Cheshire MEP says it's time to ease smoke ban on pubs as new figures show 31 are closing every week

Cheshire MEP says it's time to ease smoke ban on pubs as new figures show 31 are closing every week

Cheshire MEP says it's time to ease smoke ban on pubs as new figures show 31 are closing every week

First published in News

NEW figures showing pub closures have accelerated to 31 per week have led to calls to reduce taxes and ease the smoking ban on the local boozer.

The figures are released as part of real ale group Camra's "Pubs Matter"campaign and show 3% of pubs in the suburbs have shut in the past six months.

Paul Nuttall, UKIP’s deputy leader and Northwest MEP, said “It is completely unfair that pubs are paying nearly ten times more tax on a price of a pint in comparison to supermarkets.

"The smoking ban also severely hit pubs right across the country - if landlords want a well-ventilated room set aside for smokers they should be able to make that choice.

"This move along with reducing VAT for the hospitality industry would support local pubs and decelerate the rate they’re closing each and every week”.

He added: “Cheap deals in big superstores ultimately leads to more people drinking large quantities before they go out, leading to even greater losses for pub landlords.

“A host of countries across Europe have lower levels of VAT in order to protect hospitality businesses. The end result is more bars are staying open and employing more people”.

Camra said pubs support more than a million jobs and each contributes an average of £80,000 to its local economy each year.

The smoking ban in England - making it illegal to smoke in all enclosed work places - came into force in July 2007 under the Health Act.

A review of evidence on the impact in England in 2012 was commissioned by the Government and carried out by Professor Linda Bauld from the University of Stirling and the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies.

Professor Bauld's report concluded: "The law has had a significant impact."

"Results show benefits for health, changes in attitudes and behaviour - and no clear adverse impact on the hospitality industry."

One of the few places where it is still NOT illegal to light up is inside the Palace of Westminster, but in the "spirit of the law" MPs and Lords have restricted smoking to just four areas in the grounds.

Comments (16)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:58pm Tue 12 Aug 14

nisakiman says...

"Results show benefits for health, changes in attitudes and behaviour - and no clear adverse impact on the hospitality industry."

Given that Professor Bauld is a fully paid up (and paid for, with taxpayers' money) anti-smoking fanatic who lobbied for the ban in the first place, it's hardly surprising that she came up with that utter tripe. Hardly an objective observer.

"...no clear adverse impact on the hospitality industry"???

Does she really expect people to swallow that? Since the ban in 2007, more than 14,000, yes, that's FOURTEEN THOUSAND pubs have closed.

No adverse impact?

How many people have lost their jobs, businesses, homes from those 14,000 pubs that have closed?

No adverse impact?

Either Prof. Bauld is living in a parallel universe, or she's lying through her teeth. I suspect the latter.
"Results show benefits for health, changes in attitudes and behaviour - and no clear adverse impact on the hospitality industry." Given that Professor Bauld is a fully paid up (and paid for, with taxpayers' money) anti-smoking fanatic who lobbied for the ban in the first place, it's hardly surprising that she came up with that utter tripe. Hardly an objective observer. "...no clear adverse impact on the hospitality industry"??? Does she really expect people to swallow that? Since the ban in 2007, more than 14,000, yes, that's FOURTEEN THOUSAND pubs have closed. No adverse impact? How many people have lost their jobs, businesses, homes from those 14,000 pubs that have closed? No adverse impact? Either Prof. Bauld is living in a parallel universe, or she's lying through her teeth. I suspect the latter. nisakiman
  • Score: 25

9:42pm Tue 12 Aug 14

Ray_Yeates says...

O___________________
____/ a $nake can't crawl without squirming.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$

All that $quirming has been direct deception to the people.
All that $quirming has elected the new giant to grab the taxe$
All that $quirming now finances the next ban. E-cigs. Personal Vaporizers.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$

We happen to have rights too. You have violated them, cashed in on them and lie about to the masses about our health. Go fire up your limo and we can freely inhale the domestic and foreign cancers for our health. Generate your $uper $tores and $quirm away. One day however we will have had enough. That's my story and I'm stickin to it!

