Brighton Beach Smoking Ban Shelved?

I saw this a few days ago:

Controversial plans to ban smoking on Brighton and Hove’s beaches and in its parks look set to be dropped by the council after a huge public response.

Almost 2,000 people responded to the online consultation, two thirds from city residents and just under a third from visitors, with community groups, businesses and others making up the rest.

Just one in five supported a smoking ban in parks, historic gardens and beaches, with a strong majority strongly disagreeing. Even amongst non-smokers, there was no majority support for a ban.

I think I was one of the visitors. And I actually have visited Brighton. In fact, I may even have stayed the night there.

These days I think of it as Green Central, with Caroline Lucas as the UK’s only Green MP. As such, I expected it would be a town full of antismokers. Seems I was wrong about that.

What also surprised me was that they actually paid attention to the online consultation. I thought the usual procedure was to just ignore these things, and go ahead with their plans anyway. Seems I was wrong about that too.

The rest of the media seems to be ignoring the news:

So far, with the exception of the local media, silence.

That puts the onus on us – bloggers, readers and other interested observers – to spread the message far and wide.

If (I don’t want to count my chickens) Brighton Council supports the recommendations of the consultation report, this could be a very important moment.

Brighton Council may yet ignore their own consultation.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

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

38 Responses to Brighton Beach Smoking Ban Shelved?

  1. Smoking Lamp says:

    We can’t let the pressure down until the anti-tobacco cult is dismantled. They will ignore the consultation if they can. If they can’t they will try to spin the results in their favor so they can come back another day. They have ignored all calls for amending the current indoor smoking ban despite a majority seeking its revision to allow smoking rooms. The tobacco control cult is anti-democratic, anti-liberal, and antismoker. The only consolation so far is the acknowledgement (in the Brighton local press) that a majority found the beach smoking ban absurd.

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      • prog says:

        Unfortunately, such extreme reactions are a consequence of frustration with governments that appear to offer no solution to problems they often create.

        I think it goes without saying that the vast majority of law abiding Muslims do not endorse Islamic terrorism. What’s worrying is that peace loving Muslims aren’t on our streets in huge numbers demonstrating that the lunatics do not speak on their behalf? I guess they have to weigh enduring hatred by many non Muslims against the continuing Islamification of the western world.

    • waltc says:

      Harley, none of my business but …it’s really not helpful to post that poster here. The nazis might have said the same about Jewish temples. It comes too close to that edge. And I don’t think bulldozing mosques expresses the tone or point of this blog or the sentiments of most, if any, of the people who post here. Better to keep that stuff on political blogs where the users share that idea. Like the 1200 people who liked it wherever it came from.

      • mikef317 says:

        Well said. There are supposedly a billion Moslems in the world. They’re not all out to overthrow the U. S. Government. Neither are Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and people of other faiths.

        • Roobeedoo2 says:

          Or smokers… Hmm *thinks*

          Nah, we’re just little, old smokers ;)

        • nisakiman says:

          The currently popular quip is that the definition of a radical extremist Muslim is someone who wants to kill all non-Muslims. The definition of a moderate Muslim is someone who wants a radical extremist Muslim to kill all non-Muslims.

          I don’t know what to think in this day and age. In the past, I’ve known and been friends with many people who were followers of Islam. These days, the narrative seems to have changed – even those who one would consider ‘Moderate Muslims’ seem to have accepted the more radical aspects of their religion. It’s like the way that 40 years ago, the thought that the anti-smoking movement would become so powerful and so vindictive and swept so many up in its propaganda drive would have been unthinkable.

          But it happened, and we’re living it now.

      • Frank Davis says:

        Either the Koran, Sharia law, and the Hadith all require complete submission to Islam, or they don’t. I don’t pretend to know the answer to this question.

        Whichever way, I don’t think that it’s got very much to do with the Nazi racial doctrines. What it most reminds me of is the religious conflicts in Europe between Protestants and Catholics, in which Catholics were regarded with deep suspicion because they took (or were believed to take) their orders from the Pope in Rome, and were thus an intolerable fifth column. Now we have the same problem with Islam, which is being regarded in some quarters in the exact same way. In fact, you might say that the Islamic State occupies the same role that the Jesuits (or the Inquisition) played in past centuries. History is repeating itself.

