Life and times of a dedicated smoker

Wednesday March 12, 2008

It’s No Smoking Day again. Pat Nurse would rather die than give in to the bullying, sanctimonious pressure to quit.

I am not proud of the fact that I began smoking so young, but I don’t regret it either. It is a fact of life that some children will smoke whether we like it or not and it is certainly ingrained in my culture as much as in anyone else’s religion, race or class.

Back then, it was almost expected if not fully accepted. Doctors advised my mum to start smoking in her thirtes to relieve the stress of being left alone to bring up five children. Years later, they advised that she gave up for her health. The argument was that each cigarette she didn’t have extended her life by x amount of years. We worked out she should have lived to be 150. She died aged 75. If I live that long, I will be happy. She was not as fortunate as a neighbour who began smoking in his teens, gave up aged 92 and lived to be 104!

My teachers told me that smoking would stunt my growth and give me cancer but so far it hasn’t done either. My father told me he used to smoke with his mates during the war in stressful situations and I suppose the comradeship I shared over a cigarette with my friends behind the school bike shed, in between bouts of bullying from other kids, was also my reason for enjoying it.

Health freaks

The fanatical anti-smoking stance was not something that affected me until relatively recent years. We used to call these people “health freaks” because of their unnatural obsession with the subject when we all know that none of us can live forever. If smoking was eradicated tomorrow the grave yards would still be full of people who die at the beginning, middle and end of each generation for a variety of reasons. We are missing the real health issues by concentrating on just one and hiding behind a smoke screen of abuse and false accusations towards smokers.

I remember the health warnings of the 1970s. Some people took these on board and gave up. Good for them but other people chose not to. The cost of cigarettes was the next big persuader to get people to stop smoking. The thought of putting away fag money for a nice little holiday at the end of the year appealed to some who gave up but not to others like myself who couldn’t think of anything better to spend their money on.

Then came the social insults. I recall the TV ad campaign which suggested women who smoked were unattractive because they smelled. Some gave up, others didn’t because in the scheme of things, smelling of smoke was not nearly so bad as bad breath, BO, mouldy clothing or cheap perfume – something that some smokers and non-smokers were, and still are, guilty of.

No effect

Recognising that this approach didn’t work, the health lobby began to produce “evidence” (which they are still trying to prove conclusively 30 years on) that smoking did not just hurt you but other people through passive smoking. This encouraged some smokers to quit but not others. Personally it had no effect on me.

I felt victimised because worse environmentally damaging factors were ignored such as traffic fumes which have been proved conclusively to cause lung cancer in pedestrians and still nothing is being done about banning traffic in public for the good health of “innocent” people who choose to walk and not drive.

Bullying, misleading advertising campaigns and social exclusion seem to be the latest tactics used. I’m told by a health worker that the fatty cigarette is an untruth. Smoking does not cause that to happen. The smoking babies’ ad is also false. You would not see that much smoke coming from a child’s mouth unless it inhaled directly from a Jamaican bong!

Poisoned

I resent being made to feel that I am putting my children’s lives in danger by smoking in another room of the house while there are no qualms about encouraging me to get my youngest child to walk to school and be poisoned by the huge amount of traffic fumes in the air that make my eyes water because they are so strong.

If I really had to sit and worry that I am going to die early and leave my children – three of whom are grown up – then I would never take a plane, a boat or a car again in the knowledge that I am more likely to die from a something like a car accident than smoking. I recently gave up horse riding because an accident meant a month off work and caused me to think how easy it would have been to break my neck instead of my arm. Time off work for a “smoking related illness” is something that I have never had.

No smoking policies at work places, while not ideal, are something that I don’t object to. It is an employer’s right to choose as it should be my right to choose what I do out of work or whether I work for a firm that operates such a policy. I’m currently looking for a new challenge but dismayed by job adverts – like the publishing company in Media Guardian on January 10 – that wants “non-smokers only”.

Outraged, I contacted the Equal Opportunities Commission to find that discrimination legislation does not cover this. Apparently, it is OK and perfectly legal to exclude this certain section of society. I’m sure that will go down well at the dole office as a reason why someone is unemployable.

Tolerance

But why bother being hypocritical and pretending we have a fair and equal society that offers the same chances for all if in reality it doesn’t? If we cannot practice tolerance for smokers what chance have we got that others will tolerate people from different ethnic groups or religions because they are not shown the same kind of tolerance because they indulge in a habit that is unpopular in some circles?

