I have to say that there does remain one area that does need to be addressed and that is the issue of second hand smoke inhaled by prison officers in their workplace. Obviously, it is a thorny issue due to the fear of revolt on the part of the inmates. However, this is still the one profession that is still made to risk exposing itself to the dangers of second hand smoke and is denied their right to a smoke free England. The Isle of Man has shown that, with the correct approach involving counselling for smokers etc, it is possible to implement a smoking ban and make prisons totally smoke free environments along with all other work places. Once smoking was banned in cells, the prison swiftly moved towards an all out ban on smoking which now includes outside areas. At first it does sound rather draconian, but only fair for the wardens since it took away the problem of having to distribute and then take back each individual’s cigarettes as they leave and enter buildings. Obviously, there was some apprehension at the prospect of several; hundred smokers going ‘cold turkey’. But not anywhere near as much as they had expected.

I am so glad that England is smokefree now, I think it is so much nicer to be in a pub and not get other people's smoke on your clothes and into your lungs. I would say that, having asthma I would always have supported the smoking ban, despite that the Tories opposed it, only for objections sake, not for anything else. However, I think Labour done well and met one huge need of mine and that of many others, an environment for all rather than just the few. I hate the Tories because they only think of objections, no matter what they object even if it's my health and that of my kids (like in the café...) I think the Tories are unable to recognize people's needs and subsequently cannot accommodate people's needs at all.

I would agree with a friend that most cancer and other chronic deseases are caused by 'Depression' or mental health issues. 1 in 4 people at any one given time has a 'mental health' problem, I wonder what the fraction is for all health issues, especially seeing that we are condemning peoples lifestyles by publishing anti smoking. Where are the people that will stick up for the children who are not yet polluted by society in ways of dementia like depression, do you think you are still right after reading this statement.

Going smokefree was probably one of the finest things Liebour have ever done. I visited New Zealand where they have been smokefree for a while and it was amazing. Coming back to this country, even though depressing, and having it smoke free was even better. Going out and not coming back smelling of...was like a breath of fresh air. HOWEVER. There is a downside to this. The reason tax is going up on...is not because it's about health but because tax revenues are falling from them. If everyone gives up their ciggies then we can all expect Income tax to go up by quite a bit.

I'm getting sick and tired of the government attacking smokers, many of which are good, honest, contributing members of society, turning them into second class citizens. First the change of age to 18 if you wish to buy cigarettes, then the ban and now they want to take them off the shelves of shops. Don't misunderstand me, do not think that children should be smoking but the government attacking smokers only makes it 'cooler' for young people who want to rebel against the system. Believe me, I'm 16 years old and many of my friends hold this view. The ban has had a huge negative effect on pubs and clubs. The labour party may claim that it has not caused many pubs to shut down, which may be true in a sense. However, pubs, in the traditional sense are in decline, with many having become chain resturants. The traditional English pub, which was part of our culture, may soon disappear. Non smokers have suffered as well, having to choose between sitting outside in the cold with their friends who smoke or sitting inside with their non smoking friends, leaving their smoking friends outside dividing their group. The government seem to spend more time attacking and making new laws against smokers than they do dealing with important issues such as knife crime, the Iraq War and the AIDS epidemic. Attacking smokers, taking the moral high ground, is a way of distracting us from the governments failings. Smoking is a bad habit that damages your health but so is eating fast food and many other things. Why not ban advertisements for fast food or eating fast food in public places (just kidding!). I don't honestly believe that passive smoking is very dangerous. I'm sure anyone who dies of lung disease and has not smoked but has come into contact with cigarette smoke the government claims has died of passive smoking. Finally, I'd like to imagine what the great Winston Churchill would say about the smoking ban. no doubt something like, 'stop whining about passive smoking, go and fight a war, then you'll have something to whine about. hold on... gotta light up another cigar'

First they came for the Fox Hunters, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Fox Hunter. Then they came for the Airsofters, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t an Airsofter. Then they came for the Target Shooters, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn't a Target Shooter. Then they came for smokers, and there was no one left to speak up for them. It's the same with every party, once they're in power, they do exactly what they want. Originally they said "we'll ban smoking everywhere that food is served" - and then proceded to ban it everywhere. What of those of us that voted for them, only to find that they have reneged on their promise? Can we claim "breach on of contract"? after all, the contract was "you vote for us, and we will do these things". All of the major parties wonder why they seem to be unable to get young people to vote - the young people that I know are realists - they know that whatever they do, whoever they vote for, however they shout - no one listens. Personally I now no longer vote - there is no point in this country. I will vote when there is a box at the bottom of each ballot paper that says "none of the above". Perhaps then the "powers that be" will find out just how unpopular they all are. I'm just waiting for my visa application to be approved and it'll be one more IT professional off to sunnier and freer climes!

