Swarming - new web menace

Buzz off ?

Until a better word comes along, I’m calling it swarming. In the past two weeks three mentions of the smoking ban on this site has provoked the swarming.

Nearly 700 hundreds comments were recorded and the site had 10,000 hits in a week. Two other swarms that have also arrived recently have come from Christian Fundamentalists and Global warming deniers.

A Queen Bee may lead the swarms or they could arise spontaneously from supportive blogs.  Either way they present a conundrum for blogging politicians. Ignore them or spend an inordinate amount of time answering them. Many of 400 comments that arrived in answer to the posting ‘Anatomy of a Myth; were detailed and technical. They all demanded answers.  Failure to produce replies will lead to accusations that the arguments are not being answered. I posted a 1,000-word riposte to those who oppose the smoking ban. It did little but provoke more comments.

Luckily a small group of well-informed and impassioned correspondents valiantly battled against the smokers. The debate was generally very enlightening. It's  significant that none of my constituents has ever raised this issue with me.

Swarmers have all the characteristics of member of cults - an exaggerated view of the importance of their issue, a reluctance to challenge their own prejudices, a mistaken sense of victimhood and a fanatic's lack of proportion and common-sense. The anti-smoking ban lobby amassed a mere 0.38 of the vote in the recent Glasgow by-election.

The lobby against Jerry Springer –the Opera claimed to have sent 50,000 complaints to MPs and the BBC.  In my case it was one complaint sent thousands of times.  List of members of chapels and churches were used to top and tail identical e-mails. That is futile.

I am very happy to continue to offer a platform for intelligent debate. But I may not be quite so welcoming next time I hear the sound of buzzing.

Legislative constipation

There is a third way out of the Assembly versus Parliament spat.

Alun Michael may be correct and the treatment of Elcos is going well and it was the media who found one negative thorn in a bed of flowers. Dafydd  El may be justified in lambasting some MPs as being hostile to devolution. Who knows?

I have a helpful suggestion. If the Welsh Affairs Select Committee find the additional work too much for them, there are alternatives. This is a new process and new thinking might help. The Welsh Select has a very limited membership and minority parties are over-represented. One Tory takes a place but rarely attends.

The Select Committee wanted this work. It could have been taken on by bodies that represent all Welsh MPs. One is the Welsh Grand Committee that exists now only as a debating soundbox. The historic but dormant Welsh Parliamentary Party could be exhumed.  It’s been in business for 125 years and was last used when the Tories wanted to get parliamentary approval to hold the Welsh Grand outside of London.

These suggestions were made before the Select Committee shouldered this burden.  If it is too much for them, other Welsh MPs would be delighted to take on the job in a forum which was open to all of us.

That would be more democratic and provide lubrication for the progress of Elcos and the advance of devolution.

Comments

[timbone]

I have to say that I found this 'swarming' blog very interesting, and I can see the point you are making. Some years ago, I was a totally born again pentecostal, and yes, I did share "an exaggerated view of the importance of their issue, a reluctance to challenge their own prejudices, a mistaken sense of victimhood and a fanatic's lack of proportion and common-sense."
I hope I am allowed to say without being given cult status, that the above quotation from your blog could be applied to Action on Smoking and Health, which is what has made me react. I have a realistic view, a willingness to listen to every point , look at evidence, be without prejudice, try not to get angry when I feel victimised, not be fanatical, have a sense of proportion and common sense.

[spaghetti skin]

Mr Flynn, re your comments on 'swarming'. A very inventive term, it may catch on over a period of time. Correct me if I am wrong but I think that I can safely assume that you refer to the number of negative comments someone receives when they say or write something which is either unpopular, foolish, untrue or downright bullying. I have no alliance with any pro smoking/gambling/drug taking organisation but I can see why groups of people who feel oppressed would swarm their oppressors, especially when the oppressors are paid enormous salaries and expenses by those who feel oppressed and victimised. I feel sure that the victims of dictators in the past (just use your knowledge of history) would have 'swarmed' had they had access to an internet blog site. I feel sure that your 'swarmers' have a genuine grievance when democracy becomes undemocratic, when voting for a politician means giving up the right to have a say in the way they live and when those paid politicians become self opinionated, arrogant self righteous bigots who think they and only they are right. Now I accept that you may or may not see yourself as one of these politicians, I do not know you or anything about you other than what I have read on your blog (some good things, some bad things). I do however know this. If You cannot stand the heat, don't face the fire.

[paulflynn]

The swarm refers to the volume of the comments rather than the sting, Tinborne. It is not possible to deal adequately with hundreds of inquirers simultaneously. Many of the contributions in the recent thread were highly intelligent. Some even had a sense of humour.

I certainly do not share your sour view of politicians, Spaghetti Skin. It is one of the myths of modern Britain that politicians in the UK are some form of tyranny. For example, the media present motorists as an oppressed minority. In reality they are a privileged majority. the pay of MPs has not progressed at the rate of inflation or with comparable MP salaries elsewhere, but no-one would believe this because of the conventional mythology.

As the only Welsh Labour MP who blogs, I cannot possibly deal adequately with responses if they are on the scale of the anti-smoking ban lobby.

[spaghetti skin]

Mr Flynn, I am very confident that my opinion of MP's is no myth as I believe nu labour will find out in the next general election. I'm also sure that the next lot will be just as nearsighted, full of their own bull and just as self important. The whole point of my first comment was to put you on the defensive and you did not fail to please. That is the problem with MP's, they just are not in touch with the general public. They think we deserve them. They think we should all be grateful for being taxed into poverty while they ride the gravy train.
Motorists are most certainly not a priveliged majority, they are a hugely overtaxed majority and as for MP's pay, the issue is not what MP's get elsewhere, it is the enormity of what they get here compared to the minimum wage and the single persons job seekers allowance. Real people Mr Flynn or are they so far down the pecking order that you ignore them completely.
If you think I am wrong, (and get help from other MP's if need be) ask them properly what they think, don't kid them with clever rhetoric and crafty questions. If you care what your serfs think, let them tell you but this time listen. I promise you will not like the answers but it may give you an edge over the rest of those pompous conceited persons in waiting. The working class are furious with this government, they are subjected to victimisation, derision and downright bullying from HMG down to local level. Cant smoke, can't park, can't get their rubbish shifted, can't live without the oppression of authority. Yes we need laws but these should be laws which are justifiable and allow the freedom to live without fear. Fear from our Ivory towers are the worst kind of fear. The British Government is fast becoming the Taliban of the west and sooner or later the price will have to be paid. The British people are not good at being enslaved. Be Warned Mr Flynn, Be Warned. I shall also consider sending a copy of this post to all of my local MP's to see if they also react the way that you do. Thank you.

[paulflynn]

Spaghetti skin, your contribution is typical of the lines taken by the Mail and Telegraph. They have a political agenda, that's obvious. Governments have a diminishing shelf life and have to take the blame for all that goes wrong and get no credit for what goes well.

I would be interested in the reaction of your local MPs. You give no example of Taliban tactics. Parking problems are the result of increased vehicle use, smoking restrictions for the health and comfort of the majority, green refuse measures for better recycling. To compare these measures with the Taliban is ridiculous. You have fallen for a demonisation of politicians that is a current fashion.

I am looking forward with relish to the next General Election when I shall debate the issues with enthusiasm and confidence. Bring it on..

