This is the most spiteful ban of all.
freedom2choose.co.uk members knew exactly where this was going, we just looked to the intolerant Californians.
Churches also have to put signs up, no-one smoked in there either. But obviously you can do other illegal things as there are no signs telling us not too.
I cannot believe those that fought for this ban to go through did not know the implications and hatred this would cause.
I will never trust those who are meant to serve us again.
None of the three major parties will get my vote for a long time to come.
You did not mind those who own their own pubs and venues putting sign on their homes did you.

This country has gone mad. Get rid of ASH and the other Anti-Smoking Brigade organisations and give people the Freedom of Choice.
How much public money has been and will continue to be wasted by this Government who have been conned by the Anti-Smokers.
Gordon Brown said he would listen to the people, then get this ban amended to allow smoking rooms in pubs and clubs or give Landlords the choice to be either a smoking or non-smoking pub.

IGNORE THIS STUPID BAN UNTIL THE
LAW IS CHANGED

Yes, well, NOW a few MPs are starting to see what some of the Lords tried to point out. That there are 'unintended consequences' to ill-thought out legislation.

Funny that they only really finally understand it when it affects them directly, isn't it?

Not too surprising to discover that they're more concerned about the facade of their property than the fact that elderly people are being chucked out into the cold and rain, or that people who fought to protect our freedoms will now spend their evenings indoors rather than out socialising. No. Their precious house frontages are far more important than that.

I don't know how the LibDems have the cheek to use the word 'Liberal' in their name. There is no major party that will speak up for our right to live our lives as we choose.

Healthism is the new fascism.

We don't all want to live to be 100+ Some of us are mature enough to accept that we cannot control everything that happens to us, and that we WILL all die one day. Some of us would just like to get through this life with a few of our pleasures intact, rather than be socially engineered into an obedient little, super fit master race.

This law has nothing to do with health. Anyone who believes that wants their head read.

I will support anyone who tries to ammend or remove this unwarranted ban.
As far as stupid signage and intrusion is concerned a friend lives at a farm where not a single worker smokes but they have had to place dozens of signs on every door into sheds, stables, storerooms and vehicles. The signs are a simple display of uncontrolled fanaticism & bullying by avid anti-smokers who high-jacked this country with their lies and exaggeration.
They have made a criminal of an 80 year old I saw today as he watched the world go by smoking his pipe in the shelter he has used for over 40 years. This is the inhumane action of a morally corrupt government.

This ban must be the most spiteful, resented, draconian ban ever, like one of the posters above I will not vote again for any of the 3 main parties that support the removal of the rights of smokers to have their own facilities, and private property owners to have choice. We are no longer living in a democracy but a dictatorship. England has hit rock bottom.

Not only is this ban based on the LIE that passive smoking kills people, but the regulations are incredulous. If all enclosed public places and work places have to be smoke free what was the point in the signs in the first place. The Hospitality Industry pointed this out at the consultation stage but did the MP's like those above, listen. Of course not they were so intent on patting themselves on the backs, for saving the smoker from themselves, and the mythical harm to non smokers like me to even bother to actually read what they were voting for. Join Freedom to Choose (www.freedom2choose.
co.uk). Our site is now being flooded with requests to help and donations for the fighting fund, but we still need more. Together we can make some sense of this senseless legislation.

Oh get over it! What a bunch of whingers. The ban is here now and what a relief it is. Give people a choice you say? What about the choice of non-smokers who have to put up with breathing your drug in pubs when we don't want to for decades. Get out in the rain for a puff where you belong...

Steve, All that tolerant non smokers and smokers are now doing in fighting this ban is what intolerant people like yourself could have done when no provision was made for non smokers, that is, campaign for choice.

What a clueless bunch! You really miss the point of the signs don't you? Far be it for me to enable your feeble minds......

Smoking kills. It kills 50% of smokers prematurely and is responsible for the gaping chasm in death rates between rich and poor.

It's disgusting that someone thinks their 'freedom to smoke' is more important than someone else's 'freedom to not die early'.

This is the bleating of the predictable whingers who spend their lives on barstools. 2 months from now the only people who will be complaining will be the martyrs who couldn't be arsed to get prepared for the ban.

