I would suggest to posters here that they ignore Rollo altogether - I have met him before. I greatly admire his cleverness, but I simply do not understand how anyone so clever can support the passive smoking argument - very odd. Better not to argue with Rollo - he will lead you off the point.

What is the point? The point is that the whole smoking ban is based upon the idea that staff in 'public places' are harmed by ambient tobacco smoke. This argument is not based upon scientific fact, it is based upon this very simple statement: "If tobacco smoke is damaging to people who actually smoke, then it must be damaging to people who do not actually smoke but breath in tobacco smoke which is in the air" That is the argument for the ban - and that is the only argument. That is the argument that persuaded MPs to vote for the ban,

But we must understand the fallacy of the argument. Let me put it this way:
One cannot deny that eating vast quantities of sugar can 'cause' diabetes, or, that eating vast quantities of salt can 'cause' heart disease, but do we therefore eat zero amounts of sugar or salt? Well, of course not. In fact, the human body NEEDS sugar (in one form or another) and it needs salt (one can actually go further than that - one can show that the human body actually EXCRETES salt which is surplus to its requirements - but, of course, bodily functions can be disrupted by a CONTINUOUS intake of vast amounts of sugar and salt)

It bothers me that the government ALLOWS, and indeed encourages, the campaigns against sugar and salt without pointing out the dangers of ZERO intake (particularly as regards salt). And therein lies the iniquity of the smoking ban.

It sounds as if I am saying that some level of tobacco smoke intake is desirable, but that is not my intention. M|y intention is to indicate that the government ought not to be spreading the idea that ANY level of intake of tobacco smoke is harmful. The human body is quite capable of dealing with the intake of substances in the air which we breathe, such as plant detritus, pollen, sand, dust, minuscule insects, water, smoke, bacteria, viruses, and so on.

And here is the important point - WHY DOESN'T THE GOVERNMENT POINT OUT THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR HEALTH HYSTERIA?

I make this point in particular for this reason. I recently wrote a letter to the Sec of State for Health to complain about the inaccuracies in the 'take 7 steps out' advert (the one where the mum is having a fag on the doorstep and the voice over says that she may still be harming her children in the house). The reply that I received from his representative claimed that death could be avoided. DEATH CAN BE AVOIDED! The representative of of the Sec of State for Health stated this as a fact.

Dishonesty is endemic in the government and all the government's organisations - the quangos, the fake charities, ASH, CRUK, etc. This dishonesty has even entered into The Royal Society (for the Advancement of Science)! The anti-tobacco zealots have taken over the most eminent society in the world; the society having among its members the likes of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Einstein, etc.

Somehow or other, the dishonesty must stop.

Oh, by the way, where are all the 'stinkers'? You know, all the people who claim that whenever they went into a smoking place, they had to shower, wash their hair and wash their clothes immediately after going to such a place. Where are they?
Is this a silly comment? I think not.

Kellner said "Now that all provinces have banned displays, smuggling has fallen."

Wrong again. Not only has the increasing taxation increase illegal sales but the displan ban too.

As reported in the Toronto Golbal Post 4/12/09

"Cigarette smuggling rises in Canada"

"The black market in cigarettes is believed to be a $1.5 billion industry in Canada. The Ontario government estimates that half of all cigarettes sold in the province are illegal. In neighboring Quebec, that number is 40 percent. Contraband smokes cost the federal and provincial governments more than $2 billion in lost taxes."

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/canada/091201/cigarettes-smuggling

Rosemary Gillespie (12.32, 22/10),

"Tobacco companies need to recruit new smokers in order to maintain sales but research shows young smokers are not brand loyal like established smokers. This is where point of sale displays and vending machines come in as they are the only point of advertising that is currently still available."

Every time youngsters see groups of smokers standing outside pubs, smoking is advertised. Every time an NRT ad is broadcast on TV, smoking is advertised. Smoking has never been so visible.

As long as tobacco exists, youngsters will be tempted to take up smoking and the more dangerous it seems, the more tempted they are. How convenient for tobacco control that no government will ban it because, without smokers, the mendacious, disreputable ASH and its cohorts lose their raison d'etre. Our society would be a happier, and very probably, equally healthy, place.

Junican - The reason I know about the 85k deaths is because I actually treated your comment seriously enough to go googling for information about it myself.

I'm delighted if you think I'm an expert, but what I know I have only picked up from learning in my own free time. It's lazy, insulting as well as wrong to assme I must work for ome tobacco control group.

In my search I didn't find the provenance for the 85k figure. But remember you have to add figures for all Celtic nations, not just Scotland. And you have to appreciate that levels of exposure there (esp Scotland) are likely to be higher than England.

And my provenance for the 114k figure is important. It's an authoritative source. And if you google for 114,000 deaths, you'll find that figure referred to consistently in a large number of settings.

I also would say there is nothing "corrupt" about Hewitt referring to ASH in her speech. The worst you could say about it is that she could have used another source instead which was more authoritative possibly and more dispassionate definitely.