Letter of the Month

As a smoker and new member of this fine club I would like to chat to other like minded individuals. I would like to add our voices in protest to make the government look at compromises that can be made with this July legislation. The last thing I want is to force my pleasures on others who don't share my view and tastes but that gate should swing both ways. I want to know what this will mean for arts and literature. Will we be unable to have new series of ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS? How can anyone make a Sherlock Holmes film or docu drama about Churchill, for example, without smoking in an enclosed space. Will the principle extend to private homes. Books and films that contain smoking references? Will the day come when it'll be easier to buy a pistol than a packet of Condor Ready Rubbed. Personally I think it time to take a leaf from Al Capones book and start a smoke easy. As it is, snce my house is on a railway station - albeit without a Sunday service - on the Monday morning I shall stand in my back yard, which happens to be on the platform, I will be less than 21 feet from the entrance to the shelter ( and the wind usually blows in that direction) and I will light my pipe. I would like to spread the word and if there are any like minded people out there, if I can get any friends to join in then thats what we'll do. We should protest as much as possible and ask our M.P's to push for some compromises. If starting smoking is all peer pressure and peer pressure is bad then what does anyone think this is? Would love to hear replies. TTFN.DAVID.

David (david.g.v.p-beynon@hotmail.co.uk)

And the others...

"The Governments attitude is totally ridiculous, if it was not for smokers where would they get a substantial amount of revenue that they have available today. As has been stated on numerous occasions on various radio stations etc. if everyone in the UK who smokes stopped smoking for a week the government would have a problem with their budget. I admit that this would not be a massive problem, but if all of these anti smoking campaigns where to work and people started stopping smoking en-mass, where would the government get the money to replace what they have lost. More to the point what would they add taxation to, or more probable what would they increase taxation on to make up for the loss. [Fuel….again] I do not understand the logic of government finance, the things they tax the most are the things that they are trying to get us to stop. Smoking being number 1.

The use of cars, they say it is because of congestion and encourage us to use public transport. If this was to happen, as with smoking the revenue from fuel taxation would drop dramatically and again the government would be in a situation whereby they would have to increase or more probable introduce a new taxation on another product. Fuel being number 2. I would say that the third item that the government in their ultimate wisdom trying to cut down on is the consumption of alcohol.

For all I disagree with binge drinking, I would have thought that if the 24hr drinking laws did come into effect, as with some of the European countries the number of occurrences would hopefully drop. Alcohol is number 3 in my list. All of the subjects above are under attack, not just by the government but by quite a few of these do-gooders as I call them. Organisations that scream and shout and protest about some of the most ridiculous little things that maybe benefit the odd 1% of the population whilst inconveniencing the other 99%. As you may have realised this is a subject I could go on and on about but I will stop here.

These are my opinions and as some people may disagree with me, [as is their right] I feel that a large majority of the population would if asked actually agree with the points raised."

Bob Sinclair, Leicestershire

I have decided to join due to my outrage on a total ban on july 1 - i am a pro club entertainer not only are people annoyed but are frightened of losing there clubs and livings , no smoking in a wmc i never thought i see that in my life time. my father was on the lancaster bombers in the war to allow us to be free to chose , this country has many problems and a bloke having a cig in a smoking room in his club after work is not one of them.

Alan Metham

"Smokers' rights have been completely eroded by a campaign of half-truths and downright lies which are contrary to the evidence. The aim seems to be to engender hatred of the smoker, and the tobacco companies have done nothing to counter the campaign. Hitting the Government in the pocket is the only means we have of fighting back."

Leslie Gilmore

As you already know, Scotland have been used once again as guinea pigs in the governments continuous harassment of the British smoker! They say people, in particular are happier! Try telling that to the small pubs who are landlocked and can't build smoking shelters or to the bingo hall patrons, particularly the elderly who most of have fought in the wars for our rights and don't look forward to much except to meet and have a game of bingo or a pint with what few of their friends are left! These people probably wonder would we have been better surrendering to Hitler? The answer is that the Scots already have, only he has been reincarnated and calls himself Jack McConnell, first minister of Scotland. My message to the British people who are willing to fight this tyranny is simple, an election is looming, ask MPs what their policy is on smoking, and vote accordingly. Good luck!

Charles Leonard

I am sick to death of being classed as a second class citizen because I smoke. The government is raking in taxes in from smokers, they cant do without us really, and we pay more taxes than anybody else. Although I suffer from bronchitis from time to time, my doctor doesnt want me to stop, slow down maybe, but not stop. I find smoking most enjoyable but too expensive so this club is ideal!!

Les Price

Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer

Every year, thousands of medical doctors and other members of the “Anti-Smoking Inquisition” spend billions of dollars perpetuating what has unquestionably become the most misleading though successful social engineering scam in history. With the encouragement of most western governments, these Orwellian lobbyists pursue smokers with a fanatical zeal that completely overshadows the ridiculous American alcohol prohibition debacle, which started in 1919 and lasted until 1933.

