Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Endinburgh Council
 
 
Monday, 2nd November 2009 Change Date Latest Issue

Plans to make UK's smokers stump up for permit to puff

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 16 February 2008
FORCING smokers to apply for a £10 permit to buy cigarettes could help people to quit, a Government health adviser has said.
Professor Julian Le Grand, chairman of Health England, said more people might stop smoking if they had to "opt in" by applying for a annual permit and paying a £10 fee.

"70 per cent of smokers actually want to stop smoking. So if you just make it that little bit more difficult for them to actually re-start or even to start in the first place, yes I think it will make a big difference," he said.

He said that some people would be deterred from smoking if they had to make the effort to fill in a complicated form, get a photograph taken and pay a charge.

"It's a little bit of a problem to actually do it, so you have got to make a conscious decision every year to opt in to being a smoker," he added.

The proposal is one of Health England's suggestions for preventing illness which has been sent to Health Minister Lord Darzi.

Simon Clark, of smokers' rights group Forest, said the smoking permit proposal was outrageous.

"We are becoming not just a nanny state but a bully state," he said.

"Tobacco is a legal product."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 16 February 2008 10:46 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Tobacco
 
1

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 16/02/2008 11:07:05
First the smoking ban now this!!!

Well I can tell you what to do with you permit!!

STICK IT WHERE THE SUN DONT SHINE!!!!
2

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 16/02/2008 11:48:32
johnABZ @ #2,

"plenty loonies out there"

Is that what you call them.??....'How Kind'!!

I know what I call them and it ain't that!!
3

taxidriver,

in my taxi 16/02/2008 12:53:28
so much for a free country.just another way to tax the working man.i dont smoke and never have but see no need to hammer smokers again.if every body stopped smoking,drinking and driving for 2 weeks this labour government would be on its knees. now taxinging immigrants to get into our country would be a better idea and would raise more than the £10 per smoker would ever do.
4

JulesF,

16/02/2008 14:07:24
Is it April 1st ?
5

Alberto.,

16/02/2008 14:11:16
The great political brains are obviously fully geared up and working at full stretch - to think of this one!

Wait until they realise that 'Fresh Air' can be bottled - what then!

Oops! Hope I haven't let the 'Cat out of the Political bag!'
6

wordsworth,

16/02/2008 14:50:14
Great idea,but it must apply to the whole of the uk.
7

TheTerminator,

In The Future 16/02/2008 14:58:59
The loonies must be in control to come up with an idea like this. WHEN ARE SMOKERS GOING TO STAND UP AND BE COUNTED. IGNORE THE SMOKING BAN NOW, THEY CAN'T TAKE EVERYBODY TO COURT.
8

Eve,

Scotland 16/02/2008 15:04:26
Great Idea,

I think there should be a wee test involved too.

Which is a mixture of question (i.e. Fire safety, Health and Non-smokers rights questions) checking the persons level of sensibility. They should only be allowed a permit to smoke if they prove to be a sensible person.

I only say this because the amount of smokers who wave their cigarette about the place while their walking is shocking. I like most people do not want to walk in to a mini hand held fire.
9

Cynicaltalk,

E Lothian 16/02/2008 15:08:52

I am vehemently anti smoking, but even i feel this is a step too far.

We've got the ban, and there is more than enough education out there regarding the dangers of cigarettes.

Thats all you need.
10

Mikey,

16/02/2008 15:15:27
Eve, maybe we should have a test for people like you, eh? Let's see if we can find any sort of brain in there?
11

Belinda-2,

Edinburgh 16/02/2008 15:17:14
Eve

Isn't your definition of a 'sensible person': a non-smoker?

Catch 22?
12

Rollo Tommasi,

16/02/2008 15:23:48
Cynicaltalk: That's the way I feel. We need the laws we have - to protect people from the effects of other people's smoking. But, provided others aren't harmed in the process, those who genuinely want to smoke should have the right to.

I'd have a bit more support for this proposal if it were clear that it would help smokers wanting to quit to give up. But I can't help thinking that the plan is based on guesswork about people's behaviours rather than evidence. And it might actually be counter-productive - someone who'd been through the hassle of applying and paying for a license would not be likely to then quit any time soon!
13

JudithM,

York 16/02/2008 15:24:24
And so it goes on. We were asking what next and today comes this, together with the news that tea should not now be drunk by the under 16's!! No mention of alcohol - what a country! Mind you, looking at the comments of the likes of Eve, I can see why we have got in this state!!
14

Fricke,

Leith 16/02/2008 15:28:56
Gordon Brown and chums must be squealing with excitement at this one. A way to indulge their favourite two pastimes at once. Controlling people's lives and raising taxes on the worst off (most smokers are apparently from the lowest income bracket). This is not, of course, anything to do with the health of non smokers, 'I don't actually think the arguments on passive smoking are all tht strong.' Not my words but those Prof.Le Grand, in an interview on Radio 5 live last night.
15

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

Newington 16/02/2008 16:15:08
Most addicts I know who have quit smoking will cadge fags from others in the pub when they relapse. Would it be illegal to give a fag to someone who didn't have a Fag Addict ID Card?

About the only sense I can see in this is that it might make it a lot harder for under 18's to obtain them.

