Add Comment

Five hundred and thirty-seven fines and over 1300 warnings – well I suppose you might call that a success. You might expect inconsistent enforcement of this draconian and unpopular legislation, but if Mr Kerr wants to call it a success who am I to stop him.

Andy Kerr would call forcing the elderly and disabled outside should they want to smoke a success no doubt. I would call it inhumane. Goverments do not know the meaning of consultation either. Ventilation and non-smoking pubs should have been the way forward. Not the greatest place for a holiday then.

Considering second hand smoke was never proven to be harmful but it is still speculation, the statistics don't support it and the "tests" are hardly scientific, it is like arguing how many angels fit on the head of a pin, this whole issue of banning smoking entirely and designed entirely to reward the pharmaceutical industry making inroads to the nicotine marketplace as well as for selling antidepressants, sleep aids, weight loss pills and anything else remotely related to someone quitting smoking. In reality their drugs are shown to be ineffective in nearly all attempts, their success rates very low and they know by spreading lies, fear and creating chaos, they will enhance their markets. The drug companies are, in effect, lying through their teeth through the massive funding for so-called "scientific research" as well as spending on media advertising to keep the press in line with their economic goals. It is laughable on its face and at some point in the future will be as visible for what it was as we now see tobacco company lies calling smoking healthy for the user and never challenged by the media feeding off the advertising revenues from that one. Same difference, two different industries, a few decades apart and the politicians suckle up to it for power and contributions, the media for ad revenue, everyone else just because if they don't smoke, then figure not an issue. Still, should it be that cancer rates are tied to automobile emissions, which there is evidence for that which goes ignored each day, or from other causes, those will continue to remain uninvestigated in favor of only creating pseudo-scientific opinions in order to further the propaganda to create the economic markets necessary to recoup all that money big pharma spends yearly on research and sales staff and media campaigns. It is truly hilarious to see persons lied to openly and believe it hook, line and sinker, about second hand smoke, mainly because the media is unwilling to do any real investigation into the matter, which would clearly reveal the scam for what it truly is, racketeering - by the pharmaceutical industry - and deserves government investigation already too.

Brilliant post Jason, you have succinctly told the true story of Lies, Deceit and Corruption. Even down to the enforcement issue. I listened to a feature on 5 live Thursday where representatives from Scottish ASH and a local authority both claimed only a handful of fines and letters. The length that Government and ant smoking zealots go to prove success is staggering. Reading through many comment pages in regional press the numbers of ordinary citizens now posting d1staine at the actions of HMG over these bans is growing. All we need now is for the Nationals to have some 'b*lls' and the truth could really get out. Jason if you haven't already visited Freedom To Choose feel free to do so. There are more of us out there who seek the truth than you may think. [bold]www.feedom2choose.co.uk[/bold]

Whatever might be said and done, the legislation is here to stay and that's a fact.

Jason and Robert should explain all their facts to Roy Castle's family, I'm sure they'd be keen to hear about them. Quite why people feel the need to support public drug use is beyond me. Smoking kills, and harms the users and those around. Fact. Have a look at hospitals if you don't believe me, and see the number of smokers compared to non smokers. Scotland is now a infinately more pleasant place to visit, and to go out in. It is a real pleasure to go out for a night and to return home without smelling like an ashtry. Long live the ban.

Brilliant post Jason, you have succinctly told the true story of Lies, Deceit and Corruption. Even down to the enforcement issue. I listened to a feature on 5 live Thursday where representatives from Scottish ASH and a local authority both claimed only a handful of fines and letters. The length that Government and ant smoking zealots go to prove success is staggering. Reading through many comment pages in regional press the numbers of ordinary citizens now posting d1staine at the actions of HMG over these bans is growing. All we need now is for the Nationals to have some 'b*lls' and the truth could really get out. Jason if you haven't already visited Freedom To Choose feel free to do so. There are more of us out there who seek the truth than you may think. [bold]www.feedom2choose.co.uk[/bold]

