I totally agree with Martin Blackshaw, if you have to enforce fines and punishment on publicans and customers to enforce a ban that is hardly success. In the first place the property rights of publicans, has been totally trodden over and the consultation of this ban should have been carried out using the customers of the establishments not people that visit once or twice a year. It was the MSP that first pushed this through and Labour who have endorced it. Totally undemocratic, the moral is dont vote MSP or Labour if you want to live in a free society.

Having attended a meeting in Edinburgh last night about the ban I can also confirm that it is not a success. Delegates at the meeting from Fife confirmed pub losses amounting to £2000.00 per week. Inland Revenue VAT Returns for the first two quarters since the introduction of the ban are now down by as much as 40-50%. That figure will be worse when you add into it the Revenue loss from the 6 Bingo Halls and falling attendances throughout Scotland. The Scottish Executive would never admit to this as they do not care about finance because of the Barnet Formulae in Westminster.The result will be that Central Government will make up the shortfall by tax increases, stealth tax or budget cuts and job losses in the Public Sector. Do I detect more hospital facility cuts throughout the U.K?

Pathetic whinging from the pro-smoking lobby. "Un-democratic"?? The policy was voted on by the MSPs that we elected, who had access to the evidence in favour and against. That is the essence of democracy.

One of the points of the ban (other than protecting the health of those previously inhaling others' smoke) is to make it much less acceptable and less easy to be a smoker, so as to encourage people to give up, and others not to start. Such effects will take years to show themselves, but our children will thank us.

My mother-in-law runs a Fife pub, in a rural area, and those who used to sit at the bar smoking now just go outside for a smoke, but they smoke less, and feel the benefit inside that others do too.

Time for smokers to accept that their selfishness has been legislated out of others' lives. No-one is stopping you smoking, you just can no longer impose your smoke on the rest of us.

The smoking ban is the most forward thinking decision made as yet in Holyrood, outstripping by a significant margin any other piece of business they have conducted. If those businesses referred to above have lost income as a result, they will have to re-consider their marketing plan in order to make up the shortfall. That is the nature of the competitive marketplace.

Duncan - What pro-smoking lobby?? Pro-smoker maybe but pro-choice certainly.
Fine words about evidence buy then it depends on who 'created' the evidence and how much organised lobbying and pressure was placed upon MSPs?
If the idea is to make smoking more acceptable it seems odd that it should be forced outside gaining more prominance than bill-board advertising. Irish smoking rates show how effective this has been.
As far as smoking outside is concerned your m. in l. is fortunate to have an outside space but I for one will not fight my way through inclement weather to enjoy the damp wind-chill of a part built tent. That's not what community is about. The warmth and cameraderie will be around my own fire with my estranged friends.

Wrong again Duncan (3)..I have confirmed evidence that the Health Committee refused to read a study on Ventilation by the University of Glamorgan. The touble with people like you is that you think you know it all but know nothing. Yes they were elected by us and therrefore must investigate every possible solution on our behalf . They should also report thir findings back to us and thake their instructions from us. As is now too often the case, they are exerting their views and opinions on to those who elected them...this is wrong.

Duncan (3) Where is your evidence that the ban was introduced (other than protecting the health of those previously inhaling others' smoke) is to make it much less acceptable and less easy to be a smoker, so as to encourage people to give up, and others not to start.

The electorate was told that it was necessary to protect the health of workers ...end of story.

Duncan you talk of democracy. Is it democratic of the Scottish Executive to threaten the Chairman of a leading employer in Scotland who wished to challenge the legality of the ban. The company concerned was forced to withdraw their case, even though they had received permission to proceed and court time had been allocated. If that is what you value in a democracy I think you need educating on the meaning of the word. As for passive smoking even the most cursory glance at the 'science' shows it up for what it is, in the main'junk'. Do you believe that any consultation which include's 3/4 of the submissions by and for groups who the SE fund as being unbiased. Just a couple of questions for you in your democratic Scotland.

I feel obliged to say that as a non smoker I used to find the smell of smoke drifting across my table in restaurants very offensive.

Whether or not you dispute the passive smoking research its hard for a pro choice person to deny the fact that a very large proportion of non smokers found the stench of fags offensive.

It also used to infuriate me when smokers used to "exercise their rights" when I was having a meal with my toddler present.

I also believe the banning of smoking in bars/restaurants is in my view an example of the "civilising" of Scotland as I believe a government putting obstacle in the way of individuals who wish to take a course of action that harms themselves is a good thing.

If however you accept the "passive smoking is bad for you" argument then there is no question of whether or not smoking should be banned in public places as no one has the right to cause injury to others by their actions.

