Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Thousands of Scots commit to giving up smoking

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 27 May 2009
By LYNDSAY MOSS
THOUSANDS more Scots are trying to quit smoking, figures showed yesterday.
Annual statistics revealed the number of smokers attempting to give up the habit increased from 44,019 to 50,121 last year.

One month after their "quit date", 38 per cent had stopped smoking, 33 per cent were still smoking and in 29 per cent the result was not known.

Public health minister Shona Robison said: "Many people find stopping smoking hard, but it's also the single biggest thing anyone can do to improve their health. So it's really encouraging that so many people are taking advantage of NHS smoking cessation services and trying to quit."

Almost 5 per cent of attempts were made through NHS smoking cessation services – slightly more than the previous year – while 44 per cent were made at pharmacies.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 26 May 2009 9:50 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Tobacco
 
1

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 27/05/2009 02:13:44

A little 'Political Correction' and manipulating of figures, more the likes!

Desperation, instead of Education, don't wash with me!

2

Nitro,

27/05/2009 08:46:10
Most of the anti smoking statistics have been seen to be obtained by asking weighted questions.

It gives the impression that people are stopping smoking in droves when infact smoking prevalance is rising in some areas.

They are also trying their hardest to ban cigarette displays when it has been proven in Canada and Australia for example that banning cigarette displays has made no difference to smoking but has closed down many small shops.





3

english charlie,

27/05/2009 12:04:10
'44 per cent were made at pharmacies'. Do pharmacies offer anything other than nicotine gum and patches, which only have a success rate of 1.6%?

4

Belinda-2,

27/05/2009 12:08:14
#3

I don't know that the NHS has much to offer smokers other than gum and patches either.
5

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville. 27/05/2009 13:01:06
Despite the usual negativity of the pro-smokers' lobby, I would wish any one trying to give up smoking ( even chas.w. ) all success in their attempts by whatever means, even at the cost of loss of revenue to the Exchequer.
6

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 27/05/2009 13:06:53
#1,Charles Linskaill,Edinburgh.
Encouraging to see C.L. making a positive suggestion about education to reduce smoking levels. Could he expand on this proposal, outlining the form he envisages such education taking, with his answer preferably in structured English.
7

111thstreet,

27/05/2009 13:14:20
Good to see the usual crowd weighing in, trying to turn a positive into a negative.

#2 The statistics are from ISD Scotland, reflecting the outcomes of clinical practice in the NHS. What are the 'some areas' to which you allude? Smoking rates are falling in virtually all areas in the UK and Scotland and have been for many decades.

#3 Your derisory comment of success of 1.6% is meaningless without a comparison. The most reliable information on drug efficacy probably comes from the cochrane systemic review (http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000146.html), finding that "The chances of stopping smoking were increased by 50 to 70%" in 132 clinical trials of nicotine replacement, compared to no treatment. I'm no friend of big pharma, but please at least try not to represent information in such a blatant misleading fashion.

#4 They offer behavioural support apparently, talking and encouragement, and other warm fuzzy stuff that makes you feel good. And might help you stop smoking! Wohoo! Can't you guys just be happy for once?
8

Belinda-2,

27/05/2009 13:43:17
Any claim of 50 per cent success is news to me. Look for a page on NHS web page entitled NHS Stop Smoking Services & Nicotine Replacement Therapy: this gives a success rate at 15 per cent. Not a very impressive result really. They also give no evidence to support the link that it is up to four times easier to quit with the NHS. The link that is supposed to be below ('see below') is not listed. (I can't post the link for some reason but it is there.)

David should know better than to think the Exchequer will bear any losses.
9

english charlie,

27/05/2009 14:30:39
The smoking rate WAS falling for decades until anti-smoking groups started their propaganda when the rate levelled off and now it is increasing.
10

soapy1,

Rainworth 27/05/2009 15:31:19
28 to 31 days is hardly a good indicator as to the success rate of anything never mind smoking!

One success in one hundred attempts is a dismal failure in any endevour as I have yet to find point six of a smoker the ratio is meaningless.

Behavourial support? you mean do as we tell you or we will make it impossible for you to enjoy a legal activity!

Thank you David from New Mills, volunteering to make up the deficit in revenue is much appreiciated many like me will bitterly resent having to do so! will you be making the cheque out to the parliamentry slush fund ordirectly to the NHS?
I suspect though many tolerant non smokers would agree with the sentiment of you and those like you paying their share of the additional tax burden admirable too just so long as they are not required to.

Of course to anyone with an ounce of reason the principle of choosing whether to go to a smoking or non smoking establishment is preferable to accepting National Socialist principles that endanger lives within the NHS because the NHS cannot afford new equipment or sufficient staff free of red tape as their money is thrown away on a battle that is hopelessly lost and will remain so as long as there is one person who believes in free choice of choses to partake of the legal activity called smoking.
11

111thstreet,

27/05/2009 16:23:09
Nah, it's not saying that 50% of people who use it quit, it's saying that it is 50% more effective than the base rate, which is cold turkey, as the cochrane review states.

When you consider the base rate (people who try to quit without any aid whatsoever), an end total 15% success rate when you use gum, patches, or whatever isn't too wide of the mark.

Because, here's a surprise, smoking is quite hard to give up, so the base quit rate is quite low. So napkin math(assuming NRT increases your chances of quitting by 50%, as seems likely from the review) would tell us that if the quit rate WITH gum/patches is 15%, then your success rate WITHOUT would be around 10%.

Both figures are pretty low, but that's more a function of how much of a difficult pain in the ass it is to quit, rather than the medication not working.

12

english charlie,

27/05/2009 16:34:36
#11. 111thstreet says 'if the quit rate WITH gum/patches is 15%', but the seccess rate is only 1.6%.
13

111thstreet,

27/05/2009 16:40:39
Says you. Please link us your controlled trial then.

Until then, I'll believe the NHS.
14

english charlie,

27/05/2009 16:50:18
The figure was published in the BMJ. Believe it or not, the NHS and ASH are not always right.
15

soapy1,

Rainworth 27/05/2009 17:56:29
would you not agree to successfully give up anything the will has to be there?
That it has to be voluntary not coerced?
The use of legislation to force anyone to give up anything has never worked, the prohibition in the 1920's and thrities proved that, Hitlers attempts to legislate smoking away failed in the thirties, it only served to increase the numbers to take up smoking just as the current legislation does.

It is a losing battle consuming ever increasing amounts of public money desparately needed elsewhere like the increasing numbers of patients contracting diseases in our hospitals, worse still dying becasue of shortages of equipment, staff and beds, the loss of every casualty department costs lives, lives which the money wasted on this folly would have saved.

The lack of medical staff makes the difference between being seen in a reasonable time frame or in some cases death. The loss of the Matron who ensured the cleanliness on the wards among other things leaves patients vulnerable to infection that more frequently leads to death in patients who would have survived, all these things have publically documented, all these problems could be solved just by returning the money wasted on this campaign to where it is so desparately needed the hospitals, the staff and the equipment necessary to save lives.

It is not the smokers diverting this money and recklessy endangering lives but the anti smoking lobby.
16

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 27/05/2009 19:30:42
#8, Belinda C.
David does indeed know better than to think the Exchequer will bear any losses in revenue,and never claimed so, being smart enough to realise any deficit would be made up in another way. If Belinda has heard of the Window Tax of yore, she surely realises that the economy didn't collapse on its abolition, but that some other wheeze made up the deficit. Tobacco tax perhaps?
If that were to evaporate, the Exchequer would simply find an alternative.
Chewing gum or choccy tax, maybe?
17

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 27/05/2009 19:43:00
#9, chas.w.
As chas. is ever fond of making sweeping allegations, can we have some substantiation, with possibly a link?
18

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 27/05/2009 19:54:17
#10, soapy1,Rainworth.
David wasn't volunteering anyhing, but is sufficient of a realist to accept that until anarchy reigns, the Exchequer will always balance the books somehow.
If soapy finds smokers to be nothing other than a basket case, perhaps the easy option would simply be extermination?
19

soapy1,

rainworth 27/05/2009 22:41:03
Extermination David? A little harsh don't you think?