Stand up for your right people. EXPOSE the $nakes and watch them squirm!
O___________________ ____/ a $nake can't crawl without squirming. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$ All that $quirming has been direct deception to the people. All that $quirming has elected the new giant to grab the taxe$ All that $quirming now finances the next ban. E-cigs. Personal Vaporizers. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$ We happen to have rights too. You have violated them, cashed in on them and lie about to the masses about our health. Go fire up your limo and we can freely inhale the domestic and foreign cancers for our health. Generate your $uper $tores and $quirm away. One day however we will have had enough. That's my story and I'm stickin to it! Stand up for your right people. EXPOSE the $nakes and watch them squirm! Ray_Yeates
  • Score: 9

9:50pm Tue 12 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

nap.edu

This sorta says it all

These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''

OSHA SAFE LEVELS

All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzopyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes.

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA.

Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!
Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition nap.edu This sorta says it all These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one. So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS'' OSHA SAFE LEVELS All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR. For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes. "For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes. "Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes. Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up. "For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes. For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time. The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes. So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets : Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA. Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science! harleyrider1777
  • Score: 11

10:00pm Tue 12 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

The entire anti-smoking agenda from the WHO FCTC treaty forced down every countries throats has been a SHAM built upon JUNK SCIENCE,JUNK CLAIMS OF HARM where no study can produce any harm to anyone from either direct smoking or even second hand smoke much less the THird Hand smoke junk science claims now being pushed around like the plague!

We all know the bans are nothing but denormalization tactics against the FREE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD. Its not just smokers but every human being being forced to live by the new LIFESTYLE LAWS being forced upon us all. Its why we voted UKIP who has promised to deliver us all from the clutches of the Pharoahs and Hitlers who enslave us to their whims of self righteous living. Stealing are money thru punitive taxation as we slave each day to find a days work to put even unhealthy foods in our stomachs. We have the NHS refusing to treat us if we smoke,or if we are fat or if or if or if...............It never ends the Nannying Tyrants of this world as they take us all to task to live as plebes and Serfs to the country in which we live but all under the Auspices of the UNITED NATIONS and the EU politicos that should be strung from a Nuremberg Galows as Hitlers henchmen were done to. WE ARE FREE PEOPLE NOT SLAVES TO THE STATE NOR TO THEIR SOCK PUPPET TAX PAYER PAID FRONT GROUPS LIKE ASH et al........

Is it to say to arms to arms or to say to the polls and vote these dirty rats out that condemn us to live as rats in a gutter to their whims!

ARE WE NOT FREEMEN

ARE WENOT FREE WOMEN

ARE WE NOT FREE TO DECIDE OUR OWN FATES AND LIFESTYLES ANSWERING TO NO PERSON OR DESPOT!

We are FREE and we are not owned by anyone and its high time we took to the streets and took back the UK we knew a free and individual personage of choise and liberty!

To the streets Lads and Ladies WE HAVE HAD ENUF!
The entire anti-smoking agenda from the WHO FCTC treaty forced down every countries throats has been a SHAM built upon JUNK SCIENCE,JUNK CLAIMS OF HARM where no study can produce any harm to anyone from either direct smoking or even second hand smoke much less the THird Hand smoke junk science claims now being pushed around like the plague! We all know the bans are nothing but denormalization tactics against the FREE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD. Its not just smokers but every human being being forced to live by the new LIFESTYLE LAWS being forced upon us all. Its why we voted UKIP who has promised to deliver us all from the clutches of the Pharoahs and Hitlers who enslave us to their whims of self righteous living. Stealing are money thru punitive taxation as we slave each day to find a days work to put even unhealthy foods in our stomachs. We have the NHS refusing to treat us if we smoke,or if we are fat or if or if or if...............It never ends the Nannying Tyrants of this world as they take us all to task to live as plebes and Serfs to the country in which we live but all under the Auspices of the UNITED NATIONS and the EU politicos that should be strung from a Nuremberg Galows as Hitlers henchmen were done to. WE ARE FREE PEOPLE NOT SLAVES TO THE STATE NOR TO THEIR SOCK PUPPET TAX PAYER PAID FRONT GROUPS LIKE ASH et al........ Is it to say to arms to arms or to say to the polls and vote these dirty rats out that condemn us to live as rats in a gutter to their whims! ARE WE NOT FREEMEN ARE WENOT FREE WOMEN ARE WE NOT FREE TO DECIDE OUR OWN FATES AND LIFESTYLES ANSWERING TO NO PERSON OR DESPOT! We are FREE and we are not owned by anyone and its high time we took to the streets and took back the UK we knew a free and individual personage of choise and liberty! To the streets Lads and Ladies WE HAVE HAD ENUF! harleyrider1777
  • Score: 6