Nowadays we look back on American prohibition with justifiable astonishment. Is it really true that an entire nation allowed itself to be denied a beer or scotch by a tiny group of tambourine-bashing fanatics? Sadly, yes it is, despite a total lack of evidence that alcohol causes any harm to humans, unless consumed in truly astronomical quantities. Alas, the safety of alcohol was of no interest to the tambourine-bashers, for whom control over others was the one and only true goal. Americans were visibly “sinning” by enjoying themselves having a few alcoholic drinks, and the puritans interceded on behalf of God to make them all feel miserable again. Although there is no direct link between alcohol and tobacco, the history of American prohibition is important, because it helps us understand how a tiny number of zealots managed to control the behavior and lives of tens of millions of people. Nowadays exactly the same thing is happening to smokers, though this time it is at the hands of government zealots and ignorant medical practitioners rather than tambourine-bashing religious fanatics. Certain governments know that their past actions are directly responsible for causing most of the lung and skin cancers in the world today, so they go to extreme lengths in trying to deflect responsibility and thus financial liability away from themselves, and onto harmless organic tobacco instead. As we will find later in the report, humble organic tobacco has never hurt anyone, and in certain ways can justifiably claim to provide startling health protection. Not all governments around the world share the same problem. Japan and Greece have the highest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the lowest incidence of lung cancer. In direct contrast to this, America, Australia, Russia, and some South Pacific island groups have the lowest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the highest incidence of lung cancer. This is clue number-one in unraveling the absurd but entrenched western medical lie that “smoking causes lung cancer.”

The first European contact with tobacco was in 1492, when Columbus and fellow explorer Rodriguo de Jerez saw natives smoking in Cuba. That very same day, de Jerez took his first puff and found it very relaxing, just as the locals had assured him it would be. This was an important occasion, because Rodriguo de Jerez discovered what the Cubans and native Americans had known for many centuries: that cigar and cigarette smoking is not only relaxing, it also cures coughs and other minor ailments.

When he returned home, Rodriguo de Jerez proudly lit a cigar in the street, and was promptly arrested and imprisoned for three years by the horrified Spanish Inquisition. De Jerez thus became the first victim of the anti-smoking lobbies. In less than a century, smoking became a much enjoyed and accepted social habit throughout Europe, with thousands of tons of tobacco being imported from the colonies to meet the increasing demand. A growing number of writers praised tobacco as a universal remedy for mankind’s ills.

By the early 20th Century almost one in every two people smoked, but the incidence of lung cancer remained so low that it was almost immeasurable. Then something extraordinary happened on July 16, 1945: a terrifying cataclysmic event that would eventually cause western governments to distort the perception of smoking forever. As K. Greisen recalls: “When the intensity of the light had diminished, I put away the glass and looked toward the tower directly. At about this time I noticed a blue color surrounding the smoke cloud. Then someone shouted that we should observe the shock wave travelling along the ground. The appearance of this was a brightly lighted circular area, near the ground, slowly spreading out towards us. The color was yellow.

“The permanence of the smoke cloud was one thing that surprised me. After the first rapid explosion, the lower part of the cloud seemed to assume a fixed shape and to remain hanging motionless in the air. The upper part meanwhile continued to rise, so that after a few minutes it was at least five miles high. It slowly assumed a zigzag shape because of the changing wind velocity at different altitudes. The smoke had pierced a cloud early in its ascent, and seemed to be completely unaffected by the cloud.”

This was the notorious “Trinity Test”, the first dirty nuclear weapon to be detonated in the atmosphere. A six-kilogram sphere of plutonium, compressed to supercriticality by explosive lenses, Trinity exploded over New Mexico with a force equal to approximately 20,000 tons of TNT. Within seconds, billions of deadly radioactive particles were sucked into the atmosphere to an altitude of six miles, where high-speed jet streams could circulate them far and wide.

The American Government knew about the radiation in advance, was well aware of its lethal effects on humans, but bluntly ordered the test with a complete disregard for health and welfare. In law, this was culpable gross negligence, but the American Government did not care. Sooner or later, one way or the other, they would find another culprit for any long-term effects suffered by Americans and other citizens in local and more remote areas.

If a single microscopic radioactive fallout particle lands on your skin at the beach, you get skin cancer. Inhale a single particle of the same lethal muck, and death from lung cancer becomes inevitable, unless you happen to be an exceptionally lucky cigarette smoker. The solid microscopic radioactive particle buries itself deep in the lung tissue, completely overwhelms the body’s limited reserves of vitamin B17, and causes rampant uncontrollable cell multiplication.

