Forest Unfiltered






40 Years of Hurt

Prejudice and Prohibition

Road To Ruin?

Search This Site
The Pleasure of Smoking

Forest Polling Report

Outdoor Smoking Bans

Plain Packaging

Share This Page
Powered by Squarespace
« Pot kettle black - Lib Dem MP calls Forest a "fairly unsavoury organisation"! | Main | Mallon to Oireachtas Health Committee: "Engage with smokers" and use a "bit of common sense" »

'Expert' calls for ban on smoking in the home

An environmental health expert wants the Scottish Government to ban smoking in the home.

According to the Sunday Times Scotland:

Ivy Shiue, of Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, has urged Scottish ministers to extend the smoking ban that made it an offence to smoke in public places such as offices, restaurants and pubs.

The paper adds that:

In a paper published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Shiue argues the ban does not go far enough.

"Although the chance of exposure at work has been lessened, the risk effects from own home and other people's households seem to have persisted and affected human health including cardiovascular disease and mental health."

Without directly endorsing a ban on smoking in the home, Sheila Duffy, CEO of ASH Scotland, said:

"The only way to protect people is to make homes smoke-free."

Ladies and gentlemen, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle.

Update: It won't surprise you to learn that Ivy Shiue got a PhD in medicine at the University of Sydney (Simon Chapman's stamping ground).

Click here to read her paper, Modeling the Effects of Indoor Passive Smoking at Home, Work, or Other Households on Adult Cardiovascular and Mental Health: The Scottish Health Survey, 2008–2011.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (13)

Still don't like the use of the word Nazi simon?

Some should just walk in to the home of one of these bigots ( very polite description) and started laying down the law.

I can't begin to describe my hatred of those who think it's 'their right' to snout into and interfere with what others do in their own homes.

Sunday, March 23, 2014 at 11:51 | Unregistered CommenterAdam

Smokerphobia is a mental health condition which harms those who suffer from it and harms those around them via spiteful hate campaigns inspired by unfounded fear.

Smokerphobia is taught in Australia by one of its first victims Simon Chapman - who caught it from the likes of Banzhaf, Glanz and Farren. Chapman has since launched vile attacks on innocent people in his country when he should have been sectioned and ordered to get treatment.

Anti-smokerism is not a choice. It's an addiction. Pity those poor souls.

Sunday, March 23, 2014 at 12:08 | Unregistered CommenterPat Nurse

Adam, I'm as opposed to the use of the word Nazi in this context as I've ever been. Nazi, as I don't need to tell you, is short for 'national socialist' and the Nazis were responsible for the genocide of six million people on the grounds of their race/religion.

There are plenty of other words that can be used to describe such dictatorial and illiberal threats. I believe it's completely inappropriate to use the word Nazi is relation to smoking. It is also counter-productive. If you used the word on radio or television in this context you would be dismissed by the vast majority of listeners as a crank which isn't helpful.

Sunday, March 23, 2014 at 14:01 | Unregistered CommenterSimon

Scotland and Scottish produce is added to my boycott list.

Sunday, March 23, 2014 at 17:21 | Unregistered Commentergray cooper

I believe it's completely inappropriate to use the word Nazi is relation to smoking.

Simon, it’s up to you what you do/don’t say on radio/TV. However, there is a very intimate relationship between the Nazis and smoking. The Nazis had a War on Tobacco:

Early last century, in all the countries of the world there were only two that had high-profile antismoking (and anti-alcohol) crusades – America and Germany. These didn’t just pop up out of thin air. In America, antismoking was peddled by Temperance groups from the early 1800s. The Temperance groups had very, very limited success with the legislature in getting bans enacted. Things started to occur legislatively when another group came on the scene in the late 1800s – the eugenicists. These were the medically aligned (e.g., physicians, biologists, zoologists, statisticians) who were convinced they could “engineer” a better human “herd” and where health was perversely reduced to only a physical/biological phenomenon. The legislature was conned by this group believing that whatever the medically aligned claimed was “scientific and scholarly”, i.e., logical fallacy of “appeal to authority”. Eugenics was first popularized in America. Hitler and the Germans were students of American eugenics. Not often mentioned is that in addition to the racial/heredity/breeding dimension that eugenics is most notorious for, eugenics also has a behavioral dimension – anti-tobacco, anti-alcohol, dietary prescriptions/proscriptions, physical exercise.

