Conducted by Populus, the survey of 1,011 adults living in Scotland found that over half (54 per cent) think pubs and private members’ clubs, including working men’s clubs, should be allowed to provide a well-ventilated designated smoking room to accommodate smokers.
Only two fifths (40 per cent) were opposed to the idea.
Women (54 per cent) were equally as likely as men (55 per cent) to think pubs and clubs should be allowed to provide a smoking room.
Two fifths (41 per cent) of women thought smoking rooms should not be allowed in pubs and clubs, compared to 38 per cent of men.
The poll was commissioned for Forest ahead of the tenth anniversary of the smoking ban in Scotland (Saturday March 26).
It’s worth pointing out that this is not a rogue poll. The result is similar to a June 2015 Populus poll, also commissioned by Forest, that asked the same question of over 2,000 people throughout the UK.
More than half (57 per cent) thought pubs and private members’ clubs, including working men’s clubs, should be allowed to provide a well-ventilated designated smoking room to accommodate smokers; 43 per cent said they should not be allowed to provide smoking rooms.
In December 2014 a ComRes poll for the Institute of Economic Affairs found that half (51 per cent) of Britons believed owners of pubs and private members clubs should be allowed to have a private room for people to smoke in if they want to, with 31 per cent disagreeing.
The results are clear and consistent. Almost a decade after the introduction of smoking bans across the UK, a majority of adults say designated smoking rooms should be allowed in pubs and clubs.
So, ten years on, most people still want the kind of pub they knew and loved. And if we lived in a democracy, that’s what we’d have.
Yeah, but there are still too many people opposed to the idea. They fell for all the propaganda. How are we going to change their minds?
We can start by: 1) Expose the tobacco control lies and propaganda. 2) Share reports about the growing opposition to the bans. 3) Sustain existing political efforts to oppose bans (or start them if none in your area)>
Yes, there are still too many people opposed, but 54% is a majority vote, period. At the very least we should be seeing debates and discussions taking place. Instead, we continue to hear nothing but the same tired lies and propaganda. What kind of numbers are needed before they are forced to as much as acknowledge public opinion? Is there even such a threshold?
The problem is that Forest refer to ventilation and as such the general public view this as an extractor fan or similar. On the other hand if the solution was better described as Modern Air Management Technology linked to a Regulated Indoor Air Quality Standard that actually exists then that % would increase dramatically. Would politicians and Public Health dare to argue with NASA scientists on the subject ? http://www.airocide.com/filterless-technology/competitive-edge/
I can argue with NASA! And I do. NASA said that the Chelyabinsk fireball was unrelated to asteroid DA14 that passed on the same day. There’s a very good case that they were companions.
And anyway I agree with Fredrik Eich below. Tobacco smoke is a non-existent problem. It’s an imaginary problem.
In fact I’d go further and say that tobacco smoke was an essential ingredient in the atmosphere of a pub or cafe, which were sterilised by its removal.
In fact I’d go further and say that tobacco smoke was an essential ingredient in the atmosphere of a pub or cafe, which were sterilised by its removal
Seconded and I have the science to prove it.
Apart from that –
Make mine a pint of Chanel, landlord
5 August 2007
“Pubs are planning to pump in artificial scents to mask the smell of stale beer, sweat and drains that used to be disguised by cigarettes before the smoking ban.
The aromas of ocean breezes and freshly cut grass are being tested by Mitchells & Butlers (M&B), which manages 2,000 pubs in Britain. The group is even considering a perfume that smells of tobacco smoke.
Supporters of the smoking ban insisted that pubs and bars would become sweeter smelling without cigarettes. But the smoke had masked the locker room aroma in some crowded venues on warm Friday and Saturday nights.
Oliver Devine, senior marketing manager at the Sizzling Pub Company, part of M&B, said: “Appetising food smells have increased but others are less attractive, such as stale food and beer, damp, sweat and body odour, drains and – how do you put this nicely? – flatulence.”
Here lies another failure by Forest to present their case properly. There is no need to have separate rooms, Air Curtain Technology does the job and is proven technology globally.
Read : Peaceful coexistance of smokers and non-smokers http://documents.biddle.info/EX-GB/publications/Smoke%20separation.EX-GB.pdf
The problem with air technology is that it solves a non existent problem and perpetuates
the mythology that people can get lung cancer and other diseases by living and working with smokers.
