I really love nicotine patches, four years after quitting smoking I wear a 15 mg at least twice a week, delightful brain clarity and no smelly flat and colds through the winter.

So yes, these pharmecuetical guys might, just might, be capitalists but I gotta say, no problem as long as they keep patches at £1 or so a day.

Now if they could make them non-sticky so those of us who're allergic to plasters could wear them... (and no, hypo-allergenic's no good because they make my skin react more).

I'd like to see a patch that would help break the addiction to using government power against other people who do things we don't like.

What I object to is fatties like Stephen Pollard sitting next to me on planes to New York and taking all the arm room.

Lack of comment protest tells me that the antis are winning. Islamists will follow sooner than you think. You will then, to quote an old joke, say "Laird, laird, we didn'a ken." And the Laird, in his infinite mercy, will reply, "Well, ye ken the noo."

Just to connect one more dot: at the time that Stephen Pollard wrote that pro-smoking ban article of the Independent, he was a senior fellow at a think tank funded in large part by Pfizer.

Great factoid about Pfizer. Since your average smoke nazi is also a greenie anti-capitalist, telling them that their favorite cause is actually a profit center for Big Pharma should cause heads to explode.

SO basically, Pollard says if you don't like what people do with their own bodies and on private property, just use the threat of violence to make them see things your way.

Perhaps people who over eat and thereby cost the blessed National Heath Service more in various illnesses sould be forced by law to eat properly. Let’s ditch our principles, and push to make London a capital in which people do not have heart attacks.

Authoritarian fucktards.

I deeply despise the anti-smoking lobby.

There's a restaurant up near Indianapolis openly disobeying the local smoking ban. They have the following sign on the door:

This restaurant allows smoking. If this offends you, please feel free to visit one of our competitors. If you choose to come in, then you enter at your own risk. Thank you.

Reasonable, no?

At the counter is a collection jar for paying the associated fines, legal fees, etc. Since they were able to meet all the fines in this way, the nazis on city council are instead suing them to try to force them to shut down.

I don't know how this story came out. It made something of a splash this summer, but I haven't heard anything about it recently. The best that my lazy Google search turned up was this and this.

But I think we can all agree that this private, family-owned mom-n-pop business should be able to set its own smoking policy. If they customers don't like it, well, as they sign says, they are perfectly free not to eat there. Laws like this are maddening. I sincerely hope the UK is spared all this crap. Best of luck to those of you fighting it.

Years of leaving it to individuals to decide how to behave have had almost no effect for the better.

nicotine: a poisonous chemical compound (C10 H14 N2) that occurs in tobaco, is used as an agricultural insecticide, and causes disorders of the respiratory system, dizziness, increased blood pressure, and disturbances of hearing and vision. [Longman Dictionary of the English Language]

So: a mind-altering drug that is not illegal.

Should it (and its patches) be taxed?

Best regards

I recall Pollard's rant in favour of the Bloomberg-led crackdown on smoking in NYC. I am afraid that Stephen, likeable guy though he is in certain respects, is prone to bursts of authortarian grandstanding and sneering at the hoi-polloi, such as at the Glastonbury Festival, etc. He has been hanging out with libertarians long enough, surely, to avoid such nonsense.

Thanks for the Pfizer angle - I wonder how this will play with the usual bashers of Big Pharma on the left?

Big Pharma = EEEVVIILLLL.

Big Pharma = Big Business.

Big Business = Bushey McHalibchimpystein = EEEVVIILLLL.

Big Pharma = Ban smoking.

Ban Smoking = Goodey, Goodey, Goodey.

If A = B and B = C then A = C then surely, to any lefty -

Bush = WONDERFUL?

Perhaps people who over eat and thereby cost the blessed National Heath Service more in various illnesses sould be forced by law to eat properly.

They've already started that bit of social engineering.

Fatty Pol Lard

"What I object to is fatties like Stephen Pollard sitting next to me on planes to New York and taking all the arm room."

I bet Mr. Pollard does not fly economy!

I guess that with Pfizer pumping lots of money in your direction, you don't have to worry about flight costs.

At the danger of going off-message, all this self-righteous stuff about a possible smoking ban reminds me of the NRA in America.

As bad as the offensive tone of the health facists, is their innumeracy. Smokers earn about as much as their non smoking colleagues, so they pay the same tax on earnings, plus what they pay on buying cigarettes. They then die young, saving on pension costs. I cannot see how one person's death from lung cancer brought on by smoking, can be a penny more expensive than my death (as a clean living boy) from prostrate cancer, brought on by being born male. If I live long enough to develope Alzhaimers or similar I'm personally going to bankrupt the NHS. Perhaps its my life style that should be banned?