10:52pm Tue 12 Aug 14

UsernameAlreadyInUse says...

Wow, I don't know what you're smoking, but it's not tobacco...

I hate smoking. I tried it, once, hated it. Used to hate going out and coughing my lungs up because of 2nd hand smoke. Hate sitting in taxis where the drivers have been smoking. Quite like breathing relatively clean, fresh air thank you. Think it's one of the most antisocial habits you can partake in. So no, keep it out of all public places, and even widen the scope to ban smoking in streets and parks. You want to smoke, do it in your own home, or in your own garden - not somewhere where I might breathe it in.
Wow, I don't know what you're smoking, but it's not tobacco... I hate smoking. I tried it, once, hated it. Used to hate going out and coughing my lungs up because of 2nd hand smoke. Hate sitting in taxis where the drivers have been smoking. Quite like breathing relatively clean, fresh air thank you. Think it's one of the most antisocial habits you can partake in. So no, keep it out of all public places, and even widen the scope to ban smoking in streets and parks. You want to smoke, do it in your own home, or in your own garden - not somewhere where I might breathe it in. UsernameAlreadyInUse
  • Score: -1

10:58pm Tue 12 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

UsernameAlreadyInUse wrote:
Wow, I don't know what you're smoking, but it's not tobacco...

I hate smoking. I tried it, once, hated it. Used to hate going out and coughing my lungs up because of 2nd hand smoke. Hate sitting in taxis where the drivers have been smoking. Quite like breathing relatively clean, fresh air thank you. Think it's one of the most antisocial habits you can partake in. So no, keep it out of all public places, and even widen the scope to ban smoking in streets and parks. You want to smoke, do it in your own home, or in your own garden - not somewhere where I might breathe it in.
The anti-smoking PSYCHOSIS has been studied and found non-harmful and they can seek treatment!

Toxicol Rev. 2003;22(4):235-46.

Idiopathic environmental intolerance: Part 1: A causation analysis applying Bradford Hill's criteria to the toxicogenic theory.

Staudenmayer H, Binkley KE, Leznoff A, Phillips S.

Source

Behavioral Medicine, Multi-Disciplinary Toxicology, Treatment and Research Center, Denver, Colorado 80222, USA. hstaudenmayer@comcas
t.net