Sounds like EU is pulling the strings.. It doesnt add up; the government wants us to stay healthier by imposing a smoking ban in public places (improve life expectancy) so that they can pay our pensions for longer?? Caring or what..

absolutely the sums are wrong. and who the hell thinks its the governments business how healthy i am? if i want to smoke i will, thanks. i am really annoyed by the proposal to double the price of 20 cigarettes to 10 pounds. this is INSANE. 77% of the price NOW is tax, what would it be at 10 pounds a pack?!! It is NOT the governments job to propose this. If we allow this then what will they choose next to limitlessly increase the TAX on?? It will end in stressed out single parents buying 20...after a hard days work instead of buying the kids dinner. Well done labour. GO AWAYYY!

This is the only good thing Labour has done, but why did we have to wait years longer than Wales and Ireland?

its all smoke and mirrors. If everybody gave up smoking then they would live longer. They would take up more resource in their old age than a smoke who dies sooner. The sums are wrong

Good news every one. FORCES INTERNATIONAL has presented an official complaint based on rigorous scientific analysis of the 2006 surgeon generals report on passive smoking to the office of research integrity in Washington. Maryetta Ables president of the organization stated "innocent smoking citizens have become target practice for discrimination and social hatred. They are accused of any thing from being killers to child abusers, all based on junk science, propaganda with an appalling blindness to scientific and social ethics". This ban is not about health this is about control. Ask your selves do you want to live in a free country or do you want to live under a system of state control with the constant abuse of science to scare you into behaving in a conformist manor.

I laugh so much i hurt myself, smokers of the world unite your stuffed. Labour is now planning to stop people smoking in shop door ways and outside of offices. and yes it is freedom freedom for me not to suffer idiots who think smoking is anything else but a stinking habit.

Well, I'll be glad when the streets are nice and clean on a Saturday morning - no mess from the Friday night - you know - after they ban drinking. Well, I'll be glad when I'm able to breath freely in towns again - you know - after they ban automobiles. Well, I'll be glad when I won't have to wait in a queue at the hospital - you know - after they ban any risky behaviour, like rugby. After all, anyone that participates in anything risky and gets injured, shouldn't be a burden to the rest of us. Well, I'll be glad when they ban all the fast food outlets - you know - to stop all the fat people being such a drain on the NHS. Well, I'll be glad when they ban all the refind sugars in our diet - you know - to prevent all the diabetics being such a drain on the NHS. What do you mean you want to have the freedom to have a drink on a Saturday night? 78% of T-totalers agree with it, stop being so selfish! What do you mean you want to have the freedom to drive your car when you want? 78% of pedestrians, cyclists and non-car owners agreed with it! stop being so selfish! What do you mean you like to play sport? 78% of couch potatoes agreed with it! stop being so selfish! Starting to get the idea? You want to go somewhere where people aren't smoking? go to a non-smoking place. You want to stop smokers standing around on the streets? Then let them smoke in their smokey little pub - you know - the one that you don't go in..............

And here you show your true colors. I here you shout and scream of how unpredudice how politicaly correct you are. You call me a racist for my genuine concerns of immigration. Yet here we see the truth you are intolerant and small minded you have not even bothered to spend a little of your time educating your self to the history which shaped the ounce free country i lived in and your happy to see history rewriten in order to protect your own socialistic views you are a in reality fascist. Let's hope the intolerance and small mindedness never spreads to a point of well why should we pay out for the disabled.

I suppose we have to get use to the big brother state. There bringing id cards make it illegal to smoke in tradition places not that the gov does not make so much money from our legal drugs alc and cigs. Only reason I would want to give up but have given up giving up is the cost. The gov dont want us to give up really as it would hit the income to the gov which must pay for the nhs countless times over. Ive stopped going to my local and now have a cig at home with my cheaper super market drink we dont need this nanny state people need to make there own minds up not be told what they can eat drink or smoke

Fine smoke so long as smokers do not get NHS treatment, I've no problem.

I must have said this on this forum alone 20 times and i will say it again. 8.1 billion a year raised by direct taxing on tobbaco 1'5 billion a year spent by the NHS on smoking related illness. Smokers more than pay for their own health care.

Before any one makes a point of it that was 1.5 not 1'5.

That's like arguing that it's ok for people to kill themselves and use up NHS time for being aloholics because they VAT on their booze. What a ridiculous argument. How about the people that suffer because of pasisve smoking? Should they feel good because a "smoke has paid for their healthcare". Ridiculous.