I am not really the sort of person who visits pubs very often but I do love cafes. A cup of tea without a cigarette is like taking it without sugar or milk, or coffee without cream. I think when the war on obesity begins in earnest, banning cream and sugar and telling restaurants and cafes what they can put on the menu is only a step away.

Now there is smoking ban there is no point my ever visiting cafes again. On the one hand our Government moralises on the importance of social inclusion and then sets about socially excluding what in effect is a certain class of people because they smoke. And then they wonder why they can never reach people from such classes.

Refused treatment

Despite the fact that I pay my taxes, I have only ever used the services of a hospital when I’ve had babies, and a broken arm, but I have been refused treatment in the past because I am not prepared to lie and say I don’t smoke.

I recall a young women in hospital at the same time as me who gave birth to dead baby boy at 8 and a half months pregnant. She was made to feel that it was all her fault because she smoked. This was despite the fact that she had four healthy kids and five Caesareans – when only an absolute maximum of three is advised and her womb just could not take the pressure.

The poor soul lost so much blood that she almost died. When she came round the only comfort she needed for her grief was a cigarette. The hospital had recently got rid of it’s smoking room and she was wheeled outside into the cold air, half dead with blood bags and lines going into her arm. The local priest, who had been sent by her worried parents to read her the last rites, was appalled at the cruelty, lack of care and comfort offered to this “anti-social pariah”.

Patient care

One of the few issues I do agree with is the cost of smoking to the NHS but for very different reasons. I recently noticed that four smoking cessation posts advertised locally were offering £25,000 each per year salary. That is £100,000 in one county. Spread that across the whole country and you have a lot of money that could be better used for patient care.

Anyone who really wants to give up smoking can without too much difficulty because experience tells me that smoking is habit forming but not physically addictive. Such money spent in a bid to try and get people like me off cigarettes is being thrown into a black hole. Better still if that money was combined and pooled into providing drug treatment centres to help people who really need it like heroin and alcohol addicts who do cause huge problems to society because of their addictions.

Smokers like me will never give up. Any hope of that has gone because of the constant bullying, exclusion and pressure which only makes my resolve to exercise my right to choose even stronger. I would rather die than give in to the sanctimonious, biased, and prejudicial pressure heaped upon me by anti-smoking propaganda that often uses tenuous and exaggerated scientific “evidence” while pulling figures out of the air that are never tested but have the desired dramatic effect.

Pat Nurse is a freelance journalist
www.patnurse.com

Comments

Liberty or Death (Wed Mar 12, 01:58 PM)

One of the best articles on the subject I have ever read.

Thank you for this Pat. I would love to see this in the mainstream press.

Peter (Wed Mar 12, 04:16 PM)

Excellent article ! My sentiments 100 %.

Yes, lets see it in the press if they would i don’t think.

david peter lang (Wed Mar 12, 04:21 PM)

Excellent article Pat, well done. “bullying, sanctimonious pressure” sums it up for me too.

Dr Phil Button (Wed Mar 12, 04:31 PM)

Pat, I have to say, that this article is absolutely the best I have ever read. It covers the whole issue so eloquently but in clear english. It is accessible to all, maybe even those with closed minds. I implore you to try your utmost to get this in print. I shall link to it from my blog.
I personally thank you for coining the most perfect phrase for me to silently repeat and rehearse in readiness for my next anti-smoker encounter. It simply provides a warm inner feeling to accurately describe my adversary as a “sanctimonious, biased and prejudicial bully”!
Thank you, oh thank you very much.

Pat Seward (Wed Mar 12, 06:10 PM)

I agree 100%
Thank You
I would say they are Sanctimonious health fascists
Pat

Carol Boucher (Wed Mar 12, 06:18 PM)

Pat

As the other readers, this article puts all my views on this succintly and I would love to see it published in as many places as possible.

Good for you!

Carol

Jenty (Wed Mar 12, 06:27 PM)

Excellent on the ‘social exclusion’ aspect. These days it is more socially acceptable to have AIDS than to be a smoker. It is we smokers who contribute vast sums of money to the NHS, yet increasingly there are calls for us to be denied treatment.

Carole (Wed Mar 12, 07:17 PM)

Brilliant article!!
As I read through I’m thinking Yes, Yes and Yes again!!

