MEP says it's time to ease smoke ban on pubs as new figures show 31 are closing every week

St Helens MEP says it's time to ease smoke ban on pubs as new figures show 31 are closing every week

St Helens MEP says it's time to ease smoke ban on pubs as new figures show 31 are closing every week

First published in News
Last updated

NEW figures showing pub closures have accelerated to 31 per week have led to calls to reduce taxes and ease the smoking ban on the local boozer.

The figures are released as part of real ale group Camra's "Pubs Matter"campaign and show 3% of pubs in the suburbs have shut in the past six months.

Paul Nuttall, UKIP’s deputy leader and Northwest MEP, said “It is completely unfair that pubs are paying nearly ten times more tax on a price of a pint in comparison to supermarkets.

"The smoking ban also severely hit pubs right across the country - if landlords want a well-ventilated room set aside for smokers they should be able to make that choice.

"This move along with reducing VAT for the hospitality industry would support local pubs and decelerate the rate they’re closing each and every week”.

He added: “Cheap deals in big superstores ultimately leads to more people drinking large quantities before they go out, leading to even greater losses for pub landlords.

“A host of countries across Europe have lower levels of VAT in order to protect hospitality businesses. The end result is more bars are staying open and employing more people”.

Camra said pubs support more than a million jobs and each contributes an average of £80,000 to its local economy each year.

The smoking ban in England - making it illegal to smoke in all enclosed work places - came into force in July 2007 under the Health Act.

A review of evidence on the impact in England in 2012 was commissioned by the Government and carried out by Professor Linda Bauld from the University of Stirling and the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies.

Professor Bauld's report concluded: "The law has had a significant impact."

"Results show benefits for health, changes in attitudes and behaviour - and no clear adverse impact on the hospitality industry."

One of the few places where it is still NOT illegal to light up is inside the Palace of Westminster, but in the "spirit of the law" MPs and Lords have restricted smoking to just four areas in the grounds.

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:32pm Tue 12 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

Manufacturing the science to meet the agenda, in black on white. Does anyone still have doubts?

''Bal laughs when asked about the role of scientific evidence in guiding policy decisions. “There was no science on how to do a community intervention on something of this global dimension,” he says. “Where there is no science, you have to go and be venturesome—you can’t use the paucity of science as an excuse to do nothing. We created the science, we did the interventions and then all the scientists came in behind us and analyzed what we did.”

Read under the title :
Tobacco Control: The Long War—When the Evidence Has to Be Created

http://www.milbank.o
rg/uploads/documents
/0712populationhealt
h/0712populationheal
th.html


About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it quickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

4 % is carbon monoxide.

6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,pic
ograms and femptograms......
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).
Manufacturing the science to meet the agenda, in black on white. Does anyone still have doubts? ''Bal laughs when asked about the role of scientific evidence in guiding policy decisions. “There was no science on how to do a community intervention on something of this global dimension,” he says. “Where there is no science, you have to go and be venturesome—you can’t use the paucity of science as an excuse to do nothing. We created the science, we did the interventions and then all the scientists came in behind us and analyzed what we did.” Read under the title : Tobacco Control: The Long War—When the Evidence Has to Be Created http://www.milbank.o rg/uploads/documents /0712populationhealt h/0712populationheal th.html About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it quickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth. 4 % is carbon monoxide. 6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,pic ograms and femptograms...... (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). harleyrider1777
  • Score: -4

11:32pm Tue 12 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

http://vitals.nbcnew
s.com/_news/2013/01/
28/16741714-lungs-fr
om-pack-a-day-smoker
s-safe-for-transplan
t-study-finds?lite

Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...............
............

Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!
This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke: http://vitals.nbcnew s.com/_news/2013/01/ 28/16741714-lungs-fr om-pack-a-day-smoker s-safe-for-transplan t-study-finds?lite Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds. By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News. Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe. What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none. “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study............... ............ Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it! The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered: Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year. 146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY. A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose. Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh! harleyrider1777
  • Score: -7

11:33pm Tue 12 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

The entire anti-smoking agenda from the WHO FCTC treaty forced down every countries throats has been a SHAM built upon JUNK SCIENCE,JUNK CLAIMS OF HARM where no study can produce any harm to anyone from either direct smoking or even second hand smoke much less the THird Hand smoke junk science claims now being pushed around like the plague!