Jason and Robert show all the head in the sand characteristics of the tobacco companies. 'Cigarettes cause cancer? There's no evidence' was the cry. Now if your suggesting a non smoker sitting in a pub breathing in more smoke than a 20 a day man isn't going to cause any damage to an entirely innocent party then I despair at your selfishness. Your point about this being the drug companies money spinner is nonsense as where is the evidence of millions of smokers quitting over this legislation? The evidence that they're not can be seen in every pub doorway in the land. As for car exhaust emissions causing illness, that's probably true however to liken it to smoking is pretty lame. Are you suggesting we ban all vehicles with combustion engines from the roads? That would have a 'slightly' bigger impact on society than stopping nicotine addicts getting their fix in enclosed public places. Smokers can still go outside for their fix so it's not as if they're banned from their addiction entirely. Another argument frequently used by the pro smoking brigade was 'if we don't get to smoke in pubs we'll just smoke more at home therefore putting our innocent children at risk,' a claim which shows they have the social conscience of the tobacco giants. Let us smoke in pubs or we'll harm our kids. Just how pathetic is that? And Jason, the truly hilarious thing is smokers still thinking they have some kind of inalienable right to light up in confined spaces without a single thought of people in the same establishment who may have asthma or some other lung condition. Have you ever asked while you were lighting up if anyone in the place suffered from asthma or some other lung complaint? No, because your too selfish. A statement true of all addicts.

Can nayone tell me why, if the staff and management are agreeable, that there can't be smoking and non smoking pubs? Also, are there any figures on the uptake of smoking by the young since the ban came in? I certainly seem to see more kids smoking in the past couple of years. And no, I'm not a smoker.

Well said Rachel Money! No Consistency of law application = confusion = more trouble eventually! One of your colleagues, on ‘The Herald’ (can't remember name - sorry!) wrote an article on the 16 January 2007, regarding the Council Policy(?) in North Lanarkshire, and what an amazing 'eye-opener' report it was, particularly concerning the conduct of the Council Leader - while being interviewed in his own office - and in the presence of a journalist – to boot! Obviously Common Sense is not in abundance at North Lanarkshire, and, especially in the ‘Leaders’ office! Probably left his 'must have' reference book at home - a ggod read entitled 'How Politicians deal with journalist and other such irritants!' Printed in large text and easily understandable words and phrases!! Amazing what the political crowd gets up to when it's their own kind 'offending!' I am always surprised about the folk who keep going on about 'passive smoking' not doing anyone any harm! Whilst they are free to act as they wish in the 'for or against’ game, but the proof of it harming people, or not, must lie entirely with their own experience and decision. If they live a reasonably long and enjoyable life – bully for them, and they may think they are right about the 'No Harm' bit. However, one thing for everyone to remember well, is, if they are wrong (as might well be likely, painful and terminal!!!!) it will probably also be too late to see the light and steer clear!

Here is a challenge for anyone who still thinks that passive smoking kills. How many people have actually died, in the year 2005 - 2006 due to passive smoking?

One study back in 2003 claimed passive smoking killed 3 people very day. So you do the sum yourself. Here is a challenge for you. How many people died of smoking last year? What should we do about that?

Whether passive smoking kills me not is a sideshow. The immediate irritant effect of the smoke on my eyes and chest tells me something is wrong. The number of smokers I know, including family, who step outside of their own home to smoke tells me that beneath all that bravado they know something is wrong. At best its dirty and smelly at worst it kills. Benign it is not.

I thought even the Roy Castle story was dead and buried by now. You can't base public policy on allegations that ONE public figure died from lung cancer induced by passive smoking more than twenty years ago. Whether smoking is bad for you is not the issue. As Al says anyway the ban does not seem to be encouraging people to give up – although how that proves that drug companies have no financial incentive to support the ban is beyond me. Comparing smoke to exhaust fumes is very relevant, because of the relative toxicity – nobody ever tried to take their life by sitting in the vicinity of a smoker. It would take decades and any would-be suicide would die of boredom first. Any allegation that passive smoking kills 3 people a day is based on assumptions and guesswork, and it is no good expecting us to extrapolate from 2003 another estimated figure that might be relevant today. This is not about smokers defending their habit since many of us who oppose the ban are not smokers. You may be bothered by smoke, Gilbert Bank – I am not, so what makes you physical reaction more reliable than mine as an indicator of the dangers? We could argue for hours on this, but what is the problem with allowing smoking in certain venues where non-smokers don't have to go?

