Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 30th August 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

US billionaires fund no smoking



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

BILL Gates, the Microsoft founder, and New York's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, are pouring $375 million into a global anti-smoking initiative.
The two philanthropists – worth a combined $70 billion – will target developing countries where tobacco use is highest.


The full article contains 43 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 23 July 2008 10:11 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Tobacco
 
1

Guga II,

Rockall 24/07/2008 02:50:36
Would these two a*se holes not be better putting their money into buying food for the world's starving people?
2

DeniseX,

24/07/2008 10:17:12
OXFAM Scotland today launches a fresh appeal to stop millions starving to death in east Africa. $375 millions would help a hell of a lot.
3

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville U.K. 24/07/2008 11:02:42
#1/2.
It seems very commendable to me that these two philanthropists in the article, whom I assume to be non-smokers, have chosen to spend some of their wealth on helping to prevent others adopt the futility of succumbing to nicotinism.
If the above two correspondents are so concerned for the welfare of those in developing countries, might they not be induced to renounce their addiction, and pass some of the funds released to those not so fortunate as themselves?
4

DeniseX,

24/07/2008 11:49:55
Has Davina renounced her addiction to alcohol and given money to those less fortunate than herself?
5

Itchy,

24/07/2008 12:00:39
#1 the world's starving are suffering under the likes of Robert Mugabe. These men should not spend their own money propping up dictators.

BTW, it's their own money, they can do what they like.
6

James Donald,

Newbridge 24/07/2008 14:26:44
Only the Wheezy brigade could find something negative in this story.
People are starving in Africa so we should devote more land to food production and less to growing tobacco to feed the nicotine junkies.
7

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 24/07/2008 19:04:41
#4, Deni seX.
Deni will have noted that it was #1/2 who seemed to be denying these two philanthropists the right to spend their money as they saw fit. As Itchy at #5 said, "it's their own money, they can do what they like". Perhaps the phrase "Freedom to Choose " comes to mind?
Correspondents #1/2 are more than welcome to make their small contribution to those less fortunate in the developing world.
8

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 24/07/2008 19:07:27
#6, James Donald,Newbridge.
I'm sure James knows only too well by now that the puffers and wheezers will denigrate any move that does not suit their own selfish agenda.
9

DeniseX,

24/07/2008 20:08:38
13 millions are dying of starvation in Africa. Unless they are given food they will die long before any 'smoking related' illness kills them. Obviously people have the right to spend their money as they wish, but this is the wrong choice. I firmly believe in the freedom to choose and given the choice, I am certain that people living in Third World countries would choose food before any anti-smoking propaganda.
10

Caratacus,

West Britain 25/07/2008 11:54:18
Watch out *puff* James and David, I'm smoking a fag whilst typing this *puff*: Try not to *wheeze* inhale when you read it! *puff*
11

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 25/07/2008 16:23:59
#10, Caratacus,West Britain.
Caratacus would appear to be validating James' and my assessment of his affliction. Hopefully we're both sufficiently far removed from his exhalations not to be greatly affected as he happily(?) puffs his way to a possible premature grave.
12

Stef,

Edinburgh 25/07/2008 21:59:43
How these guys (messrs. Bloomberg and Gates) waste their money is entirely for them. However! it is sad that they are using it for sponsoring control freak policies as opposed to helping genuine causes.
When we look at the above comments from our regular
'people hater's', Davina from New Mills and the obnoxious James Donald with his regular rude and wheezy comments, we start to see some of the outcome of this wasted money. However well intentioned Bloomberg/Gates might think they are, they are playing in politics as opposed to any health issues being involved, or to what would really save lives and benefit mankind.
#READ Comments 6&8 and we can see what nasty, petulant little men these policies have created, Mr Donald should devote more time to the geography channels and watch less Jeremy Kyle, as his ignorance is more breathtaking than any cigarette.
13

John Edwards,

25/07/2008 22:54:39
#1 Guga II

Shut your pie hole, do we tell you what to do with your money?
14

Stef,

Edinburgh 26/07/2008 06:32:03
#13 John Edwards,
Phew!!!!!!!!!!!!! must be paranoia, but has Davina? from New Mills logged in with another new name, or the 'wheezy' Mr Donald. Surely! as any decent person would figure out , these people in deprived and ravaged countries, simply need fundamental things, such as 'water' 'food' 'medicine', willing help, respect and good manners. Bloomberg/Gates and the like, indeed! like yourself, have totally lost the point at all levels.
Mr Edwards, if you think that 'Nicotine Patches', Champix and all these stupidities are going to sustain any human being, you would be a fool. I can only ask you? John, did you give #1 Guga II's point a second of thought. I can think of many places they might stick their nicotine patches, along with the media campaign from messrs Gates'n'Bloomberg, if I was starving and hungry. Frankly! pls explain where your own 'pie hole' might be? when you applied such little thought in your comment. I am happy to agree with you, Mr Edwards, what you do with your own dosh is your own concern. I guess food/ water/ medecine, are the most principal concerns of people all over the world, I believe that 375 trillion, euro's$£'s spent on that would be a much better use of all these resources, than simply feeding a middle management of fanatics milking the system, with a mad wanting to pull the fag out of a war veterans mouth, and feeling petulantly in control. Is this? what so called educated men such as Gates/Bloomberg as so called 'philanthropist's', come up with when food and water are the principal needs of starving and hungry people.
15