[patrick]

spaghetti skin
Having read your last Two 'Daily Mailesque' rants it's clear that you believe this country is in dire sraights.
As people "can't live without the oppression of authorities" and your views are so popular, have you considered standing at the next election yourself?
You would then (if selected and of course elected) be able to sort out all of your issues.

[andy]

"smoking restrictions for the health and comfort of the majority"

Says it all to me.

Smokers still make up a quarter of the population. Should they be demonised and ostracised to the cold just to comply with the lifestyles of the majority?

Its this sort of callous comment that backs up what Spaghetti Skin was taliking about.

The comment about the next election demonstrates the arrogance he alluded to.
I agree though, bring it on. It will be the death-knell of Nu-Labour, whether you scrape through yourself or not.

I come from a socialist background, and was taught values such as compassion and equality. Nu-Labour apparently means new values- Disdain, disrespect, and discomfort for those who dont comply with their model.

Keir Hardie and the like must be turning in their graves.

[PaulFlynn]

That's a witless rant Andy.

This site has its standards. You fall below them. I will leave your weak arguments on the site to reinforce the point that the case against the ban has no substance.

All you said has been answered dozens of time on the threads. This is tedious repetition.

Unless you can do better, I will not be so generous next time

[patrick]

andy
As we go around in circles
"Smokers still make up a quarter of the population. Should they be demonised and ostracised to the cold just to comply with the lifestyles of the majority"?

No answers on a postcard needed

SEVENTY-SEVEN per cent say YES!

[patrick]

spaghetti skin
Swarming means a large volume of people with a common political objective all descending to the same place.
It does not mean you and a few friends but hopefully they (your friends)will post in future to save us from further flustered, infantile , rhetoric!

[timbone]

Thank you for your reply Paul. I notice that you say you are the only Welsh Labour MP who blogs. I think if every Labour MP in the UK was to blog, and said anything about the smoking ban, they too would be 'swarmed', as Kerry McCarthy found out in Bristol East, I believe she was initially shocked at the response. Of course Paul, you and Kerry are very rare, using the internet, possibly the centre of communication and fact finding in the 21st century.
Why does mention of the smoking ban have the effect of bees to the honeypot I wonder. Except for a few exceptions, the media only says that the smoking ban has been a success. There are many many ordinary people who do not see this in their local community. Many of these have written to MPs, the press, organisations like ASH, the Health Department and so on, and either been ignored or received a standard reply. They want to tell someone like you how they feel, things they have found out about second hand smoke which it was supposedly based on, ask why the ban was so severe, why couldn't they have a smoking room in the pub, many of which have now had to close through loss of trade.
Here is the opening to an article I wrote in May:
I have been reading a document entitled “Comprehensive Smokefree legislation in England: How advocacy won the day” by Deborah Arnott and Amanda Sandford of ASH, Martin Dockrell of Asthma UK and Ian Willmore of Friends of the Earth. Their opening paragraph states, and I quote, “To examine how a Government committed to a voluntary approach was forced to introduce comprehensive smokefree legislation”
A voluntary approach Paul, which was slowly but surely getting there. With the exception of the hospitality trade, just about every other indoor public place, and the vast majority of places of work, already had a strict no smoking policy, which was respected. Many people, including tolerant non smokers, were shocked when they saw big signs on places where people had not smoked for years, decades, even centuries, telling them that it was now against the law and they could be fined. Places of hospitality were also introducing non smoking policies. Many restaurants and cafes were already non smoking throughout. Nearly all clubs, and pubs if they had more than one room, has designated areas. Many had already installed improved ventilation of the standard you would find in an operating theatre.
I had a lot of time for John Reid, he told the truth, which I suspect is why he was moved from being Minister of Health. One of the things he said was that the anti smoking lobby were obsessed middle class learned people. I understand that even after his move to the Ministry of Defense, he presented several private member bills stating that the Labour Party should not break their Manifesto committment to a partial smoking ban.
The swarms of people who respond to blogs like yours and Kerrys are active internet users, but there are many more out there. I know that possibly you and others on here will disagree with me, but I am convinced that the devastating blow your party has received in local and bi elections is mainly down to the smoking ban, there are always bound to be other issues, but I honestly believe that all those people who want to make their feelings known are doing it at the ballot box, and the smoking ban comes out at no.1.
Let me close with something else I noticed in your blog Paul. You mentioned Christian Fundamentalists. For several months now I have been planning an article about what I have come to call the 'Church of Smokefree'. As I said in my original reply, many years ago I spent several years as a born again pentecotal. I have noticed many similarities between fundamentalists and the anti smoking lobby.

[PaulFlynn]

That's Fine, Timbone. I mentioned that other groups have been swarming. They are mostly religious fundamentalists and others with views that challenge accepted convictions such as global warming.

My conviction is that the smoking has little if any influence on the Government's present problems. It's 90% the economy, as was our success. Hardly anyone reads party manifestos - that includes Tory cabinet minister Alan Clarke who said he had never read one in his life.

The ban was passed by a free votes of all MPs by a majority of 200. If it was being decided today, I am sure the majority will be nearer 300.

It would be a foolhardy MP who voted to put the stink back into pubs. That's before the health consideration on which your group is in a small minority.

On the subject of John Reid he said in 2006 as Defence Minister that he hoped the Helmand incursion would be over in three years without a shot being fired. The only n two British soldiers had died in Combat. I was the only MP to make a speech opposing the incursion. Now 4 million shots have been fired, 116 British soldiers have been killed and the conflict is forecast to last for at least 38 years. He was wrong on the ban and on Helmand.

[Bzzzle Brown]

Bzzzzz....

[paulflynn]

Your meaning is not clear Martin Hensman.

Do you deny that FOREST is financed almost entirely by Big Tobacco?

Do you deny that F2C acknowledged their debts for help from FOREST?

If your answers are No, then F2c is dependent on FOREST and through FOREST on money from Big Tobacco. Q.E.D.

[Johnny Boy]

Paul,

You say "The anti-smoking ban lobby amassed a mere 0.38 of the vote in the recent Glasgow by-election". On that percentage, CO2 which is 0.038% of Earths atmosphere (1/10th the smokers vote) also has no influence on climate change right?

We know climate change is a hoax. We also know your chances at next election are like flogging a dead horse.

And we also know 10-12m smokers will be voting Tory because they've got a a Freedom Act which is a stark contrast to Labours 1,600 laws per year to micro-manage Comrade Citizens into your Big Bro lifestyle.

Socialist control of peoples lives and consumer markets failed miserably in the 80's and is being rejected overwhelmingly again in 2008. You've hidden it behind a cloak but the countries now cottoned on. Your numbers up - for another 15-20 years.

Socialism and smoking bans RIP.

[Johnny Boy]

Mr Flynn,

If you're so confident of the anti-smoking sentiment why don't you put it to a national vote?

Can we have you on record as supporting a national vote on continuing the smoking ban or passing the power to landlords to decide for themselves?

You talk big about democracy and passing the power down to regions/people but Labours record is riddled with central State control. Put your principles where your mouth is and state on the record you support giving the public a vote on the smoking ban.

