Push for outdoor smoking ban begins
Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 8:16 Following New York's decision to ban smoking in parks and squares, Five News last night reported the result of a YouGov/Five News survey on the subject.
"Some countries are clamping down on lighting up in the open and our survey reveals that 43 per cent of people in the UK think the smoking ban should be extended to all outdoor public spaces."
The Government, said Five News, has no plans to follow suit yet but does say that breathing in other people's smoke increases your risk of getting lung cancer by 24 per cent. "And our survey did reveal some pretty strong feelings."
Member of the public:
"It's breathing it in, or the smell that gets on your clothes. If you've got children in a buggy ... it's straight in their face. I think it's really inconsiderate."
Interestingly, the Roy Castle Foundation appears to be against an outdoor smoking ban. Interviewed by Five News, youth project manager Lisa Gill said, "Our concern is that parents and carers who are maybe motivated to protect their children within their homes by smoking outside would then move back into the home and start smoking in front of their children."
The suggestion by Five News that "breathing in other people's smoke increases your risk of getting lung cancer by 24 per cent" does of course refer to exposure to other people's smoke in a confined space over many, many years. It has no relevance whatsoever to smoking outdoors.
In truth, the risk of non-smokers getting lung cancer is so small that an increased risk of 24 per cent is, in etymological terms, statistically insignificant. To be significant the "increased risk" would have to be in the region of 200-300 per cent. Perhaps someone should tell Five News.
PS. Five News did contact Forest for an interview. Unfortunately I was in Brussels and unavailable.
Update: The YouGov website reports that "51 per cent support the idea of banning smoking in outdoors public places, such as open parks, beaches and pedestrian squares". Report here (but not the actual survey or the questions asked).
Reader Comments (37)
Member of the public:
"It's breathing it in, or the smell that gets on your clothes. If you've got children in a buggy ... it's straight in their face. I think it's really inconsiderate."
Surely an easy solution to this then would be for people with 'buggies' to wear gas-masks and easily washable plastic clothing, after all, we wouldn't want the poor dears to smell of anything other than pure hypocrisy would we?
But I do think it is a bit divisive to pick on dwarves, or should I call them people of stunted growth? No, sod it, 'Dwarves' who smoke, as although this 'member of the public' tries to hide the fact that it this particular section of the public that they are picking on, it seems pretty obvious to me, as who else would at the correct height to blow smoke 'straight in the face of the children in a buggy?'
Pick on someone your own size, I say!
EXACTLY the point I was going to make, Peter! (and always remembering that smoke rises, anyway).
Why aren't these people worried about the force of exhaust emissions as they push the buggy in the wake of a passing car?
Simon, will Forest be writing a response to Five News to correct it and suggest some accurate reporting?
As a certain General (I believe) in a movie, famously said, "I love the smell of Napalm in the morning"
These grumbling nannies with their pushchairs, obviously love the smell of deisel fumes, be it morning, afternoon or any time.
Sadly I fear in this current bigoted and intolerant wave against the smoker, they will get their own way.
I just despair. Why is this supposed "free market, non socialist" alleged Conservative Party allowing this sort of thing to continue? Why has it not turned back the tide of discrimination, abuse and hate? Why is it in bed with ASH and continuing to pour money into this fake charity and smoke free projects everywhere while cutting funding to vital small local charities that actually do some good?
Can any Tory voters explain to me please because I simply don't understand where this bile is coming from.
NuToryLimpDumps or NuLabour - it really doesn't matter.
Agree with you Pat, I was going to write something similar myself. I remember before the election one or two Tories on here urging us all to vote for them and ridiculing anyone thinking of voting for smoker friendly parties.
What did we get? We are still being beaten with the same stick albeit of a different colour. During the election runup while still unsure which way to vote, I managed to get 5 minutes with my Tory MP in which we we discussed the smoking issue. He made it clear that they were not really interested in the smoking community, would not be revisiting the Ban and I think he was basically in favour of more restrictions.
It helped me decide my vote. Wasted vote? maybe. But I'd rather vote for someone who say they will help than parties that just want to make my life more uncomfortable.
Uncomfortable! I feel positively suicidal - seriously! Maybe I'll visit Ascot and the Queen's horse but they'd probably blame my broken smoker corpse as likely to give the animal cancer later in its life. If I survived, I'd get done for assault on a animal. We are worth less.
I am not joking.
We had one chance - just one to show them how much this issue mattered. I said then and I'll say it again. By the end of this Govt's life we will have lived with it and worse for almost 10 years. Did anyone really think that there would be any chance to amend it then or get fairer treatment for smokers by then?