Not entirely unexpected given your clear support for what is the 21st century Nuremberg decree, because racism is now illegal smokers are the next easiest target followed by drinkers and people who enjoy food.

Since you decline to debate the point can I also assume then that you support money desperately needed in the areas of the NHS outlined earlier is thrown away on this lost cause?

That you value the lives of non smokers over smokers, despite the additonal taxation that goes to the NHS and more importantly despite the fact that they are human beings too?

I recall another organisation expounded simular views on a racial basis not that long ago, they too exterminated their victims as you so clearly advocate!

I really don't know where you get the idea that I think smokers are 'basket cases' from, so I'll be charitable and put it down to the overactive imagination that the anti smokers all seem to suffer from, fortunately they are a tiny minority.

The non smoker whose tolerance and humanity shines like a beacon of hope in a very dark world and make up the majority of our population will eventually stand firm and put an end to this madness.

This is the difference between Anti Smokers and Non Smokers, Non Smokers are humane where Anti Smokers are not.

The day is fast approaching when once again, you may hold your opinion but not have the legislation to force it down everyone elses throats, the day that every human being on the planet will celebrate with a pint and a smoke or just a pint as the free will takes them, in a public house where the Landlord in their unchallenged opinion has decided who is allowed to do what in his premises as it should be.
20

Rollo Tommasi,

27/05/2009 23:13:53
What on earth is making Soapy so neurotic?

He makes it sound that the NHS’s quit smoking services are actually an attempt to force smokers to stop, against their will. What utter, utter nonsense that is. Smokers will only make use of these services if they have decided that they both want to stop and are ready to quit. The services are there to assist those who have made the CHOICE to try to quit.

If these smokers lack freedom of choice, it is because of the continuing hold that the cigarettes have on them, which makes it so hard for many, many smokers to quit the habit for good.

And a post by Soapy wouldn’t be a post by Soapy without some passing reference to the National Socialists. Yes, Soapy is indeed showing truly neurotic behaviour – just like a certain prominent Nazi did in his final days deep in a Berlin bunker in 1945.
21

mandyv,

banitland 28/05/2009 00:57:13
3# english charlie,I do not recall seeing Allan Carrs book in the pharmacy, I know one person who gave up on a day course,has not smoked for over 6 months now. everyone I know including myself have NOT given up with patches, just cold turkey or a book.

This is what will happen if they hide cigarettes under the counter. Links provided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_economy
snip~
In modern societies the underground economy covers a vast array of activities. It is generally smallest in countries where economic freedom is greatest, and becomes progressively larger in those areas where corruption, regulation, or legal monopolies restrict legitimate economic activity.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/MYSA012207_01A_black_market_cigs_1bd09ef_html7916.html
snip~
Among the state's most notorious cases was one in 2005 that involved 24 convenience store operators in San Antonio who authorities said were caught buying from undercover agents almost 10 million contraband cigarettes on which no state tax had been paid.
Also among the cases was an El Paso-based ring that smuggled 107 million of two types of cigarettes that make it into the black market — cheap knockoffs meant to look like real smokes and contraband cigarettes that bypass import duties and taxation. Federal officials say the ring cost the federal government, Texas, California and New York at least $9.2 million in lost cigarette tax revenue.

freedom2choose.info for smokers and non-smokers alike, fighting for choice and TRUTH
22

english charlie,

28/05/2009 08:56:38
#21. I have heard that the Alan Carr Method has at least a 50% success rate in quitting and has a money back guarantee. I also believe that hypnosis has a very good success rate.
23

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 28/05/2009 11:28:30
#22, chas.w.
I repeat my good wishes at #5 to any smoker who can be released from the drudge of his addiction by whatever means. Why does the pr-smokers lobby always seem to find this such a contentious notion? Are they simply content to remain hooked, and resent any one who manages to escape the net, and abandon them to their miserable fate?
24

soapy1,

Rainworth 28/05/2009 14:08:55
Rollo criticises me well thats fair enough, what he does not say is that he actually agrees with a proposal put forward by myself elsewhere that smokers indeed should have separate facilities and even admits his ignorance as to how they would work. Now here he is backpeddling furiously trying to retrieve a lost cause!

Like David he dare not admit the collossal wastage of taxpayers money on the anti smoking lobby. to do so would bring his case crashing down, so who among us would like to see this money used on the front line of the NHS to save real lives and not virtual lives generated by statistics?

No one actually enjoys paying tax apart from David who so generously volunteered to replace the £9bn loss in tobacco revenue and now apparently wants no association with the idea, can't think why!

I wonder if Rollo is familiar with the adage that those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it and those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed.

He bemoans a legitamate comparison of two unjust laws, he says because I accept and learn from what history has shown us that I am neurotic so I will just say this,
Do not just take my word for it, look up the Nuremberg Decrees, make your own comparisons, read Mein Kampf comapare that to what is happening around you. You can bet Rollo has not if he had he would have a real argument and not just Soapy is neurotic!

I ask you, if that is the best argument that these antis can put up That Soapy is neurotic then their cause is dead.

History shows that those who try to set one section of the community apon another and preach their superiority are destined to lose remember Rome, Sparta, Greece, Spain, France, Germany, Great Britain all had great empires all said they were superior and treated some of their citizens as inferior all have long since lost their empires. Civilisation does have to evolve but not at the expense of liberty, of choice of lifestyle, ask Rollo and David why research
25

soapy1,

28/05/2009 14:16:42
into safe cigarettes was stopped?

Was it because they know tobacco is safe?

Could it be becasue with safe cigarettes the anti lobby would be redundant?

That they would lose the millions in grants the receive of your money?

Perhaps because they would lose what they crave most, power over you?

Any one of the above could be true, more like a combination of them.

This much is certain real people are dying in hospitals for lack of money, staff and equipment because the money is being funnelled in to the pockets of these people and wasted on a lost cause!

I sincerely hope that the next death is not a loved one of yours, and I would hope that all upstanding decent people would agree with that sentiment.
26

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 28/05/2009 20:16:02
#24, soapy1,Rainworth of speed trials fame.
Soapy, like so many of the pro-smokers' lobby seems to inhabit his own little fantasy world.
Besides noting the correct spelling, perhaps he could advise us of the extent of the alleged "colossal" wastage of taxpayers' money "on the anti-smoking lobby".
David at #5 said "even at the cost of loss of revenue to the Exchequer", and at #18 "the Exchequer will always balance the books". How does soapy's twisted mind interpret that to mean "David who so generously volunteered to replace the £9bn loss in tobacco revenue"?, and just how does he feel that David "apparently wants no association with the idea"? His comment of "can't think why!" perhaps carries the word "why" superfluously.
An explanation of soapy's convuluted logic would be helpful.
27

Rollo Tommasi,

28/05/2009 22:33:39
I really am beginning to worry about Soapy.

This article is about help for smokers who want to quit. Soapy goes into a 2 page rant at posts 24 & 25, which cover several unrelated issues, including the public smoking laws, tobacco revenues, the Nuremberg Decrees, the fall of empires and supposedly "safe" cigarettes.

Yet, for all his ranting, he completely ignores the point of the article and my challenge to him - to justify his claim that the NHS’s quit smoking services are actually an attempt to force smokers to stop, against their will.

His silence on that point is deafening.
28

soapy1,

Rainworth 28/05/2009 23:05:21
Why the rant fellas? Do you not see the point? It is very simple.

It is real lives verses statistical lives are you so blinkered on the persecution of others that you are willing to sacrifice real people by wasting this money? David how does the the spelling of one word make a difference, in your world does it stop someone smoking perhaps?

As regarding what the Nuremberg decree has to with stopping smoking if you actually bothered to think and look you will see that one law led to the banning of smoking by servicemen in uniform, (Not that is was obeyed) the banning of smoking on public transport at a time when they were more likely to die from the bombs that the USAAF and RAF were dropping on them!