David from New Mills,

Ever fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 26/07/2008 11:31:34
#12,Stef,Edinburgh.
See Stephanie's back to the usual petulant outbursts. I think both James and I are our own men, with little need of being influenced by others or their "wasted money" to make our own judgments. Why the apostrophe in "'people hater's'"? Perhaps Stephie should give up reading the Beano and Komik Kuts, or is it just the Sun he favours?
16

David from New Mills,

Ever fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 26/07/2008 11:36:18
#14, Stephie.
In the first four words, Stephie has perhaps recognised the illness. Hopefully a cure can be found.
Gardyloo!
17

Hugo Rafael Chávez,

Venezuela 26/07/2008 16:08:47
14 Stef,Edinburgh

Idiot

If you would do a little research you would already know both those people have already given millions to charity.
18

Stef,

Edinburgh 26/07/2008 18:38:46
#17 Hugo,
You are the idiot Mr Chavez, I am very well aware of the Billions of $$$'s these guys have given away. So why then I ask is why waste money on this nonsense when fundamental needs of food, water and medicine remain unfulfilled. Read what was written before you comment, you fool. I suggest you go and chew on a nicotine patch and ponder on it's nutritional values whilst considering your rude and ignorant post. Or maybe you can't read, I am unaware of the educational system in Venezuela, but you certainly do not provide a good representation of those standards. Quite clearly ignorance is not limited to the Davina from New Mills and the wheezy Mr Donald, by the level of your comment it shows it to be an international problem.
19

Stef,

Edinburgh 26/07/2008 19:14:00
#15 Davina,
You and James you say, are your "own men" lol. HaHa. Certainly you are lonely and definitely on your own, that is for sure. As for being '''Men''' that is surely a matter of dispute. For the benefit of your new international buddy Mr Chavez, I will explain your "Gardyloo" remark. Davina from 'Ever fug free Pleasantville, 'THE MAN' as he calls himself, thinks it is smart and be just so funny to pour the contents of chamber pots, on people talking and smoking cigarettes in the street. So Mr Chavez, or idiot, whatever it may be, do you need to have it translated? perhaps you should research it, you have certainly found good company in Davina and Mr Donald. Clearly you must be a 'MAN' also... God help us all, if you petulant lot are the representation of manhood.
20

Stef,

Edinburgh 26/07/2008 19:32:09
However! I am deeply honored and flattered to have attracted the comments of the political leader of Venezuela, Mr Hugo Chavez, (no less) a man well known for tolerance and a deep love of US citizens.
Freedom to Choose, has always been a fundamental belief in Latin American politics, I recall how welcoming S.America was to all those poor refugee SS men after the war, you know those guys, the true pioneers of freedom and founders of smoking bans. Sadly! I kinda wonder if Mr Chavez, is just another silly jape from our resident lunatic, Mr Fugfree.
21

Stef,

Edinburgh 27/07/2008 05:03:31
Wow! and WOW! Davina, Mr Wheezy and now the President of Venezuela on my case, not forgetting our 'pie hole' 'John Edwards' pls correct me on my grammar, Davina. Oh! and of course we all need to be corrected. You being the 'epitome' of righteousness and your restrictions, why don't you stand outside in wind and rain? and simply let folk enjoy themselves.
In reality, ordinary folk have little time for the petulant wee 'Diva's like yourself, I thank DeniseX for applying this name, 'Beloved' I think it means, lol.
22

David from New Mills,

Ever fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 27/07/2008 10:33:19
#19,Stef,Edinburgh.
Stephie's paranoia seems to be progressive. James, myself and el Señor Chávez are by no means alone in expressing our distaste of frenzied nicotinics and the tobacco industry that continues to feed them, as Shug "65 votes" Howitt found to his chagrin when rejected by the electorate of Stephie's near neighbours in Glasgow East.
Never mind, after all, "You're never alone with a Strand.", as they'd have you believe.
"Gardyloo!", "Fire down below!", or even "Fore!"
23

David from New Mills,

Still beautifully fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 27/07/2008 10:55:24
#21,Stef,Edinburgh.
To clarify Stephie's paranoiac persecution complex, and his visions of reds, or is it Nazis, under the bed, I would confirm that I do not post under any other soubriquets.
The unpalatable truth is that there are many of us of similar mind, and sharing a common detached bemusement over Stephie's vitriolic, foam mouthed, ravings.
I've stood outside bus shelters in the cold and the rain in the past to avoid the effluence of selfish people like him often enough, thank you.
He is quite right in saying that David, and its various derivatives viz. Dave, Davy, Davie and the feminine Davina are from the Hebrew for "beloved".
Apparently, the various diminutives of Stephen come from the Greek for crown or wreath.
Perhaps straitjacket might be more apposite in Stephie's case.
Gardyloo!
24