If i want to smoke and that is how i meet my end that is my business not yours or the states. And yes after spending a life of paying tax i do expect medical treatment. If you had bothered to read the message i left at the top you might have even spent a minuet to investigate forces internationals argument. But no instead you just recite word for word what has been drummed into you by the media. I will state a fact now the anti smoking lobby spent an absolote fortune on report after report to confirm their belief that passive smoking can harm non smokers when these reports did not find in their favor they did not exaggerate the truth a little they bare face lied about it. It's about time people started to develop a brain of their own all be it that is not in line with the EU, the UN, the soon to come American union and the new world order.

Passive smoking kills you work in a room filled with smoke you might as well smoke, I do not care if you kill your self, and I am happy for you to do it in your own home, but smoking kills end of story and you will never again be allowed to smoke in a café or shop great news , 100% back Labour.

i know this is slightly belated BUT: Roland you're beeing stupidly over sensitive about the whole thing and it is perfectly logical that if someone breaths out gases which are harmful to them it is going to be harmful to others as well. if you want to smoke it is your decision but you dont need to shout that from the rooftops. also i think Treborc although you are right but you are over reacting slightly with the whole 'smoking kills' thing. It does bring on serious medical conditions and smokers should get NHS treatment. They are taxpayers just like you and me are and the theory is that if less people smoke there will be less billing to the NHS because of this therefore cancelling out the profit and no NHS argument.

Its been a while since I posted. But I have to say that since the smoking ban all my local haunts in Newcastle have been smoke free and I cant remember the last time I came away from a night out smelling of smoke. Ive not seen anyone complain about having to go outside and Ive actually seen very few people smoking in general. All the pubs I drink at are sticking to the ban and it all seems good to me. I cant see any negative effects. :D

What world do you live in because it is not the same as the rest of us.

Im sorry you seem to be having a bad time with it, but just because you're not enjoying it doesnt mean my good experiences shouldnt be taken into account.

Well Roland as you know i hate smoking,but reading Simons posts, i cannot help but think is he a real person or just a propaganda spreader?

Roland are you trying to suggest that my good experiences after the smoking ban are invalid just because yours apparently arent? Sorry to break the news to you, but from all the pubs ive drank in around Newcastle over the last few months, I havent seen any issues and I love being able to leave a pub after a night out and NOT smell of smoke! Ive not seen any complain about smoking outside, ive not seen any reductions in drinkers, ive not seen any hassle at all!

Well simon i actually agree with you but where is this all leading to what are they going to stop next? eating sweets,crisps,jam doghnuts?

Well firstly I am a real person Peter and my good experiences of the smoking ban are just as worth listening to, as Rolands are! Secondly why do people always resort to making such rediculious comments like "first its smoking, next they'l ban sweets and doghnuts"? Be realistic Peter. Smoking was hazerdious to non-smokers due to second hand smoke. Whether it was trace amounts of not, I (as a non smoker) didnt choose to inhail it, and I didnt have the luxary of going elsewhere because every pub had smokers in. While smokers had the choice to simply NOT smoke for a few hours on a night out. So its not a simple case of that one smoker choosing to smoke in a public place, because it effects everyone around them. To then compare that to sweets and crips and doughnuts really isnt very mature. This arguement which smokers love to use of "well first they ban smoking and next they'l ban wiping your arse with paper" is just childish. Its an attempt to try and hide the fact that smoking didnt just affect the individual smoking. It effected everyone around them. Whether it be health effects, making your clothes smell, making your eyes hurt (which it did me) or something else. You can argue that eating a doughnut is going to impact the person next to you at all!

Obviously I meant "You cant argue.."! Please dont make comments along the lines of "first its smoking, next its doughnuts" because that really is a sad thing to say. And it adds nothing to the debate other then childish comments.

simon is your typical labour brown noser! only morons and immigrants love labour!

i would just like to point out that this is not me and infact a different Tim note the lack of capitals this means he is wrong. What you have said is so ridiculous i can't believe it just because he has good experiences with the smoking ban dosnt mean he loves new labour. he could be a Tory for all i care but hes still right. im from Durham (about 20 miles south of newcastle) and i have also had good experiences with the smoking ban. As to your comments about immigrants WTF how can you be so ignorant as to think that everyone else is wrong but you. whilst i may believe that i am right it dosnt mean that i am. added to the fact that i am neither a moron with 4 A Levels or an immigrant and yet i support labour.

I rather vote Lbaour then your lot BNP soory UKskip

shame you cannot spell eh moron boy?

Ah well it the way I write so thick white racist can read it.

