Has the ban stopped people smoking?

A few days back Dick Puddlecote emailed me a link to Does Shunning Smokers Motivate Them To Quit? The article, published last Friday, started in the usual prescribed manner:

Smoking is an unhealthy habit and we all know the health risks of inhaling the 4,000 blah blah blah….

But then:

As a result of the public smoking ban, many smokers were forced to stand outside in the cold and the rain, feeling isolated and even shunned by friends, family or colleagues. What was once a social activity suddenly became grounds for exclusion and many proponents of the ban hoped that it would encourage more people to give up smoking altogether.

Has the ban stopped people smoking?

Nearly a decade on, the NHS says there is no significant difference between the number of people smoking before and after the ban.

And a bit further on:

….there has also been opposition from interest groups who believe the ban has had a negative effect on many pubs, bars and restaurants within cities. They also believe that the smoking ban has raised taxes, hurt small businesses and that the health impact of breathing in secondhand smoke has been exaggerated. Add to this the fact that many people believe that the right to smoke is an important freedom, and it becomes easy to see why smokers might ignore advice to stop.

And also:

…many smokers are now staying at home instead of drinking in pubs, so they don’t have to stand outside in the wind and rain to smoke.

So despite spouting all the usual mandatory healthist guff about smoking, here’s a pretty frank admission that the ban didn’t stop smokers smoking, like it was supposed to (although the author seems to have forgotten that justification at the time was to ‘protect bar workers’).

There’s also the recognition that smokers have become excluded and isolated. And there’s even recognition of “interest groups” who believe that pubs, bars, and restaurants have been adversely affected, and that the health impact of secondhand smoke has been exaggerated.

It’s very unusual to see admissions of this sort appearing on the kind of medical website which usually rigorously toes the party line. And if the author hasn’t already received a visitation from the Arnott herself on her broomstick in dead of night, escorted by her usual bodyguard of vampire bats, I’m sure she soon will. And I would guess that she’d be told in no uncertain terms, as the bats hungrily sink their yellowing fangs into her flesh, that 70% of smokers always want to give up smoking (so that when 70% of them actually have given up, 70% of the remaining 30% will want to give up, and so on). And that countless millions of lives have been saved by the ban. And that far from feeling excluded or shunned, 70% of smokers are delighted to stand outside in the rain (because it might help them give up smoking), and are looking forward eagerly to further helpful restrictions. And she’ll be told that, given the millions of grateful non-smokers who flooded into pubs and restaurants after the introduction of the ban, they are not “interest groups” that are making these wildunsubstantiated claims about “negative effects” on pubs and restaurants, but “industry front groups.” And that, far from being exaggerated, the health impacts of secondhand (and thirdhand) smoke have been as rigorously proven as Newton’s Laws of Motion. And that the only sort of “freedom” that matters is smoke-freedom. And don’t you ever dare say otherwise again.

And then the Arnott will mount her broomstick, and majestically depart through the open window into the night sky, accompanied by hundreds of squealing, blood-gorged bats, leaving the miscreant author in a dead faint.

About Frank Davis

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

41 Responses to Has the ban stopped people smoking?

  1. Some other Tom says:

    I think she is polishing her broom right now, with the usual skunk musk/coyote urine blend which gives it such a unique luster…

  2. wobbler2012 says:

    The bottom line is that some people will always smoke, these nannying mother-fuckers need to wake up to that fact and stop trying to micro-manage everyone’s lives.

  3. Frank generally when somethings about to change even if slowly an underling is the one given the job to put something vague out……………..Then another does somewhere else in the country or world and then slowly ever so slowly a wave emerges.

  4. magnetic01 says:

    Just an update on Nola. Numerous comments by at least four posters were deleted. There was a concerted attempt by a handful of obnoxious, neurotic antismoking bigots to describe anyone questioning antismoking as a paid tobacco industry shill. There was the further tactic of referring to all four (or more) posters as only one poster commenting under a variety of names. There was a period there in the commenting where the antismoking conduct was exceptionally appalling to say the least. For numerous posts, there was no attempt to address the content of comments. These comments were repeatedly tagged with just one-sentence baseless smears: It was an ad hominem avalanche that went on and on and on…. I thought the antismokers would have been busted for the sheer, sustained stupidity. But it was actually these antismoking nut cases that were appeased. NOLA is an antismoking media outlet. When the moderator claimed that the comments of multiple commenters were deleted because they had one source (one individual), that’s a straight out lie. I hope there were viewers that got a good look at the censorial conduct.