Even Labour aren't nuts enough to go for this one...
16

Ghost Of Scotland Past,

16/02/2008 16:20:08
Glad to see even vehement anti smokers think this is a step to far, perhaps now the arguements smokers have been using regarding freedom and choice may now start to hit the mark amoung the more intelligent and less selfish
non snokers. Sadly people like wordsworth and eve will
never understand or accept that they could be in the next group to face discrimination, for doing something they enjoy. Both need to get a grip on reality and the human condition
Eve. My house, and outdoors are in effect the only places where I can smoke, if I ignite my mini fire outside and you are behind me it will not affect you,
as the smoke is hot and heats up the air around it, I suppose even you know what hot air does, but incase you were playing truant during that science lesson,
hot air rises, unless you are very close to me and very tall it will not go up your nose, so cease complaining
as your hot air is getting right up my nose, to a degree where I might campaign to get fatuous complaining banned.
17

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 16/02/2008 16:20:49
This has got to be one of the stupidest and most unworkable schemes ever to emanate from the "minds" of one of those lunatic government misadvisors.

ALthough a non-smoker since birth this wacky idea should be thrown into the trash bin with the used cigarette butts - and the "government advisor".
18

Ghost Of Scotland Past,

16/02/2008 16:26:23
Poobah, I wouldn't take any bet's on that one, ie your final sentence.
I had not thought of smokers with ID giving, lending or even selling fags on to their Un ID mates, so therefore
the law would have to be changed to make reselling illegal, I can just imagine a senario where an unscroupulous anti smoker might just get a permit and buy vast quantities so he could profiteer amoung smokers.
19

Ghost Of Scotland Past,

16/02/2008 16:29:41
Latest, nonsense on this front is supermarkets demanding
ID from anyone they suspect of being under 30 in order to purchase alcohol. Where will it all end?
That was rhetorical, I think anyone with more than a lonely braincell can figure it out.
20

Paul Voltiare,

16/02/2008 16:48:54
£10 for an annual permit seems a bit low, but at least it's a puff in the right direction. Increasing the price of a packet to £10 might be more effective.
21

tug f wilson,

nottingham 16/02/2008 17:15:20
If anyone thinks this is a good idea then they must be part of G Browns Nazi Party,when is this witch-hunt going to end,The Labour party need to make some profit from something,they are already putting Clubs/Pubs out of business with the so called smoking ban,people demand the freedom 2 choose,and they will get it,the sooner the better,cheers, TUG.
22

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 16/02/2008 17:17:27
A permit to Pooh.?
A Permit to have sex.?
A Permit to eat and sleep.?

Get Tae 'F'...
23

Reckless,

Brown is a traitor 16/02/2008 17:18:56
Welcome to the EUSSR.
24

Scott Webb*,

16/02/2008 18:00:26
As every day goes by and the agenda goes on, i feel LESS sorry for the herd.....Because they embraced their own enslavement...............and they still wont see it coming untill they enter the camps
25

mandyv,

16/02/2008 18:01:02
If this goes through, let the madness begin, it is a sick idea, it has become fanatical. What a shame they did not become this fanatical over all the illegal drugs getting to the children.
Please do not tell me smokers are not getting persecuted.
26

Loki - The Scourge of the Schemies,

EH1 16/02/2008 18:12:34
If this crazy idea ever gets off the ground then I am sure that, when approaching a trader at the many open-air markets, smokers will be asked, "Can I see your permit, sir?"
I fear Professor Le Grand would benefit by having the voltage increased at his next consultation.
27

Chuckles,

16/02/2008 18:32:29
They didnt become fanatical Mandy over the illegal drugs as theres no money to be made through taxes! For sure smokers are becoming like the Jews in nazi Germany!
28

Eve,

Scotland 16/02/2008 19:33:53
#11 Mikey: I have a degree with Hons, so yer talking garbage there!!!

#12 Belinda-2: That's NOT what I wrote!! Read my post again and I think you'll find what I meant was smokers who wave there little sticks of fire about the place lack sensibility. NOT unless yer suggest that all smokers do this!!!!

You surely must realise that a lit cigarette is a mini fire. You place it one on a flammable nightie/ sofa for example and it could catch fire.

A lot of home fires have started because a lit cigarette wasn't put out properly.

N.B.
I was joking when I said the permit was a great idea BUT I do think smokers should be made aware of fire risks/safety and non-smokers rights NOT inhale their passive smoke.
29

Eve,

Scotland 16/02/2008 19:44:39
#23 Charles Linskaill: Those have to be the most daftest things ever to suggest by doing any of those three you'd be going against peoples human rights and 2 of the 3 could be seen as a sign of torture.

Smoking is different because there are 3 types of smoke produced, 1st hand is what the smoker gets (that doesn't bovver anyone but the smoker) 2nd hand smoke which is inflicted on everyone who in the same area, this infringes non-smokers human rights) 3rd hand smoke which effects the smoker and anyone around them.

30

Eve,

Scotland 16/02/2008 19:57:25
#17 Ghost Of Scotland Past: "if I ignite my mini fire outside and you are behind me it will not affect you,"
That's complete and utter nonces. I'd try and over take you and would probably ask to get by so I didn't have to inhale yer smoke.

I'd rather be in front of a smoker than behind them any day cause most of the time the yucky smoke hits when some ones walking in front of me (may be I'm always walking down wing when someone smokes in front of me). It makes me want to puke.