The Nuremberg decrees led also to restrictions where certain people could go just as the Health acts do, no difference at all. Everybody knows where these laws ended and you two want to see it happen all over again!

The principle of making life so difficult for smokers so that they just give up will not work and that is what these laws do, just as the Nuremberg Decrees did for their victims. There is your connection, and using the NHS a tool to do it is killing real people, would you not agree that the money spent on this travesty would be better spent on staff, equipment, medicines, how about opening some wards up again or a few casualty units you remember those don't you boys?

The ones that save real people!
29

Rollo Tommasi,

28/05/2009 23:38:16
Soapy - You seem to be living your life in the 1930s. You find yourself unable to remove yourself from it.

You still don't get it, do you? People will use the smoking cessation services if they WANT to quit. if they don't want to, then they can ignore them. Simple.

The more I read of what you say, the more I think that you actually are really, really selfish. You want smokers to carry on smoking - even if they are desperate to quit. In fact you want as many people as possible to smoke, just so you don't feel as marginalised as someone who won't give up. If you want to carry on smoking, then that is your choice. But what right have you to try to deny help and support for the many smokers who are desperate to quit?

I might add that you have completely the wrong idea about the costs of smoking cessation services. I've quickly googled for stats and have only found English figures. The NHS in England spends around £27 million each year on smoking cessation services (http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/Stop%20Smoking%20Quarterly%20Bulletins/SSS%20Q2%2007_08/2007-08%20Stop%20Smoking%20Services%20Q2%20FINALv3%5B1%5D.pdf). I reckon that's less than £3 per smoker per year - or less than the tax and duty on one packet of fags. It's also less than one-3000th of the total NHS England budget of £92 billion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_National_Health_Service#Funding). So how do you expect that amount to be enough to suddenly ensure our hospitals are clear of contaminants??
30

soapy1,

Rainworth 29/05/2009 11:27:00
£27 million too much people are still dying and the money is still needed on the front line, how many doctors and nuses would £27 million pay for? how much equipment can be bought, how mwny extra lives real lives not your statistical lives but real lives with names and and people who love them?

Would you rather persecute a small percentage of the population who are doing nothing illegal than save lives?

if someone wishes to quit then that is fine that is their choice Rollo you are well aware of that yet you support legislation designed to restrict a legal activity, to make it so difficult to smoke that they give up, that is coercion not choice, it is no different to Nuremberg decrees, that said you cannot run a buisiness if you are Jewish, that is exactly the same as saying you cannot smoke inside a pub because you smoke. You cannot congregate on the street because you are Jewish equals if you smoke outside the pub we'll complain about the noise and cost the landlord his buisiness. you cannot share park facilities if you are jewish, I don't want you smokin gin public open spaces same thing Rollo. You cannot have children if you are disabled in any way, is the same as you cannot adopt children if you smoke, drink or are obese.

All part of the Nuremberg Decrees that you so lovingly endorse.

You say I am selfish if that is the worst you can say of me then I would rather be selfish than endorse or be a mouthpiece for the Nazi party.
31

Rollo Tommasi,

29/05/2009 17:06:53
Soapy really has lost the plot!!!

Apparently it was Nazi Party policy to favour help and support for smokers who want to quit the habit.

Well I've never heard that one before.
32

Belinda-2,

29/05/2009 21:14:17
Outright coercion is not the way of those in the anti smoking lobby who encourage smokers to quit. The method is denormalisation. Just do a search and you will find that everyone is talking in terms of 'denormalising' smoking, and consequently smokers have become fair game for insults and demeaning generalisations.
33

soapy1,

Rainworth 29/05/2009 22:54:54
The point about the Nazi bans on smoking was that they were not to smoke, no choice was even offered. it was a Fuererbefehl, an order, no options! If the the German armed forces had to enforce those orders they would had to of executed 90% of their armed forces including the SS and Gestapo! A point if Rollo had bothered to check he would have known. It would of course have shortened World War II as there would have been far fewer Germans to actively fight it!

Fortunately there are enough right thinking people in the UK who will ensure that the smoking ban, incitement to quit, or coercion to quit dependant on your personal viewpoint will fail, it has failed as long a one person stands up for freedom to choose their own lifestyle, as long as there is one smoker it is a failure.

So why not put the wasted money to better use, Rollo's £27 million will save real lives only if pushed into the front line of the NHS, the Hospitals the doctors and nurses the equipment and wards, it would help put a stop to casualty ward closures across the country.

Every minute added to to an emergency ambulances trip to an A+E ward is a minute in which someone WILL DIE, all because Rollo and his friends want to persecute smokers.
34

Rollo Tommasi,

29/05/2009 23:03:25
Would Soapy like to explain exactly how this £27 million persecutes smokers, to use his own words?

35

Rollo Tommasi,

29/05/2009 23:08:06
Belinda - And what does the Scottish Government mean by denormalisation? It means "shifting cultural perceptions of smoking and discouraging young people from starting to smoke in the first place" (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/This-Week/Speeches/Healthier/smoking-action-plan/).

When did Belinda first become opposed to discouraging young people to start smoking?
36

soapy1,

Rainworth 30/05/2009 10:34:16
Would Rollo like to read what is written?

£27 million your quote which I graciously accepted is an obscene amount of money to take out of circulation in an NHS which for years has been pleading that it cannot afford decent pay for its nursing staff, for new equipmnet, to keep wards and casualty departments open.

Rollo blithely ignores the fact that real people are dying lying on gurneys in corridors, they are dying in ambulances that have to travel extra distances to find an A+E unit particularly heart and burns units. Routinely he ignores the tragic fact that these are real poeple not projected statistics, they have loved ones who care about them, in some cases they mourn them prematurely because had the proper facitlties been in place or cleaning standards higher their chances of survival would have been so much greater.

The use of this money to support laws that restrict freedom of lifestyle by advertising and NRT which by the NHS's own admission is a 98% failure as most smokers who try to quit are smoking again within one year is a waste of money on something that is clearly not working. Think about it 98% of smokers who try to quit fail, £27 million spent on a failure!

If a smoker chooses of his or her own volition chooses to give up smoking then that is great, they are choosing their own lifestyle, if smokers are forced outside to smoke,herded into cattlepens where they are 'allowed' to practice a legal persuit, when they are villified and blamed for every ill under the sun and will be for some that have not been invented yet then that is not free choice of lifestyle, it is £27 million spent making the quality of smokers life so difficult that the course of least resistance is to quit smoking, a 98% failure rate screams that it does not work that £27 million that could be used to save lives is being thrown away.

Of course most of this is in preceding posts there for all to see, all to understand, but there are always those who cannot,or will
37

soapy1,

30/05/2009 10:36:01
but there are always those who cannot,or will not understand that the saving of one real life that affects dozens of people is worth the statistcal virtual deaths that affects no one because there is not a real person behind it, no grieving relatives, no doctors, nurses or paramedics who lost a real fight between life and death.

It is the real people who count Rollo, the deceased and those left behind not the statistics and £27million will help save many more of them.

38

Rollo Tommasi,

30/05/2009 13:39:22
So for all of Soapy's blustering, when it comes to the crunch he is completely unable to justify his nonsensical claim that NHS funding for smoking cessation services "persecutes" smokers. Well what a surprise.

Soapy's latest posts also bear little resemblance to reality. Apparently it is because of some funding being directed towards smoking cessation services that the NHS cannot afford decent pay for its nursing staff, for new equipment, to keep wards and casualty departments open. This is in spite of the fact that quit smoking services account for around 0.03% of the NHS budget. Apparently shifting this away from smoking cessation services will magically solve the problems which the other 99.97% of NHS funds cannot fix. How ridiculous is that?

Soapy's chums in F2C frequently comment on how much smokers pay in tax and duty. Well, like I said, the cost of quit smoking services for a whole year can be more than covered from the tax and duty from just one pack of 20 cigarettes from each smoker. Quite apt, since most smokers actually want to quit at some point of their lives.