    One of the final comments by a weasel antismoker was this lying trash:
    The fact the the filth rich tobacco lobby has put so much effort into trying to derail our small communuty forum discussion says a lot. I have no problem discussing this issue with other like minded individuals but arguing against an army of paid or created identities is not what this forum is supposed to be about, thank you NOLA.com for finally ridding the discussion of the tobacco stooge invasion.

    Note that this website is under “surveillance” by those antismoking stooges. They will twist and contort any information on this website to fit their “it’s all a tobacco industry conspiracy” argument.

    • Thanks Mag Its almost like you and I were the only ones who noticed it or even mentioned it. If that’s whats happening on the paper which is nothing new as Ive fought them on there for nearly 5 years off and on I know what they are. But can you imagine what the council will be if its anything like the NOLA paper………….

      • Its also sweet when joe public was watching yesterday as we were fighting it out they just quit even trying to fight back and went into name calling mode. They wouldn’t even question what we posted any longer. That in itself is a pure victory. As long as Joe Public shows up at the council meeting in masse theres a good chance the Nazis will taste defeat.

      • Smoking Lamp says:

        Harley, They called me out too and assert that this is a global pro-smoker site. (As if tobacco control and the FCTC wasn’t a global movement.) What is galling is that they assert we are all the same person posting, while the antismokers seem to be the same or a very small group themselves. They somehow assert that only their opinion matters. They accuse persons opposed to the ban as trying to sway public opinion–certainly that is true why else would you comment! Not to mention that they are doing the same.

        Finally they claim “Big Tobacco” is behind all anti-ban posts while ignoring that they are playing right out of the well-funded Tobacco Control playbook. The posts countering opposition to the ban were especially troll-like and vile. Unfortunately that is the playing field. You can’t dissent without being shouted down by the mob.

        Actually, that is what we are seeing a mob mentality lashing out against dissent. Most violent mobs are actually directed and manipulated, not spontaneous. The opposition to anti-ban posts and post that challenge the conventional wisdom are that manipulation. I actually think a sound debate on the merits of both sides is desirable. That does not seem possible.

        • Some other Tom says:

          It won’t ever be possible to have a debate with them because they have no ammo. They do own the media however, and so they ban voices that might be heard, because they know that facts aren’t on their side. That’s why they will never debate anyone, and will ban anyone with a dissenting view.

        • They called me out too and assert that this is a global pro-smoker site

          Lets see if Franks counter goes up and up and maybe frank can show us the global map from where the hits have been coming from………..lol

        • Edgar says:

          ” What is galling is that they assert we are all the same person posting.” Je suis Harley?

    • Valeya Miles, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune
      20 hours ago

      @SayWhat @Valeya Miles, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune Sadly, yes. Those comments originated from a single source.

      Lively debate is welcomed here, so it’s hard for us to see that amount of comments wiped. But it does a disservice to our Community to have one entity attempt to control the conversation by skirting the rules.



      20 hours ago

      @Valeya Miles, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune

      Thanks . . . but I know for a fact that many that were deleted did not come from spam or multiple account posts by one individual.

      No . . . wasn’t me, but I am familiar with many of the posters on nola.com and find it intriguing that many “ugly” posts directed at other posters remain (this is also against forum policy) while others are deleted simply because they contain an opposing view. Just MHO . . .

  5. It just proves we have won the internet war on smoking………………..Even Simon Crapman is now banning abd calling all folks who challenge his claims as trolls. That was just a few days ago on twitter.

    • It maybe Insanity finally has hit the normal people and they will strike back against such insanity. Itd also mean no barbque on the balconies too…………If they havent already outlawed that too!

