lets just have done with it and ban smiling or enjoying yourself while we are at it

wouldn't mind but these anti smoking jobsworths are all referencing flawed research. there's no real evidence that passive smoking has any real effect. don't believe me? spend 5 minutes googling it.

An excellent idea. It may also help reduce the detritus of cigarette 'butts', and other smoking paraphernalia, that the 'addicts' throw from the windows of their vehicles onto our roads.
A filthy habit.

I don't smoke, but very slowly our lives and privacy are being intruded upon. They're planning to send people round to your house to lecture you on your travel habits. ID cards, tracking devices in your vehicles, CCTV everywhere.

I trod on a nick, and even dropped an "h" the other day. I'm just waiting for a reprimand in the post....

Sorry, but people are getting tired of it.

Im all against smoking totally in the same space as children,but not to ban smoking in cars totally.

100 years ago there would have been riots if governments had attempted to remove newly won freedoms. As for Pat Karney, he should remember he works for us and not the other way around.

The law is going too far and people must stand up for their rights and ignore the unjust ones such as registering for ID cards and not smoking in pubs. And if you see Pat Karney about, blow smoke in his face somebody.

Princess_Pam, Crumpsall
I think karney is the only councillor worth anything in manchester.hes done a lot but gets very much recognition.

Interesting. they say they want to protect children from second hand smoke. Bring back smoking in pubs where children should,nt be . This country is now a joke.

I am a non-smoker but find this article depressing because it is a further example of "anti" campaigners seeking to impose another "ban" on the people of this country. Smug victories by fanatical campaigners (whatever their cause) create alienated sections of the community. Most people would not choose to smoke in a confined place where children are present. Those that don't need to be educated to change - but lets not have another smug "ban". I'm beginning to feel smothered in this country with all of my choices (good or bad) being legislated upon by campaigners. "Ban signs" are now so numerous they are now assuming graffitti proportions!

What exactly are we protecting children from? Passive smoking. Give me a break - second hand smoke is virtually harmless. These killjoys just want to CONTROL you. Whether you are a smoker, non-smoker or anti-smoker beware, this smoking ban has let the lunatics out of the asylum. They are hellbent on destroying all free choice and generally making life in the UK a complete and utter misery. It is about time people smelt the coffee, these people are a serious threat to our hard won liberties.

Ask yourselves why we have the longest living generation? who would have been through the biggest passive smoking eras. Then ask them what they did not do and we may get somewhere to the truth of things. Stop persecution smokers. Stop the lying and scare-mongering, there are things that could be done to protect our children and this is not one of them. Give parents a clue where child abusers live. Get some perspective in the spitefull ban that was NOT wanted by the majority. Stop lying!
8th August 2006 the HSE in their document OC 255/15 article9 state
" HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to second hand smoke to the raised risk of contacting specific diseases".

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/09/true-confessions-of-my-reasons-for.html
Then when I discovered the American Cancer Society air quality testing which proves secondhand smoke levels are up to 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA workplace air quality regulations, thus nullifying the argument that secondhand smoke is a health hazard, I knew I also had to distribute that information far and wide....to further expose the smoking ban movement for what it is..........AN ENORMOUS FRAUD.



"Prohibition...goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." -Abraham Lincoln, December, 1840

A blanket ban was NOT, wanted by the majority
Let publicans decide not the government. Please go to www.freedom2choose.info/
WE NEED TO FIGHT THIS TOGETHER
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/PublicSmokeRoom/
We need to get this ban amended to include ventilation,Please help us, with your support and donations are very welcome,

Pat Karney and Beverley Hughes are an insult to any thinking person. The evidence concerning passive smoking is so clear (eg. Enstrom and Kabat) that there is no danger whatsoever, make me wonder what they are trying to achieve. Very suspicious, I think these people should be removed from their positions immediately.

Critique of the Report of the Committee on Smoking in Public Places
Section 3.6
This section, relying on a WHO publication of 1999 as the Committee’s fourth “key document,” continues the misdirection of Section 3.4 and also ignores the fact that in the previous year, 1998, the WHO published its own massive international case-control study of the effects of secondary smoke. That study was notable in that it failed to deliver almost any significant findings with regard to harm from exposure to secondary smoke.
Note that I said “almost,” because the single scientifically significant finding that did come out of that report has been buried deeply by Antismoking publicists. Referencing the study itself in Appendix A one finds that the WHO did indeed find something significant: children of smokers eventually developed 22% LESS lung cancer than matched children of nonsmokers. The pressure against admitting such a finding publicly was so great that the authors themselves classified it as simply indicating “no association” in their study abstract despite the fact that it was the single significant finding in their entire report.
For the Committee to emphasize the 1999 finding while ignoring the 1998 study is a clear case of misdirection and misfeasance of their charter. Again, the proper remedy as recommended earlier should be applied.

another slap in the face of freedom,why dont people stop moaning about other people doing what they want,

MEN is an anti smoking newspaper.

