The Sheer Pleasure of Smoking.....

"Yet, Freedom, yet thy banner torn but flying,
Streams like a thunder-storm against the wind."
- Byron

A fair and just solution exists which will satisfy both smokers and non-smokers.

Separate, properly ventilated private smoking rooms, with appropriate air quality standards, would protect employees from any supposed harm associated with second hand smoke.

Non-smoking rooms, or even whole non-smoking venues, would continue to exist separately, so satisfying those who dislike the smell of smoke, and allowing those, who wish to, to lead a smoke free life.

What could be more fair?

Why would any reasonable person want to prevent this?

Let's look at why the smoking ban is unjustified, unfair,
and basically, just plain vindictive

1. Supposedly to protect the long-term health of non-smokers
   
   
2. Force a reduction in smoking (and make it less appealing to the young) by making social smoking as difficult and uncomfortable as possible
   
   
3. Appease those who don't like the smell of tobacco smoke

1. Protecting the long-term health of non-smokers
   
   It has made no difference to the long term health of non-smokers, since despite all the rhetoric on the subject, the allegation that intermittent exposure to second hand smoke harms long term health is scientifically unjustified.
   
   
2. Forcing a reduction in smoking and making it less appealing to the young
   
   

   Here it has failed on both counts:-
   
   i) In their report Statistics on Smoking 2011, the NHS admit that there was no overall reduction in reported smoking after the ban of 2007.(There was in fact a slight increase which has since levelled off).
   The Telegraph, in discussing financial investments (so no pussy-footing about here then!), also reported that cigarette consumption in Britain and France went up in 2008 by 1% and 3% respectively.
   Added to that there is an increasing and poorly quantified "black market" in imported cigarettes - after the ban many smokers now go out of their way to get cigarettes from outside Britain so as not to give any tax to a government which broke its election pledge and persecutes them.
   With the acceptance by Cancer Research UK that "recent research suggests self-reported cigarette smoking rates may underestimate true tobacco smoking prevalence by 2.8% in England" it becomes clear that the ban has failed to achieve this major objective.
   
   ii) Children are now more exposed to the social smoking culture in the street and at home.
   If the intention was to shield children from the culture and camaraderie of smoking, surely it would have been better for smokers to be allowed to smoke indoors in properly ventilated smoking rooms rather than being forced outside or back home?

1. The case for the ban protecting non-smokers from lung cancer and heart disease has been shown to be scientifically unjustified.
   
2. Prior to the ban, when non-smoking areas were almost universal and smoking in public buildings and the workplace was a thing of the past, non-smokers, who wished to, could already lead a virtually smoke free life.
   Separate smoking rooms would have made that absolute.
3. Proper ventilation and an air quality standard would readily protect the long term health of non-smoking employees working in smoking areas.
   
4. The ban has :-

• damaged smokers personal and social lives and those of their families and friends - especially for the most vulnerable of smokers
  
• increased the visibility to children of smoking in pubs/cafes, on streets and in the home
  
• increased smoking and drinking in the home
  
• all but destroyed our traditional pub culture and resulted in closure of pubs, restaurants, cafes and other social venues
  
• increased unemployment with all its associated misery and consequential government expenditure.
• successfully appeased anti-smokers