Surely the fairest way to have done this would have been giving landlords the power to decide wether they wanted a no smoking or smoking establishment. It would have then given everyone the freedom to choose. Landlords, workers and customers, as to which establishment they chose to frequent.
And where do all the dogooder non, anti-smoking fans think the government will get their lost taxes from when all these people stop buying cigaretttes and alchohol?
Eveyones civil liberties, freedom to choose and human rights have been infringed by this legislation and the sooner it is amended the fairer to all.

Two months from now it will be over and forgotten? You poor misguided and mis-informed fanatical, vindictive buffoon. This is not going away in England. We have a huge population here which will feel this dispicable law in a big way, in fact is already feeling it, and very soon they will be heard. I don't know any smokers who spend their lives on barstools, your veiw is one of hatred, and that's exactly what the authorities want you to feel. How does it feel to be manipulated in Nazi doctrine. If you think this just about smoking then you really need to get your head examined.

Lets get this in perspective, 3 years in a row the ONS household survey showed that 2/3rds of the population wanted choice in hospital, the latest being 2006, at 1% higher following the announcement of the ban.
Smoking kills. It kills 50% of smokers prematurely and is responsible for the gaping chasm in death rates between rich and poor. I actually fail to see how smoking bans will remove the inequality because smoking increases among the socially deprived groups according to ASH. As for 50% being premature that is complete rubbish the average morbidity of 60% of smokers is 70 plus with 50% of those living past 80. The art of ASH and the health zealots to brainwash is always apparent on these types of threads.
www.freedom2choose.c
o.uk, Pro Choice, not Pro Smoking.

The same old selfish,myopic,
tiresome, moans and whinges from the same familiar few. Until the revolution comes, learn to live with it.Vive la liberté du tabac!

David, New Mills.

Few?

Belinda C. knows only too well that her camp followers scarcely number millions. Hundreds of thousands? Thousands?

a soldier back from iraq cant have a ciggy in his local service club,a miner cant have one in his miners club, a terminal patient in hospital is forced outside hospital grounds while tubed up to get a bit of comfort.
pubs and bingo halls shutting,millions of our people now denied a long time enjoyment of their social choice,smoke police, snitch phone
lines fines and warnings
all these because our know betters in parliament have not got the brains to have a just and more reasonable act
this is an outrage

Actually Dave, New Mills we are having record numbef hits every day now more and more people realise just how fascist and excessive this new ban is. Well put Jim. Shame on you MP Anne Main for betraying your party principles in favour of political correctness without even looking at the dosgy science regarding passive smoking properly!

OPOSE THE BAN walk....

City of Wells, Somerset...
The Cathedral Green, Wells, Somerset
Saturday 14th July 12 Miday.

Tel 07885437854 Or 07722852224

I am very heartened to see that people are prepared to stand up to this outrageous abuse of political power.

Because that, precisely, is what it is.

It's only a sign and if you don't allow smoking there anyway, I don't see what the problem is, why not stop whining about it?
I am delighted about the ban, it will be great to have the freedom to try out going to a few more places I was unable to go before because of the smoke!

Carlos/Carlo/Chuckle

s/Charles should not assume that "hits" on a website are a measure of support. I occasionally visit those of the so-called BD and F2C, but am not inclined to support either. I am pleased that his English has apparently improved so markedly, but would prefer not to be addressed as "Dave", as I'm neither his mate, nor leader of HMG's official opposition party. Ha capito?

I agree wholeheartedly with Lesley's sentiments, even tho' I am not asthmatic which I think she is?. Good to see her posting again, as my last memories of her submissions were on Filthysmokers.com. Welcome back Lesley.

Donal,F2C's man in Eire,is quite free to be heartened and express his opinion.Other people's opinions are equally permitted and totally at variance with his.
How do you say "ackers" in Erse?

Lesley Dove or Hamster freedom to you only means for you and your fellow selfish friends. You dont care about the owners' choice! So your NOT pro-freedom- nuff said.
David/New Mills- Well I know some might be moles but there cant be that many. I occasionally visit ASH and indeed the late Tobacco.org and dont support them either. Ill call you Dave as you do share a lot in common with him. Hai capito ora?