How can we be absolutely sure that radioactive fallout particles really cause lung cancer every time a subject is internally exposed? For real scientists, as opposed to medical quacks and government propagandists, this is not a problem. For any theory to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous requirements universally agreed by scientists. First the suspect radioactive agent must be isolated, then used in properly controlled laboratory experiments to produce the claimed result, i.e. lung cancer in mammals.

Scientists have ruthlessly sacrificed tens of thousands of mice and rats in this way over the years, deliberately subjecting their lungs to radioactive matter. The documented scientific results of these various experiments are identical. Every mouse or rat obediently contracts lung cancer, and every mouse or rat then dies. Theory has thus been converted to hard scientific fact under tightly controlled laboratory conditions. The suspect agent [radioactive matter] caused the claimed result [lung cancer] when inhaled by mammals.

The overall magnitude of lung cancer risk to humans from atmospheric radioactive fallout cannot be overstated. Before Russia, Britain and America outlawed atmospheric testing on August 5, 1963, more than 4,200 kilograms of plutonium had been discharged into the atmosphere. Because we know that less than one microgram [millionth of a single gram] of inhaled plutonium causes terminal lung cancer in a human, we therefore know that your friendly government has lofted 4,200,000,000 [4.2 Billion] lethal doses into the atmosphere, with particle radioactive half-life a minimum of 50,000 years. Frightening? Unfortunately it gets worse.

The plutonium mentioned above exists in the actual nuclear weapon before detonation, but by far the greatest number of deadly radioactive particles are those derived from common dirt or sand sucked up from the ground, and irradiated while travelling vertically through the weapon’s fireball. These particles form by far the largest part of the “smoke” in any photo of an atmospheric nuclear detonation. In most cases several tons of material are sucked up and permanently irradiated in transit, but let us be incredibly conservative and claim that only 1,000 kilograms of surface material is sucked up by each individual atmospheric nuclear test.

Before being banned by Russia, Britain and America, a total of 711 atmospheric nuclear tests were conducted, thereby creating 711,000 kilograms of deadly microscopic radioactive particles, to which must be added the original 4,200 kilograms from the weapons themselves, for a gross though very conservative total of 715,200 kilograms. There are more than a million lethal doses per kilogram, meaning that your governments have contaminated your atmosphere with more than 715,000,000,000 [715 Billion] such doses, enough to cause lung or skin cancer 117 times in every man, woman and child on earth.

Before you ask, no, the radioactive particles do not just “fade away”, at least not in your lifetime or that of your children and grandchildren. With a half-life of 50,000 years or longer, these countless trillions of deadly government-manufactured radioactive particles are essentially with you forever. Circulated around the world by powerful jet streams, these particles are deposited at random, though in higher concentrations within a couple of thousand miles of the original test sites. A simple wind or other surface disturbance is all that is needed to stir them up again and create enhanced dangers for those in the vicinity.

The once-innocent activity of playfully kicking sand around on the beach in summer could nowadays easily translate to suicide, if you happen to stir up a few radioactive particles that could stick to your skin or be inhaled into your lungs. Stop poking fun at Michael Jackson when he appears at your local airport wearing a surgical mask over his nose and mouth. He may look eccentric, but Michael will almost certainly outlive most of us.

Twelve years after the cataclysmic Trinity test, it became obvious to western governments that things were getting completely out of control, with a 1957 British Medical Research Council report stating that global “deaths from lung cancer have more than doubled during the period 1945 to 1955”, though no explanation was offered. During the same ten-year period, cancer deaths in the immediate proximity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki went up threefold. By the end of official atmospheric testing in 1963, the incidence of lung cancer in the Pacific Islands had increased fivefold since 1945. Having screwed your environment completely for 50,000 years, it was time for “big government” to start taking heavy diversionary action.

How could people be proved to be causing themselves to contract lung cancer, i.e. be said to be guilty of a self inflicted injury for which government could never be blamed or sued? The only obvious substance that people inhaled into their lungs, apart from air, was tobacco smoke, so the government boot was put in. Poorly qualified medical “researchers” suddenly found themselves overwhelmed with massive government grants all aimed at achieving the same end-result: “Prove that smoking causes lung cancer”. Real scientists [especially some notable nuclear physicists] smiled grimly at the early pathetic efforts of the fledgling anti-smoking lobby, and lured them into the deadliest trap of all. The quasi medical researchers were invited to prove their false claims under exactly the same rigid scientific rules that were used when proving that radioactive particles cause lung cancer in mammals.

Remember, for any theory to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous requirements universally agreed by scientists. First the suspect agent [tobacco smoke] must be isolated, then used in properly controlled laboratory experiments to produce the claimed result, i.e. lung cancer in mammals.

Despite exposing literally tens of thousands of especially vulnerable mice and rats to the equivalent of 200 cigarettes per day for years on end, “medical science” has never once managed to induce lung cancer in any mouse or rat. Yes, you did read that correctly. For more than forty years, hundreds of thousands of medical doctors have been deliberately lying to you.