Challenge number 2. I will sit in a sealed room for 30 minutes with ETS being pumped in, if one pro ban proponent will do the same with Exhaust gases. Fair challenge if ETS is more harmful than smoking or exhaust fumes. As for the deaths from PS it is so amusing as to be hysterical. The EU Commissioner for health has stated that 19'000 people in Europe die from passive smoking each year. Now unless I am mistaken the UK and Ireland are in Europe. Between us according to all the propaganda there are about 17'000 deaths from passive smoking, so I guess we all better move to mainland Europe to live, it's clearly a lot healthier. Even it would seem the Eastern European States who have 40% smokers. Amazing how un-coordinated lies can catch out politicians. As for the children issue Craoline Flint, UK Health Minister and Patricia Hewitt UK Heath Secretary both agreed with research on their behalf that 95% of all harm from ets, incuding 10'400 of the alleged 11'000 deaths occur in the home. Research from both Australia and UCL has shown smokers retreat to home. Research in Ireland commissioned for Diageo has shown that in 2004 when the ban started 1 in 3 drunk at home, this year that is 1 in 2. The consequence of smoking bans puts the most vulnerable at risk from the elderly, the infirm and children, that is of course ETS is the major killer we are told. I don't make up FACTs these are from Government sources. I think when saying more Smokers than no smokers in hospital, I think you forgot the 5billion spent by the NHS on the obese, most of whom are non smokers according to HMG. As a revenue neutral citizen I would rather have the smokers at least they contribute up to five times what non smokers do to the exchequer but only use a fifth of that on health care. [bold]www.freedom2choose.co.uk[/bold]

When will these idiots in power realise that bans and prohibition dont work. Take the hunting ban for instance I read today that since the ban was installed two years ago there has been a 34% increase in subscribers and an extra 115 new masters registered, the same number of foxes are being killed - the ban is a failure. A smoking ban will not stop smoking, infact the opposite will happen, more people will take it up, and no doubt we will have smoking lock ins like we used to have drinking lock ins before 24 hour drinking was brought in. If you want to increase the consumption of something then ban it it works every time - politicians are so stupid. By the way Roy Castle diagnosed his self as to how he got cancer not his doctor.

Just picking up on a point by Belinda, did I not read a recent detailed report from California expressing considerable concern about the increase in respiratory ailments together with a reduction in lung development in children who live near to motoways and in cities. Compare this with the Enstrom / Kabatt BMJ 2003 report which from recollection indicated a marginally positive impact (RR 0.97) from ETS on children affected in their homes. This has re-opened the debate on the medical effects of vehicle pollution - particularly diesel exhaust micro particulate matter PM 2.5.

While I agree that there are many less draconian ways to deal with a product which is not illegal, including ventilation systems and non-smoking pubs, I love being able to eat a meal, taste my whisky or wine and not stink like yesterday's ashtray. Canada went smoke free several years ago, so a visit to the UK in 2005 was a bit of a slap in the olfactory senses. What a joy to revisit Scotland in 2006. The arguement that there is no proof of damage by second hand smoke is simply puerile, selfish and basely irresponsible. Yes car exhaust, air pollution, working in inhospitable locations like mines also contribute to lung disease, but to say that therefore smoking is not bad for your health (and more importantly to me, my health) is an exercise in, at best wishful thinkng, and at worst, moronic. It's all well and good to spout Freedom 2choose crap, but what choice do I have, sitting beside you, the smoker? Do you think the publican doesn't want my custom? I have more disposable income, (not wasting it on cigs) and more discerning tastebuds, so I want the Lagavulin, not Sheep Dip!

