Review of smoking ban

What it asks

What the petitioner did first

1. 27 Nov 2012
   Public Petitions Committee

   New Petitions
   1 mention
2. 22 Jan 2013
   Health and Sport Committee

   Petition
   2 mentions

1. England131 35.1%
2. United Kingdom69 18.5%
3. Scotland68 18.2%
4. United States30 8%
5. Denmark12 3.2%
6. Canada9 2.4%
7. Wales8 2.1%
8. Ireland5 1.3%
9. Spain4 1.1%
10. Austria4 1.1%
11. 18 other countries33 8.8%

1. John Mallon 12 Sep 2012
   Smoking restrictions divide society, close businesses and cost money.
2. The Archivist 12 Sep 2012
   Funny how smoking bans are so vigorously monitored but no notice is taken of the financial depravity caused!
3. christopher whittaker 13 Sep 2012
   the sooner a review is done the better,before more Pubs etc., and jobs are lost due to the ban.
4. Sheila Martin 13 Sep 2012
   My lifetime dream of a trip to Scotland is on hold until pubs can decide who they wish to cater to. This smoking ban nonsense has gone too far!
5. Michael McFadden 13 Sep 2012
   There is no sound reason for government imposed smoking bans rather than the simple setting of reasonable, non-biased, air-quality standards for businesses. We tolerate businesses allowing outdoor daytime patio dining despite the fact that solar radiation is a known human carcinogen with no safe level ever having been established, and such outdoor facilities are neither inherent nor necessary to the business of providing food and drink for patrons. If it is necessary to impose a universal smoking ban on pubs then it should also, likewise, be necessary to impose a universal ban on daytime serviced patio drinking and dining. After all "Why should THEY be the ONLY workers forced to work in a carcinogenic environment?"
   
   Michael J. McFadden
   Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
   Philadelphia, USA
6. Sean Spillane 13 Sep 2012
   The campaign to amend the smoking ban must succeed other wise the health zealots of this country will up their campaign on alcohol and sooner or later we will be told how many pints we are allowed to drink in a week. Sounds ludicrous but they have got the bit between their teeth and will not stop. There is a greater threat to life than smoking and its always been shoved under the carpet, air pollution. A gov report in March 2010 said that it was thre times more lethal than passive smoking, yet we are told that there is no safe level of second hand smoke. Ask your local MP and council to publish how many of the 82, 000 people die from your area every year. I asked that question in Luton and they could not tell me but said around two hundred die each year in Luton from smoking related diseases. Keep the campaign alive.
7. Robert Feal-Martinez 13 Sep 2012
   The smoking bans in the UK have always been based on false science mainly sponsored by the Pharmaceutical industry but also UK Governments.
   
   The truth is passive smoke is virtually harmless. However not content with this ban they are now going after electronic cigarettes because Big D fear the loss of billions from their useless smoking cessation products, some of which have killed dozens of people.
8. mark wernimont 13 Sep 2012
   Air quality testing across the globe proves shs is far SAFER than required by occupational governing authority OSHA.. Further, new advances in air filtration technology insure that shs 'health hazard' effects are even more greatly reduced.
9. martin carroll 13 Sep 2012
   THIS BAN HAS COST MILLIONS
   20,TO 30,OOO JOBS LOST(as a result)
   CHANGE IT MAYBE WE GET SOME BACK
10. Andi Bowden 15 Sep 2012
    It seems clear that not all the available evidence was considered before bringing in a completely unnecessary ban. I hope that Scotland will show the world some common sense.
11. Pete 17 Sep 2012
    The smoking ban is based on lies and deception and the old adage that if you tell a big enough lie and keep telling it people will believe it.
    