Before the ban everyone lived together fine, don't you think that this ban has divided this country into smokers and non smokers, i'm sure that we all have family members or friends that either smoke or don't smoke, i don't seem to remember that it was an issue before, but now it seems that each side are at each others throats, also what a lot of people seem to miss is that all these so called upright members of parliament who have implemented dissatisfaction between the the two sides, have exempted themselves from the ban, what does that tell you, it's alright for us to smoke but not you, how can this be allowed, freedom of choice for them but not us.

Tens of thousands of supporters and rising, David New Mills. People can see that you can't forcibly deprive millions of smokers of recreational facilities without creating a backlash.

Carlo(s).
Nobody mentioned "moles", just visitors. Yes, I often don't wear a tie either. Lei ha capito anche?

Smokers not deprived of facilities, just had them modified. Not spotted signs of alleged backlash, but shall brace myself accordingly.

you may not be aware of it David as it has been meticulously under-reported by the press. But it has been noticed elsewhere in the world, notably in the US where a famous anti-smoker known as Stanton Glantz, can see that the situation is critical. If co-operation with the law is not established the house of cards will fall. The link is here: http://www.freedom2c

hoose.co.uk/news1.ph

p?id=271.

Seriously, even the Chinese are reading about it: http://english.peopl

e.com.cn/200707/03/e

ng20070703_389690.ht

ml

Yes David, excactly. Like the Jews had their facilities 'modified' in NAZI Germany.

I know I'm exaggerating...to make a point. The smoking bans are also brought in to make a point: the point that pressure groups, like ASH, are able to dictate government policy with scare stories to keep us all in line (there are plenty of examples).

Lovely site that isn't it Lesley - filthysmokers.com Forum Index, filthysmokers.com Discuss the filthy bastards here.

Inciting that kind of hatred, is healthy is it.
I ripped up my organ donor card after reading the things you had posted.
The Lilac Hamster, good name, are they vermin?
Now they really did cause me lots of problems a few years ago. A shame my doctor was so blinkered to my smoking, he never even asked if I had pets in my house, not helpfull

Tie David? Cosa dici?

Belinda C.
Must be a very secret backlash.When's the bubble going to burst?

Carlos.
"Cravatta". I think Chico Marx called it a "neckatie".

fergus doth indeed exaggerate.No Krystalnacht, burning of books or freight trains for smokers in non-Nazi U.K. Fergus's camp seem very fond od scare stories.

Mandy.I'm sure Lesley didn't choose the name or create the site. I may visit the misnamed F2C or the so-called BD sites. This doesn't mean I agree with either appelation. Mandy might try lighting,sorry lightening,up.

what to say. yes i smoke. no i do not drink. but do u here me saying shut down all the pubs when at 3 in morning some 1 comes up my stree singing waking me up. no and lets face it drink kills more pople than the good old fag does. and as for how much it cost the nhs. we will just say it cost a lot. but as much as it does for drugs. and i pay some think to the nhs in the way of tax on my fags. not like the smackhead all he does is take take. so as for u no somkers all i am saying what is up with a pub run by a somker for the somkers. u no somers have got your pub it is only far we get our pubs.

While it is true that the provisions in place before this ban came into effect were wholly unsatisfactory at protecting the interests of non-smokers, by simply overturning the inequality we are giving the antis a stick with which to beat smokers into submission. If we had used the same ridiculous logic to deal with the problem of racial inequality, then white people would now be slaves, is it OK to deal with bullying at school by allowing the bullied to become the bullies. By simply flipping the inequality over to the other side you have taken the rights from one and given them to the other, equality is equal rights for all, not just the chosen ones. The right way to deal with this, is to give people choice, to give publicans choice, if you do not want to be affected by smoking go to a non-smoking establishment, if on the other hand you wish to smoke then go to a smoking establishment, fair for all. Portugal seems to be the only country so far to have seen sense, they have decided that any establishment under 100sq/m must choose to be either smoking or non-smoking, if they choose to allow smoking they must have adequate ventilation to eliminate the smoke. This is a fair and common sense approach that would have worked perfectly well in this country.

Wow - lots of anger hey...

I do agree that people should have the choice whether to smoke or not but being an ex-smoker I prefer a non-smoking place because I can now smell how awful cigarette smoke is.