Every so often you have to go back to basics again. For Catherine from Winnipeg: nobody is arguing that smoking is harmless. It is also puerile to deny there is a valid argument about secondary smoking. As for being selfish, claiming that your custom is more important than that of smokers with less disposable income than yourself takes the biscuit, doesn't it? The damage of smoking to smokers is greater and therefore more significant than the damage of secondary smoking to you. The bottom line is that the ban will not stop people smoking, but only deprives smokers and non-smokers socialising without the scrutiny of petty officials.

And what about the hypocrisy of North Lanarkshire Council whose leader Jim McCabe has been caught openly breaking the law on council premises? The council, responsible for enforcing the law, have taken no action against him. Corruption at it's worst - the organisation responsible for enforcing ther law break it themselves!

Thing's there were studies already done showing smoking ban in Europe did reduced heart attack whatever you like to believe for example see this one. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5398836.stm

[quote][bold]Jason[/bold] wrote: Considering second hand smoke was never proven to be harmful but it is still speculation, the statistics don't support it and the "tests" are hardly scientific, it is like arguing how many angels fit on the head of a pin, this whole issue of banning smoking entirely and designed entirely to reward the pharmaceutical industry making inroads to the nicotine marketplace as well as for selling antidepressants, sleep aids, weight loss pills and anything else remotely related to someone quitting smoking. In reality their drugs are shown to be ineffective in nearly all attempts, their success rates very low and they know by spreading lies, fear and creating chaos, they will enhance their markets. The drug companies are, in effect, lying through their teeth through the massive funding for so-called "scientific research" as well as spending on media advertising to keep the press in line with their economic goals. It is laughable on its face and at some point in the future will be as visible for what it was as we now see tobacco company lies calling smoking healthy for the user and never challenged by the media feeding off the advertising revenues from that one. Same difference, two different industries, a few decades apart and the politicians suckle up to it for power and contributions, the media for ad revenue, everyone else just because if they don't smoke, then figure not an issue. Still, should it be that cancer rates are tied to automobile emissions, which there is evidence for that which goes ignored each day, or from other causes, those will continue to remain uninvestigated in favor of only creating pseudo-scientific opinions in order to further the propaganda to create the economic markets necessary to recoup all that money big pharma spends yearly on research and sales staff and media campaigns. It is truly hilarious to see persons lied to openly and believe it hook, line and sinker, about second hand smoke, mainly because the media is unwilling to do any real investigation into the matter, which would clearly reveal the scam for what it truly is, racketeering - by the pharmaceutical industry - and deserves government investigation already too. [/quote] I'm surprised that we aren't also reading that there is no evidence to prove the world is not flat!

I grew up in a house with parents who smoked and as a consequence I hate it. I love being able to enjoy a drink or meal without some idiot lighting up near me. Poison yourselves all you like but don't inflict it on others. No one is denying your right to smoke, just bugger off outside in the rain where you belong!

I think this whole smoking ban campaign is a total waste of money and time,I agree with jason we are being lead by the nose and nobody will stand up and be counted.They have spent millions on television and posters telling us we cannot do it.They are training people to go around public places and the workplace to catch you smoking.but if you get mugged or burgled or beaten up the police dont come to your aid they are over stretched no funds but if your smoking thats really serious.why dont they stop people drinking that smells especially if there sick.it causes domestic violence,extra police on the streets to get the drunks to go home at weekends are hospitals are full of injured people after boozy nights.but pick on the easy target people with a cigarette. Big brother is watching you.

Wendy, is it possible you just have issues with your parents? I grew up around smokers to and I don't mind smoke in the slightest- in fact the smell of it always reminds me of home!