There is a problem that arose immediately Smoking Bans were enacted …. body odour and overpowering perfume fragrances. Venues switched off their air cleaners and in doing so created yet another problem. Now we have the added issues of Ambient Air Pollution ….
A nuclear submarine can stay submerged six months or longer. The crew breaths recycled air.
Health nuts got smoking banned on U. S. subs in 2010.
Sometimes when you read a newspaper article the most thought provoking thing is not the headline, but what kind of people could come up with such an idea.
I mean, if Tobacco Control had never been invented, what kind of employment could they have found that suited their inclinations? As we know, certain types are attracted to certain occupations which is why CRB checks were introduced, but what kind of niche would people who spend their entire careers trying to frighten and revolt the public fit into if there were no such jobs around?
Forget health warnings on packets! Print gruesome pictures ON cigarettes to stop people smoking
23 March 2016
“Most cigarette packages across the globe contain some form of labeling to warn of the health risks associated with smoking.
In the US, the packages are required to warnings – such as ‘Cigarettes cause cancer’ or ‘Tobacco smoke can harm your children’.
And in the UK, tobacco products must adhere to EU regulations, which require warning messages and images.
But now, a group of experts believes these cigarette warnings should be taken a step further, in an attempt to stop people from smoking.
Printing health warnings directly on to cigarette sticks could reduce the appeal of smoking, revealed New Zealand scientists.
A group of scientists from University of Otago found that cigarette sticks in unattractive colors or with printed health warnings – also known as ‘dissuasive sticks’ – enhance the effects of health warnings on packaging, in helping to reduce smoking.”
In other news, after the constant exhortations to eat 5 or even 10 a day, I’m quite enjoying the unexpected denormalisation of fruit.
Fruit juices and smoothies with ‘unacceptably high’ levels of sugar should face new taxes
March 24, 2016
“Researchers assessed 203 fruit juices, fruit drinks and smoothies sold at seven major British supermarkets including Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s, Marks and Spencer, Waitrose, the Co-op and Morrisons. Almost half of those analysed contained 19g (just under five teaspoons) of a child’s entire recommended daily intake of sugar.
The authors of the paper added that drinking these drinks is a lot different to eating real fruit. They say: “One key difference between whole fruit and juice is fibre content. Whole fruit slows down consumption and has a satiating effect. Research shows the body metabolises fruit juice in a different way compared to whole fruit.”
Doesn’t matter, there’s still the newly demonised sugar in whole fruit.
I know my homemade chilli jam is in danger as the taxes on sugar rise, but just for the moment I’m enjoying the chaos as commonsense wars with activist propaganda in the public mind.
I can’t see why non smokers should be allowed to vote on whether pubs and clubs should be allowed to have designated rooms for smokers. After all they would never go in the room. Of course we all know that smoking rooms would be packed with convivial smokers. I want my pubs back as they were pre smoking ban !
Smoking rooms would be packed with convivial smokers and convivial non-smokers as they were pre-ban, we never did discriminate even when pubs were segregated at ASH’s request. You can’t go round telling non-smokers where they are permitted to sit and it’s quite possible that the non-smokers refusal to be cut out from the herd was the very reason that ASH demanded a total ban everywhere. It was making them look bad.
Experience in the past has shown that Designated Smoking Areas with Air management was proven to be popular with both smoker and non-smoker. I was involved in an experiment in 2004 in Searsons Bar, Dublin … invited the Irish politicians to view the venue but all declined. You can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
Yes, they would have a choice. But, many of these people confuse their ‘protection from SHS rather than that of employees, which was THE legal justification for the bans in the first place. Cynically planned years in advance with plenty of softening up using junk science to create a climate of fear. We all know that it was never really about the health of employees but 100% about persecution, alienation and so-called denormalisation.
IMO opinion, anyone who’s afraid of a whiff of tobacco smoke ain’t normal by any standards.
Passive smoking ‘killing workers’
7 April, 2003
“Study was carried out by James Repace, who has previously conducted research into passive smoking for the California Department of Health.
He said: “More people died in 2002 from passive smoking at work in the UK than were killed by the Great London smog of 1952.
“This study shows that previous research has seriously underestimated the number of people killed by second-hand smoke at work.”
The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
“28 countries, including the UK, signed the treaty in June 2003.”