        And if you don’t think these things matter, you should recall that when JFK (a Roman Catholic) was running for the US presidency, there was quite a lot of talk in the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant community that, as a Catholic, he was potentially a traitor.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Frank whats happened is the political pendulum is swinging to the other side now.
          Those trying to defend the peaceful muslims is all fine and well as I would too if we could determine FRIEND from FOE. Its simple we cant and never will.Thru out history we have had this problem of friend and foe when the enemy uses our own weaknesses aganst us as a means of attack.

          1. How many times have we heard afgans who were in the afghan army waiting and then suddenly machine gunning our guys down from behind. Its countless times.
          2. In America the same thing Ft Hood Texas, San Bernadino and countless others besides student visas and finding out a certain number only wanted to learn to fly a boeing jet at Emery Riddle flight school. Then 911 happened.

          In Vietnam we had gooks hidden among women with children who were passing their babies off to GI’s in helos as they were medevacing out people from the ear zone and the mothers would hide a grenade beneath the baby and pull the pin as they handed the child off. Plus so much more of the same.

          Like I said the libs are using our own weaknesses to allow these enemies of us all within out own borders. We cannot vet them in anyway. Trumps right radical jihad over the net is bring in the young stupid impressionable to be suicide bombers for the jihad.

          I don’t condone control of the net nor censorship but I do comdone censorship of jihadists messages and websites especially front groups of the anti smoking cartel that just maybe working in cahootz with financing jihad as long as they incorporate the anti-smoking agenda as we have seen with ISIS.

          Next in line is we see the EU openly wanting all this mass immigration and why?

          o destroy the culture of Europe and its national identiites or is it a deeper reason like bulding an army within our own countries,infiltrating them within our own ranks in our own armies…………think about what Ive said above and if your still for mass immigration of muslms then I would rethink my own standing as a person and as a patriot of your own country and its culture. It may turn out you discover your a world so called citizen supporting the new world order that’s outlawing us smokers.

        • Frank Davis says:

          front groups of the anti smoking cartel that just maybe working in cahootz with financing jihad

          Getting hard to tell the difference.

          Daesh. ASH.

          Almost the same names

  3. richard says:

    A policy isn’t a law. It’s rules of an organisation.
    I’m not a member of Brighton Council therefore it’s policies don’t apply to me. Simple.

  4. slugbop007 says:

    Bogus studies on E-Cigs:
    This Dec 8, 2015 article states that Ecigs ‘may contain’ …
    http://www.drugs.com/news/e-cigarettes-may-contain-chemicals-linked-lung-59321.html
    A team from Harvard School of Public Health in Boston (where fraudster/huckster air quality expert Ryan Kennedy went to school) tested 51 types of flavored e-cigarettes and liquids. The investigators found that 47 (more than 75 percent) of them contained diacetyl.
    and this:
    http://www.drugs.com/support/editorial_policy.html
    Sorry, Drugs.com, the CDC and the WHO are inextricably linked with pharmaceutical companies:
    Cerner Multum:
    Multum supplies Consumer Information about drugs. Multum’s content is written by full-time associates who have no affiliations with drug companies, using a combination of sources. Initial References include the Product Information/Package Insert, primary literature and information from standards groups such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
    Physicians and pharmacists review the new information and make any necessary changes; all leaflets are reviewed by one or more practicing clinical specialists. Content is verified using secondary references that include standard authoritative medical textbooks and the Multum Expert Review Panel.