We all know the bans are nothing but denormalization tactics against the FREE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD. Its not just smokers but every human being being forced to live by the new LIFESTYLE LAWS being forced upon us all. Its why we voted UKIP who has promised to deliver us all from the clutches of the Pharoahs and Hitlers who enslave us to their whims of self righteous living. Stealing are money thru punitive taxation as we slave each day to find a days work to put even unhealthy foods in our stomachs. We have the NHS refusing to treat us if we smoke,or if we are fat or if or if or if……………It never ends the Nannying Tyrants of this world as they take us all to task to live as plebes and Serfs to the country in which we live but all under the Auspices of the UNITED NATIONS and the EU politicos that should be strung from a Nuremberg Galows as Hitlers henchmen were done to. WE ARE FREE PEOPLE NOT SLAVES TO THE STATE NOR TO THEIR SOCK PUPPET TAX PAYER PAID FRONT GROUPS LIKE ASH et al……..

Is it to say to arms to arms or to say to the polls and vote these dirty rats out that condemn us to live as rats in a gutter to their whims!

ARE WE NOT FREEMEN

ARE WE NOT FREE WOMEN

ARE WE NOT FREE TO DECIDE OUR OWN FATES AND LIFESTYLES ANSWERING TO NO PERSON OR DESPOT!

We are FREE and we are not owned by anyone and its high time we took to the streets and took back the UK we knew a free and individual personage of choise and liberty!

To the streets Lads and Ladies WE HAVE HAD ENUF!
The entire anti-smoking agenda from the WHO FCTC treaty forced down every countries throats has been a SHAM built upon JUNK SCIENCE,JUNK CLAIMS OF HARM where no study can produce any harm to anyone from either direct smoking or even second hand smoke much less the THird Hand smoke junk science claims now being pushed around like the plague! We all know the bans are nothing but denormalization tactics against the FREE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD. Its not just smokers but every human being being forced to live by the new LIFESTYLE LAWS being forced upon us all. Its why we voted UKIP who has promised to deliver us all from the clutches of the Pharoahs and Hitlers who enslave us to their whims of self righteous living. Stealing are money thru punitive taxation as we slave each day to find a days work to put even unhealthy foods in our stomachs. We have the NHS refusing to treat us if we smoke,or if we are fat or if or if or if……………It never ends the Nannying Tyrants of this world as they take us all to task to live as plebes and Serfs to the country in which we live but all under the Auspices of the UNITED NATIONS and the EU politicos that should be strung from a Nuremberg Galows as Hitlers henchmen were done to. WE ARE FREE PEOPLE NOT SLAVES TO THE STATE NOR TO THEIR SOCK PUPPET TAX PAYER PAID FRONT GROUPS LIKE ASH et al…….. Is it to say to arms to arms or to say to the polls and vote these dirty rats out that condemn us to live as rats in a gutter to their whims! ARE WE NOT FREEMEN ARE WE NOT FREE WOMEN ARE WE NOT FREE TO DECIDE OUR OWN FATES AND LIFESTYLES ANSWERING TO NO PERSON OR DESPOT! We are FREE and we are not owned by anyone and its high time we took to the streets and took back the UK we knew a free and individual personage of choise and liberty! To the streets Lads and Ladies WE HAVE HAD ENUF! harleyrider1777
  • Score: -12

11:34pm Tue 12 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

The entire anti-smoking agenda from the WHO FCTC treaty forced down every countries throats has been a SHAM built upon JUNK SCIENCE,JUNK CLAIMS OF HARM where no study can produce any harm to anyone from either direct smoking or even second hand smoke much less the THird Hand smoke junk science claims now being pushed around like the plague!

We all know the bans are nothing but denormalization tactics against the FREE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD. Its not just smokers but every human being being forced to live by the new LIFESTYLE LAWS being forced upon us all. Its why we voted UKIP who has promised to deliver us all from the clutches of the Pharoahs and Hitlers who enslave us to their whims of self righteous living. Stealing are money thru punitive taxation as we slave each day to find a days work to put even unhealthy foods in our stomachs. We have the NHS refusing to treat us if we smoke,or if we are fat or if or if or if……………It never ends the Nannying Tyrants of this world as they take us all to task to live as plebes and Serfs to the country in which we live but all under the Auspices of the UNITED NATIONS and the EU politicos that should be strung from a Nuremberg Galows as Hitlers henchmen were done to. WE ARE FREE PEOPLE NOT SLAVES TO THE STATE NOR TO THEIR SOCK PUPPET TAX PAYER PAID FRONT GROUPS LIKE ASH et al……..

Is it to say to arms to arms or to say to the polls and vote these dirty rats out that condemn us to live as rats in a gutter to their whims!

ARE WE NOT FREEMEN

ARE WENOT FREE WOMEN

ARE WE NOT FREE TO DECIDE OUR OWN FATES AND LIFESTYLES ANSWERING TO NO PERSON OR DESPOT!

We are FREE and we are not owned by anyone and its high time we took to the streets and took back the UK we knew a free and individual personage of choise and liberty!