Margot Johnson (Wed Mar 12, 07:24 PM)

Oh well done, Pat! If only the rest of the media had the guts to publish this.

Your comment is also very true, Jenty. Not only do we contribute vastly to the NHS but most of us cost them very little. If true statistics could be established, I think we’d find that smokers are the healthiest of the lot. Smoking repels germs and gives a feeling of well being. Even the cough gets rid of the germs of the day. Of course we are hounded and persecuted by big business, a.k.a the World Health Organisation, a.k.a. pharmaceutical companies and the medical profession. We smokers rarely need doctors or prescriptions.amd certainly don’t intend to have nicotine pumped into us via patches stuck on our skin – so no profit for them there, either.

If the truth could be known, most smoking related illnesses occur in people who have been persuaded to give up. A bad thing to do especially later in life. All hell is let loose when their systems are suddenly deprived of nicotine. Not everyone smokes and smoking doesn’t suit everyone, but for goodness sake, give us freedom of choice.

It was the Budget today. As expected, the country is in a parlous state. Wouldn’t it be lovely if we could have an enlightened government who would stop all this nonesense and waste of public funds and, instead, lower the price of tobacco to much nearer its true retail value. Let owners of businesses decide whether they want to run a part-smoking or a non-smoking establishment. This would reverse the trend. People would flood in from Europe to buy our tobacco products, swell the general High Street trade, fill the hotels and restaurants and help get the economy back on its feet again.

Ah, wishful thinking indeed!

Let it always be said, loud and clear, that not one single death from smoking has ever been proved.

dennis (Wed Mar 12, 07:26 PM)

Good on you Pat. That put it in a nutshell for me.

Julie (Wed Mar 12, 08:41 PM)

Again well done Pat!! My place of work are introducing a smoking break ban 1st April, dreadful, loved job hate policy.

philomena mc alinden (Wed Mar 12, 09:32 PM)

1st class evaluation. She sums it up comprehensively. Smokers have been nannied, bullied, and have to cope with prattish attitudes and behaviour. Thank you Pat for showing the intollerent are leading Scotland and that makes it not a very nice place to live in.

mark weir (Wed Mar 12, 11:05 PM)

Great article, it is amazing how many of us feel this way and no-one takes notice, I am so pleased that I am not alone

S_Stahl (Wed Mar 12, 11:56 PM)

Wonderful article. Well stated.

Question: If smokers have been bullied, nannied, ostracized, literally left out in the cold, denied healthcare treatment or (worse) blamed for unfortunate circumstances (like miscarriage), and so forth, then why aren’t people who smoke dying left and right? Isn’t that a hint that people who smoke are pretty darned robust? Wonder why.

Suggestion: If the NHS wants to deny treatment to people who smoke, then why not grant the wish? Just say that people who smoke won’t get healthcare through the NHS and, therefore, no longer need to be taxed for their healthcare. No more taxes and people who smoke will just get their healthcare privately. There. Problem solved.

Tony Collins (Thu Mar 13, 02:00 AM)

Oh very well said Pat.
This article ranks even better, alongside Peggy Noonan’s ‘Them’ (http://www.peggynoonan.com/article.php?article=126) and I’ve now bookmarked it to cheer me up when I’m feeling like the only sane person living under this evil dictatorship.

Colin Munro (Thu Mar 13, 08:06 AM)

Pat,
I am also a freelance journalist and I want to congratulate you on a well written and compelling piece.
I also have a question to ask of the medical profession. If passive smoking is so bad, why aren’t I dead/disabled. I have been mainlining smoke {so to speak} for 40 years, no passive smoking for me, I’m a 40 a day man. Ok I may be taking a few years off of the end of my life. But my point is that how dangerous can PASSIVE smoking really be, when thousands of actual smokers reach their three score years and ten?

Colin Munro (Thu Mar 13, 10:22 AM)

I notice from the reports on Alastair Darlings’ budget that it has started! What has started? The tax imposed on high emission cars. Critics are whining that it is just another means of filling the Govt coffers under the pretext of being a ‘green tax’ To us smokers this is old news every time that there is a budget what gets hit hardest, that’s right, tobacco. And we’re told ‘we’re raising the cost of cigarettes, as a health measure’ RUBBISH, tobacco is just an easy target. To all the non smokers who smugly accepted the taxation burden placed upon smokers I say ‘watch out’ you’re next, along with drinkers who no doubt will fall foul of the same vilification us smokers have hd to endure. How many people have died of passive smoking and how many have died as a result of motoring fatalities {ignoring the pollution factor} and how many deaths/crimes are drink related. If you ban smoking on health grounds, your logic dictates that driving and drinking will be next.