    As an antidote to this twaddle, read this lengthy study, then tell me which is more thorough:
    This article on diacetyl/2,3 pentanedione is based on a NIOSH study
    2015 PDF available
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214750015300445
    Introduction
    Diacetyl has been used for decades as a flavoring agent to impart a buttery odor and taste in coffee, flour, chocolate, cooking oils, popcorn and other snack foods, dairy products, and baked goods [45] and [46].
    Diacetyl occurs naturally in a variety of beverages (e.g., tea, coffee, beer, wine, milk and citrus juices) and food products (e.g., butter, yogurt, cheese, chicken and beef, and assorted fruits and vegetables) [4], [9], [12] and [27], and several studies have shown that diacetyl emissions from these products are easily detectable [7], [30], [55] and [59].
    4.4. Comparison to estimated human equivalent concentrations for respiratory effects
    Two subchronic animal inhalation studies of diacetyl have been conducted to ascertain whether and to what degree respiratory effects occurred following diacetyl exposure [38] and [47]. In both studies, mice and/or rats were exposed to a wide range of diacetyl concentrations for 6 h/day, 5 days/week, for approximately 90 days. Minimal to moderate bronchial and bronchiolar effects attributable to diacetyl exposure were observed in some of the animals at the higher exposure concentrations. None of the animals developed bronchiolitis obliterans, and indeed, diacetyl-related alveolar effects were not observed in either study, even at the highest concentrations (which ranged up to 100 ppm).
    Several investigations have evaluated these animal studies, in conjunction with benchmark concentration (BMC) analyses, to derive “human equivalent concentrations” (HECs) associated with a 10% risk of respiratory effects relative to background. To derive the HECs, interspecies differences in the respiratory tract between mice and humans were accounted for by including dosimetric adjustments (some of which incorporated differences in breathing habits, since rats and mice are obligate nose breathers), adjustments for differences in lung region-specific surface areas, and others. Using a variety of methods, all HECs were found to be greater than 1.3 ppm for minimal effects in the bronchial and bronchiolar regions (including peribronchial lymphocytic inflammation, eosinophilic inflammation, bronchiolar epithelium hyperplasia, and peribronchiolar lymphocytic inflammation) [3], [10], [28], [35] and [43].
    These HEC values were derived based on minimal respiratory effects in the lung or deep lung of humans, which are expected to occur prior to adverse deep lung effects, such as bronchiolitis obliterans. Additionally, the derived HECs were well above the diacetyl concentrations measured in our study. Hence, it seems unlikely that coffee processing workers at facilities similar to the one evaluated in this study are at risk of developing bronchiolitis obliterans (or any other disease that involves scarring and destruction of the bronchiolar and alveolar region) as a result of exposure to naturally occurring diacetyl.

  5. slugbop007 says:

    I am going to propose a lawsuit to the law firm representing the bar and restaurant owners association of Quebec. Why? Because much of the propaganda, media blitzes, bogus studies and the like were used willy nilly, without proper vetting, to impose the recent patio smoking ban in Montreal. Expose the fraud, the quango/advocacy groups and the lack of professionalism of those people who orchestrated this fraudulent campaign would, at the least, make for some good newspaper headlines, radio and TV news. To quote the tobacco control zealots at their own game, ‘it may cause heartburn and distress to the nanny state fascists, leading to a spike in suicides around the globe’.

    • Smoking Lamp says:

      I hope the lawsuit takes hold. I have long enjoyed going to Montreal and enjoying a smoke (first indoors, and when the ban was enacted in Quebec on the patios). Hopefully the lawsuit questions not only the tears ban, but also the pub ban indoors!
      Je suis en terrasse

      • slugbop007 says:

        There was a lawsuit that attempted to stop Bill 44 in its tracks this past summer. It didn’t work. I don’t think that the legal team did their homework diligently enough. I have been researching how many people in Tobacco Control are out and out hucksters and the list is endless. I think that they should be sued for all their orchestrated lies. And the complicity of the media They didn’t vet any of the TC’s expert researchers, thoroughly check their academic and professional credentials, they just repeated verbatim whatever those hucksters told them. Then they presented their findings, as though it was the Gospel, in the newspapers, local, national radio and TV news programs. It was a royal con job, and it worked.

  6. garyk30 says:

    Good for Brighton, they did not let the bigots win. :)

    TC nannies must be foaming of the mouth, raving gay-bashers.
    Tobacco Control is a monstrous homophobic plot for discrimination.
    A startling disparity exists between the smoking rate in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community compared to the general population, concludes a new report released by the American Lung Association.
    Researchers combed through more than 40 separate analyses to determine that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people are more likely to use tobacco.
    Specifically, gay men are nearly two and a half times more likely to develop a smoking habit than straight men.
    Lesbians are twice as likely compared to straight women, and people who are bisexual appear to have the highest risk of all.

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

  8. nisakiman says:

    I’m assuming that the many posts from Harley which comprise (on my screen) of nothing but his gravatar, his name and the date appear to others as images. Is it only me, or are there others who don’t see anything under his posts? All his written comments show up ok, but what, as I say, I assume to be images I’m not receiving. I’m getting all the images posted by RooBeeDoo / Clicky, but not Harley’s. Any ideas? Is it just me?

    • Roobeedoo2 says:

      Are you on Arseface, I mean Facebook? I’m not but it’s on my machine – Harls’ images are Facebook posts.

      • nisakiman says:

        I have a FB account (three, in fact), but I never use them, so I’m not logged in to any of them. I use Firefox as my browser, although I have both Chrome and Opera on my computer. Maybe I should have a look using one of those?

    • mikef317 says:

      Using Google Chrome, sometimes I see Harley’s images and sometimes I don’t. Sometimes they’re visible one day and gone the next.