Wendy, you like the fresh air so much why do you not bugger off to your smoke free cinema, library and every other place that is now smoke free. Our cars and our homes will be the next target. You do not own the air, no one does. Publicans should decide which way they want to go. Not governments, who do not pay the rates. Bans make things more appealing, especially to the youngsters. We do not advertise, heroin, crack cocaine, ecstasy tablets. Yet the youngster know how to get them. Maybe people who have lost loved ones or are about to, would like the truth, not the propaganda that is being spouted out. The truth, anyone remember what that is? If smoking has been on the decline pre-ban (that was before the obscene amount of money was used for the propaganda) then why is cancer on the increase. By blaming something because of a smell and a dislike, gets us all nowhere. www.freedom2choose.co.uk

I did think that the freedom2choose.co.uk was funded by the smoking lobby, though I cannot confirm this as their sponsors page remains strangely blank. I have changed my mind. It must in fact be sponsored by the anti smoking lobby, because they make such daft, the moon is made of cheese type statements that surely they must be trying to destroy the pro smoking lobbies credibility. I specifically to comment by Colin Grainger’s where he reports upon and finds plausible, a study that arguing that “smoking prevents lung cancer”. Great work fella, keep it up. With chat like this your job of making yourself and your organisation look ridiculous will soon be done. Congratulation to the anti smoking lobby for such an innovative guerrilla tactic. In case you can’t find the report, follow this link. http://freedom2choose.co.uk/art1.php?id=33

Iain as the UK leader of F2C I can categorically tell you we are not funded by any organisation. Our funds come from our members worldwide. And to 'can' another myth we are not pro smoking we are pro choice. As for your comments about Colin Grainger, I would venture to suggest that intellectually he leaves most people for dead. His knowledge and understanding of the science involved in this issue is second to none. What Colin does is present it as he sees it and whether you like it or not studies have shown positive affects from smoking, the most note-able is in relation to Parkinsons D1sease. Quite how it helps is beyond me but doctors believe it does. So just because you choose not to investigate the truth don't decry those who do.

Again great work, Colin is more of an expert than the medical researchers, oncologists and academics who conduct and analyse the research and of course the courts who are making compensation orders based on this. Why is he in his current job, why not something with higher status and higher pay? Have you got any other good lines? I love the one about being pro-choice, the smoking lobby via Forest came up with that line years ago. Not funded by this shower of murderers eh? BTW, I need someone to front an organisation saying asbestos improves asthma. I can't pay you directly but can arrange it via "personal donations" to a vague libertarian sounding company. Interested?