However, smoking has not been banned, only smoking in an enclosed public space due to the effect of second hand smoke on others. Smokers can go home and smoke. Smokers can go out and smoke. They just can't smoke in places where other people are forced to breath in their smoke. This would seem common sense in the same way that it is illegal to drive at 100mph. Yes, the person who is most likely to be affected by your action is yourself and you have the right to choose that but it is probable that your action will affect someone else.

I agree that when I was a smoker I would have found this problematic but I would have got used to it soon. I remember smoking being OK on the tube in London but when the King’s Cross fire occurred smoking was banned and I couldn’t imagine how I was going to cope travelling for an hour without a cigarette. A few months later I had no issue with it at all.

Now you could argue that the King’s Cross fire was actually caused by bad management of the station or reduced funding as it is believed that the fire was caused by a cigarette butt dropped into piled paper waste that had been accumulating due to the station not being cleaned properly but I think most people would agree that the risk was too great to continue to allow smoking on the underground.

It is dictation but it is not an act of a "nanny state". That would be if they made it illegal to smoke to protect people who would otherwise have smoked. The aim of this enclosed public place has been to protect non-smokers.

As a non-smoker I found that very few pubs were non-smoking until this ban – certainly none of the good pubs. This was due to most publicans believing that it would reduce their turnover. Well if they are all non-smoking then non-smoking pubs won’t lose clients to other pubs that allow smoking.

Looking for the silver cloud for smokers (of smoke?) – you’ll smoke less so you’ll save money, you may live a few years longer and may have a better quality of life through better health as you get older. And some of you may, of course escape the slavery of lighting up every time the pangs start!

>>>Wow - lots of anger hey...<<<
No, actually, just reasoned argument, from me anyway.
>>>It is dictation but it is not an act of a "nanny state". That would be if they made it illegal to smoke to protect people who would otherwise have smoked. The aim of this enclosed public place has been to protect non-smokers.<<<
The ultimate aim is to stop people smoking in their own homes as has been demonstrated very clearly here and in other countries. Look at the research results of the many studies and you will see for yourself that there is no conclusive proof of a link between passive smoking and an increased risk of cancer, I have. It is perfectly clear from the actual scientific results of these studies, including the research done by the World Health Organisation which could not establish a link. This article in the Telegraph might remove the blinkers from your eyes:- http://www.telegraph

.co.uk/news/main.jht

ml?xml=/news/2007/07

/01/nbook101.xml

Here Here Dieter!!!
Please read my dilema...its crazy...
http://www.thisiswel
ls.co.uk/displayNode
.jsp?nodeId=222650&c
ommand=displayConten
t&sourceNode=241504&
home=yes&more_nodeId
1=223370&contentPK=1
7737079

I'm organising a protest march with plenty of media attention, and it would be great of you out there in helping our cause to pop along...

http://www.freedom2c
hoose.co.uk/news_vie
wer.php?id=283

Hehe - Dieter's a smoker?

By re-reading my post you may notice that I never deny that this issue is over-dramatised. I also point out, however periphrastically, that smokers have been blamed for situations which were not, in my opinion, their fault .

On the other hand I would suggest that the proof of a link is very hard to determine when everyone is exposed to smokey atmospheres. Even non-smokers have relatives and friends who smoke, as do I. My ex-girlfriend was 40 a day and my brother is 60 a day.

I would also suggest that cigarette smoke whether passive or active is likely not to be the only cause of lung cancer, further adding to the difficulties of providing absolute proof.

However, irrespective of statistically proven links between passive smoking and lung cancer it is indisputably proven that chemicals in cigarette smoke cause cancer. Not least by the dramatically increased statistical incidence of cancer among smokers.

It therefore follows that whether or not there is an indisputably proven link between passive smoking and an increased propensity to lung cancer, it is likely that there is. For you to suggest that the lack of proof that passive smoking is harmful is proof that passive smoking is harmless is not logical.

As I said in my previous post, I support your freedom to choose to smoke. However, as an ex-smoker I am glad that I now have a greater choice of where to go without having to breath in smoke. While this largely did not bother me, I am grateful that it will now never bother me again.