You are so ignorant being Muslim is a faith many are white, think it's pretty obvious Treborc is right your a racist white boy without to much of a brain. Then again most thick white boys from the ghetto are racist BMP thugs but your to thick to even be a thug BMP Brits mental Party

Esesfsef and Time, is it possible you could spare a brain cell between you both and concentrate for a second. Just because Im anti-smoking and happen to like the smoking ban, that means I like labour and i cant wipe my a r s e? Do you both not realise how immature you sound!!! Is this what went through your head before you wrote that..."right, we need to get your point accross, so lets use foul language and accuse him of being a labour fanboy.. that will really make people respect our opinion!!" Because if it was... you need to spend more time thinking before you post! 1) I actually think the labour party is a complete joke, mainly because of how they attempt to tackle anti-social behaviour 2) Esesfsef your attempt at slagging me off was just pathetic and it made nooo sense!! Its amazing how the smokers are complaining their views and opinions arent being heard and complaining their liberties are being taken away. Yet the minute I try to post a mature and intelligent pro-smokingBan post all I get is immature replies, accusations of being inlove with labour, being fake, swarn at or told I cant wipe my own a s s! So its ok to complain about the smoking ban, but if you try to defend it you're subjected to taunts and abuse! And you want me to believe you pro-smokers are worthy of an opinion and rights? I have to just laugh at that! Until some of you learn how to express your opinions in a mature manor, then I couldnt care less if you're have to suffer not smoking for a few hours a night!

And ive seen your other attempts at advertising your website on these threads. The last one I saw, you just plastered foul language accross in upper case letters like an immature child. Now you're resorting to calling people "a brown noser" like its the school playground. Is it really impossible for you people to speak like adults and with some maturity?

Wake up to reality people, there is a high % of people in the UK who love the smoking ban. But apparently you find that hard to believe, because as pro-smokers you dont care about the effects you have on the people around you!!! Its sad and its pathetic and im glad you cant smoke anymore, if that is the attitude you take towards pro-nonsmokers! I hope you have fun sitting outside the pub in the rain and having withdrawl symptoms while im having fun drinking my pint. Ill get back to respecting your opinion when you learn to talk to people with respect.

Do not worry a vast majority of people agree with you, and the no smoking ban in my area is to be used for outside on public pavements, also café's have been using tables outside to get around the ban, this will also be stopped. great news.

Actually I dont mind people smoking outside if its like a certified smoking area. In our local village we have a shopping center, with a big red line around it where your not meant to smoke beyond. And as much as I love the smoking-ban, is a bit extreme because this line is quite a distance away from any doors. At the end of the day, I dont mind people smoking in the beer garden or outside, because we can sit inside. Its then our choice to go outside if we want to. Its smoking in confined, un-ventilated areas that causes issues.

Why the hell should I have to put up with you lot smoking and then paying to treat you lot for NHS and cancer. Smoke your self to death at home, but no more in the shops offices factories and next the streets. vote Labour or not i could not care a dam but no more of me having to put up with you bunch smoking.

I agree but why should i pay for all the people in third world countries?

That's very christian of you. By the way 8.1 billion on direct revenue a year through tax on tobbaco, 1.5 billion a year on smoking related disease so you were'nt paying anything. And we were paying for a hole lot more.

Well your right you are paying for a hole six foot deep, and I've enough problems without having to die from somebody Else's smoke, this is one good point of Labour and one I would vote for.

Once again i will state hand on my hart having looked at the evidence on all sides of the argument the myth of passive smoking being a health risk is a lie. Don't take my word for it google it. Take time to read the truth. I would not have an argument to defend smoking in public places if that was not the case. I should be concentrating my eforts on giving up not arguing with the brainwashed and i stand by that comment.

My god mate you google everything perhaps working a bit might help you stop the habit of googling.

Once again as I said myself, its not just about the suggested passive smoking. Its a question of subjecting someone to inhailing smoke or being effected by the smoke in ways they dont choose to. Making your clothes smell, irritating your eyes and ashma, irritating your throat and others! I've said myself before that being in smoke filled rooms irritated my eyes, especially with contacts in. Ive also said before that being around smoke on a night, makes you stink when you leave and come the morning your entire house smells of it. Yet people arent choosing to sit there and be subjected to it. You all talk about how as smokers, your rights are being ignored. What about the right not to inhail that smoke or walk away after a night out smelling? Its all well and good saying we could go elsewhere, but until the ban, what pub didnt have smokers in it? My local pub in newcastle would (at times) been filled with smoke that you couldnt see your hand! Is that acceptable for non-smokers? As non-smokers we were expected to either endure it or go elsewhere and its not easy finding pubs where people dont smoke. So lets compare! One person is asked not to smoke for a few hours on a night time, or an entire room of people are subjected to smoke and leave at the end of the night smelling and having the smoke irriate them? Who is worse off? One person or an entire room of people?