39

english charlie,

30/05/2009 14:26:22
How much would it cost to train nursing staff to wash their hands? I bet a fraction of that £27m.
40

soapy1,

30/05/2009 15:14:13
Why don't you justify this waste of money to a grieving family Rollo, tell them that their loved one died so you can gratify your urge to run everyone elses lives for them, so that you can spend money that may have saved their loved one to follow a policy that kills real people, your statistics are not real people Rollo, never have been never will be.

No one thinks that returning the money to the front line will cure all the ills in the NHS but it will cure some of them, and if it saves even one life then that is one family less that will grieve as opposed to saving no lives at all but contributing to their death.

Deny that the money would be better spent on the front line Rollo, go on deny it put into words Rollo stop implying it, have the courage of your covictions and tell the world you believe real people deserve to die for your anti smoking rhetoric because you believe spending £27 million on coercing smokers to give up is worth more than a single human life. this is what you are implying, you would stand by and watch real people die for your own pleasure, your own belief that anti smokers are better poeple than smokers that the anti smoking master race will prevail.

They will not, not now, not ever!
Throughout Europe courts are upholding the fact that smoking is legal, that poeple may smoke in bars, in Holland, Spain, Germany, Belgium and France all say you are wrong! Is most of Europe wrong and you right Rollo?

Will you show the people any post where I have claimed to represent F2C, any post where I have even acknowledged F2C? are you now so desperate that you have to create mythical links? Whether or nor I am a member of F2C is not relevant, you are free to believe what you wish Rollo what you not free to do is tell lies, now you prove that I represent F2C something in writing that says I am contracted to them, look back Rollo I have posted prior to these posts that my views are mine, that they do not represent F2C nor do they form any part of
41

soapy1,

30/05/2009 15:16:24
nor do they form any part of F2C's policy.

By questioning my right to to be, or not to be a member of any organisation that I choose, by expressing the unfounded view that I represent anyone than but myself shows a complete and total disrespect of the rights of freedom of expression, the freedom to belong to any group which are core freedoms in any democracy. You have labelled me as neurotic, Neurotics do not do organisations Rollo they do not trust them!

Truth is Rollo you do not have a clue so you throw labels out hoping they stick, you are damaging your own cause by doing so and I can afford to be charitable, I am content to allow you to destroy your own case, we both know that you cannot produce any evidence to say I am contracted to or that my views constitute F2C policy. every word you write undermines your already lost cause Rollo, every denial of historical fact, every time you ignore the real people in this tragedy is another nail in your causes coffin, even if you fought it you would do more damage to cause, catch 22 Rollo catch 22!

At least I have bothered make comparisons to the the thoughts and policies of the Third Reich, provided evidence of the similarities of the two laws which serve to make it clear where you stand, you scoff at history, but history is fact and nothing can alter that and if modern legislation is directly comparable to laws passed in that regime then those laws are as wrong as their historical counterparts, partitioning society is wrong, it was wrong in 1933 and it is wrong in 2009 that is the comparison I have made a comparison you cannot deny or defeat.
42

Rollo Tommasi,

30/05/2009 15:26:54
Oh dear. Looks like the summer heat has got to Soapy. I've sure that he's trying to make some points in that demented rant, but I'm struggling to find them.
43

soapy1,

30/05/2009 17:30:24
I think in truth that you have no defence to anything said, so in the best anti smoking and indeed Nazi traditions have to resort to inuendo, if your opponant does not conceed to you then he or she is demented or neurotic, implications that I am subhuman will not win your cause Rollo.

This is beginning to become a pattern Rollo your lost cause is looking more fragile by the day. and with that I will be happy to spare you and accept your surrender as I did before when you so petulantly refused to talk to me any more.

Thank you for your time Rollo.
44

Rollo Tommasi,

30/05/2009 17:41:00
!!!

Back to your parallel universe Soapy. If you can't debate without gratuitous use of Nazi analogy and if you're unable to back up your spurious claims, I'm not missing your contributiion.
45

soapy1,

Rainworth 30/05/2009 19:51:51
The supression of someone elses point of view is Rollo yet another tyrannical trait, ordering me to shut up as your post very unsubtly says means only one thing. you are so frightened that the message is correct that you can only resort to your base instinct. Bullying and villification is all the anti smoking lobby knows, anyone who stands up to a bully gets the results that you are displaying it is what tells the world you have lost.

Please feel free to continue I just have to keep allowing you the freedom that I fight for and you will destroy yourself without my help.

As I said thank you for your time Rollo.
46

Rollo Tommasi,

30/05/2009 23:24:20
"Ordering me to shut up"? Really?? Just the same as smoking cessation services are supposedly "persecuting" smokers then?

When I say you seem to be in a parallel universe, Soapy, it's because of comments you make like those.
47

soapy1,

31/05/2009 00:26:11
Thank you for conceeding the point Rollo.

My point is that when directly comparing the smoking restrictions with the Nuremberg decrees they are very simular in that they restrict a section of society in the persuit of legal activities in this case religeous practice and smoking this is the reason you dare not contest it. That is defacto persecution and you know it.

Now what is your excuse for trying to prevent my freedom of speech?

A lame comparison of comments against factual historical comparisons is what it is.

All the comments about parallel universes will never alter that simple fact, you know that too. Very soon the opposition on the continent will spill over into the UK.

When the population realize that in mainland Europe the electorate are treated like adults and not errant children in regards to smoking, alcohol and obesity they will demand equal treatment as we are equal citizens in Europe. The European Parliament tells us this, are you going to tell us they are wrong too?

Once again thank you for your time.
48

Rollo Tommasi,

31/05/2009 00:40:52
Yet again you fail to describe the form in which this supposed "persecution" of smokers is taking when our governments fund support services to help smokers who want to quit.

See the common link in my posts?
49

soapy1,

31/05/2009 08:24:35
Common link, yes Nazism! they all say I support whole heartedly the division of society, I support the herding of smokers into ever restricted places, I support the villification of smokers, I support the master race not the sub human smokers and finally that anyone who disagrees with me is neurotic or lives in a parallel universe. Perhaps you should apply for Himmlers old job you seem to be eminently qualified.



50

Rollo Tommasi,

31/05/2009 11:14:45
Soapy - Maybe you should apply for David Irving's old job of a denialist historian, given how much you are belittling the horrors of the Holocaust by trying to suggest that smokers are being treated in the same way.

It also shows the cowardice in your argument. I have asked you on several occasions to back up a claim you chose to make earlier on - that NHS smoking cessation support services "persecute" smokers.

You continue to pretend that you never made that remark. All you have to offer are irrelevant and tasteless analogies back to Nazi Germany. If you were prepared to argue on the issues, I wouldn't need to describe you as neurotic or in a parallel universe.

But your constant failure to back up your cheap and nasty debating points means I am now entitled to call you a coward too.
51

english charlie,

31/05/2009 11:56:51
At least Germany have learnt from their history by not having the same draconian smoking bans as the UK.
52

Rollo Tommasi,

31/05/2009 12:01:26
"Draconian"????!!!!
53

english charlie,

31/05/2009 12:26:30
Describes laws, government actions, etc. which are unreasonably severe; going beyond what is right or necessary.
54

soapy1,

rainworth 31/05/2009 14:08:44
You consider that a comparison of the health laws to the Nuremberg decrees belittlement, how many of your family died in the camps? The Nurnberg decrees were the first steps along that road Rollo steps that you endorse even promote!

Is it belittling to want money wasted on statistical lives to be spent on real lives too? Rollo you clearly are more concerned with saving mythical lives than real ones.

Removing the right for Jews to run a buisiness is no diferent to driving landlords out of buisiness for offering choice to smokers, Herding Jews into ghettos is no different to herding smokers outside into inadequate shelters to smoke, Editorials in the Deutsche Beobachter villiyfing Jews are no different to the villification seen online against smokers absolutely no difference Rollo, well if that comparison is belittling in your eyes you have some very serious moral issues!

You speak of cowardice, amoral people have no concept of courage or cowardice, only of self so why are you bringing that up?

