“All these anti-smoking zealots should do some research and not rely on what governments and doctors say.

Contrary to myth, the anti-smoking lobby is very well funded to the extent of milllions if US$ by global drug giants through an organization called GlobaLink who has successfully infiltrated every government in the world. Today, its smoking, tomorrow, who knows?

Let's be clear, there has not been one study to prove beyond doubt that smoking kills to the extent claimed. There are various studies the anti-smoking group rely on (called epidemiolgy which should not even be classed as a science but at best is guesswork), but these are unsafe because in laymans terms, they take 1+1= anything they want by attributing every disease related to smoking and blaming it on smoking and discounting the possibility of other causes. Although there do seem to ba an increased but minimal statistical risks in smoking, it is not as much as claimed by the anti-smoking zealots. The only accurate way of measuring deaths by smoking is that on autopsy, the disease is identified, then statistical research on what can cause that disease is done and then attribute it according to the % of smokers that dies from that disease. For example, heart disease is blamed on smoking, but one of the major causes is in fact obesity.

If any anti-smoker suggest that smokers be denied NHS, then I would suggest that I refuse to pay for treatment of obese people for diabetes and heart disease! On average, anyone with a waistline over 34 inches!

Now the USA has a smoker as a President, let's see if we can get some proper reseacrh into the hazards of smoking instead of the propoganda!”

“I can honestly say that I don't know a single smoker who has stopped going to the pub I drink in due to the smoking ban.”

“Eclipse: Is there any other kindof anti-smoking zealot?”

“Eclipse: Is there any other kind of anti-smoking zealot??”

“Andy From Sandbach.

A truly magnificent example of an anti-smoking zealot who can't see past his own nose.”

“Eclipse, from Sheffield.
A truly magnificent example of pointless childishness.”

“Other countries in Europe have amended their smoking bans and now have smoking and non-smoking pubs, which is working well. Many publicans here want to remain smoke free, while many other want smokers back inside to save their pubs. So giving choice to publicans, smokers and non-smokers would make everybody happy.”

“Andy: You are more *likely* to go to a pub now?

Doesn't really help the situation, does it?

They need you and the antis business now. They were promised this before the ban came in.

Oh and your clothes and hair, in fact your whole body stinks after a night out, as the smell of stale alcohol seeps out of your pores.

Just a quick question, how many times a week do you go out? once?, twice? or as a suspect, less than once a week.....

To all the anti-smokers:

Antis *are* selfish. They expect everyone to be as they are. You cannot be everywhere at once. why should any place be 'smoke-free' just on the off chance you decide to go there?

It shouldn't be for anyone to dictate to a landlord how they run there premises.

Clearly signed 'smoking' or 'non smoking' outside of the doors of a pub is a simple way of compromise (you do know what that means, antis?)

Are you all frightened that you'll be left sipping your G n' T or glass of wine, while the smoking pub across the road have a good night?

Smacks of jealousy to me.

No need to be jealous. If there's a smoking pub with us in it, you're quite welcome to join us. Just don't dictate what we can and can't do while you're in there.”

“There's nothing wrong with choice.

That way the likes of Andy who doesn't like his clothes smelling etc, can socialise in comfort, and the likes of others are also able to socialise in comfort and safety.

Ms Parr is correct. The NHS Smoking Cessation services has a 98.4% failure rate and we taxpayer's are paying for this. Why? Smoking has been decreasing year on year anyway.

If you digest the government debates on the matter, you will see that the smoking ban was introduced as a way to get smokers to stop smoking. Even our own H&S Executive claimed that passive smoking posed no risks.

The anti-smoking extremists will stop at nothing to achieve their goal.

The law was passed to supposedy protect workers - not to stop people going home smelling of smoke if they didn't wish to.

I see that our workers have been protected - 100,000 in the hospitality industry now on the dole. Even ASH - our main anti-smoking extremist group claim that the smoking ban was responsible for 50% of those job losses. They didn't apologise for their fraudulent lobbying though, when they accused the industry of crying wolf.

Shame on them and shame on anyone who follows extremism rather than democracy and choice”

“The smoking ban should be amended to allow choice.

That way, those like Andy who don't like the smell can socialise in comfort and others, who are at the moment having to socialse at home, can socialise like they used to and keep people in jobs.

Ms Parr is correct. Smoking cessation services have a 98.4% failure rate.

Taxpayers are paying millions of pounds to fund this failure.

The smoking ban was always about getting people to quit - read the government debates. It was nothing to do with how people's clothes smell. It was passed on the dubious evidence from the anti-smoking extremists (that even our very own H&S Executive rejected) to protect workers. It had nothing to do with protecting the public.

I see the workers have now been protected - 100,000 in the industry are now claiming dole (or whatever the new PC word is for dole).

Choice is needed to cater for everyone. No stinking clothes for those that don't like it - but a night out for those that don't mind.

Extremism never succeeds.”