      I frequently get the following message. “This Facebook post is no longer available. It may have been removed or the privacy settings of the post may have changed.”

      I’m not on Facebook, and I don’t have problems with other people’s pictures.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Thanks for pointing that out,I didn’t realize they disappeared. I know Frank keeps up with Trumps polling and such and the attacks in the US and france. Some of those posts I simply repost from the original URL on FB and they show up unless the original poster makes them non public or FB decides tey don’t like a post or story and yank it down on their own which under zuckerberg they deem about anything that isn’t PC against FB rules. Seems their rules are changed on a daily basis of what they call interpretation………always on their side of course not ours.

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    Why not ban public smoking altogether?

    Public smoking should be banned, confined to rooms

    http://www.todayonline.com/voices/public-smoking-should-be-banned-confined-rooms

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    BJOG release: Smoking in pregnancy “affects boys’ fitness in later life”

    From the normal junk scientists group in the UK

    Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

    https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/news/bjog-release-smoking-in-pregnancy-affects-boys-fitness-in-later-life/

    There is no danger from second-hand smoke, period. In America, the Baby Boom produced over 75 million kids, and smoking was very popular during that time.

    Exposure to SHS was prevalent everywhere people went: in homes, yards, parks and playgrounds; in dime stores, drugstores, supermarkets – in every store, as well as banks, post offices, libraries, anywhere that people gathered. Also in cars, buses, taxis, planes and trains.

    There were smokers in diners, cafes, restaurants; in hotels, barber shops, beauty salons; in hospitals, waiting rooms, stations, lobbies, airports, and in all vacation spots and summer camps. There was smoking at swimming pools, beaches and all the sports venues; at parties, church events, any type of social gathering. There was smoking from neighbors, visitors, relatives and older siblings; from babysitters, coaches, even from den mothers and scout leaders.

    Think about it. Children were constantly exposed to SHS everywhere they went, every day of their lives. The only exception were classrooms and churches.

    Did they all die? Did they get diseased? Did they develop asthma? Nope. But according to today’s whingers (it’s for the cheeeeeldren!), none of those kids should have made it past the crib. With all that SHS exposure, the schools should have been half-empty on a daily basis, with hoards of absentee kids filling up the hospitals. Such was never the case, and you can’t re-write the history. All those kids managed perfectly well. These are facts.

    All the anti-smokers got is junk science, propaganda and drivel..

  11. jaxthefirst says:

    Now, that’s an intriguing slant, Gary, and not a (mis)use of the anti-smoking template that had occurred to me. And I really thought that I’d thought of pretty much all of them!

    How cunning! Given Brighton’s well-known reputation as the first genuinely gay-friendly city in the UK, it could very well be that the homophobes in the city have seized upon anti-smoking hysteria as a crafty way of alienating, and thus discouraging, many gay people from visiting or setting up residence in the area in an attempt to chip away at the city’s gay-friendly reputation. After all, in today’s politically-correct climate, it simply isn’t acceptable (or legal, for that matter) to voice concerns about “the high number of gay people in the area,” or “the corrupting influence on the cheeeldren of seeing obviously gay people in the city,” is it? But, as everybody knows, smokers are fair game for anyone who feels like it to take a pop at – sooooo, if some (privately) homophobic groups just happened to discover, as you point out, the higher proportion of gay people who smoke, ergo, by discouraging smoking, they’d also be discouraging gay people from visiting and/or settling in the area. How crafty is that? In fact, to take things a step further, might that be why surely the most rabidly anti-smoking city in the world – and indeed where the whole anti-smoking craze truly started – is that other well-known gay-friendly city, San Francisco? Perhaps the whole thing has been about sidestepping anti-discrimination laws all along, and is actually nothing to do with smoking at all! Hmm – one wonders whether there are similarly higher proportions of black or Hispanic people in the States who smoke and therefore, maybe …. now, that’s a very interesting aspect of anti-smoking hysteria to ponder on.

    But either way, it’s yet another example of the ongoing, unmitigating damaging influence that granting such enormous power and influence to the anti-smoking movement has inflicted on us all.

    And, yes, I sometimes can’t see Harley’s posted images, either.

    • prog says:

      Not sure I go fully along with that but, then again, it may not be a coincidence that one of England’s other ‘pink’ towns, Blackpool, also has a nasty smokerphobic streak in the town council.

      Still amazes me that one of the most popular down market holiday resorts was expected to go upmarket in the wake of the smoking ban once the filthy addicts had been controlled. By all accounts it’s now on its last legs and full of junkies and benefit dependants.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s