Dannyboy, and your point is? Are you another nanny statist snark?

Just checkin'.

Jonathan, not at all. People should do whatever they want to themselves as long as they don't harm others while doing it.

Danny: and, so, this has exactly what to do with the NRA?

Danny, then you should have made yourself a tad clearer in the first comment. I am a very smart guy but not a mindreader.

I must confess that it is a mystery to me what it is about Stephen Pollard that libertarians are supposed to see in him. This latest just deepens the mystery. Can anyone explain?

I went from 60 a day down to zero in less than a week, about 3 and half years ago and have not felt any inclination at all to light up since. Reading such a pro-Michael Bloomberg article as that, I feel an ever so slight twinge to light up just in the hope that I can contribute to Mr Pollard's discomfort in some small way. Nobody, even smokers I daresay, likes to walk through a freshly exhaled cloud of B&H but are we now going to also completely block tobacco advertising in cricket, motorsports, darts, snooker and a myriad of other dependent activities - let alone the progress on decriminalisation of cannabis - simply because of an 'Oh I don't like the smell of it' attitude by some?

Incidentally one smell I truly despise above the reek of stale tobacco smoke is that of sweated alcohol from those recovering from a drinking session. I can only imagine how dreadful such a reek must be in the business class section after 7 hours from London to New York, which is one reason why I will only travel First Class on longhaul flights. Could we also now have a ban on excessive drinking since someone now objects to the smell of it?

Ah now there's a memory, 5 in the morning in the middle of a tightly packed mob of 40 or so guys, most of whom had spent the night intimately involved with beer and kimchi sweating heavily in the 3rd mile of morning fun...could we outlaw formation running? It smells icky.

Julian Taylor, I went from 60 a day to zero in 12 hours.

Fat people should have to buy two seats on planes, even in Business, where they still manage to wriggle and spread into your space. How dare they assume this is OK?

I can only imagine how dreadful such a reek must be in the business class section after 7 hours from London to New York, which is one reason why I will only travel First Class on longhaul flights.

Fly BA Club World or Virgin Upper Class - neither has, in my experience of them, much of a smell issue. Economy long haul OTOH is an utter nightmare.

Verity should also fly them as both would relieve her of the need to interact nor see her fellow travellers.

I recommend 62A on the upper deck on BA myself.

As a non-smoker for over 30 years now, I prefer non-smoking flights, non-smoking restaurants, and non-smoking businesses and offices, which are the norm in the US compared to 20-30 years ago.

But here is where I expose myself as a possible hypocrit: I don't think much about how our society got to this norm; I like the end result! While I admire and support the defiant restaurant taking a stand against such health laws, I prefer the conditions of the norm.

Hmmm... it's a bit like my support of motorcyclist's riding without a helmet if they so choose. But then I don't want to be obligated to pay for any extended hospital care.

Any libertarian help out there?

I smoke .
In my youth you could smoke anywhere- trains boats planes. Then some folks got prissy!
I am just about to bury a relation who smoked all her life and lived to 88.
Yup she died of cancer, but it was'nt of the lung or anywhere else associated with smoking (though no doubt she will turn up in the statistics as someone who has).
I am sick of health fascism! Do what you like to yourselves and suffer the consequences. Does anyone out there actually believe that Doctors KNOW half of what they pretend to KNOW?
I will not smoke in a restaurant in deference to my fellow patrons who may not like it. But I would like an area/ room/space where I can take my coffee/Beer/brandy in peace with a fag or two in the company of fellow enjoyers of the death cult.
Troublesome thing is, for the followers of Jim Fix and his ilk, we smokers may live longer than them.

Maybe someone will throw a lit cigarette out the window and burn the FOREST down.

The key issue is coercion. I am not a smoker anymore and do not particularly like the smell of second-hand smoke but I would rather have the choice about whether I eat in a smoke free restaurant. I do not want others making that choice for me.

Similarly I think wearing seat belts in a car, and a crash helmet on a bike, is a good idea but no one should be forced to it. If it were not for the NHS people probably would not be forced to these decisions. If people had to make their own arrangments concerning medical insurance, and they wanted to ride helmet free, they could just arrange a higher risk rate with their insurer and pay a higher premium. It would all be their choice.

The issue for me is always about coercion. If we want a mature and responsible society we have to give citizens back their responsibility to make decisions for themselves. This is the other side of the Rights coin. No rights without responsibility.

Of course this also means we have to allow people to make their own mistakes and if those mistakes harm someone else, or their property, the offender should have to make reparations and accept punishment. Mistakes that harm only yourself should not be crimes. A person either learns from mistakes or becomes yet another dead end on the evolutionary tree.

Albion, Joshua, and others: It's hopeless talking about such things as the right to do what you want to your own body on private property. The simple fact is that hardly anyone I have ever met in real life has even a vague understanding what private property is.

Pubs are considered public places because, variously, they are called "public houses"; because they are "licensed" (i.e. permitted to exist) by the government, and by extension the public; because they are physically accessible by roads paid for by the public; or because they invite the public in.

I despair.

If it were not for the NHS people probably would not be forced to these decisions. If people had to make their own arrangments concerning medical insurance, and they wanted to ride helmet free, they could just arrange a higher risk rate with their insurer and pay a higher premium. It would all be their choice.

This strays too close to the broken window falacy though. It's not just about the cost to the NHS. Hurling people through car windscreens, as was the wont, causes loads of other knock effects which have a negative impact other than the push on the NHS.

The US has a lot of seat belt rules too in many states. I was in an RTA once, my fault, where if I hadn't had the seat belt on, I'd have been through the window - as it happens my forehead _just_ tapped the windscreen as the seat belt locked. Rather than a few cross words, the cars were out of the road in minutes and life got on. Had I been thrown out of the car, the chaos I'd caused would have impacted the junction and the rush hour for hours while the police and medical services did their work.

It goes way beyond your ability to screw up your life, and into the impact you have on people around you who have no control over your actions.

Nick Timms and Daveon

You both hit the points that trouble me. I abhore the coercion; I say I am libertarian but then there is the idiot who decides to ride out the hurricane and he puts a whole bunch of rescue people in jeopardy trying to save his butt. It's a conundrum.

James, you said libertarian, which means limited government and regulation, not NO government or regulation. That would be anarchy.

Of course, in a truly anarchic society, people are under no obligation to save the idiot either!

It's a fine line to draw. Some rules like the seat belt rules are acceptable, even if we sometimes think it's a bit too much on principle, and would argue against them on being coercive. But people don't live wholly by principle; extremes are tough. The cost of giving the government the power to tell everybody to wear safety belts grants us the benefit of having less accidents.

Daveon. I accept your point about the impact on others but a few cases where others successfully sue the person making the mistake, or his insurance company, would quickly reduce the numbers of people not wearing seat belts.

You might then say that people are still being coerced but I maintain there is a fine line between an adult taking a responsible decision for themselves, and having no choice because the "its good for you" brigade make yet another law.

I oppose any restaurants, bars, stores, etc. being required to ban smoking. Their property, their choice. But I will likely boycott establishments that don't provide effective ventilation. That's how free enterprize/property rights works.

I support front seat belt laws, only because I want other drivers to remain in control of their vehicles during evasive manuvers, run-offs, spin-outs etc. Back seat or bed of the truck passengers? NMP.

I oppose helmet laws for motorcycles, same reason. But goggle/safety glasses laws are there to protect the other people they share the road with.

The expense to society should be a non issue. Have riders on insurance stipulating different deductibles or non-coverage if the insured fails to meet the terms of the policy for other than liability protection reasons.

Virtually all of these cases can easily be resolved within libertarian principles but it requires us to accept the terms of the property holders/insurers we do business with.

What if they don't have insurance? Then we're back to square one.

but a few cases where others successfully sue the person making the mistake, or his insurance company, would quickly reduce the numbers of people not wearing seat belts.

Wobbly guy makes the first key point - it's illegal not to have insurance now, but it doesn't stop people driving without insurance.

Also, I've got to be honest I'm never been convinced by this type of libertarian argument - it gets applied to lots of things where theorectically, eventually, the market should sort things out.

It presupposes that (a) people actually rationalise things to that degree (see point about insurance) and (b) these things actually occur in a reasonable timeframe.

Seat belts make a lot of sense. I remember the campaigns of the 70s about wearing seat belts, putting across all the logical arguments. They just didn't really work. People don't always behave rationally. It's a problem.

One more case of government corrupting business.

" - it's illegal not to have insurance now, but it doesn't stop people driving without insurance."

Lack of liability insurance is a property crime. It needs to be recognized and prosecuted as one. If an at fault accident occurs without liability insurance then a theft has occured. If there are medical bills, then it can be a very large theft.

If it's a crime and significant numbers are still doing it, it's a question of enforcement. If we're not going to ignore conventional theft, why should we ignore this kind?

What is in it for Pfizer?

Tobacco is an anti-depressant.

Pot is an anti-depressant.

See my article "Addiction or Self Medication?" which I can't post a link here because the anti-spam filter is wound so tight.

Are things becoming clearer?

Stimulants seem to work well for ADD/ADHD folks. Of course this has got the pharma folks in full hue and cry mode against street drugs like methamphetamine and cocaine.

The War On Unpatented Drugs

Seatbelt/Helmet laws apply to public roadways all must use and all benefit from such laws. They really are not much different from all the other laws of the road all must obey; speed limits, rights of way, etc. and no one complains about those usually.

Smoking bans effect private establishments where one should have more right to choose which customers one wants to cater to or which establishment to patronize. A no-smoking sign in the window of a bar or restaurant tells me that I am not welcome, so I go elsewhere. No problem as far as I am concerned as long as there is another place I can go and be comfortable in.

glaxo smith kline (GSK) sells nicorette....GSK sells nicoderm....GSK sells Zyban (prescription smoking cessation tablets)....5 seconds of internet research could tell you that. So if it was GSK supporting the ban then this whole argument has some validity, in its current form however, it does not. Pfizer is in the healthcare business, so it could also be perceived that they support the ban because it promotes the health of both the smoker and the non-smoker...but that wouldn't fit into the bush-corporate conspiracy thing going on here. Pfizer does not sell any anti smoking devices or medication either RX or OTC. So to bash Pfizer for "greed" based on misinformation, is a very hollow argument to say the least.

Smoking is a filthy dangerous and poisonous habit that is forced upon non-smokers in public places. Should your waiter be forced to breathe toxic smoke all night long because you can't get through a dinner without your fix? You want to smoke? go outside (and don't throw your "butt" on the ground), or go home, or go in your car...just don't do it in a confined space where others (the majority-remember that concept?) are forced to breathe your pollution.

Government air quality test results prove SHS concentrations are not a health hazard

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/01/government-environmental-health.html(Link)

My name is Bill Hannegan and I started a group called KEEP ST. LOUIS FREE! to fight silly intrusions into the private realms of St. Louis life. We totally beat the smoking ban here in part by tenaciously disputing the junk science these bans are based on:
If I can help anyone fight bans elsewhere, please contact me at: hanneganlounge@safeplace.net
Have you all seen this new study which further calls into question the need for smoking bans?

Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Coronary Heart Disease Mortality in the
United States—A Meta-Analysis and Critique

James E. Enstrom A1 and Geoffrey C. Kabat A2
A1 Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Los
Angeles, California, USA
A2 New Rochelle, New York, USA

Abstract:
Several major meta-analyses have concluded that exposure to environmental
tobacco smoke (ETS) increases the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) by about
25% among never smokers. However, these reviews have excluded a large portion
of the epidemiologic evidence on questionable grounds and have been
inconsistent in the selection of the results that are included. We conducted an
updated
meta-analysis and critique of the evidence on ETS exposure and its relationship
to death from CHD among never smokers. Our focus is on the U.S. cohort
studies, which provide the vast majority of the available evidence. ETS exposure is
assessed in terms of spousal smoking, self-reported estimates, and personal
monitoring. The epidemiologic results are summarized by means of overall
relative risks and dose-response relationships. The methodological issues of
publication bias, exposure misclassification, and confounding are discussed. Several
large studies indicate that spousal smoking history is a valid measure of
relative exposure to ETS, particularly for females. Personal monitoring of
nonsmokers indicates that their average ETS exposure from a smoking spouse is
equivalent in terms of nicotine exposure to smoking less than 0.1 cigarettes per day.
When all relevant studies are included in the meta-analysis and results are
appropriately combined, current or ever exposure to ETS, as approximated by
spousal smoking, is associated with roughly a 5% increased risk of death from CHD
in never smokers. Furthermore, there is no dose-response relationship and no
elevated risk associated with the highest level of ETS exposure in males or
females. An objective assessment of the available epidemiologic evidence
indicates that the association of ETS with CHD death in U.S. never smokers is very
weak. Previous assessments appear to have overestimated the strength of the
association.

The references of this article are secured to subscribers.

This is the link to the abstract.

http://www.journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/(yirgvi45zyvg2255nsrfan55)/app/home/cont
ribution.asp?referrer=parent&
backto=issue,5,6;journal,1,116;linkingpublicationresults,1:100660,1