Closing Time: Who’s killing the British Pub?

From the IEA’s Closing Time: Who’s killing the British Pub?  by Chris Snowdon.

The smoking ban

A very different form of regulation has had a more profound effect. Although
only 20 per cent of British adults smoke regularly, smokers have always
been disproportionately more likely both to drink and to visit pubs. A survey
of publicans reported that 54 per cent of pub customers smoked in 2006
and it is highly telling that the same survey showed that this number had
fallen to 38 per cent in 2008 following the introduction of smoking bans in
Scotland (March 2006) and the rest of the UK (April and July 2007) (FLVA,
2008: 2). The survey also reported that there was a net reduction of 74
per cent in smokers’ visits to pubs whereas there was only a six per cent
net increase in nonsmokers’ visits to pubs (ibid.: 2008: 3). These trends
are supported by a mass of other data showing that the smoking ban has
been highly damaging for many, but not all, pubs.

The hospitality industry felt the impact of the smoking ban almost
immediately. In England and Wales, pub chains initially attributed their
woes to the wet summer of 2007, but as beer sales continued to fall as
winter set in, pub companies that had initially been quite optimistic about
the smokefree era openly blamed the ban (Sharp, 2008; Bowers, 2008).
PubCo share prices fell dramatically after the summer of 2007 and have
never recovered.

The year-on-year decline in beer sales reached nine per cent by the end
of 2007 and Goldman Sachs estimated in 2008 that the smoking ban had
reduced profits in a typical tenanted pub by ten per cent (Morning Advertiser,
2008). Market analysts at AC Neilson reported that pubs sold 175 million
fewer pints of beer in 2007-08 as a direct result of the smoking ban (The
Observer, 2008). PricewaterhouseCoopers correctly predicted that 6,000
pubs would close by 2012 largely as a result of the ban (Walton, 2008).
A year after the ban was introduced in England, 77 per cent of licensees
said that trade had suffered as a result (Harrington, 2008) and even five
years later, in 2012, 68 per cent wanted the ban to be relaxed (Berry,
2012). The decline in pub numbers was mirrored by mass closures in the
bingo industry which began in Scotland in 2006 before hitting the rest of
the UK in 2007. More than a third of the UK’s bingo halls have closed
since 2005 (Attwood, 2007; Warren, 2014).

As Figure 8 shows, the UK’s smoking bans correlate more closely with
the collapse in pub numbers than any other factor, including the recession
and the duty escalator. Corroborating evidence comes from Ireland which
enacted its ban in 2004, in the midst of an economic boom, and yet saw
an almost identical collapse in pub numbers. Ireland, Scotland, England
and Wales all saw pub numbers decline by eleven per cent within the first
four years of their respective smoking bans, despite different implementation
dates (CR Consulting, 2010; BBPA, 2014: 68).


Commenting on it, Chris Snowdon said:

“British pubs may be suffering from long-term cultural shifts, but government policies have hugely exacerbated this trend. Taxation and regulation have been the leading causes of the decimation of the UK pub industry since 2006. The level of alcohol duty in the UK is hugely regressive, hitting the poorest the hardest. Taxes must be lowered, and one-size-fits-all policies like the current smoking ban must be reconsidered if we are to temper the rate of decline of the British pub.”

It’s all sensible stuff, of course. What amazes me how antismoking zealots always deny that there has been any adverse effects at all from the smoking ban.

But perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised. The Tobacco Control lie machine is, after all, in the business of telling lies. And this is another one of their lies. Lies which make up a vast edifice of lies.

That’s how it works. The lies are carefully arranged to be mutually supporting. One lie can be backed up with another. And lies can be made to order at short notice (we’ve been having a whole fireworks set of new lies fired off in response to the appearance of e-cigarettes)

Anyway, the Daily Mail is covering the story:

The report said that although the last forty years have been characterised by a drastic decline in the pub industry, the rate of closures has accelerated over the past decade thanks to the smoking ban and tax hikes.

It’s also covered by the Morning Advertiser, City AM, Management Today, Yahoo Finance UK, Hopefully a few more too.


About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to Closing Time: Who’s killing the British Pub?