[Steve]

Paul ,

I just came across your comments regarding the ‘swarm effect’ of the pro-libertarian groups on your web site and thought that I needed to comment. Apologies in advance for the length of this comment, but I considered it necessary;

Why Paul, do you think that any story concerning the smoking ban is subjected to copious amounts of derision and criticism from many members of the public and pro-freedom groups, more so than almost any other subject? Could it be that there really is widespread dissatisfaction and resistance to the smoking ban? Could it be that there is frustration and anger at government interference into people’s private lives, where our ‘public servants’ feel it necessary to impose their will on a substantial minority in pursuit of an unattainable ‘smoke free’ panacea, or ‘public health’ nirvana?

Your word; ‘swarming’, is actually very appropriate under the circumstances. When you disturb a hornets’ nest you can expect to be subjected to attack by those hornets swarming in defence of their community. The attack on smokers and those who believe in freedom of thought and choice is no different, you can expect an attack when you threaten, exclude and degrade them. It has happened many times in history; Black America comes immediately to mind, Toxteth in Liverpool, apartheid in South Africa, China and Burma. You will no doubt try to discredit and deny any such association saying that the comparison is a total non-entity, but you would be wrong! The comparison may be extreme but none the less relevant – the difference is only in degree. What comment would you expect from say Robert Mugabwe or Hu Jintao if you accused them of civil rights abuse?

It is also very ironic that you use the word ‘swarming’ as it is now very clear that you and your right honorable colleagues have been subjected to a similar type of lobbying previously, whether you were aware of it or not. This lobbying was much better funded however, and with hindsight it is obvious that the information given to you was flawed and subjected to ‘spin’. You meekly bowed down to that ‘swarming’ on this very subject of smoking regulation!

I refer of course to the tactics of the anti-tobacco movement such as the WHO, ASH and CRUK. It is not a secret how ASH used the tactic of ‘swarming’ in the run up to the ‘free’ vote on the smoking ban; in fact it is something that these organisations are very proud of;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jul/19/health.healthandwellbeing

I will highlight only three of several relevant quotes from that interview;

‘They ran their own effective campaigns, but remained committed to an agreed strategy originally drafted by Ash. Networks of campaigners can be provided with key resources and a sense of direction without ever being told what to do. It's called the "swarm effect".

’ Campaigning of this kind is literally a confidence trick: the appearance of confidence both creates confidence and demoralises the opposition. The week before the free vote we made sure the government got the message that we "knew" we were going to win and it would be better for them to be on the winning side.’

‘Every part of the subsequent ministerial row became public knowledge - provoked, in part, by Ash's well-informed political briefings. These divisions helped the coalition persuade the Conservatives to allow a free vote on the issue, a vital step to forcing the government down the same path.’

Note the terminology; ‘Confidence trick’; forcing the government’; ‘swarm effect’; ‘Ash’s well-informed political briefings’.

Deborah Arnott, of the anti-smoking charity Action on Smoking and Health (Ash), said the scientific evidence on the harmful nature of secondhand smoke was "overwhelming".
“The aims of the legislation are crystal clear: to improve public health by minimising people's exposure to a major carcinogen”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5053350.stm
Even then (2006) ASH’s claims were being questioned, but they took advantage of a fragmented and poorly informed opposition. It is now beyond doubt to anyone but the most blinkered that ‘tobacco control’ claims on the harm of passive smoking are erroneous, but still these claims are repeated almost daily without any challenge by those in power. Why, when thirty minutes research on the internet would produce sufficient evidence to persuade a high court judge or anyone else that looks and is prepared to ‘see’? There is legal precedent on that too, in EU law; [Labate v EU commission, 2007]

I do not know what ASH’s ‘well informed’ political briefings consisted of but if their public claims using ‘tobacco control’ figures are representative then the government will not have received the full facts. ‘Tobacco control’ figures, statistics and claims have been found almost invariably to be misrepresented, misinformed, exaggerated or played down. Ash’s term of ‘confidence trick’ is very relevant here, hence the wild and erroneous claims of how successful the ban has subsequently been, how little damage has been caused to culture, society, the economy and Britain itself.

I cannot say whether you considered your word ‘swarming’ to be original, but clearly it is not. What concerns me is the willingness of the government to go along with what I and many others consider to be the greatest deception in modern history.
In light of the above, and bearing in mind that the justification to implement a smoking ban was specifically ‘to protect workers from the harmful effects of second hand smoke’, there are only two main conclusions that can be made;
1) The British government was/is complicit in the deception
2) The British government was deceived along with much of the public
From the governments point of view neither is a good option, but at some time in the future it may have to decide which ‘least worst’ option it chooses, as pro-freedom groups are becoming stronger, more informed and more able to challenge the governments decisions and the reasons behind those decisions. They will not go away, despite what ASH et al may have you believe!
In relation to ‘1’, there is some evidence that concurs with that statement and I refer you to this source;
House of Lords, Select Committee on Econonomic Affairs, fifth report (2006); http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/183/18309.htm#a16
78. ‘Given the evidence about the impact of passive smoking, we are concerned that the decision to ban smoking in public places may represent a disproportionate response to a relatively minor health concern. It may be that the unstated objective of policy is to encourage a reduction in active smoking by indirect means. This may well be a desirable policy objective, but if it is the objective, it should have been clearly stated.’
84. ‘… greater attention should have been given to available scientific evidence, the relative merits of alternative policy options and the impact of legislation on personal freedom and choice’

John Stewart Mill (1859) commenting on freedom, argues that;
“Freedom is being endangered by the power of public opinion. Society has a right to make laws for that part of one's conduct which may damage the interests of others, but in the private sphere the question of whether to regulate is an improper one.”
The law relating to the smoking ban is clearly contrary to that commonly accepted definition and freedom is being threatened!.

Of course to comply with Human Rights legislation, the ‘passive smoking kills’ statement is paramount, it is the part that ‘may damage the interests of others’. Human Rights should mean that people across society are treated with respect for their human rights, promoting values such as dignity, fairness, equality and respect. - If it is accepted that passive smoking is harmless then all of these values are denied to smokers by virtue of the draconian measures implicit in the legislation. The law is neither necessary nor proportionate, and it breaches basic human rights. One can understand, but not condone, why the same misinformation on this key point continues to be repeated over and again.

While it is easy to accept that a minority pressure group such as ASH could be capable of deceit I find it difficult to accept that our elected representatives would willingly enter that dark pit to promote a personal or collective agenda, directed by a minority group. I must therefore believe that conclusion ‘2’ is the only explanation. Having said that, surely by now most MP’s should be aware of the deception to which they have fallen victim. It will no doubt be hard to admit this state of affairs but the longer the deception is sustained the more damage will be caused to democracy, trust in parliament and the law, and the more the likelihood that conclusion ‘1’ will be considered viable.
.
Up until the smoking ban was implemented there was little resistance to ‘tobacco control’, most accepted whatever they alleged, as true. I include myself and several others I know in that category. Times are changing; more people are becoming more aware, not just on the fallacious claims on passive smoking but also historical claims on primary smoking are now being revisited. Questions are now being asked of the impartiality of Dr Sir Richard Doll, the father of the anti-smoking movement, since certain information has come to light after his death in 2005. Questions are now being asked about the real causes of cancer apart from those deemed ‘smoke related’ and why they have not been given the significance they should. Questions are being asked about the very basis of British democracy and constitution that the smoking ban has brought to the fore. Questions that will, eventually, demand an answer.