Tony (Thu Mar 13, 10:34 AM)

Riddled with half-truths, factual inaccuracies and straw man fallacies, there’s not a hope that any credible publication would run this.

Pat states: “I’m currently looking for a new challenge…” certainly a good first step would be to analyse some factual evidence rather than form opinions based on nothing but the author’s own anecdotes!

Given that most pro-smoking ammunition comes from the widely-discredited and long-abandoned tobacco companies’ propaganda campaign of the 90’s, Pat may find the only way to gain a wider audience is to rely on others not to scratch the surface of her naive narrative for fear of revealing the hollow expanse beneath!

Ben Ellis (Thu Mar 13, 12:34 PM)

Thank you, Pat Nurse, for an excellent article. All true, all to the point.
Just one thing, I cannot agree with your opening sentance as I am very grateful that I took up smoking at the age of 14 and have been able to enjoy the companionship of my ‘fags’ in good times and bad. They have never let me down, a lift when I’m down, a great pal when I’m up. This year sees the 60th anniversary of my joining that club – and – almost half a million fags later – I’m not dead.

Bob Gregory (Thu Mar 13, 01:44 PM)

I agree with Pat Nurse. A while back I considered giving up smoking, then this apology for a government brought in these draconian anti-smoking laws and made me decide I would not have my arm twisted by these legalised bully boys. Hence I still smoke. I was recently watching a documentary about WW1, and thought to myself what would have happened if these rabid anti-smokers were stuck in the trenches. “Would you mind not firing your rifle, the smoke is blowing in my face.”

Margot Johnson (Thu Mar 13, 03:16 PM)

Tony – What factual evidence?

Richard Hart (Thu Mar 13, 03:48 PM)

Brilliant piece of writing – just about sums it up!

Now lets see if one of our daily papers will be brave enough to go against government censorship and print the article – in full.

Doubt it!

Alan Thrower (Thu Mar 13, 09:43 PM)

Oh Tony. What nonsense! There are no straw men in that article, nor needs there to be as it is written as opinion. You obviously don’t like the opinion so you attempt to trash it.

Personally, I think it’s superb as it adequately conveys the feelings of almost a quarter of the adult population.

Seeing as you wish everything to be factually correct, Tony, could you point to just one part of the article that relies on tobacco industry propaganda from the 90s? Or do you just spread falsehoods as fact like the rest of the anti-smoking lobby?

Great reading Pat, thank you for a piece that is welcome fresh air in the face of the passive BS we have to inhale from the brainwashed, pharma-led, government & media.

NoBanJan (Thu Mar 13, 11:41 PM)

Oh Pat,what a great article. You say just what I and thousands of others feel but far more eloquently!

John Gray (Fri Mar 14, 01:43 AM)

A splendid and simple article Pat. Ignore the Tonys of this world as it is they, in fact, who can’t see past the propaganda of the anti-smoking lobby.

Dieter Dirla (Fri Mar 14, 01:56 AM)

Fabulous article, I found it through a link from freedom2choose.info. Very succinctly and eloquently written, it’s clear that opposition to this vile, spiteful and bigoted legislation is growing, that the brainwashed, apathetic and complacent British public are beginning to wake up from the trance, the mist is beginning to clear and gradually that rare, elusive beast know as the truth is being spotted more often. And there was me thinking it had become extinct or obsolete.

ChrisB (Fri Mar 14, 11:15 AM)

Thanks for a clear, calm opinion.
When will someone stand up and ask what really provides for a balanced healthy life?
Is it simple physical health that some can create in sterile laboratory environments or does real health require more?
Happiness, indiviuality, tolerance & contentment are important and so are social, community and economic health.
The zeal of the righteous ignores all of this.

Chris F J Cyrnik (Fri Mar 14, 08:07 PM)

A good piece Pat and of course all of it true, the problem is that this will, like many other pleas fall on deaf ears.

Here are four questions that I have asked of the DOH, BMJ, British Heart Foundation ect, ect, more than once without reply.

1.How many people died last year of SHS (second hand smoke), and how can these figures be verified?
2.How does SHS manifest itself in the human body whereby it is readily identifiable as an irrefutable cause of death?
3.What medical procedure is carried out to determine that someone has died of SHS?
4.Has any pathologist, at any time, anywhere in the world, carried out an autopsy and declared that this person has died of SHS?

There are quite simply no answers to these questions because no such evidence exists.

What we need is a television programme set in a courtroom style format to forensically cross examine the main protagonists in this debate, i.e.; doctors, clinicians, pathologists, epidemiologists oh…and of course politicians brave enough to come forward.
Once the evidence has been presented, then the jury would then decide whether SHS, has ever harmed anyone let alone killed someone.

Finally the judge would then sum up and decide if it was ever right to have brought in a smoking ban in the first place. This would have a profound effect on the general public and may even create a ground swell of counter opinion.

A studio debate wouldn’t work. Charge and counter charge would simply lead to partisanship, and therefore would obscure the main issues. Only a courtroom style format would have any success.

I have been unable to contact a programme maker of any description so far; does anybody know how I would go about it?

DaveP (Sat Mar 15, 11:14 AM)

embarrassingly laughable writings of an addict.

Wake up and smell the death.

Margot Johnson (Sat Mar 15, 06:56 PM)

DaveP – What death?

Peter Thurgood (Sun Mar 16, 11:05 AM)

I find it so nice that we have comments like this, from DaveP, who states “embarrassingly laughable writings of an addict.Wake up and smell the death”

Mr P, who seems ashamed to add his surname to his article, sums up exactly, the mentality of the brainwashed antis, who simply cannot read or delve into the real facts behind this huge con.

He ends with typical anti like venom, ranting on about smelling death. Never a sensible debate, always venom.

Liberty or Death (Sun Mar 16, 12:55 PM)

The antis only ever seem to turn up in comments sections when they’re concerned about the impact of an article.

In which case, I feel that Pat deserves another dose of congratulations. Well done Pat! Keep it up!

It’s certainly a shame that all they seem to do is spew venom rather than try to address the crux of an argument. Instead of an evolving and interesting debate, we always end up with the antis throwing a childish tantrum. Very sad.

DBWB (Sun Mar 16, 05:54 PM)

The comments of DaveP and Tony should be welcomed – if only to remind us that they typify the tiny ignorant, prejudiced and dishonest minority that has managed to restrict the freedoms of millions.

The smoking ban is simply about the ‘presumed’ harm caused by passive smoking. They should be pleased that the bulk of scientific evidence actually proves the opposite – its almost as if they WANT it to be harmful. I’d wager that they would be rejoicing if it is ever proven that someone has died from the direct effects of secondary tobacco smoke (don’t hold your breath, lads – unless, of course, you’re downwind/rain/snow/hail of a smoker…..)

Enstein (Mon Mar 17, 12:22 AM)

a great article!!!!
Even on primary smoking the evidence is tenuous,e.g.longest lived populations are also the heaviest smoking populations cuba,isreal,japan,greece
An inability to produce lung cancer in animals despite making them smoke huge amounts.So on the whole I welcome smoking ban,It forced me to look at the case for the defence.I am now smoking an extra five a day!

Joe Jackson (Mon Mar 17, 04:56 PM)

Pat, thanks, this really is a great piece – I just want to make one point. Your article is great because it doesn’t just moan about your ‘right’ to smoke, but addresses the fact that the ongoing discrimination against smokers is based on extremely dishonest propaganda – gross exaggeration in the case of ‘active’ smoking and outright lies in the case of ‘passive’ smoking. This is what needs to be shouted out loud every time anyone protests against the antismoking movement. I am not a defender of ‘smokers’ rights’. Don’t get me wrong – if the smoking ban gets repealed on the basis of ‘rights’ I will be the first to cheer. But I’m not sure I have a ‘right’ to smoke, and by the same token, I’m not sure anyone has the ‘right’ to stop me. Basically, the presumed rights of smokers and nonsmokers cancel each other out and such arguments are a waste of time. The problem is that with their relentless (and well-financed) fear-mongering, the Anti movement has created a phony ‘state of emergency’ – tobacco is ‘so bad’ that all reasonable objections on the grounds of rights, free choice, tolerance, business etc, are to be suspended. This is what needs to be protested, and smokers need to stop apologising and become educated about just how appallingly we are being treated – education is the first step towards mounting a much bigger and more effective resistance.