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    CN2 reports that supporters of a ban are pointing to Louisville—which passed a local smoking ban in 2006—as evidence that such rules don’t negatively impact businesses such as bars and restaurants.

    Opponents say business owners should be able to decide whether or not to allow smoking on their property.

    Last year my state Rep a democrat but also a tobacco grower had to attend one of the Nazis so called informative meetings on smoking bans and Economic impacts……………

    He told me about it via an email and how no legislator was impressed as I and a few others had already sent in a study Ellen Hahn did on the economic impact of the Lexington ban over a period of 5 years I believe it was.

    She had lied thru her teeth in that study about impacts on employee levels,tax collections,business renewals and revenue losses in general. It was all in the fine print of the RAW data plain as day.

    So yes indeed they lie and here when they get confronted they just run and yell don’t believe our enemies believe us!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The lowest sorriest most insane thing they did last year on the capitol Rotundra was to have 800 BLACK ROSES placed on the floor with a sign that read to the 800 dead Kentuckians a year to second hand smoke! I aint shitting you a bit!

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    No retirement for you slaves just work till you drop and you will be lucky if the government has not raided your pensions to keep the banks happy.

    State pension age to be raised to 70 for today’s young workers

    George Osborne will use autumn statement to signal new formula linked to life expectancy that could save £500bn over 50 years.

    Don’t feel alone the AmeriKan congress’s deal cut pensions by up to 30% in private pensions funds that changed a 40 year old law……….Truckers caught the brunt of that deal and in Canada the veterans there caught cuts in pensions too!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      These governments know whats coming and with the bottom falling out of oil its going to bankrupt many oil producing countries. Its not due to an oversupply but because manufacturing and the lack of need for more oil killed it……….They put us all out of work and think that its not going to effect everything else they are sadly mistaken and when the truth strikes nobody is going to be happy and then we start to realize why they gave armored vehicles and military grade weapons to the cops all over America……..

  3. jaxthefirst says:

    At least newspapers are now, it seems, permitted to mention the “ban that dare not speak its name” in articles about the demise of pubs in the country. In immediate aftermath of the implementation of the ban there were countless articles bemoaning the sudden, high level of pub closures pointing to all and every possible reason except for the most obvious one, which was carefully skirted around. Perhaps the fact that so many members of the public have actually seen and experienced their own local boozer closing within a very short time of the ban’s implementation (and those which have stayed open becoming much quieter and less busy) that they simply couldn’t go on ignoring it without making themselves look totally gormless. The antis won’t like it, of course, but they’re a spent force now, for all the noise they make, now that their usefulness as front groups supposedly representing the wishes of “the great British public” is finished and the ban is here.

    The problem, though, as I’ve so often said on here, is that it’s my firm belief that the Government don’t actually want pubs to survive in any case. I think, just like Saddam Hussein closing all the Shisha bars in Iraq, they see any kind of regular gathering-places as threatening, dangerous places where sedition and rebellion might well be brewing. It’s the reason why they are now tacitly encouraging all sorts of anti-drinking “messages” to try and scare even more people away (how long will it be, I wonder, before the drink-drive limit in England is lowered, as it will be cited to have been so “massively successful” in Scotland? Watch this space, folks!) After all, having shooed away the smokers, if they now shoo away all the remaining non-smoking drinkers then pubs simply won’t have any customers at all and the last of them simply won’t be able to carry on. It’s difficult enough for a business to keep going with a greatly lowered number of customers; it’s impossible for one to keep going with none at all. And that, in my view, is precisely what Governments of all shades and persuasions (with the exception, of course, of UKIP) want.

  4. Smoking Lamp says:

    This is a good and balanced report. It should influence politicians to revisit the smoking ban. I am not sure they will though. (I hope I am wrong.) Much of the reportage on this appears to downplay the smoking ban aspect. It is as if the smoking ban is religious dogma and can’t be blasphemed. The same is the case with health assertions re environmental tobacco smoke. Every article covering the emerging bans starts with acknowledgement that second hand smoke (inside and out) is a killer. No real coverage of the steady state of cancer deaths despite decreased smoking prevalence (which significantly diminishes the anti-smoker case). Let’s hope this article stimulates a modification of the smoking ban. Certainly separate smoking rooms would “protect” non-smokers. I hope this gets wide coverage.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Much of the reportage on this appears to downplay the smoking ban aspect.