Abstract

Idiopathic environmental intolerance (IEI) is a descriptor for a phenomenon that has many names including environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity and chemical intolerance. Toxicogenic and psychogenic theories have been proposed to explain IEI. This paper presents a causality analysis of the toxicogenic theory using Bradford Hill's nine criteria (strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, biological plausibility, coherence, experimental intervention and analogy) and an additional criteria (reversibility) and reviews critically the scientific literature on the topic. The results of this analysis indicate that the toxicogenic theory fails all of these criteria. There is no convincing evidence to support the fundamental postulate that IEI has a toxic aetiology; the hypothesised biological processes and mechanisms are implausible.
...
[quote][p][bold]UsernameAlreadyInUse[/bold] wrote: Wow, I don't know what you're smoking, but it's not tobacco... I hate smoking. I tried it, once, hated it. Used to hate going out and coughing my lungs up because of 2nd hand smoke. Hate sitting in taxis where the drivers have been smoking. Quite like breathing relatively clean, fresh air thank you. Think it's one of the most antisocial habits you can partake in. So no, keep it out of all public places, and even widen the scope to ban smoking in streets and parks. You want to smoke, do it in your own home, or in your own garden - not somewhere where I might breathe it in.[/p][/quote]The anti-smoking PSYCHOSIS has been studied and found non-harmful and they can seek treatment! Toxicol Rev. 2003;22(4):235-46. Idiopathic environmental intolerance: Part 1: A causation analysis applying Bradford Hill's criteria to the toxicogenic theory. Staudenmayer H, Binkley KE, Leznoff A, Phillips S. Source Behavioral Medicine, Multi-Disciplinary Toxicology, Treatment and Research Center, Denver, Colorado 80222, USA. hstaudenmayer@comcas t.net Abstract Idiopathic environmental intolerance (IEI) is a descriptor for a phenomenon that has many names including environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity and chemical intolerance. Toxicogenic and psychogenic theories have been proposed to explain IEI. This paper presents a causality analysis of the toxicogenic theory using Bradford Hill's nine criteria (strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, biological plausibility, coherence, experimental intervention and analogy) and an additional criteria (reversibility) and reviews critically the scientific literature on the topic. The results of this analysis indicate that the toxicogenic theory fails all of these criteria. There is no convincing evidence to support the fundamental postulate that IEI has a toxic aetiology; the hypothesised biological processes and mechanisms are implausible. ... harleyrider1777
  • Score: -2

12:28pm Wed 13 Aug 14

homebody says...

I too hate smoking. I grew up in it having no choice or escape. As an adult I welcomed the ban and find going into pubs and public places a much nicer experience. If the ban was relaxed we would never take our young son to lunch in a pub again. My husband is an ex smoker and totally agrees with the ban. He doesn't think that non-smokers should be exposed to it. A lot of his friends still smoke and gladly go outside to do it. From the point of view of many pubs around here, the concensus seems to be that it's the brewery prices that are closing down pubs, not the smoking ban. Brewery owned pubs cannot make profits for themselves, simple as that. A friend has recently bought a freehold pub and can buy alcohol from anywhere he wants - he is making a fortune!
I too hate smoking. I grew up in it having no choice or escape. As an adult I welcomed the ban and find going into pubs and public places a much nicer experience. If the ban was relaxed we would never take our young son to lunch in a pub again. My husband is an ex smoker and totally agrees with the ban. He doesn't think that non-smokers should be exposed to it. A lot of his friends still smoke and gladly go outside to do it. From the point of view of many pubs around here, the concensus seems to be that it's the brewery prices that are closing down pubs, not the smoking ban. Brewery owned pubs cannot make profits for themselves, simple as that. A friend has recently bought a freehold pub and can buy alcohol from anywhere he wants - he is making a fortune! homebody
  • Score: 0

8:00pm Wed 13 Aug 14

hectorplain says...

Tobacco revenues are falling as a result of crippling taxation and stigmatisation of smoking; this means these policies are working and lives are being saved.

This moron wants to reverse the trend presumably to boost the coffers to fund his excessive expense claims.

I prescribe that he observes a serious lung operation so that he can observe at first hand what his ludicrous rantings will produce.
Tobacco revenues are falling as a result of crippling taxation and stigmatisation of smoking; this means these policies are working and lives are being saved. This moron wants to reverse the trend presumably to boost the coffers to fund his excessive expense claims. I prescribe that he observes a serious lung operation so that he can observe at first hand what his ludicrous rantings will produce. hectorplain
  • Score: 0

9:25am Thu 14 Aug 14

northwichboy says...

