring-fenced.
Rollo, look at the graph. The drop in heart attack admissions was bigger at the end of the 1990s and the decline has been steady, not marked.
http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/magazine/7093
356.stm
Also consider this: Scotland's deputy chief medical officer, 'Peter Donnelly, said at the time of the study in September: "One of the most important findings is the reduction in heart attacks. We believe that the smoking ban was a large contributory factor to this drop." It is not clear on what evidence he could now make such a claim. Any claims of causation now look premature. Even the latest figures are provisional and subject to revision. Such claims are, in fact, positively damaging. What is unquestionably a good news story - the consistent and impressive decline in heart attacks in Scotland over many years - has become overshadowed by squabbles about the smoking ban. Worse, the true reasons for this success may be overlooked if too much credit is attributed to the ban on unreliable evidence. '
It is good news if funding for this ridiculous exercise in social engineering is no longer to be ring-fenced.
Posted by: RTS on 10:29am Mon 4 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Rollo Tommasi[/bold] wrote:
Funny how in the minds of these flatearthers, "Government statistics are just propaganda" but the truth can apparently be found on freedom2choose's website. If only that were the case. In truth, F2C continue to rely on misrepresentation, misstatement and misinterpretation.
Mandy, for instance, keeps referring to that phrase in an earlier HSE document. Her attempts to make something sinister out of nothing still mean nothing. The paragraph she refers to simply warns inspectors about the difficulty in relying on epidemiological evidence about passive smoking in enforcement action in court. Removing that sentence doesn't change that. More to the point Mandy - why aren't you so keen to tell people that the very same HSE document also states "There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban"?
Mandy also describes it as an absolute scandal that 10,000 people a year are dying unnecessarily from blood clots. Yet evidence tells us that passive smoking is responsible for the deaths of possibly twice this number of people each year.
I take it the Innthecold campaign will visit a representative sample selection of pubs, including winners from the new laws? And will they also visit a few cancer and heart disease wards in hospitals up and down the country to discover more about how horrible these conditions are and how passive smoking contributes towards them?
Environmental Health Officers play a very important role in all sorts of things - food safety, HMO licensing, waste issues, etc. It's notable how they've chosen to highlight smoking law enforcement over other services in their press release - an indication of how much they think it will attract the sympathy of the public. [/quote] I find it hugely amusing that Rollo accusing someone else of misstatements and misrepresentation before going on to suggest that passive smoking is behind 20,000 deaths per year - presumably in this country (otherwise the comparison is nonsense). The latest round of adverts are saying less than 20,000 all across the EU (population; over 400 million). The truly amusing thing is that last year those same adverts quoted 11,000.
The bulk of which WILL NOT be protected by the smoking ban - since it applies to smoking in the home and not in the workplace. Based on the anti-smoking movements OWN figures the potential lives saved by the smoking ban is in the low to mid hundreds.
Lets assume 600 lives saved in England per year and do the maths; 30 million divided by 600 = £50,000 per life, PER YEAR and keep in mind those lives saved are STATISTICAL, they're not real. There's no one lying in a morgue with "passive smoking" as the cause on their death certificate.
Compare that to the 30,000 people who're killed every year by the NHS through misdiagnoses then personally I find it compelling that the government focus on the big problems rather than spending money on the little ones.
Had they, for example, demanded a higher licensing fee for pubs that allowed smoking and that ventilation be installed then rather than costing money, addressing the issue would have actually raised funds that could be diverted to considerably more pressing issues.
But the simply fact of the matter is this; if the smoking ban was as popular as has been suggested then why does it need £30 million in funding to enforce it? I would suggest that level of funding is unsustainable and that eventually iy will be withdrawn. When the public realise the ban isn't being enforced to any degree then smoking will once again become commonplace in the pub.
Rollo Tommasi wrote:
Funny how in the minds of these flatearthers, "Government statistics are just propaganda" but the truth can apparently be found on freedom2choose's website. If only that were the case. In truth, F2C continue to rely on misrepresentation, misstatement and misinterpretation.
Mandy, for instance, keeps referring to that phrase in an earlier HSE document. Her attempts to make something sinister out of nothing still mean nothing. The paragraph she refers to simply warns inspectors about the difficulty in relying on epidemiological evidence about passive smoking in enforcement action in court. Removing that sentence doesn't change that. More to the point Mandy - why aren't you so keen to tell people that the very same HSE document also states "There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban"?
Mandy also describes it as an absolute scandal that 10,000 people a year are dying unnecessarily from blood clots. Yet evidence tells us that passive smoking is responsible for the deaths of possibly twice this number of people each year.
I take it the Innthecold campaign will visit a representative sample selection of pubs, including winners from the new laws? And will they also visit a few cancer and heart disease wards in hospitals up and down the country to discover more about how horrible these conditions are and how passive smoking contributes towards them?
Environmental Health Officers play a very important role in all sorts of things - food safety, HMO licensing, waste issues, etc. It's notable how they've chosen to highlight smoking law enforcement over other services in their press release - an indication of how much they think it will attract the sympathy of the public.
I find it hugely amusing that Rollo accusing someone else of misstatements and misrepresentation before going on to suggest that passive smoking is behind 20,000 deaths per year - presumably in this country (otherwise the comparison is nonsense). The latest round of adverts are saying less than 20,000 all across the EU (population; over 400 million). The truly amusing thing is that last year those same adverts quoted 11,000.