Those who chose not to make this stand frankly wasted their vote in my opinion.
Hey, have you noticed how the toddler in the buggy is hung off the kerb in front of the person pushing it as thay wait for a gap in the traffic. I say Ban Buggies and Cars-;#)
You Gov is a member of the British Polling Council. As such, it is required to publish the complete wording of questions upon which the survey is based (wherever practical). See here:
http://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/statement.html
I suggest people contact the BPC.
YouGov.
Peter Kellner.
Renowed smoke hater.
Loaded questions I might wager.
Let's see 'em.
No one, and I mean no one, takes this sort of thing seriously enough. We allowed it to happen with the actual ban, and now, if we do not do something positive immediately, we will be allowing this next step to happen, and believe me, it will, as surely as the first step did.
Announcements like this are used to judge the public's reaction, test the water so to speak. If the only opposition they get are a few regulars on a pro-smoking site, then what's the problem? It's like marching into Austria, quickly followed by Czechoslovakia. "Let's see how the world reacts to this?" said the funny little man with the Charlie Chaplin moustache. There were a few grumblings from those weird people who valued freedom, but apart from that - dead silence! This silence of course paved the way for the next step, which in that particular case was Poland, followed by....well I won't go into that here, as I think it is something we all know by heart.
Have you ever watched a film of documentary where you see hundreds, sometimes thousands of prisoners being guarded by just one or two armed guards? Every time I see that sort of thing I think to myself, why the hell doesn't someone organise an uprising? Can you imagine what would have happened? The guards would have run for their lives and the prisoners (most of them anyway) would be free. World War II would have ended much sooner, concentration camps wouldn't have been able to function, and millions of people would not have been killed.
And before anyone comes up with the old (yawn - yawn) adage about how dare anyone compare what happened during WW II with the smoking-ban, I say this to them; what are we supposed to compare it with then, Girl Guides being told not to wear short skirts, or schoolboys being forced to wear goggles to play conkers?
The smoking ban isn't just about stopping a few people's much loved past-time, it is about robbing people of their freedom; taking away their human rights. It is about marching all over us, and never being content until we, like those other outcasts during the 1930s are completely eradicated.
We have the means at our disposal, just like the students did in the recent London school fees riots, or the Egyptians did in Cairo. Social networking is the answer, there are millions of people out there, waiting to be mobilised, and all it takes is the click of your mouse.
We all know that YouGov can fix a poll by only asking the right people.
I have often said that I am a smoker and fill in many polls, but I was not asked to participate in this poll.
YouGov has published the details of the poll. These also include details of a poll on the current ban. Here they are:
http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/YG-Archives-Life-YouGov-SmokingInNY-140211.pdf
Unfortunately, Five News has distorted the results by using the phrase, "all outdoor public spaces", whereas the poll did not include streets. ASH UK also uses this phrase on its daily propaganda page.
Go on then Peter - get the 'troops' organised - you make it sound so easy! Get out on the streets and do your ranting about Nazis and gassing people and bombing them with napalm routine. Put up or shut up!
To simon ncs, whoever that name is hiding behind. I already do my bit, not on the streets, as you seem to have misread, but on Social Networking sites. You should try it sometime, you never know, you might learn something.
The people from the Roy Castle Foundation I have heard interviewed do on the whole seem genuine and fairly honest compared to other anti tobacco groups. Their concern appears to be passive smoking, which they believe to be harmful, inflicted on people against their will. Such a law would, as they say, cause more smoking in houses - just as the cannabis laws do. The problem for the Government would be enforcement. Manchester has 400 cameras watching the city centre, yet people commute to work by cycling on the footpaths and drivers on the whole ignore the ban on mobiles. Banning smoking in parks and pedestrian squares (what the poll was actually about) wouldn't work. The Mayor of New York has said he is not going to enforce the ban and that it is up to the public to enforce it. Well the public might intimidate an old man on a park bench, but not a group of youths enjoying a few cans.
Even so, I agree with Peter. This will continue unless we actively protest. For about the fourth time I'll repeat my suggestion of handing out credit card sized cards to smokers outside pubs and cafes, with links to a petition and websites giving information about passive smoking and smoking ban politics. The only way the progress of these bans will be halted is by some action. My preference would be the opening of environmental tobacco smoke research centres, where people can drink coffee, smoke and participate in tests of extraction equipment. This is probably legal and, even if not, is unlikely to attract opposition from sane members of the public. The real time air quality analysis could be posted online.