I loved smoking until 4 year's ago when I witnessed 4 close family die of cancer. Who are you kidding its a proven fact that smoking increases the risk of cancer smells disgusting and spends alot of your disposable income. I wont start ever again and wouldn't want to socialise in anywhere that makes me and my clothes stink never mind the secondary smoking.
I loved smoking until 4 year's ago when I witnessed 4 close family die of cancer. Who are you kidding its a proven fact that smoking increases the risk of cancer smells disgusting and spends alot of your disposable income. I wont start ever again and wouldn't want to socialise in anywhere that makes me and my clothes stink never mind the secondary smoking. northwichboy
  • Score: -4

12:31pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Chrisbie says...

I watched the terror in the eyes of loved ones dying prematurely of smoking related lung cancer.
Saw the hope of patients on my ward going through surgery to remove diseased lungs. Saw that hope dashed on many occasions.
Watched the young family cry when their hope was lost after their husband and father died far too early.
smoking? no thankyou
I watched the terror in the eyes of loved ones dying prematurely of smoking related lung cancer. Saw the hope of patients on my ward going through surgery to remove diseased lungs. Saw that hope dashed on many occasions. Watched the young family cry when their hope was lost after their husband and father died far too early. smoking? no thankyou Chrisbie
  • Score: -2

11:35pm Thu 14 Aug 14

MichaelJMcFadden says...

In the two years before the ban, UK had been losing about 8 pubs per week. After the ban that figure immediately shot to 27 per week, and then all the way up to 52/week after three years or so. While it's hard (impossible?) to get figures for such sub-categories, I would say, from what I've read, that it's likely that by this point Britain has lost close to half of its longstanding, small, family-owned-and run, rural (or urban land-locked), wet-led pubs since the ban came in. Perhaps even more.

Camra should get some actual accredited economists to do a thorough study of that problem, with clearly defined definitions and parameters, and then publicize their results along with articles noting the impact of those closures on British life and society.

Antismoking research in this area almost always seems to be led by non-economists and deliberately designed to show "no impact" by such ruses as weighting the studies so that the effects on such sub-categories are wiped out by far more generalized "hospitality sector" figures that are dominated by massive hotels, chain-restaurants. and facilities that have extensive outside accommodations smokers and their friends.

- MJM
In the two years before the ban, UK had been losing about 8 pubs per week. After the ban that figure immediately shot to 27 per week, and then all the way up to 52/week after three years or so. While it's hard (impossible?) to get figures for such sub-categories, I would say, from what I've read, that it's likely that by this point Britain has lost close to half of its longstanding, small, family-owned-and run, rural (or urban land-locked), wet-led pubs since the ban came in. Perhaps even more. Camra should get some actual accredited economists to do a thorough study of that problem, with clearly defined definitions and parameters, and then publicize their results along with articles noting the impact of those closures on British life and society. Antismoking research in this area almost always seems to be led by non-economists and deliberately designed to show "no impact" by such ruses as weighting the studies so that the effects on such sub-categories are wiped out by far more generalized "hospitality sector" figures that are dominated by massive hotels, chain-restaurants. and facilities that have extensive outside accommodations smokers and their friends. - MJM MichaelJMcFadden
  • Score: 13

11:19am Fri 15 Aug 14

Chrisbie says...

Smoking kills
end of
quote from this weeks paper below, perhaps attitudes in the area towards smoking are not helping !

"Winsford is one of the areas named by a charity as having one if the the worst survival rates for cancer.

The town has been been named and shamed by Macmillan Cancer Support after it said there is an "inexcusable" postcode lottery of care across England. "
Smoking kills end of quote from this weeks paper below, perhaps attitudes in the area towards smoking are not helping ! "Winsford is one of the areas named by a charity as having one if the the worst survival rates for cancer. The town has been been named and shamed by Macmillan Cancer Support after it said there is an "inexcusable" postcode lottery of care across England. " Chrisbie
  • Score: -4

5:58pm Fri 15 Aug 14

stardusziggy says...

UsernameAlreadyInUse wrote:
Wow, I don't know what you're smoking, but it's not tobacco...

