Why the smoking ban should be relaxed

On Wednesday I will be seeking the leave of the House of Commons to introduce a Bill which would exempt pubs and clubs from the blanket ban on smoking in public buildings. The Bill would give individual pub landlords the right to choose for themselves whether or not to allow smoking to take place in a separate room fitted with air extraction equipment. Areas in which food is being served would continue to be entirely smoke free.

Although many pubs have been able to create outside smoking areas on their own premises this is not always possible. In many pubs those customers wishing to smoke have to stand outside on the pavement and even though there is usually nothing to give cause for worry a large group can sometimes be intimidating for other pedestrians. If some pubs allowed smoking this feature of 21st century life would be reduced.

Much is said about the sense in passing more power down from the centre to local communities and this Bill would do just that it would give the power to decide back to local pub landlords. The Bill would also apply to Private Members Clubs where the Members could decide whether they wanted to have a smoking room.

In Bury we have seen a number of public houses close since the introduction of the smoking ban and many more have ‘For Sale’ or ‘To Let’ signs outside. Many of the pubs which remain open are struggling to survive. When a pub closes down everyone loses out not just smokers.

I am a devout non-smoker and personally I prefer a smoke free environment. However whilst smoking remains legal it seems to me to be a sensible compromise to allow smoking to take place in public houses and private members clubs in a separate room with appropriate extraction equipment.

185 thoughts on “Why the smoking ban should be relaxed

  1. Dear Mr.Nuttall,good luck with your efforts to relax the smoking ban.
    I am also a non-smoker but find it sad and degrading to see people forced out in all weathers to enjoy their,perfectly legal, habit.
    I’m afraid it’s just another example of New Labour and council bossiness

    • Good luck David and thanks for showing the courage, I’m like Mary I have banned myself from Pubs since this ban was sneaked in, death to the brewer’s for allowing it..

    • thank you for speaking up for smokers, i have family memebers who smoke or dont smoke, its true, smokers are made to feel degraded, smell and be outcasts. Never once when i was growing up did i ever think any member of my family were good bad or indifferent, just lovely people, i was always told not to smoke but its a thing i did. The goverment sell so they shouldnt make us feel that we are some kind of monsters. The ban has caused for so many pub,s to close, some lovely old public house pulled down or reused as flats, theres no community now, that was crushed when the ban came in. I would also like to point out one story ….. A woman had to go outside for a ciggie, it was dark, no lights, no one else around, standing in her coat freezing cold, out of the pub came a drunken man, he walked over to her, started kissing her (without her permission), she had to tolerate this idiot, there was no one to help, no one would of heard her due to where she had to stand for her ciggie, god where was her protection? she should have been inside the pub , “safe” and “seen” like non smokers, lets hope mr. nuttall will get the ban lifted, no woman or man should have to be put at risk like this

  2. best news i have heard since ban came in,from that day i have refused to go in a pub,i dont see why smokers should have to pay for drinks and then stand in cold,rain etc so we buy cheap drinks from asda and meet in friends houses to enjoy our cigs and drinks and save money to visit spain where we can enjoy a drink and cig in bar and pay less for our cigs to,having said that i would return to pub and bingo halls if law was amended because i do miss going out and socialising and having a break at uk holiday places.

    • Dear fellow libertarians,

      If there is one thing that we all ought to realize when talking about rights, it is this

      THERE ARE OFTEN CONFLICTS BETWEEN OPPOSING RIGHTS.

      For example, what would you say to smokers, who have children, smoking in their own private homes? Now that isn’t forbidden by law. And yet, one cannot help wonder how to balance the parent’s right to smoke with the child’s right to avoid second-hand smoke? Of-course, the child may not always complain and may even take to early smoking. Now, if nobody is complaining, there is no argument from rights, no question of conflict of rights. But then, the child’s health could surely have been far better in a healthier environment and it didn’t exactly get to choose – you see the point, don’t you?

      We have to choose the right balance between opposing rights of different people keeping the larger picture in perspective – by trying to identify which things are gratuitous and which absolutely important (good health, for example).

  3. Good look on Wednesday.Common sense. I am a regular pub goer, real ale. A place for companionship.If pubs close at the rate they are, will end up swigging cheepo lager/cider in the street! Think not.

  4. Unlike you David I was fully sipportive of the ban on smoking but not the washed over version you promote which pin points the losses rather than promote the positives.
    I believe in the right for all workers and customers to carry out their daily tasks without the fear of collecting poisonous exhaled gases from unsociable smokers. The real reason behind the ban is stop the spread of cancer and one of its main causes secondary smoke.
    Rather than mourn the ‘death’ of the smoker we should welcome the start, as that’s what it is, of a new cleaner lifestyle of the pub goer. we still lean towards the sad decline of the ‘local’ but forget to highlight the rise in the cafe-bars and open lounges which dot our towns and high streets but again we still have to cater for the smoker by allowing outside seating where they are allowed to puff away cheerfully – this allowance has now denied the non-smoker the enjoyment of sitting outside in the sun free from the secondary smoke driving them indoors = why don’t you instead push for a complete ban in and around all of these places and thus drowned out this parasite forever.

      • He’s a bore and a party-pooper because he disagrees with you? Weak argument. Smoking is a dirty habit that is inflicted on non-smokers whether they like it or not. The smoking ban is FANTASTIC – I can go to the pub without coming home stinking of fags and, this is the best bit, the smoking ban is going nowhere 😉

    • Perhaps Alan, you might consider that you yourself have habits and a lifestyle others may not find palatable. Do you drive, for example? or eat meat?

      Secondly, I think you will find most smokers will indeed be courteous and NOT smoke in the presence of someone who requests otherwise. I always have.

      Tobacco, per se, is not the major source of toxins, but the additives put in to ready made cigarettes to increase burn – and hence profits.

      I believe Diesel emmissions to be a far greater threat.

      Ban trucks?

      There are sufficient advancements in extraction systems to completely avoid exposure of workers after use. And after all, why would any NON SMOKER be in the smoking environment anyway ???

      I regret that this attempt at a little bit of tolerance has been defeated but this moderm Britain in microcosm.

      Thanks must be extended to David Nuthall for at least trying to get his compatriates to debate the issue without pre-concieved bigotry.

      Unfortunately he has failed.

      Finally, I WOULD have endorsed a total ban on smoking. Unfortunately our tax system couldn’t have coped without it!

      My only hope it that one day I will be invited to have a drink in the House of Common’s bar where I will be able to enjoy a pint and a pipe-full.

      • The tax system would cope fine without the drain of resources on the NHS that smokers provide. Long may the ban continue, if only because it pisses the selfish smokers off.

  5. Please could you provide statistically reliable evidence showing that not allowing smokers to smoke inside pubs increases the likelihood of those pubs closing down? I don’t believe that there is a link between those issues – indeed, having been reminded of the (somewhat toxic) atmosphere within pubs before the smoking ban thanks to visiting pubs on the continent, I’m inclined to believe that the correlation goes exactly the opposite way – the pubs that have a breathable atmosphere are more likely to continue being financially viable.

    I view smoking as an antisocial activity, especially given the potential impact it has on non-smokers (as well as the smokers themselves), and I fail to see any reason why it should be allowed in public indoor spaces again. However, I would be very interested in any evidence that shows benefits if it is allowed again. I’m saying that as a scientist that believes in decisions being based on data rather than ideologies (and also as someone that regularly visits pubs, and would like to see an increase in their variety rather than a decrease).

    • Try reading the article. You will not be forced to sit in a smoke-filled room. Some of us quite like the smell of smoke and are perfectly capable of weighing up the costs of smoking against the benefits. You don’t like smoking but many of us do. Anything else interesting to say? I’d prefer separate smoking pubs staffed by smokers so you and people like you would then have no cause to complain. And if you want to see what financially viable looks like, go to a smoking pub on the first day this ban is overturned; as it surely will be. When has prohibition ever succeeded?

  6. Well done! I’m not a smoker either but I like pubs and the current puritan prohibition is killing those city pubs I like. Thanks – I wish you all the best.

  7. This would be excellent… enabling local councils to set a minimum air quality allowing for conditioned smoking rooms is a much more reasonable solution than a blanket ban and obligatory signage.

    Could then also adapt to change as there’s other things that produce smoke or bad air inside

  8. Well done David.
    it’s about time 15 million smokers were treated like human beings.
    Pigs are allowed by Law to have enclosures of no less than 95%…Smokers by Law must be at least 50% exposed to the elements.

  9. The Labour government who introduced the total smoking ban gave little regard to what the outcome of such a ban would be to the hospitality industry. Over 3 years on we all now know what a massive impact the smoking ban has had on our Pubs and Clubs.
    It is time for the ban to be reformed to allow both the industry and the public choice,it is the way forward for business and it is the way forward for a fairer country.

  10. “In Bury we have seen a number of public houses close since the introduction of the smoking ban and many more have ‘For Sale’ or ‘To Let’ signs outside”

    Post hoc ergo prophet hoc, eh? Let’s forget that there was an economic downturn, and people had less money to spend in their locals…and blame the smoking ban instead. Because that obviously had more of an effect than a global recession!

    • The only bars that appear to be thriving are the ones that have be turned into mini-kindergartens serving food to parents anxious to protect their precious bundles from ‘second-hand smoke.’ Crammed with turbo-charged strollers, screaming kids and packs of nappies and feeding bottles on the tables, these ‘child-friendly’ pubs are no place for adults. And despite all the nay-sayers who claim the smoking ban has not affected the pub trade, we all know that to be hogwash. The dwindling population of adult pub-goers has nothing to do with global recession or cheap supermarket liquor and everything to do with the punitive smoking ban. This attempt to find a compromise deserves our full support.

  11. There was NEVER a need for the Smoking Ban in the first place. It was brought about as the result of a series of “Cherrypicked” studies which misrepresented the so-called “risks” of Second Hand Smoke and was supported by organisations with “vested interests”.

    Global Tobacco Control and their supporters have demeaned the Integrity of True Science by their manipulation of facts.

    The question is, will MPs have the guts to admit they were conned.

  12. Why is it that non smokers seem to think it is okay to stop smokers enjoying their habit?

    All the snotty comments on here from non smokers, they think it is okay to drink alcohol (the biggest killer drug on the planet) but not allow smokers, if they are not in the same room, what difference does it make to them?

    The usual empty vessels making the most noise.

    Good luck to you on Wednesday, I am so glad we got rid of last dictatorship but alas it is going to take years to get rid of the ridiculous laws they passed, funny thing is many of them brought in by a dictatorship that professed to be in favour of human rights whilst constantly denying as many as possible.

    PS. I wont allow non smokers in my premises, they smell odd. lol

    • Thank You so much for attempting to relax this insidious and very financially damaging regulation. I sincerely hope that you receive support from your collegues in government. You most certainly will from many thousands of people in the UK.
      The smoking ban law was either ill thought out or designed specifically to deride and degrade a very sizeable chunk of the UK,s population with unfortunatly the pub becoming the scapegoat.
      A separate room could surely not upset or annoy any sensible fair minded person.
      Wishing you every success.

    • Good luck David, anything which stops more interference in personal choice is great by me.

      @Alan Buckley @Mike Peel

      Do you not think it should be left to the owner of a private premises to decide for themselves whether to allow smoking in their own premises?

      My local (in Bury North) would most definitely not allow smoking, the landlord hates it, which is fine by me. I am a smoker but I will still go to my local because I like the beer and the atmosphere. I’d just like the landlord to have the option to allow/ban smoking, rather than it being a decree.

