Add Comment

Public Health Minister Shona Robison said: [italic]"Significant progress has been made in recent years to shift cultural attitudes to smoking, but this report clearly demonstrates that firm action needs to continue if we are to succeed in our desire to make Scotland smoke-free".[/italic] And who is she to tell people what they can and cannot do, clearly none of their measures to prevent young people from smoking are working either. What they going to do next, taser people if they are caught lighting up?

[quote]What they going to do next, taser people if they are caught lighting up?[/quote] Don't give them ideas.

So, given that the illiberal and totalitarian smoking ban diktat hasn't worked, can we get rid of it please? And when will the government learn that trying to outlaw something only makes it cooler?

Actually the figures they give are a bit misleading, they picked the lowest point of the last 10 years of 25% (2004) (which looks like a blip according to the trends)... and they only pick the central value when in fact the 95% confidence level is statistically far more important (which includes the 28% value). So the figures really arent that surprising as the trend is still downwards according to the graph in the report.

[quote][bold]GJS[/bold] wrote: So, given that the illiberal and totalitarian smoking ban diktat hasn't worked, can we get rid of it please? And when will the government learn that trying to outlaw something only makes it cooler?[/quote] So how do you explain it working in other countries?

How else are they going to complement chips and cheese or curry sauce.

[quote][bold]gkar[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]GJS[/bold] wrote: So, given that the illiberal and totalitarian smoking ban diktat hasn't worked, can we get rid of it please? And when will the government learn that trying to outlaw something only makes it cooler?[/quote] So how do you explain it working in other countries?[/quote] Like it really worked in France you mean?????? It lasted a whole year there. The French more or less said "feck off" and ignored the smoking ban as we should have done. Facts and figures can be distorted to prove anything you want them to. the simple fact is, the minute you ban something, it automatically becomes of interest to some people, ESPECIALLY teenagers!! It doesn`t take a genius to work that out, only a parent. Personally I think we are more desperate need of protection from the banks than smokers. How in hell can something be "semi-legal", as smoking now is???? As for figures, some figures "prove" that more people die from drink than smoke, while others "prove" the opposite. The simple fact is, who knows for sure??? As recently as the `80`s successive government "experts" KNEW that smoking was safe, then again, these were the same people that KNEW judges, lawyers, teachers, social workers and police officers could not possibly be child molesters!!

[quote][bold]gkar[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]GJS[/bold] wrote: So, given that the illiberal and totalitarian smoking ban diktat hasn't worked, can we get rid of it please? And when will the government learn that trying to outlaw something only makes it cooler?[/quote] So how do you explain it working in other countries?[/quote] There is no clear evidence that it has worked in other countries.

[quote][bold]gkar[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]GJS[/bold] wrote: So, given that the illiberal and totalitarian smoking ban diktat hasn't worked, can we get rid of it please? And when will the government learn that trying to outlaw something only makes it cooler?[/quote] So how do you explain it working in other countries?[/quote] There is no clear evidence that it has worked in other countries.

Protecting children from the tobacco holocaust - One billion deaths this century (World Health Organisation; that’s 15 times the war dead of 20th century.) is obligatory! In order to effectively protect children would any right thinking person object if cigarettes were banned from sale and deleted from films? (The majority of films promote smoking! (Google- smoke free movies now showing) www.ActorsSmokingFil msTV.blogspot.com Stuart Holmes. Anti smoking campaigner.

Stuart. I tend to disagree. I find that the anti-smoking organisations are lobbying towards a 'hidden holocaust', and are as such responsible for many of the deaths that you quote. Ignoring over 90% of hard scientific studies in relation to second hand smoking and instead relying on soft scientific studies (epidemiology - not even accepted in a court of law!) and lobbying towards a policy of prohibition. Why did you abandon the concept of the safe cigarette? Why did you accept the brainwashing of the infamous words stated by WHO that to reduce smoking prevalence rates we must create an atmosphere where smoking is PERCEIVED to harm others? Why have you ignored the results of the main studies conducted into smoking and created your own? Why will you not allow the billions of smokers worldwide to smoke harmless tobacco? The anti-smoking organisations stopped it's production. Why are you lobbying for RIP cigarette papers that are known to be toxic and are highly dangerous to individuals? Why do you have to splash ridiculous headlines like the 'Pell' report to brainwash the public into believing lies? Why, now that the true figures are out regarding ACS admissions in Scotland, has this not been corrected? Why can't you accept that everywhere else, that total bans like ours have taken place, smoking prevalence has increased? Why can't you accept that education is better than legislation? Why do you feel that it is right to de-normalise over 40% of the people that I live among, just because they participate in a legal activity, that you do not agree with? Why do you agree that your way is right? If we had ignored the anti-smoing agencies all those years ago, these deaths from tobacco wouldn't have happened. We'd all be smoking safe cigarettes now! Fair enough, nationally our rates are around 25% - 30%, possibly even higher, if you include those that the government do not count, ie 16-18 yr olds, and those that smoke tobacco bought abroad. That's nothing compared to some countries, which you as an anti-smoking campaigner must be aware of. Why are you continuing to halt the research into the safe cigarette? You are not in this for health, you are in this because of personal preference and what you like and dislike. I dislike many things as well, yet I wouldn't join a crusade to demonise those that chose that lifestyle. The anti-smoking agencies are equally responsible for any deaths that have been deemed to be tobacco related. If it wasn't for them, we'd all be smoking safe cigarettes - world-wide. Stuart, prohibition does not work. Just accept the official data that you are being presented with. If you really are concerned about the health of the nation, then you should apologise for your heavy-handed tactics and accept that you were wrong with stopping the productuion of the safe cigarette. The decision is yours, but my mind is made up at the moment. This is a hidden holocaust of those that are not deemed 'acceptable' by the majority. Ouch! That really reminds me of something that happened in the last century. Brainwashing, propaganda and ignorance of facts et al. We have the technology (safe cigarettes and safe ventilated areas) - so use it. It would be much cheaper that what we're dong now. Why on earth should you complain about that?

Im sure a very high proportion of non smokers would state that they dont miss having to suffer 2nd hand smoke in an enclosed public place regardless of whether or not it scientifically affects their own health.