The bulk of which WILL NOT be protected by the smoking ban - since it applies to smoking in the home and not in the workplace. Based on the anti-smoking movements OWN figures the potential lives saved by the smoking ban is in the low to mid hundreds.
Lets assume 600 lives saved in England per year and do the maths; 30 million divided by 600 = £50,000 per life, PER YEAR and keep in mind those lives saved are STATISTICAL, they're not real. There's no one lying in a morgue with "passive smoking" as the cause on their death certificate.
Compare that to the 30,000 people who're killed every year by the NHS through misdiagnoses then personally I find it compelling that the government focus on the big problems rather than spending money on the little ones.
Had they, for example, demanded a higher licensing fee for pubs that allowed smoking and that ventilation be installed then rather than costing money, addressing the issue would have actually raised funds that could be diverted to considerably more pressing issues.
But the simply fact of the matter is this; if the smoking ban was as popular as has been suggested then why does it need £30 million in funding to enforce it? I would suggest that level of funding is unsustainable and that eventually iy will be withdrawn. When the public realise the ban isn't being enforced to any degree then smoking will once again become commonplace in the pub.
Posted by: Carlos Em on 10:33am Mon 4 Feb 08
Oh Rollo took a while this time for ASH to send you to their rescue- oh dear!! Rollo its not our solution really to have the model which is in use in Italy- sorry you got it wrong check out yer facts please!
Good news money is no longer ringfenced for social engineering- it is scandalous it has been up till now- lets hope Big Pharma reinburse the councils with all the profits they made selling useless NRT products- can you confirm now Rollo?? You know ye remind me so much of another poster on another forum so much. I wonder why?
Oh Rollo took a while this time for ASH to send you to their rescue- oh dear!! Rollo its not our solution really to have the model which is in use in Italy- sorry you got it wrong check out yer facts please!
Good news money is no longer ringfenced for social engineering- it is scandalous it has been up till now- lets hope Big Pharma reinburse the councils with all the profits they made selling useless NRT products- can you confirm now Rollo?? You know ye remind me so much of another poster on another forum so much. I wonder why?
Posted by: Jan Gibbons, Manchester on 10:59am Mon 4 Feb 08
This smoking ban is NOT a success anywhere, this is just government propaganda. Any compliance is through fear only, what a way to rule through fear! Whatever happened to fairness & democracy?? The risk from passive smoking is also another great lie! If you want to know the truth then visit
freedom2choosedotinf
o
This smoking ban is NOT a success anywhere, this is just government propaganda. Any compliance is through fear only, what a way to rule through fear! Whatever happened to fairness & democracy?? The risk from passive smoking is also another great lie! If you want to know the truth then visit
freedom2choosedotinf
o
Posted by: Kosmog, Edinburgh on 12:10pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Jan,
Nothing at all has happened to democracy. It is your privilege to use your vote in line with whatever party policies matter to you most. If enough people agree with you and you lobby successfully, any devloved legislation can be amended or rescinded. That is precisely the democratic system we work to. That an individual or even large groups of individuals are vehemently opposed to specific laws in no way signifies that democracy has failed. There is no democracy in the world which facilitates government by referendum, which would appear to be what you are suggesting.
Incidentally, I am sure it would lead to interesting blogging on this site if you would let us know what some of the other 'great lies' are.
Jan,
Nothing at all has happened to democracy. It is your privilege to use your vote in line with whatever party policies matter to you most. If enough people agree with you and you lobby successfully, any devloved legislation can be amended or rescinded. That is precisely the democratic system we work to. That an individual or even large groups of individuals are vehemently opposed to specific laws in no way signifies that democracy has failed. There is no democracy in the world which facilitates government by referendum, which would appear to be what you are suggesting.
Incidentally, I am sure it would lead to interesting blogging on this site if you would let us know what some of the other 'great lies' are.
Posted by: RTS, UK on 12:20pm Mon 4 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Kosmog[/bold] wrote:
Jan,
Nothing at all has happened to democracy. It is your privilege to use your vote in line with whatever party policies matter to you most. If enough people agree with you and you lobby successfully, any devloved legislation can be amended or rescinded. That is precisely the democratic system we work to. That an individual or even large groups of individuals are vehemently opposed to specific laws in no way signifies that democracy has failed. There is no democracy in the world which facilitates government by referendum, which would appear to be what you are suggesting.
Incidentally, I am sure it would lead to interesting blogging on this site if you would let us know what some of the other 'great lies' are.[/quote] I would argue that point; in the US state laws are *I believe* always voted on by the citizenry. However, it's important to note, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional monarchy. Democracy is no refuge from tyranny, and the tyranny of the majority, where 51% tell the other 49% how it's going to be.
Part of the guiding light of countries that have a constitution (which most people don't realise the UK has) is that minority groups are protected and that freedoms are cherished. I personally don't count smokers as a minority group, but the smoking ban IS an assault on property rights which are the cornerstone of most of our freedoms. If you erode property rights then far more freedoms than most people realise start to crumble.