Oh joy! The madness is accelerating rapidly,
“The consumption of fruit juice should be considered a major health hazard!”
“If you are scandalised by idea of fruit juice containing ‘nearly five teaspoons’ of sugar, brace yourself as I reveal how many ‘teaspoons’ of sugar are in the fruits themselves.
A banana contains four teaspoons of sugar!
An apple contains five teaspoons of sugar!
An pear contains four and a half teaspoons of sugar!
A bunch of grapes contains five teaspoons of sugar!
A slice of watermelon contains four and half teaspoons of sugar!
An orange contains four teaspoons of sugar!
Remember, each teaspoon of sugar contains 16 deadly calories! What’s more, some of these fruits are packaged in ‘garish colours’.
It must be time to sin tax nightshade vegetables and campaign for bans if the zealots are already going after fruit, after all you can’t keep encouraging children to eat their vegetables when those vegetables contain the demon nicotine and shocking articles like this are now in the msm.
Eating nicotine-containing produce like peppers, tomatoes may lower Parkinson’s risk
“While most people know that nicotine can be found in tobacco, low levels of the compound can be found in peppers, tomatoes and other members of the Solanaceae flowering plant family.”
Some solanaceous vegetables are fruits too and therefore will also contain sugar, but it’s not the wicked food companies, it’s the wicked plants that use sugar to entice you to eat the fruit and distribute their seeds for them.
I’m tired of being sensible and hoping for a return to proper science presented in context, let’s all go nuts collectively.
“I’m tired of being sensible and hoping for a return to proper science presented in context, let’s all go nuts collectively.”
I’ll drink and smoke to that! :)
Off topic, a thought provoking article here:
“We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
I’m not sure I share the author’s optimism though “, it is evident that at least some relics of past authoritarianism are now slowly disintegrating… “
Interesting, indeed. And while may be true that “at least some relics of past authoritarianism are now slowly disintegrating,” any progress has been dwarfed by the rise of contemporary authoritarianism.
I was aware that the drug war began in the early 20th century and that criminalizing Mariajuana was a way of attacking (particularly Mexican) immigrants. I had assumed that the 1970s were more enlightened but that there remained strong vested interests and prejudices, and that these explained what happened.
To hear that the renewed (1970s) war was knowingly started by Government, deliberately lying for political purposes, still comes as a surprise. Their contempt for the electorate was and probably still is, astonishing.
Found it remarkable; the similarity between the official line in Scotland and how the people respond.
Before the 2104 referendum (and bear in mind they had to stoop to including persons of 16 years of age) you’d have thought they had it in the bag. In the end it turned out that 55.3% did NOT back the concept of a separate Scotland.
Now it’s 54% who wouldn’t object to separate smoking rooms in pubs and private clubs. And only 40% say they’d oppose such an idea, meaning 6% belong to either side (so if there were a real vote on the topic – which’ll never happen – then the controllers would be rather embarrassed).
Unfortunately Forest just did a standard poll – and I’m not criticising them because these things do cost money, however I can be very sure that those who belonged to social clubs in 2006 would have voted almost unanimously to allow separate smoking rooms. As would most bingo clubs.
But it’s too late for most of them. Damage done.
Not so most pubs, certainly in the area where I live. They’ll have separate smoking rooms long before the ink dries on the change of legislation.
Not so most pubs, certainly in the area where I live.
Sadly not in my area. Most of the pubs have closed forever with many converted to blocks of flats. No visible indication that they ever existed.
Well. That was a long, slow, tortuous 10 years.
26th March 2006 was a Sunday here in the People’s Republic of Scotland, I had been bemoaning the ban to all and sundry since Gaulitier Mc-Con-all had made his crowing announcement just before Christmas, I was skint that particular Sunday and my brother and some pals (non-smokers) took pity on me and took me to my (now-ex) local to enjoy the condemned “section of society” to a last few Exports and a fag.
Very kind of them, they didn’t (and still don’t) give a fuck about supposed SHS and were just happy to make my last day of indulgence one I would remember, and for which to them I remain eternally grateful to this day.
And look where are now – car bans, NHS bans, outdoor bans, plain packs, the list is never-ending and exponentional…
Still I recall that last sip and puff with great fondness, not just for the enjoyment, but also the for the kindness of my brother and some mates, they know I have been bereft ever since that damnable date…
Reblogged this on Contra la ley "antitabaco".