Ian Crofts (Mon Mar 17, 10:14 PM)

Pat, A truly excellent article that gets at the heart of the issues and reflects what we all feel – I hope you can persuade others to put it into print. I’ll definitely link to it via my site.

I also agree with Joe Jackson on the issue of mounting more effective resistance.
What has happened to our once open and civilised society to allow itself to degenerate into an excessively constrained, over-regulated and over politically-correct authoritarian state?

We need a co-ordinated movement involving collaboration between the leaders of libertarian groups who have the authority and contacts to drive such a scheme forward.
(see http://www.ipcvision.com/page05/smoke-int.htm).

As individuals, we will achieve nothing but the ability to let off steam and be regularly insulted by such smoker haters as DaveP.

But where can we see this new co-ordinated movement coming from? Therein lies the problem – at the moment they are, broadly speaking, a disparate group of organisations, businesses and individuals subjugated by the unjust legislation and generally working to their own themes.
How do we get everyone together, the libertarian groups, pubs, hotels, restaurants, private clubs, tobacconists, bingo halls, etc, and, of course, the individuals who like smoking and want to continue?

We need a clear and sensible strategy for achieving the amendment of the unjust legislation. All need to unite under the one common movement and commit support to a well thought through set of actions which will put the truth of the situation to the country. And put it, as Pat has, with dignity – in a rational, truthful, quiet, calm and convincing way.

Peter (Tue Mar 18, 01:06 PM)

I agree Ian C. The only way is to unite under one banner to become a strong co-ordinated movement to defeat this appalling ban. But unfortunately Joe Public is apathetic, so long as it does not affect them direct they are not bothered. Totally unable to see the main issue.

Ian Crofts (Tue Mar 18, 01:29 PM)

Peter,
Not only is Joe Public apathetic, but in my experience about 30% of smokers are also – but this may be because they don’t see any big movement to align themselves with. Things might change if the bandwagon could start rolling…
However, even without the apathetic ones, smokers and their supporters should be able to muster a potential 5 million votes.(50%).
We just need to show that we can “make a difference” – and the May elections provide an opportunity to bloody some noses, give politicians a real fright, and so raise the stakes for the next general election.
I just wish I could see where the co-ordination was going to come from.
(www.ipcvision.com)

Peter Thurgood (Tue Mar 18, 03:38 PM)

This is becoming like some sort of Biblical story, where we are all waiting for the Messiah to arrive.

I think that maybe we should all start looking inwards, at ourselves, and asking, as JFK famously said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”.

In other words, we have to stop waiting for this mythical figure to lead us out of the wilderness, we have to stand up and start leading ourselves, each and every one of us.

We all have computers and email and telephones. Let’s start using them as tools to help us win the war, instead of grumbling machines.

Email your MP, write to your local paper, phone your friends and get them to do the same, shout and make yourself heard, and most importantly, do not let the anti smoking lobby and its friends, put you down. Stand up to them and say what you believe in.

If we all made as much noise to the right people, as we do on sites like this, to each other, I promise you, we would soon get the ball rolling, and our voices heard.

Peter (Tue Mar 18, 05:08 PM)

Ian says: “Not only is Joe Public apathetic, but in my experience about 30% of smokers are also – but this may be because they don’t see any big movement to align themselves with. Things might change if the bandwagon could start rolling”

I haven’t the stature to lead a movement, but I’d support one if it started. A shame that Forest just doesn’t seem to have any “balls”.

Nice article Pat, and so so many agree with this view.

DBWB (Tue Mar 18, 10:26 PM)

Raising public awareness of the propaganda campaign by the likes of ASH should be the main priority, not trying to reason with the odd vicious anti that inhabits places such as this.

This is a huge undertaking, given the level of political influence and funding of anti smoking organisations and the inexplicable apathy of the rest of the population, smokers and non smokers alike. Worst of all, the hospitality trade appears to be doing nothing to protect its interests, but just keeps whingeing on about how food sales will save the industry. Are these people totally deluded? I thought pubs were pubs, not down market licensed cafes.

Nevertheless, a recent meeting organised by F2C and CIU (Club and Institute Union) at Meanwood WMC in Leeds was designed to unite the considerable numbers of UK club members against the ban. Rebel publicans Nick Hogan, Hamish Howitt and Tony Blows and Godfrey Bloom MP/MEP.all made rousing speeches.

These clubs are declining at an alarming rate, although it seems possible that the CIU leadership might be persuaded to rally its membership to the cause. In sufficient numbers they could exert pressure on vulnerable MPs in marginal constituencies. A few hundred less votes here and there might help turn the tide.