Karl, at no point did I suggest that the chemicals in cigarettes were harmless, just that the risks have been blown out of proportion. As for you having greater choice of where to go, I'm glad you have greater choice, but we now have none. And while that may not be such a problem for us smokers in the summer, it will however be a problem in the winter. And what happens when it's a realy nice day or it gets really hot and the non-smokers want to sit outside? The non-smokers will then be moaning that they can't enjoy the outside areas because of the smoke as has already happened in the states as well as Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The "antis" have already decided that we should be refused priority medical treatment even though the taxes levied on cigarettes more than cover the apparent cost of smokers to the NHS. Already there has been talk of banning smoking in everyones cars. How can you support my freedom to smoke yet deny me the freedom and the right to the same facilities. As I mentioned in my post on the 9th, the only truly fair and just way to deal with this is as the portugese have done.

Hey Paul, guess we'll meet up at the march,
I'll be the bald guy wearing a black T-shirt emblazoned with the words
"PROUD SMOKER........" (I don't wanna spoil it for ya)
I smoke in my van too, my van, my choice, my right.
Keep the faith Paul, with every over zealous action they take, the resentment grows, even amongst the tolerant non-smokers as I've been finding out from people I've spoken to. Fascism by it's very nature of mistrust and deception will destroy itself in the end, it's just that I have grown impatient, I will not be made to feel like an outcast. When I smoke I do so with pride.
I am proud to stand up for the rights and freedoms that more than 100 thousand British people sacrificed their lives for during the second world war and I'll be damned if I will allow them to have died in vain.

Dieter

Can a risk of death be blown out of proportion? If it was proven that someone with AIDS, knowingly and without informing a sexual partner or using a condom infected that partner who later dies they would likely be prosecuted for manslaughter. If a passive smoker dies of lung cancer caused by passive smoking, such as it is believed of Roy Castle’s death, who should be in court? Both of these situations are difficult to prove but the second also provides a protection by numbers of the smoker. Logically, the police cannot arrest every smoker that the person ever breathed the smoke of.

Smokers do have a choice of where to smoke. At home, outside or in private vehicles. Prior to this ban, out of 7 public houses in my village, only one had a non-smoking area and that was a small area being used for food, with uncomfortable seating and no atmosphere. There is a perceived link between smoking and drinking. Therefore the problem with a choice to allow or disallow smoking is that no publican would have taken it up as they feared losing trade to the pub down the road.

Amongst the problems of a partial ban would have been difficulties with certain buildings not having separate areas. Many of those would have been pubs, often listed and so unable to adequate internal partitioning. What do you do? Tell them to stop trading?

As regards the fact this was brought in in Summer…Yes – I was thinking that myself as I passed a pub last night that never used to have outside tables. It now has 3 or 4 and they were all being used by smokers. To note though that the pub was also full of people who were not smoking at that moment, whether or not they were smokers, I didn’t ask. I think you’ll get used to the Winter. You’ll just know that if you go out you will have to deal with not smoking. If you are such an addict that you can’t deal with that then you’ll suffer standing outside or you’ll stay at home.

Well the nice day in the Summer point is farcical – wherever it was reported. If it has been reported that this is happening then I’d ask if it was not just sensationalist journalism. The arguments about other people’s smoke does indeed apply but then the responsibility lies with the non-smoker too. Two steps away for a smoker outside and you can’t even smell the smoke. Implemetnting a ban outside would also naturally call into question whether we should ban all but particulate free exhaust from vehicles.

The medical treatment thing is an old argument. It is not as simple as, “I have paid enough money in cigarette tax, in my lifetime, to cover any medical expenses due to smoking”. This is not a 1-for-1 calculation. Some smokers, who have a little bronchitis for the year before they die will have “overpaid” tax but like the insurance charges you pay for your car the total monies collected have to cover everyone. A couple of examples…

My step-father smoked cigars for about 4 years and got cancer in his gums. He had to have his teeth removed and a false tooth plate, provided by the NHS. He then had sinus cancer and had to have surgery and chemo-therapy for that. Last year he was admitted to hospital for lung cancer and had to have half a lung removed. Afterwards he had to have extensive rehabilitation therapy and is now on continuous medication. Due to his medical condition the local council is paying for my grandmother’s care home as the rule in their area is that when a person is on medical benefit they cannot recoup the cost of care from the equity in the home they are living in, despite the house my step-father lives in being owned by my grandmother. He did not nearly pay enough tax in those 4 years to cover all the related costs and I haven’t even mentioned the cost to industry of the time he had to have off from work due to his illnesses.

I, on the other hand, smoked for 22+ years, so paid a great deal of tax but have had to have significant dental work due to gum recession and have had blood – clots without any clear reason other than poor circulation caused by smoking. I was also submitted to hospital suffering an asthma attack caused by smoking while I had (unknown to me) a lung infection. I may have paid more tax than the treatment I required but it’s not certain.

My grandfather smoked for approx 7 years while he was in the army and at 76 had a heart attack. During tests, they found cancer in his lungs and decided that, although they could operate with a reasonable chance of curing the cancer but because of weakness due to the recent heart attack he would have died. So rather than operating and actively killing him they just gave him morphine against the pain and let him die. Due to him having smoked many years ago when tax was less, it is unlikely that he paid enough in those 7 years for the medical care he received.

Now despite the above being emotive, the rational argument is that in some cases the tax paid will exceed the requirement for hospital treatment but in many case it will not. Taking into account secondary costs such as costs to industry in time off work etc. I would not be surprised if the tax covered the total cost of only a small number of smokers.

Medical treatment needs to be prioritised. It is logical to prioritise due to need but if further prioritisation is required then treating a smoker for a smoking related disease that is necessarily self-inflicted at a lower priority than a non-smoker for an accidental injury or illness seems logical to me. On the other hand I can see that this is a dangerous road to go down so would not condone it. If a person is diagnosed with lung cancer but swears they are not a smoker, who makes that call?

Smoking in cars is not banned yet. However, if a person is smoking while driving then is that any different to using a mobile phone? It is still something which takes the drivers concentration from the road. Many times, I myself have dropped a cigarette in my lap while driving and jumped and wriggled and moved around till I managed to stub it out or pick it up. That’s not dangerous to other road users?

If the car is stationary in a safe position then, as with mobile phones, it would seem rather stupid to ban that but of course, as with smoking at home, there is a good argument that the insurers should increase your premiums to take account of the increased risk of fire :o) They could then reduce the premiums for the non-smokers. Currently, non-smokers are subsidizing the risks taken by smokers. I myself have dropped off and dropped the cigarette I was smoking into the bed…thank goodness for modern fire retardant materials! My father burned his bed linen to ashes but thankfully my Mum was quick with the bucket of water and prevented it spreading.

As I said, I support your freedom to smoke but you have to consider the effect you are having on others.

Smokers simply do not take responsibility for the full extent of the effects of their addiction.

Its such a shame is has all come to this tit for tat!!
There is now such a divide in society between Smokers & Non smokers, it seems the government really has done it worst this time. Some people surely are brainwashed.....sham
e!

Yes - nicotine does have that “brainwashed” effect.

It amazes me now, the firm belief that a smoker has that they are actually enjoying a cigarette when in reality they are just relieving the cravings caused by the nicotine itself. I was fooled for 20 odd years myself!!

Alan Carr’s material is very good for helping you to understand your addiction…

http://www.allencarr
.com/central/article
/107/google-search-d
iscount

I fail to see what the government has to do with that though. Surely that’s between you and the nicotine…and surely the divide is a natural reaction by non-smokers due to smoke being potentially dangerous.

Would you actively persuade your kids to smoke?

Firstly i don't have kids so i couldn't possibly comment.
Potentially dangerous..?....Wher
e's the proof? do you have any documentation?

The government has destroyed the simplist practice which this country stands for, being freedom & Democracy

You can comment with or without children of your own. Would you with a child advise them to take up smoking?

Are you seriously claiming that there has never been any evidence to suggest that smoking causes certain diseases?

I pity you your enslavement!

Smoking Causes Diseases Documentation
Lung Cancer
http://www.mrc.ac.uk
/YourHealth/StoriesD
iscovery/Smoking/ind
ex.htm
Mouth and Throat Cancer
http://info.cancerre
searchuk.org/news/pr
essreleases/2006/aug
ust/198924
Bronchitis & Emphysema
http://www.mrc.ac.uk
/YourHealth/HealthAr
ticles/ChronicObstru
ctivePulmonaryDiseas
e/index.htm

And I have not even mentioned heart disease, stomach ulcers, circulation issues that have various effects etc.