Why can't some smokers under stand that their habit makes some of us feel ill. (though I think it depends on the brand, cause some smoker smoke annoy me more than others)

Yes I do know heat raises, BUT most smokers are short and I'm tall!!! So I do get the smoke in my face a lot, I'm glad you understand that part of my problem.
31

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 16/02/2008 20:12:58
WHAT THE HELL DO THESE LOW-LIFE, NAZI SCUM THINK THEY ARE DOING?

I HOPE THEY ALL DIE A PROLONGED, PAINFUL DEATH AND THEN BURN IN HELL.
32

,

16/02/2008 20:13:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
33

DaveA,

Forfarshire 16/02/2008 20:17:11
Won't apply to me I get my cigarettes from Spain. Julian Le Grand however has been truthful in saying that the effect of passive smoking is "insubstantial". Now the government agrees that the spin on passive smoking is a plain lie perhaps we can get back to having separate smoking pubs or separate smoking rooms.
34

,

16/02/2008 20:18:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
35

,

16/02/2008 20:29:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
36

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 16/02/2008 20:29:30
Eve @#31,
Dinny ya believe all that crap!
Who would of thought we would have all this Loony legislation today 10years ago.?
37

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 16/02/2008 20:37:18
Re #38,
In other words, unless we all stand-up and start the
'Peoples Revolution'
We are going to be 'trodden-on' more and more, by the most brainless 'Ar*h**e's of our times!
38

valleyjim,

Anchor 16/02/2008 20:55:12
Nicotine is a highly addictive drug so why is it legal in the first place? Cannabis on the other hand is non-addictive and harmless so why is this illegal? Beats the fcuk out of me.
39

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 16/02/2008 20:59:35
valleyjim @#40,

"Nicotine is a highly addictive drug so why is it legal in the first place?"

The Answer is simple dear Boy!

"brainless 'Ar*h**e's"

40

David from New Mills,

U.K. 16/02/2008 21:45:42
#33/34, p.h..
Good to enjoy the usual high level of debate to be expected from the erudite Petrol Man, just when I thought this whole thread had become tedious and more than a little fatuous.
41

Eve,

Scotland 16/02/2008 21:47:21
#37 Ghost Of Scotland Past: You are very insulting and I don't appreciate being called a he, when I am clearly a woman, can you NOT tell?

Is it NOT obvious that I only mentioned my degree because some one suggested that I wasn't intelligent. It wasn't to discredit anyone else.

I would appreciate it if you read my post in full and got what I'm trying to put forward is more balance than you and other post are giving me credit for.

I think it's disgrace that you would agree with someone who knows nothing about me and attacks a personal problem, which I don't let hold me back, may be to compensate for their lack of vision to see other perspectives in life, which holds them back.
42

Eve,

Scotland 16/02/2008 22:03:01
#38 Charles Linskaill:
Are you a smoker cause you appear to be joining in there gang against me, and you also appear to be only reading parts of my posts and missing the bits where I take a more balanced approach. BUT with some other posters it appears to be " have my view or I'll treat you like your stupid and no nothing"


I've never said I had anything against any one who smoke, all I've every claimed is I'd rather smokers wouldn't smoke near me, cause it makes me personally feel ill. I can't change or prevent any feeling of unwellness I get, when some people smoke near me.

MOST PEOPLE IN SCOTLAND DON'T SMOKE it's a FACT.

#40 valleyjim: That's a very interesting point!! BUT it appears that no one can quite make their mind up about the Cannabis. I believe that is the drug which can cause memory problems and periods of delusions.

Personally I've tried neither, so to me they are both pretty disgusting to me.
43

Rollo Tommasi,

16/02/2008 22:08:53
Well Fuel Head. You're really showing your Nazi censorship credentials tonight. If you can't take someone else's comments, get off this board.

And as for you Ghost of Scotland Past. If you really believed in freedom to choose, you would have accepted other people's freedom to choose their views without resorting to mindless insult.
44

Ghost Of Scotland Past,

16/02/2008 22:29:58
45) Explain the Oxymoron mindless insult. I have questioned, I have been sarcastic because that is what
control freaks understand, If the anti brigade cannot take someone else's comments without screaming "insult"
perhaps they should get off this board. I remind you that you are not the moderator.
I still have not been informed what Hons Degree Eve holds
and now I am informed that she has a personal problem which neither she nor anyone else has mentioned until post 43. Eve I am not insulting, the "he" I was reffering to was myself not you, perhaps you should read my posts in full, even though I now suspect your
problem to be Dyslexia, if so have you tried reading
and writing against a sky blue background?
45

Rollo Tommasi,

16/02/2008 23:12:24
46) GoSP. It was a mindless insult, nothing oxymoronic about that. And no, you didn't question before resorting to affront (or rather, wrapping yourself in Fuel Head's nasty remarks). If you had questioned why Eve felt the need to refer to her degree, you would have seen that she was responding to Mikey's charming remark at 11: "Eve, maybe we should have a test for people like you, eh? Let's see if we can find any sort of brain in there?"

Meanwhile, you seem to be moaning because Eve didn't label her personal problem from the outset. Sorry mate, but that's your problem, not Eve's. If you thought, if you listened, if you took the time to understand where others are coming from - instead of instantly labelling someone who disagrees with you as a "control freak" - you wouldn't need to get so defensive about your behaviour.
46

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 16/02/2008 23:13:03
Eve @#44,

Eve,,,Eve,,,Eve,!!