Ian Cope (Wed Mar 19, 12:09 AM)

what davep and his like don’t realize or want to understand is that we enjoy smoking and don’t care about the supposed “smell of death”- though I admit my wife does sometimes complain in the morning about me smelling like an ash tray. Smoking’s just a habit – a fun one. But sadly we are too late to turn around the juggernaut of public opinion against us. I fear the battle is lost – and we will be the last generation to think in the way we do.

Ian

Peter Thurgood (Wed Mar 19, 10:51 AM)

I disagree with you Ian, 100%.

That type of apathy is inexcusable. It is your life, and the way you wish to lead your life that we are all talking and fighting for.

Nothing is lost forever. Remember Prohibition in the USA? Did they give up because a few old ninnies nagged them? We all know the answer to what happened with Prohibition, now let’s make the same thing happen with Tobacco Prohibition.

Wake up and start the fightback now.

DBWB (Wed Mar 19, 08:21 PM)

Peter – I have to agree with Ian about the apathy. Most smokers I meet are angry, frustrated, but not prepared to fight. The problem is that they are not organised. The antis are prepared to see this through to the end, basically just playing a waiting game. In a few years time, they will be saying ‘what was all the fuss about’. By then, it will be too late – the traditional pub, club etc will be extinct. We need to mobilise the big guns, like CIU, who could make a difference. Reason hasn’t and won’t work, direct action will.

Margaret Telford (Wed Mar 19, 11:07 PM)

Pat, I loved your article, you put my thoughts into words. thank you.

Ian Crofts (Fri Mar 21, 01:32 AM)

Peter Thurgood says

“Email your MP, write to your local paper, phone your friends and get them to do the same, shout and make yourself heard,”

I’m afraid I really don’t believe that complaining individually will do any good whatsoever – as an example, a contact via one of these forums explained he’d given up after writing 70 letters to MPs and been given the response, sorry “you’re not my constituent” .

If it was COORDINATED and each MP got 100,000 letters they might sit up and take note -(or not) but random and haphazard blasting away is (to my mind) a waste of time and just demoralises those trying.

And what is the incentive for the politician to go against the establishment and stick his head above the parapet? He/she will not challenge his party and the enormous majority of MPs who voted for this ban out of the goodness of his/her heart. They will all need a little more persuasion.

Also, most people need to see a “national movement” of some sort which has credibility and some chance of success before they will move themselves and join in the action. Individually we cannot provide that, and that is why I’ve contributed funds to Forest (and F2C) to set up such a national movement that I can take action on.

If the leading “smokers rights” groups don’t coordinate this then, as DBWB says, we’re pretty much sunk.

Ian Crofts (Fri Mar 21, 01:50 AM)

Peter Thurgood,
Sorry, my last post sounds like I’m having a go at you – just getting a little frustrated with not being able to smoke in the pub!
Please e-mail me via my website www.ipcvision.com

Thomas (Thu Mar 27, 11:20 PM)

Thank you for a wonderful article; you’ve summed up my sentiments exactly. It’s refreshing to know that there are still people who aren’t caving in to the social engineering dogmas. Your article prompted me to become a member of FORCES! Thank you again!

Julie (Sat Mar 29, 11:19 PM)

Thank you for a wonderful article, but why are we not seeing this in mainline media. Seems to be a sinister blok for anything pro?

Ann (Fri Apr 4, 04:48 PM)

Wonderful, wonderful article. I am 63 years old, and fully fit. I hate this government for doing this to us. Some elderly friends attending their annual parties are now over 80 and having to stand outside catching pneumonia rather than dying from smoking related illnesses. This is the most ridiculous law ever been imposed on innocent people.

david peter lang (Mon Jun 2, 09:01 PM)

Joyce wrote;
>Would the anti smokers who have sneered at this article like to write a companion piece to argue their case?<

Of course not Joyce, they don’t base their case on facts, just hatred.

I recently coined the term Rabid Anti Smoking Paranoid to describe such people. Or RASP for short.