To the streets Lads and Ladies WE HAVE HAD ENUF!..............
The entire anti-smoking agenda from the WHO FCTC treaty forced down every countries throats has been a SHAM built upon JUNK SCIENCE,JUNK CLAIMS OF HARM where no study can produce any harm to anyone from either direct smoking or even second hand smoke much less the THird Hand smoke junk science claims now being pushed around like the plague! We all know the bans are nothing but denormalization tactics against the FREE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD. Its not just smokers but every human being being forced to live by the new LIFESTYLE LAWS being forced upon us all. Its why we voted UKIP who has promised to deliver us all from the clutches of the Pharoahs and Hitlers who enslave us to their whims of self righteous living. Stealing are money thru punitive taxation as we slave each day to find a days work to put even unhealthy foods in our stomachs. We have the NHS refusing to treat us if we smoke,or if we are fat or if or if or if……………It never ends the Nannying Tyrants of this world as they take us all to task to live as plebes and Serfs to the country in which we live but all under the Auspices of the UNITED NATIONS and the EU politicos that should be strung from a Nuremberg Galows as Hitlers henchmen were done to. WE ARE FREE PEOPLE NOT SLAVES TO THE STATE NOR TO THEIR SOCK PUPPET TAX PAYER PAID FRONT GROUPS LIKE ASH et al…….. Is it to say to arms to arms or to say to the polls and vote these dirty rats out that condemn us to live as rats in a gutter to their whims! ARE WE NOT FREEMEN ARE WENOT FREE WOMEN ARE WE NOT FREE TO DECIDE OUR OWN FATES AND LIFESTYLES ANSWERING TO NO PERSON OR DESPOT! We are FREE and we are not owned by anyone and its high time we took to the streets and took back the UK we knew a free and individual personage of choise and liberty! To the streets Lads and Ladies WE HAVE HAD ENUF!.............. harleyrider1777
  • Score: -8

6:13am Wed 13 Aug 14

EpicConcern says...

TLDR;
Look at it this way, i don't want to wipe ar*es for a living so I don't work somewhere where i would might have to.
Therefore if people don't want to breath smoke don't work there, or go there.
TLDR; Look at it this way, i don't want to wipe ar*es for a living so I don't work somewhere where i would might have to. Therefore if people don't want to breath smoke don't work there, or go there. EpicConcern
  • Score: -4

6:57am Wed 13 Aug 14

frankly says...

Ban it... I smoked the dirty disgusting weed from being 18..i finished at 80, and now ask why did I throw money away on a drug for all those years. I now see the world because I can now afford to, and I see it mostly in a smoke free environment. if we were born to smoke we would have chimneys in our heads.,,
Ban it... I smoked the dirty disgusting weed from being 18..i finished at 80, and now ask why did I throw money away on a drug for all those years. I now see the world because I can now afford to, and I see it mostly in a smoke free environment. if we were born to smoke we would have chimneys in our heads.,, frankly
  • Score: 8

8:52am Wed 13 Aug 14

jumperr says...

If he thinks smoking os the problem, you'll never stop the closures,it's the tied agreement he should look too get in kicked out and the miserly pub cos they aren't bothered about the social aspect so long had they can fill their pockets
If he thinks smoking os the problem, you'll never stop the closures,it's the tied agreement he should look too get in kicked out and the miserly pub cos they aren't bothered about the social aspect so long had they can fill their pockets jumperr
  • Score: 7

9:54am Wed 13 Aug 14

Bill Bradbury says...

Forget the "science" as statistics can be made to read anything and try explaining that it has no effect to those who got cancer from passive smoking. Some people cannot choose where they work as a job is a job. Try turning down working in a pub because of smoke to the DWP when job seeking as an excuse.

As a life member of CAMRA (since 1978) and visited more pubs up and down the country than I care to imaging (you meet very interesting people-met a Butler once) the closure of pubs has little to do with the smoking ban but as mentioned cheap booze, higher costs, drink driving, and the exploitation of the landlords by greedy pub-cos. are some of the reasons why 16 pubs a week are closing.

Smoking is unhealthy,dangerous and disgusting as Frankly writes and the bottom line for me is I don't want to go home smelling like an ash-tray. As food is happening to keep some pubs viable certainly, when I am eating, I don't want smoke wafting in my face.

Returning smoking in pubs will not save them only if customers bite the bullet and pay more for drink (use it or lose it) or that instead of paying £120+ a barrel through the free trade they can get it for around £70 +VAT. as well as not being charged more rent for any success a pub landlord gets.