    • David,

      I wish you every success on Wednesday.

      The fears that we had when the Ban was introduced have all been fulfilled.

      Our own small country pub is now running at a loss and, as with so many others, we will soon be going through the process previously agreed with the local Council of applying for a Change Of Use and subsequent closure.

      The sudden influx of non-smokers that we were promised has never appeared – this is a Listed building so we cannot convert to a ‘Cafe-Bar’ (even a proper smoking shelter is not possible) – 90% of our pub regulars were smokers – if our pub was allowed to have smokers again, at least they would no longer feel that they were being discriminated against – Bar Staff employed in such pubs would still have the choice of in which pubs they felt safe to work.

      At least to give the Landlord the choice of running a Smoke or Smoke Free pub in his own premises will, as you say, give freedom of choice not only back to the Landlord but also to those customers paying for the service that the Landlord is providing.

      Good Luck on, once again, attempting to raise the profile of the plight of small, traditional, English village pubs like ours.

  13. “Let’s forget that there was an economic downturn, and people had less money to spend in their locals”

    JB: More re-writing of history. {sigh} Did the recession start in 2007 then?

    (Clue: No, it didn’t)

  14. you have as much chance of your bill becoming law as you have of winning the lottery. you never mentioned this when standing for parliament so you should shut up about restoring a filthy habit and concentrate on far more important matters. i don’t want to go back to the days of coming home from the pub or club and having to change my clothes and wash my hair because of the filthy smokers. smoking should be banned completely then everybody would be healthier.

    • Don’t go back to those days, then. Stay in your own area or pub and we wouldn’t have to be infested with petulance such as yours.

      Sounds good to me. You get what you want and we, certainly, get what we want (for the avoidance of doubt, that means not the likes of you)

  15. Hiya,
    what’s killing pubs is tax, not the smoking ban. cut tax for pubs and increase tax for supermarkets. get people back into the community again.
    pete

  16. I’ve never understood why non-smokers are so objectionable to smoking only pubs/clubs, especially when they will NOT have to use them. But the often repeated excuse is that it wouldn’t be a level playing field, do they not realise if smoking pubs/clubs were not popular they’d go out of business, the same as they are now where smokers are banned. Oh and the smell, but common sense tells us that if a non-smoker goes into a non-smoking pub they’ll be no smell, well not from smokers.

    It’s just pure hatred against smokers/smoking.

    Good luck. But I would say that it should have a rider – if the motion isn’t passed then it should state that a bill will be introduced to making tobacco illegal immediately. It is not right morally or legally that users of a legal product are prohibited from using it almost everywhere, it amounts to fraudulent practices. Compromise or ban tobacco NOW.

  17. @Mike Peel

    You want independent research into pub closures here are three. Mine was published at the Institute Of Economic Affairs (1) plus there is also, CGA Strategy (2), PriceWaterhouse Coopers and (AC) Nielsen PLC who both come to my conclusions.

    If you look at pub closures from 1980 to 2006 (3) they averaged 0.6504% per year. Post ban it is 2.775% per year. I also prove that supermarket drink was as cheap pre ban as post ban. Basically 75%+ of pub closures are due to the ban, the beer tie likely reason for the balance.

    If you can find a better source please feel free to publish it.

    1. http://blog.iea.org.uk/?tag=david-atherton

    2. http://takingliberties.squarespace.com/storage/Smoking%20Gun%20final1.pdf

    3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/12/general-election-labour-manifesto-pub-closures

  18. Would you consider adding a clause to get rid of all the compulsory signage, which must be costing businesses tens of millions? Premises at all entrances, and even phone boxes and buiness vehicles, have to have a sign of prescribed form saying that it is illegal to smoke there.

    A bonanza for sign makers and local authority enforcers – but everyone knows that smoking is forbidden everywhere in public, and if you don’t you’ll be told pretty quickly if you try. We don’t have compulsory signs outside shops saying “no stealing”. We don’t need to be browbeaten about this, and have our environment filled with a cloud of bullying instead of smoke.

    I write, too, as a non-smoker.

  19. Of course the pubs arte closing due to the smoking ban. The pubs started to close when the ban came in and before the recession took hold. I find it incomprehensible that some people think they have the right to tell others how to lives their livers and run their businesses. if a pub owner wants to allow smoking in his pub – then he should be allowed to do so. If the non-smokers don’t want to go – then they don’t have to. In the same way if people don’t want to work in a smoking pub – they don’t have to. I’ staggered at the arrogance of the health lobby to think they can order the people around like school kids. I’m not a kid, I pay my tax – I should be allowed to smoke in a pub. I will support any and all politicians that not only speak against the smoking ban – but also all aspects of the nanny state. I’m fed up.

  20. Mr Nuttall, I am a tory voter and a pub landlord, you are so wrong on this and I suggest you use your common sense to drop this headline catching cause.
    The smoking ban was one of the few things labour got right in their last reign. To even suggest undoing it in this manner brings yourself and the party into disrepute.
    As a landlord my biggest fear about the smoking ban was the proposal you are advocating. In my humble opinion it will create an unfair playing field, that panders to the weak and stupid.
    Many people because of the ban have given up smoking, myself included, I do not want to go back to the days of smokey pubs, the blanket ban has worked. My business is proof, I am still trading and making a living, plus I have given up a life ending habit and made my work environment safe for my staff and customers alike.
    I know that people have benefited from this law, some do not even realise, but this is so wrong what you are advocating.
    Anyone denying that second hand smoking is not that bad is deluded, it is and the right decision was made 3 years ago, just leave it at that.
    I as a tory would certainly not vote for you if lived in Bury North.

    • You are a Troll. No way are you who you say you are. Own up which anti smoking cabal is pulling your strings?

    • Where did you come from? or, more likely, who sent you? Whilst you’re here, perhaps you could tell me why Barron only quoted your piece and not the hundreds in support from all over the blogosphere? I wont hold my breath!

  21. David,
    Be aware that smoker denormalization/persecution, and indoor/outdoor smoking bans were planned in the 1970s (see The Godber Blueprint http://www.rampant-antismoking.com ) under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO). Much “evidence” over the last three decades has been concocted to fit the agenda. At this time, most countries have signed onto the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control not knowing (maybe they do?) that the WHO (a globalist entity) couldn’t care less about local issues or national sovereignty. It couldn’t care less if the pub trade went completely under. It couldn’t care less if smokers were reduced to criminals. The WHO’s only interest is in advancing the eugenics agenda of the smokefree world.
    Antismoking is not new. It has a long, sordid history. It is typically exterminatory. The fanatical mentality does not entertain accommodation or compromise. Its only intent is the eradication of tobacco use. As such it is dictatorial/tyrannical in disposition. In promoting its fanatical, extreme view, antismoking typically degenerates – quickly – into a plethora of inflammatory lies that drive irrational belief, fear and hatred – particularly amongst nonsmokers: The inflammatory lies produce a bigotry “bandwagon effect” that wreaks social havoc.
    Following is a link considering the antismoking crusade (also eugenics-driven) of early-1900s USA. This crusade pre-dates even the pretense of a scientific basis or the idea of secondhand smoke “danger”. It was based on a multitude of inflammatory lies that made criminals of ordinary people.
    http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1981/2/1981_2_94_print.shtml
    Antismoking reared its ugly head again in the Nazi regime. Nazism was also eugenics-based and a continuation/extremizing of American eugenics.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2352989/pdf/bmj00571-0040.pdf

    There is more than ample evidence that the antismoker mentality is fanatical (delusional) and psychologically/socially/morally toxic.

    • you are mentaly deluded if you think smoking is good for you, if it was most people would smoke but as YOU know it isn’t you are in a large minority of people who practice this disgusting habit. you will scream out for medical help when you people get cancer and all the other diseases that go with smoking. yes i am in very good mental and physical health and have never smoked because i don’t like to and becuse i have more common sense than smokers. go to the cancer wards and ask the doctors and surgeons why the patients are there and look at the xrays of the lungs and then tell me smoking doesn’t kill,you know you won’t be able to tell me otherwise

      • Is this the best you can do? we’ve been there, already. We’ve looked at (and beyond) these things, we’ve analysed them and don’t share your view. Perhaps that’s what upsets you?

  22. Hey hey hey Mr Nuttall. Don’t blame the smoking ban, which was introduced on my birthday, for the closure of pubs. Blame the brewerys that are forcing the pubs to close – and too, the cheap alcohol available in supermarkets.

    Smoking ban is a major catalyst in the number of people quitting smoking – smokers which are a big burden on the NHS!

    Why should I have to put up with someone elses mess? Passive smoking kills and I’m an asthmatic!

    • Oh, dear! You so readily fall for all this garbage, don’t you? Sad. You’d have confused William of Ockham.

      I could just as easily say why do the rest of us have to alter our lives simply because you’ve drawn a short straw and are an asthmatic? But I don’t. I say you enjoy yourself in a smoke free pub and let us enjoy ourselves in one that allows smoking.

      But the problem is that you know, very well, that where choice is allowed, the vast majority of pubs would choose to be smoking. That’s why there were so few (if any) non smoking pubs prior to the ban. And your choice would be limited. So, in your mind, we don’t get one.

      Simple, really.

  23. Best wishes. Maybe it’s the beginning of the return of reason and tolerance.

    The damage caused by the entirely unnecessary smoking ban isn’t just the thousands of pubs that have closed since it was enacted, but also the immense and largely hidden damage that has been done to communities throughout Britain. I personally have experienced this, but so have other readers of mine.

    It is quite ridiculous of anyone to suggest that the smoking ban was not the principle cause of pub closures. A great many smokers like myself simply stopped going to pubs, or went to them less frequently. I used to be a daily visitor to my local pub, but after the ban I’d only go on sunny days. Over winter, I stopped going completely. And I know of many other smokers who have done the same. It is quite manifestly obvious that this was going to have an enormous effect on the pub trade (as well as on clubs and coffee bars). And the pubs only started closing after the ban was imposed on 1 July 2007 (which was well before the economic slump). In Britain, so far some 10% of pubs have closed since the ban. In Ireland, which has had a ban for longer, something like 25% of pubs have closed. (And in Ireland furthermore the prevalence of smoking has actually risen in the aftermath of the ban).

    This ban has been a disaster for pubs, and a disaster for communities across Britain. And it hasn’t even stopped anyone from smoking (which was the real aim of it).

  24. At last – common sense. Well done Mr Nuttall.

    One very small niggle. Your bill will not “give” landlords a right. It will restore a right to them.

    About time too. I wish you every success in your endeavour.

  25. Good luck. This ban is outrageous. A group of people are prohibited from renting or buying premises in which to sit and smoke. It has nothing to do with protecting workers’ health. I worry for the future of this country. Actually I don’t. I no longer care as I no longer feel part of society. Whether or not you succeed, this ban, as it was last week in the Netherlands, will be overturned. The anti smoking industry is being exposed for the bunch of liars and parasites on the taxpayer that it is.

  26. do you idiots who smoke really think that you have the right to foul the air of non smokers and put their health at risk. i know a man who goes to my local club and goes for a smoke every 15 minutes then goes inside and starts to use his inhaler, is that stupid or what? if i go into your local covered in pig muck from working on the farm you would soon be playing holy hell,one rule for you and one rule for us methinks. pubs have been closing for years with nothing to do with the smoking ban, wise up you foolsand you frank davis where is your evidence that it has not stopped people smoking because i have numerous friends who have stopped and are glad of the smoking ban. when you are lying in a cancer hospital waiting for the inevitable who will you blame then

  27. I am devastated at the mere suggestion of this!.

    As a member of staff in a civic venue for over 15 years, I would have no choice but to work in a smoky atmosphere and be subjected to passive smoking.

    In these times it is not possible to be choosy about the job you take and an awful lot of employees would not be in a position to leave their job out of choice and would be forced by their financial pressures to work in a smoky environment. To put staff health at risk is completely selfish. As MK has pointed out, the smoking ban is not the reason pubs are closing.

    A smoker has the choice to smoke or not – For financial reasons I am sure most bar staff do not have the choice whether to work or not.

  28. Jim

    As a landlord my biggest fear about the smoking ban was the proposal you are advocating. In my humble opinion it will create an unfair playing field, that panders to the weak and stupid.
    Many people because of the ban have given up smoking, myself included, I do not want to go back to the days of smokey pubs, the blanket ban has worked. My business is proof, I am still trading and making a living, plus I have given up a life ending habit and made my work environment safe for my staff and customers alike.

    ——————

    What paragons of virtue many ex-smokers are.

    It isn’t an humble opinion, it’s pure self interest, because if choice is restored you’re afraid people will choose not to use your establishment. It’s called market forces Jim, the market would decide, if non-smoking pubs prove to be more popular than smoking ones you won’t be affected, your customers will continue to use your establishment, your till will continue to open, you and them will still have an healthy smoke-free environment. So what’s the problem.

    Do you cater for food, do you sell crisps, nuts etc., if so when the fattie campaign really gets going and the anti-fat zealots start demanding you stop selling pies, chips, sugary desserts, crisps & nuts, will you also demand that shops & supermarkets are forced to stop selling these things, to create a level playing field of course.

    If it’s one thing I detest as much as the anti-smoking crusaders it’s sanctimonious ex-smokers, especially when they’re smug landlords whose business has managed to survive.

    Perhaps I’m wrong about the food and his profits come from carrot juice, organic orange and a kids play room.

    I find ex-smokers quoting the SHS garbage hilarious, this much debunked claim is used as a crutch by ex-smokers and those that don’t like the smell of tobacco.

    I’m sick of hearing how ex-smokers are trying to save smokers from themselves, the same as I’m sick of hearing how they’re using all the NHS resources. FACT, smokers cost the NHS £2.7 billion, the rest goes to pay for the so-called ‘healthy well’.

    I enjoy smoking, but if I decided to give up I’d only have to think about ex-smokers like Jim to change my mind and carry on smoking. I pay dearly for my legal activity and find it offensive that ex-smokers & non-smokers feel they have the God given right to dictate what I do. When the Jim’s of this world pay my bills, & pay for my cigarettes then they can have a say, until then they can keep their snide remarks to themselves.

  29. Excellent stuff. Good luck Mr Nuttall with something that is well overdue.

    The Smoking Ban has no place in the legislature of a democratic nation…. if places decide to go no-smoking, then so be it. That is their choice. But to deny other businesses to allow smoking when their clientele demand it is just distorting market forces, which is clearly why so many people have voted with their feet and no longer go to the pub. (Although it is amusing to see people try and use the recession as an excuse. The recession started in 2007, did it? Or in 2006 in Scotland, when we saw closures increase manyfold following their smoking ban?. Some recession… it actually started during a boom according to some here.)

    The law has also been incredibly socially divisive, not only in making many elderly and disabled smokers virtually housebound, but by creating vitriol and legitimising hatred that would quite possibly be illegal if directed at any other group of people.

    Let the business people choose – if it is in their best interest to not cater to smokers then believe me, they won’t. Any other argument is simply fuelled by spite.

  30. The country needs David to succeed. Not only has the smoking ban put thousands of publicans and staff on the DOLE, but the Government has lost milliions in lost revenue from sales in pubs.

  31. Go for it.lets put the GREAT back into BRITAIN.
    labour had screwed us with the smoking ban and indirect taxes.and left this country in a mess. we need our community spirit back as it used to be.we will then have more people using our pubs and clubs.and hopefully keep them going.

  32. A recent holiday in Spain reminded me what it used to be like to live in a free country. Owners of premises are free to choose whether to allow smoking in all or part of their premises. Customers are free to choose, no-one objects, everyone is happy. It just isn’t an issue.

    The scientific evidence, however misrepresented by the anti-smoking lobby, shows that the risk from “second-hand” smoke is statistically negligable. Good luck to Mr Nuttall.

  33. Since the Europe-inspired ban on smoking was introduced I, like thousands of others, have chosen not to go into pubs, hotels and restaurants. Whilst I might thus have saved a lot of money – for me, it was just a matter of principle – I was not prepared to endure the intolerance of the new law which I saw and see as an invidious attack upon our traditional liberties. Freedom of choice was eroded overnight when no polital party had a mandate to make such a change. It will soon be Remembrance Sunday when we remember all those who have given their lives for freedom – including the freedom to smoke in a civilised manner and not stand like common prostitutes on the pavement in all weathers. Good dinners in public and private used to end with a fine cigar accompanied by a well-chosen liqueur but then that was when we were a truly civilised nation. “Good luck!” in Parliament – Let’s hope that British common-sense and tolerance will win the day!
    P.S. I found some excellent bars in France this summer which totally ignored the smoking ban – we should do that here!

    • you hit the nail on the head when you said “freedom of choice”. where is my freedom of choice not to inhale filthy smoke and have my clothes stink like an ashtray when i go home. i have EVERY right to go in a pub or club and not have to put up with this obnoxious habit. nuttall has no mandate to try to bring in this stupid bill, which thank god will never see the light of day so he should get on with more serious matters and stop trying to get headlines, not for the first time either, and he and you should read the letter from the nurse and then say smoking does no harm. we non smokers are not trying to stop you smoking but, in your own words, to show more tolerance to people who hate this foul habit.

      • You have no right to demand that every non residential building in England is smoke free. I don’t like rap music but I don’t demand no pubs should play it. I haven’t been in a pub since the smoking ban, but if I chose to, I would go to one of the many which don’t play rap music.

  34. @Jim “Many people because of the ban have given up smoking,”

    The latest NHS report (2010) shows:-
    “There was no significant difference in cigarette smoking prevalence in men and women before and after the implementation of the smokefree legislation on 1st July 2007.”
    NHS Stats 2010

    Good luck Mr Nutall

  35. Good for you and here’s hoping that you manage to restore the freedom of individuals to choose whether or not to enter a smoking room. I’m a publican (and a non smoker I might add) and pray every day for an end to this totally facist ban. I would love to be able to provide a smoking room and will reinstate this the very minute the ban is repealed. Fingers crossed for Wednesday – good luck.

  36. Such a shame that the people who advocate a total ban on smoking cannot see the wood for the trees. Have they thought about the to be consequences in real detail? i doubt it, if everyone in this country was forced to give up smoking it would (as it has now) cause more unemployment. But the biggest factor is governments are quite happy seem stopping smoking, but where are they going to get the extra renenue from that smoking provides?Thinking that all the tax on tobacco just pays for the NHS to treat smokers is rubbish, i read and article a few years ago, i cant remember what, but it stated the government would lose over £5B in revenue if smoking was outlawed, and to get that back they would either have to put 5p on the basic rate of income tax or put another 7.5% on VAT.

    Maybe all these do gooders want to pay more tax, but i dont. As an aside, i have terminal cancer, and the consultant assures me that it is nothing at all to do with smoking. Smoking does NOT cause all cancer.

    Wake up and smell the coffee, in the old days you had the public bars for smokers and the lounge bars for non smoker, especially in the villages, whats wrong with choice?

  37. No smoker wants to spoil non smokers evenings down the pub but smkokers now have to suffer what amounts to England withot pubs. What on Earth is wrong with seggregated bars or even smoking nights and non smoking nights. My wife and I used to spend £400 pcm in our local it was our second home but since the ban we spend £0 pcm. There is no where for us to relax after 12 hour working days – basically we have no quality time at al now. Other knock on effects are that we no longer holiday in the U.k or even have days out. We never use our bicycles as there sole purpose was to transport us to our local. The buying of clothes no loger happens for my wife as there is no place to enjoy wearing them. Every English village has become a ghost town for us and rail travel (platform smoking ban) is out as are rock concerts , cafes , airports etc. Please help us to get our lives back. All humans need a crutch to lean on be it eating, smoking etc. We are all mortal and have to face mortal fears. Smoking in a pub with a pint was the way 45% of pub regulars used to cope with life- please help us and other get our pubs back. Ity infuriates me that our whole lives have been destroyed by a sevtion of the population who rarely use pubs. We were there 5 sessions per week and now were stuck the the TV in our living room. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh. Good luck

    • At least Chris,as you sit bewitched by the “idiot box”, be thankful that as soon as the ban was established the “every second Ad” NHS “quit smoking” propaganda virtually ceased!

      I’m convinced it was a covert & subliminal rallying call to make the non and anti smoking brigade support the policy and re-inforce their bigotry!
      You’ve only got to read the rantings of Mr A.B. to see how effective it was.

      Try and tolerate the intolerable, but don’t expect THEM to learn toleration!

      Bit of advice:
      Get rid of the TV! there’s nothing as infuriating as the banal crap and infantile under-educated “presenters that infest it.
      I banished mine a year ago and life is MUCH better with Radio 4 !! (and Planet Rock!!!)

      How about trying a ban on dogs next……….?

  38. Thank you and very best wishes, Mr Nuttall.

    The research on ‘passive smoking’ on which the ban was based is easily shown to be disreputable and the evidence far from compelling. Nevertheless, the last government introduced a needlessly draconian ban, in so doing breaching its manifesto promise and, I’m certain, paying for that with loss of trust and votes.

    Sure, some non-smokers prefer smoke-free pubs but they wouldn’t be inconvenienced by separate areas. Other member states in the EU have managed to accommodate smokers, why not the UK? Perhaps we’re not the free, tolerant and fair society we like to believe.

    …and, please, can we lay to rest the nonsense that smokers are a financial burden on society? A Dutch study conducted a few years ago found that the worried well cost the State far more than either smokers or the obese. Smokers also pay huge amounts in duty. I’d say it’s downright immoral for the State to grab our money yet refuse to represent our interests.

    • But we’re not a free, tolerant and fair society any more. 13 years of Blair/Brown saw to that. George Orwell was right, jsut a few years out in his timing.

      • I said that years ago. Let’s hope lady luck and common sense prevail on Wednesday. Good luck David. 🙂

  39. Thank you Mr Nuttall.

    I’ve nothing to add to the previous comments about the anti-smoking industry but I wholeheartedly agree.

    The ban epitomised the nanny state which the previous administration [and I speak as a former Labour adherent] increasingly sought to impose upon us. And it would have only gone further.

    I was recently in Spain where a very sensible approach has been adopted. I hope your endeavours meet with success.

  40. Dear Mt Nuttall,
    Congratulations on your bill; the issue here is freedom of choice, something the last government was hellbent on destroying.
    Many if not most pubs survived mon – thursday because of smokers.
    smoking is a highly taxed activity yet you are not allowed,in an often cool and wet climate like the UK to smoke in the one place where you can relax by enjoying a fag & a drink!
    I think it would be better if the owners of pubs, not necessarily the landlords decide whether to provide smoking on the premises.
    If smoking boosts profits they’ll be quick to follow the lead taken by their competitors
    its a simple case of installing air extraction in a separate room but anti smokers are often so fanatical about a complete ban proving tolerance is not a british phenomenon

  41. Quite right. I lot has been lost because of the smoking ban (pub closures, social isolation) and I really hope that it be amended.
    Well done.

  42. Millions of people are still not going to pubs as they used to because of the smoking ban. Some elderly people sit at home for seven nights a week, because there is nowhere for them to comfortably go where they can smoke and socialise as they used to.
    The smoking ban has ended their social lives.

  43. Mr Nuttall,

    I wrote to Andrew Lansley on 1st Sep 10 c/o House of Commons. I received a reply on 28th Sept. I have copied below the salient points of my letter and the reply. Note that the reply avoided the issue that I raised. Feel free to use this information is you wish:

    “”I am writing to you regarding a television advertisement that your department issued on the television last night.
    It really was absolutely the most appalling thing.

    In this advert, we see a Mum standing on the doorstep of her house. She is smoking a cigarette. Inside the house are a couple of children. A voice over says, “Smoke is invisible and can go everywhere. TAKE SEVEN STEPS OUTSIDE”. I saw the advert only once, and therefore I cannot be sure of the exact facts, but they were to that effect.

    For heaven’s sake, Sir!…… It may well be that you are dead set against smoking, and you may well feel that propaganda is justified, but does scientific truth really need to be absolutely junked for that purpose? Surely, you can see that a whiff of tobacco smoke entering a house in those circumstances would do no harm to the children whatsoever?

    The various propaganda campaigns run by your dept are reducing the Health Dept to a laughing stock. If you want to save money, look at the massive cost, not of the adverts themselves, but that of the multiple layers of staff involved in producing this garbage.
    Not only that, but think also of the multiple layers of EU staff, paid for by the taxpayer, involved in tobacco control. Think also of the multiple layers of staff involved in multiple other organisations, such as charities like CRUK and quangos like NICE, which are also in receipt of taxpayers’ funds – to say nothing of fake charities like ASH…… And what about the WHO!!!

    You really must be aware that the cost of these multiple layers of multiple layers of multiple layers is not a small charge on the taxpayer. If the facts were examined, one would find that the sums involved are in billions of pounds, rather than in millions.

    I am writing to you, Sir, to ask you to stop the demonisation and victimisation of people who enjoy tobacco, by officials who work within your department and others. That is a good end in itself, but there is also the added benefit of a massive reduction in the Nation’s costs which have resulted from the proliferation of ‘freeloaders’ who have jumped upon the tobacco control bandwagon.””

    Here is the reply that I received:

    “”Thank you for your letter of 1st September [2010] to Andrew Lansley about the ‘Take 7 Steps Out’ campaign. I have been asked to reply. The ‘Take 7 Steps Out’ campaign is a local NHS initiative rather than a Department of Health national campaign. It is funded jointly by the 24 primary care trusts across the North West region and commissioned by Smokefree North West to respond to the needs of their local communities. If you would like to discuss this matter with Smokefree North West, the contact details are:
    I am sorry that you feel that anti-smoking advertisements are a waste of money. Smoking kills over 100,000 people in the UK every year, and is the single greatest cause of preventable death. To address this, the Government has used advertising very successfully to increase smokers’ motivation to quit, and encourage them to take the most effective action to beat their addiction, with support from the NHS. It is also a highly efficient way of communicating a powerful emotional message to millions of smokers to promote the Government’s anti-smoking message.””

    According to this letter, the end justifies the means…

  44. Bravo! This objectionable and draconian law has ruined thousands of publicans and must be amended forthwith. Whilst I’m sure a handful of ‘smoking fascists’ will object, no reasonable person, smoking or non-smoking could object to your proposed amendment. The real issue is freedom. This government has thus far made a thoroughly good job of cutting through Labour’s legacy of the nanny state. Long may it continue.

  45. As far as I am concerned the status quo should be the default position but it strikes me reasonable to amend the Act so that Licensing Magistrates (not Landlords) would be able to alow a percentage of licensed premises an an area say no more than 10-20% would be avialable for the retail and consuption of “beer, wines, spirits and tobacco”.

    The criteria might be adequate ventillation and perhaps the creation of a smoking bar and while by personal choice it is unliekly I would visit such a premises. others would be able to exercise their freedoms

  46. Best of luck with this, Sir! Now that it’s here, I don’t know a single person who likes or supports this ban any more. Clearly my smoking friends don’t like it, because they’re shoved outside whenever they want to light up; my non-smoking friends who didn’t mind smoke don’t like it because it fragments their evenings, breaks up good conversations and, as the winter draws on, often curtails the evening by some of the party deciding to leave earlier than usual, and then taking most of the rest of the group too (the “yes, I must get going, too” syndrome); even those of my friends who professed to dislike cigarette smoke and who one would have thought would be delighted with the ban are now saying that they would rather have the company of their smoking friends than be sat with a depleted party for ten minutes guarding seats and drinks and handbags. My most smoke-hating friend recently said, after the closure of one of her favourite drinking-spots: “Damned smoking ban!” – words I thought I’d never hear her say!

    I think that the majority of the public are actually behind you on this one, Mr N; few people that I know of feel, with the benefit of hindsight and first-hand experience, that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Needless to say, this probably means that the majority of members of the House of Commons, being about as far removed from the feelings of the general public (your good self excepted, of course!) as it’s possible to be, will probably be firmly against you! But thank you for speaking up for those most badly affected by the ban, who have also been the most excluded from virtually all discussions about it, and, again, the best of luck.

  47. Thank you David, for a bit of common sense, here in West Yorkshire some towns have lost 50% of their pubs, the correct channel for safe gaurding H&S would have been the HSE unfortunately for the last government there is no significant epidemilogical evidence that second hand smoke is harmful, hence it being included in the 2006 Health act, look at HSE OC 255/15 article nine or look at the studies into SHS to find the truth.
    Please table an early day motion for the HSE to be commissioned to supply a report on all the epidemilogical evidence on SHS(ETS), this would clear the matter up properly, as the HSE are required by law to give a truthful report on worldwide epidemilogical evidence.In 2006 there was no evidence, hence the labour government relied on the SCOTH review which was an advisory body and held no authority except as an advisory body, (as the tobacco companies found out when they applied for judicial review against the SCOTH report).
    Good Luck in all your endevours
    Regards Greg Burrows Dewsbury

  48. Every power to your elbow, David!

    Any of those who doubt that the smoking ban is the major contributor to pub closures should simply ask their local pub landlord / manager whether he/she would like to allow smoking once again. ALL those I have asked immediately laughed and said (effectively) “give me back my ashtrays, and my freedom to run my pub”.

    Personally, as a smoker and a voter, in these days where all political parties seem to be much the same, I would not hesitate to vote for a party that modified this draconian law. (And I have never voted Comservative in my life). As would many of the 15 million (estimates vary) other smokers.

    Smoking pubs for smokers – non-smoking pubs for non-smokers. It can’t be simpler than that, can it? It would be a low-cost (almost no-cost), vote-winning exercise.

  49. Good Luck

    I used to be a regular pub user, now only go in the summer to pubs that have a beer garden. Allmy frieds do the same no wonder so many pubs are going bust. We should be taking notice of how thw Spanish operate.

  50. I am resident of Bury North and also a nurse and an asthma sufferer. I have worked as a stop-smoking advisor and a health visitor and now I work within health promotion. I cannot believe that my own MP, given the opportunity to introduce a bill has made such an irresponsible choice at a time when the NHS is just about managing to get the message across to the public about the very real (not imagined) danger of second-hand smoke. The last thing we need is for the tobacco companies to have yet another political ‘friend’ in the House of Commons making sure their profits are not hit. There is irrefutable evidence that second-hand smoke causes a range of health problems including respiratory disease, cancer, cot death, premature birth, asthma, stroke and heart disease. There has even been extensive research into the quality of this research (The Scott Report) that has proved beyond doubt that segregated smoking and non-smoking areas are not achievable because the poisons and chemicals in second-hand smoke are in such small particles, not visible to the naked eye, that they permeate everywhere. You would need an extractor fan the size of a jumbo jet to suck out all the dangerous chemicals. It is like saying peeing in the swimming pool is ok in the shallow end because it won’t affect those swimming in the deep end! The north of England has very high levels of heart disease and other smoking related diseases compared to other areas. You are effectively making the job of nurses and doctors in this region 100% harder at a time when (despite what we hear on the news) the NHS is facing massive cut backs in funding and reduced capacity due to redundancies.

    If my MP has a chance of improving the lives of people in the North I would have preferred him to raise the issue of the growing concentration of wealth and opportunity in the South and make at least some effort to improve the dreadful economic situation facing us in this area. What a complete wasted opportunity!

    • There has not been one true scientific study that proves second hand smoke is harmful. Sorry, but that’s a fact. Good luck David.

  51. I was wondering when second hand smoke (SHS) was going to be mentioned. SHS is at best exaggerated and and worst misleading and this is not just my opinion.

    “The world must protest the ongoing deceit and the squandering of public monies for rigged and incompetent ETS studies. And people should feel offended by the complicity and sham paternalism of health authorities and of profitable tax exempt charities. Such an officially imposed tyranny has no place in countries that claim and presume to be free, enlightened, and just. We are not children, nor bumbling simpletons who need to be deceived for our own good.”

    Dr Gio Batta Gori, Former Deputy Director of the National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Causes and Prevention.

    The abuse of scientific integrity and the generation of faulty “scientific” outcomes (through the use of pseudoscience) have led to the deception of the American public on a grand scale and to draconian government overregulation and the squandering of public money.Millions of dollars have been spent promoting belief in SHS as a killer, and more millions of dollars have been spent by businesses in order to comply with thousands of highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers. Finally, and perhaps most tragically, all this has diverted resources away from discovering the true cause(s) of lung cancer in nonsmokers.

    Dr. Jerome Arnett Pulmonologist. 2008

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv30n1/v30n1-5.pdf

    http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23399/Scientific_Evidence_Shows_Secondhand_Smoke_Is_No_Danger.html

      • Wikipedia is not a source of knowledge. Anybody can contribute and most remain anonymous. And common sense should tell you that equipment is available to remove small particles. How do you think medical research establishments are kept safe?

  52. Good Luck with this Mr Nuttall but I fear another poster may have been right when he said “you’d have more chance of winning the lottery”

    We are now governed by a foreign power and they have decreed they want no exceptions to smoking bans, http://euobserver.com/9/31021 and like with every other order from Brussels our government will roll over and do as they are told.

    My social life died in July 2007 but I occasionally drive past the Bingo Hall and it sickens me to see old folk being made to stand in the rain, it’s disgusting, they are most likely in the last quarter of their lives and they are being treated like something you’d scrape off your shoe. It wasn’t our government or the Brussels dictators who fought and died for our freedom, it was people like them and they deserve much better.

  53. Most politicians base their opinion on the supposed harm of second hand smoke (SHS) from the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) (1). Firstly SCOTH was written my Professor Martin Jarvis of Action On Smoking and Health (ASH), a bit like an alcoholic writing a justification for the temperance movement.

    I would publically like to put these questions to Professor Jarvis. The first question is based on information gleaned from a Freedom Of Information Request on the SCOTH minutes (2) of meetings.

    1. “Most of the studies were not felt to be sufficiently conclusive in their findings.”

    Is Prof Jarvis saying the there is insufficient evidence from the scientific papers?

    2. On SHS and lung cancer SCOTH on page 5 says “In most studies considered individually the observed odds ratios failed to reach statistical significance.”

    SCOTH quotes for LC a relative risk of 1.25 and is in epidemiological terms statistically insignificant. That is, at 1.25 the case for the harm of SHS is scientifically and medically impossile to prove.

    3. There are 30 studies done into ACTIVE smoking. The findings are that cigar smokers and pipe smokers (because they do not inhale) do not run any higher risk of lung cancer, emphysema and an early death. In fact pipe smokers live on average 2 years longer than non smokers. Of the 30 studies done into active smoking the range of daily cigarette smoking which does not effect mortality, raised lung cancer and emphysema rates range from 0.9 to 6.3 cigarettes a day. 6.3 a day is the figure quoted by Hill and Doll in their paper on smoking, lung cancer for British GPs.

    On page 8, point 14 of SCOTH it states “..although uptake of smoke by non-smokers is typically only about 1% of that by active smokers.”

    So a 24 hour exposure to SHS will mean less than a 1/4 of a cigarette. Can Prof Jarvis explain how SHS aetiologically (causation) induces illness in non smokers?

    4. This is for anoraks. Lung cancer in smokers is caused by a guanine to thymine transversion, a genetic mutation of the p53 gene. Can Prof Jarvis and the SCOTH team name me one non smoker who has been genetically tested for this mutation and hence proves SHS induces lung cancer?

    According to the World Health Organization/International Reserch Agency for Cancer there are not many if at all: “In 1998, Pierre Hainaut and his collaborators at IARC analyzed the mutations in lung cancers that were at the time in the IARC p53 database. They found that the positions of damage by benzo(a)pyrene spotted by Pfeifer and his team were frequently the sites of mutations in lung cancers of smokers but rarely in lung cancers of non-smokers.” (3)

    ASH have a history of misleading Parliament like misquoting the cost of covering up tobacco displays in shops. They said £200 when the real cost is £2,000 and counting. (4)

    1. http://www.dh.gov.uk/ab/SCOTH/index.htm

    2. http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_4131879.pdf

    3. http://www-p53.iarc.fr/download/tobacco.pdf

    4. http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2010/07/dark-market-redux.html

  54. So Punch Taverns are to shut another 1,300 locals, how many more made Unemployed ?
    Not enough customers to keep them open and in profit.
    Thanks to the Smoking Ban.
    How much longer can we let this go on,the industry must have Choice and so should the Public, smoking or non smoking venues would suit everyone, everyone could make an Adult choice.
    How could anyone be against having such a choice.

  55. Hi David,

    If the smoking ban is relaxed it will no doubt be of benefit to public places such as restaraunts and pubs, who will find there trade increase as more smokers use there fecilities.
    On a moral level though, how can you possibly argue that the smoking ban should be abolished? It is a ridicuolous suggestion that those of us who choose not to smoke should have to be subjected to SHS, which can have serious implications for those affected.
    Are you a smoker yourself, David? Because it seems to me that thats the only way you could possibly be arguing for this. We live in the 21st Century Mr Nuttall and the rights of all people should be respected, those who choose to smoke should be made to go outdoors, period.

    Yet another Conservative politican trying to undo the good work of Labour over the last 13 years!

    Stop backing big buisness and put the people first please or face losing your seat at the next local election.

    • “Are you a smoker yourself, David? ”

      -You’ve not read his profile then!

      Another stunning quote:

      “We live in the 21st Century Mr Nuttall and the rights of all people should be respected”

      “out of the mouths of babes” ?

      Enough said !!!!!

  56. Good luck with EDM406, it is essensial that the right of free association for all people is mantained, it is a fundimental right that all people regardless of wether they smoke or not, drink or not, hold differnt views or have cultural differences have venues in which to socialise in venues with their peers in a manner which they feel comfortable without fear or favour.

    My compliments for taking a stand on this issue, your constituents should be justifiably proud to have an MP who not only recognises freedom for all but is willing to act on the principle.

  57. Thank you Mr Nutall. We responsible smokers (i.e. those who do not wish to interfere with the enjoyment of others) have a great deal of respect for tolerant non-smokers like yourself. It is the anti-smoking Nazis that we cannot stand!

  58. The secondhand smoke science is the same as the man made climate change science – full of lies and manipulated to make a pre-decided point. We are free men and we have the right to choose.

  59. “There is irrefutable evidence that second-hand smoke causes a range of health problems including respiratory disease, cancer, cot death, premature birth, asthma, stroke and heart disease.”

    Congratulations! You’ve managed to get quite a number of the propaganda slogans in one paragraph. You must be an antismoker “advocate”.

    “You would need an extractor fan the size of a jumbo jet to suck out all the dangerous chemicals.”

    The original version of this drivel was that it required “tornado-like” extraction. What about cooking or heating smoke? Do you think that they require tornado-like extraction?

    “It is like saying peeing in the swimming pool is ok in the shallow end because it won’t affect those swimming in the deep end!”

    Having demanded that restaurants, pubs, etc., have non-smoking sections, the antismokers then demanded that premises be made entirely non-smoking based on the incoherent “pee in the pool” analogy. This incoherent analogy was concocted by the master of incoherent analogies – Simon Chapman.
    http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1226

    Chapman was also the originator of the Chapman Trick – a very often used propaganda piece. For example, there are numerous variations of this Trick, but here’s one:

    Tobacco smoke contains –
    Acetic Acid (vinegar)
    Acetone (nail varnish remover)
    Ammonia (cleaning agent)
    Arsenic (ant poison in the USA)
    Benzene (petrol fumes)
    Cadmium (car battery fluid)
    DDT (insecticide)
    Ethanol (anti-freeze)
    Formaldehyde (embalming fluid)
    Hydrogen Cyanide (industrial pollutant)
    Lead (batteries, petrol fumes)
    Methanol (rocket fuel)
    Tar (road surface tar)

    http://www.pfizerlife.co.uk/SmokingWhatsInACigarette.aspx

    This sort of delinquent conduct was suggested at the 5th World Conference on Smoking and Health (1983) by Simon Chapman (The Lung Goodbye).
    “A glance through any copy of the Smoking and Health Bulletin of the U S Department of Health and Human Services shows an entire indexed, section on ‘Tobacco
    Product Additives’ . Citations are included from patent office registrations of new chemical applications to tobacco processing and from the specialist chemical literature. Both these sources are virtually unintelligible, let alone normally accessible to the average person but are rich in potential for anyone willing to translate them into news items with popular interest. Polysyllabic chemical names should be checked through a reference book that lists common usages and toxicological data for chemicals . Look for usages that will connote revulsion or concern . For example, well known chemicals found in tobacco include cadmium (as in car batteries), ammonia (as in toilet cleaners), cyanides, formaldehyde and so on ……” (p.15)

    Chapman’s 1983 presentation was very popular. The presentation had a full house requiring an ‘encore’ presentation. The Trick is a variant of the “no safe level” derangement. This sort of practice has been going on, ad nauseum, since the mid-1980’s because it is highly effective. It is highly effective because, like most antismoking propaganda, it is inflammatory and false: It outrages – particularly non-smokers – BECAUSE it is misleading. Its ONLY PURPOSE is to mislead, i.e., inflammatory propaganda.
    See http://www.rampant-antismoking.com

    • Ah – so it is all propaganda and breathing in carcinogens is good for me! Well I stand corrected.

  60. @Judith

    You mention the “Scott” Committee as I detail above it is the “SCOTH” Committee. I take it you have not read it.

    Before we go any further let me first state I accept most of the evidence on ACTIVE smoking in that smokers die on average 7 years less than non smokers and 86% of lung cancer and 90% of emphysema cases are smokers.

    On asthma and children brought up in smoker’s households and smokers actually have far less incidence than non smokers and their households. It is also true for general atopy such as food allergies, eczema and psorisis. Could you explain to me when in 1950 adult smoking was 66% of the population compared to 25% now, childhood asthma and atopy has risen threefold?

    In fact this paper from 2008 actually pinpoints that nicotine actually supresses asthma and explains scientifically why.

    “The results unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE.”

    http://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/abstract/180/11/7655

  61. On the incidence of asthma and cigarette smoke exposure as I mentioned, if anything is protective. These are the conclusions of a study of 3 generations of Swedish children.

    “Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)

    CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”

    The conclusions of a New Zealand study.

    Professor Repace, I have had the opportunity to review the literature on PM2.5 and your work, let’s take it from the top.

    Firstly an atopic reaction, possible lung cancer and heart disease/attacks seems to be the first concerns with exposure to PM2.5s. Smoking in America and the UK reached it’s peak in around the late 1940s and early 1950s when 66% of men and 41% of women smoked. (1) The UK’s figures are now down to 22.5% of the population averaged out amongst the sexes. (2) However a pattern of increasing atopy and especially asthma has risen by 200%-300% in the corresponding time. (3) So you cannot say with certainty that SHS is the cause of atopy and in fact the two studies that I am aware of from Sweden and New Zealand suggest children exposed to SHS have a reduced incidence. (4)

    “Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)

    CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”

    The New Zealand study up to a statistically significant 82%.

    “Smoking linked to reduced allergic sensitization By David Holmes 21 January 2008 J Allergy Clin Immunol 2008; 121: 38-42

    “MedWire News: Parental smoking during childhood and personal cigarette smoking in teenage and early adult life lowers the risk for allergic sensitization in those with a family history of atopy, according to the results of a study from New Zealand. Writing in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Robert Hancox (University of Otago, Dunedin) and colleagues explain that “the findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the immune-suppressant effects of cigarette smoke protect against atopy.” The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11422156

    http://www.medwire-news.md/48/72330/Respiratory/Smoking_linked_to_reduced_allergic_sensitization_.html

    • Three words blah blah blah! In all honesty I just feel your quoting various publications due to the fact that you need some way of justifying bringing back smoking in public places… Just an observation… Am I correct in assuming that you are a a bit annoyed to not be allowed to smoke at your local? get a grip before it gets a grip on you..

      • of course smokers are annoyed, why do you think they are writing on this page?? how about a pub where “non smokers” stand outside, would you agree to that, i doubt it! If public houses are doing “great” with the smoking ban, why is CAMRA asking Councils not to sell off the empty pubs? do they really think they can get them open again, no! who ever you are, the ban ruined it, the goverment sells the ciggies we buy ciggies so we should be allowed to smoke them. The problem could of easily been sorted, partition pubs off, or give the landlord the choice to choose whether it be a smoking or non smoking pub . Oh and before you write back saying people reek/smell etc of smoke which is another nasty comment. I would like to point out i dont like meat, fish, garlic they are all offensive smells to me, do i pass comment no! neither would i be so rude as to pass comment over some one who was overweight or bald, why? because the would be wrong and insulting, so keep your comments to yourself

  62. I HOPE but doubt that this Bill will have any effect, I see that some one suggested that if it fails Tobacco should be made illegal, I have a far better suggestion in that Taxes should be removed from tobacco, why should those that at present benefit the exchequer by over 10 billion p.a not have a voice, didn,t we lose a large Colony over “NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION “

  63. In my opinion the smoking ban is a Draconian and discriminating law. It is one part of society imposing their own understanding of healthy life on the rest.

    If the main argument is indeed the health of the staff in the pubs, there are plenty of methods to deal with this issue, without completely forbidding smoking in public. It should be up to the venue owner to decide. There are non-alcohol bars, and vegetarian restaurants for the people who are less tolerant to the pleasures of others, so I agree there should be non-smoking pubs as well as dedicated venues or areas for smokers .

  64. Freedom of Choice for Pubs (non-food) and Clubs *as promised in the 2005 Labour Manifesto* is the ONLY fair, respectful and tolerant way to deal with this problem.

    The rate of pub closures quadrupled, starting precisely when the draconian Total Ban was enacted, costing tens of thousands of jobs, heaping more misery on pubs already crippled by PubCo’s and Supermarket prices. (The evidence for this is irrefutable, and is mirrored in Ireland except that their decline stared in 2004 – *when their smoking ban started*!)

    Everyone except the tiny minority of Anti-Smoking Radicals can see that turning people outside into utterly inadequate or very often non-existent shelters is dreadfully disrespectful intolerance which smacks of the rightfully outlawed practice of racial segregation.
    THIS TOTAL BAN IS DISCRIMINATION.

    The whole point of progress in a civilised society is to maximise tolerance and to accommodate and respect minorities.

    We do not tell Jews, Hindus, Moslems and Bhuddists “look you can pray outside in designated areas, but you can’t do it inside because it offends some Christians” – no sir, because that is Discrimination. Rather, we build them facilities for their minority to be respectfully accommodated!

    We do not stampede wearing Social Engineer jackboots into the lobbies demanding a total ban on motor vehicles. They belch thousands of cubic litres of toxic & carcinogenic effluent every day into crowded streets and enclosed inadequately ventilated carparks, compromising the health of children and road-crossing attendants!
    To single out smoking, sir, is hypocritical as well as discriminatory.

    This total smoking ban is UNchristian, UNcivilized, INtolerant, and DISrespectful. The sooner it is relaxed the sooner we can repair this SHAMEFUL new form of discrimination in our society.

    THANK YOU David Nuttall for standing up for fairness and tolerance – this campaign WILL succeed sooner or later because the days of Bigotry are already over, and it’s only a matter of time before ALL members of society are protected from Discrimination by Law.. **EVEN THE SMOKERS**!!

  65. Well done sir. An MP who is prepared to speak against the vested interests of big pharma and their fake charities and for freedom of the little people to make their own minds up is a rarity. I widh you many more years as the M for Bury North.

  66. Thanks so much, Mr Nuttall. As a lifelong smoker for 42 years from the age of 8, I can say that I have never felt so excluded, marginalised, or hated for my culture than I have since July 2007.

    I wish this venture every success but I fear too many bigots in Parliament are swayed by those in the anti-smoking industry who have everything to gain financially from promoting hatred of people like me.

  67. I’m not optimistic but hope you do get a vote for common sense and freedom of choice for a change.

    Its not only the loss of pubs that concerns me – its the loss of community life and social interaction.

    The fabric of society will suffer irreversibly if there is not an amendment soon.

    Another point is that Global warming will cost more lives than smoking. The the use of outside heaters damages the environment and everyone, far more than SHS.

    Pete

  68. I hope that this fails.
    I do not want to catch other peoples cancer thank you very much.
    Smokers are stinky and rude and dont care if they give people cancer.
    I dont like washing my hair or cloths after going in a pub.
    The garden is the worst place at the pub as the smokers all gather there making the place dirty and smelly.
    If I get on a bus I can smell if the person sitting near me is a smoker and I have to move away as it makes me smell as well.
    I can now go to a pub on my birthday or at Xmas and have a drink without smelling these revolting cancer sticks.

    • dont sit next to me on a bus .as when i fart.you will know about it.pity you did not live through the fifties.not everything smelt of roses.
      Good luck.mr nuttall

    • A word of information, Jo-ann: you can’t catch cancer, nor can you catch another’s smell.

      I wonder when you go to the pub on the two occasions per annum that you do, that you spare a thought for elderly smokers who, in defiance of the tobacco control lobby, continue to live despite being exposed to SHS throughout their lives, indeed, despite active smoking. These people fought for your freedom to view them with the utter disdain of the ignorant and selfish.

    • Jo-ann.

      1. Cancer is not a communicable disease.

      2. Nobody ever died from smelling something they didn’t like.

      3. Smokers do not ‘gather in the pub garden’. They have been banished there. They are also to be found out there in rain and cold and snow, and you make no complaint about that. When the sun comes out and you want the garden, that’s when the whining starts.

      4. You say you go to the pub in your birthday and Christmas. Twice a year. For the rest of the year, the pub must be held in pristine condition for the two days you grace it with your presence. The landlord must be overjoyed.

      I no longer visit pubs. The freezing winter and cold wet summer has made it a particularly unpleasant way to spend an evening, and the forecast freezing winter to come will not entice me back.

      Even if the smoking ban is overturned, if pubs have people like you in them I still won’t be there. So you can rest easy in your smokefree Utopia.

      Until it closes.

  69. Pingback: David Nuttall MP explains why he is introducing a Ten Minute Rule Bill to relax the smoking ban | Prime Minister David Cameron

  70. Good show, go after the devil and grasp his tail……
    The world needs men like you sir. Its a long road in this fight to end prohibition,but we shall prevail……….

    Harleyrider1978

  71. Please help me to get my culture back. End the conspiracy of silence about the smoking ban. Shine the light of truth on the dreadful lies uttered by anti smokers. Consign the now discredited ASH to the dustbin of history.

  72. Thank you so much, Mr Nuttall, for your efforts to ameliorate this most ignominious of laws.

  73. Hi David,

    Good luck with tomorrow! Please try to just go down the route of arguing for a separate ventilated smoking room, not an open area of the pub. If it’s specific enough there is no reason why this couldn’t happen. It’s when the arguments get involved in allowing pubs to choose which areas etc that it’ll never be taken on board.

    Focus soley on getting an enclosed area which excludes non-smokers and employees don’t work in (except to clean – much like hotel rooms which are legal now) with a clear sign up and there can’t be anyone who would disagree with that. There’s no Passive smoking, no smells, no work force related issues, nothing.

    It’s a start and would bring back business to pubs and give smokers somewhere to go in the winter.

  74. I feel sure our government should recognize that there are still millions of folk who smoke. The outright ban has done untold damage to their social lives and has destroyed thousands of venues from bingo halls to pubs hotels and social clubs up and down the land, all because they were denied the right to accommodate smokers. Other country’s were able to reach a compromise and our government should look again at this option.

  75. Sir,

    At last a politician with an ounce of sense. We are constantly being told that 40 or so pubs are shutting down due to a combination of cheap supermarket booze (which there has always been) and the recession (of which I have witnessed three in the last forty years and I don’t remember many pubs shutting down during those.) Although the smoking ban is mentioned, it is not given as the main reason for pubs closing. It would be interesting if someone would answer me the obvious question. How many pubs were shutting down before the ban and how many have shut down since the ban. No one can give me an answer because I suspect it will not be the one they want to hear. I have no objection to a ban on smoking in public places, but I don’t see why a seperate room cannot be provided for smokers. But to expect smokers to go to pubs and spend £3 per pint and then stand in the rain is ridiculous and any other businesses which discriminated against 30% of their customers in such a manner would also go under.

  76. “Could you explain to me when in 1950 adult smoking was 66% of the population compared to 25% now, childhood asthma and atopy has risen threefold?” AND “nicotine actually supresses asthma”

    Yes – passive smoking is not the only cause of asthma and the rise in allergy these days, it is probably a result of modern living, but the incidence of asthma is higher in children with cotinine levels in their bloodstream. Cotinine is a product of second-hand smoke and is harmless in itself but is a good marker of the level to which a child has been exposed to second-hand smoke because it is only given off when tobacco burns. It is easily detected via a simple urine test . Children with higher cotinine levels also have a higher incidence of asthma. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1546840. Also as an asthma sufferer myself I can assure you that smoky pubs made life unbearable for me. I don’t need a scientific research paper to tell me that.

    Nicotine is not even present in second-hand smoke! It is not the cause for concern even with smokers (apart of course from its addictive properties). It is the 4,000 other chemicals and poisons that I have a problem with.

    I should say that I am not at all against smokers. Some of the nicest people I know have died from smoking related illnesses – and I say that with true reverence as one of them was my own Dad. But the research is overwhelming even with the might and money of the tobacco companies fighting against it.

    • Judith: If there were pubs for smokers and pubs for those who, like you, don’t like smoke, you wouldn’t need to be near any smoke at all. This is what David is asking for, that’s all.

      Nicotine isn’t in second hand smoke. You’re correct. So why are the people you idolise trying to ban e-cigs which have none of the 4,000 chemicals and often not even nicotine? If you hate smoking so very much, perhaps you should be contacting them and asking why they are closing off a rich source of tobacco harm reduction. I don’t think you will, though, because anti-smokers just don’t like the idea that someone might enjoy inhaling a product that they don’t personally like, whether harmful or not.

      Lastly. Err, how do tobacco companies fight it exactly? Advertising is banned; their research is ignored; universities which accept tobacco money have funding removed; government refuse to talk to them; the EU won’t allow them to lobby; there is absolutely nothing they can do to fight anything.

      You swallowed the pharma pill big time, I’m afraid.

  77. Unsure if my last comment was posted – Just want to say that I fully support your move to REPEAL THE SMOKING BAN.
    Perhaps the EU’s forthcoming assault on our personal freedom to even stand outside and smoke will give further importance to your Bill… See link in website box above.
    The owners of Adult Establishments like Pubs, Clubs and Bingo Halls should be given back the right to choose whether smoking can be allowed in their establishments. The only requirement should be that a notice should be placed on the entrance to warn customers that the premises they are about to enter allows smoking and thus prevent any offence to non smokers.
    Go forward in the knowledge that you have many supporters from all political persuasions.
    Thank you very much for speaking out to restore our Rights & personal Freedom.

  78. Best of British, Mr Nuttall.

    I’m a non-smoker. I don’t like the smell of smoke.

    In my dim and distant past, however, I used to smoke. Long enough ago that the slam door trains on my local line used to have a smoking carriage and one could still smoke upstairs on double decker buses.

    I found both revolting. So I smoked before or after I got on the train or the bus, and left the smoking area to those who wanted to put up with the smell and grime.

    What David Nuttall is suggesting is choice. A cleaner and more fragrant choice with appropriate extraction than smoking carriages and upstairs on buses but choice nonetheless.

    The market will then dictate which premises allow smoking and which don’t. Individuals can then adjust their patronage accordingly.

    Jo-ann Scott says “If I get on a bus I can smell if the person sitting near me is a smoker and I have to move away as it makes me smell as well.” I have to do the same with people who are wearing too much aftershave and who have bad BO. Oh, and babies with smelly nappies, people who have incontinence problems and don’t wash their clothes and ladies who overuse their hairspray. Should we ban them too?

  79. A recent study by CR Consulting estimates that 3/4 of pub closures continue to be caused by the smoking ban.
    Millions of people are still not going to pubs as they used to because of it. Smokers clearly object to being forced outside
    into the cold and are drinking at home instead.

    Providing two well ventilated rooms one for smokers would enable pubs to their retain smoking customers and makes clear business sense. This is easily possible without exposing non smoking customers or bar staff to second hand smoke.

  80. Good Luck Mr Nuttall; I hope that you are successful.
    I stopped going to the Pub because of the Ban and also left the Labour Party because of it.
    Non-smokers could avoid smoking rooms in Pubs and Clubs if they chose to do so; we’d just like to be treated as adults and to be allowed to choose for ourselves.
    The whole second hand smoke argument is based on the distortion of evidence and fallacies promoted by the anti-smoking lobby.
    I assume that the non-smokers who argue for the ban don’t drive or fly: the emissions from cars and planes are equally toxic and nobody on the planet can evade their impact on the climate.

  81. David Nuttal, you have courage and laudable principles. Some people admire you, some hate you. I don’t believe that affected your decision.
    The smoking ban has not affected me much, but its existence is an intolerable affront to my values. I am truly grateful that you have done this.

  82. Anthony P,

    Here you go. Average number of pub closures per week:

    2005: 2
    2006: 4
    2007: 27
    2008: 39
    2009: 59

    • Thanks Anon Smoker, you have proved my point. It is the smoking ban that has caused all the pubs to shut down and nothing more. What people don’t realise was that there use3d to also be a lot of non smokers who went along to the pub to have a pint with their smoking mates. because the smokers stopped going, the non smokers stopped going too.

  83. Thank you for giving your voice and support to us smokers, who have lost so much from this spiteful ban. Not an easy sell and no doubt you will face all manner of hysteria from the anti smoking sector and probably be accused of being an agent og ‘Big tobacco’ . Know that there are hundreds of thousands of us just longing to get back into the pub and inject some of our much needed money into the economy. I was a life long labour voter until their digusting u turn on the scope of the smoking restrictions as set out in their manifesto.

  84. Ventilation was always the answer, against smokey enviroments, as even smokers disliked too little ventilation, if it had been put through the right channel which should have been the HSE and the Health and safety at work act, a ban would never have occurred as the levels of SHS (ETS) never come near that of a dangerous enviroment, unlike welding fumes etc.
    A ventilation standard could have been set as the pub group wetherspoon did to make a nice enviroment for everyone smokers and non-smokers.
    This smoking ban never had anything to do with any health danger from SHS (ETS) as no significant epidemilogical data showing SHS to be significantly dangerous exists and the only way it could be brought in was through the 2006 Health act, unlike the HSE who have to have sound epidemilogical evidence, it was conceived for social control and a well funded small minority ie ASH,CRUK,WHO and the EU who believe they have the right to control peoples behaviour.
    The sooner MP’s own up to being conned into voting for this draconian un-British legislation, the better, then we may have a bit of freedom back and put a little trust back to those MP’S and also save a lot of jobs and stop millions of people being isolated.
    All the Best David for today.
    Regards Greg Burrows Dewsbury

  85. Judith, I’m not quite sure why you’re so concerned about the effects of ETS on children when what is being discussed is an amendment to the ban in relation to pubs and clubs – surely adult territory? As in, for people who are old enough to make their own decisions in life.

    “Could you explain to me when in 1950 adult smoking was 66% of the population compared to 25% now, childhood asthma and atopy has risen threefold?”

    If you are not querying the validity of these figures, merely the cause (in attributing them to the rather vague term ‘modern living’), then it is clear that if ETS exposure to children doesn’t have a protective effect then, at the very least, it has such a small negative effect when compared to the other factors of ‘modern living’ as to be negligible.

    But let’s not forget, we’re not talking about implementing compulsory smoking in nurseries here.

    Property owners’ rights regarding a legal pastime on their own premises surely deserve some consideration if one bears in mind that no-one else actually has any legal right to be there at all.

  86. Nicotine is not even present in second-hand smoke! It is not the cause for concern even with smokers (apart of course from its addictive properties). It is the 4,000 other chemicals and poisons that I have a problem with.

    Judith from what planet did you vegetate on…….you state ”Cotinine is a product of second-hand smoke and is harmless in itself ”

    continine is nicotine metabolized in the body……..DUH DUH!!!!!

    Nicotine is proven to reduce the inflammatory process………

  87. I might add this…….your 4000 chemical claim is bunk!

    Those theoretical 4000 chemicals if they exist are only to be found in 6% of second hand smoke and are dilute 100,000 times that of mainstream smoke………..DOSE MAKES THE POISON or did you forget that in propaganda school!

    About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it quickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

    4 % is carbon monoxide.

    6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms……
    (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

    • I agree with the writer. Between 1964 and 1975, my parents ran a cafe. There was an ashtray on every table and the only ventilation was when a customer opened the door to enter or leave the shop. My parents were both non smokers, and worked seven days a week, fifty weeks of the year in that environment and both lived into their late 70’s and died from non smoking related illness. I used to work there most lunch times and some evenings even whilst at school. Back then I would ALWAYS travel on the top deck of the bus (where smoking was rife) Despite the amount of second hand smoke I have come into contact with in 55 years, I have not one single health problem. The fact is once upon a time, smokers and non smokers lived together and co-existed, which didn’t please the anti smoking lobby. So each year they have funded reasearch (which tends to vear on the side of the hand that feeds or pays it) to try an deamonise smoking. When that only had limited success, they changed tack and told non smokers that they were slowly being killed by second hand smoke in order to turn them against smokers. The only person that I know of who supposidly died through second hand smoke inhilation was Roy Castle. But let’s not forget that he used to play mostly working mens clubs in the days when there was NO ventilation and he played a trumpet (all those deep breaths, sucking in air before playing each note must be hard on the lungs) two perfomances a day, four or five times a week and still lived into his fifties.

  88. Fantastic endeavour, even though I fear you are pushing water uphill I’m delighted that someone is trying to save the entire pub industry from destruction, as well as striking a small blow for civil liberties.

    Good luck, and be armed with stats, good ones, because they’ll have all the usual nonsense at their fingertips.

  89. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

    Many people have now become isolated in society with pubs becoming ‘no go areas’ as you are expected to pay higher prices to stand outside no matter what the weather throws at you.

    Many other Countries simply have smoking and no smoking pubs, give us our rights and freedom back please.

  90. Mr Nuttall – as a life-long non-smoker and father of 3 asthmatic children (one of whom would have died from the condition but for the superb care from an NHS Intensive Care Unit), I wish you every success with this bill.

    In the privacy of my own home, every smoker that I’ve ever met has always respected my family’s preference for smoke-free air. In public, I’ve always had the choice about whether to go into a smoking environment or not.

    The total smoking ban is an assault on the freedom of smokers and an attempt to infantalise me by further diminishing my ability to make decisions in my own best interests.

    • devious and dumb to try and sneak a bill like that through.

      you are disgrace to your constituency.

  91. Dear oh dear.

    You just join parliament. The first thing you do is moan about the civil list being frozen at a time of intense economic hardship. The second thing you do is attempt to undermine what was, by far, the best thing the previous Government did. This is very bad form.

    There is simply no argument whatsoever for repealing the bill. Perhaps you should go and huddle up with Nadine Dorries MP at the lunatic fringe of the Conservative party.

    Kind regards,
    Dr G (Conservative party member).

    • ‘There is simply no argument whatsoever for repealing the bill.’

      Is reading the original article and just a few of the many comments, of which a number contain various links to support the points made, really too much for you?

      Or perhaps you were expecting 30ft letters of fire?

      It’s common courtesy to read before you type sport.

      Hugs and kisses,
      BTS (Library member)

  92. Thought it might be worth pointing out that cotinine is not just given off when tobacco burns but when almost anything combustible is burnt. Maybe burnt toast causes asthma!! cooking oils, frying steaks or anything else will all produce levels of cotinine. As you rightly say, cotinine is not harmful in itself. just as well really or we’d all be screwed, it’s practically everywhere. Much like most of the chemicals in tobacco smoke which are all around us almost all the time. The only difference is that you can’t see them. this is why tobacco smoke is so vilified, you can see it. Good effort Judith but maybe try a little harder next time.

    Teebob.

    P.S Good luck with this Mr Nuttall, you’re going to need it with these nut jobs about

  93. hi. the main reason for you bill to be passed, mr. nuttal is really very simple- WHEN THESE PEOPLE (SMOKERS) DON’T SMOKE IN THOSE CLOSED DOWN PUBLIC HOUSES AND PRIVATE CLUBS- THEY SMOKE AT HOME WITH THEIR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN- 2HAND SMOKE NHS FUTURE NIGHTMARE.

  94. Well done sir!
    I spent most of my working life defending this country; I did not do so to be treated as a third class person by the odious fascist Labour government. As for this tosh about a “free” vote – where has our British freedom gone? I wish you well, it’s just a pity that Mr Cameron does not see fit to support a true Conservative cause

  95. Mr. Nuttall – thank you. It is time to put an end to the nanny state and return to common sense and choice. I am sorry your bill did not succeed. I hope you will have the courage to bring it again. The loss of so many pubs, centres of the community, particularly in rural areas is largely due to this draconian measure. Persevere!

  96. Oh well, you gave it a shot. Any other way to progress this. MP’s won’t even stop to listen… typical..what’s going on. Could another MP have a go?

  97. David,

    After previously viewing and adding comments on your website, I managed to catch the televised showing today of your Ten Minute Bill.

    I’m not usually interested in the workings of the HofP but please can somebody explain the results of the voting (86 v. 141) when the verbal vote in the chamber was obviously in favour of the I’s and there appeared to be many less than 100 members in the chamber before the doors were closed?

    I am biased because I own (what was) a traditional English country freehouse. Our predictions regarding loss of trade as a direct result of the Smoking Ban have all come to fruition. We are now in the process of progressing a Change Of Use and subsequent closure with our local council.

    Since the local authorities now control Licensing, would it be possible for a mailshot/questionnaire to be sent to the owners of all Licensed Premises affected by your proposed change to see what the actual feeling is towards the change?

    As you said, the local feeling towards the change can only be represented by a local person – who better than the Landlord that knows his own customer base?

    Regards,
    MT

  98. so sad it is that the smoking ban is NOT being relaxed. i suppose ASH and the other so-called charities are now happy because they will be keeping their highly paid jobs.but they won’t be getting any of my money.if i had enough money .i would get out of this dictatorship country.
    so much for the lib/con alliance.no freedom for the british. perhaps you non-smokers will start spending your money in pubs and clubs to keep them open.and the goverment can still smoke in parliament. i won’t vote for anyone again.

    1304pm.13/10/2010. David Nuttall’s bill doesn’t make it – it is voted down by 141 votes to to 86. Looks like the smoking ban is staying in place in pubs and clubs.

  99. David Nuttall’s Ten Minute Rule Bill to have the smoking ban amended so that private clubs and pubs would allow smoking, if they wanted it, has sadly just been shot down in the Commons. But the result of ayes 86, noes 141 shows the growing popularity for such an idea. This was a mere lone backbencher’s campaign thrown together hastily on the luck of a draw. With a coordinated movement within the coalition who knows what could happen…

    http://order-order.com/2010/10/13/smoking-ban-amendment-defeated-but/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+guidofawkes+%28Guy+Fawkes%27+blog+of+parliamentary+plots%2C+rumours+and+conspiracy%29

  100. As a non smoker MY choice agree that smoking in pubs should come back I hate the fact that going in a pub with friends I’m usually left sitting there on my own as they go out side,My grandad who is 85 used to go to the pub for some company a beer and a cig,now he can go for hrs sitting looking at 4 walls,he is to old to be stood outside having his ciggie he has smoked for 73years and if he can’t have those things now he says he may aswell give up on life

  101. Mr Nuttall, please urge your parliamentary colleagues to read through these responses. Together with Clegg’s ill-fated Freedom website, they make it clear how strongly so many people feel about this issue. Many previously civic minded people no longer feel themselves part of society and would jump at the chance to flout this ban, even risking a financial penalty to do so. This is not a good position for the country to be in. The law is not maintained by the Police, but by the people largely agreeing with it. The last time passengers were imprisoned for hours in a Eurostar train on English soil, it was the French who lit up en masse. I sense that soon the dam will burst and the English will follow. Maybe a train, maybe an airport departure lounge. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow etc.

  102. a dear old 74 year old woman who we know won’t be happy with this result.she like me.enjoy our cigarettes.when she leaves this life.at least we know that the goverment and all the do-gooders will have killed her.our older generation feel let down after fighting for this country for freedom.the way this country is going .it will be full of heroin addicts.who are looked after by the goverment because they are not fit to work.if the goverment don’t want us to smoke.then why don’t they stop the sale of tobacco.perhaps it’s like oil.they want our money.but they don’t want us to drive or smoke. i am not proud to be british. hitler could have done a better job.
    SHAME ON THE BRITISH GOVERMENT
    DAVID NUTTALL.PLEASE KEEP TRYING.PERHAPS .YOU MAY MAKE A BETTER PRIME MINISTER THAN THE COALITION WE HAVE.
    WINSTON CHURCHILL MUST BE TURNING IN HIS GRAVE.

  103. It is quite remarkable to read the comments left.

    It is not surprising that there are those for, and those against.

    What is very disturbing, however, is the sheer vehemence of some who advocate that their own rights be protected and yet, almost predictably, show no perception of the rights of others -and show no tendancy to toleration.

    It appears to me that the smokers are the far more tolerant and flexible group.

    (Were they not, of course there would have been national riots!)

    As you are a non-smoker David, I think you have been very brave in restoring the subject to debate.

    I wonder what the outcome would be of a national debate on the subject IF (and here’s the rub) biased mis- (or selective)-information was excluded.

    Or, indeed all FACTS exposed.

  104. thank you mr nuttall, it’s tough to explain how sad pubs and clubs loosing customers after the smoking ban.walk in to a pub these days they look sober .not much laughing and socializing inside .people want to talk to someone just for short company have to go out side start a chat for a laugh or fun.it’s a shame this country don’t realize how they divided socity after the ban and split our socities further apart.good luck mr nuttall again.GOD bless you

  105. Thank you for trying, Mr. Nuttall. I don’t suppose the outcome came as a surprise to anyone, but it was pleasing to see the number of MPs voting for your Bill.

    It’s plain that this nasty little law is almost universally loathed, notwithstanding the silly claims made through ASH polls that three-quarters of smokers simply love it and can’t wait for even MORE restrictions.

    It’s a problem that isn’t going to go away. Far from ‘getting over it’ (which we’re often sneeringly told to do) resentment and anger are growing.

    We really would like our pubs back now.

  106. Thank you David for putting forward this amendement, it is a good start in Parliament, it is just a pity so many MP’s are out of touch with reality and have been misguided by ASH,CRUK,WHO and the EU on exagerated claims about SHS (ETS), they obviously can not be pub people or people who look for the truth, especially after the announcement that Punch Inns are selling 1,300 unviable pubs, the majority of these will have a change of use.
    At the next election these people who voted for keeping this dictorial law will be punished at the ballot box.
    Regards Greg Burrows Dewsbury

  107. Mr Nuttall, congratulations on yesterday’s brave effort. Please do not give up. We have all noted that virtually all the comments on your site support your move – bar a couple. Those comments were the ones read out by your opponent. Not only is that a disgusting misrepresentation – I would almost call it a lie.

    I hope you will continue the fight for liberty – together with those MPs who voted with you.

  108. Common sense speaks out at last!

    Well done David – your common sense has shown you to be courageous for putting your head well above the parapet in these insanely politically correct times. What you have done is give leadership to those who skulk in the shadows waiting for someone else to make the first move. Sadly yesterday the strength of feeling shown on your blog was criminally misrepresented by Keith Barron – I can’t be bothered to put MP after his name since he lacks integrity on this issue.

    I was pleased with result because you had little time to prepare and present your case, as it was you put your case with passion and above all understanding…and for that I am deeply grateful.

    We are now the most persecuted minority in this country…if any other sector of society was so brutally attacked in this way; there would be riots in the streets. I am now almost totally isolated by this spiteful ban unable to enjoy any social life whatsoever because of my social pariah status…how on earth has it been allowed to come to this in this once great country of ours?

    Once again – thank you David!

  109. Many thanks for your efforts.
    On a day when the whole Chilean Nation was shown united in pride due to the mine rescue it is horrendous to find our own Country denied unity through, among other Government measures, the smoking ban.
    You, at least, attempted to mend one imposed rift in our Country but your reasonableness was met by lies, propaganda and a division showing Parliament to be occupied by the gutless and gullible who value their position in their parties and give no respect for their electorate.

  110. Well done for your efforts which should be applauded. Hopefully the issue shall be revived soon given the high amount of interest amongst MPs. Kevin Barron simply cherry picked the comments that he liked such as the “nurse”. That is shameful and I sincerely hope evidence of blatant lying is exposed for all to see.

  111. THIS IS A STATEMENT ON THE ASH SITE.

    We do not attack smokers or condemn smoking.

    MY REPLY IS .WHY DON’T YOU JUST KEEP YOUR MOUTHS SHUT THEN.
    ALL THESE SO-CALLED CHARITIES SHARE THE SAME POT.I WOULD CALL IT MONEY LAUNDERING.

  112. You’ve done a service, Mr Nuttall, not only to marginalised, law-abiding pub customers for whom tobacco may be a real solace and help in their lives, but also to our shrivelled British tradition of fair play and tolerance. It is sad, while it is also gratifying, that there were 86 MPs who supported your motion: sad that there were so few; gratifying that they number more than in our current conformist politics I would have expected.

    May your campaign prosper.

  113. I’m saddened to see our Member of Parliament espousing yet another outdated policy – (eg capital punishment, longer prison sentences, blanket bans on new progressive taxes, a return to fox hunting).
    The smoking ban may or may not lead to some pub closures – as usual you seem light on hard evidence, Mr Nuttall. However, the ban is working. Just two examples of its advantages – pub staff benefit from working in a safer environment, and I visit more pubs (especially to eat) because they are smoke free.
    The end of bear bating doubtless put some people out of work, but that didn’t make it a bad idea.

  114. Mr Nuttall-
    Thank you for your efforts to bring some semblance of equity and sanity to the odious totalitarian indoor smoking ban implemented by New Labour. I believe that even in the last parliament most Tory mps voted against the Bliar’s blanket ban on indoor smoking.

    I don’t smoke, but view this ban as a needless interference, state repression based in junk pseudo scientific propaganda passed off as fact by the creators of this ban. We were lied to about the established scientific evidence on the affect of passive smoke exposure. As a pub goer, I have witnessed first hand the devastation this idiocy has caused in the hospitality industry.

    Why do the kiljoy anti smokers object to some facilities being allowed for indoor smoking? They don’t have to go there and work there. It’s just another example of the puritanical repressive mentality which has always existed but just shifts the targets for its prejudices over time. Drink is now becoming the new target for the ever dissatified prodnosed banstibators.

    Please don’t let this issue drop, David.

    We need to recover so many freedoms we lost because of the New Labour gang.

  115. Mr Nuttall,

    Thank you so much for your efforts. It is clear you have so much support, i hope very much you don’t give up.

    I am a non-smoker but i am frightened by the erosion of our liberties. 70 years ago a German National Socialist movement brainwashed, restricted and cajoled it’s peoples (including a smoking ban), and whilst i don’t want to compare Mr Blair, his cohorts and the EU to the Nazi’s, it is clear to anyone who enjoys their individual freedoms, and has the common sense to think independently that they are being chipped away.

    It is also commendable that you are standing up for all of the poor landlords/lady’s who’s lively-hoods are at risk.

    This law should never have been so totalitarian, there was a compromise, and there still is.

    Please don’t give up. You do have support, and you know what you are doing is right.

    Best

  116. I think David has done more than his share. We can’t expect him to devote his career to this. Politicians with courage and principle are in short supply, and we need his career to prosper. I’m not saying we should give in, but don’t ask too much of one man.

    Good work David. I may disagree strongly with your next move, who knows? But I admire your integrity.

  117. It’s not about smokers smoking wherever they like, nor about anti smokers having all places smoke free. It’s about an individuals right to buy and own property, and choose for his/her self what legal activities they choose to allow (or not allow) on their property.
    Then the rest of us can choose for ourselves which venues to visit, provided we respect and abide by the owners wishes. Just like the old nightclub dresscodes back in the 80s. The owners rules (no jeans, ties must be worn, etc) are clearly sign posted at the door, and we customers either chose to dress accordingly, or didn’t go in.
    By all means keep it illegal to smoke inside any building the owner of which wishes to remain smoke free. While those wishing to allow smoking would be free to do so. This way the law would serve to protect peoples rights, and not deny them.

  118. here we go again. ash scotland.
    The report was put together by ASH Scotland and Cancer Research UK, with input from a range of experts.
    Car smoking ban may be next health crackdown

    are these people after more high wages. we should do as they are doing in france.start fighting for our liberty.

    THIS IS A STATEMENT ON THE ASH SITE.

    (quote) We do not attack smokers or condemn smoking

    what a bunch of clowns.
    anti smoking hysteria.(ash)

    it has nothing to do with children or health
    … it’s about your money!

    There is an old saying, “Follow the Money”. The anti smoking industry is a multi-billion pound a year industry, a real money maker. I ask you, would these people lie for money? I think the answer is obvious

  119. Hundreds of Scots pubs closed since smoking ban

    More than 700 pubs in Scotland have closed since the smoking ban in 2006

  120. Pubs have been closing down for years BEFORE the smoking ban. Drink driving laws damaged country pubs and taxation is the biggest killer of pubs.

    I, for one, would not use a pub if the disgusting smell of smoke was reintroduced – but it never will be.

    TThe breweries and pub co’s are the biggest culprits inb all this.They had the opportunity to self regulate smoke in pubs by introducing effective filters. I was highly surprised at the ffectiveness of these, in two pubs that I frequent.Unfortunately, they weren’t turned on as a matter of course, and only seemed to be used by customer request, by which time the all pervading smoke was present.

    • SOON .THERE WON’T BE ANY PUBS LEFT.MOST ARE GETTING BURNT OUT .THEN ALDI.LIDL. FOOD RESTAURANTS. MOSQUES. MOVE IN.

  121. As a smoker, sorry, idiotic, selfish, disgusting, smelly degenerate, according to most of the “tolerant” antis I, having trolled through about twenty post so far, realise why we must support this amendment. Those disgusting comments and insults REAFFIRMS MY BELIEF OF WHAT A SHOWER OF HATEFUL SPITEFUL THUGS YOU REALY ARE. I have nothing but contempt for you and your fascist beliefs. Good luck and I can’t believe, as a supporter of Scottish independence, that I’m wishing a Tory MP that.

    • Nothing changed with the promises election time about having smoke rooms.I stay at home more often now paying more for fuel.electric .gas.food.cigarettes. pubs and clubs still closing all the time.some people i used to socialize with in pubs or clubs.i have not seen for years. i will probably vote ukip as the rest are no different to each other.I wish they would all shut up moaning about us smokers.The revenue off tobacco is keeping this country and foreigners surviving .But not us.

  122. Oops. So busy reading the comments didn’t realise it was a 2010 link. Views are the same though.

Comments are closed.