So, My Flynn where do you sit in these matters; are you deceiver or deceived? have you been complicit or conned? are you for the people or the corporations who benefit from the deception? Do you perpetuate the falsehoods’ or promote the truth? Do you believe in freedom or oppression?

There is no ‘Nu-Labour third way’ on this subject, not now!

[paulflynn]

Steve, this so called freedom movement is forced artificial victimhood To call the ban 'oppression' is ludicrous. It was the decision on a free vote by elected parliamentarians by a majority of 200.

Please read the other threads. Where is the evidence of mass dis-content? 0.38% of the vote in a by-election? Not one of my constituents complaining?

There are a great many issues of injustice, waste and atrocious decison that should be challenged. The Helmand incursion, the war on drugs, the greed of Big Pharma, etc.etc. Trawl through the site and you will find them.

Your letter is an attempt to count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin - self-indugent posturing and ultimately futile.

Why not find a real injustice and campaign against that?

[Johnny Boy]

Paul,

Once again I ask will you put on record you support a public vote on conitinuing the ban?

You say no no constituents are banging on your door. Truth is nobody is banging on your door about your other favourite pet topics of incursions in Timbuktu either.

Your claim it was a "free vote". But you ignore Labour conducted it by renaging on their manifesto pledge which is anti-democratic (you had no public mandate) and renaged on Labours pledge.

Labour then went against public opinion, 70% of whom were against an all-out ban a further contempt for democracy.

And after you voted it through your disjointed government removed the survey question option allowing the public to support a partial voluntary ban - yet more contempt for democracy and trying to snuff out peoples views.

This Labour CV showing contempt for the public (democracy) and your voters (cough*EEC*splutter) is why Labour MP's assurances "we've got to listen" (my aren't you a prime example?!) are falling on deaf ears nationwide.

It gets worse too. I've been writing to the 'consultation' on yet further anti-democratic proposals by the minority extremists that have perverted and corrupted Westminster and drive the anti-smoking proposals. This time white boxed ciggy packs and controls on ciggy machines etc etc.

These policies are made in the shadows, are not driven by the public, do not have public support (certainly not amoung 10m smokers) and show typical Socialist Politburo mangling of a consumer product. The entire movement is pushed through an anti-democratic fast track and shows complete contempt for democracy (ie. you have no public support for these Socialist Big Bro State proposals). Put these proposals to the vote - you know exactly where you'd be told to get off.

So put on record your support for a public vote (remember democracy?) giving the public the choice to pass power to landlords or continue to support the ban. Your so convinced there's no support, what have you to fear, the voice of the public?

Every day that passes another pub shuts down (10% wiped off Scottish Pub No's already and England close to that too). You are responsible for this State vandalism. Nothing ever good comes from minority extremist groups that drive your (anti) public policy. You've even plans to snuff out all opposition groups during consultations - you're record of contempt for democracy and peoples views is appalling!

[paulflynn]

Jonny Boy, I did not answer your question because it is an example of schoolboy politics.

This is not Switzerland. We have representative democracy. If you are unhappy how your MP votes you can vote for someone else. You may find it difficult to find one who agrees with you. But that is the system. Why not stand yourself?

See previous answers about democracy.

[patrick]

Johnny Boy
Another smoke ban financial loser?

77% OF THE PUBLIC AGREE WITH THE BAN!

If you dispute this and even have half of the support you think you have then i repeat from an earlier thread-

Form a Pro smoking party and fight the election.

[Steve]

Evidence of dissatisfaction at the ban! – are you joking!
I’ll quote you regarding smoking issues on your site ;
“Nearly 700 hundreds comments were recorded and the site had 10,000 hits in a week.” Is that just a coincidence?
Have you not picked up a newspaper over the last 12 months? Just about every story relating to the smoking ban usually has more comments than any other subject. Have you not heard about the yobs who pushed a woman onto railway tracks, the girls on the Greek plane that were ejected in Germany, the violence amongst smokers and non smokers. There is not a day goes past without another pub, club or bingo hall closing, Thousands of hospitality workers unemployed – Do you really think that all these are ‘satisfied’ with the ban. What about the war veteran or the old widow whose only social contact has been denied them. The psychiatric patients who are basically subjected to torture by the ‘caring’ medical profession? The infirm, ill and aged who must leave hospital grounds to have a cigarette – are they not dissatisfied’? I could go on!

You need to get out and speak to pub landlords etc and find out the truth instead of just pontificating about how everything is rosy in the garden and.. listening to ASH et al! Do you really know what is going on in your constituency or do you just expose yourself to those who agree with you? (no pun intended) Do you know how many have lost jobs in your area as a result of the smoking ban? (I am expecting your reply to be ‘none’ which would only confirm your ignorance of the consequences of the smoking ban)

Did you not see the Glasgow by-election – Labour were decimated and believe me that WAS due to dissatisfied voters and smokers who have been betrayed by nu Labour . Don’t stick your head in the sand and blame it on the ‘credit crunch’! How well did your candidate fare against David Davis, who stood on a ‘freedom’ ticket? Oh, I forgot, you tried to avoid embarrassment by not standing didn’t you!

The ‘free’ vote was an unforgivable breach of a manifesto pledge to the people of this country. That pledge was made by the Labour Party and broken by the Labour party. A substantial majority of the Labour party voted to break that pledge and won, despite the majority of Conservatives who voted against the ban. Do not hide behind the ‘Free’ vote! Your party was responsible for this ban – and the voters know that. The smoking ban was probably the biggest mistake that your government has made and set the tone for all other aspects of your recent term of office – now is the time to accept responsibility, grasp the nettle, take your medicine and PUT IT RIGHT.

Other injustices; yes, and other international injustices are important – but YOU need to get OUR house in order first! It’s funny that you should quote the greed of ‘Big Pharma’ as they have more than a passing interest in the smoking ban – It is one of their most profitable gravy trains to date!! Big Pharma have control or influence in just about all research into tobacco issues – they are controlling the agenda in conjunction with ‘tobacco control’ organisations, don’t you realise that?

I DO consider this issue to be real injustice, I don’t like the fact that You and your colleagues are being manipulated by minority interests and minority pressure groups, I do not like to see our MP’s have the Mickey taken out of them by those pressure groups. I am embarrassed for you! I am fearful of the way this country is literally going to the dogs.

Can you now answer the questions posed in my previous comment that you so carefully sidestepped, choosing to cynically attack instead. Have you been complicit in the ‘tobacco control’ deception or are you and your colleagues’ victims of their deception? Do you intend to perpetuate that deception or not? What are your views on ASH's 'swarming' tactics, are they self indulgent? Is their 'swarming' more acceptable the reason why they ultimately conned the government to do as they 'forced' you to do?