"cause you appear to be joining in there gang against me,"

Eve you should know me better than that now, I am too much of a..'Ladies Man'..'Gentleman' to do that! and my respect, would never allow me to do that!

(I never made any snipes)

So kiss and make up and sleep well, ;-) xx
47

Ghost Of Scotland Past,

16/02/2008 23:41:04
47) It quite simply is an oxymoron, thus, the ability to insult implies a degree of intelligence, or if you prefer
a mind, therefore if you perceive me to have insulted, the I must posses a mind, therefore an insult cannot be mindless. I don't label everybody who disagrees with me
as a control freak, only those who seek to control my activities for fatuous reasons. The smoking control lobby
have got what they wanted, so if I am defensive, like other smokers, we are forced into a corner, so we defend.
If you read my postings you would see that I offer advice to Eve, If I have guessed her problem right,
how do you imagine that is my problem. But out and let the Lady speak for herself.
48

COLINTON.MAINS,

Oakville Ontario 16/02/2008 23:47:44
WHERE DO ALL THESE DINGBATS COME FROM BUY A PERMIT LOCK HIM UP FOR HIS OWN SAFETY
49

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 16/02/2008 23:51:04
COLINTON.MAINS @#50,

Good-evening nice to see you about.
50

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 16/02/2008 23:56:11
COLINTON.MAINS, I would offer you a drink but,....
You appear, ..not to have a 'Permit'! :-D
51

Stef,

presently in Bandera, Tx 17/02/2008 01:17:38
We have read many references over this debate with reference to, the Nazi's and a Nazi State emerging. Well here it is, all that was earlier predicted has come to pass. Fuhrer Brown surely has some fine advisors at his disposal, perhaps he might suggest a 'Final Solution' for smokers. This fanatical lunatic, Herr Grande is paid for, presumably, with tax payers,(incl smokers) money, it all just simply demonstrates what happens when criminals take control of a nation. This latest proposal is not just a suggestion from a health freak, but from a re-incarnation of Josef Mengele, when are these government 'eugenics' programmes going to end?.
Get rid of Brown and all these other Nazi's, and dream of a return to a tolerant society, they have caused so much misery for so many people, bancrupted thousands of business's, whilst committing so many atrocities in other countries for personal power and greed. It is they who are totally out of control, and must be stopped at all costs.
As for #9 Eve, you are just disgusting in your concepts, I niether respect you as either, a woman or being another human being, this remark is reciprocal of your respect and regard for the rights and choices of others. Sadly, you are not alone in your pathetic small pea brained lunacy and petulance. I would suggest that you keep your face, and all, like you, well out of mine. Your confrontational comments and lack of respect entice me to blow all the smoke your way, you are a disgrace. I am sick and tired of petty control freaks making comments against ordinary folk, who would not wish to have the likes of you within a thousand miles of themselves. Get a life!................
52

Riverkidca,

Swan River 17/02/2008 04:58:08
Eve, noone is denying you your right to an opinion. It was simply mentioned that anyone with an honours degree would be a little more cognisant of sentence structure, and would be able to diferentiate between 'there' and 'their'. There is where they's at and their is them what's there.

Having straightened that out, I want it known that I,after fifty plus years of smoking, am not part of the mythical 70% who want to quit.

53

Anonym,

somewhere 17/02/2008 13:16:50
#54 Almost...

'There' is a place, not here but over there.

'Their' refers to something belonging to them.

'They're' is an abreviation of 'They are'.

Eve... Degree with Hons? Where can I get one of those?
54

Anonym,

somewhere 17/02/2008 13:26:16
The problem I see with the proposal for introducing a permit for smoking is that if it succeeds in the stated aim of 'helping' smokers to quit, it would do so indiscriminately, i.e. it would 'help' both smokers who want to quit AND the smokers who do not want to quit.

As for the ban on the grounds of protecting non smokers from the 'effects' of passive smoking... Prior to the legislation, there was nothing to stop anti-smokers from opening their own non-smoking establishments. (Nothing other than market forces, that is.) However, with the ban in place, there is something (legislation) which prevents pro-smokers from opening their own private smoking establishment.

That equates to less choice and less freedom, not more.
55

Tim85,

Lancs, England 17/02/2008 15:15:52
Of course, there is an insidious subtext at work here, and that is not only to reduce the number of people smoking tobacco, but also smoking cannabis. Lots of cannabis smokers are 'casual' smokers, and do not consume tobacco alone. Hence, they generally consider themselves, erroneously, 'non-smokers'.

Restrict the availability of tobacco, and you restrict the number of joints smoked as well.

As for the harm caused by cannabis, mental illness and damage to lungs (I've read estimates that cannabis skunk can cause equivalent damage to lungs ranging between 5 and 20 cigarettes) are the obvious ones. Not that I disagree with anyone's right to smoke it, should they so wish. I'm just pointing out that it is not "better" than tobacco.

The only good thing to come out of this is Prof Le Grand admitting that the case for banning smoking in public places because of passive smoking was "insubstantial"! And now it seems there is a certain degree of evidence that John Reid wasn't convinced by it either.