DeniseX,

27/07/2008 12:04:47
Last week in parliament Gordon Brown said the smoking ban had been a great success, in an effort to get more votes in Glasgow East. On Thursday Labour lost Glasgow East, where most Labour voters are smokers. The smoking ban has been a great success, a great success for the SNP and the Tories.
Throughout the Third world millions are dying of starvation and a few in this country can only moan that they dislike cigarette smoke. What sad, sad people they are.
25

Stef,

Edinburgh 27/07/2008 14:53:18
#24 DeniseX,
You are absolutely correct, your comment being well illuminated by the lunatics such as Davina. However! one cheery thought, the image of Davina on his way to school, forced out of his favorite little bus stop, to stand silently in the inclement weather, because the naughty smokers upset him, would be a joyful image to behold. I bet he would not say boo to a mouse, let alone a smoker, only finding his comfort, hiding behind his computer keyboard, where no one can grab the little intolerant by the throat.
26

David from New Mills,

Still beautifully fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 27/07/2008 15:15:46
#24, Deni seX.
If the electorate of Glasgow East, with reportedly a high percentage of smokers, had wished to show their strong disaffection with smoking restrictions and simultaneously give a kick in the teeth to Gordie and the Labour Party, why did only 65 of them vote for local boy Shuggie Howitt? After all, they had a golden opportunity to reject Labour without favouring the SNP or the Conservatives, and at the same time elect Britain's first pro-smoker M.P.after the Publican Party had fared so miserably in the previous year's Scottish elections. My question is obviously rhetorical.
Deni, like so many hardened nicotinics, fails to recognise that there are many more than "a few in this country" who find tobacco fumes quite repugnant and abhorrent.
As a number of correspondents on this thread are keen to say others how should be spending their money, perhaps they might feel inclined to persuade the tobacco companies, as already suggested by my alleged "buddy" James at #6, to replace their tobacco crop with food production. Unless, of course as evidenced by heroin, there's more money to be made from narcotics.
Like the drug addicts, the tobacco lords, really are sad, sad people.
27

David from New Mills,

Still beautifully fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 27/07/2008 15:24:23
#25, Stef,Edinburgh.
By "forced out of his favorite little bus stop" I assume confused Stephie to have meant "shelter"? The choice was mine, in the same way that as previously stated on various threads, I always preferred to sit outside pubs and avoid the fumes of thoughtless nicotinics. Stephie really must keep up to speed.
Interesting to note the sad predilection for throttling people. Something learned in Texas, perhaps, or is it inherent?
28

DeniseX,

27/07/2008 18:17:14
#26. The voters of Glasgow East voted tactically to get rid of one member of the nanny state. Well done the voters of Glasgow East for showing how popular the smoking ban is. Maybe Mr Howitt did his job by reminding the voters what a great job Labour were doing with our Freedoms and Liberties.
There are more than 'a few in this country' who find Davina repugnant and abhorrent.
29

Rollo Tommasi,

27/07/2008 18:36:45
DeniseX is so right when she says "Well done the voters of Glasgow East for showing how popular the smoking ban is"!

The good people of Glasgow East voted for the SNP, which fully supports Scotland's smoking laws. In fact it was an SNP MSP who tabled the private members' bill which lies behind them. And it is the SNP Government which has increased the minimum smoking age to 18 and is now proposing more measures to reduce smoking-related illness - including tobacco licensing, outlawing the sale of cigarettes in packs of 10 and banning the display of tobacco products in shops.

As DeniseX obviously realises, by voting for the SNP and not for Hamish Howitt, the voters of Glasgow East have shown that they are quite happy for the smoking laws to stay.
30

David from New Mills,

Still beautifully fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 27/07/2008 19:30:20
#28,Deni seX.
Only the voters of Glasgow know why they voted as they did, whether collectively or individually. Whatever their true reasons, only a dedicated pro-smoker like Deni would claim that it was much to do with two year old smoking restrictions. So what would that make Howitt? The stooge distraction perhaps?
"There are more than 'a few in this country' who find Davina repugnant and abhorrent." Their freedom, their choice, but I'll still sleep soundly to-night despite that indictment.
I did ask Deni once to clarify whether it's actually Deni, Denis, or Denise, as the nomenclature is a trifle confusing, but saw no reply.
A definitive answer might be helpful as I do so hate unsolved conundrums.
31

DeniseX,

27/07/2008 20:10:40
#29 Did SNP win the London Mayor election and any of the other recent by elections? NO. ALL recent by elections have been a rejection of the Labour nanny state.
32

David from New Mills,

Still beautifully fug free Pleasantville, U.K 27/07/2008 22:52:54
#31, Deni seX.
Sorry to sound naïve. but did the SNP have a candidate standing in Henley, Crewe and Nantwich, Haltemprice and Howden, or the London mayoralty? As at my #30, voters' reasons are complex, but most of them would seem to have thoughts on their minds other than the unlikely repeal of smoking legislation.
33

Rollo Tommasi,

27/07/2008 23:20:07
Oh DeniseX, you're funny! Yes, voters were so mad at Labour for introducing the smoking laws that they voted instead for.....other parties that are comfortable with the smoking laws.