Kosmog wrote:
Jan,
Nothing at all has happened to democracy. It is your privilege to use your vote in line with whatever party policies matter to you most. If enough people agree with you and you lobby successfully, any devloved legislation can be amended or rescinded. That is precisely the democratic system we work to. That an individual or even large groups of individuals are vehemently opposed to specific laws in no way signifies that democracy has failed. There is no democracy in the world which facilitates government by referendum, which would appear to be what you are suggesting.
Incidentally, I am sure it would lead to interesting blogging on this site if you would let us know what some of the other 'great lies' are.
I would argue that point; in the US state laws are *I believe* always voted on by the citizenry. However, it's important to note, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional monarchy. Democracy is no refuge from tyranny, and the tyranny of the majority, where 51% tell the other 49% how it's going to be.
Part of the guiding light of countries that have a constitution (which most people don't realise the UK has) is that minority groups are protected and that freedoms are cherished. I personally don't count smokers as a minority group, but the smoking ban IS an assault on property rights which are the cornerstone of most of our freedoms. If you erode property rights then far more freedoms than most people realise start to crumble.
Posted by: Vimes, Ankh-Morpork on 12:23pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Fair point Kosmog, but the smoking ban was not included in the Labour manifesto prior to the election, which meant that no one had the opportunity to vote for, or against it. Whether it was a factor in them subsequently losing power, however...?
Fair point Kosmog, but the smoking ban was not included in the Labour manifesto prior to the election, which meant that no one had the opportunity to vote for, or against it. Whether it was a factor in them subsequently losing power, however...?
Posted by: Tim Clarke, Wigan on 12:35pm Mon 4 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Rollo Tommasi[/bold] wrote:
Funny how in the minds of these flatearthers, "Government statistics are just propaganda" but the truth can apparently be found on freedom2choose's website. If only that were the case. In truth, F2C continue to rely on misrepresentation, misstatement and misinterpretation.
Mandy, for instance, keeps referring to that phrase in an earlier HSE document. Her attempts to make something sinister out of nothing still mean nothing. The paragraph she refers to simply warns inspectors about the difficulty in relying on epidemiological evidence about passive smoking in enforcement action in court. Removing that sentence doesn't change that. More to the point Mandy - why aren't you so keen to tell people that the very same HSE document also states "There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban"?
Mandy also describes it as an absolute scandal that 10,000 people a year are dying unnecessarily from blood clots. Yet evidence tells us that passive smoking is responsible for the deaths of possibly twice this number of people each year.
I take it the Innthecold campaign will visit a representative sample selection of pubs, including winners from the new laws? And will they also visit a few cancer and heart disease wards in hospitals up and down the country to discover more about how horrible these conditions are and how passive smoking contributes towards them?
Environmental Health Officers play a very important role in all sorts of things - food safety, HMO licensing, waste issues, etc. It's notable how they've chosen to highlight smoking law enforcement over other services in their press release - an indication of how much they think it will attract the sympathy of the public. [/quote] Misrepresentation, misinterpretation, and misstatement? Like ASH, you mean?
"There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban". Because it's true? That doesn't negate the paragraph which states it can find no epidemiological evidence to link SHS with contracting specific diseases.
If SHS is responsible for 20,000 deaths, how come you cannot name even [bold]ONE[/bold] of them Rollo. I understand that epidemiology, apparently, does not need to actually prove anyone has died. Yet if there was such a convincing case, you'd at least think you'd be able to conclusively prove that just ONE person had died from it. Once again, Rollo, you seem to be unsure as to whether or not passive smoking is a killer. If the smoke actually killed them, it could be proven. So, does passive smoking kill, or not?
I am not involved with the Inthecold campaign, but it doesn't need to 'gerrymander' the pubs it visits to show the economic evisceration caused by the ban. Why on earth would they visit hospital wards? If you could show me one person in a cancer or heart disease ward whose condition was conclusively caused by passive smoking, I'd agree with you, and I'm sure the organiser of the campaign would as well.
Rollo Tommasi wrote:
Funny how in the minds of these flatearthers, "Government statistics are just propaganda" but the truth can apparently be found on freedom2choose's website. If only that were the case. In truth, F2C continue to rely on misrepresentation, misstatement and misinterpretation.
Mandy, for instance, keeps referring to that phrase in an earlier HSE document. Her attempts to make something sinister out of nothing still mean nothing. The paragraph she refers to simply warns inspectors about the difficulty in relying on epidemiological evidence about passive smoking in enforcement action in court. Removing that sentence doesn't change that. More to the point Mandy - why aren't you so keen to tell people that the very same HSE document also states "There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban"?
Mandy also describes it as an absolute scandal that 10,000 people a year are dying unnecessarily from blood clots. Yet evidence tells us that passive smoking is responsible for the deaths of possibly twice this number of people each year.
I take it the Innthecold campaign will visit a representative sample selection of pubs, including winners from the new laws? And will they also visit a few cancer and heart disease wards in hospitals up and down the country to discover more about how horrible these conditions are and how passive smoking contributes towards them?
Environmental Health Officers play a very important role in all sorts of things - food safety, HMO licensing, waste issues, etc. It's notable how they've chosen to highlight smoking law enforcement over other services in their press release - an indication of how much they think it will attract the sympathy of the public.
Misrepresentation, misinterpretation, and misstatement? Like ASH, you mean?