    Ventilation is one method that guarantees cleansed air in a smoking environment, many pubs and jobs can be saved now by introducing clean air technology.
12. James Macfarlane 17 Sep 2012
    Smoking in public places is not only harmful and unpleasant to those around you. There's no way it should be brought back.
13. Jocelyn Erskine-Kellie, UK expat living in Malta 17 Sep 2012
    The unnecessary smoking ban has contributed to the depressed state of the economy. So many pubs have gone out of business in the UK and many jobs have been lost. Prior to the smoking ban, a lot of pubs in England had good ventilation systems. The smoking ban is based on false science
    - second hand smoke is virtually harmless
    - it can be irritating to some people but good ventilation and keeping the place clean can solve that problem. The antismoking zealots have gone too far. Now they're going after e-cigarettes, which have helped people cut down or quit. But of course they're not made by the pharma companies, are they! The sooner this smoking ban is reviewed, the better. Hopefully the rest of the world will follow suit.
14. Bill Gibson 18 Sep 2012
    James, the science says otherwise. The Smoking Ban was introduced to protect Bar Workers yet by way of a FoI Request the Scottish Government cannot provide any evidence of anyone having died from second hand smoke. Governments have maipulated scientific studies to meet thir own particular agenda and to further the aims of financial backing from the Pharmaceutical Industry.
15. Pete 20 Sep 2012
    I would just like to add that the RCP do not have any evidence that one person has died from this mysterious second hand smoke and that their so called formula for calculating deaths by second hand smoke is purely hypothetical. I urge the Scottish Parliament to contact the RCP along with the Scottish press so that true facts can be published.
16. John Hughes 22 Sep 2012
    This smoking ban is a ridiculous violation of our human rights. By all means impose restrictions in public places, but on private property? Completely assinine and totally unacceptable. Whatever happened to us Brits fighting for our rights? What a nation of wimps we've become.
17. Margaret Durrance 24 Sep 2012
    We travel a lot but choose our destinations on how smoking friendly the country is. At the moment you're not. Save your economy.
18. B.M.Connaughton 24 Sep 2012
    A totalitarian,blanket ban has no
    place in a nation which has given
    so many of its young in the defence of freedom and liberty elsewhere.
    So many lies,so much deception ,
    so many half truths,such an avalanche of junk science,not to
    mention a background of financial reward from corporate interest.
    The Ban is little more than an
    exposition of puritanical spite,
    unfit for a modern Democracy.
19. Steve Shepherd 24 Sep 2012
    l'll be honest and say that l see little chance of petitions working until we can get the message out on the streets. Majority of smokers simply don't use the internet and those that do use it for such as Facebook or Ebay. Without funds to reach these people nothing will be achieved. Without the backing of the pub chains and tobacco companies our voice will never be heard.
20. Bill Gibson 24 Sep 2012
    Steve, On this occasion the Petition has the support of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association and has been featured in the media over the weekend in the Scotsman and the Scottish Sunday Express. Hope springs eternal that vicory will be ours one day soon as on this occasion, the issue is one of Air Management Technology , not tobacco, not ETS but that of 21st century technology removing a mix of chemicals that are all around us to an approved Indoor Air Quality Standard.
21. Alec Johnston 25 Sep 2012
    I counted less than 20 signatures on this petition from people saying they are from Scotland today (25th Sept).
    Around 110 people from elsewhere in the world have signed.
    Doesn't this impart a very strong mandate to the Scottish Parliament to keep the smoking ban as it is?
22. Gabi Luscia Coleman 26 Sep 2012
    Whether you smoke or not, it is important to stand up against the smoking ban in pubs and clubs. The pub, working mans' club, bingo hall and meeting rooms for the elderly are closing, communities are breaking down and persons are becoming isolated as a result. A business should be free to thrive and make decisions about the facilities that are demanded and supply the demand.
23. Bill Gibson 26 Sep 2012
    As you have signed the Petition Alex, you should then promote the cause at every opportunity. Why be governed by gross misinformation when it is easier to present the truth? A quote from Andy Kerr MSP, Health Minister on the 26th March 2006 on STV " There are 4000 carcinogens in second hand smoke" and I hae the evidence on video to present to the Petitions Committee.
24. Andrew Hirst 26 Sep 2012
    This illiberal act by the nanny state should be challenged everywhere,
25. Frank J 27 Sep 2012
    There are not '4000 carcinogens' in tobacco smoke. There are 4000 chemicals, only a handful being in the slightest carcinogenic and none above the approved safety levels.
26. Chas Winfield 27 Sep 2012
    It doesn't matter whether there is no wind or not it is far healthier to sit in a pub where there is smoking and ventilation than sitting outside, because the ventilation inside will take nearly all the smoke out of the room but outside the smoke will go sideways (sidestream).
27. Alec Johnston 27 Sep 2012
    Are you referring to me Bill Gibson? I haven't signed this petition, unless someone has forged my name on it.
    