How did the candidates who wanted to change the laws fair?

London Mayoral Election: UKIP - 0.93% of 1st choice votes
Crewe & Nantwich: UKIP - 2.22% of votes
Haltemprice & Howden: F4C - 0.38% of votes
Glasgow East: F4C - 0.25% of votes
34

Stef,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 06:07:23
#28 DeniseX,
Lol, I wondered when Davina would roll out Rollo, we have had himself, John Edwards, Wheezy auld Mr Donald and indeed the President of Venezuela on this thread, defending the 'Smoking Ban', or "restrictions" as Davina might say. I am not entirely sure that they are not all the same person, Davina Mitty frae fug free New Mills perhaps?, makes not a lot of difference, all untalented, inhuman and all out of the same genetic mould. I am sure to be corrected on my grammar, from all or 1 of them. These people are only here for amusement, a bit like Gordon Brown and their smoking ban enthusiasts. Gardyloo Davina, your whole effluence stinks to high heaven.
35

DeniseX,

28/07/2008 06:52:16
The London Mayor election and ALL recent English by elections have been won by the Tories. The MAJORITY of Tory MPs voted against the smoking ban. English voters are voting out members of the nanny state.
The SNP in England have won 0.000% of the votes.
36

David from New Mills,

Still beautifully fug free Pleasantville 28/07/2008 08:32:13
#35,DeniseX.
Perhaps the poor showing of the pro-smoker's candidate Howitt in his two by-elections was for the same reason as the risible performance of the Publican Party, namely a dead duck cause?
37

David from New Mills,

Still beautifully fug free Pleasantville 28/07/2008 08:38:08
#34, Stef,Edinburgh.
Schizo stef still refuses to believe that there's more than one person sharing my viewpoint.
Perhaps he needs a change of scenery once more to clear his tunnel vision and adopt a broader, more realistic, outlook? Perhaps by taking up golf?
Fore!
38

DeniseX,

28/07/2008 09:33:17
#37 Davina a lover of golf and maybe other sports? I had her down as a spoilsport. A killjoy, party pooper, wet blanket.
39

Stef,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 14:51:27
# 38 DeniseX,
Golf indeed, with Davina's obsession for chamberpots and hysterically calling out 'Gardloo' I had her pinned down as a wetsports type. Certainly his obsession with cigarette smoke alongside her comments make her a wet character.
40

Stef,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 14:52:55
Oh! dear, I am becoming confused with my his'n'hers.
41

Stef,

Edinburgh 28/07/2008 14:58:30
I suppose I do get a little confused from time to time, a bit like not understanding the difference between 'restrictions' and what 90% (incl the politicians and media) understand as being a smoking ban.
42

Rollo Tommasi,

28/07/2008 21:31:45
DeniseX - In case it escaped your notice, the Conservatives were very happy to pass the Health Bill with the public smoking restrictions in it. And they've absolutely no plans to repeal it.

If people were really angry about the smoking laws, they could have voted UKIP or Publican Party or F4C in recent elections. They didn't.
43

Stef,

Edinburgh 29/07/2008 05:29:04
#42 Rollo,
Be clear Mr Tommasi, which one of any of these hapless political party's would have your vote? I suspect that any right wing, extremist anti-smoker group would carry the day for you. Have you and Davina considered having some uniforms, run up for yourselves. Because they are the policies that guy's like you applaud. I apologize for any 'fug' that may irritate your sensitive self.


44

Stef,

Edinburgh 29/07/2008 06:03:53
We have the Scottish Labour Party, leadership elections, (no less,) on the horizon. Sadly I would never vote Labour again, and that is why I hope Andy Kerr, is elected. Failed as a minister, deceitful, etc, and on, and on,,,,,,,,,a perfect choice in ridding us of these, elected but unrepresentative 'control freaks'. The SNP are having a honeymoon, just now, but if they do not listen to those who has elected them, they will eventually meet the same fate as the disgraced Labourites. The SNP has had many internal squabbles in the past, and they are really going to have to listen to their electorate and not follow the paths of bigotry and greed. Some common sense needs to be applied, as opposed to the policies of the 'control freaks' zealots and bigots within these political gangs. Many of whom that regularly abuse these threads, with their misinformation and warped propaganda. Mr Tommasi being a prime case.
45

Rollo Tommasi,

29/07/2008 08:23:28
Stef: Glad to say I will exercise my democratic right with pleasure whenever the chance arises. Who will I vote for? Whoever I trust most to support the economy and good public services. Just like most people, I guess.