[paulflynn]

Steve this is wishful thinking. Did yu read the parties' manifestos before the election???? Not one voter in a thousand did. The vote was a free vote. Can you name one MP who has changed his/her mind on this?
I would warmly welcome an un-ban smoking candidate at the next election. Labour's unpopularity is not influenced by it.
IT IS A POPULAR AND SUCCESSFUL MEASURE. I REPEAT THIS SUMMARY OF THE THREAD

Smoker’s Lament

My cancer-stick, I love and hate
Both to and fro I cogitate,
Without a drag, I fret and rage,
But death will call at early age

With guilt and blush, I suck the weed
Deep, deep inside, the endless need,
If only I could force the will
My cup of joy would soon fill

Smokers bear the mark of Cain,
Spurned and exiled to the rain,
Huddled addicts plot and curse
Told to FO in language terse

Rage, rage, nothing to lose
We'll invent Freedom to Choose,
We’ll plot to end the foul ban
And plague MPs, all we can

MPs, firm in word and brain,
Tell smokers to desert the rain,
'Desist from annoying folks
Try a taste of smokeless tokes'

The group-grope squalor of F2C
Revels in fact-free fantasy
The weed that calms and satisfies
Hastens the day of last goodbyes

F2C rage and fume
Bay their anger at the moon,
'Stay quiet in your smoke-fouled den
Come back and moan in 2010'

[patrick]

Steve
talking of 'getting out to see what's going on'
why not pop out and have a chat with your local Gp and ask his/her professional opinion? You could even venture to your local Hospital maybe chat to some of the nurses on the cancer wards.Failing that talk to the countless people at deaths door
whos one life regret is not giving up when younger.
Here's to good health - Give up!

[Steve]

Paul. You still have not answered any of my questions? Why prevaricate? Because you know you cannot defend the indefensible, so rather than trying, you avoid the questions altogether?

As far as the popularity and success of the ban is concerned, you have allowed your personal dislike of the activity to cloud your impartial political judgment and you have allowed ‘tobacco control’ to condition your mind as a result! I notice that your follower, Patrick, has quoted the old ‘70% want a ban’ statistic, but you and I both know that this is just more manipulation. All statistics produced by the ONS prior to the ban show that roughly the same percentage did NOT want a ban, most were happy with certain restrictions. The pro- banners were, I think around 13%! This is NOT what I would call ‘popular’ – The ‘success’ bit is a manufactured, blatant and shameful manipulation of statistics and this goes someway towards the notion of complicity in the deception by official sources. I have not seen a recent survey on smoking issues that is not full of loaded questions, often framed using blatant psychological suggestion and framed in such a manner so as to provide the ‘right’ result. If the ‘right’ result is not forthcoming, it is filed and another takes its place!

I noticed today that you have been quoted in the Guardian about the power and corruption of Big Pharma. I totally agree with what you said but for the life of me I cannot understand that you should have such views, yet fail to see Big Pharma’s role in the smoking ban or why you consider that it is ‘different’ in some way! Big Pharma is a leading player in the tobacco control campaign it funds or partly funds just about every study and research project to do with tobacco. They are in bed with SCOTH, WHO, ASH, CRUK and probably most other ‘tobacco control’ organisations. The whole system is a bottomless pit of corruption and self interest; all it seems, in the pursuit of profit.

How do Big Pharma benefit from the ban?
Well it goes without saying that the trade in nicotine replacement therapy is worth billions but add to that, other spin off medication; Tranquilisers and similar; many smokers use tobacco as a prop for their depression- quids in ! Anti obesity drugs – It is a known fact that tobacco has a slimming effect and whilst it is not the only cause, it amounts to a substantial one in relation to the present ‘obesity epidemic’.

The really big one, I believe, is the potential profit in other nicotine drugs. We are only beginning to see that nicotine, the alleged nasty part of smoking, is in fact looking like it will become a wonder drug in the future. It is known to have a pretty good preventative effect on illnesses such as Parkinsons disease and Alzheimer’s (Tobacco control will deny this of course). Smoking apparently does have beneficial effects on the brain, but again this information is suppressed. Studies have actually shown that it is also the most effective treatment for antibiotic resistant tuberculosis!! Of course when you read about these studies, all seem to have a rider attached that says the beneficial effects of smoking are cancelled out by the adverse effects. Big Pharma want to maximise the profit from these advances in science so that rider is an obvious one. Can you imagine the profit that would accrue from a drug that makes you more intelligent and stops you contracting degenerative brain diseases? It makes NRT pale into insignificance!

Earlier, I mentioned Sir Richard Doll, the father of anti-smoking, it all started with him when he allegedly discovered the adverse effects of smoking, putting it into the field of science instead of the preaching of religious nuts and puritans. Did you know that he has been paid substantial money from big pharma and, importantly, asbestos companies.

Doll was the first to recognise the substantial link between asbestos and lung cancer in the 50’s, he made the scientific community stand up and take notice on that. Only a short time later he was pushing the ‘smoking causes cancer’ link and downgraded the relevance of asbestos, In fact, in the 80’s, he has been quoted as saying that asbestos represents little concern in relation to lung cancer. It turns out he has been on the payroll of Taylor and Newal, the asbestos producers, for years. Read into that what you will!

What about the means to enforce this legislation. Never in recent history have such punitive measures been needed to coerce a section of society to conform with a regulation that is purely because another section of society doesn’t like that particular activity, like your self! Pub landlords all but bankrupted because they failed to stop someone smoking in THEIR premises. Man fined for smoking in his own van on his day off because he uses it for work. It is almost a hanging offence to drop a cigarette end on the floor. I understand that in some countries you can be fined in your own car if you have children – the children don’t need to be in the car at the time! (Apparently, tobacco smoke will linger in the car for twenty five years and kill a child the instant it steps into it) I call that hysteria or mania. It is the result of mass conditioning on an unprecedented scale,( apart from probably 1930’s Germany)
Can you see where I am going with this? I could go on and on and on with reasons why you should be looking at the smoking debate from a different perspective, but it will just bore you.
.
One for Patrick;
Bearing in mind that there are allegedly 79000 people who will die from smoking in the EU every year, Can you name me ONE person (verifiable) who has died as a result of smoking! Produce ONE death certificate that says ‘death by smoking! Produce ONE legal case in UK that has found smoking or passive smoking to be the cause of anyones death? (acknowledgement to Dave Hitt for this one)
.
Seeing as you have a likeness for poetry I thought I would add a snippet of my favourite that is very relevant in this discussion:
.
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!
Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

[patrick]

Steve
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits.

[patrick]

To F2C
The nationwide smoking ban has triggered the biggest fall in smoking ever seen in England, a report says today.

More than two billion fewer cigarettes were smoked and 400,000 people quit the habit since the ban was introduced a year ago, which researchers say will prevent 40,000 deaths over the next 10 years.

Smoking was outlawed in all enclosed public spaces in England, including pubs and restaurants, on 1 July 2007 after a prolonged political battle that split the Government and inflamed critics of Britain as a nanny state.

But longer term opposition to the ban never materialised: more than three out of four people support the law, and compliance has been virtually 100 per cent.

Similar bans were introduced in Scotland on 26 March 2006 and in Wales on 2 April 2007. Doctors said they were astonished by the numbers quitting. Robert West, director of tobacco studies at the Health Behaviour Research Unit, University College London, who carried out the study, said: "These figures show the largest fall in the number of smokers on record. The effect has been as large in all social groups – poor as well as rich. I never expected such a dramatic impact." There was no guarantee that smoking rates would not start to rise again, after falling, and it was crucial to maintain the downward pressure, Professor West said. Currently around 22 per cent of the adult population smoke in Britain.

"If the Department of Health can keep up the momentum this has created, there is a realistic prospect of achieving a target of less than 15 per cent of the population smoking within 10 years," he said.

The survey of 32,000 people in England interviewed before and after the ban took effect found the decline in smoking had accelerated. In the nine months before the ban it fell 1.6 per cent compared with 5.5 per cent in the nine months after the ban. Researchers estimate on the basis of these figures that 400,000 people quit smoking as a result of the ban.