'Tis a sad day indeed when an individual gives up faith in a government because of problems other people have caused in the pase. If everyone was as narrow-minded as you we would never move on regarding ANYTHING. We would all simply wallow in our own pity and moan about mistakes that we've made... rather than saying "oh well, that was stupid. I've learned from that mistake - and this is what I'm going to do to make it better".

What i don't understand. Why are some people so busy telling every one else they should be healthy they should not smoke they should not eat mcdonalds they should not drink they sould not go sun bathing they should not prossed meat get on with your own live's stop telling every one how to run theirs and before you say it after paying tax on everything i buy or earn for the hole of my life YES i do expect medical treatment. As far as smoking gose every second of every day it was becoming less and less fashionable it was banning it's self. It did not need a bunch of control freaks who have nothing better to do than poke their nose into other peoples business to do it.

See, i aboslutely agree with this idea that if you want to kill yourself smoking, make yourself fat from macdonalds or binge drink until you puke... then go ahead... aslong as it doesnt impact or effect me as an individual and my individual choices about my life. If your smoke effects me then I would expect you not to smoke around me. If making yourself fat from macdonalds upset me and I was a family member or a loved one, I would expect you to stop. If the binge drinking led to you ruining my night out, even if I didnt know you, I would expect you to go away and leave me alone! As a people, we have every right to lead our lives how ever we want, even if it damages us. But only if it doesnt effect anyone else in a negative way, and especially if you know its hurting people around you.

At the last election i voted labour i am now thinking of changing to support cameron not that i think much of him but anything is better then this lot.

For most of my life I have been aligned with the Labour Party, but not anymore after I discovered the untruths about the smoking ban. The ONS stated only 33% of the population wanted a total smoking ban, this means that 67% didnt. The government took the poll done by YouGov that was paid for by Cancer Research instead of the ONS survey. The YouGov survey asked loaded questions to get the desired result. The consultation was a farce from beginning to end, it was mainly directed at Cancer Research, ASH , BHF who represented smokers? Smoking Bans are a gross infringement of private property rights. Pubs are not publically owned they are privately owned, the public is invited in not forced in the same applies to those that choose to work there. High Quality ventilation could have been installed, but even this option was removed. The Jamrozik report was quoted frequently by the government representatives, but this report was highly flawed and has been highly critical. To obtain the results it required Jamrozik included smokers in his estimates on passive smoking. Lying to achieve an objective is never acceptable. This government has put 14 million people out onto the street, their crime they buy a legal product, the cost of which 4/5ths is tax. Not one single study has ever proved that passive smoking on its own kills ever! The lies and deceit that have surrounded this draconian ban have destroyed my faith in the Labour Party I will never vote for them again.

Pubs etc might be privately owned but they are still public places just like anything else shops etc. Shopping malls aren't as you put it "publically owned" and I suppose that means "they are invited" but this is the definition of a public place surely. I myself have been involved in research projects regarding the damage that passive smoking does and if you look harder you will find the answers that you don't want to look for. I don't want to have premature hardening of the arteries and increased risks of lung cancer and heart attacks because of a choice other people have made. I don't understand why people can't see this as justice.

Can we please stop using the myth that pasive smoking causes any harm to any one as an argument for state control it is a lie.

It,s a happy day for me reading that. Weather your a smoker or not no government has the right to lie to the public to back up it's own voter pleasing mandate which have no mitake they did. The smoking ban was already a self implimenting ban eg. the people of this country could show they did not want smoking in a restaurant by going to a non smoking restaurant. Most restaurants were no smoking or at the least mainly no smoking with the smoking areas being in the least desirable parts of the restaurant this was not forced by the heavy hand of state law this was a consumer protest. Pubs would have followed suit as the consumer (the british public) had required that pubs do the same. To bring this in as law was nothing but a direct assult on private buissness, private property, and our ability to think far ourselves.

Just one question to the Labour party... If all of the above is to be believed and Labour are SO concerned about the nations health, then WHY is smoking tobacco still legal? Just a thought.