Either way the arguments for banning smoking in many public places are quite persuasive.

I did also consider the introduction of extraction systems in public places but with the think the initial huge cost of purchase/installation and high energy consumption of these systems would make this option a non starter.

Obviously smoking effects some brains. It is banned. It won't be back. Move on and enjoy life without drugs.

number 6 (Bill)

What extensive studies are these? could you post a link?

There are over 4,000 chemicals contained in an average cigarette, 200 of which are poisons and 50 are known carcinogens. In order for a ventillation system to remove all of these chemicals it would require to change the air in a room between 20 and 30 times per hour!
That would be akin to standing in an air tunnel! how would you light your fag in that type of wind??

the ban is the first of many other lifestyle engineering projects our masters have in mind,witness the purges on what people can eat or drink,kids meals,tv ads,free speech,all backed up by asbos,snitch phone lines,smoke and litter police,and relentless propaganda in press and tv telling us how the smoking ban is such a boon to scotland.
instead of fairy tales could i ask the scotsman to tell us the facts and figures of the true costs and jobs lost and disruption of social life for thousands of the population

Peter ...you obviously have just woken up for the first time this week or you would have seen them. But purely for your eyes..

From the U.S.A. Occupational Safety & Health Administration (Equivalent to the U.K. Health & Safety Executive)

Though repetition has little to do with "the truth," we're repeatedly told that there's "no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke."

OSHA begs to differ.

OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the measurable chemicals, including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in secondhand smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result. Of course the idea of "thousands of chemicals" can itself sound spooky. Perhaps it would help to note that coffee contains over 1000 chemicals, 19 of which are known to be rat carcinogens.
-"Rodent Carcinogens: Setting Priorities" Gold Et Al., Science, 258: 261-65 (1992)

Indeed it would.
Independent health researchers have done the chemistry and the maths to prove how
Very, very rare that would be, as you're about to see in a moment.

In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of second-hand smoke.

Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of everything measurable in second-hand smoke, they compared them to OSHA's PELs.

The following excerpt is directly from their report and their Washington testimony:

CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS
"We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.
"We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.
"Taking the

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?

"Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room -- a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.

"It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat."

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_t...

If free speech is no longer allowed how come you are still prattling on Jim?

Also a quick aside is Jamie Oliver mad for suggesting healthier school meal options or is that just another lifestyle engineered intrusion??

It would be more accurate to say that the ban on smoking in public places would not have worked without the cooperation of smokers! It is smokers who have made this piece of legislation work as successfully as it has done and they deserve the credit for that. So comments such as that of Duncan (3) are totally unwarranted.

In fact I would say the smoking minority have given the non-smoking majority a lesson in how to be a good citizen. Every other group that feels persecuted because they are asked to alter their behaviour for the good of others -motorists spring to mind! - should take a leaf from the smokers' book, though I would't advise setting fire to it and inhaling unless you are out of doors!

In response to your point about ventilation Peter...the introduction of 'pure science' my friend Plasmacluster Ion Technology. This will deactivate ETS turning it into waterbased molicules. With over 10 million units sold globally, its effective use cannot be brought into question.

#5 Just some of the evidence considered by the Health Committee is here:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/hea...
All sides are represented, and it is difficult to support an assertion that evidence was "created" or distorted in any way.

#6 I refer you to the list of evidence above and challenge you to reiterate the claim that the MSPs were biased. And this investigation took place in public, so findings were "reported back to us", contrary to your claim. As to MSPs being wrong to exert their opinions - on the contrary, that is exactly what they should and must do.

#8 I suggest to take more than a cursory glance at the medical evidence for passive smoking harming health. Particularly the enormous studies done in California and Seattle, which produced conclusive evidence of links between passive smoking and: lung cancer, coronary heart disease, worsening of symptoms of asthma, and a range of other ailments.

#13 Thanks for that copy-and-paste from http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/OSHA.html

In fact, their first study sets out to demonstrate the falsehood of the assertion that there is no safe level of second-hand smoke. The fact that that assertion is indeed false has no bearing on the proven effects of a significant exposure to second-hand smoke. It is a straw man.

The second excerpt is an unqualified, non-peer-reviewed account of an scientifically dubious experiment to see how many cigarettes (of unspecified type) are needed to create amounts of individual substances in a specific space. Another straw man.

Art

Smokers were not 'excercising their rights' but using a legal product in a location where it was permitted. I take exception to gas guzzling fume emmiting drivers (especially the chelsea tractror owners) 'excersing their rights' to waste our planets dwindling fuel resources and spewing co2 into the already poluted atmoshphere - but see how they squeal at higher road and petrol tax or congestion charges. Selfish car junkies - just wait till there's a restriction on fuel purchases.

You anti smokers had better watch out - people in glass houses - and ypu will, eventually, be guilty of some misdemeanor against the state diktat.

If you believe the government should take steps to prevent self harm, be prepared for 'fat bouncers' at the pastie shop door and a ban on frying your pies. People (especially young men) should not be allowed to drive until 25 years old, and cars should be fitted with speed inhibitors. Alcohol clearly must be banned immediately. Quite how they will prevent the epidemic of std's and chlamidia caused by the slutty, multiple partnered unprotected sex that so many indulge in I'm not sure - but no doubt you'll approve whatever idea they come up with.

The only question is should illibeal and state inflicted measures apply only to smokers -( or any other category from which YOU are exempt?) - or may I harm myself and the 'innocent' public in any other way I see fit so long as it's not 20 Regal?

Duncan..what are you talking about...you really do prat on. My information came from the OSHA direct. You obviously have issues that go well beyond reality

I realise that this is wholly unscientific but judging by the yellow sticky mess on the walls and ceilings of pubs, there must be a similar residue on the occupants, glasses, pumps, food and everything else that cigarette smoke comes into contact with. Mostly of course the insides of smokers mouths and lungs.

Bill, follow that link, to a pro-smoking site (New York City Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment), and you will see word-for-word what you posted. That isn't the OSHA, it's an pro-smoking campaign group selectively quoting the OSHA together with their own commentary to try to prove their point. So no, your information didn't come from the OSHA direct. Do you understand what I'm talking about now?

Why on earth didn't they just enforce Health and Safety legislation on the smoke and force pubs to put in smoke hoods?

Because politicians didn't care about the smoke, it was the people who steadfastly refused to do what they were told by the politicians!

It would have have very easy to allow people the freedom to smoke if they wanted. We are all going to die, and we have a right to choose our own deaths or are the politicians really intent in ensuring we all suffer as long as possible in their PC nanny-state hello-hole!

Michael you still have the freedom to smoke. Nobody has suggested you shouldn't and yes we are all going to die but your note suggests you expect to die young and as a result of smoking.

The main point in all this is that a total ban is noy necessary. Smoking Restrictions have been introduced in Sweden, Denmark, Holland Spain Japan and with my input Malta and Italy. All have been successful with little or no effect on trade. All allow smoking in controlled designated smoking areas with Air Quality Standards that have been agreed by the equivalent Health & Safety Department not some numpties in a Parliament. Give engineers the job of overcoming the perceived issues of Passive Smoking and you get a workable solution.

Debbie (24) tell that to the 80-90 yera olds who were introduced to smoking as a result of free handouts during the war and who are still puffing away. Think about it.

Ah yes... Who do you represent, Bill?

Similarily go visit a vascular ward or coronary care unit and ask the 50 60 year olds what they think

Iain (27) I am a self employed graduate engineer in environmental studies with additional qualifications in architectural engineering if you must know. I got involved in Malta as a result of a personal friendship with the Assistant Commisioner of Police. Nothing sinister in that is there

Debbie...would probably find a gene issue when you dig deep enough. As I have a family interest in medicin I have over the years always considerd second opinions beyond that of the BMJ or Lancet

Iain no 10 Alcohol is also a drug and to some people addictive, so move on to soft drinks and then you may have the moral high ground. What a lot of folk forget is a lot of pubs are also publicans homes. How would you like someone telling you what you can or cannot do in your home. No one was ever forced through the door of a pub they entered by choice or applied for work by choice. People like you are only interested in what you want you couldnt care a less about the publican his business or rights and it has probably never even occurred to you that he would have liked the opportunity to serve both types of his customers. No civilised country puts its people and visitors out on the street. You might want to live in a Soviet Socialist country there are a lot of us that dont.

That's really funny, Donnie. No one should be forced to inhale second hand smoke when they are out to enjoy themselves. Nor should they be forced to smell the stale smoke on all their belongings when they get home. No one is forcing smokers to smoke - except the big tobacco companies who knew their product was poisonous and addictive. Your argument should really be with them for turning you into an addict, assuming you are a smoker, which of course may be untrue.

