News Article Comments : Smoke ban starts July 1, 2007

RE: Smoke ban to start July 1, 2007

Ian there is a defined difference between SMOKING KILLS and SECOND-HAND SMOKE KILLS which is what HMG portray in their propafanda leaflets.

I at no time have stated that I did not agree with the dangers asociated with primary smoking

There is a clear issue with the definition of Public Place as this phrase was coined when creadting the Charter but has now without discussion been legalised by HMG. Hospitality venues are in the main private, where patrons are invited to participate in hospitality. At the same time, rge wners have the right to refuse service aas well as eject and here lies thge subtle difference.

In your response, you ignore the pharmaceutical companies and HMG who are openly promoting products for financial gain that have been proven to be less that 10% effective in use yet you slate other suppliers...hypocritical springs to mind.

Ian for you to get fully atuned to what huge lies have been presented by anti smoking pressure groups over the years look at http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/ , Prof. Michael Siegel is a senior researched for the U.S. Tobacco Control Dept who has become sickened by the lies presented by the anti groups who know no shame.

You may also wish to see the calibre of person reveered by HMG and ASH in the U.K. whose claim that it takes winds of tornado proportions to remove ETs from premises. Go to http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3838   It is ironic given your comment above that this guy's main source of income is from Johnson Pharmaceuticals

This post replies to Ian Smith > RE: Smoke ban to start July 1, 2007

RE: Smoke ban to start July 1, 2007

I agree ...

I know what I want and I don't care about scientific mumbo jumbo. I believe passive smoking is bad for me. I know smoke makes my clothes smell. I don't care about choice. Simple.

Go to you local boozer and start quoting facts at them and they will tell you to clear off, their mind is made up.

It's job done and has been done for years.

Look at your popular papers for guidance. If they had smelt a victory for the underdog you would have been home and dry three years ago. Truth is you don't even see a single comment in your favour.

The multiples have been gearing up for this for years, because they know where the market is leading.

Don't bother quoting percents and numbers. The guys you want to impress are sitting on the bar stools in the local boozer not here.

This post replies to Robert Watson > RE: Smoke ban to start July 1, 2007

RE: Smoke ban to start July 1, 2007

Having trawled through the last couple of days of posts, I think what is evident is that we have Ian, who criticisesBig Tobacco for exploiting people for again and in practically every posts he points out he will help people give up (is that for free Ian), no of course not. You are exploiting a weakness the weakness or will power, as are Big Pharma, exploiting those who take their products. As for Jon he says it all reall, 'I'm right, I don't care about the truth, I want it my way. Perhaps you all should do 2 things. Actually read the science and secondly actually understand what Freedom to Choose is attempting to achieve. We are nor promoting smoking we are seeking a solution for all. That solution is a Regulated Indoor Air Quality Standard monitored by the EHO, just as they do to ensure your saefty from the very real threat from food contamination. Not forgetting of course the 10'000 or so toxins in our daily diets. In the end the ant smoker zealots have as Jon has shown, no interest in public health, just public control.

This post replies to Bill Gibson > RE: Smoke ban to start July 1, 2007

RE: Smoke ban to start July 1, 2007

Ian, might I remind you that the Smoking Ban has been introduced based on unfounded data regarding health due to Passive Smoking. Until your arrival, there has never been any debate with regard to primary use of Tobacco Products as that is up to the individual concerned.

The facts remain that there is still no scientific evidence that proves that Passive Smoking is the danger portrayed by HMG and the various charitable pressure groups who are clearly breakung the law by their involvement in political lobbying.

  Some time ago apparently in response to criticism made by Freedom to Choose about an inaccurate claim on its web site, the British Heart Foundation has changed its web site to correct its assertion that "for every four non-smokers who work in a smoky environment like a pub, one of them will suffer disability and premature death from a heart condition because of second-hand smoke."

That claim has now been eliminated. The inaccuracy stemmed from confusion about the difference between relative risk and absolute risk. A 25% increased risk of death among bar workers due to second-hand smoke exposure does not mean that 25% of bar workers exposed to second-hand smoke will die from that exposure. The 25% increased risk is relative risk, but the claim that 25% of bar workers will die from the exposure refers to absolute risk.

This post replies to Ian Smith > RE: Smoke ban to start July 1, 2007

RE: Smoke ban starts July 1, 2007

Going back to the article itself, my challenge to the Gvt is to slip the 1 July date in keeping with the slippage already so apparent in the issue of the much vaunted Regulations by the NHS. They were expected about 3 weeks ago to be tabled to Parliament. (a rolling 7 months for England & far less for Wales & N. Ireland would at least be something.) The real trouble is that the multiples are beginning to invest heavily in "out door facilities" where they are not land-locked; fine Bully for them. But us single operators, who largely run businesses from a listed building and possibly also in a conservation area simply do not have the spare capital or risk borrowing to have anything more than a single crack at this thing.

For those of you who say that we have our heads in the sand on this issue I say shame on you; this damn thing is torturing us - particularly with resect to the reality of what's coming out of Ireland and Scotland. Faced with the abomination of Supermarket "dumping", and increased overheads through utilities, wages and the extra costs following the new licencing Laws, net margins have been under increasing pressure for some time. One major conclusion in any (dynamic) SWOT analysis has to be to hang on to exisiting customers with all your might - who just happen (60+ %) to be smokers. Where is / was the much vaunted £6 Billion disabled disposable income. So what confidence is there to welcome the even more vaunted "non smoker billions" ? Mr Brown has nicked most of the last leisure pennies in the hard earned great British Pound and with interest rates on an upward turn, I remain VERY sanguine about the seeing many "smoke free pennies" - simply because they are not "Pub people" and are relatively, similarly (& increasingly) cash strapped.

This post replies to this thread