This is going to far, I wonder which straw is going to break the camels back.
What next, gain brownie points if you hear your neighbours swear and report them to the politically correct council. ENOUGH is ENOUGH! TTFN

'...the detritus of cigarette 'butts', and other smoking paraphernalia'?
Ah, you must mean the jumble of lighters, ashtrays, shisha pipes and cigar clippers now littering the carriageways of our roads and motorways.
You ought to try living eight miles from a MacDonalds restaurant, which is the precise point at which the average MacDonalds diner has finished his/her meal and chucks the empty containers onto the verge.

I think they should ban councilors and MP's who jump on the 'ban it band wagon'.
Whose paid for this Californian "expert" to come over here and tell us what to do (not MCC I hope). Lets send Pat Karney to California and tell them they have got to change their gun laws. His feet wouldn't touch they would have him on the next plane out before somebody shot him.
This no smoking campaign has now gone far enough so leave the car alone (I don't smoke). TTFN

Whats next? a daily allocation of Toilet Paper?, Maybe 1 flush per day how did it go in meet the fockers? If its yellow let it mellow if its brown flush it down (sounds like a plan for these silly rules) i doubt very much any sensible parent subjects their children to a daily faceful of smoke i myself dont smoke in the house or the car no matter what time of day/night it is

This is just the 'next logical step' for the anti-smoking prohibitionists. After we're all implored in a Helen Lovejoy-esque fit of hysteria to 'PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!', there'll be calls to ban smoking within 20 feet of public buildings because of diaphanous veil of insidious fag smoke which now 'clouds' entrances impacting upon the delicate little constitutions of anti-smokers who let us know this with their pathetic little coughs.

Cue: further outdoor bans while the gov't and non-smoking majority reap the benefits of the disproportionate amount of tax smokers contribute to the treasury, while smokers, who, let's face it, prop up the NHS, will be denied treatment.

I envisage a fascistically 'smoke free' future.

When is all this "Anti" rubbish going to end,why dont we have a "Pro" for a change,lets be in favour for telling the truth about smoking and its effects on non smokers of any age be it in a car or pub,lets face it the BAN was put in place with no science to justify it,it was all lies,so what can we do now,lets all be for getting rid of this ban and telling the TRUTH,it may then that there are still some honest people in this country and we could call it having the freedom to choose

I think anti-smoking campaigners should be banned.

Why is it that when Pat Karney has something to say about smoking bans, he gets such easy access to the press?
This man has something similar to tunnel vision. He only sees what he wants to see. He takes the only place in the world [California} who have a smoking ban in cars and says "It could be here in five years" The decision should be kleft to us whether we smoke in cars or not. This is our own property and comments like this I believe interfere with our human rights. Where are the human rights activists now?
Before the national ban came in Mr Karney went to Dublin as part of a fact finding mission on the smoking ban. He came back and told us that it was a complete success. It depends how he measures success. I was there at the same time and pubs and bars were empty. The up to date information on this"success" is that pubs and bars are still empty and sales of alcohol in supermarkets has rocketed. People are inviting friends round to their house to have a drink and a smoke.It is possible that could happen here as bars and pubs are suffering as the smoking ban kicks in. It is a known fact that when people drink at home they tend to drink a lot more than if they were out, does this mean we will have an increase in alcoholism. If so will he put his name to that one?
With reference to the "tunnel vision syndrome" he does not mention the proposed situation in Portugal. it looks like the Government there are going to give bar and pub owners the choice whether they go non smoking or smoking. This will mean if you want to smoke you can go to a smoking bar or on the other hand if you don't you can go to a non smoking bar. I was over there recently and was talking to a man who had just spent a month in Spain. He did not stay in the holiday area. He said although there is a smoking ban in public buildings in Spain he used a bar where everyone just ignored it. So Mr karney can you please tell us why there are different rules for different countries in the Common Market?
Smoking has gone on in this country for over two hunded years and along comes a man who wants to force his own views on the country. Just remember due to the recent smoking ban a lot of people are going to be out of work due to lost trade in pubs. I don't see Mr Karney campaigning for the closeure of cigarette factories. Is he afraid that he will upset the government because they will loose a lot of V.A.T.? So to the people of Manchester, at the next council elections use your vote.