Rosie Williamson (Wed Sep 17, 11:23 PM)

methine cliquish scientistically antimalaria improvidence hoister inviscid quizzical
lyblmjw jppormmu

http://lwdsjizlp.com
ciifi tzcuz http://dqhujslwbpzv.com
xyebr hehiezr http://wusvqfq.com
fveiz kpim http://gqovgofjz.com

Keenan Howell (Sat Sep 20, 05:18 AM)

methine cliquish scientistically antimalaria improvidence hoister inviscid quizzical
hdbyg dewzma

http://oohutmuv.com
qhccst vjbdbm http://rfndcqlqodhr.com
gcftbg mygc http://bubdudhttsbu.com
qpyhyq oxfdnfu http://dwrhsjwsojra.com

Margie Jackson (Sun Sep 21, 07:19 PM)

methine cliquish scientistically antimalaria improvidence hoister inviscid quizzical
wbjads ftoar

http://zamoeu.com
izcktr awgsh http://rdvqqtwci.com
xpktpxl kvbyn http://solahtz.com
vjpkntr rnnk http://wpvorrtbh.com

Faye Blanchard (Mon Sep 22, 02:18 PM)

methine cliquish scientistically antimalaria improvidence hoister inviscid quizzical
tztvpwl xigmrt

http://icidsrl.com
hxgixhm trxbbbr http://kcyzdy.com
kxzyf idlnotfe http://qcctip.com
kwmpja kloapt http://mmmucjqmtbt.com

Tena Stevenson (Wed Sep 24, 06:08 PM)

methine cliquish scientistically antimalaria improvidence hoister inviscid quizzical
crvosyf lddqrup

http://hgytww.com
mdlsa hdhw http://acqswpbjaxy.com
obxons osjbi http://quxiyl.com
qqqgzp dwlf http://ojgiswgprcmq.com

Irene Wynn (Fri Sep 26, 02:46 AM)

z2×7g4m32f0098dn
oxsgh hzewolf

http://trgijaj.com
ssaupvu ksozkr http://gbtwvl.com
wcpqnge wyujtilu http://jgpljjizc.com
xuhymry ukuev http://bsdvmu.com

Rene Puckett (Mon Sep 29, 09:38 PM)

z2×7g4m32f0098dn
ohdpfde jcmymwpc

http://stdwat.com
ffzaun mrujql http://rmzptr.com
mbxbyqt azqhjd http://azpupywvhf.com
hargolz glod http://vvehlxf.com

Melody Mccullough (Thu Oct 2, 12:07 AM)

z2×7g4m32f0098dn
meegu wmuhnt

http://wkhstcmwkqr.com
tvdiyer cvzgpxe http://nxzpgdgnorla.com
cbxtri asphlg http://nitlgaoomd.com
kvtpfph wekyw http://whunukfy.com

Mitchell Rivas (Fri Oct 3, 05:00 PM)

z2×7g4m32f0098dn
ncpwjht vvalyfl

http://icxxhpxzuhyc.com
insdhw wjbh http://aczbmmlkhbxc.com
nfzsk aurb http://ntvennxd.com
lyttgob bullo http://okbmdolm.com

Austin Warner (Sun Oct 5, 12:24 PM)

z2×7g4m32f0098dn
mzmpiu sggpsjv

http://ugjmvzqe.com
xvfkfvl gbnlnqj http://yciimjaxq.com
qdwpllm cibmb http://dpskunoqvi.com
dzaqh ckhfmex http://cmnxtpywmjg.com

Andrea Shields (Tue Oct 7, 11:05 AM)

z2×7g4m32f0098dn
nexoqgd gxvj

http://nsufoyqhr.com
forixt krcaw http://wzylazmto.com
lcprp mjvscr http://pqdtreeqej.com
vfyufoa xfivgr http://ycqbbodewu.com

Mitchel Davenport (Fri Oct 10, 10:55 PM)

z2×7g4m32f0098dn
czlukpv yrbuuibb

http://khmxpnax.com
iidsvm rfcrhvg http://ihzhuggo.com
ssdrewk lgwmzk http://cpfvpatsjaq.com
tbcunzb mdtrb http://ogcdihhaxb.com

Daphne Griffin (Sun Oct 12, 07:58 AM)

z2×7g4m32f0098dn
jlnmzu viaq

http://rmevblyrml.com
cvpmgmy bftifr http://gzmira.com
vlzty asacyeo http://xmumobiy.com
whbuu jckfcgyi http://chkvsdcoavla.com

Post a Comment

Name		Remember
Email	(optional)
Message

Smoking

Recent articles

CAMPAIGNS

BlOGGERS

THINK TANKS

MEDIA