One amusing factor when the ban came into being. My wife and I often visited one of my favourite pubs in Manchester, the Hare and Hounds (Holts) a basic but friendly pub not far from Victoria Station. On entering she said it's different and quite sparkling to which I replied you are seeing it without peering through a haze of smoke.

Smoking in pubs would be a retrograde step. If the above is another UKIP rant or the first shots for the election next year, I am glad I won't be voting for them especially on that issue, as well as many others.
Forget the "science" as statistics can be made to read anything and try explaining that it has no effect to those who got cancer from passive smoking. Some people cannot choose where they work as a job is a job. Try turning down working in a pub because of smoke to the DWP when job seeking as an excuse. As a life member of CAMRA (since 1978) and visited more pubs up and down the country than I care to imaging (you meet very interesting people-met a Butler once) the closure of pubs has little to do with the smoking ban but as mentioned cheap booze, higher costs, drink driving, and the exploitation of the landlords by greedy pub-cos. are some of the reasons why 16 pubs a week are closing. Smoking is unhealthy,dangerous and disgusting as Frankly writes and the bottom line for me is I don't want to go home smelling like an ash-tray. As food is happening to keep some pubs viable certainly, when I am eating, I don't want smoke wafting in my face. Returning smoking in pubs will not save them only if customers bite the bullet and pay more for drink (use it or lose it) or that instead of paying £120+ a barrel through the free trade they can get it for around £70 +VAT. as well as not being charged more rent for any success a pub landlord gets. One amusing factor when the ban came into being. My wife and I often visited one of my favourite pubs in Manchester, the Hare and Hounds (Holts) a basic but friendly pub not far from Victoria Station. On entering she said it's different and quite sparkling to which I replied you are seeing it without peering through a haze of smoke. Smoking in pubs would be a retrograde step. If the above is another UKIP rant or the first shots for the election next year, I am glad I won't be voting for them especially on that issue, as well as many others. Bill Bradbury
  • Score: 6

10:15am Wed 13 Aug 14

kjd161 says...

harleyrider1777 wrote:
The entire anti-smoking agenda from the WHO FCTC treaty forced down every countries throats has been a SHAM built upon JUNK SCIENCE,JUNK CLAIMS OF HARM where no study can produce any harm to anyone from either direct smoking or even second hand smoke much less the THird Hand smoke junk science claims now being pushed around like the plague!

We all know the bans are nothing but denormalization tactics against the FREE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD. Its not just smokers but every human being being forced to live by the new LIFESTYLE LAWS being forced upon us all. Its why we voted UKIP who has promised to deliver us all from the clutches of the Pharoahs and Hitlers who enslave us to their whims of self righteous living. Stealing are money thru punitive taxation as we slave each day to find a days work to put even unhealthy foods in our stomachs. We have the NHS refusing to treat us if we smoke,or if we are fat or if or if or if……………It never ends the Nannying Tyrants of this world as they take us all to task to live as plebes and Serfs to the country in which we live but all under the Auspices of the UNITED NATIONS and the EU politicos that should be strung from a Nuremberg Galows as Hitlers henchmen were done to. WE ARE FREE PEOPLE NOT SLAVES TO THE STATE NOR TO THEIR SOCK PUPPET TAX PAYER PAID FRONT GROUPS LIKE ASH et al……..

Is it to say to arms to arms or to say to the polls and vote these dirty rats out that condemn us to live as rats in a gutter to their whims!

ARE WE NOT FREEMEN

ARE WENOT FREE WOMEN

ARE WE NOT FREE TO DECIDE OUR OWN FATES AND LIFESTYLES ANSWERING TO NO PERSON OR DESPOT!

We are FREE and we are not owned by anyone and its high time we took to the streets and took back the UK we knew a free and individual personage of choise and liberty!