As a person who generally aligned myself with the Labour party, I am sick of the mobocratic rationale employed to justify the smoking ban. And it isn't even true in the case of pubs and clubs! According to the Office of National Stats in their survey published in July of last year: “ … 33 percent favoured a ban, while 48 percent wanted pubs to be mainly non-smoking with smoking areas.” According to the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health, the relative risk from second hand smoke for heart disease is 1.23, and lung cancer 1.24. The alarming figure is therefore that this increases your risks of those diseases by 23% and 24% respectively. But let's just have a look at what relative risk actually means. Take lung cancer: according to cancer research UK, there were 38,313 new cases of lung cancer in 2004. Given that cases of lung cancer are decreasing, that may be even less in 2007. So, to work out a person's risk of contracting lung cancer is a simple case of calculating percentages. 38,313 x 100 / 60,000,000 = 0.063855. So second hand smoke increases a person's chance of that figure by about a quarter = 0.0159%. Have such infinitesimal risks ever been used before to justify wide ranging prohibition of a legal product? I was under the impression that a risk of 3.0 (or an increase in risk of 300%) was typically required to restrict the usage of a product.

As much as i despise this government,this to me is the single one thing they have done correct and i support them 100% on however"what will be next"

Peter i disagree it is not up to the government to tell us what we can and cant do.

Peter from what i've read your having difficulty with your business due to legislation imagine watching the pub you had run for years shutting down and not being entitled to a penny compensation and knowing the reasons behind it are nothing but a lie. Fair enough you don't like smoking but please do not believe the junk science and brain washing that surrounds it. 8.1 billion pounds a year get raised a year (directly not indirectly) through smoking 1.5 billion a year gets spent on smoking related disease that is not easy information to find i found it looking through parlimentry records. That is just one example of information that the likes of ASH would rather you did not know and like you say what next.

Roland last month a mate died from lung cancer,i used to smoke very heavy myself and gave up in 1991 since giving up i can and do enjoy my life much more for example i now go for 20 mile cycle rides wich i would not have done as a smoker also my friday visit to the local conservative club was always the same me reeking of other peoples smoke wich was not nice,my drinking mates usually four of us two smoked and two did not for us non smokers it was not pleasant.Perhapes a compromise would have worked by having seperate smoking rooms etc whilst i do support the ban and accept that my mate would still be alive if he had not smoked along with longer lives for both of my late parents,i do agree with you in the fact that"where will this intrusion into our lives go next" will it become an offense to disagree with the government? ordrive a classic car?"i own five" so that would annoy me the smoking is really only one issue and i worry about the level of control this dictatorship is trying to have over our lives.

Don't get me wrong i agree smoking is bad for your health and stinks. But giving up is some thing you do because the day haas come when you make the decision with in your self not because the state turns you in to some kind of second rate citizen.

POINT TAKEN but it really is not pleasant as a non smoker to have to endure smoking,last year i stopped in gloucester at what appeared to be a nice fish restraunt i was just about to eat my meal when a young woman in a family crowd lit up,whilst still eating her meal i politely asked her to put out the ciggerette wich she refused even the owner sided with her,roland i am sure you have better manners then that woman but some smokers do not realise how unpleasant smoking is to others.

This is true if you smoke your obviously oblivious to the smell and yes i would have more manners and i think most smokers do although i can not speak for all. I am also oblivious to the smell i just know all my non smoking mates moaned about it when we were eating so it was obvious they felt offended at that time but in the pub it was never or at most rarely mentioned and in clubs never at all.

I left a message on the 16 july 2007 requesting that some one from the labour party remove the lies written above as they have not done so i will rewrite it for them++++++++++ ENGLAND WENT DEMOCRACY FREE ON THE 1 JULY 2007 Labour achieved a big step today on removing your human rights. It,s for your own good as let's face it you do not have the abillity to make simple desicions for your self. YES we,ve finally removed those dirty smokers from are pubs and public buildings and made them stand outside. Despite that our own surveys have proved that 67% of the population did not want a ban but just restrictions we have carried on with our campain and rigged the figures statistically speaking thats not hard to do. We also spent a great deal of time and money on reports connecting passive smoking with health risks unfortunatly these reports did not find in our own favour so we just bare face lied about them. It's for your own good though and the main thing is smokers are now outside the pub don't you just hate them. Lets hope they don't all decide to give up though as finding 12 billion pounds a year would require a hole lot more casinos and speed camera's. Any way we've got more pressing concerns we've got to take some shovels to iraq and dig up those weapons of mass destruction they must be some where. Lots of love NEW IMPROVED LABOUR with vitimin c extract.