      They all at least mention it. Here’s the Telegraph report cited by Lysistrata:

      Taxes have been one key problem. Planning rules that push up the cost of operating pubs – especially when compared with supermarkets – haven’t helped either. The recession and falling real wages have hit pubs disproportionately hard. Yet the one factor that correlates most closely with the accelerating decline in the pub industry is the smoking ban.

      There is plenty of international evidence for these sorts of effects, as well as the experience of what happened closer to home. As Snowdon points out, the number of pubs fell by 11pc in Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales within the first four years of their bans, even though they were imposed at different times and during different economic climates, suggesting a remarkably similar impact.

      It is hard to see what could rescue the pubs industry. Politicians and activists are obsessed with beating up the PubCos. The tax and rules that have done so much to hurt the industry can only get worse. Combined with the fact that we are falling out of love with beer as a nation, expect the pubs sector to shrink yet further over the next few years.

      If anything, this plays up the influence of smoking bans. Although one has to wonder whether the author needs his eyes testing when he says, “It is hard to see what could rescue the pubs industry,” after (accurately) reporting the impact of smoking bans. And when he says that taxes and rules “can only get worse”, he seems to believe that taxes can only ever rise. And I can’t see what “falling out of love with beer” has got anything to do with it, because as sales of beer have fallen, sales of lager have risen. Tastes change, and just because people stop buying beer or cider (and when was the last time anyone bought any mead) from one end of the bar, and start buying lager and Australian wine from the other end, doesn’t mean the death of the pub.

  5. harleyrider1978 says:

    Americans Smoke More In Kentucky Than In Any Other State

    2014 Kentucky smoking rate at 31%

    Kiran Dhillon, FindTheBest

    Aug. 20, 2014, 3:44 PM

    Either way, what was all the rage in the 1950s is quickly losing popularity—smoking rates dropped 42 percent for men and 25 percent for women between 1980 and 2012.

    But upon a close look at smoking rates throughout the nation, research engine FindTheBest found that the habit is far from extinction in the South and Midwest—especially in Kentucky.

    Among the states in the graph below where the percentage of residents who report themselves as smokers is highest, all but one (Nevada) are in the South or Midwest. And at 31 percent, Kentucky has the highest rate of smoking, while the rest range between 25 and 27 percent.

    The same pattern appears again at a county level, with the South and Midwest dominating, and Kentucky leading the pack.

    10. Lincoln County, West Virginia
    Percent Smokers: 38.9%

    9. Logan County, Kentucky
    Percent Smokers: 38.9%

    8. Lewis County, Kentucky
    Percent Smokers: 40.3%

    7. Ohio County, Kentucky
    Percent Smokers: 40.8%

    6. Jackson County, Kentucky
    Percent Smokers: 41.6%

    5. Pushmataha County, Oklahoma
    Percent Smokers: 41.8%

    4. Shannon County, South Dakota
    Percent Smokers: 42.4%

    3. Poinsett County, Arkansas
    Percent Smokers: 42.6%

    2. Dunklin County, Missouri
    Percent Smokers: 45.4%

    1. McCreary County, Kentucky
    Percent Smokers: 42.2%

    But why are the rates of cigarette use so much higher in this part of the nation than the rest?

    First, it’s apparent that lifestyle plays a role. In California, a state known for its healthy and outdoorsy lifestyle, the smoking rate is only 15 percent. And in Utah, where smoking goes against the religious norms of Mormonism, it’s an even lower 13 percent.

    Additionally, states with high smoking rates tend to have lower taxes and fewer regulations. Kentucky and West Virginia, for example, are the two states with the highest smoking rates and they’re also the two with no smoking bans in place. So while the image of people lighting up in bars or restaurants is one that only exists in the movies throughout many parts of the U.S., it’s still a reality for some.

    Lastly, where the tobacco is actually grown could have an effect. This is mostly seen in Kentucky—the state that dominates smoking rates both by state and county—which is home to about half of the tobacco farms in the U.S.

    With so many factors contributing to smoking, the solution for an even further decline in use is likely multi-pronged, including making cigarettes more socially condemned, less affordable, and less accessible

    Read more:

    • smokervoter says:

      In California, a state known for its healthy and outdoorsy lifestyle, the smoking rate is only 15 percent.

      Oh please. What a crock of shit. I’m so sick and tired of this happy-shiny-people-everywhere media portrayal of this state. From my front porch I can see 8 residences. In 7 of them at least one person smokes. They painted these infernal bike lanes on the streets here as per Agenda 21 and there’s hardly anyone on them. The parking lots at all the burger joints in town are always full. The bars in town do have a few less cars outside, but we all know why that is.

      When I go to buy cigarettes at the smoke shop there’s always other smokers in there. And there are plenty of smoke shops in town to start with. A new Vaping Emporium just opened up shop and is advertising on radio spots.

      The smoking preponderance surveys (I’m up to here with the word prevalence) are run by a university public health department, I think out of San Diego, who live on Proposition 99 grant money. When they need more money, the rate is suddenly on the rise. To prove their marvelous efficacy, the rate is then plunging. They’re completely full of shit and Prop 99 money.

      I’ve been reading about the history of Prop 99 lately and that is where everything went downhill for us all. It was the thin edge of the wedge. It passed by a 52%-48% margin, certainly not insurmountable. There were a lot more smokers back then. Had they gotten off their couches and voted it down, it would have demoralized the enemy somewhat.

      I’m sure they would have come back at a later date, they’re an obsessive and very determined foe. They are the happy shiny people who the media portray endlessly. It makes for good copy.

      We need a Nigel Farage and a UKIP in California. You guys and gals need to get him elected in May. Five million British smokervoters ought to do the trick.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Now how can We believe CDC numbers on smoking rates when even the Federal Government knows they are UNRELIABLE!

        Survey experts agree that survey respondents understate the true extent of their cigarette consumption. If taken as true, the responses in the surveys we examined, would suggest that, on average, only 70 percent of purchased cigarettes were reported to be actually consumed, which strains credulity. The substantial uncertainty surrounding the degree of underreporting of cigarette consumption in survey data necessarily generates large uncertainty about the magnitude of the federal tax receipts lost due to the illicit cigarette trade. Any estimate of federal tax loss based on survey data therefore should be regarded as only broadly indicative of actual receipts lost.4…


        • waltc says:

          I remember wading thru a US gov’t report (likely CDC) on smoking rates a few years ago, noting the stats were based on phone surveys and, even more important, a footnote reported an extremely high percentage of people who refused to answer the questions . I figured that a high percentage of that high percentage were smokers and that therefore the survey and its stats were a totally meaningless crock. That said, tho, it does seem from my personal experience that a lot of smokers I’ve known here and there are now exes, some having got fat and others who’ll bum one or two when they get the chance.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Walt I read the CDC operational plan for doing these smoker numbers awhile back.

          They pick a state and in that state they pick a few select cities calling anywhere from 600-1200 numbers.

          The problem here is they tend to choose cities with high liberal leanings but also because that’s where they are able to maximize their propaganda to the masses more heavily and also impose enforcement more strongly.

          Yes these people will lie on both sides of the study.
          In Iowa just 6 months ago they discovered and OMG moment when they did ZeroCare signups and found the smoking rate had dropped in half from other surveys that had been performed in the past.

          The reason zerocare charges you out the ass for premiums doubling and even tripling if you state your a smoker……….

          Now this is likely the same thing NATIONWIDE………………

          Since they meaning the zerocare exchanges are desperately trying to sign up everyone they can in fact you don’t even have to pick a plan this year they said,just sign up and you wont be hit with penalties……..

          So knowing this and knowing its the poor as well as the rest as zerocare caused 10s of millions to lose their own insurance who will now have to sig up too or penalties.

          Point here is ZEROCARE is forcing people to identify themselves as non smokers and theyd do it on any survey form these days because they know any survey might get their name if they have your phone numbr they can simply cross reference it to zerocare applications and your PERJURED!

          Then we have the fact that the GOP just got control and thye are no lovers of the prohibitionists at least for the most part and the way its looking they plan to cut funding to these groups.

          So CDC and all of the anti groups have every reason to create a dramatic drop in smoker study to say see our tactics do work and we need more money bla bla bla……..

          SMOKE Aand Mirrors doesn’t even describe it well enuf.

      • carol2000 says:

        Saw that you saw my KompoZer suggestion. Did you also see my other post from the other day?

        I take it that you don’t own the domain name “” then. The fee for the domain name is separate from the server rent. The best reason to rent server space is that then you can use your own real domain name, instead of your free website host’s domain name. Server space can be had pretty cheap, $3.99 a month.

        You get cPanel webalizer with it (however they recently tried to take it away but now it’s back), plus Bandwidth, and Analog Stats. Also they run it on India Standard Time even though my server is in Texas.

        • smokervoter says:

          Thanks Carol, I’m looking into them as we speak. My problem right now is one of intellectual exhaustion and time. I hadn’t updated the free website in over a year as it was. I’ve got 17 unfinished pieces on the hard-drive. They’re all awaiting a Leg-iron style two sentence>one sentence killer conclusion.

  6. Somoking ban, Deffinately, Prices almost deffinately, reasons why I go into a pub as little as possible nowdays.

    What he does not mention, and is a bloody close third on my list, is the competing screaming duke boxes, T.V screens as big as the entire floor space of my house, full of a bunch of queers playing with their balls, and fruit machines with their constant idot lure “music.” ALL at full volume!

    It is industrial deafness the bar staff need to worry about, not some mythical “second hand smoke.”

  7. Also the change in design of pubs. Most pubs had at least one room where you could get away from all that row. Now, they have knocked them into one, and made warehouses with no place to escape, out of them.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The simple answer is SIGNAGE……………Then a short statement about PELs from OSHA.

      Then frame the sign like a fire code sign with maximum seating for this building is xxx

      Then take those figures and figure how many more smokers it would take in occupancy to reach harmful levels of chemicals that could never be reached……….

      This building is safe under fire codes for 300 people

      Under OSHA pels We can safely have 5 million smokers for the area we hold for business.

    • I meant to escape out of the warehouse racket, into a quiet room where you stand at least a CHANCE of hearing yourself think. Not escape from the entire building.

  8. DICK R says:

    If these puritan leftie arseholes put as much effort into combating drugs as they do to the harmless activities of drinking and smoking the world would be a happier place.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Exactly but now its gone to far,even illicit drugs now need to be legalized.taxed and regulated within reason. That alone brings in revenues,cuts crime and empties the prisons.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Problem is in America they meaning FDA just changed the rules on pain killers for everyone and now no refill scripts can be written. You have to go back each month now see a doc get a fresh script and off again.

        The problem wasn’t addictions in this scenario it was the rule makers just doubled and trilpled the patient case loads of every doctor out there by doing this…… also made the costs of travel and office visit charges triple up!

        Then that othe rknock on effect made the blackmarket drugs increase in price accordingly. This in turn created more crime to pay the higher street prices for the painkillers.

        But then prohibitionists don’t care about any of that,they just slapped each other on the back for screwing everyone for the faults of a few.

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    Clean Air Quality Law.

    It is hereby ordered that all things that generate chemical releases simular in nature to tobacco smoke are hereby OUTLAWED.

    1. Automobiles and gas or diesel engines or any other contivance that emits chemcial releases. This savings equals to the public not being forced to inhale 100s of billions of cigarettes each day.

    2. All plants are outlawed as they releases tons daily of the Carcinogen ISOPRENE. Equal in volumes of Millions of cigarettes each day.

    3. Restaraunts will be outlawed from preparing any cooked foods as these release 100s of millions of equal cigarettes each day.

    4. In home cooking is also outlawed as it produces upwards of 10s of thousands of equal cigarettes inside and outside the home.

    5. Outdoor cookouts and fireworks are outlawed as they releases 100s of millions of equivalent cigarettes a day or on weekends in the yards and parks of our city.

    6. Humans are hereby outlawed from existence insode the city limits as their own human breath contains hundreds of the same chemicals as found in tobacco smoke!

    7. Nature itself is outlawed as it generates Billions of chemcial releases naturally into the atmosphere a day hense posing a threat to human life.

    8. This Clean air law becomes effective Immediately.

    9. Your preference of suicide is a personal choise,Police will write tickets and lock up any survivors after this law becomes effective. A grace period of 30 days will be in place to educate the public on its existence.

    Signed into law by the GHOSTOWN ADMINISTRATION

    The Ghost Town Administration has just learned that all these chemicals found in tobacco smoke are natural to the earth and that mankind also evolved within this filth ridden air!
    Therefore all Tobacco Control Measures are here by OUTLAWED as for being contrived JUNK SCIENCE!

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    Tob Control 2005;14:ii31-ii37 doi:10.1136/tc.2004.008060
    Research paper

    Individual rights advocacy in tobacco control policies: an assessment and recommendation

    J E Katz

    The epithet “Health Nazi” was invented by the tobacco industry to discredit efforts to encourage public health. Reprehensible as the term is, it serves its purpose; it readily allows the portrayal of those concerned about health to be seen not as well intentioned humanitarians, but just the opposite: rights and life destroying monsters. Tobacco industry lobbyist Victor Crawford said that his goal in creating the term was to neutralise tobacco control advocates: “I attacked the messenger on the grounds that they were trying to destroy civil liberties…that what they were trying to do was to put their values upon the general public, and try to impose it upon the working man…and destroy his freedom of choice.”16 The term has become widely adopted, and has spillover effects that harm efforts at healthcare enhancement in other areas, such as vaccination and screening programmes.

    As usual they don’t even mention Hitlers anti-smoking laws………………

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      I just read that whole page and not once do they mention that simple signage would cover everything they argue about individual and business owners rights……….

      That’s the weak link in their entire argument besides redefining private property as public property.

  11. Rose says:

    Health body in U-turn over refusing treatment to smokers and the overweight

    “Northern, Eastern and Western Devon Clinical Commissioning Group (NEW Devon CCG) has announced that it will not require patients to undergo weight loss or stop smoking ahead of routine surgery.

    Patients will be offered evidence-based guidance on the benefits of weight loss and smoking cessation as part of their healthcare.

    This new position follows significant feedback from a wide range of stakeholders across health, social care and professional bodies on the proposed measures.”

  12. harleyrider1978 says:

    Audrey Silk‎NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment (C.L.A.S.H.)

    6 hrs ·


    Oooh, good one. The indictment of science by press release.

    “They analyzed 462 news releases on health-related research issued by 20 leading universities in the United Kingdom in 2011 and compared them to the studies they described and to 668 national news stories about the studies.

    “Compared to the actual studies, 40 percent of the releases contained exaggerated advice, one-third contained exaggerated causal claims, and 36 percent contained exaggerated inferences about how animal research applied to people.

    “If press releases exaggerated the research, it was more likely that news stories would do the same — 58 percent for advice, 81 percent for causal claims, and 86 percent for inference to humans, the researchers found.”

    • Rose says:

      Well spotted.

      Here’s the study they are talking about.

      The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study
      Petroc Sumner

      Main outcome measures

      “Advice to readers to change behaviour, causal statements drawn from correlational research, and inference to humans from animal research that went beyond those in the associated peer reviewed papers.”

      Universities cause more medical distortions than journalists

      “Exaggerated and scaremongering health journalism might just seem like an attempt to shift papers, but research conducted by Cardiff University and published in the BMJ has found that in fact the majority of this hyperbole and sensationalism originates in academic press releases.”

  13. harleyrider1978 says:

    Truth is the best thing we can offer the people for its in their hands informed and ready to defend the rights of the lowest of us all to protect the rights of the whole. Health Facists for some reason fail to understand freedom,liberty and the pursuit of happiness as it pertains to Americans. We fight to give freedom to the world not to keep for ourselves alone.
    But as Jefferson said always be watchful for liberty as it is easily seduced by those who would deny it to you.

  14. harleyrider1978 says:

    Extreme weather not going to stop Britons having a fag


    BRITAIN’S cigarette addicts have confirmed that no amount of bad weather will stop them inhaling carcinogens.

    Come rain or shine
    Come rain or shine

    With snow and sub-zero winds predicted, smokers said they would be having their fag break even if there is a cyclone with cows and buildings swirling around in it.

    Sales co-ordinator Stephen Malley said: “I’m in that office for hours at a time, staring at a computer screen, hating everything about the day.

    “So if you think a bit of rain, thunder or a mild blizzard will stop me going outside for a smoke, you are very much mistaken.

    “And if you think I should maybe try an electronic cigarette instead, I would suggest you maybe switch to decaffeinated coffee. Yeah.”

    Hospital patient Nikki Hollis agreed: “Major surgery hasn’t stopped me from enjoying hourly gaspers in the bus shelter, so I’m damned if something as paltry as 16 feet of snow is getting in my way. I am literally burning my way through all obstacles.”

    Non-smoker Roy Hobbs said: “I might be likely to live a lot longer than them, but I wish I had something in my life I was that passionate about.

    “They are, in their modest way, heroes.”

  15. garyk30 says:

    Add on to yesterdays topic.
    There are dueling experts and they all exaggerate.

    Universities cause more medical distortions than journalists

    Exaggerated and scare-mongering health journalism might just seem like an attempt to shift papers, but research conducted by Cardiff University and published in the BMJ has found that in fact the majority of this hyperbole and sensationalism originates in academic press releases.

    They compared the press releases to the peer reviewed papers, looking for three different types of exaggeration. What they discovered was that 40 percent of the releases contained exaggerated advice, 33 percent contained “exaggerated causal claims” and 36 percent contained exaggerated inference to humans from animal research.

    “Our principle findings were that most of the inflation detected in our study did not occur de novo in the media but was already present in the text of the press releases produced by academics and their establishments,” they said.

    Journalists were not found to be completely innocent. Rates of exaggeration in news stories when applied against the three different criteria were 17 percent, 18 percent and 10 percent respectively. This is far lower than the level of exaggeration discovered in the press releases.

    If they were to apportion blame for exaggerated and alarmist reporting, the researchers said that it “lies mainly with the increasing culture of university competition and self promotion, interacting with the increasing pressures on journalists to do more with less time”.

  16. Smoking Lamp says:

    The Tobacco control propaganda machine is responding to John Stossel’s piece. In “Fox Business pundit: ‘No good data’ for deaths from secondhand smoke” at it uses a range of Surgeon General reports to claim that Stossel’s claim that there is no good data is false and that if anything the threat of second hand data is greater than asserted. It uses the 2006 Surgeon General report as well as statements by Stanton Glanz (medical professor) and Jonathan Samet. It says the complex statistics used by tobacco control prove the case. Now, the problem is they accumulate lies, half-truths and assertions and then use the prior lie to validate the new one. There is no place to comment at the article (typical propaganda machine).

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      SL that’s on purpose no comments……….They cant stand up to scrutiny but at least she admits there are no reportable deaths to SHS! Then goes on to say they are real because some so called statistician said they were!

    • carol2000 says:

      The problem is that Stossel and all of his ilk set themselves up like punching bags when they make weak and non-specific accusations like “no good data.” They never attack the anti-smokers’ scientific fraud – the REAL fraud, which is that they deliberately use defective study designs which falsely blame smoking for diseases that are really caused bt infection. As I am always saying, these people are Anti-Smoker Approved Fake Opponents, not real ones. All they do is make the anti-smokers look good.

  17. harleyrider1978 says:

    We just discovered the American version of Nigel Farage
    Fox news fired him too

  18. Smoking Lamp says:

    Now a bit of good news from Alberta…

    The Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta city council rejected a non-smoking by-law for outdoor public spaces with a 4-3 vote.

    The majority of the council weighed in for personal liberties, as represented by Coun. Arjun Randhawa who said council should butt out when it comes to people’s personal freedoms. According to Randhawa, “In my opinion, I don’t think we’re responsible for telling people that they’re allowed to or not allowed to smoke in a public place.” He added that he hasn’t had any residents complain about the issue.

    The vote was close. Proponents have already indicated that they hope to revisit the decision in the future. Essentially the proponents say they want to get on the smoke-free bandwagon with the other elite cities that prohibit smoking in public spaces. That sounds a lot like wanting to join the vanguard of the Nazi party to my ears.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.