To the streets Lads and Ladies WE HAVE HAD ENUF!..............
This bloke sounds like a lobbyist for the smoking industry. The only freedom he's interested in is the freedom of smokers to pollute the air of non-smokers. Oh, and the freedom of the tobacco companies to make their profits on the back of overwhelming evidence that SMOKING KILLS. I am an ex smoker, but I'm not one of these people who are more intolerant of smokers than someone who has never smoked. I've spoke up for smokers when people have said they should not be allowed to smoke anywhere outside their own homes. I don't want them to be complete outcasts, but common courtesy would compel me, now that I've seen both sides, to smoke in the designated areas provided by most pubs, restaurants, and workplaces etc. No need for falling out with people and demanding the right to pollute the airspace of everyone. I think that some of these demanding people are just spoiling for a fight, but the vast majority of smokers who I know, actually agree that it's not nice to compel people to smoke their second hand smoke. And, as for EpicConcern's assertion that if people done want to smoke, don't go there, well that's just not worth bothering to comment on. No one with any sense will.
[quote][p][bold]harleyrider1777[/bold] wrote: The entire anti-smoking agenda from the WHO FCTC treaty forced down every countries throats has been a SHAM built upon JUNK SCIENCE,JUNK CLAIMS OF HARM where no study can produce any harm to anyone from either direct smoking or even second hand smoke much less the THird Hand smoke junk science claims now being pushed around like the plague! We all know the bans are nothing but denormalization tactics against the FREE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD. Its not just smokers but every human being being forced to live by the new LIFESTYLE LAWS being forced upon us all. Its why we voted UKIP who has promised to deliver us all from the clutches of the Pharoahs and Hitlers who enslave us to their whims of self righteous living. Stealing are money thru punitive taxation as we slave each day to find a days work to put even unhealthy foods in our stomachs. We have the NHS refusing to treat us if we smoke,or if we are fat or if or if or if……………It never ends the Nannying Tyrants of this world as they take us all to task to live as plebes and Serfs to the country in which we live but all under the Auspices of the UNITED NATIONS and the EU politicos that should be strung from a Nuremberg Galows as Hitlers henchmen were done to. WE ARE FREE PEOPLE NOT SLAVES TO THE STATE NOR TO THEIR SOCK PUPPET TAX PAYER PAID FRONT GROUPS LIKE ASH et al…….. Is it to say to arms to arms or to say to the polls and vote these dirty rats out that condemn us to live as rats in a gutter to their whims! ARE WE NOT FREEMEN ARE WENOT FREE WOMEN ARE WE NOT FREE TO DECIDE OUR OWN FATES AND LIFESTYLES ANSWERING TO NO PERSON OR DESPOT! We are FREE and we are not owned by anyone and its high time we took to the streets and took back the UK we knew a free and individual personage of choise and liberty! To the streets Lads and Ladies WE HAVE HAD ENUF!..............[/p][/quote]This bloke sounds like a lobbyist for the smoking industry. The only freedom he's interested in is the freedom of smokers to pollute the air of non-smokers. Oh, and the freedom of the tobacco companies to make their profits on the back of overwhelming evidence that SMOKING KILLS. I am an ex smoker, but I'm not one of these people who are more intolerant of smokers than someone who has never smoked. I've spoke up for smokers when people have said they should not be allowed to smoke anywhere outside their own homes. I don't want them to be complete outcasts, but common courtesy would compel me, now that I've seen both sides, to smoke in the designated areas provided by most pubs, restaurants, and workplaces etc. No need for falling out with people and demanding the right to pollute the airspace of everyone. I think that some of these demanding people are just spoiling for a fight, but the vast majority of smokers who I know, actually agree that it's not nice to compel people to smoke their second hand smoke. And, as for EpicConcern's assertion that if people done want to smoke, don't go there, well that's just not worth bothering to comment on. No one with any sense will. kjd161
  • Score: 6

11:12am Wed 13 Aug 14

lawman2004 says...

Vast numbers of people where happy to express the opinion that if smoking was banned in pubs and clubs, they would then use them as smoking was the only reason they didn't... where are all those people then ? Certainly not propping up the bar and helping keep the business's going.
Vast numbers of people where happy to express the opinion that if smoking was banned in pubs and clubs, they would then use them as smoking was the only reason they didn't... where are all those people then ? Certainly not propping up the bar and helping keep the business's going. lawman2004
  • Score: 10

12:05pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Bill Bradbury says...

lawman2004 wrote:
Vast numbers of people where happy to express the opinion that if smoking was banned in pubs and clubs, they would then use them as smoking was the only reason they didn't... where are all those people then ? Certainly not propping up the bar and helping keep the business's going.
er-price, drinking at home, losing the pub habit, drink/drive laws, recession, pay freeze, low pay, zero hours contracts, other priorities on which to spend any spare cash families have such as feeding the children.
Introducing smoking won't stop pubs closing. Those who must have designated areas. I have no objection to that.

Will the latest nonsense of putting warnings on drink have any effect I don't think so.?
[quote][p][bold]lawman2004[/bold] wrote: Vast numbers of people where happy to express the opinion that if smoking was banned in pubs and clubs, they would then use them as smoking was the only reason they didn't... where are all those people then ? Certainly not propping up the bar and helping keep the business's going.[/p][/quote]er-price, drinking at home, losing the pub habit, drink/drive laws, recession, pay freeze, low pay, zero hours contracts, other priorities on which to spend any spare cash families have such as feeding the children. Introducing smoking won't stop pubs closing. Those who must have designated areas. I have no objection to that. Will the latest nonsense of putting warnings on drink have any effect I don't think so.? Bill Bradbury
  • Score: 7

2:09pm Wed 13 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

Bill Bradbury wrote:
Forget the "science" as statistics can be made to read anything and try explaining that it has no effect to those who got cancer from passive smoking. Some people cannot choose where they work as a job is a job. Try turning down working in a pub because of smoke to the DWP when job seeking as an excuse.