    • magnetic01 says:

      Update on proposed balcony ban.

      It did the rounds of talk shows. It was unanimous amongst the “media personalities” that nonsmokers need to be protected from balcony smoking. One brainwashed nitwit even suggested that the ban should extend to backyards. He gave the example of neighbours having a BBQ and if anyone is smoking it will drift to your back yard. Apparently the BBQ smoke is fine….. not that he should be concerned with either. 

      But the one that was most interesting was an evening “current affairs” program. This program has run numerous stories on smoking previously and the stance of the “personalities” has typically been rabidly antismoking. On this program they had a guest for interview from a civil liberties organization. Well, I thought, this guy might bring some sensibility to the circumstance. Honk!! Big mistake. The “personalities” didn’t seem too convinced by the proposed ban but the civil liberties chap reassured them that there is no right to smoke on a balcony. He went on to indicate that the “right” is with those being detrimentally affected by a neighbor’s smoke. The segment ended with one of the “personalities” smirking and looking right into the camera and declaring, “if you have smoking neighbours, don’t worry. They won’t be around long”.

      At no time is the idea ever raised by anyone that people’s beliefs concerning tobacco smoke have become irrational, e.g., anxiety disorder. If someone says they are being harmed (by SHS), then there is no question about it, they are being harmed (by SHS). Psychological insight is gone en masse. It ain’t there anymore. That’s just one of a number of critical casualties of a sinking into physicalism. This dysfunction is now the norm. And those that promote irrational fear and hate are “experts”… “authorities”. It’s sad to say but it can only get way worse from here concerning way, way more than just smoking. It’s the blind leading the blind.

      • Mag truly these folks are proving they simply cant live anywhere with anyone. They don’t want to coexist. Soon they will run out of complaints or does a idling car now break the law too as you warm it up for a second……………..Perhaps bathing suits that show to much will now ne outlawed and burkhas demanded. Or maybe some sane Aussie soldier will walk into a Nazi talk show and shoot it up for freedoms side……….since the Nazis don’t want the terrorists disliked.

      • Sky News Australia

        Newman not a fan of balcony smoking ban

        Daily Mail

        Queensland Premier Campbell Newman has one message for body corporates wanting to ban smokers from lighting up on their own balconies: butt out.

        The premier was asked about the proposed changes on Tuesday and said he thought smokers should be free to do what they want on their own property.

        “I think Australia has got enough laws,” he told the Sunshine Coast’s 92.7 MIX FM.

        “I’m always loath to see more laws come in, that’s my personal opinion.”

        But Mr Newman said the government had received feedback from Queenslanders frustrated with their neighbours’ nicotine habits, as part of a wider review into the state’s property laws.

        The Queensland University of Technology study investigated how second-hand smoke can waft across units in blocks, forcing non-smokers to keep their windows and doors shut.

        Commissioned by Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie, it suggested empowering bodies corporate to regulate where unit dwellers can smoke, ruling out areas like balconies, as a possible solution.

        “On a balcony, it can be a nuisance. You can even smell it two or three floors up,” researcher Bill Duncan told AAP.

        Asthmatics struggling to cope with the effect of chain smokers living in their block were among people who had sent submissions to researchers.

        But Queensland Body Corporate Association executive officer Errol Anderson said the practical reality of forcing people to butt out on their own balconies would be problematic.

        “It would turn the managers into policemen,” Mr Anderson told ABC Radio.

        The Cancer Council Queensland, however, has welcomed any such ban.

        “Almost one life is lost every day in Queensland due to second-hand smoke exposure,” spokesperson Katie Clift said.

        Public consultation on the proposed changes is open until January 30.

        Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/aap/article-2907425/Qld-smokers-butt-balconies.html#ixzz3OiABaBL4

        Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article.

  6. nisakiman says:

    Here’s an interesting little off-topic snippet I just came across:

    After Ebola, WHO blames governments and seeks more clout


    No mention of course that when the WHO should have been deploying all their forces to combat the emerging Ebola crisis they were busy gorging on gourmet meals in Moscow (at a cost of £1.6m) and gleefully discussing how to further marginalise and stigmatise smokers. Oh no. They say their tardy response was the fault of governments not giving them enough funding and powers. Nothing at all to do with them wasting their time pursuing an ideological agenda…

    Ye Gods, these people are vermin.