Therefore the intimate connection between antismoking in America and Germany early last century was physician-led eugenics. There is also an intimate connection to the current crusade. Problematic is that – for obvious reasons – the word “eugenics” is no longer used. The obsession with physical health that emerged in America through the 1970s was referred to as “healthism”. It is the “hygienism” (healthism) of eugenics by another name. The current antismoking crusade was begun by the medically aligned (see Godber Blueprint). It involves the same physicalism and perverse, reductionist definition of health. It involves the same reliance on flimsy population-level statistics that were pioneered by eugenicists for population control. It involves the same despicable denormalization/propaganda methods. And it involves the same aspiration to societal rule by a self-installed medically-aligned elite.

We seem to have forgotten that the eugenics catastrophe that began in America and culminated with the extreme of Nazism was physician-led. The two largest group memberships of the Nazi Party were doctors and lawyers. Further, a “movement” need not deteriorate to the point of genocide for the medically aligned to create havoc in their deranged quest for self-serving societal control.

Sunday, March 23, 2014 at 17:47 | Unregistered CommenterHistory

See also:

Some insight into the connection between American eugenics - California in particular - and German eugenics.

Sunday, March 23, 2014 at 17:48 | Unregistered CommenterHistory

Simon, my posts are purely for edification purposes. It’s understood that you can’t go into such complex detail in three-minute interviews on TV. The problem highlighted is that the masses, the media, academia, and the medical establishment are dangerously not familiar with only recent history or the early signs of institutional/political dysfunction that can quickly deteriorate into catastrophe. It doesn’t auger well for the near future.

Sunday, March 23, 2014 at 18:00 | Unregistered CommenterHistory

Several points:

1) "Ladies and gentlemen, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle." Been out for a while. My "Lies Behind The Smoking Bans," first published in 2006, has always placed the following quote from John Banzhaf near the end: "Here we are literally reaching into the last frontier -- right into the home... No longer can you argue, 'My home is my castle. I've got the right to smoke.' " ( )

2) Re SmokerPhobia: in its more extreme forms it's a serious psychopathological condition known as ASDS, AntiSmokers' Dysfunction Syndrome. See Stephanie Stahl's excellent analysis of it at: and urge any victims to follow the guidelines to recovery -- for their families' sakes as well as their own.

3) Re Nazi References: They are appropriate in qualified form for several reasons: (A) as antismoking researcher R. Proctor pointed out in his history of German antismoking efforts, they actually invented the term "Passive Smoking" (Passivrauchen) in the 1930s and pushed one of the strongest national antismoking campaigns of 20th Century; (B) The emphasis on eugenics and health for the benefit of the state and under the dictates of the state are integral to both movements; and (C) as pointed out in the Author's Preface at the growth of Nazi anti-Semitism in the 1930s has many parallels with the modern antismoking movement.

The problem with drawing the comparison is that Antismokers will always take advantage of the opportunity to set up a Straw Man and rave that the "pro-smokers" are comparing smoking bans to being "hauled off to the ovens." In reality, Free Choice proponents are really simply pointing to the nasty similarities of state-sanctioned discrimination and the building of hate toward a minority group.


Sunday, March 23, 2014 at 22:03 | Unregistered CommenterMichael J. McFadden

As we can all see the END GAME is to first ban car smoking and then follow it up with a ban in the homes,likely using the children for this purpose yet again. Then if they can get their final smoking rates at a certain level tobacco control plans on pushing the government for OUT RIGHT PROHIBITION ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS!