As a life member of CAMRA (since 1978) and visited more pubs up and down the country than I care to imaging (you meet very interesting people-met a Butler once) the closure of pubs has little to do with the smoking ban but as mentioned cheap booze, higher costs, drink driving, and the exploitation of the landlords by greedy pub-cos. are some of the reasons why 16 pubs a week are closing.

Smoking is unhealthy,dangerous and disgusting as Frankly writes and the bottom line for me is I don't want to go home smelling like an ash-tray. As food is happening to keep some pubs viable certainly, when I am eating, I don't want smoke wafting in my face.

Returning smoking in pubs will not save them only if customers bite the bullet and pay more for drink (use it or lose it) or that instead of paying £120+ a barrel through the free trade they can get it for around £70 +VAT. as well as not being charged more rent for any success a pub landlord gets.

One amusing factor when the ban came into being. My wife and I often visited one of my favourite pubs in Manchester, the Hare and Hounds (Holts) a basic but friendly pub not far from Victoria Station. On entering she said it's different and quite sparkling to which I replied you are seeing it without peering through a haze of smoke.

Smoking in pubs would be a retrograde step. If the above is another UKIP rant or the first shots for the election next year, I am glad I won't be voting for them especially on that issue, as well as many others.
Michael R. Fox.
Nuclear scientist and university chemistry professor.
- Of those chemicals present in ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) only a very few can be classified as toxins or carcinogens. Some basic physics, a bit of chemistry and a series of rather simple mathematical calculations reveal that exposure to ETS is hardly a dangerous event. Indeed, the cancer risk of ETS to a non-smoker appears to be roughly equal to the risk of becoming addicted to heroin from eating poppy seed bagels.
[quote][p][bold]Bill Bradbury[/bold] wrote: Forget the "science" as statistics can be made to read anything and try explaining that it has no effect to those who got cancer from passive smoking. Some people cannot choose where they work as a job is a job. Try turning down working in a pub because of smoke to the DWP when job seeking as an excuse. As a life member of CAMRA (since 1978) and visited more pubs up and down the country than I care to imaging (you meet very interesting people-met a Butler once) the closure of pubs has little to do with the smoking ban but as mentioned cheap booze, higher costs, drink driving, and the exploitation of the landlords by greedy pub-cos. are some of the reasons why 16 pubs a week are closing. Smoking is unhealthy,dangerous and disgusting as Frankly writes and the bottom line for me is I don't want to go home smelling like an ash-tray. As food is happening to keep some pubs viable certainly, when I am eating, I don't want smoke wafting in my face. Returning smoking in pubs will not save them only if customers bite the bullet and pay more for drink (use it or lose it) or that instead of paying £120+ a barrel through the free trade they can get it for around £70 +VAT. as well as not being charged more rent for any success a pub landlord gets. One amusing factor when the ban came into being. My wife and I often visited one of my favourite pubs in Manchester, the Hare and Hounds (Holts) a basic but friendly pub not far from Victoria Station. On entering she said it's different and quite sparkling to which I replied you are seeing it without peering through a haze of smoke. Smoking in pubs would be a retrograde step. If the above is another UKIP rant or the first shots for the election next year, I am glad I won't be voting for them especially on that issue, as well as many others.[/p][/quote]Michael R. Fox. Nuclear scientist and university chemistry professor. - Of those chemicals present in ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) only a very few can be classified as toxins or carcinogens. Some basic physics, a bit of chemistry and a series of rather simple mathematical calculations reveal that exposure to ETS is hardly a dangerous event. Indeed, the cancer risk of ETS to a non-smoker appears to be roughly equal to the risk of becoming addicted to heroin from eating poppy seed bagels. harleyrider1777
  • Score: -1

2:11pm Wed 13 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

This bloke sounds like a lobbyist for the smoking industry. The only freedom he's interested in is the freedom of smokers to pollute the air of non-smokers. Oh, and the freedom of the tobacco companies to make their profits on the back of overwhelming evidence that SMOKING KILLS. I am an ex smoker, but I'm not one of these people who are more intolerant of smokers than someone who has never smoked. I've spoke up for smokers when people have said they should not be allowed to smoke anywhere outside their own homes. I don't want them to be complete outcasts, but common courtesy would compel me, now that I've seen both sides, to smoke in the designated areas provided by most pubs, restaurants, and workplaces etc. No need for falling out with people and demanding the right to pollute the airspace of everyone. I think that some of these demanding people are just spoiling for a fight, but the vast majority of smokers who I know, actually agree that it's not nice to compel people to smoke their second hand smoke. And, as for EpicConcern's assertion that if people done want to smoke, don't go there, well that's just not worth bothering to comment on. No one with any sense will.