The fact that you consider the abhorent treatment of sections of society by the Third Reich as irrevelent speaks volumes no doubt everyone who lost people in WWII will consider that to be an insult to every man woman and child, military or civil who was killed in that conflict. All you have achieved here Rollo is to demonstrate that you and your anti smoking friends are Nazis, that you support their ideals and desire only to enforce those ideals onto the public.

The European mainlaind lived through the Nazi occupation they see Naziism in these laws, why do you think that their laws are less draconian (thanks English Charlie the perfect word at the right time).



55

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 31/05/2009 18:47:27
I thought Rainworth soapy had indicated he was leaving this forum a dozen or so postings ago, but I still find him going over the same old forlorn ground.
In answer to his main points:-
A) Any one can draw a parallel with Nazi Germany or any other régime if they try hard enough, but I would suggest that consignees to the gas chamber were chosen on the basis of racial impurity or medical deficiencies. As far as I know, smokers didn't fit either category.
The Nazis built Autobahnen in the 1930s. Britain followed twenty years later. Was that a Nazi policy, then?
B) We can all choose to criticise how the state allocates it's resources, but by soapy's logic, the state should close all museums, art galleries and libraries, cease all funding to the arts, withdraw from the 2012 Olympics, and halt all improvements to transport infrastructure. The trouble is even if that "saving" met soapy's target of £27 million, or greatly exceeded it, it wouldn't solve all the nation's health problems, as there is no magic level of funding at which every one would be completely well and healthy. As more health services are provided, this simply raises people's demands on, and expectations of the N.H.S.
Chas. and soapy, and others of the F2S mindset, may find current smoking restrictions "draconian", but I, along with many others, consider them to be advantageous, very welcome and long overdue.
56

english charlie,

31/05/2009 19:15:54
David has a draconian solution to stop children buying cigarettes. He would like to hit any youngster who tries to buy cigarettes. Another bully, just like Hitler.
57

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 31/05/2009 20:48:34
#56, comic little Charlie.
Seems that cheekie little Charlie didn't get enough clips round the ear in his youth. Es lebe der Führer!
58

soapy1,

01/06/2009 00:53:21
You do indeed David, it is a law we are discussing, motorways and museums actually benefit people the Nuremberg decree and smoking restrictions do not that is the difference!
The £27 million you refer is Rollos figure so for the money wasted on the anti smoking campaign which you would know if you actually read the posts and thank you for advertising Freedom to Choose!

59

Rollo Tommasi,

01/06/2009 07:00:54
"Motorways....actually benefit people?" Oh the hypocrisy!!!

Soapy - you are accusing those who disagree with you on the smoking laws as being Nazis, simply because the Nazi regime supported action to restrict smoking.

Well, if that is your logic, then anyone who favours motorways must be a Nazi, as the Nazi regime supported action to build new autobahnen.

Which makes you Soapy - by YOUR logic - a Nazi.

As David says, anyone can draw a parallel with Nazi Germany if they try hard enough.
60

soapy1,

Rainworth 01/06/2009 08:29:29
Funny that whenever traffic polution is blamed for its contribution to cancer you antis say that it is not revelant, that it is smoking, now that the benefits of the autobahns are pointed out you take the the opposite stance, now that's hypocritcal either motorways full full of cars are a cancer risk or they are not, an autobahn full of horses is safer by far but no one is suggesting we devolve to the horse and cart. The laws I criticise are Nazi laws, the people who support them are Nazi.

Neither Motorways nor museums are laws are they so there is no comparison. As a drowning man you would be advised to clutch at a lifejacket and not straws Rollo.
61

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 01/06/2009 11:04:57
#58, Rainworth soapy.
Deed I do indeed what? Interesting to note that soapy now favours motorways, whereas F2S is always telling us how diesel fumes are more likely to induce cancer than smoking, and how pub interiors, especially those with Bill Gibson's state of the art air filtration systems, have better air quality than some hypothetical street in Oxford.
I would suggest that the Nürnberg decree is something out of the past, but that smoking restrictions are with us here and now, and thankfully benefit many people. Soapy is entirely free to feel otherwise.
Whatever figure soapy feels is "wasted" on smoking prevention, be it Rollo's estimate or F2S's, he has conveniently chosen to ignore my point about spending on health being somewhat of a bottomless pit.
F2S is welcome to some publicity, as they seem to need all the help they can get, membership never quite attaining four figures. What's up, do people keep dropping out from lack of interest? Even good old Carlo "Chuckles" Rossi seems to have left the fold, or was he drummed out for not paying his subs?
62

soapy1,

Rainworth 01/06/2009 12:07:24
Motorways have nothing to with the law, whether or not I support motroways has nothing to with laws. As such motorways are irrevelant besides why are you complaining you brought up motorways!

Ventilation is not at issue here again it is irrevelant.

The Nuremberg decrees however are relevent, I assume that because you have no challenge to the comparison between them and the health laws you would like the subject to go away, well it will not, the comparison is valid, a matter of historical fact and the similarities between the two sets of laws are just too dangerous to ignore as much as it would suit you for that to happen.

I like your implication that Oxford has no streets it really is amusing but the residents of Oxford must be really annoyed to pay for non existant streets! Oh by the way would you like to show us where I even mentioned Oxford?

Of course the health is a bottomless pit David all the more reason not to throw away £27 million on the lost casue of smoking restrictions spend the money on front line services instead! there you are problem solved I've mentioned it just for you!

By the way you will have show me where F2c even tendered a quote on these figures, the quote used is Rollo Tommosi's for I have not quoted any figure but accepted his, again if you actually read the thread you would know this too!

As for F2C none of the comments are relevent to this debate it is little wonder that you are losing the issue if you cannot stay focused on it. Perhaps you should consider quitting while you are behind.
63

Rollo Tommasi,

01/06/2009 13:06:03
Soapy’s logic is becoming increasingly difficult to follow.

Apparently Nazi actions are alright, it is just Nazi laws that were bad. So Nazi funding for autobahns was alright, because this was an action not a law. But the Nuremberg Decrees were bad, because they were laws.

Well Soapy, explain this to me. You frequently complain about research undertaken in Nazi Germany into "Passivrauchen". This was an action, not a law. So why are you so vocal in your condemnation of it?

And explain this to me too. There was no laws introduced which permitted the genocide of Jews and other people. Are you honestly saying that this action was alright???

Your Nazi analogies are totally wayward and you are just getting yourself tied up in knots in trying to keep this ridiculous and offensive comparison going.

By the way, I’m not sure to whom you’re referring with your claim that people ignore the contribution which traffic pollution makes to cancer. I don’t believe I have.
64

soapy1,

01/06/2009 16:10:50
Wrong on every count Rollo the autobahns were indeed of great benefit ot the world at large,they were thwe first motorways! How did the Nuremberg decrees benefit anyone?

It was an offence under military law early in the war for servicemen to smoke, one which was universally dis regarded even by the SS and Gestapo! It became a matter of civil law in 1944 to prevent passivrauchen affecting tram conductors on trams amongst other reasons. I am sure you would agree a waste of time as that too was disregarded universally and you were just as likely to die from the bombs of the USAAF and RAF!

The Wansee Conference of 1942/3 laid down the legal framework for the extermination of the Jews, resulting in the transportation and murder of millions of people. So yes both passiveauchen and the Holocaust itself had basis in law.

It is natural that supporting a Nazi based law you would find it offensive I expect nothing less. as I keep on saying history is fact and all i am doing is comparing fact with fact, and in the words of your anti friends get over it!
65

Rollo Tommasi,

01/06/2009 20:31:49
Wrong on every count, Soapy. It’s bad enough that you keep up this false distinction of “Nazi laws = bad; Nazi action = good”. But you can’t even get your facts right.

I’ll accept what you said about it being “a matter of civil law in 1944 to prevent passivrauchen affecting tram conductors on trams amongst other reasons”. But civil law is very different from criminal law – so a person smoking was not committing an offence, based on your explanation. Tell me, did this law apply to pubs by any chance? If not, you’re in absolutely no position to accuse Scotland’s smoking legislation of being like “Nazi-based laws”.