The real scientists had the quasi medical researchers by the throat, because “pairing” the deadly radioactive particle experiment with the benign tobacco smoke experiment, proved conclusively for all time that smoking cannot under any circumstances cause lung cancer. And further, in one large “accidental” experiment they were never allowed to publish, the real scientists proved with startling clarity that smoking actually helps to protect against lung cancer.

All mice and rats are used one-time-only in a specific experiment, and then destroyed. In this way researchers ensure that the results of whatever substance they are testing cannot be accidentally “contaminated” by the real or imagined effects of another substance. Then one day as if by magic, a few thousand mice from the smoking experiment “accidentally” found their way into the radioactive particle experiment, which in the past had killed every single one of its unfortunate test subjects. But this time, completely against the odds, sixty percent of the smoking mice survived exposure to the radioactive particles. The only variable was their prior exposure to copious quantities of tobacco smoke.

Government pressure was immediately brought to bear and the facts suppressed, but this did not completely silence the real scientists. Tongue in cheek perhaps, Professor Schrauzer, President of the International Association of Bio-inorganic Chemists, testified before a U.S. congressional committee in 1982 that it had long been well known to scientists that certain constituents of tobacco smoke act as anti-carcinogens [anti-cancer agents] in test animals. He continued that when known carcinogens [cancer causing substances] are applied to the animals, the application of constituents of cigarette smoke counter them.

Nor did Professor Schrauzer stop there. He further testified on oath to the committee that “no ingredient of cigarette smoke has been shown to cause human lung cancer”, adding that “no-one has been able to produce lung cancer in laboratory animals from smoking.” It was a neat answer to a rather perplexing problem. If government blocks publication of your scientific paper, take the alternate route and put the essential facts on the written congressional record!

Predictably, this hard truth drove the government and quasi medical “researchers” into a frenzy of rage. By 1982 they had actually started to believe their own ridiculous propaganda, and were not to be silenced by eminent members of the scientific establishment. Quite suddenly they switched the blame to other “secret” ingredients put into cigarettes by the tobacco companies. “Yes, that must be it!” they clamored eagerly, until a handful of scientists got on the phone and pointed out that these same “secret” ingredients had been included in the mice experiments, and had therefore also been proved incapable of causing lung cancer.

Things were looking desperate for government and the medical community overall. Since the anti-smoking funding had started in the early sixties, tens of thousands of medical doctors had passed through medical school, where they had been taught that smoking causes lung cancer. Most believed the lie, but cracks were starting to appear in the paintwork. Even the dullest of straight “C” doctors could not really make the data correlate, and when they queried it were told not to ask stupid questions. “Smoking causes lung cancer” converted to a creed, a quasi religious belief mechanism where blind faith became a substitute for proof.

Even blind faith needs a system of positive reinforcement, which in this case became the advertising agencies and the media. Suddenly the television screens were flooded with images of terribly blackened “smoker’s lungs”, with the accompanying mantra that you will die in horrible agony if you don’t quit now. It was all pathetic rubbish of course. On the mortuary slab the lungs of a smoker and non-smoker look an identical pink, and the only way a forensic pathologist can tell you might have been a smoker, is if he finds heavy stains of nicotine on your fingers, a packet of Camels or Marlboro in your coat pocket, or if one of your relatives unwisely admits on the record that you once smoked the demon weed.

The black lungs? From a coal miner, who throughout his working life breathed in copious quantities of microscopic black coal dust particles. Just like radioactive particles they get caught deep in the tissue of the lungs and stay there forever. If you worked down the coal mines for twenty or more years without a face mask, your lungs will probably look like this on the slab.

Many people ask exactly how it is that those smoking mice were protected from deadly radioactive particles, and even more are asking why real figures nowadays are showing far more non-smokers dying from lung cancer than smokers. Professor Sterling of the Simon Fraser University in Canada is perhaps closest to the truth, where he uses research papers to reason that smoking promotes the formation of a thin mucous layer in the lungs, “which forms a protective layer stopping any cancer-carrying particles from entering the lung tissue.”

This is probably as close as we can get to the truth at present, and it does make perfect scientific sense. Deadly radioactive particles inhaled by a smoker would initially be trapped by the mucous layer, and then be ejected from the body before they could enter the tissue. All of this may be a bit depressing for non-smokers, but there are probably one or two things you can do to minimize the risks as far as possible. Rather than shy away from smokers in your local pub or club, get as close as you can and breathe in their expensive second-hand smoke. Go on, don’t be shy, suck in a few giant breaths. Or perhaps you could smoke one cigarette or small cigar after each meal, just three a day to build up a thin boundary mucous layer. If you cannot or will not do either of the above, consider phoning Michael Jackson to ask for a spare surgical mask!

Serena Martin

"The willingness of the British Government to 'cherry pick' the rules of the Euro Club it has inflicted upon us, is just amazing, when it appears hell-bent on imposing many unpleasant and unwanted other rules upon the population. It is arrogance at its worst and highest level from what is probably the most corrupt government in the UK for over 400 years!"

Michael Gaunt

"Totally outrages taxes by the UK government and now infringment of human rights by introducing public smoking ban, yet all the MPs and Law Lords will be allowed to smoke in their own bar at the house of commons."

Barry

"I have been researching the smoking question for four years and I still have not found one death caused by the inhalation of tobacco smoke. The anti-smokers still refuse to debate openly - they have not given one piece of concrete evidence to support their theories - that's good enough for me to carry on smoking. We should be looking closely at the role the pharmaceutical firms play in this, they have made billions out of anti-smoking - no -one is going to jeopardize that! Follow the money!"

Ben Ellis

"In response to the smoking ban when it comes, I personally feel the Government have shot themselves in the foot, because for sure I WILL NOT be going anywhere for a drink where I can't smoke, rather have people I'm meeting come to my house for a drink, we can all drink, smoke, eat and stay as long as we like, nobody has to worry about driving home as they can stay over, we can take it in turns so in the long run we'll save money, the pubs, clubs and cabs will lose out coz they won't be getting any more of our cash. Problem, what problem, done us a favour probably without intending to. I don't think the non-smoking mob will spend enough to give the pubs and clubs enough profits to warrant staying open anyway. Keep up the good work."

Jenny

"It's OK to smoke a spliff but don't dare light up a straight cigarette, cigar, cheroot or pipe! I'm chairman of the Salisbury Conservative Club here in Bath and it is a PRIVATE members' establishment and many smokers frequent it. Next year we will probably lose members because of this lunatic ban. So much for democracy - but MPs can presumably carry on smoking! What a repressive country this is becoming and don't think it will improve if the Lib-Dims win power. What next? Will they ban alcohol to appease Muslims? Don't think they won't consider it!"

Cllr. Bryan Chalker

"We can protest all we want, but I fear to no avail what is apparent is the similarity of this government to the one that committed America to prohibition during the 1920s and whilst this ban is not on the same scale, it is however just as damaging. The thirteen years of prohibition damaged America badly and still has a lasting legacy today. The short sightedness of this government and its crony advocates who spin non evidence into facts is slowly being exposed. This ban is the result of yet another attempt by Blair and his cohorts who court what they think is general public opinion. The constant quotes about the success in Ireland and New York etc is beginning to wear thin. As reality dawns about how much trade is being lost (and it is) the tourism figures have not been included in their hype so again there not true figures, the reason why the ban in these places have been quoted time and time again is because they are thought to be high profile cities (which they are) but what is not mentioned is the growing “non public” places where people can drink and smoke, sound familiar? A bit reminiscent of what used to be called speakeasies. The flip side of this legislation is the greatly reduced revenue in taxes, taxes that are wasted on funding greedy researchers who will inevitably change their minds and no doubt produce evidence which proves less condemning about tobacco and smoke when their funding ceases. And with that thought in mind I look forward to the day when perhaps sanity regains possession of our country again, I just hope its not thirteen years and bootleg wars before it happens."

Julian Britton

"I think it absolutely disgusting that they think they can tell you that you cannot smoke, I have smoked all my life and am now 61, never had an illness in my life, it is health freaks that die young.

Francis McBride

"My wife and I have yet to avail ourselves of Club offers, due to the generosity of German friends - but the time will come, no doubt. In the meantime I can tell you that two neighbours, both 93, smoke like chimneys. I have just recovered from pneumonia but X-rays show no signs of lung damage from smoking. I am now 65 and have been smoking since the age of 17; everything from Camel, Pasha, Blue Book and now Van Nelle (when I can get it) and Drum hand-rolling. One of our friends in Greece is a pathologist - in her seventies - and smokes. She told us three years ago: 'When medical colleagues show me conclusive proof that smoking is more harmful than pollution from traffic in Athens, I'll stop'! We smokers have absolutely no rights whatsoever and I think that this is in breach of our Civil Liberties. Government greed will turn this country into a massive Russian gulag if we don't fight for our rights."

Bryan Chalker

"I smoked every day from age 12 to 48. Nobody was a more committed smoker than me, and I was on 30-40 each day until 5 years ago when I stopped. I've saved thousands of pounds, improved my chances of reaching old age, and I can honestly say I don't miss it at all. My local pub recently introduced a 'no smoking anywhere' rule (proving itself to be braver than the government) and it's packed every night. Please don't misunderstand me - I know how hard it is for people to get out of this terrible cycle - but if I did it, anyone can!"

Chris Newman

"An article that really annoyed me a while back in the Newbury Weekly News was one that suggested that non-smokers should leave cards in pubs etc that banned smoking saying 'thank you for being a non-smoking zone'. Suppose we have a card that we can leave saying 'thank you for allowing us to smoke'."

Dinah Howland

"Having smoked since I was 10, I stopped in 1994 because I could no longer afford to pay the exhorbitant rate of duty in the uk. However, I have no problem with others who smoke, and I believe that the current attitude to smoking amounts to nothing less than persecution. Smoking is not illegal, and the vast majority of pubs, clubs and restaurants already deal perfectly well with the issue of separate smoking areas without the need for legislation. The appallingly unsubstantiated assertion by the medical profession that "xxxthousands of people die every year from passive smoking", which is exploited ad nausaem by the vociferous tree hugging minority and the media, terrifies this knee-jerk government into acting as it does, to the detriment of reasonable, law-abiding, tax paying citizens. Keep on smoking guys!"

Keith Lewis

"UK government consider the smoker is easy prey to give them extra revenue, but take a jekyl & hyde approach by trying to stop us enjoying the pleasure. I dislike being treated like a leper particularly when I always endeavour to be considerate of others when smoking. Much media coverage of human rights issues, is the smoker not allowed to have any rights? I choose to smoke so any reference to damage to my health, which incidentally is excellent, is solely my choice and I have paid and continue to pay sufficient into the governments coffers to cover any treatment I may need caused by my choice of pleasure."

Rupert Hill

"Are you lobbying the govenment about the proposed smoking ban in pubs? Why can't publicans decide whether to have smoking or non-smoking establishments and display this clearly outside? Employees can also be protected by deciding where to work. This way the govenment can stand by its declared principles of freedom and choice for the individual and protect people from unwanted passive smoking. If the government claim the matter is a public health issue then they should ban the sale of cigarettes. They can't have it both ways."

Sylvia Denning

"The cost of tobacco in the UK is driven up by the 85% tax we pay. A lot of businesses ban smoking not because they care about the comfort of their customers but because it lowers their insurance premiums. The Irish government claim their total ban on smoking in all public places is a success. I think you will hear a different story if you talk to a pub owner or manager. However I do agree that all public places should have separate smoking and non smoking areas. In my opinion the main contributor to air rages is the ban on smoking in most airports and all aircraft."

Dan Ianconescu

"I am a consenting adult and I have been smoking since I was 16 though I know I was under aged when I started but that was my choice and now I enjoy a cigarette as so do many others and the Government are penalising people that smoke and drink just we want to socialise and enjoy life as we see fit and that suits an indviduals lifestyle. I say that it is wrong for these officals to decide how we should lead our lives and then penalise us what ever hapenned to free speech. I am glad that somebody has come up with the idea of allowing us to by tobacco and cigarettes ata very reasonable price and I am glad to be a member of the Smokers Club Of Great Britain."

Brian

"Though a non-smoker and non-alcohol consumer I support the idea that people should be totally free to do what they like with their own bodies. Eating meat causes people bowel cancer (and arguably several other cancers), and playing sport brings on all sorts of skeletal and ligament problems. With regard to personal pleasures/habits we are all surely in some kind of minority groups which others find offensive or at least disapprove of - for example why should vegetarians (and I'm a heavy meat and fish eater) pay taxes to support cancer sufferers whose colons are full of the rotting flesh of murdered animals? The government has marginalised and alienated so many people, no wonder so few of us respect authority anymore."

Steve Kee

"Smokers are persecuted by means of lies about the effects of passive smoking. These lies are first produced in America, and then copied by organizations around the world. There is no body of evidence that forces the conclusion that passive smoking is dangerous to nonsmokers. The effect of smoking restrictions is to exclude smokers from certain kinds of job, and to exclude them from bars and restaurants. If such exclusion was applied to homosexuals, coloured people, Jews, etc. there would be a public outcry, and the laws involved would be counted ultra vires. But no-one lifts a finger to prevent the persecution of smokers. It's time to stand together and break these outrageous laws."

Robin Campbell

"Rothmans or Golden Virginia Comments : For the last 35 years, I have worked in Oil Exploration, and as such have travelled and lived in many countries. Usually, tobacco products can be bought in the middle east and africa at a local shop, far cheaper than at a european airport (So called Duty Free). I have no health problems due to my being a heavy smoker (Up to 100 per day), and I put this down to the fact that a great part of my life has been spent in desert locations - far from the pollution of cities, which I think is the main danger contributing to respitory disease."

Sheff Strickland

"They have laws in the country which restrict anyone from prejudicially attacking others yet everyday we the smokers are attacked in one form or other for smoking. taking places away from us were we can smoke. forcing us to pay over 200% tax on cigerrettes. Its about time we used the law against itself and start a suite against the goverment using their own discrimination laws. after all it was the goernment who told us smoking was safe in the first place. I am a disabled man suffering from atheritus, cervicle spondylitus and post traumatic stress syndrome and the only thing I enjoy nowadays is a good smoke it helps me take my mind of my pain and helps to eleviate some of the constant stress I have. so lets fight back and say stuff the government."

David Bryan

"I believe that alcohol is more dangerous than tobacco. When was the last time a crime was committed after having a cigarette or a pipe! It comes down to MY freedom of choice - not being dictated to by a Government or their civil servants. Britain is supposed to be a free country and I have fought in THREE wars for that right. I want to exercise it and I wante all British citizens to have the opportunity to exercise it!"

Roger Lane-Nott

"UK Tax on cigarettes is surely a way of keeping poor people 'in their place'. i.e. keeping them poor. I suffer from severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and cigarettes help to keep my stress levels down; to keep me calmer and 'saner'. Consequently, I have been advised by my GP (a rabid anti-smoker) NOT to give up smoking. I'm a heavy smoker, yet suffer from no smoker's cough so long as I stick to my usual brand. Smoking is theraputic for me therefore, yet each year the Chancellor taxes me more on this essential product (in my case) which is benefitial to my well-being. I do take medication for the PTSD, but that does not help me as much as cigarettes do. Cigarettes are my main 'crutch' in life as regards my mental welfare. Since the PTSD renders me unable to work, I am on a very low income, made much lower by the UK government's self righteous discrimination against smokers. I feel angry and betrayed since I acquired my PTSD whilst in the Army serving my Country."

John Kerr

"Mmm, I have often wondered why people come up to me and say 'You should quit, you know' and 'It's to good for your health' etc. I don't go up to them and say 'You should try it'. Why are THEY 'interested' in MY health, since I am not in theirs? Lately I have taken to giving them a question with only one of two (short) answers & no waffling: Q: Would you prefer to be locked up in a garage with me smoking TWO ciggies x ONE hour - or- Would you prefer to be locked up in a garage with a CAR EXHAUST switched on x ONE hour. Hey ho. They can't give just on of 2 answers. they do sidestep as most politicians do who are asked a DIRECT question."

Beverley Jr Cheetham

"I have been smoking for 45 years and have never had a smoking related illness in fact the only things I have been in hospital for are childbirth, tonsilitus & varicous veins! My babies were 9lb 4oz and 8lb 8oz! This proves what dribble the press publish."

Pat Cunningham

"Whilst I would not recommend that any young person were to commence smoking (given what we now know about its undeniably-harmful effects), for someone like me, nothing further is likely to happen other than to make me ill from the mental stress caused by the constant felling of being made a social pariah. To prohibit a pleasure (or even a vice) is well-known to create a situation in which people are likely to gravitate to this activity on a larger scale - see the Prohibition of alcohol in the U.S. in the '20s, which led to the inexorable rise of organised crime (from which that country has never recovered.) May the Lord preserve us from Big Brother - and I don't mean (actually, yes I do!) the Ch.4 pseudo-documentary of the same name. What must poor Eric Blair think as he looks down from above? (He smoked.)"

Sam Fifield-Hall

"Its about time we took a stand, we are being taxed endlessly. Have you thought of the millions of pounds that have been spent on the anti-smoking television adverts. Did you know that unleaded petrol is 100 times more harmful than the old leaded petrol. It emits carcinogens in the atmosphere for the first half hour of running your engine until the catalytic converter reaches 800 degrees. Just think of the number of cars on our roads and us smokers get the blame for the ever increasing amount of cancers! I too am totally fed up with this government and its tactics for extracting money out of us in which ever way they can. I can go on and on about this unfair system."

Dick Smith

"I too am fed up with the anti-smoking stance in this country! I was amazed at how little time it takes to get across the channel with Eurostar, turn right & drive for about 40mins to Aidenkirrk (Unsure of spelling) where there is a place called Tobacco Row where you can pay in £’s for cigs, tobacco and booze at less than 1/3 price of here. Eg. I smoke Golden Virginia which costs nearly £10 for a 500g packet in Tesco… there I paid just £2.30 a pack! We left Chelmsford at 2pm and we were back in our local at 9.45pm! Or you can make a day of it & go for meal - we found the restaurants to be fantastic value and the quality of food was first class… and of course there is the Belgium Beer for the non-drivers! We went on one of the special offer trips which cost £40 for the return journey for the car ( all passengers included & 4 of us went!) I really is worth getting together with a few other couples and taking it in turns to go 3-4 times a year each… you can then buy all the tobacco & booze you need and have a few good days out as well! I really think we ought to have a NATIONAL SMOKERS DAY… where WE SMOKERS all go into all these non-smoking areas and light up in protest!"

Linda May Rumble

"I was raised in an era when smoking was an accepted social pastime. I am sick and tired of being branded a 'baddie' and feel I should be wearing a bell around my neck announcing 'unclean! unclean!'. I am tired of keeping the NHS going along with all the other smokers and then told to pack it in. Will they refuse to treat me if I am ill? They treat heroine addicts, alcoholics, over eaters but smokers are the lowest of the low and should suffer for their habit. Good Luck to you all who have decided to band together. I am so happy to join you."

Mary Reeves

"I am fed up with being harangued by ads on the telly showing weeping families around the grave of someone who 'never smoked around the kids, always popped outside for a smoke' etc etc ad nauseum. I would like to know how much of the fatcat revenue that this most liar-ridden of govenments in living memory claws from us is actually put into the NHS which then is told to withhold treatment from tobacco related illness. What about alchohol? We only see the bloody ads for alchohol around Xmas! There is not one male member of Blairs lot that deserves the name 'man'. They are a bunch of spineless morons constantly giving in to the pernicious yacking of their ultra bigoted left wing rump. Bastards the lot of 'em. 'We don't put up taxes?' Oh not much. How much are my fags now and do they not even have the faintest idea WHY people get their cigs & booze elsewhere? This particular Nanny State need introducing to Madame Guillotene a.s.a.p. Apologies for rant ~ lots to get off of ones chest! "

David Pope

"I like many others are made to feel like a bad person if you smoke but i saw an artical that the person who starts thier car hjust to go to the local shop poisons the air more in that on task than we smokers also why when you go any where the rooms they set aside for we smockers has riped chairs and window sill full of dead flys because they are never cleaned but just go in the none smokers room and it has lovely chairs e.c.t i am sick of being looked at as odd do theses none smoker not see that we the smokers keep the goverment in taxes that is the only way they can keep the hospitals going on tobacco taxes tell me if you can why drinkers who cost the people of this country has much if not more to treat for thier problem and no one makes them feel like a lepper as they do to smokers and i have seen them wet them self as they sit in nice chairs at the hospital i agree half price tobacco for briton or put up all drink as they do tabacco every year and put up cigars that the m.p smoke then you may find if it hits them as well they may see thing a lot better if the can though the drink and cigar smoke no wonder the people who bring tabacco in to england make so much money we shold tell the prim minister that sweden i thik took of the tax and the goverment then had this money as the people brought from the shops instead of on the black market is this also a human rights think could not some one take a case to the courts in brussels as they do for other things

Maria Holton

"Passive smoking is ridiculously blown out of proportion, and smokers need more respect. its bad enough having to spend £20 a week on smokes at my age without people looking down on me. im alright with no smoking in resturants, but smokin in pubs should be allowed. an dropping fag butts should not mean a £50 fine. maybe if we had somewhere 2 put them we wouldn't just drop them."

Chris Chippendale

"I am a consenting adult and I have been smoking since I was 16 though I know I was under aged when I started but that was my choice and now I enjoy a cigarette as so do many others and the Government are penalising people that smoke and drink just we want to socialise and enjoy life as we see fit and that suits an indviduals lifestyle. I say that it is wrong for these officals to decide how we should lead our lives and then penalise us what ever hapenned to free speech. I am glad that somebody has come up with the idea of allowing us to by tobacco and cigarettes ata very reasonable price and I am glad to be a member of the Smokers Club Of Great Britain."

Brian

"UK prices are ludicrous, I cannot believe they are nearly £5 a packet. I am well aware of smoking related illnesses. i really enjoy my cigarettes especially with a drink and after a meal.i have given up for long periods in the past but always seem to go back. I go to restaurants where i can smoke. Pubs should bring in a smoking only bar instead of stopping smoking altogether. I feel like an alien having to go outside for a cigarette and do not enjoy it as much as being comfortable inside."

Jackie Rigden

"I have enjoyed smoking for many years, and disagree with the smoking restrictions in the UK. I feel like emigrating just to enjoy a cheaper smoke! The pubs will be empty and lose trade when and if the ban from smoking in pubs comes in!....and The off liscence shops will thrive, as people will smoke and drink at home! Me personally have never had any health problems related to smoking, and feel we should all be able to smoke freely like our great grand parents did!"

Karen Frazer

"I am a smoker, aged 46 years. I have tried to give up, purely because of the cost and not really because i know they are bad for me. I don't agree with the increases on tobacco, for i feel that smokers have just as much rights as non-smokers in this so called 'free country'. I actually enjoy smoking, even though i constantly being referred to as some kind of leper, to those that don't smoke. They made their choice not to smoke, as I did when I made my choice 'to' smoke. I am a consenting adult and do things which are legal, in every other aspect of my life. I don't drive fast, I wear my seat belt, always pay my taxes and bills as much as anyone else, but get so annoyed when this government keeps enforcing even more taxation on 'us' smokers. Therefore I want to join forces with the 'Smokers Club of Great Britain' please."

Sharon Smith

We rely on our members to send us their views and ideas by letter, so keep on writing!

Click here to send us your contribution!