    • There just using this crap as a means to get more funding from countries.

    • beobrigitte says:

      The temerity of the members of this (useless) WHO seems ‘sans frontieres’.

      I do remember:
      The World Health Organization thus pre-emptively blames “the world” if ever the situation should worsen. This is a piece of impudence, because in fact, it should have been the task of the WHO to prevent the spread of the disease at a stage when it was still manageable. According to the organization “Médecins Sans Frontières” who were desperately struggling against it during that phase, the WHO not only did not respond to their warnings for months and tried to downplay the extent of the problem, but also withdrew staff in the time before and even during (!) the Ebola outbreak in Africa. It was not until several months after the outbreak of the epidemic that the WHO decided to declare the international medical emergency.

      The death toll of the (still ongoing!) Ebola epidemic stated by this very organisation WHO, whose member weren’t going to let the Ebola Epidemic in the way of lavish meals, 5 star hotels and gleefully, secretly deciding what to do next to smokers is 8371 up until January 2015.
      These are 8371 REAL deaths in less than 1 year and only up until now. Also, this figure is very likely to be much higher!

      The World Health Organization says governments flouted their obligations during the Ebola crisis and wants more power to tackle health emergencies in future, documents published by the international agency showed on Monday.

      The WHO has failed miserably dealing with the Ebola Epidemic thanks to it’s chronic tobacco control infection. The only thing the WHO deserves is it’s dissolution!!!

  7. Rose says:

    Iro, if you are about.

    The link to Alissa Rutter’s disgraceful comment on why people should keep taking Chantix/Champix on the Sunday Sun has moved to the Chronicle.

    “We are talking about a fairly unhealthy section of the population anyway … one in two will die because of smoking.”

    The deaths started racking up as soon as it was introduced.

    Sky Sports executive stabbed himself to death after taking controversial stop-smoking drug – 2008

    “A smoker stabbed himself to death only weeks after beginning a course of drugs to help him quit his 20-a-day habit.
    Omer Jama, 39, a television editor, had no history of mental illness.
    Yet when his body was found, he had slashed both his wrists and plunged the knife into his thigh and stomach, an inquest was told.”

    “The Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, which has been monitoring side effects reported by Champix patients, said there had been four reports of suicide and five of attempted suicide since it was licensed in the UK in September.”

  8. carol2000 says:

    “It’s very unusual to see admissions of this sort appearing on the kind of medical website which usually rigorously toes the party line.”

    Well, it’s not really a “medical” website, it’s an online pharmacy. And maybe they posted this just to get smokers to visit so they can peddle their quit-smoking junk and other wares. And those admissions are merely the trivial objections that clueless smokers recite all the time. There’s no admission that the anti-smokers commit scientific fraud, and this is what massively violates our rights.

    • Rose says:

      There’s no admission that the anti-smokers commit scientific fraud

      Why on earth would anyone believe that they do unless they had some contrary evidence?
      I have been warned since the age of eight that smoking would cause my relatives to die horribly and from the age of 18 that I would die horribly too.

      It was only because I had contrary evidence that I never believed them and wondered what they were trying to hide, road tar in a green plant that contained the same plant chemicals as the nightshade vegetables, just in larger amounts? And all this during the industrial smogs and while the skies were raining soot.

      And why should any one go looking for a fraud if they have believed all their lives, it’s only the wilder claims that are contrary to their own experience that might make someone question any of it and then only privately.

  9. beobrigitte says:

    As a result of the public smoking ban, many smokers were forced to stand outside in the cold and the rain, feeling isolated and even shunned by friends, family or colleagues. What was once a social activity suddenly became grounds for exclusion and many proponents of the ban hoped that it would encourage more people to give up smoking altogether.