While we’re on the subject of Passivrauchen, I notice you conveniently omitted to refer to Nazi research on the subject. No laws involved there – just action.

And the same applies to the Wannsee Conference. No laws were passed. All that happened was that action which Hitler had already agreed was announced. It was there that Heydrich announced his plans for the “Final Solution” for the Jews. But to the best of my knowledge, those plans were never cast into laws.

So in Soapy’s world, the Final Solution was a good thing. How can you have such despicable thoughts?
66

soapy1,

Rainworth 01/06/2009 22:53:14
I'm not eh! The Nuremberg decree gave licence to any bully to abuse a jew destroy their buisinesses as surely as the smoking legislation is destroying pubs and your comrades bully and villify smokers. like the smoking laws it restricted choice of lifestyle, choice of religeous practice is equal to choice of lifestyle so in that regard there is absolutely no difference. the choice to smoke is no different to choice of religeous lifestyle, one can choose to smoke or not, one can choose to be jew or gentile one cannnot be forced to be one or the other.

Do you mean the research that Sir Richard Doll collaberated with in the early thirties? he knew full well that it was funded partly out of Hitlers own pocket, out of Hitlers personal dislike of smoking and no other reason,it was a political ploy. Hitler wanted smoking gone and science tried to give him that, His people and his military ensured that did not happen, the same is happening here!

To use the public Railways and public money for the camps their had to be a Fuererbefehl, the leaders order was law, every instruction issued by Hitler was law the expression Zum Befehl means at your order. This was true from the moment Hitler abolished the Chancellors office and declared himself Fuerer! Under German law of the day his word was law. That is how it all worked Rollo.

Todays health laws also define smokers as a public danger, justas the Nurembergdecree proclaimed the Jews as a public danger, every disease of late is being connected with smoking just as every financial problem was the Jews fault in Nazi Germany. Smokers are made out to be inferior and socially unacceptable just as jews were and you say they are not related. It was this very attitude that lead to Wansee and the camps the very same attitude that you are promoting through the health laws,the very same Rollo!

The camps of course are not really the issue, as tragic and dispicable as those actions were they really have no bearing here! The Nurembe
67

soapy1,

01/06/2009 22:58:12
Nuremberg laws are the real issue and the comparisons to the health acts Rollo the Holocaust as tragic and barbaric as it was have no revelence here but the laws that led to them does.
68

Rollo Tommasi,

01/06/2009 23:28:36
But the Nuremberg Decree was not a law!

And the research into passive smoking was not introduced as a result of laws!

So now you're saying that the Fuhrer's word was law. Okay - let's test your logic.

But it was the Fuhrer's word to invest in building Autobahnen. So surely they were built by laws, using your logic?

More than anything else, Hitler invested in his armed forces. By your logic, the UK's brave armed forces today must therefore be a Nazi-style idea.

You keep changing your own rules in a desperate attempt to distinguish what you consider to be "good" Nazi actions from what you consider to be "bad" Nazi actions. And this only happens because you insist on playing this silly game of associating people with whom you disagree as "Nazis".

And by the way, today's health laws do not "define smokers as a public danger". They define the act of smokING in enclosed public spaces as a public danger. It's a huge difference and it's disingenuous of you to confuse the two concepts.
69

english charlie,

02/06/2009 07:49:48
Tobacco Advertising banned.
Huge public relations campaign to propagandize people into giving up smoking.
Ban on smoking in public places.
Major anti-smoking campaign widely broadcast.
Ban on smoking in vehicles
Junk science stating passive smoking harms.
Manufactured junk science on behalf of medical and health services.
Huge taxes on cigarettes to make people quit.

Where did these take place?
A. The UK
B. Nazi Germany
C. Both.
70

Rollo Tommasi,

02/06/2009 08:00:40
D. Neither.

I don't recognise many of the jaundiced points you list as taking place in the UK.
71

soapy1,

Rainworth 02/06/2009 10:56:36
Which part of when the office of the chancellor was ablolished and Hitler became fuerer do you not understand? The sole law making process was removed from the cabinet and resided solely in the hands of Hitler indeed the speech marking that occaission contained the phrase "HITLER IS GERMANY, AND GERMANY IS HITLER" Hitlers own words Rollo the two were fromthen on indistinguishable!

Germany's right to defend herself has never been an issue, your comment on investment in her military is moot.

No one can force you to admit the similarities between these laws no one seeks to, but others can and some will, the point of view is growing Rollo every bite from civil liberties ensures it does.

Your answer to English Charlies post is bewildering! The evidence is right in front of you, yet you seek deny what you see, what almost everyone else sees. This is not an ASH survey where you can invent your own boxes to tick as much as that would suit you. It was a simple question, you could just of selected "A", but no you have to invent a non existant answer. that type of question is perfectly acceptable for ASH to pose but not for English Charlie?

Like your mentor you too have already lost your war do yourself a favour, strike your colours before you discredit yourself and the anti smoking lobby any further!
72

english charlie,

02/06/2009 11:38:07
#70. Perhaps it was all a dream. Perhaps the Holocaust was also a dream.
73

Rollo Tommasi,

02/06/2009 19:23:19
Poor Soapy. You’re getting more and more befuddled in your desperate attempt to keep your Nazi fiction going.

I understand entirely when the office of the Chancellor was abolished and Hitler became Fuerher. It happened in 1934 after the death of President Hindenburg. The great majority of Germany’s Autobahns were built after this time.

What does that mean? It means I was absolutely right to say “it was the Fuhrer's word to invest in building Autobahnen. So surely they were built by laws, using your logic?”

You’re also trying to argue that Hitler invested in his armed forces so that Germany could “defend herself”. Ehm, no. Quite obviously. He invested in his armed forces so that they would do what he needed them to do – whether defending or attacking. So again I repeat - By your logic, the UK's brave armed forces today must therefore be a Nazi-style idea.

Don't blame me for these ridiculous statements. They are simply the natural result of applying your own warped and misguided rules.

I also see you’re upset because I’m not playing Charlie’s silly little game. Oh diddums.

So many posts, Soapy. And in not a single one of them have you been able to substantiate the claim you made early on (e.g. post 28) that NHS smoking cessation services “persecute” smokers. Don’t worry. I’m not expecting you to come up with any answer now.
74

english charlie,

02/06/2009 20:18:15
Rollo. I am not playing any games. I am serious about the comparison of the UK smoking bans and the Nazi smoking bans. You are obviously a denialist.
75

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 02/06/2009 21:13:02
#74, chas. winfield.
Oh dear, oh dear, chas.w. is getting serious. Rollo beware! The notion of pro-smokers accusing others of being in denial I regard as somewhat hypocritical and totally deluded.
76

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 02/06/2009 21:50:07
Various by Rainworth soapy.
Whilst I recognise soapy's insatiable appetite for raking over pre-war political history in Germany, in his attempt to find comparisons to further his futile cause, might I ask him whether he sees indications of any of the following in to-day's or even to-morrow's Britain?
Smokers having the windows of their business premises or homes broken, as in Krystalnacht?
Smokers being obliged to wear a cigarette symbol on their clothing to differentiate them?
Smokers being excluded from any important positions in society?
Smokers having their properties daubed with "Raucher raus!" signs?
Smokers' pamphlets or literature being ceremoniously burned?
Smokers being compared to odious rats in propaganda films?
Smokers being herded into ghettos, with no means of escape?
Smokers being subject to travel restrictions?
Oh, I almost forgot this one. Smokers being sent to Konzentrationslager and the gas chambers or mass graves, and their valuables confiscated simply by dint of their affliction?
I'm sure Rollo and I will be keen to see soapy's justification for such comparisons. Or maybe he'll just wake up and think "Oh no, we just have to step outside momentarily for a drag. No big deal, really!"
77

english charlie,

02/06/2009 22:24:20
Perhaps David would like to answer the question I posed in #69?
78

soapy1,

02/06/2009 22:37:45
I am glad we agree the that Hitler’s word was therefore law, but not all law is to mankind’s benefit, the Nuremberg decrees were not and neither is today’s health acts.