I totally agree, we are now well and truly an Undemocratic country. The 'so-called' ex-Communist, Marxists, Fascists within labour must be foaming at the mouth to see what they've dedicated themselves to for years has actually been achieved with almost no effort on their part, the downfall of England, and the end of democracy. These disgusting 'supposedly' liberal people don't give a...about health, it's all about dictatorship, 'we can, so we will. They are evil incarnate, along with that other group ASH, who are earning more money than all those who think they are a credible organisation, can only dream of. Through this Pharmaceutical backed group and labours lies we now live in a state with diktats issued from that other EVIL organisation, the EU, and fascist enforcers everywhere you look. To say I hate what politicians, especially Labour, have done to the decent law abiding is an understatement, they are a scourge on all decent people. The Second Hand Smoke propaganda that's been bandied about by ASH and their sidekicks has become so lucrative to their bank balances that they daren't admit the truth. They are solely responsible for alot of violence being meted out to smokers, and for them being persecuted. I've heard it said that smokers are now the new jews, how telling seeing that Hitler and his fascist regime introduced a smoking ban. Wake up people, fight back before it's too late and you end up in a Gulag or some other such camp for dissenting.

If any one feels my comment's are a bit over the top please visit http://www.freedom2choose.co.uk/news1.php?id=290 it shows how a official document from the health and safety executive (HSC) has quite clearly been doctored to suiet the needs of those who seek to lie to the public to gain weight for their own personal opinion.

Haha.. hmm,yeah..visit the website HE recommends. Wise. Ok. So Roland,Itake it you are a smoker. Passive (thats right, two S's not one...) smoking has been proven harmful to others. As a 19yr old female, I also enjoy being able to go out for a drink, and not leave stinking of dirty cigerette smoke! Now, lets move away from passive smoking. The new smoke-free laws, I hope, should encourage more people to give up smoking. The majority of smokers I have spoke to do not actually want to smoke, and have tried to give up numerous times. Smoking is a dirty habit, and frankly should not be inflicted on others. The effects of smoking are facts, it is not arguable. (However, they have clearly had an unexpected and extra effect on yourself, as you seem unable to spell!!) I think you are naive, very narrow minded, a little selfish and frankly rather dim. As a law student, and as a person (who by the way, most people are glad the ban has come into place..? Majority and all that....), I think the new legislation was a good idea, and should have happened a long time ago.

You talk about the filtering idea, and I agree with it. It would be great to have filters in pubs that cleaned 99.7% of the air, but how long does it take to actually filter that smoke out? I'm in sat opposite a table of 6 blokes who are heavilty smoking... will that filtering system remove 99.7% of that smoke before its able to float over to me and before Im able to either inhail it, or have it iritate my eyes? Because I have a sneeking feeling it wouldnt filter the air fast enough to do that. Yes it might eventually clean the air and remove the smoke.... but its not very efficient if it doesnt do it fast enough to stop the smoke travelling.

Well i think your now just being completly unreasonable. If your that worried about your health you should concider buying a gas mask as every breath you take is full of thousands of invisible poisonus toxins from every thing from chemicals used in agriculture, industry,the planes that go over head, to the fumes that come from cars. The fact is your body deals with these toxins on a day to day basis that is how your immune system devlops. A small amount of anything is a good thing that is natures.

hear hear

roland i would keep quite on that one as i fear another tax rise coming on.

Could I not agrue that its unreasonably for smokers to complain they cant smoke inside a pub anymore because it effects me? Thats my entire point. You're trying to say its "ureasobale" for me not to want to breath in any amounts of toxins from another persons cigarette. Yes we could have better ventilation and air-con in pubs, but I would still have to endure the lingering smoke until it was sucked away. But you saying im being unreasonable because I DONT want to inhail that lingering smoke until its gone? Thats why I called your a hypercrit! You talk about smokers having their rights removed, but you true to argue i'm being paranoid just because I dont want to smoke in small amounts of cigeratte smoke! But thats my choice, thats my right, thats my freedom to NOT want to inhail it. But your dismissing that like im being a hypercondriac (cant spell). This is why I'm being dimissive about smokers not being able to smoke, because im just returning the same attitude. I say "why cant smokers just not smoke for a few hours a night" because your expecting us none-smokers to put up with small amounts of cigarette smoke because we're being "unreasonable"!

Unless you say to me "yes Simon, it is completely unacceptble to expect a non-smoker to breath in ANY amounts of cigarette which they dont choose to", then I wont agree with you. Until you admit its against a non-smokers rights to be expected to inhail ANY smoke, then I cant agree with your view! I accept better air-con and ventilation was an option, and it would have helped, but I dont agree it was a 100% effective solution. The smoke would still linger until it was removed. Call me unreasonable if you want, but if I dont choose to inhail that smoke, then I dont see why I should. And you saying that im being unreasonable is dissmissive of my rights as a peron. And that makes you a hypercrit because your talking about the rights of smokers, but dismissing the rights of non-smokers and calling us wingers because we dont want to inhail some smoke.