"There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban". Because it's true? That doesn't negate the paragraph which states it can find no epidemiological evidence to link SHS with contracting specific diseases.
If SHS is responsible for 20,000 deaths, how come you cannot name even
ONE of them Rollo. I understand that epidemiology, apparently, does not need to actually prove anyone has died. Yet if there was such a convincing case, you'd at least think you'd be able to conclusively prove that just ONE person had died from it. Once again, Rollo, you seem to be unsure as to whether or not passive smoking is a killer. If the smoke actually killed them, it could be proven. So, does passive smoking kill, or not?
I am not involved with the Inthecold campaign, but it doesn't need to 'gerrymander' the pubs it visits to show the economic evisceration caused by the ban. Why on earth would they visit hospital wards? If you could show me one person in a cancer or heart disease ward whose condition was conclusively caused by passive smoking, I'd agree with you, and I'm sure the organiser of the campaign would as well.
Posted by: Tim Clarke, Wigan on 12:36pm Mon 4 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Rollo Tommasi[/bold] wrote:
Funny how in the minds of these flatearthers, "Government statistics are just propaganda" but the truth can apparently be found on freedom2choose's website. If only that were the case. In truth, F2C continue to rely on misrepresentation, misstatement and misinterpretation.
Mandy, for instance, keeps referring to that phrase in an earlier HSE document. Her attempts to make something sinister out of nothing still mean nothing. The paragraph she refers to simply warns inspectors about the difficulty in relying on epidemiological evidence about passive smoking in enforcement action in court. Removing that sentence doesn't change that. More to the point Mandy - why aren't you so keen to tell people that the very same HSE document also states "There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban"?
Mandy also describes it as an absolute scandal that 10,000 people a year are dying unnecessarily from blood clots. Yet evidence tells us that passive smoking is responsible for the deaths of possibly twice this number of people each year.
I take it the Innthecold campaign will visit a representative sample selection of pubs, including winners from the new laws? And will they also visit a few cancer and heart disease wards in hospitals up and down the country to discover more about how horrible these conditions are and how passive smoking contributes towards them?
Environmental Health Officers play a very important role in all sorts of things - food safety, HMO licensing, waste issues, etc. It's notable how they've chosen to highlight smoking law enforcement over other services in their press release - an indication of how much they think it will attract the sympathy of the public. [/quote] Misrepresentation, misinterpretation, and misstatement? Like ASH, you mean?
"There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban". Because it's true? That doesn't negate the paragraph which states it can find no epidemiological evidence to link SHS with contracting specific diseases.
If SHS is responsible for 20,000 deaths, how come you cannot name even [bold]ONE[/bold] of them Rollo. I understand that epidemiology, apparently, does not need to actually prove anyone has died. Yet if there was such a convincing case, you'd at least think you'd be able to conclusively prove that just ONE person had died from it. Once again, Rollo, you seem to be unsure as to whether or not passive smoking is a killer. If the smoke actually killed them, it could be proven. So, does passive smoking kill, or not?
I am not involved with the Inthecold campaign, but it doesn't need to 'gerrymander' the pubs it visits to show the economic evisceration caused by the ban. Why on earth would they visit hospital wards? If you could show me one person in a cancer or heart disease ward whose condition was conclusively caused by passive smoking, I'd agree with you, and I'm sure the organiser of the campaign would as well.
Rollo Tommasi wrote:
Funny how in the minds of these flatearthers, "Government statistics are just propaganda" but the truth can apparently be found on freedom2choose's website. If only that were the case. In truth, F2C continue to rely on misrepresentation, misstatement and misinterpretation.
Mandy, for instance, keeps referring to that phrase in an earlier HSE document. Her attempts to make something sinister out of nothing still mean nothing. The paragraph she refers to simply warns inspectors about the difficulty in relying on epidemiological evidence about passive smoking in enforcement action in court. Removing that sentence doesn't change that. More to the point Mandy - why aren't you so keen to tell people that the very same HSE document also states "There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban"?
Mandy also describes it as an absolute scandal that 10,000 people a year are dying unnecessarily from blood clots. Yet evidence tells us that passive smoking is responsible for the deaths of possibly twice this number of people each year.
I take it the Innthecold campaign will visit a representative sample selection of pubs, including winners from the new laws? And will they also visit a few cancer and heart disease wards in hospitals up and down the country to discover more about how horrible these conditions are and how passive smoking contributes towards them?
Environmental Health Officers play a very important role in all sorts of things - food safety, HMO licensing, waste issues, etc. It's notable how they've chosen to highlight smoking law enforcement over other services in their press release - an indication of how much they think it will attract the sympathy of the public.
Misrepresentation, misinterpretation, and misstatement? Like ASH, you mean?
"There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban". Because it's true? That doesn't negate the paragraph which states it can find no epidemiological evidence to link SHS with contracting specific diseases.
If SHS is responsible for 20,000 deaths, how come you cannot name even
ONE of them Rollo. I understand that epidemiology, apparently, does not need to actually prove anyone has died. Yet if there was such a convincing case, you'd at least think you'd be able to conclusively prove that just ONE person had died from it. Once again, Rollo, you seem to be unsure as to whether or not passive smoking is a killer. If the smoke actually killed them, it could be proven. So, does passive smoking kill, or not?