Rearming was a response to inequality forced onto them by the terms of the Versailles treaty and the later tonnage restrictions of the Washington treaty; It was also a partial cure to the massive unemployment rampant throughout Europe during the 30’s was he wrong to seek employment for his people then? Finally it bears no relationship to my comrades in arms of today’s services.

What is warped and misguided is spending £27million on statistical lives and not real flesh and blood lives!

Was Charlie playing a game?, It looked suspiciously like he posed a perfectly legitimate multi-choice question which you chose apply your own criteria, would you do on a survey? No you would fill it in or not do the survey but you would not answer questions that were not there!

So you consider that herding smokers into pens, forcing them outside like errant pets,
vilification, the increased risk of assault or worse on people forced outside by the predators in our society is not persecution. You have a poor grasp of civilised behaviour Rollo.
79

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 02/06/2009 22:42:42
#77, Suffolk charlie.
See #70.
Perhaps chas. would like to answer the question I posed in #23?
It might effect a quantum change if chas. were to answer just a few of the many questions put to him, rather than just continue to answer a question with another question.
80

english charlie,

02/06/2009 22:51:41
David. If your answer is none, then was the holocaust just a dream?
You keep asking the same questions and I keep answering them. Remind me of the question you asked in #23 as it is very vague.
Have you learnt to definition of 'fraud' yet?
81

Rollo Tommasi,

02/06/2009 22:52:24
Don't blame me, Soapy. I'm only applying the rules that YOU have tried to introduce to this debate. All you are showing is how nonsensical your approach was to begin with. You run around tagging "Nazis" labels to anyone who disagrees with you - then you go defending the Nazis yourself when it suits you. How utterly hypocritical.

Smokers are absolutely not persecuted by our governments and health bodies. Providing funding and support to help smokers quit IF THEY SO WISH is just one aspect of that.

As David so clearly points out, if you were being persecuted you would know what it feels like. You just have to learn to behave like a civilised human being, and make sure you use your many freedoms in a way that does not risk harm or offence to those around you. The rest of us have always understood that - including a great many smokers who are embarrassed to be associated with people like you who think your right to smoke should trump other people's rights.
82

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 02/06/2009 23:08:15
#80, chas. Winfield.
More of a terrible nightmare. So what was the point he was trying to make at #72?
I keep asking various questions, but chas. doesn't often answer them.
#23:- "Why does the pro-smokers lobby always seem to find this such a contentious notion? Are they simply content to remain hooked, and resent any one who manages to escape the net, and abandon them to their miserable fate?" Does chas. need the sentences parsing?
If chas. refers to the thread he's alluding to, he may find his answer.
So what made him take up smoking in the 50s?
83

english charlie,

02/06/2009 23:10:29
Rollo. What do mean by 'The rest of us'? You mean a few of you anti-smokers, surely? It is the likes of you and David that are an embarrassment to decent non-smokers.
84

soapy1,

02/06/2009 23:19:01
Smokers are accosted by busybodies who wave their arms around in exaggerated gestures, anti smoking comments are made in locations where smoking is permitted, numerous complaints made because smokers uphold the law by smoking outside pubs on the flimsiest of pretexts, how long do you think it will before such provocation gets a response, there have already been assaults and deaths because of this arrogantly foolish legislation, all of which happened to Jews in Germany prior to Kristalnacht.

Do smokers need armbands? Do you honestly believe that the population of the United Kingdom are too stupid to recognise a smoker when they see one?

A number of jobs in the United Kingdom are already advertised as non smoking jobs what is more important than the right to gainful employment?

I think the opening paragraph covers this nicely.

The law does not allow smokers pamphlets or advertising literature, how can you burn what is not published?

Well when Anti smokers call smoker murderers, describe them as smelly, selfish any human being would consider that equal to treatment meted out to the Jews, Every advert produced is comparable to the anti Jewish propaganda published in the Deutsche Beobacher, the short adverts shown in cinemas to provoke more vitriol and hatred they too were shown under the guise of public information aka propaganda

Indeed smokers are herded into mini ghettos that are not fit to keep swine in! they smoke outside, come the good weather they will be hemmed in by both anti smokers who will wave their arms around make choking noises and object to smokers in a legitimate smoking area, and tolerant non smokers who will accept that smokers have to smoke somewhere this the somewhere they smoke!

Of course smokers are subject to travel restrictions, they are not allowed to smoke on transport of any description, ships, planes, trains, buses and taxis.

Konzentrationlagers? Well fancy that! You would of course support that wouldn’t you?
I
85

soapy1,

02/06/2009 23:20:40
Konzentrationlagers? Well fancy that! You would of course support that wouldn’t you?
I don’t think you’ll earn many brownie points speaking on behalf of concentration camps from Rollo given that you claim to represent him!

The day that looks like happening David I will take great pleasure in recalling the training paid for by the tax payer that the Armed Forces provided me with! I have no doubt that a significant number of like minded people will join me in that sentiment.
86

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 02/06/2009 23:20:54
#83, chas. winfield.
I feel no embarrassment in being a decent non-smoker.
Chas. feel like answering any of the many questions put to him?
87

english charlie,

03/06/2009 07:26:44
#David. A decent non-smoker wouldn't want to hit children who buy cigarettes.
88

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 03/06/2009 11:12:42
#87, cheerful charlie winfield.
I take no delight in hitting any one. Chas. is again disingenuously or witlessly misquoting people. Perhaps he missed out on a few beneficial spankings and clips round the ear in his childhood?
Chas. yet feel like answering any of the many questions put to him?
89

english charlie,

03/06/2009 12:05:54
David said 'Pity you can't just clip them round the ear these days without the risk of ending up in court'.
That is no longer a decent thing to do and what is more important is that it could do serious harm to a child's hearing.
90

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 03/06/2009 12:11:44
#84/85. Rainworth soapy.
It seems Rollo is right in that soapy has lost the plot, if not something more serious.
I don't wish to go through all of his laboured treatise, but as examples:-
Making gestures, if not menacing or indecent, while expressing an opinion is allowed in a democracy.
Armbands unnecessary. Foul breath, bad complexion and frequent coughing are clues.
The right to enjoy freedom from hunger and illness.
F2S has a website. If they've heard of desktop publishing, what's their problem? Lack of support and funds? No one will smash their John Bull printing set.
Smokers and their fumes are indeed smelly. Don't they realise?
Herded into ghettos? At gunpoint with no choice? Smokers don't become bacon butties.
Smokers are free to travel anywhere, just with the inconvenience of not being to light up as and when they would wish.
When and how have I claimed to represent Rollo?
Is soapy contemplating leading an armed uprising, just like Adolf Hitler and his mob? Will we see F2S members taking to the streets with pitchforks and clubs?
Alles klar, dann?
91

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 03/06/2009 12:16:08
#89, cheerful charlie.
What was that? Sorry, I'm having difficulty hearing the replies to all of my questions. Must get a bigger ear trumpet.
92

english charlie,

03/06/2009 12:39:59
#91.David. You are not funny. It is a serious matter hitting young children.
93

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 03/06/2009 13:18:38
#92, cheerful charlie.
To cheerful charlie whom, I must confess, I find awfully funny, I would suggest not doing it, then.
94

soapy1,

03/06/2009 15:14:51
You really do consider 6,000,000 jews as bacon butties don't you?

Truly you out Nazi the Nazis, My god I have really heard it all, now this is the mentality of the anti smoker how could any decent human being ever support anything you say?

It is an absolute outrage! That you disrespect the memory of all who died in the camps!

That you on behalf of ASH and the anti smoking movement in toto denigrate every man woman and child killed in WWII just to villify one smoker! You and Rollo so clearly a team have the unmittigated nerve to claim you represent the majority in the United Kingdom.