Do anyone have their own suggestions?
All it takes is one click of my mouse, eh? By the way - have you read 'Mr Angry'? You might enjoy it... and learn something.
Whilst the SHS myth is allowed to carry on unchallenged, this sort of thing will continue. It's the basis of it all.
Discussions of and for an 'amendment' are no panacea. It should be freshly challenged on the basis that it was manipulated, cherry picked, Fabian, bollocks in the first place, that wilfully ignored a plethora of 'evidence' to the contrary. I wish I could do it but in Parliamentary terms I'm an insignificant voice in the wilderness. Surely there are some on here in a better position?
Let's get a few things corrected here people!
Quote::-•80% of Brits support the smoking ban currently in place in the UK which prohibits smoking in enclosed public places"
If this is a truth it means that at least 5%-6% of actual smokers want the ban to stay in place-that does not make sense.The YouGov survey that produced this farcical figure was so loaded, questionwise, that you had to be exceedingly careful how you answered the questions!
Quote:- "•But just 51% support the idea of banning smoking in outdoors public places, such as open parks, beaches and pedestrian squares, while a similar 45% oppose this idea"
This is also a crock of sh*t! The newspaper chain, Johnstone Press, put the Bloomberg story & poll in every one of their local papers. I checked 10 of them and not one was actually a "YES" vote. In fact one southern edition was a resounding 84% NO vote. It is well known that ASH/Kellner are in bed together so questions/answers are not too surprising.
Very strange though that freedom2choose.info surveyed 570 public houses around the country and found that only 8% of licensees wanted a full ban and 80% wanted amendments made to the law to be able to accomodate smokers!
Yet again the BBC 'cherry pick' the information, do no proper research and spew out garbage.
To "Simon nsc" I say this: as a non smoker myself I find it deplorable that 25%-28% of our population is being severely discriminated against when the law that has caused this to be is based on lies, fabrications, manipulated statistics & junk science-and yes, I do wish the people would get off their arses and block London up for a day or 3!
Simon (nsc) you only come on here to be abusive and wind people up so why bother? Simon Clark - why don't you block him. He never has anything useful to add. At least Rollo backs up his arguments with sound debate, stats and figures.
Simon (nsc's) kind is in the minority and one day the Govt will see it then he'lll be back to whining about smells he personally doesn't like. What will he be calling for to be banned next. I'll bet there's something. There always is with his selfish sort.
As for being active, well, there's a lot going on and not least the Resistance Movement. So if there are people on here who haven't signed up then do. Bigoted anti-smokers took 40 years to get to this point. We will claw back some fairness in less time and note I say fairness - smokers are not selfish. we don't want it all unlike bigots like Sminon (nsc). And you may not be a Nazi but you are as sure as Hell a fascist.
Only today several people I've mentioned this new outrage to - who are not online and don't know that there is a movement and a group like Forest to represent us - are fuming. They are talking about taking to the streets and know we are at this point because people like them were silent. Although they tell me because they never really believed the Govt would so stupid. Like many others they had the wool pulled over their eyes until it was too late.
So, Peter Thurgood - when and where? I'll bring hundreds and I'm sure each and every one of you will bring hundreds more.
Taking to the streets might be our next move but for now we are starving Govt of our tax so that people like you Simon (nsc) will have no NHS when you need it because smokers will no longer fund it.
You should be thanking us not coming on here to be abusive because it makes your day.
Well surprise, surprise. Truth gets misreported. You only to have to compare what the courts actually said about sex offenders 'rights' (that after several years of non-offence that they might be given the chance of just a 'review' of the limitations placed on them) with what Cameron and May and all the press claimed the judges had said, to know that everyone seizes on a story to spin it their own way.
Phil - I agree - people should be making feelings known more vociferously but in a cogent sensible way. I read Simon Clark because he does just that, but then he gets this background noise of offensive rhetoric from Peter and his ilk. I am one of those smokers who supports the ban, because it makes people who would have no regard for their fellow human beings feelings, do so in a very limited way. I do think banning smoking outdoors is ridiculous, although I can see the thinking behind stopping clustering in doorways. But taking that step is NOT anything like 'marching into Austria and then Czechoslovakia'. We don't see Simon Clark resorting to insulting dwarfs, or repeated references to Nazism, so why do so many of his commenters? Maybe, as a life-long non-smoker himself he actually has a little tolerance in him?