Ian - you might want to check out the paras below which were taken straight from the World Health Organisation's site. Maybe you need to be acting a little bit more aggressively about car exhaust fumes. You are not quite as well read as you first thought. Please be armed with evidence before you start throwing your insults at people who do their research. You need to stop being so stressed out as that is very bad for the body as well. All that running on adrenalin all the time has very bad effects on you physically. Various periods of vulnerability characterize children. The intrauterine, perinatal and early childhood periods, during which the lungs are developing and maturing, are very vulnerable times. These are periods when the lungs are susceptible to injury by air pollutants. Exposure during these periods reduces the maximal functional capacity achieved in adult life and can lead to enhanced susceptibility during adulthood to infection and to the effects of such pollutants as tobacco smoke and those present in occupational exposures. Children with underlying chronic lung diseases, particularly asthma and cystic fibrosis, are especially vulnerable. These children are at greater risk of adverse effects from pollution than are healthy children. Also, children subject to higher exposures indoors - for example, from tobacco smoke or smoke from poorly maintained heating or cooking appliances - are at greater risk of being affected by outdoor pollutants. Effects for which evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship with exposure to air pollution There is now substantial evidence on the adverse effects of air pollution on different pregnancy outcomes and infant health. The evidence shows that air pollution, with concentrations typical of many European cities, increases the risk of death from respiratory causes in the postneonatal period. The evidence also shows a relationship between exposure to ambient air pollutants and adverse effects on the development of lung function. Reversible lung function deficits, chronically reduced lung growth rates and lower lung function levels are associated with exposure to air pollution. Moreover, the evidence shows clearer relationships for particulate matter and traffic-related air pollution (indicated by nitrogen dioxide) than for other pollutants. Based on current knowledge, air pollutants seem to interact with other environmental factors, such as allergens, viruses and diet, that influence the overall impact of air pollutants on children's health. The report concludes that there is a causal relationship between exposure to air pollutants and aggravation of asthma. The evidence is also sufficient to assume a causal link between exposure to particulate matter and increased prevalence and incidence of cough and bronchitis. In particular, such environmental contaminants as certain heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants show significant adverse effects on the development of the nervous system and behaviour in children. Also, there is sufficient evidence of a causal relationship between exposure to lead and neurobehavioral deficits in children, in terms of cognitive impairment. Effects for which evidence is suggestive of causality Studies on birth weight, preterm births and intrauterine growth retardation also suggest a link with air pollution, but these studies are still not sufficient to draw firm conclusions about the causality of the observed associations. Although the report found little evidence for a causal link between the prevalence and incidence of asthma and air pollution in general, recent studies suggest that pollutants can enhance allergic sensitization in those genetically at risk, lending plausibility to the role of potentially injurious effects of ambient air pollutants in the causation of paediatric lung disease, including asthma. The mechanisms suggested for these effects need further research. A significant body of evidence supports the view that much of the morbidity and mortality related to air pollution in children occurs via interactions with respiratory infections, which are very common among children. Evidence also suggests a causal relationship between exposure to ambient air pollution and increased incidence of upper and lower respiratory symptoms - many of them also being indicative of infections. There is also evidence that suggests a causal link between adverse health effects and exposure to mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls and dioxins at current exposure levels. Reduced exposure to air pollution seems to improve children's health. As of yet, however, relatively few studies have looked at the effects of reduced air pollution. Nevertheless, existing studies show that reduced exposure to air pollutants can lead to a decrease in hospital admissions for respiratory complaints, a lower prevalence of bronchitis and respiratory infections, and improvement in lung function growth rates. Effects for which evidence is not sufficient or shows no association between outcomes and exposure Accumulated epidemiological evidence is insufficient to infer a causal link between childhood cancer and the levels of outdoor air pollution typically found in Europe. However, the number of studies available is limited, and their results are only partially consistent. Policy considerations A reduction in children's current exposure to air pollutants, especially from motor vehicle exhausts, is recommended. A decrease in motor vehicle exhausts will substantially benefit the respiratory health of children. Further research is needed in the field of air quality to clarify the effect of specific air pollutants on children's health, as well as the interaction of these pollutants with other environmental insults. Type of evidence This report is based on epidemiological and toxicological literature, published mainly during the last decade. Experts prepared synthesis papers, and these were reviewed externally and discussed according to a consensus assessment of the strength of the evidence on the links between various health outcomes and air pollution. Source This review was conducted within the scope of the project "Systematic review of health aspects of air pollution in Europe", implemented by the WHO Regional Office for Europe. The views expressed in this summary are based on a publication of a HEN Network member agency and do not necessarily represent the decisions or stated policy of WHO/Europe.

Gosh Claire (or is it Robert in drag- just can't tell online can you?), how you managed to read into my email that I am stressed, don't have a good diet and don't read car exhaust research shows just how perceptive you are. Maybe the moon is in fact made of cheese, the world flat and Tobacco firms full of misunderstood philanthropist who are actually trying to help us. I do like your use of the distraction tactic, talk about something that is also bad and suggest we spend our time addressing this. I think that is chapter 2 of the smoking apologists handbook. Dealing with the worst offender first may be useful rule here. What can I expect next, an abstract of a paper telling me guns can kill and shouldn’t we ban these in Scotland as well... Sorry but this discussion is about smoking, which kills, which is bad enough, but it kills you in the nastiest, slow, eroding ways. Making the death all the harder for those witnessing it and being left behind. The freedom to choose not to watch loved ones die of cancer is a Freedom you might also consider championing. Though BAT might get a bit shirty at this one, so I’d check first Good on the Scottish parliament for taking this not so bold step. Now, I must go and pump up the wheels on my bike.

I must return that compliment Iain. That is a very sneering & arrogant tirade. Does smoking degrade the function of the smokers lungs??? Yes Does it cause cancer? That is extremely unlikely Why do I say that? Because if it CAUSED cancer, every smoker & the people associated with them would contract this horrible disease. I will say, it is likely that smoking does aggravate certain cancers that some people have & which may not have shown in their lifetime had they not smoked. It would be a VERY foolish researcher, oncologist or other brand of medico who would catagorically state. Smoke & you WILL get cancer. Why?? Because it is not true! There is a link, but quite what the link is, is even now not fully understood. What is fairly certain is that cancers run in families. Does PS cause cancer??? I don't know but seriously doubt it See here http://www.davehitt. com/2004/name_three. html You sneer at a man who dared to suggest that smoking can have benificial side effects. There is a lot of research which indicates what he says is true. Did you know that Heroin, or a member of the family anyway is a very effective palliative in the relief of pain & suffering. Amazing for such any awful drug isn't it??? All this of course is a side issue. What is really under discussion is this. Is the smoking ban a good idea & do as many people WANT it as we are made to believe???? We are told that the reason non smoking pubs were not a viable commercial proposition because the smokers had somewhere else to go. Surely, if there were 5 pubs/clubs in a village & one went non-smoking, ALL the non smokers & those who wanted a smoke free atmosphere would go there, thereby forcing other pubs/clubs to do the same. As what actually happened was that everyone, smokers & non smokers left & the ban was lifted after a couple of weeks, maybe the lobby isn't as strong as we are made to believe. I am all for separate areas where people who want to be in a smoke free environment can socialise, but if they wanted a smoking ban, they would have supported the smoke free pub. They did not qed

For everyones information mr Robert Feal-Martinez is a UKIP representative and hotelier. That would give you an indication towards the basis of his regressive views on the smoking ban and quite possibly all other subjects. The scottish public are overwhelmingly happy with the Smoking ban and i personally hope all countries adopt similar laws. I might add that you have little to worry business wise. You will find there is a whole new market of people who may well frequent your bar/motel free from cancerous pollution, that is unless as i suspect the establishment is run along the lines of your party in which case it would be a bit like that seen in Fawlty Towers.

I am an ex-smoker who gave up before the ban was introduced but still enjoyed the pub experience and atmosphere with smoke being an intrinsic part of that, people relaxing, a sense of enjoyment in a safe haven away from the daily grind. Now, I don't know if its just round me but since the smoking ban pub culture has been abysmal, the life has been completely drained from nearly all the local taverns, there just isn't anyone in them its like going for a beer in a dentists waiting room, or a deserted train station its extremely worrying and sad. I'd like to know where all the happy non-smokers are who should be filling the places now they've got there way, truth is they don't want it now its here, perhaps they never really did? I have a dreadful, foreboding feeling that governments are trying to kill our pubs, forcing them into extinction by strangling our remaining liberties altogether soon it will be no alcoholic drinks above 4%...then no more pubs, no more groups of people getting together and discussing whats wrong with the world and the poxy government. We must not let that happen.

I am an ex-smoker who gave up before the ban was introduced but still enjoyed the pub experience and atmosphere with smoke being an intrinsic part of that, people relaxing, a sense of enjoyment in a safe haven away from the daily grind. Now, I don't know if its just round me but since the smoking ban pub culture has been abysmal, the life has been completely drained from nearly all the local taverns, there just isn't anyone in them its like going for a beer in a dentists waiting room, or a deserted train station its extremely worrying and sad. I'd like to know where all the happy non-smokers are who should be filling the places now they've got there way, truth is they don't want it now its here, perhaps they never really did? I have a dreadful, foreboding feeling that governments are trying to kill our pubs, forcing them into extinction by strangling our remaining liberties altogether soon it will be no alcoholic drinks above 4%...then no more pubs, no more groups of people getting together and discussing whats wrong with the world and the poxy government. We must not let that happen.