Well we have hit upon a stale mate then as i'm being stubon because their are absolutely no provisions made for smokers what so ever right to the point of telling smokers they have to stand 4 meters away from their place of work. So lets see if their is any common ground here would you say it as exceptable for a government to lie about documents stating quite clearly that their was no health risk as far as they could find to non smokers from second hand smoke.

But Roland, thats the point. I dont really care whether a report has proven that second hand smoke isnt bad for me. If I dont want or choose to inhail that smoke, I shouldnt have to, to any degree! Whether it be huge amounts or filtered amounts! I dont trust any report that states inhailing trace amounts of toxins isnt going to do me harm. Those are still trace amounts that I dont choose to inhail and it CAN be avoided with this ban. But it isnt just about health issues as I've said before. I find that smoke irriates my eyes and occassionally my throat. On a night out my contact lenses dont last more then an hour in a smokey room. I also find I stunk of smoke in the morning and my ENTIRE room and house smells too. You cant just jump on the "second hand smoke isnt bad for you" bandwagon, when there are other issues caused by second-hand smoke. It isnt all just about health. Its also about bar staff (who maybe cant get a job anywhere else) having to be in that smokey environment for hours on end, day in and day out. You cant tell me that a non-smoking bar attendant, inhailing second-hand smoke 24/7 for hours at a time isnt going to feel the effects in a negative way? You talk about choice, and how smokers dont have a choice anymore. As a non-smoker, I had NO choice before now, to whether I sat and inhailed smoke in my local pub. It doesnt matter whether that smoke is harming me or not, because I didnt choose to inhail it!

Simon it was a simple question please read it again and answer it.

I didnt quite understand what you wrote. Are you suggesting the government lied when stating that secondhand smoke is harmfull? If so, then I dont know fine well that isnt true. You have shown me a website yourself that states a person can inhail the equilivant of 19 cigarettes in a year from second hand smoke (worst case scenario). How is that NOT harmfull? But if they did lie, then no its not acceptable. But as I've said it doesnt matter! I dont care whether some report states that second-hand smoke isnt harmfull, because I find that hard to believe. I'm using my own common sense to realise that inhailing smoke that contains toxins isnt going to be good for me. And even so (as ive said) its not just about the harmfull effects to your health. Its about the other negative effects that it has - irritation, ashma and smelling clothes. Are you going to suggest that Ashma suffers arent going to feel any effects from smoking? Does this smoking ban not help them?

I can not possibly answer for every single scenario placed before me but i can say both the government and the anti smoking lobby bare face lied about the dangers of second hand smoke. It came as much of a supprise to me as it has to you. Like you say it would seem common sense that if smoking causes cancer etc.. then being around smokers it might affect you in the same manor. You have the right to disslike smoking you have the right to clean ventilated pubs thats fair enough, you have the right to exspect those who do smoke to have a bit of respect for the fact you don't. I'll give you a good example of how far the paranoia and brain washing has gone. Lutton council have stated that any one smoking in multi story car parks will be fined as they are not 50% open. How can any one in their right mind claim that some one smoking in a multi story car park can affect the health of another person. It is deemed safe enough for adults, children, astma sufferers to stay in there with car fumes then why not smokers. Car fumes are far far more dangerous than any thing a cigarret can throw out. Think about this if you was given the choice which one would you rather be looked in a garage for just one hour with a smoker or a running car.

The issue with car fumes compared to smoking is that smoking is avoidable and you dont have to do it around others. Cars (unfortunately) are a necessity... its not a great and its not perfect, but the fact is the country would fall apart with out them. But (and you know my opinion by now) even if a scientist with 10 diplomas in some kind of medical science, stood infront of me and said "second hand smoke wont hurt you" I would turn to him and say "I dont believe you or care because I dont want to breath it in.". And as I've also said, its not just health issues that Im concerned about, its more how smoking irriates my eyes and makes my clothes smell. You can say "well just wash your clothes" but its a bit late when you wake up the next morning to your entire room smelling or smoke because the smell lingered. I just feel smoking has FAR to many side effects on the people around them (health wise or not) to be concidered acceptable in a confined space. The thing with smoking as an activity is that it is just an activity. Its not a necessity and it is avoidable in public places. You dont have to smoke around other people. You could just go outside and be conciderate. Unlike cars which are unavoidable. But its not right to agrue that "cars poison you anyway, so why cant we smoke around you?" because thats a very ignorant attitude to take towards non-smokers. I dont see us agreeing to be honest, but its been fun talking.

Yeah your right we're not going to agree on this looks like the brain washing has gone to deep for me to bring you out of it. The point about which would you rather spend an hour in a garage with a smoker or a running car was not about weather we need cars or not, the point was to show how minute the risk of breathing in second hand smoke