Second Hand/ Third Hand Smoke: Trigger For Outrage –Catalyst For Change?
•Smoke Free Public Places
•Smoke Free Work Places
•Smoke Free Parks/Open Spaces
•Smoke Free Private Transport
•Smoke Free Homes
Positioning Tobacco Endgame In The Post-2015 Development Agenda
UNSustainable Development Goals Or Expanded Millennium Development Goals

Can tobacco control endgame analysis learn anything from …


The thirdhand and second hand smoke MYTHS were created to create public fear and outrage. They are basically telling us that in the above! TRIGGER FOR OUTRAGE!

Monday, March 24, 2014 at 0:02 | Unregistered Commenterharleyrider1978

Tobacco Control Scotland has admitted it has no record of any deaths or demonstrable harm caused to anyone from second hand smoke as the UK Govt pushes forward the idea of third hand smoke, aka Invisible Smoke, without any evidence at all.

Bill Gibson, The International Coalition Against Prohibition (TICAP) chairman, was interested to know how many actual deaths and respiratory illnesses were recorded in Scotland from passive smoking, given the reported guesstimate 13,000 figure which is repeated parrot fashion year after year.

He put in an FOI request and found that there wasn't one death or respiratory illnesses attributed to SHS or tobacco. Perhaps I should repeat that. Not one death has been recorded in Scotland as definitely related to tobacco smoking or passive smoking.

If we did the same the world over we would get the same answer.

Remember this story from last year:

B.S. Study: 600,000 People Die Worldwide From Secondhand Smoke Every Year

US Bureau of Labor Statistics Shows Zero Deaths From 2nd Hand Smoke
Where are the deaths?
If people who work in bars die from secondhand smoke, why does the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the last 4 years show ZERO DEATHS from exposure to harmful substances or environments? This data is for 2011. (pg38 of 53). Notice that 31 people died while working in a "drinking place"(which my bar is classified as). 27 deaths were by violent injuries by persons or animals(?). 2 died by fires or explosions. I don't know where the other 2 deaths are listed however, there are 0 deaths from exposure to harmful substances or environments.
So where are these deaths from SHS?
Notice 2010 under this below. In 2010, there were 28 total deaths, 25 from violence and 0 from exposure to harmful substances or environments.
0250.pdf (pg 18).
In 2009, 32 deaths of bar workers. 31 were violent deaths and 0 from exposure to harmful substances or environments. (pg 18)
In 2008, 35 deaths of bar workers. 32 were violent deaths and 0 from exposure to harmful substances or environments. (pg 18).
They aren't crawling out and dying in the parking lots either. We would have noticed 'em."
Sheila Martin

Monday, March 24, 2014 at 1:09 | Unregistered Commenterharleyrider1978

Municipal ban on smoking during working hours abolished again in record time

Municipal prohibition clowning: – The total ban on smoking in working for local government employees, which was introduced in seven municipalities per. 1 January was only three weeks of life in Elsinore. At the city council meeting Monday night was an urgent proposal from the Alliance for pulling back the new rules, adopted by a large majority. According to its author, Allan Berg Mortensen’s Facebook page . The proposal appears here (page 55 and Appendix). turnaround is in recognition of the complete ban on smoking during working hours is unreasonable, and probably not particularly well thought out. They have been shown to cause conflict and reduce job satisfaction in the workplace, and it probably also lack, as previously described in 180grader: Experts & Unions: Smoking bans provide more sick days In addition, several parts of the strict municipal smoking ban certainly does not lawful because, according to lawyers is not objectively justified. In particular, the ban on smoking during breaks and outside of the workplace area that lawyers are skeptical: Lawyers: Municipal smoking ban may be unlawful. Unions ready for trial

As can be seen, it is also doubtful whether municipalities and private companies can prohibit employees to smoke in their outdoor areas. Municipal land belonging to public space, and Elsinore municipality recognizes its meeting paper that legally can not forbid people to smoke there. It prohibits However, the employees – on the grounds that they must be “role models”. proof of illness danger of secondhand smoke is gone , the Danish authorities’ ban zeal has long overtaken by reality. It has long been clear that there is no credible evidence of smoke Act original premise: that passive smoking harms the employees in the workplace. Tobacco smoke bothers certainly a lot of people, and they have to be able to get rid of it – but secondhand smoke poses no health hazard which can be shown scientifically. Despite many claims about this from various health authorities. Smoking law protects simply social contestants against a non-existent disease risk: The proof is away: Passive smoking in the workplace does not hurt the employees

Passive smoking in the workplace does not hurt the employees

Proof that disappeared: – Many companies have adopted strict smoking ban at work the last few years – but the evidence for passive smoking in workplaces damage the employees exists probably not. According to an opinion piece by environmental biologist Niels Philipsen & journalist Klaus Kjellerup in the continuing debate war on passive smoking in JP, which has been running throughout the month of July: “There’s made ​​hundreds of population studies of the statistical relationship between indoor passive smoking and disease. 82 per cent. of the studies show no link,” they write. “Especially one relationship is striking: All studies of passive smoking in the European workplace shows no correlation with the diseases that have been studied, including lung cancer and heart disease [...] Science supports that is not directly claim that tobacco smoke in the workplace harm others ” it appears from the discussion topic . They leans up of the figures in the U.S. administration’s authoritative Surgeon General’s Report 2006, which could not demonstrate increased disease risk from environmental tobacco smoke in workplaces in Europe. Ipsen and Kjellerup has previously drawn attention to this fact in JP – shortly before smoking law tightening in 2012. Crossing is a response to professor of business law, Ole Hasselbalch, who has written that Danish hospitals have the legal right to fire employees who defy a smoking ban on the grounds that passive smoking “harm others.” Passive smoking in the home and on the job is equivalent to smoking half a cigarette a month in a response to another opinion piece, from a reader, Uffe Nissen, says Ipsen and Kjellerup the circumstances of the evidence from tobacco smoke: “It is true that many health authorities say that passive smoking causes disease, but most studies support the claims shows no disease risk. Serious scientists consider them also unreliable: You can not measure the risk of disease credible by asking people how much smoke they have been exposed, “they write. “There is, however, made ​​objective røgmålinger in homes and workplaces around the world. They show that passive smoking at home or at work, on average, exposed to the equivalent of smoking cigarette half a month [ 1 ]. Bartenders in smoking bars can reach up to approx. two cigarettes a month. “[ 2 ] “These levels are below the limit of disease risk. A common smoking cigarettes consume 700-800 monthly. ” debate in JP was initially kick-started the topic July 8, “Harmless arbejdspladsrøg” – described on 180grader here: smoking law protects against the risk of disease that does not exist

Monday, March 24, 2014 at 2:09 | Unregistered Commenterharleyrider1978

Simon. The anti smoking side of Nazi Germany has been well covered by others. However, some of the tactics used by the Nazis to deionize people they disliked mirror those used by the current anti smoking movement.

You say “Nazis were responsible for the genocide of six million people on the grounds of their race/religion.” How many times have you seen readers comments on smoking retailed news articles wishing death on smokers? Not to mention the infamous sniper game. One nasty comment made by an anti smoker I remember seeing on youtube went something like 'The gas chambers await, no one likes you'.

One final point. Hitler and his henchmen may be long gone but Nazism as a political viewpoint is still very much with us.

Monday, March 24, 2014 at 12:40 | Unregistered CommenterAdam

As an academic exercise it would be interesting to pose this question of ASH.

In 1938 the Nazis banned smoking in public places like hospitals and museums, plus in 1944 banning it on public transport, the latter especially was ignored.

With whom would ASH sympathise, the rule of law in Nazi Germany, or defiant smokers?

Tuesday, March 25, 2014 at 13:57 | Unregistered CommenterDave Atherton

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>