1,231 views
Good Society > Published by Guest, June 30th 2011 at 4:43 pm

Happy smoking ban day everybody! – don’t believe big tobacco’s corporate spin

Print Friendly

By Amanda Sandford, Research Manager of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)

England’s pubs and restaurants went smokefree four years ago today. To mark the event ASH has released new data which shows that public support for the measure remains high: 78% of the population are in favour of the law, including almost half of all smokers (47%).  Now more smokers support than oppose the law. Meanwhile, an independent review of the impact of the smokefree law found no significant decrease in the number of people visiting pubs or restaurants before or after the legislation.

How very different to the claims made by the Save Our Pubs and Clubs campaign that the smokefree law is causing pubs to close and that the way to solve the problem is to bring the smoke back into pubs.    

So who exactly would support such a move? And who is behind the thinly disguised campaign to amend one of the most popular pieces of health legislation every introduced?

A handful of MPs have put their names to the ‘Save Our Pubs’ campaign but the main protagonist is the tobacco-industry funded pressure group, FOREST and Japan Tobacco International. The claim that many pubs blame the smoking ban for the loss of business is hardly proof of cause and effect.

Other shaky data were revealed in a briefing on the pub trade pre- and post the public places smokefree law which claims that there has been a “marked decline” in the number of pubs in the UK since the implementation of the smoking bans.

This appears to be an update of earlier research by the same organisation – Corporate Responsibility Consulting - which established a “very close relationship” between the rate of decline of pubs and the implementation of smoking bans.

The authors don’t appear to disclose their funders but they have form. Their client list includes the Tobacco Manufacturers Association.  The calls might be new but the claims are as stale as the air in a smoky pub.   

These reports use what they call a “subjective” definition of pubs. Such surveys have been known to reclassify pubs as restaurants and so claim they have “closed” as pubs when they are simply selling more food.  In fact the business stays open, the staff keep their jobs, the name of the bar doesn’t change.

But why not use an objective measure? After all, we know precisely how many licences were issued and the number of premises licensed for on sale and off sale increased by 5% the year England and Wales went smokefree and has risen every year since.    

Of course pubs, like all small businesses have been hard hit by the recession. But the tobacco lobby group assertion that thousands of pubs in England and Wales are under threat of closure due to the smoking ban does not stand up to scrutiny. The British public are enjoying the benefits of smokefree drinking and dining and there is little appetite for a return to the bad old days of smoke-filled pubs.

  • http://twitter.com/danielelton/status/86529834079109120 Daniel Elton

    RT @leftfootfwd: Happy smoking ban day everybody! – don't believe big tobacco's corporate spin http://t.co/3mKCGSN

  • Grouchy Marx

    Wow Amanda, that’s brave of you. Prepare to have your very sensible little article drowned in foam-flecked abuse from the gang of angry right-wing trolls looking for websites on which they can expatiate about: the lack of connection between smoking and health the beneficial effects of breathing in other people’s smoke; the nazi-inspired campaign to extinguish our ancient freedom to blow smoke in other people’s faces; the catastrophe inflicted on the global economy by smoking bans; etc etc. Anyone would think you expect to persuade them through rational argument and evidence. We shall see!

  • sarah

    100,000 jobs have been lost both directly and indirectly thanks to the smoking ban. More than 8000 licensed venues have closed, since the ban was introduced in England. Those that smoke are no longer made welcome, in public houses or infact in any public buildings and have had their social lives ruined now, for four years in a row. Well done Ash. That really is something to celebrate !!!
    And of course anyone that opposes your views is a representative of big tobacco and no one else could possibly hold a view on this one !

  • Stephen Brown

    I quote the final sentence in the article above:
    “The British public are enjoying the benefits of smokefree drinking and dining and there is little appetite for a return to the bad old days of smoke-filled pubs.”
    Permit me to introduce you to the “Smoky-Drinky” phenomenon.
    A smoky-drinky is a gathering of like-minded people who meet in PRIVATE premises, bringing with them their own choice of drinks to consume. They drink and SMOKE and converse in a convivial atmosphere so lacking in the moribund public houses nearby.
    The informal group with which I associate now has the use of a fairly large PRIVATE indoor space where we used to meet together once a week or so. The informal group has become so popular that one can now drop in (bringing one’s own drink, of course) on any evening and be assured of some fine company not one of whom objects to SMOKING indoors.
    There is no formal organisation involved, we are all acknowledged friends of the owner of the PRIVATE space and we all delight in making a mockery of the smoking ban in pubs.
    To my certain knowledge the concept of “Smoky-Drinkys” is spreading far and wide quite spontaneously! Long may it continue to do so, and long may it continue to make a complete mockery of the fatuous figures given in the above article.

  • Northern Worker

    I’m a non-smoker but I strongly object to the smoking ban. It’s a matter of personal freedom and personal choices. If a landlord wishes to allow smoking on his or her privately-owned premises that’s a personal choice. Similarly people can choose whether to go to the pub. Choice. Freedom of the individual.

    As for the so-called facts supporting the ban, these have been thoroughly fisked and been found wanting. As for the case that it is other factors closing our pubs, working mens’ clubs and bingo halls, clearly the recession, greedy pubcos and cheap supermarket booze have had an effect. But the decline in pub numbers started after the ban and before the recession. As for cheap booze, that’s always been there, as have greedy pubcos.

    Let’s face it, fake charities like ASH – paid for with our taxes – want to restrict our freedom. They, and their mates at Alcohol Concern and elsewhere, will never be happy until we are all controlled.

    Choice!

  • Jo

    I really can’t see why people are complaining about the ban as most of the pubs where I live get the ashtrays out once the pub has closed and there is no fear of being caught and fined. There are more people drinking ‘after hours’ than there are during actual opening hours. A few pubs are actually ‘closing’ at 9 p.m. and throwing everybody out except the regulars that are either smokers or with smokers. Then the doors are locked and it is a ‘private party’
    This is most unfair to people that want to have a drink but are not ‘invited’ as they are anti smoking.

  • BILL WORKING CLASS

    ASH.are at it again.Keeping themselves in highly paid jobs.On their website they state.WE DON’T CONDONE OR CONDEMN SMOKERS.
    So why don’t they keep their mouths shut.MONEY.MONEY. Thats why.

  • Simon Sherlock

    Here we go again. Is that all you have now, ASH? The one debating tool to counter every objection being to point to the opponent’s funding?

    You’re funded by government, big pharma, and ‘supporting charities’. You’re as tainted in that respect as those you target.

    Where are your massed hordes? Where are your rallies? You receive, as a charity a paltry figure, but enjoy all the perks of charitable status. Without vested interest funding, you’d struggle to pay the business rates on a small office. Yet you’re paid how much Amanda?

    You’re an insult to every hard-working person in this country. You make working class lives worse by destroying their leisure (the vast majority of pub closures have been ones described by those who don’t like them as ‘chav pubs’), and have the gall to pump your tax-funded propaganda on a site which purports to care about working people.

    Debate properly, or stop using this tired old line of others being ‘bought’. Your entire existence relies on the taxes of others and the approval of corporate interests who benefit from your selective bile.

    Harold Wilson would be spinning in his grave at what you are doing. Shame on LFF for again allowing a platform for naked corporate shills like ASH.

  • Junican

    The claims of ASH become more and more hilarious every day.

    Is this the Amanda Sandford who welcomed the efforts of Stony Stratford to ban smoking in the streets on the health grounds of spit on cigarette ends? Ha! Ha! Ha! Tell me another, Amanda.

  • Mark Butcher

    It’s worth remembering that this article has been written by people who are paid for by tax-payers.ASH could not support its activities on private donations alone. Pubs have closed in their thousands – to deny that is idiocy – and smoking rates have not fallen. Stop tax payers money going to ASH.

  • Frank

    Ah, more taxpayer funded gunge from Linda Bauld, Amanda Sandford and Kellner. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, eh? Poor Jill Pell, she must feel left out but I’m sure the taxpayer’s got something lined up for her. Still, it’ll impress their unquestioning and slavish mates in the DoH and APPG and that’s all that counts to them. Probably get another award from Milton next rear!