Frank, I don't think many people believe SHS is harmful. The basis now seems to be that there are no votes to be had in amending the smoking ban. Not because most people are that bothered. Some always disliked the smell of smoke but most didn't care unless their eyes were stinging. They've just got into the habit of hating smokers and hating is generally now fashionable. Fat people, ginger haired people etc. So your child's stupid and ugly, you can't afford the Maldives, you hate your job. You metaphorically (or is that allegorically?) bang your fists on the side of the Black Maria by hating a smoker or a fat person. The problems not the fraudulent science: it's our lack of action. Clegg probably can't believe his luck. He was almost laughing when he said, "I'm a Liberal and Liberals don't ban things, but smoking harms other people."
Pat - I apologise. Didn't mean to make you foam at the mouth. You called me selfish, a fascist and a bigot, and then asked for my freedom of speech to be blocked (as it happens I am a socialist - hence my call for tolerance). I would ask you to withdraw, but actually you kind of prove my point that Simon Clark does not need such offensive supporters.
@Simon etc etc....
' I am one of those smokers who supports the ban, because it makes people who would have no regard for their fellow human beings feelings, do so in a very limited way.'
Clearly you needed saving from your own ill-manners. I am one of the MAJORITY of smokers who does NOT support the ban because they were, and are perfectly capable of being considerate WITHOUT such 'consideration' being forced upon them by law.
Simon (nsc), how is supporting the smoking ban a call for tolerance? The ban covers all non-residential buildings and secure mental hospitals (which are actually residences - but never mind, they are full of "mentals". How many guns and tanks have they got?). Whoops, almost strayed into Nazi territory there! "Enclosed public spaces" is not the correct description. Smokers never demanded to smoke everywhere. Had you and people of similar views supported non smoking pubs, just as you supported non smoking restaurants and cafes, of which there were plenty, most of us would be fairly happy. There would be far less smoking at bus stops, in doorways, in parks, in pedestrian squares etc. Putting myself in the position of someone who dislikes smoking, I can't think of a reason I would support the current smoking ban. What would I gain from it apart from the outrageous privilege of being able to march into any pub or private club in the country and not smell a whiff of tobacco smoke?
It will be interesting to see how their latest social engineering experiment in New York pans out.
I have a feeling it will flop.
Fingers crossed.
They already have the equivalent of smoke easy's there now.
"...and then asked for my freedom of speech to be blocked." Apology accepted and given in response to the quote said in anger. Sorry if it offended but when I am offended I respond in kind.
But when you accuse us of being "selfish" and all that how do you expect us to respond?
I couldn't possibly expect you to understand because you are not a lifelong smoker. Perhaps if you were you would see it differently and it is not about being a "pathetic addict" either. It's about being accepted for who you are and have always been. Smokers do not ask for it all - just a space of their own - and not to be discriminated against in the workplace or elsewhere because they are smokers.
I am sorry but I fail to see what is selfish about that. If we were truly that selfish, we would have complained at each and every restriction made during the last 40 years and we did not because we agreed that people who don't like smoke shouldn't have to put up with it. We are making a noise now because the balance of fairness and equality has gone completely.
The absolute undeniable truth of this is that both you and I could be accommodated in public through choice. If you are a socialist, then how could you object to free and fair choice for adults who pay high taxes on a product they choose to consume when knowing the risks associated with it. I was a socialist before the ban. It has thrown everything I always believed about this country and socialism into doubt.
The Nazi example is always given because the last time there was this kind of anti-smoker zealotry, Hitler imposed the same as we are seeing today and that is why non-smokers like Simon and others perhaps are tolerant and on the side of choice because they know that the side of enforcement is wrong in so many ways.
As Simon says on the Belgium post above, he didn't even notice smoke. In short he is fair, tolerant and has this issue firmly in perspective. I don't say I have nor do I say you have. I believe that people like you and me are at each end of the scale but somewhere in the middle we can meet. That place is choice.
Pete Robinson (The Publican): The British Pub - A thesis on it's decline and fall
http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?storycode=69085
Another freedom2choose survey of U-25s showed that-"When socialising do you object to being in the company of smokers"- only 11.4% said they did, yet smokers are now banned in 100% of our pubs, clubs, Bingo halls etc. Is that not somewhat losided?
Another surprising response:-Q: With the information now available, do you believe that SHS
poses a health threat? Response = 7% did!
Freedom2choose surveyed the WMCIU via the Club Journal...98% of clubs wanted a smoking room for their members. (8.4% laid looses in revenue firmly at the smoking bans door.