Duncan instead of your pathetic anti smoking whinging consider this. If you were in an unventilated room with a smoker for one hour what would happen to you - nothing. If you were in an unventilated room with a car running for 1 hour you would be dead. You should be more worried by what you carnt see than what you can see.

http://news.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=1178382006

and if we are into reports read this I can give you another 10 to go with these if you want

"..not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer, but that it could even have a protective effect."
World Health Organization, March 1998

"The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.."
London Telegraph, 1999

"In general, there was no elevated lung cancer risk associated with passive smoke exposure in the workplace. ..."
- Brownson et. al.
American Journal of Public Health, November 1992, Vol. 82, No. 11

"... no evidence of an adverse effect of environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace."
- Janerich et al. New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 6, 1990

"... the association with exposure to passive smoking at work was small and not statistically significant."
- Kalandidi et al.
Cancer Causes and Control, 1, 15-21, 1990

"We did not generally find an increase in CHD [coronary heart disease] risk associated with ETS [environmental smoke] exposure at work or in other settings."
Steenland et al.
Circulation, Vol. 94, No. 4, August 15, 1996

"... no statistically significant increase in risk associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke at work or during social activities...."

Iain no 32 actually I thought it was funny to. Im not an addict apart from being addicted to democracy, truth and justice things that you seem a bit short on. I have always found that people who complain about their clothes smelling of smoke tend to be the ones that are poor on personal hygiene, they dislike having to change their clothes more frequently prefering to wear them for days at a time reeking of body odour and lord knows what else, but then when I stand next to someone like this I make what is called an adult decision and move away. I also have a brain that can make decisions as to whether to enter a smoking enviornment or not and I respect the right of a publican to choose what his house should be.

Ha Ha so an intelligent argument comes down to mud slinging. Are they letting cars into pubs now? How quaint.

Iain If you really are into laughs go and meet my new friend MOLDMAN
http://www.peterbeale.com/Steril-Aire/MOLDWARS.html

Sorry, Bill, I can't access that on this computer. I'll have to wait until I get access to a more democratic one.

Just note the comment about outdoor polutants...

""Un-democratic"?? The policy was voted on by the MSPs that we elected, who had access to the evidence in favour and against. That is the essence of democracy."

Duncan 3 we disagree as to what democracy means. If the people didn't want it (polls consistently showed 80% against) then the essence of democracy (literally rule by the people) is that it shouldn't happen.

The suggestion that the MSPs know better is also rubbish. McConnell has guaranteed to Holyrood that this will save 1,000 lives a year. He has directly & deliberately lied to Parliament The US figures it was based on cannot be fiddled to show more than 20 lives a year (arguably 20 less).

I would not wish to suggest that this represents anything other than the absolute pinnacle of honesty of which the Executive are capable but it is a direct, deliberate & total lie. Every MSP who has checked knows he was lied to & as their silence shows, wanted to be lied to & has conspired in being lied to.

Bill no 38 I loved Mr Mould, Ian No 37 you dont know what you are missing very educational - dont forget soft drinks from now on you dont want to get addicted, no offence was intended just pointing out a few observations. Neil 39 is spot on - its called democracy

Any claim that exposure to exhaled or sidestream smoke poses a threat to life is "indisputable" is false. There are studies and scientists who dispute it strongly. When New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg claimed his ban would save 1,000 workers' lives, the president of the American Council on Science and Health, who vehemently opposes smoking, wrote, "There is no evidence that any New Yorker -- patron or employee -- has ever died as a result of exposure to smoke in a bar or restaurant

For the most part the anti smokers on this site do not seem to be upholding the ban on the basis of any belief in the myth of the dangers of ETS, rather their own personal prejudices and emphatic belief that everyone should live in a manner THEY find acceptable.

I have no problem going to a separate venue in order not to irritate non smokers who do not like and will not tolerate smoke. The rabid anti smoker, as I have said before, is too small minded to contemplate such a solution, and too mean spirited to agree that it offers everyone a choice. Some people are only happy when thy can marginalise others and extra happy if they can sound all moralistic and superior whilst doing so. As for dying a good death - having been around it, it didn't seem any less wretched because it wasn't smoke related so don't expect dignity and the family around the bedside - it aint like that - even for the righteous.

People in Scotland seem to have a funny definition of "democracy". Lets see - the majority can vote to tax a minority into bankrupcy and deny them the right to association and deny property owners the right to run their own establishments as they see fit in regards to a legal product.

And the minority are supposed to shut up and take it!

If the majority voted to execute every smoker on sight - would that also be considered a great triumph in democracy.

I think you will find that the government you are really looking for is called a replublic - one where the rights of all people are protected from the rapaciousness of government and the majority by some sort of constitution.

No there is no problem with a government that seeks to advise the public in regard to the safety of products that can be legally obtained. The problem arises when the government (or the majority) seeks to enforce the "right" choices through systematic high school bullying.

Michelle

Yes Michelle and the end product of this intolerance will result in there being many less pubs and even cafes for people to choose from. Interesting to consider too what will happen after everyone tries to compete as a primarily food outlet. More than likely the result will be even more closures as faced with less choice of establishment people will narrow down on to those they think are best.

I was also interested to hear of Tony Blair talking about smoker bans as being one of his government's great successes. Depends on how you define success of course, but one cannot help but be struck by the words of a man desperately trying to find anything which he can point to as being his "wonderful" legacy. If this is it, then very small potatoes Tony.

Iain, please tell me what was stopping you and your friends from opening a non smoking pub, I always thought the option was there for pubs to go non-smoking. So if that is right you have always had a choice.
The goverments cannot afford to keep the hospitals running now, if all us selfish smokers decided to give up, where will the money that they do not have now come from?
I would not have a free holiday in Scotland or Ireland or England and Wales nest year. So lots of people will go and spend there money on Sunshine friendly people, ( who do not cough as soon as I open my ciggie packet) cheap booze and fags.
I do care that my money is not wanted in this Country, because of the stupid prices for a legal product and the denormalization of smokers.
I will be interested next year to see if suicide rates go up.

Too right antismokers dont know what choice is!!

Why dont they start up their own pub if they are offended by op's smoke!! cos they are stupid and lazy!!!!

Here in freewheeling anyting goes New York City, the fascists i city government are very busy trying to limit fast food resaturants and ban certain types of cooking fat. In Chicago, foie gras is now banned and we're just getting started. We warned everyone that once they can ban one thing you enjoy "for your own good," they'll keep going until you can't do anything that some quack researcher says is unhealthy.
Furthermore, if you examine most of the smoking ban laws, you'll see that their purpose is not protection of nonsmokers, but punishment of smokers.

PS As to why the antismokers don't open their own establishments, one reason is that they'd be underpopulated: most pub-goers are either smokers or tolerant nonsmokers, and whow wants to hang out with antismokers , anyway. But more importantly, I think these people are not so enamored of "clean air" as they are of complaining and trying to spoil other people's pleasure. Michael Martin, architect of Ireland's ridiculous, pub-killing ban, recently chose to take his holiday in France (!!!) rather than one of the smoke-free paradises he has helped to bring about. It seems he spent most of his time grousing about the smoky bars.

Chris(48) one dosent have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out but yeah whyn so high fines!!!! Pity the antismokers are too retarded(or perhaps slightly deranged) to figure that one out!!!!

Yeah theyd go broke for sure within a month or something!! Didnt someone try that out in Vegas opening a nosmoking casino and it went belly up after two months or something like that!!

That was so funny Martin's experience!! He could have went to so many places and no he went to france! Hes such a retard!!!! Probably dropped at birth or something!!!! Or maybe a lack of oxygen from the umbelical cord at birth!!

But the antis will still ramble on at the clean air when research has proven that ventilation with smoking is indeed better than the former without the latter!!

Sorry to post in slightly otiose manner, but this is really great news for Professor James Enstrom has set up The Scientific Integrity Institute designed for honest appraisals of epidemiological findings, here:

http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/index.html

Also, this article from the Telegraph is excellent too and cited by Enstrom:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003...

Likewise this one by Fumento:

http://www.fumento.com/disease/smoking.html

Just as we now have Professor Michael Siegel complaining about the mendaciousness of the tobacco control movement on his blog, now we have one of the two men who carried out the biggest ever study wanting to put the record straight by telling us what many of us already know which is that second hand smoke is not a deadly toxic substance.

Just as these two men have had the courage to come forward in order to try and bring back integrity into science so others will follow as time goes on.

Thank you for them interesting links Joh, I have put them in the big debate as they are fighting hard to get to the truth. If you would like to join us, that would be lovely (if you are not already in there)

http://www.thebigdebate.org/

How come the scottish parliament is not spouting about the 500 lives that should have been saved by this bloody fascist anti-smoking law?? Surely if 1000 are killed every year by ETS ash would make front page news with their latest figures! they are awfully quiet....... Does the emperor wear no clothes???

Thank you Mandy and here are two more useful links by a Dutch writer:

http://henrysturman.com/english/articles/passivesmoking.html
http://henrysturman.com/english/articles/passivesmokingli...

#29 Bill.
Could Bill please clarify what beneficial interest he or his associates, or associated companies, may have in the introduction or installation of commercial ventilation or filtration systems.