You seem to forget that the SNP was elected over a year after the smoking laws came into force here. If people had been upset by the smoking laws then, they could have voted for the Publican Party at that election. Next to nobody did.

Most voters are happy with the laws as they stand. It strikes a good balance between protecting a smoker's right to smoke and protecting the rights of people not to have to endure the tobacco smoke of others.
46

DeniseX,

29/07/2008 10:12:58
Rollo
The majority of Tory MPs voted against the blanket ban and it is the Tories that have won ALL recent by elections in England. The majory of voters may have agreed to some smoking restrictions, but not the blanket ban.
47

Rollo Tommasi,

29/07/2008 19:25:40
DeniseX - Like I said, most voters are happy with the smoking laws as they stand. There's no public demand to reverse the changes made. As a result, no major political party has changed its position on passive smoking and none looks likely to. You can pin your hopes on the Tories if you want, but don't expect any change any time soon.
48

Stef,

Edinburgh 30/07/2008 05:38:09
#45 Rollo.
I thank you for your courteous reply, I agree as any individual you have every right to vote for is who you feel, fits you best. Sadly! for you and all of those who want to corrupt democratic thinking and then want to manipulate and isolate a large section of our population, many of whom being are our own Grandpa's and Grannies, pls trust me, you will always have my wrath. As for all the Davina's of this world, just who? I ask is this 20,000 or more postings idiot, that has adopted you 'Rollo' into his own political party, if you are not indeed, 'He', himself?....Your Howitt and Publican Party quips, are simply just cheap jibes, the kinda 'japes' expected from civil servants, jobsworths and of course the David from New Mills type. Quite simply, you do not shine in the real world as an individual of free thought, more a trumpet of 'bigotry'. No doubt this post will be followed with a lecture on my grammar, spelling and punctuation from our resident guru. generated from his fug free garden of bliss.
You are, Rollo, a member of his party, so stop worrying about Mr Howitt, or the Publican Party, dismiss them entirely, as you and Davina are the way forward, and I sense all your combined bliss will cascade down to all us ignorant plebs.
49

DeniseX,

30/07/2008 08:29:50
Rollo. IF. If most voters are in agreement with the law as it stands, why doesn't the Government allow pubs to decide whether to be smoking or non-smoking? If the law is so popular then most pubs would choose to be non-smoking and everybody would be happy. The Tories are the party that believe in free trade.
50

Rollo Tommasi,

31/07/2008 08:06:28
DeniseX: Because allowing pubs to decide whether to be smoking or non-smoking would require changing a law that most voters are comfortable with. What you're proposing is something that UKIP, F4C and the Publican Party stood for - and all of them foundered at the polls.

There's very little public demand for what you propose. And the Tories (and other major political parties) realise this. Like I said, pin your hopes on the Tories if you want, but don't expect them to change their position any time soon.
51

DeniseX,

31/07/2008 09:15:53
Rollo. May I remind you that the anti-smoking candidate in the Haltemprice and Howden bye election only got 8 votes. Far less that the pro choice candidate.
The main Germany Court, yesterday, decided to make more exemptions to the smoking ban, because the ban is unconstitutional.
52

Rollo Tommasi,

31/07/2008 16:23:40
Tell you what, DeniseX. Let's settle this. Why don't you tot up all the votes in recent by-elections for candidates who oppose the smoking laws and compare that figure with the total number of votes for candidates who don't want the laws to change?

Oh, and I'd read that German court judgement a bit further if I were you. The court said a blanket ban on smoking in pubs would be perfectly legal. What breaches German laws are exemptions (in this case, separate smoking rooms) which are only realistic for large pubs and which discriminate against small pubs.
53

DeniseX,

31/07/2008 17:52:03
Rollo
I only need to name one. Boris Johnson got over a million votes in the London Mayor election. More that all the other recent election winners put together.
54

Rollo Tommasi,

31/07/2008 18:36:57
Boris Johnson? You mean the same Boris Johnson who supported the passing of the Health Bill through Parliament, including its smoking restrictions? The same Boris Johnson who will never re-introduce smoking pubs while he's Mayor of London?

And I notice you didn't try to count all the millions of votes in the London mayor election for candidates and parties supporting the smoking laws. Well over 2 million 1st choice votes if you include the official Conservative candidate (party position: keep the smoking laws as they are). Compared with an absolutely pitiful 22,000 for UKIP. No contest.
55

DeniseX,

31/07/2008 19:27:17
Boris Johnson supported a partial smoking ban, but voted against the blanket ban.
You appear to be saying that as the majority of people are non smokers, smokers ought to be banned. Do you suggest that all minority groups should to be banned?
56

Rollo Tommasi,

31/07/2008 22:19:41
When the House of Commons voted on whether to pass the whole Bill - including the smoking restrictions - NOBODY opposed it. You put your faith in Boris to do what you want, but you'll only be disappointed.