    Why do you think so few Scots have signed the petition?
    
    Surely the Scottish Parliament shouldn't be influenced by signatories from USA, Canada, England, Italy, Croatia, Jersey, Germany, Denmark, Australia, Netherlands, Brazil, Taiwan, Wales, Ireland and Greece.
    
    This smacks of the efforts of the international tobacco lobbying community rather than being something of real interest to genuine Scottish citizens. Only 19 or 20 signatories say they are from Scotland (1pm on 27 9 12)
    
    If this was a big issue in Scotland, wouldn't more Scottish people have signed up?
    
    It can't be that people don't know about it. 175 people from outside of Scotland have found their way here and signed.
    
    It was in the Scotsman on 21st September.
    
    Everything points to Scots liking the current arrangements, and only a tiny minority of the population, most already engaged in smoking pressure groups, being motivated to sign this petition.
28. Jack Currie 27 Sep 2012
    Scotland needs to follow the example of several other countries, for example the Swiss, in allowing a measure of choice to its population. A return to complete freedom for smokers is never going to come but provision of limited facilities
    - e.g. separate rooms in pubs
    - is in no way an infringement of non-smokers' liberties and is indeed an indication that Scotland is a place where diverse people can live in harmony and with respect for others' rights and privileges.
29. I.G.Ellis 27 Sep 2012
    I wish this petition all the best, I am a non smoker,but have seen the financial destruction this selfish,nasty unnecessary meddling has caused to the UK & other countries
30. Bill Gibson 27 Sep 2012
    Alex
    
    You should consider that there are many ex-pats on the list born and bred Scots. Just because you are agaist free choice and prefer dictatorship does not give you the right to impose such on the rest of us
31. Bill Gibson 27 Sep 2012
    Alex would do well to consider Article 1 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948
    
    All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
    
    We scots are well known for our open welcome to others, the First Minister wants ex-pats to return to their homeland but first of all we need to be seen to be tollerant and accommodating to encourage them home and to bring their friends with them.
    
    &6% of the nation wanted choice when the sham Consultation took place in 2005 ... look what we got and now the pub trade is on its knees.
32. graham alleway 27 Sep 2012
    The ban has always been about prejudice against tobacco enjoyment, and preference of the anti tobacco lobby. A so called charity, a much distorted description these days, only exists to continually deny the liberty to enjoy a vice in peace and comfort. Their charity status should be removed, and sponsors denied the right to fuel the machine with donors money. Funds should be used for proper charitable work, not supporting political organisations. It is OK to provide help for people who wish to give up tobacco, but not engage in stigmatising, or encouraging employers and public services to impose prejudice that they have no right to do so. The ban has been a catastrophic financial and social disaster. If the same degree of extremism was applied to alcohol then weird pictures should replace the enticing labels and logos. Sponsorship money would be stopped for sporting events. Cars would be forced to display accident pictures across the bodywork, burgers would be badged with clogged arteries. The ban has been so negative and divisive, it would have been better to have improved air conditioning in pubs and clubs, creating jobs in that industry and accommodating an inclusive comfortable environment. A more balanced approach would have been gained if groups concerned with tobacco were staffed with a majority of tobacco users that would have prevented the prejudice and distorted outcome we have now. Sensible restrictions on tobacco use i am sure is supported by all, but nonsense bans, extremism and prejudice just discredits those who promote such. Respect and provision for all is a much more civilised way forward. Perhaps as the screw turns and the antis realise that extremism and prejudice isolates them, and has no place in a tolerant and inclusive society, they might adopt a fairer stance. After all the first person on the scene in their moment of need might be smoker, as we exist in every sector of society.
33. Alec Johnston 27 Sep 2012
    Bill, my name is Alec. You say that "there are many ex-pats on the list born and bred Scots". I presume from this that you must know everyone on the list from your pro-tobacco lobbying activities.
    I'm not imposing anything on you. The will of the people of Scotland is very clear from their absence from the petition signatories.
    I don't think the Scottish Parliament should be influenced by a showing of your tobacco lobby friends from USA, Canada, England, Italy, Croatia, Jersey, Germany, Denmark, Australia, Netherlands, Brazil, Taiwan, Wales, Ireland and Greece.
34. Belinda Cunnison 28 Sep 2012
    Unlike the Scotsman and the Express, Alec dismisses the petition purely on the number of signatures. The petition was reported by journalists who had read it and considered it added to the discussions we have had so far. Alec states the international source of signatures means that the campaign is orchestrated by the tobacco companies, and then alleges that Bill Gibson knows personally everyone who has signed .
    