There is no evidence that smoking kills anyone nowhere does an end point study exist to prove direct causation of disease from smoking!

JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS"
7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
November 2004.


http://cot.food.gov.
uk/pdfs/cotstatement
tobacco0409


"5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease."

In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can't even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don't even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.
This bloke sounds like a lobbyist for the smoking industry. The only freedom he's interested in is the freedom of smokers to pollute the air of non-smokers. Oh, and the freedom of the tobacco companies to make their profits on the back of overwhelming evidence that SMOKING KILLS. I am an ex smoker, but I'm not one of these people who are more intolerant of smokers than someone who has never smoked. I've spoke up for smokers when people have said they should not be allowed to smoke anywhere outside their own homes. I don't want them to be complete outcasts, but common courtesy would compel me, now that I've seen both sides, to smoke in the designated areas provided by most pubs, restaurants, and workplaces etc. No need for falling out with people and demanding the right to pollute the airspace of everyone. I think that some of these demanding people are just spoiling for a fight, but the vast majority of smokers who I know, actually agree that it's not nice to compel people to smoke their second hand smoke. And, as for EpicConcern's assertion that if people done want to smoke, don't go there, well that's just not worth bothering to comment on. No one with any sense will. There is no evidence that smoking kills anyone nowhere does an end point study exist to prove direct causation of disease from smoking! JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS" 7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18 November 2004. http://cot.food.gov. uk/pdfs/cotstatement tobacco0409 "5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease." In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can't even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don't even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does. The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory. harleyrider1777
  • Score: -3

2:12pm Wed 13 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!

It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):

http://boltonsmokers
club.wordpress.com/t
he-mctear-case-the-a
nalysis/

(2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
(2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
lung cancer.

In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
(paras. to ).
In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras. to
).
Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation! It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’): http://boltonsmokers club.wordpress.com/t he-mctear-case-the-a nalysis/ (2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in 2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages. (2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right, therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused lung cancer. [9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation. Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker, it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer (paras.[6.172] to [6.185]). [9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to [7.181]). harleyrider1777
  • Score: -3

2:23pm Wed 13 Aug 14

kjd161 says...

harleyrider1777 wrote:
This bloke sounds like a lobbyist for the smoking industry. The only freedom he's interested in is the freedom of smokers to pollute the air of non-smokers. Oh, and the freedom of the tobacco companies to make their profits on the back of overwhelming evidence that SMOKING KILLS. I am an ex smoker, but I'm not one of these people who are more intolerant of smokers than someone who has never smoked. I've spoke up for smokers when people have said they should not be allowed to smoke anywhere outside their own homes. I don't want them to be complete outcasts, but common courtesy would compel me, now that I've seen both sides, to smoke in the designated areas provided by most pubs, restaurants, and workplaces etc. No need for falling out with people and demanding the right to pollute the airspace of everyone. I think that some of these demanding people are just spoiling for a fight, but the vast majority of smokers who I know, actually agree that it's not nice to compel people to smoke their second hand smoke. And, as for EpicConcern's assertion that if people done want to smoke, don't go there, well that's just not worth bothering to comment on. No one with any sense will.

There is no evidence that smoking kills anyone nowhere does an end point study exist to prove direct causation of disease from smoking!

JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS"
7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
November 2004.


http://cot.food.gov.

uk/pdfs/cotstatement

tobacco0409


"5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease."

In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can't even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don't even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.
What a load of absolute rubbish. You MUST be a lobbyist or a worker somewhere in the tobacco industry. Get off our local forum.
[quote][p][bold]harleyrider1777[/bold] wrote: This bloke sounds like a lobbyist for the smoking industry. The only freedom he's interested in is the freedom of smokers to pollute the air of non-smokers. Oh, and the freedom of the tobacco companies to make their profits on the back of overwhelming evidence that SMOKING KILLS. I am an ex smoker, but I'm not one of these people who are more intolerant of smokers than someone who has never smoked. I've spoke up for smokers when people have said they should not be allowed to smoke anywhere outside their own homes. I don't want them to be complete outcasts, but common courtesy would compel me, now that I've seen both sides, to smoke in the designated areas provided by most pubs, restaurants, and workplaces etc. No need for falling out with people and demanding the right to pollute the airspace of everyone. I think that some of these demanding people are just spoiling for a fight, but the vast majority of smokers who I know, actually agree that it's not nice to compel people to smoke their second hand smoke. And, as for EpicConcern's assertion that if people done want to smoke, don't go there, well that's just not worth bothering to comment on. No one with any sense will. There is no evidence that smoking kills anyone nowhere does an end point study exist to prove direct causation of disease from smoking! JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS" 7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18 November 2004. http://cot.food.gov. uk/pdfs/cotstatement tobacco0409 "5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease." In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can't even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don't even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does. The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.[/p][/quote]What a load of absolute rubbish. You MUST be a lobbyist or a worker somewhere in the tobacco industry. Get off our local forum. kjd161
  • Score: 3