At what point have I said anything remotely like "smokers ought to be banned"? My stance is simple. People are free to harm themselves, provided they do so in an informed way and as a result of true choice (as opposed to addiction, for example). But it is also right that we have laws so that others are not harmed by people's freedoms. I have the right to drive, but not in a reckless way that puts the lives of others at risk. I have the right to play music, but not so loudly that it disturbs others. I'm happy for people to have the right to smoke, but it is correct that people should not do so in enclosed public areas where their tobacco smoke can disturb and harm other people.
57

DeniseX,

01/08/2008 08:07:26
Rollo
I have heard of many people being killed and harmed by other persons driving, but have never heard of anybody being killed or harmed by other persons cigarette smoke.
58

Rollo Tommasi,

01/08/2008 18:37:30
Really?

What about the hundreds of people in Scotland who die each year from passive smoking-related heart disease and lung cancer? There are estimated to be more than 2 of these deaths for every road traffic accident fatality, by the way.

What about fatal and life-threatening asthma attacks brought on by exposure to smoke?

What about the day-to-day harm many, many non-smokers get from tobacco smoke, in the form of stinging eyes, blocked nose, etc?

I notice you didn't comment on harm caused to people from loud music. Do you think it should be your neighbour's right to keep you awake all night with a blaring hi-fi?
59

DeniseX,

01/08/2008 20:30:36
If you know of anybody that has died from passive smoking (which I doubt), then you had better let the so called 'experts' know, as they now admit that they cannot name anybody who has died from passive smoking.
If you want to see how these 'experts' manipulate their fiures go to 'velvet glove' web site and see how they expose Jill Pell's figures.
You are rearly being silly now. People shouldn't play loud music all night. People shouldn't drink and assault and kill others. People shouldn't drive and kill and maim others.
If the Government really were concerned about our health, why are they allowing our athletes to compete in Beijing, where WHO state that the pollution is four times over the safety levels?
60

David from New Mills,

Smog and fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 01/08/2008 21:02:00
#38, Deni.
My suggesting golf for stef does not indicate I play myself. Jumping to conclusions is no energetic field sport either.
61

David from New Mills,

Smog and fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 01/08/2008 21:06:07
#39/40, Stef,Edinburgh.
Indeed so. David knows he is of the male persuasion, but has steffie managed to get the ear and elbow right, yet?
Gardyloo!
62

David from New Mills,

Smog and fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 01/08/2008 21:15:21
#41, Stef,Edinburgh.
Simple really, as ban equates to prohibition, interdict or forbidding, in other words a complete no-no.
Restriction is simply a limitation, restraint or confinement.
If stef still can't differentiate, I'll try to talk him through it slowly with worked examples.
63

Rollo Tommasi,

01/08/2008 21:27:23
Yes DeniseX, you are absolutely right. People shouldn't play loud music all night. People shouldn't drink and assault and kill others. People shouldn't drive and kill and maim others.

And people shouldn't irritate and risk harming others through their tobacco smoke.

I can give you evidence of the hundreds of smoking related deaths in Scotland each year. Can you give me the name of a medical expert who says that passive smoking is a myth unless it's referred to explicitly on a death certificate?
64

David from New Mills,

Smog and fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 01/08/2008 21:33:22
#48, Stef,Edinburgh.
In an attempt to unbend stef's delusional brain, I would confirm that i am not an embodiment of Rollo, James Donald, or any one else. There is no party, political or otherwise, simply commonality of thought. There have not been 20,000 or more postings from myself. Stef should give up the blue cheese before retiring for the night in order to try to avoid his hallucinations.
65

DeniseX,

02/08/2008 09:17:15
Rollo.
The Government adviser in Health, Julian Le Grand stated 'I don't actually think the arguments on passive smoking are all that strong'. Now give me a name of one person who has died from passive smoking.
What do you think about our Government sending our athletes to Beijing, where pollution exceeds four times the safety levels?
66

Rollo Tommasi,

02/08/2008 10:10:14
DeniseX: Julian Le Grand is not "the Government adviser in Health". He is an adviser on health economics. The Government gets its advice on health from its Chief Medical Officers for the UK nations, all of whom have warned about the dangers of passive smoking.

I asked you to name me a medical expert who says that passive smoking is a myth unless it's referred to explicitly on a death certificate. It seems you can't do so. Your argument has no place as part of a serious debate on this subject.

By the way, the Government isn't "sending" athletes to Beijing. It's allowing them to go. Whether the athletes choose to go is their own choice. Another completely fallacious argument.
67

DeniseX,

02/08/2008 11:18:29
Rollo
I note that you have not named ONE person who has died due to passive smoking. You cannot, because nobody has ever died due to passive smoking.
So our caring Government have given our athletes the choice to compete and risk their health in Beijing, where the pollution is four time the safety levels, but they will not allow the rest of the us to choose between 'smoking' and 'non-smoking' pubs.
68

Rollo Tommasi,

02/08/2008 11:37:14
Like I have said twice already, if you can give me the name of one expert who thinks the question "name a person who has died from passive smoking" is relevant to this debate, and I'll name a person for you. But I suspect you can't give me the name of such a medical expert, because they all know your argument is a complete red herring.

The choice of "smoking" and "non-smoking pubs you talk about - who'd decide which pubs are which? If you're saying it should be the publican's choice, then that would be a return to the old state of affairs which very few people in this country want.
69

DeniseX,

02/08/2008 12:53:09
Regarding the announcement last year about the miracle of a drastic fall of heart attacks in Scotland immediately after the smoking ban.
"The country's deputy Chief Medical Officer told the BBC that the study had looked at two 12 month periods but Dr Lawrence Gruer, Pell's colleague at the Greater Glasgow Health Board and also talking to the BBC, referred to two 10 month periods. A small but significant discrepancy: 12 months would be the obvious length of any study of this kind'.
The missing two months did not support their claims.
Now name three or four of those persons who have died due to passive smoking. I repeat, you cannot because nobody has.
The majority of non pub goers may have wanted such a ban, but landlords and what were regular pub goers DID NOT the blanket ban. Since the ban wet sales are down 1.6 million pints every day and 4 or 5 pubs are closing every day.
70

Rollo Tommasi,

02/08/2008 17:07:55
DeniseX: Your request is as red a herring as it was the previous times you asked it. A death certificate may say "heart attack" or "lung cancer" but it won't show up what led a person to contract that diseases.

If I am wrong, all you need to do is give me the name of a medical expert who says that passive smoking is a myth unless it appears on a death certificate. I've asked you this several times now and you keep failing to provide an answer.

The ball is in your court.
71

DeniseX,

02/08/2008 17:30:09
An 'authoritative' study of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency which led to widespread acceptance of the - apparently false - precept that smoking endangers people who are around and inhale the smoke 'second hand', was soundly rejected by Judge William Osteen of the Middle District of North Carolina Federal Court.
72

DeniseX,

02/08/2008 17:32:27
A 38-year study of Californians, begun by the American Cancer Society and concluded by the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), has concluded that secondhand smoke has little if any negative impact on mortality
73

DeniseX,

02/08/2008 17:35:22
Rollo
Now give the the names of three or four people that have died from passive smoking.
You have NO proof that passive smoking kills.
74

Rollo Tommasi,

02/08/2008 17:58:10
DeniseX:

71: The Osteen decision was overturned on appeal. No part of the Osteen ruling is now valid.

72: I assume you are referring to the Enstrom & Kabat study (latterly funded by the tobacco industry). That was one of many reports considered in the 2004 SCOTH report. Conclusion? Passive smoking presents a clear added risk of both lung cancer and coronary heart disease.

73: I have covincing evidence that passive smoking kills from collations of the available evidence, such as the SCOTH report and 2002 IARC report. I'm still waiting for the name of the medical expert who thinks your question is in any way relevant to a proper, informed debate on this subject. It's a total red herring.
75

DeniseX,

02/08/2008 18:56:25
The SCOTH report was made by Sir Richard Doll who was paid by chemical companies. He denied the (proven) carcinogenic effects of Agent Orange. Doll was one of the fervent promoters of fluoridation. There was a 10 per cent extra death rate from cancer in fluoridated cities.
I would not accept evidence given by a man who is easily bought.
Rollo. You are just an anti-smoker who does not like cigarette smoke and does not approve of others smoking.
Now for the umpteenth time give me the name of just a few people that have died from passive smoking. You keep refusing, simply because you can't.
76

Rollo Tommasi,

02/08/2008 19:33:56
DeniseX - Where are you getting all this nonsense from? Sir Richard Doll had nothing to do with the 2004 SCOTH report! I suggest you read some of the factual material for yourself, instead of lapping up nonsense from various pro-smoking websites. You might just learn something.

I am not an anti-smoker at all. I am happy for people to smoke if they wish....provided they do not harm or irritate others with their smoke.

All these emails from you - and you still cannot come up with the name of a medical expert who believes that passive smoking is a myth unless you can name individuals who have died from it.
77

DeniseX,

03/08/2008 07:45:42
All these 'experts' are in the pay of somebody, be it tobacco, chemical. pharmiceutical or the like.
The only way to prove that passive smoking kills is for somebody to provide details of some of those millions that have supposed to have died from passive smoking.
78

Rollo Tommasi,

03/08/2008 10:58:32
DeniseX - A total exaggeration. Many of the experts receive no industry support at all. And you have no basis at all for claiming those who have received external funding must be "in the pay" of these funders. The evidence showing the dangers of passive smoking are strong, hard and tested by peer review. And you've said nothing to question the strength of these reports.

As I've already said, evidence suggests that there could be 2+ deaths from passive-smoking related heart attacks and lung cancer for every road traffic accident fatality. In Scotland, that's 800-1,000 deaths each year.

Demanding unreasonable burdens of proof of which individuals have died as a result of passive smoking are irrelevant to the argument. And, to put it bluntly, they would only seriously be put by someone who is prepared to risk the deaths of hundreds of people each year for the sake of pursuing a feeble argument.
79

DeniseX,

03/08/2008 14:25:22
All these 'experts' are in the pay of somebody, be it tobacco, chemical. pharmiceutical or the like.
The only way to prove that passive smoking kills is for somebody to provide details of just a few of those 'millions' that have supposed to have died from passive smoking.
Should be easy, if it were true.
80

Rollo Tommasi,

03/08/2008 14:40:48
Just repeating the same claims over and over again doesn't make them any more true. Where's your evidence that the experts are "in the pay" of particular bodies?

The worst kind of accusations are those that are based on insinuation, sweeping statements and without any hint of supporting evidence. Congratulations DeniseX, your claims tick all 3 of these boxes.

And, for the umpteenth time, where is the name of the medical expert who agrees with you that passive smoking is harmless unless you can identify its victims by name?
81

DeniseX,

03/08/2008 17:58:47
Come on Rollo. Just a few names out of 'millions' killed by passive smoking.
Easy, if true.
82

Rollo Tommasi,

03/08/2008 21:55:12
DeniseX: Yawn!!!!

Still repeating that nonsensical question. Still unable to show what place is has as part of a serious debate on the subject.
83

David from New Mills,

Smog and fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 03/08/2008 22:23:49
#80 & 82, Rollo Tommasi.
My so-called alter ego Rollo should know better by now than to expect reasoned argument fron Den, who, one assumes, considers Professor Sir Liam Donaldson to be "in the pay" of HMG, and by definition unable to give rational, detached professional opinions.
Regarding the concern expressed at #65 over pollution levels in Beijing, comfort can perhaps be taken from the fact that latest reports show this being dissipated by recent wind and rain, which tends to have the same effect on smokers.
84

Rollo Tommasi,

04/08/2008 07:56:31
David - I've pressed DeniseX enough on the subject to know that she's not going to be able to provide the name of a medical expert to legitimise her question. Not surprising really - I don't know of a medical expert who'd do so either.

But at least she can't say I didn't give her enough chance to produce a name....
85

DeniseX,

04/08/2008 08:09:39
Rollo
You are the one that says that passive smoking kills. NOT me.
Just a few names out of the 'millions' of people who have died from passive smoking, would be easy if true.
86

Rollo Tommasi,

04/08/2008 08:24:30
David - I see she still hasn't found her medical expert yet....
87

DeniseX,

04/08/2008 08:46:24
The BBC has reported that the smog in Beijing is 'terrible' today.
I see Rollo still cannot name anybody that has died of passive smoking.
88

grafiger,

04/08/2008 11:06:57
#80 and previous.
Try Richard Doll
89

David from New Mills,

Smog and fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 04/08/2008 11:25:20
#87,DeniseX.
Perhaps all those Chinese smoking have caused it?
No comment on Professor Sir Liam Donaldson and other health professionals being "in the pay" of HMG, and by definition unable to give rational, detached professional opinions?
90

Rollo Tommasi,

04/08/2008 16:05:49
Grafiger (89): Richard Doll? Are you suggesting he died from passive smoking? Or are you saying he argued that, of passive smoking is a real threat, then it should be possible to name people who have died as a result of exposure to it?
91

Rollo Tommasi,

04/08/2008 16:07:35
Sorry - "of passive smoking" should of course read "if passive smoking".
92

DeniseX,

04/08/2008 17:23:46
Sir Richard Doll is a renowned epidemiologist who was secretly paid a large consultancy fee, at times reaching $1,500 a day, by chemical giant Monsanto for over 20 years, during which time he was investigated the cancer risks of the chemicals industry.
How can you trust such an 'expert ' epidemiologist who is in the pocket of chemical and pharmiceutical companies
Rollo is like David cameron, full of talk and no substance.
He cannot name ONE person out of the 'millions' killed by passive smoking.
If it was true that passive smoking kills, one name would be 'dead' easy.
93

grafiger,

05/08/2008 16:46:18
92
Doll also famouly stated (more or less) that he had no problem sitting beside a smoker which would suggest that he had no problem with SHS,
94

Rollo Tommasi,

05/08/2008 22:03:25
Grafiger: Richard Doll said on Desert Island Discs that he wasn't worried about the effects of second hand smoke on his own health. That was in 2001, when he was almost 90.

In their oh-so-typical fashion, pro-smoking groups have tried to twist what he said to suggest he thought the risk of harm to health from passive smoking is minute. But, right until his death, he consistently argued that passive smoking is harmful.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In