    None of this is relevant. The petition looks at whether the hospitality industry should make use of air quality standards and air cleaning equipment (designed to remove toxins that are perilous to health in the _immediate_ term, and so _far_ more toxic than tobacco smoke, where there is significant dispute about its _long-term_ effects) in order to allow smoking in hospitality and recreational venues, and also ridding the air of toxins from all other sources.
    
    To say that the will of the people of Scotland is decided on the level of signatures is absurd. The discussion is only just beginning.
35. Alec Johnston 28 Sep 2012
    Belinda
    How else are we to judge support for an issue other than by the numbers of people who support it. The fact that Bill Gibson knows all the people who've signed shows that it is only a bunch of lobbyists who are bothered enough to sign. And only around 10% of them are from Scotland.
36. Bill Gibson 28 Sep 2012
    Alec, you present us with the classic symptom of a Tobacco Control Advocate. You may well recognise the disease when you look at this web site
    
    google.... tobacco control tactics dot org
37. Alec Johnston 28 Sep 2012
    Belinda
    It is wrong to say that 'all toxins have safe levels listed in ...EH40'. EH40 lists maximum exposure levels, not 'safe levels'. It also doesn't give a 'level' for some of the carcinogens in tobacco smoke, eg benzopyrene or some of the carcinogenic combustion products of nicotine, eg nitrosomines.
    Industry doesn't use general ventilation to deal with carcinogens and similarly harmful agents. The most toxic compounds are handled in completely sealed glove box fume cupboards. Slightly less toxic compounds might be handled in high flowrate fume cupboards with a restricted open area in the front. As we get less toxic you would have to use local exhaust ventilation which uses powerful suction to remove the dust or gas from next to where it is generated, as with woodwork machines or welding in enclosed places. Despite what current and former ventilation salesmen might tell you, to comply with health and safety law when handling carcinogens it is the requirement to reduce the air levels to as far as is reasonably practicable, not just to the standards in EH40, which you have very selectively quoted in your petition. As it is possible to lower the concentration of carginogen exposure to workers to levels far lower than general ventilation can achieve, these methods described earlier would still have to be used. I hope the Scottish Parliament will run your proposals past the Health and Safety Executive for some impartial and expert advice.
38. Jim McNaught 28 Sep 2012
    I do wonder why the "Tabloid" press do not inform their readership of this petition,after all most people read these "papers" and are most affected by the issues it addresses.
39. Bill Gibson 28 Sep 2012
    Oh Alec, another clasic symptom by a Tobacco Control Advocate namely bending the truth to suit you agenda. Where have I claimed that I knew all these people you must try harder, much hrder in future to get you facts right..
40. Bill Gibson 28 Sep 2012
    Alec, to avoid further confusion I will attempt to enlighten you .
    1. I am a lifelong non-smoker
    2. I know some of the signatories, many I would like to know.
    3. We Scots lost our right to control our own destiny in December 2010 when the UK signed the Lisbon Treaty.
    4. The current Smoking Ban was as a result of demands made by the EU as we hold documentation dated 2002 detailing how legislation should be enforced, how anyone defying such a ban should be delt with and to make examples of any high profile decenters.
    5. As the EU is a Partner of the United Nations, other nationalities have a right to participate in any debate created to make amendments as seen fit and to ensure that fairness prevails throughout all UN member nations.
    
    As there are already internationally accepted Indoor Air Quaity Standards in operation it is only right that the Smokefree Legislation be revisited to take into account 21st century Air Management Technology linked to these Standards already in operation and in particular those approved across all EU member states for the reasons given earlier.
41. C,peters 28 Sep 2012
    If you smoke get this signed
42. Mike Holden 28 Sep 2012
    Please allow smoking in pubs and bring back joie-de-vivrel.
43. susan taylor 29 Sep 2012
    well said Belinda this should have been the answer from the start, then we would not have had closure of so many pubs and our elderly and disabled would still be able to enjoy there social life instead of not going out for fear of getting soaked or catching colds while enjoying there cigarette or pipe.
    The only enjoyment some of the elderly had was there afternoon in the pub with there friends a game of dominoes and there smoke. Some of whom fought in the war for there country what a way to treat them. The solution should have been the equipment to filter the air and let these old veterans enjoy there time left on this earth. We have not got the climate to send old people outside for a smoke and let's not forget when they started smoking it was pushed on them by all the advertising and cheap cigarettes from the service.
44. Esther Nolan 1 Oct 2012
    We should have at least some places where we can sit have a coffee and a cig it's getting beyond a joke
45. Alec Johnston 1 Oct 2012
    Bill, in you list of enlightening information you neglect to say that you were a ventilation salesman, and seem to spend a big chunk of your life posting links to ventilation system promotional literature. As a former ventilation system supplier you really should be honest and tell teh Scottish Parliament that the most effective way to remove pollutants from the air that people breathe is firstly not to have them created in the first place, and secondly to remove them at source so they don't mix with the air in the room. Your petition proposes the far less effective version of letting the smoke mix with the air as it is created, then filtering the air. This is not the most reasonably practicable solution, and therefore wouldn't meet the requirements of EH40 for carcinogens. I sincerely hope the Scottish Parliament don't let themselves be duped by your sales pitch.
46. Bill Gibson 1 Oct 2012
    Alex, in 2005 for approximately 6 months of my career, I looked into the market potential on. behalf of Tornex Europe (including attending the SLTA Seminar on 13th January 2005 in Edinburgh on their behalf). At no time did I sell, or technically support the installation of any equipment for that company and acted on a self employed, consultancy basis. Unless you can prove otherwise then you are treading on very dangerous, legal grounds.
    
    Beyond that, I have taken my own personal time (unpaid) to research the market, the manufacturers and the very, very interesting subject of Indoor Air Quality issues especially in the healthcare environment and the subjects of MRSA and C-dif.
    
    I now challenge you to make public your proof of your claims regarding my career or to make a pubilc apology.
47. Bill Gibson 1 Oct 2012
    Alec, whta to fail to include in your views regarding workplace chemical hazards is that all measurable chemicals have a safe limit of exposure based upon an 8 hour working day.
    
    Science holds the key, look towards Close Coupled Field Technology (CCFT) or Plasmacluster Ion Technology where the ions attach themselves to th pollutants, changing their molicular structure, rendering the polutant harmless and turning it into a water vapour.. Such systems can also be installed within existing ventilation, air filtration ducts so there is no major redesign of a building HVAC system.
48. Bill Gibson 1 Oct 2012
    Oh, and don't worry Alec, should I be afforded the opportunity of speaking to the Committee, I will make sure that they are aware of any vested interests that need to be declared in advance of making my views known, such as that I represent an Organistion Member of the Human Rights Cross-Party Group within the Scottish Parliament and have done for sweveral years. This position has brought me into contact with several senior politicians over the years and I would not compromise my or their positions by not disclosing anything that is relevent to this Petition.
49. Alec Johnston 1 Oct 2012
    Bill, you declare that "all measurable chemicals have a safe limit of exposure based upon an 8 hour working day". What is that level for each of the carcinogens in tobacco smoke? Is simply achieving the level for a carcinogen good enough for EH40, or do you have to go lower if a method to reduce it further exists and is reasonably practicable? And what level of the carcinogens in tobacco smoke is 'safe' for the ones not listed in EH40?
50. Bill Gibson 1 Oct 2012
    Alec, what makes you think that carcinogens are different be it they are derived from tobacco smoke, smoke from an open fire, smoke from a bbq, smoke from frying. The same carcinogens are released from the soft furnishings within a room as a result of the manufacturing process or chemical cleaning agents. So can you actually determine the source of the 6 carcinogens that have been identified as being cancer causing that may or may not be present in a room where tobacco may or may not have been used. I know the answer by do you?