I hate smoking. I tried it, once, hated it. Used to hate going out and coughing my lungs up because of 2nd hand smoke. Hate sitting in taxis where the drivers have been smoking. Quite like breathing relatively clean, fresh air thank you. Think it's one of the most antisocial habits you can partake in. So no, keep it out of all public places, and even widen the scope to ban smoking in streets and parks. You want to smoke, do it in your own home, or in your own garden - not somewhere where I might breathe it in.
i do agree with the ban in certain places, however it makes you wonder what the point is when we are being poisened every day by the air we breathe, the food we eat and the water we drink. wait till the fracking starts, then we will be killed off wholesale.
[quote][p][bold]UsernameAlreadyInUse[/bold] wrote: Wow, I don't know what you're smoking, but it's not tobacco... I hate smoking. I tried it, once, hated it. Used to hate going out and coughing my lungs up because of 2nd hand smoke. Hate sitting in taxis where the drivers have been smoking. Quite like breathing relatively clean, fresh air thank you. Think it's one of the most antisocial habits you can partake in. So no, keep it out of all public places, and even widen the scope to ban smoking in streets and parks. You want to smoke, do it in your own home, or in your own garden - not somewhere where I might breathe it in.[/p][/quote]i do agree with the ban in certain places, however it makes you wonder what the point is when we are being poisened every day by the air we breathe, the food we eat and the water we drink. wait till the fracking starts, then we will be killed off wholesale. stardusziggy
  • Score: 2

1:18pm Tue 19 Aug 14

John_Harrison says...

I like how the crazy, deluded and somewhat scary comment has the line "It's why we voted UKIP" in it. Brilliant!
I like how the crazy, deluded and somewhat scary comment has the line "It's why we voted UKIP" in it. Brilliant! John_Harrison
  • Score: 4

1:26pm Sat 23 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

hectorplain wrote:
Tobacco revenues are falling as a result of crippling taxation and stigmatisation of smoking; this means these policies are working and lives are being saved.

This moron wants to reverse the trend presumably to boost the coffers to fund his excessive expense claims.

I prescribe that he observes a serious lung operation so that he can observe at first hand what his ludicrous rantings will produce.
Revenues are falling not because smoking went down but because everyones gone to the blackmarkets for their smokes or buying them abroad to bring back home!
[quote][p][bold]hectorplain[/bold] wrote: Tobacco revenues are falling as a result of crippling taxation and stigmatisation of smoking; this means these policies are working and lives are being saved. This moron wants to reverse the trend presumably to boost the coffers to fund his excessive expense claims. I prescribe that he observes a serious lung operation so that he can observe at first hand what his ludicrous rantings will produce.[/p][/quote]Revenues are falling not because smoking went down but because everyones gone to the blackmarkets for their smokes or buying them abroad to bring back home! harleyrider1777
  • Score: 0

1:28pm Sat 23 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

John_Harrison wrote:
I like how the crazy, deluded and somewhat scary comment has the line "It's why we voted UKIP" in it. Brilliant!
Dellusion began with the libdems and now the Cons all bent on loosing UK autonomy to the EU and invoking all their crazy edicts like the FCTC and all its hitler anti-smoking laws!

The Führer thanks you from the grave:


Hitler was a Leftist
Hitler's Anti-Tobacco Campaign

One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel -- upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast -- liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.

http://constitutiona
listnc.tripod.com/hi
tler-leftist/id1.htm
l

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Nazi_propag
anda
[quote][p][bold]John_Harrison[/bold] wrote: I like how the crazy, deluded and somewhat scary comment has the line "It's why we voted UKIP" in it. Brilliant![/p][/quote]Dellusion began with the libdems and now the Cons all bent on loosing UK autonomy to the EU and invoking all their crazy edicts like the FCTC and all its hitler anti-smoking laws! The Führer thanks you from the grave: Hitler was a Leftist Hitler's Anti-Tobacco Campaign One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel -- upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast -- liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League. http://constitutiona listnc.tripod.com/hi tler-leftist/id1.htm l http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Nazi_propag anda harleyrider1777
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree