Huge support for smoke ban petition

Mark You obviously still haven't woken up to the fact that people are painfully slow at signing up to any petition or demonstration of support for the anti-ban movement. The petition in the article has gained 134 signatures in the week since this article appeared on the Publican site. The Red Arrows one has gained 14,291 in the same period - 106 times as many.

Disgruntled publicans could solve this in an instant - by having a poll amongst their customers as to whether they want their pubs to be public houses or govt. agencies.. Preferably any time this week but within enough time to influence the elections - remember, there's people out there constantly telling us they're 'fighting hard for 'our' interests'. Get them bloody listening in the most democratic way possible. This govt is promoter of all this legislation and deeply unpopular - because of measures such as the smoking ban. Otherwise, what's next?

Alan Is it no coincidence that a subject becomes boring when you dont like the questions related to it? Will leave it at that. You have the choice not to answer the question and shouldnt be coerced into doing so. If only this freedom applied elsewhere.

In response to Claire… your worldwide independent research of ash fact sheets somehow missed this comprehensive historical analysis of shs… http://tinyurl.com/5fo4t3 Inexplicably your 10 seconds of exhaustive investigation also missed this assessment of passive smoking by the House of Lords http://tinyurl.com/6orpxu (paras 74 – 84) Claire I know you're an expert but your vast knowledge might be improved by simply realising that biased epidemiology can be made to prove anything and new studies juggling old biased statistics prove nothing. Strange how most of the absurd claims by ash and their ilk over the years have been proved utter garbage but they still pronounce them as fact to the gullible public.

Andy This is getting boring. My point is that THERE ISN'T HUGE SUPPORT FOR THIS PETITION. You just want to change the subject, rather than explain why there is so little support. The Red Arrows petition just illustrates what a popular petition can achieve, even though it is a really trivial issue, and the Governemnt haven't banned them anyway.

Alan Perhaps you should consider a career in politics, especially now your chosen trade is doomed. What have the Red Arrows got to do with this? If i was to compare the smoking ban with prohibition, you might ask me the same question. How about answering some of mine? If there is an amendment and you are still in business, will i be welcome to have a smoke with my drink in your pub?

Andy that doesn't explain anything. 7 months ago the Government response to the red arrows petition was "This allegation is not true. The Government has not banned the Red Arrows from the London 2012 Olympic Games." This is on the petition itself, not on similar ones from the past as you suggest as bwing a reason fo rthe minimal support for the smoking room one. They are still picking up votes 100 times faster than the smoking room petition.

Alan When the last two petitions received this response http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page15329.asp its not surprising. HMG stick their fingers in their ears and will the help of a compliant national media, people are disenfranchised from the reality of the ban impact. Now, how about answering some questions yourself. Here is another: If smoking rooms were permitted, would you force your customers outside to smoke?

I am on the internet everyday and I also read some papers and frequent rather a lot of public houses, this is the first time I have heard about this smoking petition. Obviously it is not getting the exposure that it deserves?

Andy Your questions are just there to sidetrack my point, so I won't answer them until you come up with a plausible answer to why 85 times as many people support the red arrows petition as the smoking room one. Whilst you have been trying to move the spotlight away from the lack of support for the smoking room petition over the last 2 days, the Red Arrows one has picked up 6,443 votes compared to the 64 picked up by the smoking room one, making it now 100 times more popular. In the 2 days that this article, and link to petition, has been on this site only 64 people have signed up. Why? Alan

Alan As you wont answer any of those questions, how about these: If everyone loves 'smokefree', why the need for a ban? Why wasnt it voluntary? If it is so popular, why the need for the threat of fines and criminal convictions? Do you support coercion over choice?

not huge in somerset..in my exhaustive research around the pubs of the south west.. nearly all stinky smokers i talked to said that there happier with the ban and actually liked getting a bit off fresh air now and again, and a sociable chat with fellow smokers away from their partners. some even reported their love life had improved.

Andy Is that the best you can do to show why 85 times as many people support the Red Arrows petition as do this one? Your other questions are just a distraction for the fact that really people aren't as bothered by the ban as you want to make out. Alan

Alan Why do you persist with this inane spoiling? You can only truly gauge the popularity of a petition by its exposure to the public. Perhaps the Red Arrows had better publicity. It was circulated throughout the MOD for a start. Alan How many would have signed a 'blanket ban on smoking in pubs' petition prior to the ban? Alan How popular would the option of having separate smoking rooms beif it was offered? Alan How popular would the option for separate smoking venues be if it was offered? Your inanity serves only to veil the fact that the issue here is that choice has been denied to those who work in the trade and its customers. 1700 fewer pubs since the ban serves to illustrate this.

Thanks guys, but I tend to restrict my education to independent research, not tobacco-company paid for propoganda from a couple of its employees. The whole planet knows second-hand smoke kills people; Tobacco companies admit it on their websites! Denialism in the face of such overwhelming proof can only hint at the mental stability of some people...

Claire: It is a shame that the science does not agree with the evidence of SHS. You strike as the kind of semi educated idiot who has never read a scientific paper in your life. You are the type of brain washed person who believes there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the cheque's in the post. I would strongly recommend you go to www.bmj.com and in the search engine Enstrom Kabat. BMJ stands for the British Medical Journal. I was reading today that only 10% of papers get published. The ones that do are peer reviewed by equally eminent scientists who critique the work to make sure they are 100% valid. As the report says on SHS "evidence of increased mortality is sparse"

Claire, SHS has not killed anyone. The major research e.g. Kabat/Enstrom proves this but you just ignore the truth. OSHA do not agree and wanted to publish limits on smoke pollution that would be harmful to humans. ASH immediately backed down to avoid this as it would have exposed the lies and manipulations of this bunch of fanatics to which you obviously belong. NHS is run by ASH so what should we expect? Was the brainwashing very painful?

An update for those who believe that this petition would have more support if it was available more widely. Despite this article, and a link from the Publican site, the petition has picked up only 49 signatures between the article being published online and 10.45 on Weds night. The Red Arrows petition, also only available online, has an extra 4,277 signatures in a slightly shorter period. It appears that people are about 85 times more bothered about a ceremony in 4 years time than they are about the smoking ban. Does anyone have a rational argument against that suggestion?

SHS kills: OSHA agree, the NHS agree, every doctor, surgeon and scientist on the planet agrees, even the tobacco companies agree! The ban is here to stay and it'll save lives. Of course, the alternative (smoking areas) will involve your bar staff sueing you for £1,000,000 for causing COPD, lung cancer, asthma etc because you've exposed them to a known and proven hazard.....but hey, you can afford that from the extra sale of peanuts to the 22% of the population that smoke and will come flocking to your pub won't you?

i signed the e petition but i agree its not enough the UKIP is the only party that states that they will repeal this mad law so let your customer know don't be put off by people in these forums who its obvious are doing very well out of the smoking ban the ones with expensive smoking shelters able to offer food the ones that clap their hands every time a real pub closes

Yes Andy I agree, I do use facebook but I am not sure how to get the link in, but here is the link if someone would like to try, These could do with some support please, http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/smokinglicenses/ ends in October 2008 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mN-xDlsNXII Hamish Howitt Publican http://www.innthecold.com 1000 Pubs in 90 days, can you help with this one? http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/ Air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations: freedom2choose.info for tolerant non-smokers and smokers alike

Whether smoking takes place on private premises should be the owners decision, not the non smoker, not the smoker and definitely not government. This government condones the sale of cigarettes from which they make an enormous amount of tax approximately 53 million pounds per day and then has the gaul to tell publicans they carnt allow smoking on their PRIVATE property. Its disgusting it should be the owners choice and no one elses. Some pubs would opt for smoking some would opt for non smoking, no one is forced over the threshold of a pub no one is forced to work there. Labour wont get in power again after the way they have treated 13 million smokers and thousands of publicans

Being very practical, I would say that there is very little chance to be able to revoke the ban altogether, however I would go for an amendment of the law. In other countries such as Malta there is the possibility to have designated areas for smokers. These are obviously regulated and special equipment need to be installed. The idea is to put a difference in pressure in air-condition so that smoke does not enter the non-smoking area when the door is opened for customers to get in or out. Other conditions apply. I would suggest that the instigators of this petition should re-think the write-up of this petition accordingly and send it in circulation to ALL pubs around Britain. In this way the petition will be more accessible to the public.

To everyone who is saying that this only has 4,000 signatures because it is only on the internet, what about the Red Arrows one? That has picked up nearly a thousand signatures in the last 7 hours. Aren't these excuses about lack of support for anti-ban petitions wearing a bit thin now?

If this petition is internet only then it is not going to get anywhere near its true potential figure. Nowhere near as many people have internet access as this gov't would have you believe. Put it in the pubs & clubs as well and you'll soon get a million signatures!

I think a lot of people are missing one point. As Publicans we employ staff, even if the majority of customers do not have an issue with passive smoking, even if a pub can provide completely seperate areas, they still expose the staff to second hand smoke. As a smoker, I support the ban. The pubs which embrace it and look at new ways of attracting customers are the ones that will surrive. I would urge publicans to concentrate on running their business rather than trying to oppose the ban. Face facts, it will not be overturned!

If the smokers knew anything about the petition then they would have had the opportunity! Ive only just found this out myself & im a publican! I'm apart of the group "Can we find 1 MILLION people that DO want smoking back in pubs?" on facebook which has over 200,000 people who would have voted! The 40,000 who voted were just the minority who knew anything about a petition. I want to be able to smoke in my local drinking pub. But I accept that in a family/dining enviroment a ban is acceptable. Give the choice back to the public. License smoking in selected venues! Give us back our pubs! That is, what is left of them as 50% (12 out of 24 in & around centre) of the pubs in my area have closed & not reopened in the last 9 months!!!

Jon/Alan- irrelevant. This is just one means of expressiing opposition and demonstrating alternatives to the ban. How many people would have signed a petition for a blanket ban before a miniscule minority called for it and got their way? How many people would sign a petition against an amendment such as this. I suggest you put things into perspective and consider the mass appeal that choice would receive if it was ever reinstated.

A licence to smoke is the same as a licence to kill.......

To put this in perspective: Twice as many people care about saving Jodrell Bank from closure. More than 8 times as many people care about Leeds United losing points. Out of the estimated 13 million smokers in the UK, a mere 0.03% care enough to go to the huge effort of typing their name into a website. In fact, more people care about Bruce Forsyth getting a knighthood!!.....This really is a non-issue that died a death last Summer.....

Any way this divisive, draconian legislation can be relaxed should be considered as a positive move. However it does raise concerns. Non-smoking drinkers were catered for proportionately before the ban. Market forces saw to that. This is why pub, club, and bingo hall closures are now at an unprecedented high. Should this relaxation occur, I foresee a huge demand for these licenses assuming the pubs that remain can afford them. Such an over-subscription would expose the ban as being unwanted by the vast majority of regular clientele and bring it further disrepute. Assuming HMG too foresee this, I doubt they would risk taking this route, unless of course the exchequer can’t resist the appeal of sponging further from Britain’s already grossly over-taxed smokers, and highly regulated hospitality trade. Additionally, consider for the reason for the smoking ban. The blanket ban was there to protect all workers from SHS. Such an exemption would contradict this and let the scam out of the bag, and maybe encourage calls for further relaxation. The anti-tobacco cult and their pharmaceutical sponsors would be up in arms. Not all bad then! The last thought is the most important. Why should this legal activity be licensed in such a unique way? Why should hospitality have to fork out a further tax to appease the whims of Government pandering to an elitist minority who shout jump and nu-Labour ask how high?

I'd take issue with the words 'HUGE SUPPORT' in relation to this petition. It has less support than - getting Bruce Forsyth a knighthood (4,111 votes) - saving Jodrell Bank observatory (8,689 votes) - british citizenship for ex-gurkhas and their families (19,585 votes) There is over 87 times as much support for the petition to let the Red Arrows display at the 2012 olympics, currently with 342,398 votes. There WAS huge support for the one to scrap road pricing - 1,811,423 Hope this helps give some perspective.

THE PETITION SHOULD BE MORE WIDELY AVAILABLE EG. PUB ETC. CUSTOMERS.