  • db

    The Bauld report is an insult to the many 1000′s of business owners, staff and patrons (including non smokers) who have fallen victim to one of the worst and dishonest laws of recent times. Not exactly overflowing with evidence, but padded out with estimates, guesstimates and multiple excuses for limited data, hence the need to resort to referencing non UK countries and other irrelevant information (e.g. what on earth has a reduction of child exposure to SHS smoke got to do with a ban in workplaces?). A paltry two and half pages of utter waffle (just over 1000 words) devoted to the effect on the hospitality industry. I’m surprised ASH draw attention to it. On the other hand, I suppose they’d argue that it adheres to their standard required level of professional integrity.

  • Neil E Done

    What a load of bitching.
    Why not let your ‘new data’ and accusations be put to the test by coming out from behind your Tobacco Control shield where only your friends and your stakeholders are permitted a voice. Of course you get what data you want because your friends run so many university tobacco control departments and even a major polling company.

    Why not admit you and yours are blatant front-line ambassadors for pharmaceutical nicotine producers. Your allies are tainted with benefit from them as paymasters. You even have direct lobbying contact with your pals at the DoH who willingly spend the Country’s limited funds on your useless ‘solutions’.

    Your new data is simply a series of insults and rants against any who question your integrity and a signal of your willingness to further denormalise (your 22% of) the population who disagree with the ban.

    Your calls may stand up to the scrutiny of your friends but you haven’t the guts to face those who question you without resorting to name calling.

  • Chris

    Articles like this show ASH to be suffering a complete burn out.
    ASH noun – the white or grayish powder remaining after something has been thoroughly burned. Time to spread ASH’s ashes even if it creates a cloud of air particulates!

  • Grouchy Marx

    Amanda; told you so! Note that no-one has yet come up with a counter-argument, as opposed to an angry rant …

  • Fredrik Eich

    Who would want to celebrate the decimation of pubs and the inevitable social harm that follows? If any person that works all day can not find the pennies to be able to have a smoke and a drink in the comfort of a pub at the end of a day – something is very wrong.

  • http://leftfootforward exhausted by fumes

    I’m looking forward to anti-smoking lobbies taking their anger on to the next level and demanding our right to breathe fresh air outside pubs given the amount of pollution produced by exhaust fumes. Which is more dangerous, smoking a cig in a car, or sticking the exhaust pipe into the vehicle ?

    smoking is often blamed for underweight babies amongst smoking mums to be, but it always amazes me how non smoking mums to be living near chemical works who have sadly had a baby born with demformaties is largely ignored. I’m not defending either, but are smokers disproportially targetted against multi-national pollution producers ?

  • http://twitter.com/smokefreepct/status/86762764730777600 SmokeFree West Kent

    Read ASH's findings here http://t.co/JfY5e5o & an independent review from the DoH on the impact of smokefree legislation http://t.co/lngIhwx

  • chas

    NEVER believe ASH. They said ‘Smoking bans are good for business. Study shows hospitality industry fears of falls in trade are unfounded.
    Tuesday 25 February 2003
    ASH news release: Embargo: 00.01 25 February 2003
    Official – smoking bans are good for business. ASH accuses hospitality industry of “crying wolf”.
    Since the smoking ban thousands of pubs and clubs have closed making over 100,000 staff unemployed.

  • http://freedom2choose.info Phil Johnson

    Here is the absolute truth-from a non smoker who doesn’t bother with boring, uncharsmatic, soulless public houses anymore. This, Amanda Sandford, is what YOU and YOUR ILK have done to this country- Read and weep girl!
    http://freedom-2-choose.blogspot.com/2011/07/sad-truth-behind-lies-4-years-on.html

  • Dave Atherton

    Here are some polls pre and post ban that beg to differ.

    http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/latestnews/Capital-bucks-trend-on-total.2487734.jp

    52% against smoking ban in Edinburgh. Paid for by Nicotinel who would gain from people giving up.

    http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2009/08/58-of-tory-members-support-relaxation-of-smoking-ban.html#tp

    58% of Tories want the ban amended for all pubs

    http://conservativehome.blogs.com/.a/6a00d83451b31c69e20120a7d1a66b970b-pi

    73% of Tories want smoking ban relaxed in private members clubs.

    28 Jul 2004
    More than 80 percent of pub customers in Wales are opposed to a complete ban on smoking in pubs according to a survey carried out for leading independent brewer, pubs and drinks company SA Brain & Co Ltd.

    The independent survey of nearly 1,400 customers and staff found that only 19 percent of customers and 12 percent of staff support a total ban on smoking in pubs. There was, however, more widespread support for the provision of no smoking areas for eating and at the bar.

    Around 42 percent of customers agreed that no smoking should be the policy in eating areas of the pub. Twenty-two and a half percent support banning smoking at the bar at 22.5 percent and 23 percent of customers said that they would spend more time in the pub if changes to the smoking policy were made. Around 83 percent said that the level of smoke was not a problem in the pub in which they were interviewed.

    Of the total number of customers surveyed, 41 percent were smokers.
    Retail director for SA Brain & Co Ltd, Philip Lay, said

    http://www.sabrain.com/index.cfm?UUID=FFD5C6A8-2B30-CFB5-B7D7FD7905913320

    Alas the information has been taken down but that is what it said.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6464521.stm 74% want exemptions to the smoking ban

    “Three quarters of people in Scotland believe there should be exemptions to the smoking ban, a poll has suggested. The Populus survey, for the pro-smoking group Forest, revealed 74% of 1,004 people surveyed thought private clubs should be allowed smoking rooms.

  • The Troll….

    I think all smokers stink,and it kills you!!!My Grandad was killed by smoke,(actually he was run over,but had a ciggy in his mouth at the time)so I know what I,m talking about.
    It,s so much better going to the pub and not having to burn my clothes on the way home,I,m thinking of doing it twice a year now.
    Don,t forget the children,as it,s a statistically proven rumour that 93 Million(yes,Million)people die of SHS every minute,so for God,s sake let me walk along the A1 Motorway in fresh air and not be subject to the 3 Metric Tonnes of smoke coming from every car window

    Was that OK,Amanda….sorry it,s late.

  • http://twitter.com/ash_ldn/status/86780945956478976 ASH

    Happy smoking ban day! – don't believe big tobacco's spin http://fb.me/14tcawuUf

  • http://twitter.com/ashscotland/status/86782135679201280 ASH Scotland

    Happy smoking ban day! – don't believe big tobacco's spin http://fb.me/14tcawuUf

  • http://twitter.com/robincvd/status/86783484579950592 Robin Ireland

    Forgot to add the link for the great @ASH_LDN report http://t.co/EIRF42C @heartofmersey Don't buy into Big Tobacco's spin

  • http://twitter.com/pulmonology/status/86788981030780929 Pulmonology

    RT @ASH_LDN Happy smoking ban day! – don't believe big tobacco's spin http://fb.me/14tcawuUf

  • http://twitter.com/respirology/status/86788986638569473 Respirology

    RT @ASH_LDN Happy smoking ban day! – don't believe big tobacco's spin http://fb.me/14tcawuUf

  • greg

    the first comment was right.

    I am a non-smoker and I was working in a bar as the smoking ban came into effect. my lungs were noticeably better, a cough i had developed stopped.

    Smokers should remember they are the minority and their action does harm to others. As it does others harm you shouldn’t be shocked when you have to smoke outside. Going by your logic if you get to smoke indoors I should be able to smack you in the face. SO STOP WHINGING AND GROW UP YOU STUPID SELFISH TWATS!

  • http://leftfootforward phil

    Agree Troll, 3 metric tons, blimey ! I wondered what those soots were all over my washing, and window ledges. Not smoking toxic exhuast pipes afterall. But Fag ash from smokers in cars on my local A1 !! Yes, cars shold be flagged down and interiors air monitored for nicotine levels !

  • http://f2cscotland.blogspot.com/ Belinda
  • Frank

    I think people who develop illness working in a bar would be better off NOT working there. Maybe that’s too logical for some? Silly me, of course it is. It’s to be expected that customers should put themselves out to accommodate the staff.
    Relating to the above ‘surveys’ there’s nothing to debate! There’s no raw data. We don’t know the questions, any choices, target groups, any weightings, the rest of the stuff the BPC normally requires. How do we know they didn’t just question Smoke Free NW? Given ASH’s historical behaviour it’s entirely possible. Until we see the data there’s nothing to be said other than garbage. Still, it’ll be good enough for the DoH. It’s what they want, however they get it.

  • RedfishUK

    My local village pub is on it’s knees, nothing to do with the smoking ban, everything to do with the Pub Co that bought it for far too much in 2007 and now can’t extract blood from a stone. The first Tennants were bankrupted by the terms of the lease, it is limping on with a manager but won’t survice.

    Meanwhile City centre Bars – which cater for young people (18-25)a group with the highest rate of smoking, are multiplying and are rammed most nights of the week. In case you ask http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/smoking/

  • scratcheshead

    How can banning over half of pre ban patrons from smoking inside bars possibly be good for business? OK, I’m no expert on the economic theory of supply and demand but I’m not totally stupid either. I mean, if the recession is causing most of these closures, is it partly because folks can’t afford scampi and chips any more? Surely this is the time to try and get as many people as possible back inside without expecting them to order food. Smokers seem to be the obvious candidates. Suppose it all boils down to how much we want to keep pubs going. Frankly, I’m with ASH – don’t really care any more.

  • Grouchy Marx

    Foamiest of all fleck-full fantasists on this issue: Phil Johnson of the truly appalling Freedom 2 Choose (a pro-smoking group so barmy even FOREST seems to have disowned them). “This is what YOU and YOUR ILK have done …”

    All time classic PJ rant can be found at http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/124560774.html

    A man was thrown out of a bar in Philly for bearking its no-smoking rule. He went away, came back with an automatic weapon and shot six people, killing one. According to PJ, this is all the fault of the supporters of toabcco control. Jeez, the man is a charmer. Nicotine really can drive you crazy, and I mean PJ, not the nutter with the gun.

  • Rory

    One suspects that the supporters of the ban, secretly want to bring in Prohibition.

    How depressing.

  • George Speller

    Oh dear. Where are all the anti smokers’ comments when you want them? Maybe there are not as meany as the now discredited ASH thinks.
    No, I don’t receive money from Big Tobacco – unlike the now discredited ASH.

  • http://twitter.com/heartofmersey/status/86824270478573569 Heart of Mersey

    Forgot to add the link for the great @ASH_LDN report http://t.co/EIRF42C @heartofmersey Don't buy into Big Tobacco's spin

  • Grouchy Marx

    Ooo yes George, and if you say “now discredited ASH” often enough, then they will be discredited, won’t they? Just like saying “other people’s smoke doesn’t harm your health”, again and again and again and again ….

  • Frank

    With the public ASH never had any ‘credit’ from the start. They were regarded as a joke. Even now, just look at the voluntary contributions they get, not enough to pay a small office rent! They gave up on the public years ago to concentrate purely on a small number of Politicians. ASH – DoH – APPG. Just that route. What the public may or may not think doesn’t concern them.

  • sheila

    Interesting that apparently 78% of the population support the ban. This would of course suggest that 100% of the population had been asked and since this is clearly not the case, the figure is completely meaningless.
    On the subject of the recession,one would have to conclude that we probably would,nt have suffered that much if there had been the freedom for people to go out and spend their money as normal.
    So all in all this little band of dis-connected individuals can be proud to have burned the economy, put thousands out of work, bancrupted many businesses who in turn will have affected the finances of many associated industries and have nothing to show for it at all. And that,s before there is any examination of whether the tourist trade has declined and whether the vast number of smokers take their holidays elsewhere. All in all I think the we can safely say we can no longer afford to fund these numpties.

  • F Wilson

    Oh dear, Mandy Sandford still rolling out the Non fact based “research ” tit-bits, but she should take her share of the blame for helping to kill off our hospitality industry, she does seem to think that Prohibition and Discrimination are just the things to make a business profitable. It is a shame that she cannot Prove any of her “claims ” Still, when was ASH ever concerned about the Truth just as long as Propaganda did the trick.

  • Neil E Dunne

    Amazing that Amanda’s best friend should base his pseudonym on a famous smoker.
    Could Grouchy tell us how often his friend goes to which pub and if it is she who is accompanied by a host of non smokers?
    It’s far too easy to demean and destroy something when you know nothing of it and have no inkling of its true value.
    Social health is as important to overall health as other factors but that doesn’t matter if those disadvantaged are merely smokers.

  • sarah

    Banning smoking in all enclosed spaces to which the public can gain access means ASH have turned Britain’s smokers, into second class citizens and social pariahs.

    Thousands have stopped using pubs and are excluded from society, thanks to evil ASH

  • mark

    The British Institute of Inn Keeping’s findings since the smoking ban was introduced:-

    * The proportion of smoking customers dropped from 54% to 38%;
    * 66% reported that their smoking customers were staying for shorter periods;
    * 75% reported that smokers were visiting less frequently;
    * 47% of businesses had laid off staff, although 5% had recruited additional staff;
    * Income from drinks fell by 9.8%;
    * Income from gaming machines fell by 13.5%.
    Smokers made up 65% of a pubs client base.
    ASH is the only one, failing to mislead us here.

  • http://f2cscotland.blogspot.com/ Belinda

    #30 I remember that many people said ‘heart attack admission rate dropped in Scotland by 17 per cent following smoking ban’, which was palpable nonsense as the heart attack rates continued a straight line decline after the smoking ban. But they said it so often that many people believed it.

  • Grouchy Marx

    Dumbest pro-carcinogen position so far in this thread? Tough to choose, but I nominate: “Interesting that apparently 78% of the population support the ban. This would of course suggest that 100% of the population had been asked and since this is clearly not the case, the figure is completely meaningless.” (sheila) It takes a certain perverse brilliance to come up with something as nit-witted as that!

  • Simon Sherlock

    Good at ad homs, Grouchy, but short on the evidence you demand from others. Care to comment on the many links given to you? Or are you happy to carry on being hypocritical?

  • db

    #37 They’re still saying it Belinda…..

    ‘Because people will no longer be subject to passive smoking, Joossens hopes for a major drop in heart disease in Belgium. “After the smoking ban in Scotland, heart attacks in the country fell by 17 percent. If a similar thing happens in Belgium, there will be 2,500 fewer heart-attacks per year,” he said.’

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2011-07/01/c_13961245.htm

    As for Groucho: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6588432661272970865

  • Frank

    Linda Bauld, described as a specialist in ‘social management’ at Bath ‘University’, A member of the ASH advisory Council, the Smoke Free SW programme board and the international Network of Women against Tobacco. A fully paid up Taxpayer sponging addict, A truly independent assessor?

  • Derek Launch

    The second pie chart adds up to 101%. Which section was rounded up with the extra 1% (I think we can guess)?

  • J. Stewart

    “The claim that many pubs blame the smoking ban for the loss of business is hardly proof of cause and effect.”

    Because, in the parallel universe inhabited by ASH, the first-hand experience of publicans who saw their smoking customers desert doesn’t constitute evidence whereas polls conducted by a member of ASH does.

  • http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/ Chris Snowdon

    Amanda,

    You do realise that the number of on-licenses are not a proxy of the number of pubs, don’t you? On licenses are required for weddings, garden fetes, street parties, hotels, restaurants, cafes etc. etc. In addition, you appear to have included off-licenses, which no one has ever claimed would be affected by the smoking ban.

    If you wanted an “objective” measure of how many pubs there are, you could have consulted the figures from the British Beer and Pub Association which show, as everybody except ASH have long recognised, that the pub industry has had a disastrous few years.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/12/general-election-labour-manifesto-pub-closures

    You can argue all you like about whether the smoking ban is the main reason for that – it is ultimately unprovable, although the combined evidence strongly suggests that it was- but denying there have been 1000s of pub closures at all makes you look ridiculous.

    As for being “one of the most popular pieces of health legislation every introduced”, how many other pieces of health legislation were still opposed by 22% of the population four years after being introduced?

  • Jim

    I used to be an antismoker. I was brainwashed to fear and hate smoking and smokers. Everything about smokers bothered me. I was happy when they got kicked out of workplaces. Then I hated that they got to go outside to have smoke breaks. Even though they were doing their work, I started spreading rumors that they were wasting the boss’s time. I would constantly rib the smokers that they stunk, that they were stupid addicts, they were harming people like me, and that they were a drain on society. I would tell them that their smoke was contaminating my hair and my clothes and that I had to keep taking showers to get their stink off me. But those idiots kept smoking. Then those cigarette butts started to bother me. I didn’t notice them before, but now I was seeing them everywhere. And they kept getting bigger and bigger. I would tell the smokers that they were trashing the world. I even tried to get smoking banned in my apartment complex. I was consumed with this hatred. I had even joined a few nonsmokers groups that were trying to get smokers kicked out of more places.

    Then one day I was sitting in the park over lunch. I had the most incredible “light bulb” moment. It dawned on me so clearly that I had become a bigot, a rabid bigot. I was driven by stupid fear and hate. I had turned people that smoke who are people just like me into something terrible that had to be put down. I had made them enemies. I had done this. And there were plenty of people that wanted me to feel this way. That’s the way society was going, they would tell me. It’s progressive, they would say. I had been convinced that mistreating and bullying smokers was “normal”. Not any more. I gave all of that trash up. I feel way, way calmer. I’m like a new man. I get along with people better, especially smokers. I think smokers are a forgiving lot. I’m still surprised that one of them hadn’t hit me plumb in the nose for all my constant harassment. But that’s over now. I feel like a normal, good human being again, able to relate to people as people first and foremost.

  • Jim

    The Grouchy Marxist: “Anyone would think you expect to persuade them through rational argument and evidence.”

    We should be thankful to the Grouchy Marxist, an obviously superior intellect (at least according to him). The Marxist has been good enough to elevate the standard of dialogue on this board with the following impartial, rational “gems”:

    “Nicotine really can drive you crazy, and I mean PJ, not the nutter with the gun.”

    “Dumbest pro-carcinogen position so far in this thread?”

    “It takes a certain perverse brilliance to come up with something as nit-witted as that!”

    Three cheers for the Grouchy Marxist!

  • Jim

    Anti-smokers seem to be under-represented on this board. So allow me to address this imbalance by contributing some standard anti-smoking “rationality”.
    —–

    - I fully support a ban on smoking everywhere. I am a hypochondriac. I am easily offended by these selfish smokers who want to pollute me with their toxic, cancer-causing, filthy smoke. I have to constantly hold my breath walking along the footpath to avoid the toxic smoke pollution. What is the world coming to when a normal person like me can’t have a walk or a meal without being assaulted by inconsiderate, pro-carcinogen addicts? Did I mention that smokers are selfish? Smokers are selfish!

    - I want smoking banned. I am a somatizer. I believe every little pang and poke I feel must be caused by my being subjected to toxic, polluting smoke. What else could it be? Some have told me that it’s all in my mind, but that sounds farfetched. I have had many experiences where I have been enjoying a meal outside and smokers decide to light up. Within just minutes, I have found myself enveloped in a thick cloud of toxic smoke. I am unable to see inches in front of me, barely able to make out the food dish directly in front of me, and my sense of taste vanishes. Trying to see the waiter, let alone get his attention, becomes another ordeal. Smokers are really selfish.

    - Get rid of smoking. I hate that these people can smoke outside and poison the whole environment – birds drop dead and shrubbery shrivels, leaving a Moon-like landscape in outdoor eateries. Everywhere should only cater for normal people who don’t smoke – like me. Why should normal people – like me – have to put up with even a whiff of that lethal, toxic smoke produced by the pro-carcinogen addicts? And don’t even get me started on those horrible saliva-dripping cigarette butts that those selfish smokers think they can pollute our planet with.

    - There is definitely a “smoker problem”. I detest these addicts. Their smoke gets into your hair and clothes. At times I’ve had to shower three, four, five, six times a day, leaving my skin raw from trying to scrape off that noxious stink. I have my clothes dry-cleaned four times a day. And kissing a smoker is like kissing an ashtray. Not that I’ve ever kissed an ashtray….. I’ve just been told so….. by people who obviously have kissed an ashtray.

  • prog

    #47 ‘And kissing a smoker is like kissing an ashtray’.

    But, for most self obsessed anti smoking bastards, worth it if there’s any chance of a shag. Thinking about it, the worst probably skip the kissing stage.

  • http://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/they-simply-dont-care/ They Simply Don’t Care | Frank Davis

    [...] which Chris Snowdon spotted. And there’s another one in the article by Amanda Sandford in Left Foot Forward the next [...]