Hospitality bosses reacted with fury today after five councils in England banned smoking outside pubs, cafes and restaurants with others considering joining them as the Government tries to make the UK smoke free by 2030.
Newcastle City Council, Manchester City Council, Durham County Council, Northumberland County Council and North Tyneside Council have all banned smoking on the pavements where outdoor hospitality venues have tables.
And Oxfordshire County Council is set to follow suit under plans for the first smoke-free county, with employers expected to asked to enforce smoke-free spaces outside shops, offices and factories to help staff kick their habit.il
Frank Davis 
“to help staff kick their habit”
Yes, quite. And pigs fly.
Free? Less free. More Orwellian doublespeak from brainwashed biomedical fascists. Ross in NZ I mean InZid: if you are reading how did NZ smokers go lodging protest submissions against the draconian discriminatory “Smoke Free by 2025” prohibitionist stupidity?
I intended to make a submission but not allowed to travel and too busy with paid work!
I intended to make a submission too, but too busy at home with unpaid work!
Thought I had until midnight on the day, but no, 5pm.
https://consult.health.govt.nz/tobacco-control/smokefree2025-actionplan/
My older politically aware friend Daniel got one in, he tells me.
I think it’s heading toward New Zealotstan now …
And they keep on keeping on… look at the smoking-related links in this.
https://sciblogs.co.nz/public-health-expert/
I felt terrible about not having collated my research and expressed my thoughts in time.
Best I can hope for now is to still do so and forward to politicians – and blogs and media outlets the politicians are known to read – directly.
Some of the zealots proposals are really completely mad, dangerous failed ideas.
And going through their references is a hoot;- plagiarised as though their own work.
And irrelevant. I wish I’d have had, or still have, time to deconstruct them.
“A lie is around the world before the truth has had time to get its boots on”
(or some-such, paraphrased!)
I only just got to that thanks RdM in NZ (UnZud?). Utterly disgraceful monomaniac one eyed propaganda. Do these cretins truly believe astronomical punitive tobacco taxes do NOT fuel the black market and create corruption? Proof that holding specialist qualifications does not confer common sense or respect for the decisions of other adults. Economically illiterate dystopian dictators should have no influence on public policy: instead they appear to control it, with no accountability for their repeated failures… shameful and unconscionable…
Banning smoking outside pubs makes it difficult for staff who smoke to have a quick smoke break and still perform their duties. Ultimately only nonsmoking staff will be employed. By making it harder for smokers to find work anywhere, it will pressure them to quit. These actions also give nonsmokers an advantage in the work place, and they therefore welcome increasing restrictions on smokers. These anti smoking actions are possible because smokers don’t protest them.
Best to ignore this bullying. If enough people do then they are fucked.
We knew they will not stop, didn’t we? And they will not stop on this too. WE must stop them before they kill us.
Customers should boycott and picket. Owners should do civil disobedience but en masse and form an organization and do so under its umbrella.
However if one is inclined that way, one can become a
Global Master of Public Health
by even just staying at home and taking this online course, from Imperial College, London.
And paying the fees, of course!
https://www.coursera.org/degrees/global-mph-imperial
This extreme government overreach needs to be reversed. The persecution of smokers must end. Ut is time to stand up against this tyranny.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1400794460682915848
All of this unnecessary from a health perspective–despite the spurious claims…
Judy Peres, No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer, JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 105, Issue 24, 18 December 2013, Pages 1844–1846, https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djt365
The Telegraph did try to tell them.
Passive smoking doesn’t cause cancer – official
1998
“THE world’s leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.
The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.
Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week. At its International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, which coordinated the study, a spokesman would say only that the full report had been submitted to a science journal and no publication date had been set.
The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking – or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) – and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.
Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.
The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: “There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20021128202555/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/03/08/wtob08.html
Passive smokers inhale six cigarettes a year
1998
“PASSIVE smokers inhale the equivalent of just six cigarettes a year from other people’s smoke, according to the largest ever study of actual exposure levels of non-smokers.
The figure, which undermines previous warnings about the dangers of passive smoking, is a thousand times lower than that faced by direct smokers, and so tiny that it could not be measured statistically.
Results from personal air monitors carried by more that 1,000 people in cities across Europe reveal that even the most highly-exposed passive smoker inhales the equivalent of 0.02 of a cigarette a day – 10 times lower than Government-backed estimates.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20041118174651/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/08/16/nsmok16.html