Anyone else feel they've been treated like stupid kids? 'Paternalism'? Parental authoritarianism more like.
56

Ian Ross,

Edinburgh 17/02/2008 17:15:20
Eve, I think you have made your point with all your postings, namely that if you had your way, all smokers would be given the death sentence. Smoking cigarrettes is NOT against the law in public - it is bad enough that we can no longer smoke while having a pint. The idea to charge every smoker £10 is just another form of taxation, not an idea to improve smokers' health. At long last the government has worked out how to tax the air we breath, even if it is nicotine tainted.
57

Julian,

EDINBURGH 18/02/2008 00:43:30
Ian # 58,

There's plenty of places you can have a pint and smoke.

The guy who proposed this fee is Professor Julian Le Grand, chairman of Health England. He's not even in the government. You think his agenda is to raise government revenue?

Charles #1

You'll be pleased to know we don't have a smoking ban. Heroin, cannabis and cocaine but not smoking;-)
58

Julian,

EDINBURGH 18/02/2008 00:46:16
Chuckles # 28

"For sure smokers are becoming like the Jews in nazi Germany!"

Would you care to say that face to face with a holocaust survivor?
59

Kevin Mulvina,

18/02/2008 06:23:06
The practice of "managing diseases", the strategy adopted recently in public health partnerships, has now been accepted internationally in place of a legitimate search for medical cures, which could allay all fears. It is entirely curious at a time when those cures are finally coming within our grasp, they will be delayed once again. Disease Management as a strategy, can not avoid the underlying reality; you have to micro-manage the personal lives of individuals and promote segregation, hatred and bigotry within communities in order to make it effective. Ignorance of human rights and personal freedom can never be overlooked or simply ignored in hopes they will just go away.
The vote enabling a smoking ban, could more correctly be described as a vote on the public acceptance of bigotry. The same people who propose such laws ignore the fact they wear deodorants and perfumes rich in much higher concentrations of toxins than a cigarette could ever contain. The fresh air they covet is ripe with their choice of what they willingly inhale.
Someone who calls them self a smoker, are living the created lie which was necessary in separating them from the rest of the community, with widely brushed perspectives. You are a person with free will, who uses a product on the shelf along side deodorants deodorizers and perfumes all of which we all accept in life as a civil respect, and understanding of the choices others may make.
Second hand smoke [EBS] as a significant health risk, is no more real than the monster under your bed. A creation to sell fear; promoting irresponsibility, by coercive process. A reality which will reflect on all of us, in what other “protections” we will accept as moral and justified.
They hung doctors at Nuremberg, yet surprisingly, not a single propagandist was ever tried or convicted. Waldheim went on to lead the UN where those propagandists he influenced continue to spread his hateful messages today. Hitler devised the term second hand smoke, wh
60

Kevin Mulvina,

18/02/2008 06:24:13
Continues..
Hitler devised the term second hand smoke, which licensed bigotry as a national expectation. The Journalists have brought that message home with an enthusiastic roar.
In 1975 Sir George Goober, British delegate to the World Health organization presented his blueprint for eliminating tobacco use worldwide by changing social attitudes.
"..it would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their families and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to EST.."

Tobacco Control at the British Medical Journal an article [linked] by the editor; Chapman who indicates the hatred of the "spoiled identity" has grown beyond all control.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/con...
"The litmus test of a society is still, as Jefferson said, that the rights of the majority stop at the doorstep of the minority." ~ Beryl Wajsman; the last angry man.
61

Rollo Tommasi,

18/02/2008 08:32:13
Kevin: Don't know where you're coming from. I don't see any practice of "managing diseases" here in Scotland. What I do see is a lot of emphasis on health promotion, so that more of us have the chance to live healthy lives for as long as possible. What's wrong with that?

No matter how you try to deny it, most evidence shows a clear link between passive smoking and lung cancer and heart disease. There's also a possible association to stroke and other respiratory diseases. Care to show a similar association between perfumes/deodorants and specific diseases? No amount of selective quoting by you can ignore the existence of that strong body of evidence about the dangers of passive smoking.

This article is not about the dangers smokers spread to others through ETS; it's about the dangers they place upon themselves by smoking. In case you're feeling picked upon, you may notice that a number of people on this board support laws to protect people from passive smoking but are otherwise happy to speak in favour of smokers' right to smoke.
62

David from New Mills,

U.K. 18/02/2008 13:07:20
#59, EDINBURGH.
Not spotted too many smokers with yellow stars embroidered on their shirts.
Charlie Chuckles might almost be amusing if he weren't so persistently and consistently silly.
63

James Donald,

Newbridge 18/02/2008 13:57:35
#53 Stef,presently in Bandera (thankfully thousands of miles from Edinburgh) - Anyone that had suffered real persecution under a dictatorship like Nazi Germany would probably find your post hight offensive and not a little "disgusting".
As for "bancrupted thousands of business's", didn't you once post that hundreds of pubs in Fife and Edinburgh had closed because of the smoking ban? If so, perhaps you could come up with the names of a few pubs in Edinburgh that closed because of the smoking ban (a dozen will do - not looking for "hundreds")? Thank you in advance
64

Fredrik Eich,

London 18/02/2008 21:31:48


Rollo,

If you care to link lung cancer with perfume it can be done.
Convince some one that has lung cancer that it is caused by exposure to perfume.
Then ask them to remember how much perfume they have been exposed to from the day they were born.

Would such a study be vulnerable to recall bias?
Would many such studies be vulnerable to recall bias?
Would some or even most be vulnerable to recall bias?
If there were recall bias, would the bias be more or less likely to show a link between lung cancer and perfume?

All The Best
Fredrik.
65

David from New Mills,

U.K. 18/02/2008 21:44:24
#65,James Donald,Newbridge.
I'm sure that, like myself, J.D. has recognised the fallacy that the pro-smokers' lobby is deeply concerned about the employment prospects of landlords and bar staff, any more than Belinda C. is personally worried about the social opportunities or restrictions of octogenarian bingo players.
If this were truly the case, the F2Sers would be flocking in their hundreds of thousands, well maybe scores, to pubs and bingo halls at every opportunity to show their support for these poor disadvantaged souls.
Instead, they choose to claim that "thousands" of the populace are suffering, and being thrown on the dole, all because of "selfish Nazi control freaks with a political agenda". Well, let them flock to these venues and defeat us "poor minority of obsessive anti-smokers" by example. I trust I got the terminologies correct?
Like James, I await wee stef's list, or any one else's of all these bankrupt businesses, but perhaps wee stef wil be too stoned on his Buds to recall them, as he enjoys his C & W sojourn?
Sadly for us all, the wonders of the internet will not shield us from his vitriolic diatribes, but stand firm, as always, James!
66

Rollo Tommasi,

18/02/2008 23:14:13
Fredrik - Good to hear from you again. Our friend Kevin tries to confuse the issue by comparing the toxicity of second hand smoke and perfume. As you say, finding evidence of the risks of perfume may be hard to do. If a clear link were found, it might be necessary to take some kind of action to limit people's risks.

But there certainly is a substantial body of research which shows that people's risks of acquiring lung cancer and heart disease fall as their exposure to passive smoking is reduced. And that provides full justification for the laws we now have across the UK.
67

Fredrik Eich,

18/02/2008 23:57:28
Hi Rollo - likewise.
Too late at night to do the round robins on RR! But
suffice it to say I do not agree with you.
Another time.
Best
Fredrik.
68

Stef,

Bandera, Tx, formerly Edinburgh. 19/02/2008 04:17:47
#65James Donald:
Interesting to see the bigoted James Donalds return to the debate. James and David it would appear to be the perfect examples in the spread of division, hatred and intolerance. These characters are also the perfect example of how this disgusting government can find these kind of followers to lower the levels of reply to this evil legislation. James Donald's reference to the victims of the Holocaust finding disgust to my comments, simply signifies the weakness of his statement. On the contrary I would suggest those who remember this dreadful period of history would find this analogy quite perfect. We have a Nazi government in power, with Nazi style advisors to feed its runaway madness, identity cards for smokers, not so different a concept to the yellow stars, separation and persecution of one group from another was their aims, in much the same idea delivered in Hitlers Germany. This was not the original idea these 'control freaks' had given to the public, when they brought in this wicked social engineering experiment. Manipulation of press freedoms, control of the media, is all very clearly happening. So Mr Donalds 'Victims', does not wash in the least. However these characters do demonstrate how easy it is to rally perhaps employ the bigoted and obsessed when they require it. Sad mad and frustrated unskilled hate mongers are not hard to find. As for the destroyed business's, open your mind and your eyes Mr Donald, you are not worth a reply when you demonstrate so much ignorance, you will never get any grace of any 'thank you' from me, your regard for the choices of others can only merit the contempt from all tolerant people.
69

James Donald,

Newbridge 19/02/2008 06:14:49
#70 Stef,Bandera, Tx, formerly Edinburgh - So that's a "no" then? The weakness of your "argument" (rather a grand title for such an idiotic rant) is that you cannot back up your ridiculous claims regarding "thousands of business closures" to the extent of naming a dozen pubs that have closed in Edinburgh because of the ban.
Since you are now in the "Land of the free etc...." all this should not concern you now, Mr ToleRANT.

70

David from New Mills,

U.K. 19/02/2008 11:20:40
#70, Tex Ritter.
Wee stef, like so many of the F2Sers, predictably reverts to his old habit of avoiding any direct question with an ostrich like mentality of "Don't want to talk about it!" Additionally he wanders back to his favourite posturing about the evils of pre-war Germany, in addition to his constant prattling on about so-called obsessive, bigoted, "control freaks".
If he feels so incensed about "perfect examples in the spread of division, hatred and intolerance", I'm sure he'll plenty of right wing nutters in the good old U.S. of A.to take to task. Perhaps he's forgotten the activities of the Ku Klux Klan, or is he too busy getting sloshed with his transatlantic mates?
71

Stef,

Bandera, Tx, formerly Edinburgh. 19/02/2008 23:03:14
#71 & 72 The Dynamic Duo.
I remain undecided whether the above, are full time employees, perhaps 'Civil Servants' of the corrupt regime that has run roughshod over the freedoms and the choices of the British people. Certainly, if they are not that, I am only left to assume, given the thousands of derisory statements against folk, that they have made over a period of now nearly 2 years on this forum, that they have some serious psychiatric problems too attend to.
Mr Newmills, now reverts to nonesense and compliments me, by calling me 'wee Stef' 'Tex Ritter' and the like, whilst describing all Americans as 'right wing' Bud swilling, 'Rednecks' and KKK members. His ignorance and bigotry is only only surpassed by his stupidity, I think either his employers or anaylist should do some re-appraisal of his activities. I do however fail to understand why? anyone should want to spend every living day slagging off everyone and anybody who speaks up for choice. There is either an agenda or quite simply a compulsive and very lonely illness.
The issue in question, is the state, planning to make smokers subject to identity cards, what is going to be chipped into these cards? would be an obvious question. Our friend from Newmills might be the one we should be asking, he being both an active supporter and agitator for those lunatics that have proposed this further intrusion into folks private lives and choices. If he is none of these things then perhaps he needs some other kind of help. Without doubt there is something that does not ring true with both these characters, with so little in their lives other than to be so obsessed to having spent hundreds of hours trying to justify the unjustifyable... Very very sad, to see the unskilled attempting to be clever.
72

Stef,

presently in Bandera, Tx 19/02/2008 23:55:18
#71 & 72' the little corporals,
Just thought I would add, just to cheer you up, that I will be at some point returning to the UK. I will never give up on my country,,,, I,, like so many others, in the long term, will not allow such small minded, feckless, ignorant fools continue to deride decent people, without fully outing their characters, and showing them up for who and what they are. This unelected Fuhrer Brown, that has replaced the international 'War Criminal' known as Blair, will not forever be able to delude everyone, all the time. They should always be aware, many of us believe that they should be tried and convicted for their massive corruption, genocide, and their attack on human rights, on a worldwide scale. We should never forget that we are the most spied upon nation in the world. Brown, has overplayed his 'Ministers' son angle whilst Blairs direct line to God scheme is the rantings of a transparant murderer and charlattan.
73

James Donald,

Newbridge 20/02/2008 08:12:31
#73 Stef,Bandera, Tx, formerly Edinburgh - "given the thousands of derisory statements against folk, that they have made over a period of now nearly 2 years on this forum, that they have some serious psychiatric problems too attend to" - Thousands of derisory comments? Ah, this will be a comment along the lines of "thousands of business closures" and "having spent hundreds of hours trying to justify the unjustifyable" i.e. nonsense. Since your posts to me usually have an element of vitriol and insult, you are also a hypocrit to berate anyone else for doing the same. To suggest that anyone who disagrees with your ridiculous posts (such as comparing Gordon Brown to Adolf Hitler - this is what you are trying to suggest by calling him Fuhrer Brown, right?) is an indication that it is you that is not "playing with a full deck". But if this keeps you off the streets and away from real people, then these are "hundreds of hours" well spent.
74

James Donald,

Newbridge 20/02/2008 08:18:57
#74 Stef, nicotine junkie - I can't speak for anyone else but personally I couldn't give a stuff if you return to the UK or not (there are enough idiots here, one more won't make any difference but your post does give an indication as to the size of your ego.
When you do return, you will find that little has changed. The smoking ban is working, the mass protests and civil disobedience have not materialised and within the next 5 years this will be a non-issue. If you return to the UK you will have to smoke outside; that is and will probably remain the position. Deal with it.
75

David from New Mills,

Dynamic duo land. 20/02/2008 23:10:58
#73/4, Two Gun Tex, the only show in town.
As I said on another thread, wee stef is always good for light amusement, and is even now surpassing himself in this aim. "given the thousands of derisory statements against folk, that (t)he(y have) made over a period of now nearly 2 years on this forum" it's pleasing that he can spare an idle hour or two from spending time with his smoky Bud swilling mates.
"describing all Americans as 'right wing' Bud swilling, 'Rednecks' and KKK members". Why has Tex chosen to falsely include the word "all"?
Stef then rambles on in his usual conspiracy theory mode, like a demented Mohammed el Fayed clone. Just to placate him, I am no great admirer of wee Gordie, beautifully summed up by Vince Cable as HMG's Mr. Bean.
If he really has all these delusions about "Führer" Brown and "Godline" Blair, perhaps he really should consult his "anaylist"(?) for a refresher session.
Never mind, our loss is Texas's gain, I suppose.
76

Stef,

Bandera, Texas 22/02/2008 01:45:01
Mr Donald & Mr Newmills,
LMAO! What a pair of bores. Identity cards for smokers was the issue. not much of an imaginative reply once again to the question from our resident smoke haters, Statler & Waldorf. That is quite normal from government policy fans and those employed too de-generate all debate on the erosion and attack of personal freedom made by this government.
77

James Donald,

Newbridge 22/02/2008 08:42:07
#78 Stef,Bandera, Texas - LMAO - the simple minded are easily amused.
"Identity cards for smokers was the issue" - and your point is? I think you will find that I did not voice any support for a permit for smokers but rather objected to your offensive terms such as "Fuhrer Brown", "Final Soulution" etc.... I do not support having a permit for smokers such as is suggested as I am happy with the status quo.
If the current "Nazi" government in the UK is not to your liking, then simply stay where you are. It is p*ssing with rain here and blowing a gale, so it would be a horrendous attack on your personal freedom if you had to stand outside with fag in gob exposed to the elements.
No doubt you will return home when you develop some smoking related disease that requires treatment and you find that not all is free in the land of the free. In the meantime, wheeze away.
78