    As Frank already points out:
    (although the author seems to have forgotten that justification at the time was to ‘protect bar workers’).
    Indeed. The smoking ban wasn’t lobbied by claiming that smokers were to be coerced into stopping smoking; it was all about the ultra-hyper-fiction-total-danger of passive smoking!

    Has the smoking ban ‘encouraged’ me to pack in smoking? Quite the opposite! Prior to the smoking ban smoking itself was something unimportant. I did enjoy my cigarettes but I lit up far less than I do now. I survived extensive shopping trips with friends only by a couple of comfortable coffe&ciggie breaks; that would be 8 hours in total of which 30 minutes were spent in a coffee shop. The 2 non-smokers of this group miss our excursions the most; we smokers have changed our shopping habits after the dictation of this repulsive smoking ban. We shop only briefly, know what we want to get, don’t look at other things anymore and get the hell out as quickly as possible.

    It’s very unusual to see admissions of this sort appearing on the kind of medical website which usually rigorously toes the party line. And if the author hasn’t already received a visitation from the Arnott herself on her broomstick in dead of night, escorted by her usual bodyguard of vampire bats, I’m sure she soon will.
    Above this article I can only see a first name and therefore Debbie will be very frantically searching for this person before being able to park her broomstick next to the author’s car to release her minions on the author…..

  10. carol2000 says:

    8 hour shopping trips! Oh my god. I want to be in and out. Please.

    • beobrigitte says:

      These trips were only survivable for me with a comfortable smoking break. We did have some good laughs, though.
      Needless to say – I have turned down every invitation for such a day since July 2007 in England. Did a 4 hour shopping excursion in Austria last year. Had to buy a second suitcase + pay a lot to get it on the plane. The fact that inside the shopping mall there were smoker friendly cafes/bars (!) persuaded me to stay and look at all sorts of e.g. clothing to buy…..
      Unfortunately for the Austrian pubs/restaurants/shopping malls tobacco control is hellbent on invading and destroying this little country, too.

      • Im the same way in and out,but my wife oh lord the quintessential lady shopper…….8 hours of shopping she could do it on her head literally………..I cant even stand to wait in line over 10 minutes or I just leave it. Come back another day. But that’s me.

  11. Rose says:

    Does Shunning Smokers Motivate Them To Quit?

    Clearly not.

    “Nearly a decade on, the NHS says there is no significant difference between the number of people smoking before and after the ban”

    “As a result of the public smoking ban …..”

    Those formerly easy-going and amenable people finally dug in their heels.

    There, that’s simpler and cuts out all the anti-smoking verbiage.

  12. Ocean City Delaware smoking restrictions will start May 1
    On the Beach Look at these pissed off people and we aren’t talking a few either!
    Donnie Wilkins · Middle River, Maryland

    I guess I’ll be spending my money in new jersey for now on….we are so worried about smoking on the boardwalk and beach but its ok for my family to enjoy the kids walking around showing their crap stained underwear and strippers and people dressed up in costumes to prey on visitors….ocean city is already one of the most expensive vacation spots….so instead of giving back to my state I’ll be enjoying somewhere else

    Reply · Like

    · 2 · Follow Post · 5 hours ago

    Annette Motto Toro

    Lame is what this is i guess my 20 years of coming there and spending thousands of dollars will end…i definetly think you had better rethink this or the money you supposedly save will be down the toilet because you will lose major vacation money… you have to clean the beach anyway or will you be stopping that?

    Reply · Unlike

    · 3 · Follow Post · 4 hours ago

    Lisa Dodson · Follow · Nursing Instructor at ECPI University

    I think this is ridiculous and will be taking my money to South Carolina or North Carolina…this town can have it regulations and rules…for instance at a townhouse I rented someone almost poured a beer on my grandsons head…it is ok for them to drink but not smoke…too many partyers there for me.