I am not involved with the Inthecold campaign, but it doesn't need to 'gerrymander' the pubs it visits to show the economic evisceration caused by the ban. Why on earth would they visit hospital wards? If you could show me one person in a cancer or heart disease ward whose condition was conclusively caused by passive smoking, I'd agree with you, and I'm sure the organiser of the campaign would as well.
Posted by: Tim Clarke, Lancs on 12:48pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Rollo - I have little wish to cover the same old ground with you, but the figures relating to passive smoking expose it for the wild guesswork that it is. Just how many people is it killing?
Once again, you criticise F2C, yet ASH do all the things you accuse F2C of, and they are taxpayer funded and funded by charities. F2C are a voluntary organisation, yet you attack the organisation disproportionately. I have shown you plenty of evidence of ASH misleading people intentionally or otherwise. Please acknowledge it, and point it out in future alongside your statements about F2C, for a more balanced post.
"There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban". Because that is true. Equally, they say that those effects do not include contracting specific diseases from SHS. Ergo, the HSE must mean the irritating effects smoke can have on the respiratory system.
Why would inthecold visit cancer and heart wards? Can you prove a single patient in one of them had their condition caused by passive smoking? The campaign doesn't need to gerrymander the pubs it visits (although I am not involved, so I cannot comment on which pubs they are visiting). The economic devastation is manifest without the need for the underhand tactics of tobacco control.
Rollo - I have little wish to cover the same old ground with you, but the figures relating to passive smoking expose it for the wild guesswork that it is. Just how many people is it killing?
Once again, you criticise F2C, yet ASH do all the things you accuse F2C of, and they are taxpayer funded and funded by charities. F2C are a voluntary organisation, yet you attack the organisation disproportionately. I have shown you plenty of evidence of ASH misleading people intentionally or otherwise. Please acknowledge it, and point it out in future alongside your statements about F2C, for a more balanced post.
"There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban". Because that is true. Equally, they say that those effects do not include contracting specific diseases from SHS. Ergo, the HSE must mean the irritating effects smoke can have on the respiratory system.
Why would inthecold visit cancer and heart wards? Can you prove a single patient in one of them had their condition caused by passive smoking? The campaign doesn't need to gerrymander the pubs it visits (although I am not involved, so I cannot comment on which pubs they are visiting). The economic devastation is manifest without the need for the underhand tactics of tobacco control.
Posted by: Phil Williams, Norfolk on 12:51pm Mon 4 Feb 08
An interesting statement...
[quote]"While the smoking ban has enjoyed overwhelming support from both the public and proprietors of premises, that is partly because the prospect of enforcement has been in the background and, even then, some enforcement has been necessary.
[/quote]
How can they claim overwhelming support if that support has to be enforced on an unwilling public?
An interesting statement...
"While the smoking ban has enjoyed overwhelming support from both the public and proprietors of premises, that is partly because the prospect of enforcement has been in the background and, even then, some enforcement has been necessary.
How can they claim overwhelming support if that support has to be enforced on an unwilling public?
Posted by: Tim Clarke, Lancs on 12:58pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Apologies for double posting, and then re-writing the same thing in another post. My computer decided to go insane.
Apologies for double posting, and then re-writing the same thing in another post. My computer decided to go insane.
Posted by: Kevin, Brampton, Canada on 1:23pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Rolo Wrote;
[italic]"Mandy also describes it as an absolute scandal that 10,000 people a year are dying unnecessarily from blood clots. Yet evidence tells us that passive smoking is responsible for the deaths of possibly twice this number of people each year."[/italic]
Alas my friend you are obviously another victim of statistical fraud. In the 50s and 60s more than half the population smoked in North America [The source of the statistical associations world wide] ]now that those same people are getting older they are naturally dying from what has always been known as diseases of the elderly, such as cancers and heart diseases.
With an aging population it was expected we would see disease increases in these categories. Because more than half the population smoked and the fact half the diseases are found among smokers is only a reflection of population norms, and exactly what was expected for decades. What we did not expect was despite the drastic reductions of smoking prevalence, little reductions of the disease numbers occurred, which we had always believed were caused by smoking.
No disease has ever been determined to have been caused by second hand smoke, there is simply a statistical association among thousands of others. What was determined by calculation was; it might be possible. Similarly an association exists between breast cancers and an increased risk of 25,000% if a woman wears a bra.
No cause is ever stated just a possibility of increased risk. Epidemiology is the science of speculation. Nothing is reproducible and nothing grows beyond what the researcher believes, or more accurately; what the researcher wants others to believe.
Gratuitously exaggerated fear did the rest. You have smoking bans, global warming and fat pandemics, and who could forget the mad cow and SARS pandemics? Irresponsible reporting is driving huge expenditures with irresponsible claims. We have as a result a global expression of hypochondria. Hysterics and high drama is claiming victims wherever it can find them, The crime in all this? it is driven by tax expenditures financing promotions no more real than the the fanatical sky is falling routine. [bold]Fools gold!!![/bold]
[bold]You really do; have nothing to fear but fear itself.[/bold]
Get it?
Rolo Wrote;
"Mandy also describes it as an absolute scandal that 10,000 people a year are dying unnecessarily from blood clots. Yet evidence tells us that passive smoking is responsible for the deaths of possibly twice this number of people each year."
Alas my friend you are obviously another victim of statistical fraud. In the 50s and 60s more than half the population smoked in North America ]now that those same people are getting older they are naturally dying from what has always been known as diseases of the elderly, such as cancers and heart diseases.
With an aging population it was expected we would see disease increases in these categories. Because more than half the population smoked and the fact half the diseases are found among smokers is only a reflection of population norms, and exactly what was expected for decades. What we did not expect was despite the drastic reductions of smoking prevalence, little reductions of the disease numbers occurred, which we had always believed were caused by smoking.
No disease has ever been determined to have been caused by second hand smoke, there is simply a statistical association among thousands of others. What was determined by calculation was; it might be possible. Similarly an association exists between breast cancers and an increased risk of 25,000% if a woman wears a bra.
No cause is ever stated just a possibility of increased risk. Epidemiology is the science of speculation. Nothing is reproducible and nothing grows beyond what the researcher believes, or more accurately; what the researcher wants others to believe.
Gratuitously exaggerated fear did the rest. You have smoking bans, global warming and fat pandemics, and who could forget the mad cow and SARS pandemics? Irresponsible reporting is driving huge expenditures with irresponsible claims. We have as a result a global expression of hypochondria. Hysterics and high drama is claiming victims wherever it can find them, The crime in all this? it is driven by tax expenditures financing promotions no more real than the the fanatical sky is falling routine.
Fools gold!!!
You really do; have nothing to fear but fear itself.
Get it?
Posted by: Tim Clarke, Wigan on 3:58pm Mon 4 Feb 08
Thanks for that contribution Kevin. Most illuminating :)
What I want to know is why, when the number of smokers in America has been decreasing over the past 50 years percentage wise (but has remained roughly static because of population increases), has there been an 800% increase in lung cancer? Any ideas, Rollo? Time lag, I suppose.
Thanks for that contribution Kevin. Most illuminating :)
What I want to know is why, when the number of smokers in America has been decreasing over the past 50 years percentage wise (but has remained roughly static because of population increases), has there been an 800% increase in lung cancer? Any ideas, Rollo? Time lag, I suppose.
Posted by: chas, suffolk on 5:00pm Mon 4 Feb 08
I think that we have all been told the dangers of smoking, now let us live our lives as we want to.
I think that we have all been told the dangers of smoking, now let us live our lives as we want to.
Posted by: pat, herts on 1:57am Tue 5 Feb 08
If this so called smoking ban has been a success its because people have been bullied into it and the fear of a large fine if they didnt conform. These figure that anyone shows thats it has been a success really want investigating as to where they get these figures from. Ask any publican or club owner or coffee shop owner if their buisness has not been damaged by such a draconian ban and I would bet that it would be a different story to what is being published.
If this so called smoking ban has been a success its because people have been bullied into it and the fear of a large fine if they didnt conform. These figure that anyone shows thats it has been a success really want investigating as to where they get these figures from. Ask any publican or club owner or coffee shop owner if their buisness has not been damaged by such a draconian ban and I would bet that it would be a different story to what is being published.
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 6:04am Tue 5 Feb 08
Maka an Ash of yourselves. "It's cancer sticks wot fund the NHS". Smoke and keep worker in a job"
These were actual button badge slogans from the Tobacco workers Union, when Glasgow's Alexandra Parade factory was moved to London had a friend who worked there at the time and is suffering badly from his addiction, but even he knows how silly the tobacco lobby and the Tame Unions are.
Maka an Ash of yourselves. "It's cancer sticks wot fund the NHS". Smoke and keep worker in a job"
These were actual button badge slogans from the Tobacco workers Union, when Glasgow's Alexandra Parade factory was moved to London had a friend who worked there at the time and is suffering badly from his addiction, but even he knows how silly the tobacco lobby and the Tame Unions are.
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 6:04am Tue 5 Feb 08
Maka an Ash of yourselves. "It's cancer sticks wot fund the NHS". Smoke and keep worker in a job"
These were actual button badge slogans from the Tobacco workers Union, when Glasgow's Alexandra Parade factory was moved to London had a friend who worked there at the time and is suffering badly from his addiction, but even he knows how silly the tobacco lobby and the Tame Unions are.
Maka an Ash of yourselves. "It's cancer sticks wot fund the NHS". Smoke and keep worker in a job"
These were actual button badge slogans from the Tobacco workers Union, when Glasgow's Alexandra Parade factory was moved to London had a friend who worked there at the time and is suffering badly from his addiction, but even he knows how silly the tobacco lobby and the Tame Unions are.
Posted by: Frost, Scotland on 10:11am Tue 5 Feb 08
In a previous article I suggested that Mr Tommasi would do well to read:
“Scared to Death” by Christopher Booker and Dr Richard North, published by Continuum. The relevant section being: Part 2 Chapter 12 entitled “How they turned “Passive Smoking” into a killer, 1950 – 2007. However, he declined to read it due to some critical report, on the book, that he had read or heard of. I respectfully ask him again to have a read. I’m sure it will be in local libraries, assuming the “thought police” have not had it banned.
Additionally, in Michael Moore’s latest film, “Sicko”, there is a very enlightening interview with Tony Benn MP on how governments manipulate the people in order to make them easier to control. Not directly related to a smoking ban but, by innuendo, highly suspicious.
In a previous article I suggested that Mr Tommasi would do well to read:
“Scared to Death” by Christopher Booker and Dr Richard North, published by Continuum. The relevant section being: Part 2 Chapter 12 entitled “How they turned “Passive Smoking” into a killer, 1950 – 2007. However, he declined to read it due to some critical report, on the book, that he had read or heard of. I respectfully ask him again to have a read. I’m sure it will be in local libraries, assuming the “thought police” have not had it banned.
Additionally, in Michael Moore’s latest film, “Sicko”, there is a very enlightening interview with Tony Benn MP on how governments manipulate the people in order to make them easier to control. Not directly related to a smoking ban but, by innuendo, highly suspicious.
Posted by: Frost, Scotland on 10:12am Tue 5 Feb 08
In a previous article I suggested that Mr Tommasi would do well to read:
“Scared to Death” by Christopher Booker and Dr Richard North, published by Continuum. The relevant section being: Part 2 Chapter 12 entitled “How they turned “Passive Smoking” into a killer, 1950 – 2007. However, he declined to read it due to some critical report, on the book, that he had read or heard of. I respectfully ask him again to have a read. I’m sure it will be in local libraries, assuming the “thought police” have not had it banned.
Additionally, in Michael Moore’s latest film, “Sicko”, there is a very enlightening interview with Tony Benn MP on how governments manipulate the people in order to make them easier to control. Not directly related to a smoking ban but, by innuendo, highly suspicious.
In a previous article I suggested that Mr Tommasi would do well to read:
“Scared to Death” by Christopher Booker and Dr Richard North, published by Continuum. The relevant section being: Part 2 Chapter 12 entitled “How they turned “Passive Smoking” into a killer, 1950 – 2007. However, he declined to read it due to some critical report, on the book, that he had read or heard of. I respectfully ask him again to have a read. I’m sure it will be in local libraries, assuming the “thought police” have not had it banned.
Additionally, in Michael Moore’s latest film, “Sicko”, there is a very enlightening interview with Tony Benn MP on how governments manipulate the people in order to make them easier to control. Not directly related to a smoking ban but, by innuendo, highly suspicious.
Posted by: Jon, manchester on 12:55pm Tue 5 Feb 08
The Scottish heart attack "study" does not exist. Have any of you read it? It has never appeared in print. Jill Pell seems to have disappeared from her organisation's web pages. As we now all know, courtesy of Blastland and Dilnott, the actual decrease in heart attacks was in line with the general downward trend. The Irish "study" which preceeded it does not seem to exist either. Attempts to support the "instant heart attack" hypothesis have plumbed new depths in (choosing my words carefully) statistical incompetence, and those involved should be ashamed of themselves. If you understand statistical methodology and have access to the papers, it is instructive to read the four precursors to the Scottish "study: namely; the Helena, Piedmont, Bowling Green and Pueblo studies; and then the meta-analysis of these studies by Stanton Glanz. In twentyfive years I have never read such nonsense. How they were ever published amazes me; paticularly as the full data for heart attacks in U.S. regions subject to smoking bans has long been available. It frightens me to think that Goverment policy is infuenced by this sort of thing, and that it eventually becomes "fact".
The Scottish heart attack "study" does not exist. Have any of you read it? It has never appeared in print. Jill Pell seems to have disappeared from her organisation's web pages. As we now all know, courtesy of Blastland and Dilnott, the actual decrease in heart attacks was in line with the general downward trend. The Irish "study" which preceeded it does not seem to exist either. Attempts to support the "instant heart attack" hypothesis have plumbed new depths in (choosing my words carefully) statistical incompetence, and those involved should be ashamed of themselves. If you understand statistical methodology and have access to the papers, it is instructive to read the four precursors to the Scottish "study: namely; the Helena, Piedmont, Bowling Green and Pueblo studies; and then the meta-analysis of these studies by Stanton Glanz. In twentyfive years I have never read such nonsense. How they were ever published amazes me; paticularly as the full data for heart attacks in U.S. regions subject to smoking bans has long been available. It frightens me to think that Goverment policy is infuenced by this sort of thing, and that it eventually becomes "fact".
Posted by: mandy vincent on 2:05pm Tue 5 Feb 08
Because it contradicts itself IMHO Rollo -" Mandy, for instance, keeps referring to that phrase in an earlier HSE document. Her attempts to make something sinister out of nothing still mean nothing. The paragraph she refers to simply warns inspectors about the difficulty in relying on epidemiological evidence about passive smoking in enforcement action in court. Removing that sentence doesn't change that. More to the point Mandy - why aren't you so keen to tell people that the very same HSE document also states "There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban"?
Frost, I was lucky enough to get the "scared to death" book signed,
Yes the media has a lot to do with it, all this scare-mongering. It will be like the "boy who cried wolf"
They cannot keep telling people, millions will die from this that and the other, on hand, then tell us they want us all to be healthy!
They cannot afford to care for the pensioners now, yet they want us all to live longer, what the hell for. I do not know about visiting cancer wards, maybe the antis need to visit a few old peoples homes.
The only people I know that have died of cancers were oldish, I know many people who do not smoke or drink that have not made it to 45 years even.
Micheal Siegal who was the once upon a time anti, pleads for the antis to stop the giving out wrong information - I call it lying, when they carry on doing so - I have read articles that go from smokers causing heart attacks in non-smokers in 30 minutes -15 minutes.
Well I am sorry but I did not see hearst outside pubs, picking up all these "dead people".
Thank you Kevin and Jon and others for your great posts,
freedom2choose.info for tolerant non-smokers and smokers alike
innthecold.com could do with support also please
Because it contradicts itself IMHO Rollo -" Mandy, for instance, keeps referring to that phrase in an earlier HSE document. Her attempts to make something sinister out of nothing still mean nothing. The paragraph she refers to simply warns inspectors about the difficulty in relying on epidemiological evidence about passive smoking in enforcement action in court. Removing that sentence doesn't change that. More to the point Mandy - why aren't you so keen to tell people that the very same HSE document also states "There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban"?
Frost, I was lucky enough to get the "scared to death" book signed,
Yes the media has a lot to do with it, all this scare-mongering. It will be like the "boy who cried wolf"
They cannot keep telling people, millions will die from this that and the other, on hand, then tell us they want us all to be healthy!
They cannot afford to care for the pensioners now, yet they want us all to live longer, what the hell for. I do not know about visiting cancer wards, maybe the antis need to visit a few old peoples homes.
The only people I know that have died of cancers were oldish, I know many people who do not smoke or drink that have not made it to 45 years even.
Micheal Siegal who was the once upon a time anti, pleads for the antis to stop the giving out wrong information - I call it lying, when they carry on doing so - I have read articles that go from smokers causing heart attacks in non-smokers in 30 minutes -15 minutes.
Well I am sorry but I did not see hearst outside pubs, picking up all these "dead people".
Thank you Kevin and Jon and others for your great posts,
freedom2choose.info for tolerant non-smokers and smokers alike
innthecold.com could do with support also please
Posted by: Blueliner, enjoying the fresh air on 7:40pm Tue 5 Feb 08
Couldn't care less about the stats. I no longer stink like a dirty ash tray after a night out. If you wish to smoke, do so in your own home, otherwise spontaeneously combust. Single best piece of legislation enacted by that last shower.
Also, there have only been a handful of infractions of the ban so it doesn't really cost anything to enforce. Anyone else spot that hoary old "ring-fencing" scare story?
Couldn't care less about the stats. I no longer stink like a dirty ash tray after a night out. If you wish to smoke, do so in your own home, otherwise spontaeneously combust. Single best piece of legislation enacted by that last shower.
Also, there have only been a handful of infractions of the ban so it doesn't really cost anything to enforce. Anyone else spot that hoary old "ring-fencing" scare story?
Posted by: emma carter, Withernsea on 11:03pm Tue 5 Feb 08
go and tell any landlords that the smoking ban as been a resounding success no matter if they live in Scotland ,England,Wales or Irland pubs are closing every day they are having to lay of bar staff because they can not afford to pay there wages and now being told that 2 million people have given up smoking well in that case cancer should now be a thing of the past also other illness that is related to smoking where does proagander come from the government who wants us to belive them
go and tell any landlords that the smoking ban as been a resounding success no matter if they live in Scotland ,England,Wales or Irland pubs are closing every day they are having to lay of bar staff because they can not afford to pay there wages and now being told that 2 million people have given up smoking well in that case cancer should now be a thing of the past also other illness that is related to smoking where does proagander come from the government who wants us to belive them
Posted by: Tim Clarke, Lancs, England on 1:17am Wed 6 Feb 08
Blueliner - I take it when homes are targeted - as they are already being (see the Sunday Herald article http://www.sundayher
ald.com/news/heraldn
ews/display.var.2014
908.0.0.php), you will vociferously complain? Or indeed the fact that other private property smoking bans are on the way, such as smoking in cars, have equally offended you?
Your rationale is precicated on the logic of, 'I don't know that it's harmful, all I know is I don't like it, and therefore I'm glad it's banned'. And to think smokers are supposedly the selfish ones.
Blueliner - I take it when homes are targeted - as they are already being (see the Sunday Herald article http://www.sundayher
ald.com/news/heraldn
ews/display.var.2014
908.0.0.php), you will vociferously complain? Or indeed the fact that other private property smoking bans are on the way, such as smoking in cars, have equally offended you?
Your rationale is precicated on the logic of, 'I don't know that it's harmful, all I know is I don't like it, and therefore I'm glad it's banned'. And to think smokers are supposedly the selfish ones.
Posted by: chas, suffolk on 8:38am Wed 6 Feb 08
BBC Horizon last night was about the top ten most dangerous drugs. 1.Heroin 2 cocaine. Alcohol was 6th or 7th. Tobacco 9th. Although these could be debatable I agree with the closing comment that education is more effective than enforcement.
BBC Horizon last night was about the top ten most dangerous drugs. 1.Heroin 2 cocaine. Alcohol was 6th or 7th. Tobacco 9th. Although these could be debatable I agree with the closing comment that education is more effective than enforcement.
Posted by: Eddie D, Scotland on 6:54pm Mon 11 Feb 08
How many pubs and clubs have been affected by the smoking ban?.
Visit http://www.Innthecol
d.com and find out the truth.
How many pubs and clubs have been affected by the smoking ban?.
Visit http://www.Innthecol
d.com and find out the truth.
News
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (37)