People talk of undestanding & tolerance, what understanding & tolerance has been shown to smokers throughout this anti smoking, tangled web of deceit campaign? Smokers would have happily sat in a seperate room or even pub had they been given the choice-but that's the problem, they haven't even been offered a choice!.
Because of lack of choice, another 'unintended consequence' has reared its ugly head:- http://freedom-2-choose.blogspot.com/2011/02/world-1st-loneliness-triblogology.html
http://freedom-2-choose.blogspot.com/2011/02/loneliness-triblogology-part-2.html
This shows you exactly what total smoking bans do to people, towns, cities, nations and shows even the most dimwitted soul alive exactly why there should be CHOICE!
Correction to above post:
98.4% laid losses in revenue firmly at the smoking bans door.
Jon: The point I make is quite simple in essence. SHS is the basis of all of this rubbish and must be tackled where it can be adjusted. We would never get any more than an amendment, anyway, as Parliament will never admit to being wrong or conned but it would be a start. Pointing out the All party Committee's bigoted selection, the fact that ASH are, effectively, their secretariat and have full time worker's in the DoH. Paint the picture of how the ban was manipulated and then load the argument with the 'science' they used and the 'science' they dismissed. Rock the boat, embarrass them, quote the figures of pub Closures alongside the DoH's response that denied the ban has anything to do with it. A good argument can be made and we know that most people are not in favour of a total ban, anyway.
Help from the MSM would definitely be of assistance. I have noticed, recently, a few more sceptical write ups than used to be, perhaps these people should be worked on, presented with the case. It's the SHS myth that has to be worked on. Without this, nothing further happens. As said, I'm sure there are people, even on here, who have access to the powers.
The powers are aware of the fragility of the argument and don't want to revisit. They have to be embarrassed into doing so.
Newport USA, Campbell County Fiscal Court voted 3-1 to snuff out the proposed countywide smoking ban that would have prohibited smoking inside bars, restaurants and other businesses that welcome the public.
But the majority in the room – some of them offering a standing ovation – won the battle. Many said they didn’t believe studies that showed the harms of secondhand smoke, noting some of them are sponsored by foundations that oppose smoking.
http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20110216/NEWS0108/302160081/NKY-smoking-ban-likely-die-tonight
Frank: I still maintain that the ban was never about SHS. SHS was used to bring it in, but that doesn't mean it can be amended by demonstrating the fraud behind SHS. Most people (so most voters) believe or suspect it's a fraud. To them, if anything, it was always about smelly pullovers and the slightly disturbing expereince of being with people who seemingly had a cavalier attitude to health. They know politicians lie and deceive them all the time. Why should this be any different? The dog ban analogy is a good one. If dogs were currently banned from a park near me on health grounds and then it was discovered that they were not, after all, responsible for toxicariasis, would I vote to have them let back in to just one section of the park? Maybe not. I've now got a whole park free of dog mess and I don't much like dogs. Aside: I've noticed that there is far more dog mess on my lane since dogs were banned from the park.
Jon: I agree but if they're embarrassed enough they'll have to react or accept that they have been shown to be guilty of bare faced lies. If they react by saying 'so what?' we and they are in a whole different situation and I don't think they want that. It has to be attempted otherwise this stupid crap will continue.
"Help from the MSM would definitely be of assistance. I have noticed, recently, a few more sceptical write ups than used to be, perhaps these people should be worked on, presented with the case. It's the SHS myth that has to be worked on. Without this, nothing further happens. As said, I'm sure there are people, even on here, who have access to the powers."
Yes, totally agree. Does anyone have a line to James Delingpole? He comes across (to me) as a Libertarian, and he's not afraid of upsetting people. He is someone, I think, who if presented with all the facts would be sympathetic to our cause. Particularly if he could be shown conclusively that this attack on liberty is based (like AGW, his pet rant) on junk science and massively funded propoganda.
Rather uplifting news from Campbell County. Commonsense prevailing in one small corner. As someone (I forget who) once said "The problem with common sense is that it's not very common." - and don't we know it!
Another staged event!
@nisakiman
Delingpole knocks everyone here into the shade with his opinion on tobacco. He wrote a wonderful piece about the loveliness of smoking in his book 'How to be Right'.
Has anyone here got the clout to persuade him to put that online via his blog?
@Karen and nisakiman
The way the Daily Telegraph do their blogs is that you have one theme, SHS would be off message. I have met James at the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) and we discussed AGW warming and SHS and he is fully aware of the fraud. He even asked the correct pronunciation of Enstrom/Kabat.
Good lad is James.