    Reply · Unlike

    · 3 · Follow Post · 5 hours ago

    Tina Maria · Baltimore, Maryland

    This is nuts I not a rude smoker I would not get close to any one and I don’t put my CIG butt around all the money we spend at O C now I can’t smoke in the beach or board walk what about the drinking and young girls with it all hanging out just don’t seem fair where we stay its bad enough we can smoke on the grounds T almost 300 .00 a night

    Reply · Unlike

    · 3 · Follow Post · 4 hours ago

    Christian Rivera · Follow · Top Commenter · Guitars/Backing Vocals at Bleed the Dream

    As a smoker myself, I think the issue at hand is really people who don’t know how to properly dispose of their butts. If everyone just field stripped them and threw them away in a trash can instead of throwing them on the ground, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion.

    Reply · Like

    · 2 · Follow Post · 5 hours ago

    Carolyn McIntire

    I keep an empty altoid tin with me at all times for said disposal.

    Reply · Like

    Kevin Lynch · Chevy Chase, Maryland

    Ocean City is ranked the fourth most dangerous city is Maryland, break ins and rape as the highest. Really lets get focused on why I wont bring my family back to OC. First off its a pit, second full of power drinkers. Dont sell me on how family friendly this dump is. Smoking…really! way to set a high bar OC….. clean the damn place up and worry about your crime! Come on e cigarette banned, people with way too much time on their hands. I just bought round trip tickets for 116.00 a person to Tampa, my wife a I can fly for 232.00 total. I can be there in 2hours, it takes me 4 hours to drive from DC to OC. Its 80 in Tampa today, maybe OC should realize they are not the only game around. OC is the new PG county of beaches!

    Reply · Like

    · 1 · Follow Post · Edited · 6 hour
    Brittany Blodgett · Works at Burger King

    Guess we will be traveling elsewhere.
    Absolutely ridiculous to be banning smoking cigarettes or electronic cigarettes in an outdoor environment. Yeah it’s to help the environment and whatever, but what about the people who discard their food or drink containers in the sand. We saw someone cut their foot on glass once. Enforce that

    Reply · Like

    · 1 · Unfollow Post · 2 hours ago

    Patrick Rona · Deli at Food Lion

    Electronic cigarettes don’t cause litter or pollution. This needs to be reconsidered.

    I will suggest you consider “smoke free beaches” which could make up for 80 percent of the beaches in OC since there are only about 20 percent of visitors who are smokers. Put ash trays on the other 20% of beaches for those who want to smoke on the beach.

    Reply · Like

    · 1 · Unfollow Post · 2 hours ag

    Patrick Rona · Deli at Food Lion

    Actually less than 10 percent if I did math correct but I’m sure you get it. There should be a fraction of smoker friendly beaches.

    Reply · Like

    · 2 hours ago

    Mark Culin · Clifton, Virginia

    If the town is not going to activily enforce the law, then why waste the time and money attempting to gain self compliance? Nobody in today’s world gives a damn about anybody else’s rights, so why would the board think that smokers are just going to go along with the new rule? Read all the comments-case made

    Reply · Like

    · 1 · Unfollow Post · 4 hours
    Tami Cannell · Works at Maximus Federal Services

    I am a smoker and I understand the concerns for a ban, but if other smokers were considerate of the beaches and pick up after themselves and not leave their garbage there would be no need for a ban. It’s the inconsiderate smokers that make it look bad for all smokers.

    Reply · Like

    · 1 · Unfollow Post · 4 hours ago

    Karen Sentz · Perry Hall High School

    You know this is nuts it is out in the open. Everyone has rights and smokers don’t. I guess don’t like the money you make on people who smoke if this is the case then don’t take the money u make on smokers. Why don’t you take the time to get hard drugs out of the state instead of smoking

    Reply · Like

    · 1 · Unfollow Post · 6 hours ago
    Denise Rapp · Fort Hill High School

    My family won’t be coming back. Neither will a lot of other families I know. We spend thousands of dollars there every year. And when we want to smoke a cigarette on the beach we should be allowed to. It’s a shame because we loved going there!

    Reply · Like

    · 1 · Unfollow Post · 6 hours ago

    Shannon Vanhorn · Works at Waynesboro Day Care Center

    If u are going to ban smoking on the beach then u need to ban food and drinks cause people dont know how tonus a trash can either u see more trash on the beach then u do cigarette butts.

    Reply · Like

    · 1 · Unfollow Post · 4 hours ago

    Melissa Smith · Hollidaysburg Area High School

    Well i hate to tell u that some bars allow smoking in them yet and u will see a lot of people leave ur beach because of this. We should not be tould what we can and can not do u people r not r parents

    Reply · Like

    · 1 · Unfollow Post · 5 hours ago

    Justin Plunkard · Berkeley Springs, West Virginia

    I’ll be doin bike week an cruise week elsewhere for now on. OC collected more than 4,000 from me yearly. I’ll take it else where.

    Reply · Unlike

    · 2 · Unfollow Post · 5 hours ago

    Pam Walters Kretsch Riggleman · Gainesville, Virginia

    well after going to Ocean City every year of my life since I was a kid and now 48 I won’t be visiting anymore

    Reply · Unlike

    · 2 · Unfollow Post · 4 hours ag

    Jane Gloria Lechman · Follow · Liberty High School · 135 followers

    Well I guess I won’t be coming to Oc anytime soon . This is bs !

    Reply · Like

    · 1 · Unfollow Post · 5 hours

    Brenda Blamble-Magaha · Union Memorial School of Nursing

    Guess I won’t be visiting OC ANYMORE.

    Reply · Like

    · 1 · Unfollow Post · 3 hours ago

    Sherry Hanlon · Phlebotomist at St. Lukes Hospital

    Think your gonna lose a lot of business

    Reply · Like

    · 1 · Unfollow Post · 2 hours ago

    Elaine Howington Dodson · Culpeper, Virginia

    Guess I won’t be going there no more

    Reply · Like

    · 1 · Unfollow Post · 5 hours ago

    Kevin Lynch · Chevy Chase, Maryland

    For the lady so proud to be a taxpayer, as well proud of the job the city council is doing in OC. Here is an article that just came out that OC is the 4th most dangerous city in MD, highest in rape and burglary. Take a read and be proud!

    Reply · Like

    · Unfollow Post · 4 hours ago

    Kelly Wernz · Essex Community College

    Finally! Although it still means the beach goers will have to walk through the smokers village toward the back of the beach.it shouldn’t be on the beach at all! But I will take it! Nothing like the beautiful view, saltwater spray, warm sun , fresh ocean air that has been polluted with smoke!

    Reply · Like

    · Unfollow Post · 2 hours

    Matt Conrad · Installation Technician at Kustom Contracting

    It is absolutely ridiculous!!! I don’t even smoke and I think that is ludicrous!! They are outside for hell sake so what is the harm . That is just stupid to tell someone what they can or can’t do at a vacation spot OUTSIDE!!!

    Reply · Like

    · Unfollow Post · about an hour ago

    Debbie Anderson · Retired at Wasd

    This is great news. As an Ocean City tax payer, I appreciate the hard work of city council. I hope those designated areas are few and far between! I certainly don’t want to walk into a nasty area to get to the boardwalk or beach.

    Reply · Like

  13. Nika says:

    This is the only smoker “support group” that I have found anywhere. I am 65 years old. Smokers are banned from all public places in my area (including bars and parks). The last person in my circle of “family” and “friends” joined the anti-smoking crusade on December 25, 2014. Merry Mythmas! That day, I decided to boycott them all (“F@)*# you all” is actually what I said — and normally I don’t cuss). I know that total isolation is bad for me, but I would rather peacefully enjoy my smokes with my snuggle-bunny cats and dog than stand smoking alone outside any fanatic’s home ever again. I should have never done that in the first place! THANK YOU for providing an online place to read posts and educational information from simpaticos.
    P.S. Frank Davis’ link to Petr Skrabanek’s “The Death of Humane Medicine and the Rise of Coercive Healthism” was incredibly enlightening.

  14. Johno says:

    La la la The reason why smoking should not be banned is because 1) Smoking relaxes people. The people that smoke also create jobs, and bring a huge profit to the government, which helps them build schools, hospitals, and public building. So without cigarettes there would be no jobs, no funds for new buildings and the government would not be making a profit anymore.

No need to log in

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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.