The findings are to be presented at the UK National Smoking Cessation Conference in Birmingham tomorrow. The study, by Cancer Research UK and its partners, is the first in the world to examine the impact of a smoking ban in isolation from other tobacco control measures.

Jean King, Cancer Research UK's director of tobacco control, said: "The smoke-free law was introduced to protect the health of workers from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke. The results show it has also encouraged smokers to quit. These laws are saving lives and we mustn't forget that half of all smokers die from tobacco-related illness. We must do everything possible to continue this success – we now need a national tobacco control plan for the next five years."

Cigarette sales fell by 6 per cent in the past year, according to the market research company, Neilson. In the 10 months from July 2007 to the end of April 2008, 1.93 billion fewer cigarettes were sold in England and 220,000 fewer in Scotland (where the smoking ban was introduced a year earlier), equivalent to a total decline in sales over the full year of 2.6 billion.

Jake Shepherd, the marketing director at Neilson, said smoking had been hit by a triple whammy, which accounted for the dramatic effect.

"In addition to the smoking ban, sales have been hit by the outlawing of the sale of tobacco to under-18s and the increase of duty on tobacco, which is pricing cash-strapped smokers out of the market," he said.

Pubs have also suffered from the ban, with 175 million fewer pints sold in the nine months from July to last April as smokers have been driven outside.

Total sales of alcohol fell 8 per cent, compared to a steady 3 per cent fall in previous years, just under half of which was attributable to the smoking ban, according to Neilson.

Mr Shepherd said: "The wet summer of 2007 added to the downturn. The winter months were particularly bad – sales fell 9.3 per cent from November to January when smokers would have been reluctant to stand outside in the cold to have a cigarette."

Proposals to restrict the sale of cigarettes by removing them from display and a ban on vending machines are under consideration by the Government. The anti-smoking pressure group ASH said that further action was necessary to curb smoking by young people.

Deborah Arnott, the director of ASH, said: "The smoke-free legislation has been a fantastic success and is hugely popular. But what it also shows is a hunger for more action.

"There is still much more that needs to be done. The Government should focus on measures to shield children from tobacco industry marketing while parents and carers can do much more to protect children from exposure to secondhand smoke."

A survey of 1,000 people with lung conditions by the British Lung Foundation found more than half said they had suffered fewer attacks of breathlessness from exposure to smokers in pubs and restaurants, and more than a third said it had helped keep them out of hospital.

Dame Helena Shovelton, the foundation's chief executive, said: The smoking ban has helped to save the lives of people with breathing problems by cutting down their exposure to passive smoke. People with smoking-related lung conditions know how devastating it is to be struggling for breath. A smoke-free atmosphere gives our lungs a new lease of life."
The Independent

[paulflynn]

Are these are the questions you say I have not answered?, `'Have you been complicit in the ‘tobacco control’ deception or are you and your colleagues’ victims of their deception? Do you intend to perpetuate that deception or not? What are your views on ASH's 'swarming' tactics, are they self indulgent? Is their 'swarming' more acceptable the reason why they ultimately conned the government to do as they 'forced' you to do?`"

No I have not been complicit in any deception. The only one I know of is the wicked deception by Big Tobacco for decades on the danger of smoking. A deception that sent millions of their customers to early deaths.

I have always found ASH to be ethical and reliable. They supported my call for Snus to be legalised. That was courageous an pragmatic.

The decision on the ban was made on a free vote for health reasons. It's time you questioned your self-serving fantasies on this.

Your choice of Kipling is interesting. Kipling pulled strings to get his son into the front line in WW1 in spite of his health problems. He was killed.

"You'll be a man, my son"

Yes a dead man - thanks to his father.

[Johnny Boy]

Mr. Flynn,

You recognise the decades of Big Tobacco supressing health study dangers for which they have been duly punished. Do you recognise Big Tobacco has very good reason to state the medical evidence (or lack of) about the link between smoking and lung cancer and so-called "smoking related disease"?

Do you recognise ASH's propensity for exaggerating, misrepresenting and spin (use of weasel words like "can", "could", "may" etc) which as a politicians you are skilled in?

Do you also recognise listening to a minority extremist health group instead of 10m smokers is anti-democratic?

You ignored the YouGov poll before the vote that over 70% of the public DID NOT support a blanket ban. You listened instead to ASH who represents nobody but an international cabal of very sad biggots.

I note you quote the elsewhere over 70% of the public "support the ban". But you ignore the Govts' deceipt that the option of allowing voluntary use of power (by landlords etc) has been removed. Please explain that?

And we have yet more extremist minority policies peddled by our disturbingly politicised Health Dept. to 'white box' ciggy packets etc etc which were created in the shadows of Westminster, have no public support and once again ignore any principles and ethics regarding free consumer markets and gaining public support.

In short the Health dept is so corrupted by extremist minorities they behave in a democratic vacuum and deliberately avoid gaining public consent. Labour now operates in jack boots as an extremist minority with no democratic values.

[Johnny Boy]

Dear Mr Flynn MP,

Regards my request you state on record you'd support a public vote (and a real democratic debate) on the smoking ban being "schoolboy politics" it just demonstrates Labours continued deceipt of democracy that they're really wanting to "listen".

You say "We have representative democracy".

No we don't. That is a weasel discription for something that takes place every 4 years. What we have is Labour anarchy. You've renaged on your manifesto commitment on the smoking ban (and an EEC referendum). That is not "representative". You took this contempt for representing your voters prompted by extremist minority groups ASH and Cancer Resarch UK (insidiously funded by Labour and Big Pharma) against 10m adults and against your own survey over 70% of the public did not support an all-out ban.

You say "If you are unhappy how your MP votes you can vote for someone else." That's exactly what's happening isn't it - Labour being voted out?

You're very welcome to continue to represent extremist health groups against 10m voters and ignore the destructive impacts of the ban on civil liberties and the Beer & Pub trade and the science you'll make no impact on health and the reality you'll increase smoking as all bans do (see Ireland).

My aren't your policies really "successful" ? Well done!

[patrick]

JB
400,000 ex - smokers post ban! FACT

I repeat yet again -
You fantasise that you have massive support
and you have been victimised and had your civil lberties stolen.

10 Million support (so you say) is a huge voting mass. Surely it's a simple step to organise this huge voting block and elect MP'S to reverse any law changes.

Put it to the test, find out really how popular your view is.

[timbone]

Hi patrick. I have not addressed a comment in your direction before, and there is no need to give any feedback on this. It is just that you seemed to refer to creating pro smoking political parties.
http://www.wecansmokeparty.com/index.html
http://www.uk-fags.co.uk./
You don't have to visit them if you don't want. It is just that I get the impression that many people don't know just how many smokers and tolerant non smokers are organising things.
For example, F2C is not the only organisation of it's kind. I do not include Forest in this by the way, as they were established years ago under the finance of the Tobacco Industry as an alternative voice to Action on Smoking and Health. Here is a link page from one of the many organisations which have been set up following the free vote on 14th February 2006 (my 55th birthday incidentally).
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/nearlydone/links.htm
Besides F2C, the two politiacl parties, and Forest, there are 36 websites listed, all to do with protesting aginst the blanket ban, (smokers always supported a partial ban). One website is the famous singer/songwriter Joe Jackson. There are even more not listed as well.
So you see, this protest against the blanket, no room for sensible compromise ban is possibly larger than many people think.

[patrick]

timbone
Thank you for providing that information.
Political campaigns can be the only way forward for pro-smokers but anybody not living in cloud cukoo land will realise that it would be a titanic struggle to get anywhere.

F2C Manifesto
Aim no 1 - to kill ourselves
Aim no 2 - to kill everyone aound us.

Not really that attractive, eh tim?

The Anti - smoking lobby is a little bit larger. Set up in 1948 under clement attlee, organised by Aneurin Bevan , it's called the NHS.

Another useful tool at our disposal, set up in ancient Athens about the year 508 BC
is democracy.
It's very fashionable to blame one party for the ban but the reality is that it was voted with a massive 200 vote majority from ALL (GET IT EVERYONE) parties.

See the light,
Best wishes for a healthier and wealthier future.Give up!

[Johnny Boy]

"77% OF THE PUBLIC AGREE WITH THE BAN!" says Paul Flynn.

Have you not understood this is the SAME YouGov poll that before the ban showed over 70% were against an all-out ban?

What a 'remarkable' change. How?

Because your Govt REMOVED the answer allowing people to specify Landlords et al should have the right to apply voluntary rules. Namely you've cut the answers from 3 to 2 (ie removed democratic choice from your bent survey).

Try asking your Govt to return the answer to the original uncorrupted poll and allow people to vote again. That's all smokers are asking for - property owners to apply the rules (it's called 'democracy') as they see fit for their customers.

Let's be frank, they did a massively better job than the MP's. Democracy, it works if you let it. That little thing Labour are running scared of.

[patrick]

JB
Did the government rig the Irish one also?

Ireland's smokefree workplace law enjoys over 93% public support, including 80% of smokers, a 97% compliance rate, and a 33% reduction in the smoking prevalence rate. In addition, pub and restaurant workers report being 40% healthier since the law went into effect last year.
http://www.no-smoke.org/learnmore.php?dp=d14%7Cd35%7Cp209

[Johnny Boy]

Patrick,

I wouldn't trust your Irish figures anymore than I trust the British one's. You state things as a matter of fact when they're actually just the garbage and lies this Govt has to maintain to claim "success" about the ban when in fact it's just another miserable Labour failure (ditto all their tragic policies).

For example you quote the NHS/Cancer Research quitters of "400,000.. FACT".

Er, No. Pure fiction actually. It's based on an extrapolation of 3,600 people in a study by Cancer Research UK which they've refused to reveal to date. If it's anything like the heart attack rate "decline" claimed in Scotland and Wales you're going to be closer the truth if you reached the OPPOSITE conclusion. FACT.

Regards your "all-Party" claim on MP voting 75% of Tories voted against the smoking ban. Hardly "all-Party" support is it? Just rotten Labour. FACT.

Regards your claim "The Anti-smoking lobby is a little bit larger.. it's called the NHS."

Arrogant of you to claim the 1m staff of the NHS outnumber 10m smokers?

And have you asked NHS staff for a vote? Over 50% of NHS staff do not support the authoritarian NHS management banning smoking from grounds. Over 60% of mental health nurses do not support draconian NHS management banning mental health patients from smoking. Me thinks the NHS are going to have huge staffing issues (problems hiring and retaining staff plus industrial disputes) from pushing their anti-smoking agenda.

Finally regards your woeful statement;

"F2C Manifesto. Aim no 1 - to kill ourselves
Aim no 2 - to kill everyone around us."

1. Smokers live longest. FACT
2. Smoking does not kill, it increases risk, marginally. FACT.
3. Passive smoking is no danger to anybody. FACT.
4. An NHS hospital is a bigger risk to your health than smoking 20 a day for life. FACT.
5. NHS quit drugs are a bigger risk to your health than smoking 20 a day for life. FACT.

[Johnny Boy]

Madame Jean Claument, reached One Hundred & Twenty One,
Smoking strong French ciggies without an extremist health fanatic spoiling the fun

Henry Allingham is Britains oldest man,
One Hundred & Twelve without a Socialists ban

Ned Hughes smokes pipes and passed One Hundred & Eight,
Without a dumb prude micro-managing your life, isn't that just great

When all the health extremists views and Labours interfering is all said and done,
They're lives are duller, their advise a fraud, and nothing is won

When will Labour MP's, and ASH and Cancer Research UK,
Own up to the social and economic damage and be held to account to pay?

[PaulFlynn]

Why Labour?. A MAJORITY OF ALL PARTIES IN THE WELSH ASSEMBLY VOTED FOR A BAN- probably in 2010 the same thing will happen in the Westminster parliament

[Rollo Tommasi]

Johnny Boy:
1. NON-smokers live longest. FACT.
2. Smokers die much younger than non-smokers - on average some 6-10 years earlier. FACT.
3. Passive smoking lies behind the deaths of thousands of people in the UK each year. There are estimated to be over twice as many deaths from passive smoking-related lung cancer and heart disease than from road traffic accidents. FACT.
4. Passive smoking-related disease kills many more people than MRSA. FACT.
5. If people didn't smoke, they wouldn't need to buy NHS quit drugs. FACT.

[Johnny Boy]

Paul,

I can't speak for the Welsh but it was the Welsh NHS hospital survey that showed their hospitals are a massively bigger risk (1 in 300 chance) to public health than smoking for life.

We can only hazard a guess if the Welsh assembly will vote to close down their NHS hospitals and slap "NHS PATIENTS DIE YOUNGER" across their entrances.

Don't you just love public health warnings when they carry some real weight?

[Johnny Boy]

Rollo,

1. Lie. Madame Jeanne Claument is the oldest person that's ever lived. Henry Allingham is Britains oldest man. Smoking is only a risk factor in life expectancy. It has not been proven causational in any medical study on the planet or any Court of Law. SMOKERS LIVE LONGEST. Fact.

2. Lie. That is a statistical estimate. Refer to my above reply.

3. Lie. The poison in in the dose. Passive smoke is completely harmless and passes clean air regulations by 2.6 to 25,000 times. Passive smoke has not caused any disease or cancer (its components are trace elements you need an electron microscope to find). Fact

4. Lie. Passive smoke kills nobody. NHS hospitals do. Fact

5. Pfizers Champix/Chantix drug has caused 50 suicides. Fact. Smoking has not killed anybody in the entire history of smoking. Fact.

6. I est. I've smoked 220,000 ciggies in my lifetime. I'm about to light up No. 220,001. Which one will kill me Einstein?

7. Passive smoke is 2,000 times weaker than enhaling smoke directly. I est. you'll need to stand next to me for nearly 4 months before you enhale one cigarette. Sniffing a new car interior for 3 seconds would be more dangerous. Fact.

8. If I want a cigarette in a Pub or Club with a consenting Landlord I shouldn't have to answer to you or Paul Flynn MP on your Pub trivia medical quiz. Should be a Fact

[Rollo Tommasi]

Johnny boy: Far be it for me to accuse you of being selective, inconsistent and ultimately misguided in your choice of evidence. But:

1. Toxicology evidence should be used with great care. The figures you are talking about are dangerous levels of substances on their own. Tobacco smoke doesn’t work that way. It’s a cocktail with many constituent parts. Absorbing tobacco smoke is not just the same as absorbing the chemicals individually. Their compound effect is different and the make-up of second-hand smoke even changes as its temperature changes after leaving the cigarette. Scientists are trying to create lifelike tests to assess the toxicological dangers of passive smoke. They’re finding it hard to reproduce realistic situations in a science lab. But their research already shows that tobacco smoke is much more than just the sum of its constituent parts.

2. Unless I’ve missed something, the circumstances leading to people on Champix committing suicide are being investigated. Its harmfulness has not been proven.

3. After being so quick to accuse on the basis of dodgy toxicological evidence and ongoing investigations into Champix, you somehow choose to ignore the real dangers of passive smoking to health, as demonstrated by consistent results from scores of scientific studies.

[nedwilliams9]

JohnnyBoy

Why don't you have a look at the risks calculators produced by the Outcomes Group at VA Medical Centre in Vermont, they might help the penny to drop and get you past your misconceptions about smoking being a safe pastime.

http://www.vaoutcomes.org/riskcharts.php

If you manage to read them and still think that smoking is as safe as you allege, read them again.

[Johnny Boy]

Rollo,

The difference between me is the gap between fact and fiction.

There's no illusion that you're under about the public health dangers of Pfizers Champix/Chantix. They are proven - 3,000 known side-effects - including suicidal thoughts (50 suicides), depression and muscle and heart spasms (one patient suffered 2 heart seizures on Day 13 of Pfizers killer drug). That's why the Pilot and Truckers Associations have banned it from use 3 days before driving/piloting Einstein.

That's a stark contrast with smoking which despite 100 years STILL cannot be attributed to death or disease.

You're inability to judge (as Courts have done against the fiction of smoking and passive smoking being dangerous) suggests Paul Flynn should sign you up as another cronie for Labours dangerous politicisation of science (health and climate) that's been going on in Britain for 5 years.

Have you found a passive smoker that's dead yet mate that's got a complaint against smoking?

Are you counting the doll cue and abuse of 10-12m peoples civil rights on this ban?

Can you count Rollo?

[Johnny Boy]

Ned Williams,

I'd never contend smoking is "safe" because life itself isn't safe. No human activity is safe, no sport, no transport system, no movement - it all carries risk.

This smoking ban is based on a medical fraud that passive smoke is dangerous. Passive smoke can be measured and it has been. It's as safe as fresh air. Being exposed long term to passive smoke can be measured against health can and has been measured. It's also as safe as any activity like breathing itself. There is no danger to 2nd hand smoke. 100% fact.

As for smoking it carries risk as does living in a city or down on the farm. I, like 10-12m British smokers will take my chances. If the rugby doesn't get me, the driving, Red Bull, flouride in water or the smoking might. But if cancer has your number on it and mine, you're chances are little better than mine. That's a fact.

[Rollo Tommasi]

Johnny Boy - You are talking absolute nonsense.

Champix/Chantix: Leave aside the press stories saying how it is "feared" to be behind various deaths and how these fears are being "investigated". You claim these dangers are "proven". Point me to the evidence which provides this proof.

Smoking: HEAPS of evidence here demonstrating how it increases the risks of fatal diseases. A good detailed overview, if you can be bothered to read it, is this (which concludes that both active and passive smoking are clearly a threat to health): http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/volume83.pdf.

Your claim that "Courts have [judged] against the fiction of smoking and passive smoking being dangerous" is nonsense. You either haven't read any legal reports for yourself or you don't know how to.

I've got evidence of thousands of UK deaths attributable to passive smoking each year.

And don't try to pretend that the smoking laws are an "abuse" of "civil rights". Nobody has a civil right to impose the fumes that they produce on other people. People have a right to smoke, but they also have a responsibility to exercise their right in a way that does not impinge on the rights of others. The smoking laws protect a person's right to smoke (they can still light up whenever they want, simply by moving away from an enclosed public space) but also protect the rights of people who do not want to endure tobacco fumes. Thankfully, most people - including a great many smokers - recognise and support this position.

Can you read as well as count, Johnny Boy?

[Johnny Boy]

Rollo,

Put Up or Shut Up.

Very simple for you to prove your lies, name the following;

1. One smoker in the whole of human history that's died of smoking

2. Name one passive smoker in the whole of life on Earth that's died from passive smoking

Very simple for you to prove smoking has medical evidence behind it that holds water.

3. Name one court case from any country in the world found against smoking

Easy for you to porve it isn't it............................. I'm waiting?????!!!!

Regards your link to the corrupt United Nations - they're the 'health experts' that banned pesticide DDT and killed 50-100 million unnecessarily men, women, children and babies without a single person being held to account for the genocide they perpetrated - I wouldn't p*ss on a United Nations study. The UN are a sad joke.

....I'm waiting for your answers Einstein

[Dawn]

I as a non-smoker would like to say how lovely it is to go into pubs and other places that used to be smokey. No longer do my eyes water and my clothes end up stinking like ashtrays. I can go out for sunday pub lunch with my Mother in a much more congenial atmosphere, and not one of the smokers who nips outside for their fix seems to mind.

When I used to decline a visit to the pub because I'd end up with sore eyes I used to feel like I was being a kill joy. I must hae been nuts! I was the victim - choice of sore eyes and smelling like an ashtray or missing the fun. Well no longer thanks to the ban. I can go out - I can even wear eye makeup if I want to because I won't suffer streaming eyes and runny mascara anymore.

Smokers have had it all their own way for too long. Non-smokers were supposed to shut up and not be killjoys and enjoy our passive smoking and for the most part we did. Well I'm glad of the ban, I'm sorry a few smokers feel put out about it (even though the vast majority handle the inconvenience with good grace), but now as a non-smoker it's MY day, and it feels like a breath of fresh air, and I'm saving my sympathy for people with a real problem.

[timbone]

Dawn, as a smoker, I have also noticed how much nicer it is in many places of hospitality. A place with poor ventilation and thick with smoke was uncomfortable for me, even though I smoke myself.
I do have to disagree with the comment "Smokers have had it all their own way for too long" though. By February 14th 2006, when the legislation was voted for, just about every indoor public place (except for places of hospitality) were already totally non smoking, as were the vast majority of indoor places of work.
As for places of hospitality, many were introducing non smoking in food areas already, some places were also installing good ventilation systems.
I will not go on any more Dawn. All I wanted was for non smokers and smokers (a significant minority) to be able to choose. If I had been meeting a group of non smokers, I would have had no problem meeting them in a non smoking establishment, that would have been our choice. If I had wanted to go for a quiet drink and read the paper and chat to some smoking friends, it would have been nice for there to be somewhere to meet which allowed smoking.
Dawn, I am genuinly pleased that you are not subjected to tobacco smoke when you take your Mother for a pub lunch. When my Mother was still alive, I always took her to places which were non smoking. They did not have to make it a law though, they did not need to.

[nedwilliams9]

Johnnyboy
You haven't understood the charts I posted a link to, have you?
If we both live to 90 then our risks of lung cancer will be about the same but, when we are both 55, your lung cancer risk will be 34 times greater than mine.
Smoking doesn't kill every smoker.
The reductions in life expectancy for smokers are averaged out because some smokers live to a ripe old age whilst some others die from cancer and heart disease in their 40s and 50s.
It is only a marginal increase in risk if you don't understand it. Read the charts again until you get it. Or feel free to disply your ignorance here - most others will understand and ignore your misconstrued arguments.