I do not believe that you do, I do not believe the people of the United Kingdom would put up their names with any organisation or person(s)that promote comments like: "Don't they realise?
Herded into ghettos? At gunpoint with no choice? Smokers don't become bacon butties."

That one quote sums up ASH, The anti smoking movement and all who support it!
95

MRab2,

03/06/2009 16:05:21
#90 "Smokers are free to travel anywhere, just with the inconvenience of not being to light up as and when they would wish."

Isn't funny the reverse argument never seems to hold any water. No, no, non-smokers were FORCED to inhale other people's smoke, people are FORCED to work in these places, people were FORCED to wash their clothes (??!!??) etc, etc, blah, blah.

Well David, in order to spare you the inconvenience of smelling something you don't like when you're nursing your half a shandy, many thousands of people are being inconvenienced right into unemployment and bankruptcy.

Who would have thought your nose was so damned important.
96

english charlie,

03/06/2009 18:19:27
Pinocchio has a very delicate nose and as it gets longer, it gets more delicate.
97

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 03/06/2009 19:08:02
#94, Rainworth soapy.
Soapy, as ever, so predictably misses the point and loses the plot.
My allusion to bacon butties was simply in reply to his "not fit to keep swine in" remark at #84. Would soapy be happier to be "herded into" a pig pen, with better coverage ( i.e. more than 50% enclosure, as his chum charlie is always keen to point out), or would he rather tolerate the provision made for smokers, and not risk becoming a bacon buttie?
In case soapy still can't see the wood for the trees, bacon and pork come from pigs, not from humans.
I note that, in his vituperative outburst, he has failed to contest most of the points raised in my #90.
As an aside, I've no connection whatsoever with ASH.
Is soapy's confused mind any clearer yet?
98

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 03/06/2009 19:31:54
#95, MRab2.
As some one on a previous thread once put it, "if you can smell it, then you're inhaling it". Personally, I'd rather not, but Rab is free to choose to do so as he wishes, whether or not he gives a monkey's toenails about the effect on my nostrils.
It may have escaped Rab's notice that thousands of people have lost, or are losing, their jobs because of a lack of demand for buying and selling houses, the wonder of Woolies, or world wide excess capacity in the car industry.
99

soapy1,

03/06/2009 19:36:00
As everyone knows Jews will not touch pork, it is an unclean animal to them as it is to muslims too you are of aware of that if not then you clearly should keep away from this this type of debate! Given his clear support for Nazi doctrine it is a fair conclusion to make that this is exactly what he meant. I have no connection with F2S, in fact as far as I know no such organisation exists but you continue to allude the same. So with your Nazi viewpoint and your penchant for inventing phantom organisations to attach people to who on earth will find you creditable aside from Nazis Ashites and the anti smoking lobby in general?

My comparisons are made on current and historical fact. none of comments can ever alter that and adding other "ism's" to your ever growing list will mere,y hasten the final end of your lost cause!
100

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 03/06/2009 19:39:38
#96, cheerful charlie.
Wooden noses aren't usually very sensitive, but as chas. is obviously into fairy stories, perhaps he'd care to enlighten us as to the wonderful success enjoyed by F2S and his chums, though I tend to compare him to Peter Pan, the little boy who never grew up.
Chas. still struggling to come up with replies to all my unanswered questions? Surely he can think of something to say? Anything, at all?
101

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 03/06/2009 19:55:43
#99, soapy from Rainworth.
I explained my "bacon butties" comment. If soapy chooses to digress to religious connotations, that is solely a matter of his misinterpretation.
Where did I say soapy was part of F2S?
He is welcome to label me as a Nazi, ASHite, anti-smoker, or any other tag he chooses, but let him justify his claims.
To which "isms" does he allude?
I have no lost cause, but would suggest that the pro-smoker lobby are is on a hiding to nothing in their futile uphill trek, pushing peas with their noses, delicate or otherwise.
102

english charlie,

03/06/2009 20:00:15
#100. David is just a poor lonely little boy in Pleasantville. You go on about answering questions from days ago, yet doesn't answer all the questions posed to him. David you must really learn to grow up.
103

soapy1,

03/06/2009 21:18:25
Indeed you did David and very lame it ws too, the thing is F2S does not exist which was the point I made!

If you are proud to be a Nazi then good for you, you support ASH's policies ergo thou art an ASHite!

Your cause is most certainly lost. Denyalism (oops another 'ism') will not change that, as for noses it was I believe yours that was under discussion and certainly not by me!
104

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 03/06/2009 22:41:29
#102, cheerful charlie.
If chas. would take the trouble to go through my postings on this and other threads, he will find that I normally try to answer direct questions put by other correspondents. Whether they appreciate my answers is perhaps a different matter.
Chas., on the other hand, like so many of the pro-smokers, tends to ignore questions he's not comfortable with.
If he feels I keep asking the same questions from "days ago", perhaps his solution was to attempt to answer them first time round.
105

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 03/06/2009 23:09:48
#103, soapy.
I've explained my bacon butties allusion. If soapy can't understand or accept my explanation, might I point out that Jews in pre-war Germany were never eaten, so any attempt to make a correlation with bacon butties is more than a little disingenuous.
I've explained elsewhere that I feel that my F2S label is much more realistic than their alleged claim to be a body representing choice.
Again, he wrongly claims that I am a Nazi or a supporter of ASH.
If it's my cause that is lost, when is the Health Act, 2006 being annulled or rescinded?
Is denyalism, or even denialism, a real word? Perhaps the state of being in denial that smokers practise woud be more grammatically correct.
The pea pushing noses allusion was a metaphor to indicate the self flagellation that pro-smokers indulge in. A similar comparison would be bashing one's head against a brick wall.
106

english charlie,

04/06/2009 10:57:37
#104.David. When you are asked an uncomfortable question, you quite often evade the question by saying that others don't answer yours. How childish.
107

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 04/06/2009 11:18:55
#106, cheerful charlie.
Examples, please, to substantiate the claim. While chas. is searching diligently, perhaps he could scratch his head and make some attempt to come up with answers to all my questions of "days ago".
Oh, and if he consults the "MSP disputes" thread, he'll find my explanation of fraud. This should give him pointers about how to respond to correspondents' questions. His call, I believe.
108

english charlie,

04/06/2009 12:35:54
I prefer the real definition of fraud and not your 'explanation'.
Chambers dictionary defines fraud as 'deceit; imposture; criminal deception done to gain advantage'. This covers using fake ID.

109

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 04/06/2009 19:44:15
#108, cheerful charlie.
Chas. is welcome to prefer whatever definition he chooses, but I gave him a cogent explanation on the other thread.
As usual, he has blithely ignored my other points at #107, or will I find replies on the "MSP disputes" thread, as chas. can't seem to decide which thread he's in?
110

english charlie,

04/06/2009 20:50:40
David says 'if he consults the "MSP disputes" thread, he'll find my explanation of fraud'. David 'can't seem to decide which thread he's in'.
111

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 04/06/2009 22:13:28
#110, cheerful charlie.
Chas. will find upon inspection that it was his hon. treasurer at #60, in the "MSP disputes" thread, who first suggested "That can amount to fraud." The question of possible fraud was then discussed at some length in that thread.
Subsequently, out of the blue, at #80 in this thread, chas. throws in "Have you learnt to definition of 'fraud' yet?"
I assume he meant "the definition of fraud", but notwithstanding his grammatical faux pas,I answered him at #82, so who's a confused boy then?.
Just to assist him, he's in the "Thousands of Scots commit to giving up smoking" thread, if that helps. Still no answers yet to questions on either thread, though, or is he just not keeping up to speed?
112

english charlie,

04/06/2009 23:05:52
David. If you have comments to make on another tread, then put them there. We have moved on.
113

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 05/06/2009 12:19:29
#112, cheerful charlie.
But I did. It was chas. who chose to flip threads,( or did he just flip? ), as I explained at #111.
Chas.' "We have moved on.", sounds like a euphemistic way of saying "Don't want to talk about it anymore".
Still no answers? Ah well, I hadn't been raising my hopes too high.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.