David from New Mills,

U.K. 22/02/2008 12:03:48
#78,Stef,Bandera, Texas.
Think wee stef should concentrate on penning his C & W tunes, as he seems to find difficulty in composing any structured response to correspondents who give him the slightest hint of an issue that requires some concentration. Note he was unable to use the abbreviation LMBO, as his brain has apparently long since withered, unless he wanted to refer to his butt, but then that could have been a two edged sword.
As he's presently loafing in Texas, which did he mean by "this" government?
Stef should ponder the fact that James and I are resident here, whereas he ain't. This makes me wonder if he'll eventually return from his Texan sojourn with a cowboy outfit à la John Prescott, complete with stetson, studded belt and spurs?
This, together with the plumes of smoke, should give James, Rollo, Duncan and Eve an early warning of his approach as he jangles his way down Princes Street, and the opportunity to cross the road in time.
79

Stef,

Bandera, Texas 22/02/2008 23:55:26
Yet again we have a full tirade of abuse, from the 'we hate folk brigade', displaying all their pompous arrogance. Of course I would expect this from employees / supporters of the fascist policies this government has forced upon people. This identity card scheme is not just a proposal, in all my years I have never seen any other government that has decided to personally attack and destroy the ordinary lives and decision making processes of its citizens.
#79&80.....Whilst! you fill your sad lives abusing others you have made it evidently clear that you both fully endorse this facist government, no free thinking person should be mislead that you, Messrs. Donald, Newmills,etc are big time supporters of the 'Control Freaks'. Why ?????? you busybodies want to control the lives and choices of others, will always remain a mystery to me, particularly when you dont go out much or are able to socialy interact or be tolerant of ordinary people. Oh! David, YES! you are really lonely, however you do have your fantasies to chuckle over, pity you were'nt out supporting your local pub with your coinage.
80

Fredrik Eich,

London 23/02/2008 06:27:52
David from New Mills,

you interest me with your stout and persistent defence of anti-smoker laws.

I have read many of your posts and I find them entertaining because you have a way of expression which I find amusing.

You have stated before that you do not like your clothes to smell of
tobacco smoke - which is understandable.

But what I don't understand is, why do you spend your time defending anti-smoker laws when:-

A. There was no prohibition of smoke-free venues before the 2006 Health Act.

B. After the 2006 Health Act, even the remaining smoking venues became smoke-free!

Why are you not out enjoying your smoker-free life?

Why are you spending any amount of your time defending anti-smoker laws when you could be enjoying a smoke-free, smoker-free , cancer-free, COPD-free, AMI-free, death-free, nasty-smelling-clothes-free life?

David you have no excuse, you are in clover!

Best

Fredrik.
81

James Donald,

Newbridge 23/02/2008 09:13:03
#81 Stef,Bandera, Texas - The inevitable vitriolic response from "bitter'n'twisted" Stef.
The smoke must be clouding your eyes as I have not voiced any support for plans for a permit nor have I stated any support for any government fascist or otherwise.
I don't want to control anyone's life, least of all an article like you. I support the status quo where smokers are required to smoke outside rather than pollute the atmosphere. If you see such support as wanting "to control the lives and choices of others", you have one less marble than I thought.
I can't speak for David but I do visit my local pub, am a member of 2 clubs, visit a bar at my second job after work at the weekend so I find plenty time to socialise and interact with "normal" people. Back to the drawing board for your theory then.
Before you indulge in more accusations of abuse, have a re-read of your own posts.
82

David from New Mills,

U.K. 23/02/2008 11:27:54
#81, stef, still far away.
Stef as always seems to suffer from, possibly nicotine induced, notions and fantasies.
Like James Donald, I have never openly advocated the whole gamut of policies of this or any other supposedly "fascist" government, of which I am neither an employee nor a "control freak supporter".
If, by the I.D. card scheme, stef means national proposals for security purposes, I've never made any comments on the idea. If he's referring to the "smoker's permit" suggestion, I'm not particularly concerned about it, as I see it being substantially no different from over 18's identity cards as used in pubs or bus passes.
I have no need to chuckle over my "fantasies", as stef's postings give me ample sources of amusement.
My local fug free pub(s) will soon have me on their premises, inside or out, weather dependent. Whether stef is able to enjoy the same facilities in his local hostelries on his eventual return to Edinburgh is a matter of his choice and ability to withstand his addiction.
83

David from New Mills,

U.K. 23/02/2008 11:47:58
#82,Fredrik Eich,London.
It's pleasing that I can entertain and amuse at least one of my readers, which makes a change from the vitriolic vilification of some of them, approaching near hatred.
Re his:-
A. Indeed not, but then there was no general provision of them, hence the decision of HMG and Holyrood to force the issue with legislation.
B."Even the remaining" implies some tiny minority, whereas it was by far the vast majority.
I am indeed in relative clover, but my life is not entirely smoker-free, as they're still congregating in pub doorways, bus shelters and other places in close proximity to others, apart from being fairly general in the street.
Regarding my "stout and persistent defence of anti-smoker laws.", I would remind Fredrik of the boiling frog syndrome, and my recognition that the Health Act's smoking provisions are due for review in, I believe, 2010. In this respect I would wish no slippage to the old régime.
Meantime, I am enjoying my vastly reduced intake of smokers' fumes, and shall soon be out in the clover.
84

celtic4,

USA 28/05/2008 03:24:09
Well, I never! I have never in my life heard of a more restricting bit of nonsense. It won't help people to quit! They must decide that on their own! ANY government doings won't stop them.
And what is that going to do with the tourist industry? Are the tourists demanded to buy a "permit" also? What utter nonsense. Getting more money out of people that is what they're doing. Or trying to. I don't believe it is fair at all, to anyone. You're taxed enough as it is! Good grief!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.