3:11pm Wed 13 Aug 14

MrBenggo says...

People don't go drinking in pubs because of the price,I used to drink in pubs but the breweries put up the price of ale slowly but surely until they killed the golden goose,the customer.
The way Paul Nuttall is thinking is to price everything up to the highest price,and cut out competition,does he really think if buying drink at supermarkets were to be increased to pub prices would lead to more people going drinking in pubs,think again.
When pubs had people smoking in them,I would go home and have to have a shower and wash my clothes as they reeked of tobacco smoke,a dirty filthy stench,no other word for it.
If U.K.I.P. keep coming out with such tripe they will become unelectable.
People don't go drinking in pubs because of the price,I used to drink in pubs but the breweries put up the price of ale slowly but surely until they killed the golden goose,the customer. The way Paul Nuttall is thinking is to price everything up to the highest price,and cut out competition,does he really think if buying drink at supermarkets were to be increased to pub prices would lead to more people going drinking in pubs,think again. When pubs had people smoking in them,I would go home and have to have a shower and wash my clothes as they reeked of tobacco smoke,a dirty filthy stench,no other word for it. If U.K.I.P. keep coming out with such tripe they will become unelectable. MrBenggo
  • Score: 4

12:59am Thu 14 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

MrBenggo wrote:
People don't go drinking in pubs because of the price,I used to drink in pubs but the breweries put up the price of ale slowly but surely until they killed the golden goose,the customer.
The way Paul Nuttall is thinking is to price everything up to the highest price,and cut out competition,does he really think if buying drink at supermarkets were to be increased to pub prices would lead to more people going drinking in pubs,think again.
When pubs had people smoking in them,I would go home and have to have a shower and wash my clothes as they reeked of tobacco smoke,a dirty filthy stench,no other word for it.
If U.K.I.P. keep coming out with such tripe they will become unelectable.
UKIP's entire agenda is destroying the NANNYSTATE!
[quote][p][bold]MrBenggo[/bold] wrote: People don't go drinking in pubs because of the price,I used to drink in pubs but the breweries put up the price of ale slowly but surely until they killed the golden goose,the customer. The way Paul Nuttall is thinking is to price everything up to the highest price,and cut out competition,does he really think if buying drink at supermarkets were to be increased to pub prices would lead to more people going drinking in pubs,think again. When pubs had people smoking in them,I would go home and have to have a shower and wash my clothes as they reeked of tobacco smoke,a dirty filthy stench,no other word for it. If U.K.I.P. keep coming out with such tripe they will become unelectable.[/p][/quote]UKIP's entire agenda is destroying the NANNYSTATE! harleyrider1777
  • Score: -1

11:18am Thu 14 Aug 14

Bill Bradbury says...

Forget the toxins, forget the harm, forget whatever scientists say or not say, forget the statistics, I don't want to go home from a pub smelling like an ash-tray even worse if am having a meal. If smokers wish to keep my taxes down and kill themselves that is their choice.

I am not for the "nanny state" but I don't wish to have smoke wafted into my face.
Forget the toxins, forget the harm, forget whatever scientists say or not say, forget the statistics, I don't want to go home from a pub smelling like an ash-tray even worse if am having a meal. If smokers wish to keep my taxes down and kill themselves that is their choice. I am not for the "nanny state" but I don't wish to have smoke wafted into my face. Bill Bradbury
  • Score: 5

2:09pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Lestat1977 says...

I smoke and I would prefer the pubs to stay smoke free - perhaps they could provide a smoke room instead of having to stand outside but that doesn't really bother me either if I'm honest.
I smoke and I would prefer the pubs to stay smoke free - perhaps they could provide a smoke room instead of having to stand outside but that doesn't really bother me either if I'm honest. Lestat1977
  • Score: 4

8:19am Fri 15 Aug 14

mikeashworth says...

so this is nothing at all to do with lobbying of EU MEP's by e-cigarette manufacturers then?
so this is nothing at all to do with lobbying of EU MEP's by e-cigarette manufacturers then? mikeashworth
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree