Your Globe
Send your messages to 80360, start your message with Wirral Globe or click here to contact us »
Want to share your opinion, leave a tribute or comment on a news story? It's easy!
You can register for free here and comment on any of our stories.
Your news, Your views.
Smoke-free Wirral
4:30pm Tuesday 27th March 2007
Comments (24)THERE are less than 100 days to go before Wirral - along with the rest of England - goes smoke-free.
Going smoke free means that smoking in virtually every enclosed public place and workplace will no longer be allowed from 6am on Sunday, July 1.
"I'm confident that people will adjust to the new measure, just as they did when cinemas, theatres, hair salons, aeroplanes and many other settings went smoke free."
Marie Armitage
The change in legislation is designed to protect people from the effects of second hand smoke and in the next 100 days Smokefree Wirral - a partnership between Wirral Council, the Wirral NHS Primary Care Trust and local business groups - will be stepping up efforts to make everyone aware of how they will be affected.
Advertisements are set to appear on mobile ad-vans, billboards, buses, trains, taxis and in the local media to let people know where they can go for help and advice in preparing to go smoke free.
A series of road shows at local shopping areas are also planned, while licensing and environmental health staff from Wirral Council are planning to visit local businesses.
Officers will also undertake the borough's biggest pub crawl so that licensees are fully aware of what they need to do to comply with the legislation.
To mark the 100-day landmark last week, the first ad-van took to the streets of Wirral paying particular attention to industrial and commercial areas.
Marie Armitage, joint director of public health for Wirral, said: "The bottom line is you don't have to be a smoker to become seriously ill from cigarette smoking.
"Breathing in other people's cigarette smoke is a major cause of ill health and exposure to it is preventable.
"Smoke free has proved to be a runaway success in Ireland and Scotland by creating healthier and cleaner places for everyone to socialise and work in.
"I am confident that people will adjust to the new measure, just as they did when cinemas, theatres, hairdressing salons, aeroplanes and many other settings went smoke free.
"Many smokers I have spoken to are actually looking forward to July 1 as they believe it will help them to quit."
Your Say YourWirral Globe
Phil Watkinson, Birkenhead says...
10:40am Thu 29 Mar 07
gary, birkenhead says...
11:06am Thu 29 Mar 07
no name, wirral says...
11:28am Thu 29 Mar 07
Joe, Wirral says...
8:17pm Thu 29 Mar 07
John Reid as Health Sec had a workable partial ban agreed which was even part of Labour's election manifesto. The full ban didn't not materialise til Hewitt took over as Health Sec. This is about her personal dislike of smoking because their is no reason a partial ban could not have worked - especially in private members clubs.
It is my view that venue owners should decide whether or not smoking is allowed on their premises - let's not forget that no-one has a statutory right to be in a venue, you are there because the owner allows you to be.
Interesting that the bars of the houses of Parliament are exempt because the houses of parliament are classed as a Royal Palace and under no obligation to conform to the legislation. It's supposed to be all about the danger of second hand smoke yet those imposing this legislation are happy to have it in their own workplace, but no-one else is allowed to? It's Outrageous.
Hewitt tells us that - quote: "the evidence is overwhelming that there is no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke". So why is it still legal? Cause it's nonsense, that's why. Marie Armitage will have us believe that second hand smoke is - quote "a major cause of ill health". This is also nonsense. Not least because the world health organisation buried a report on a study into the effects of second hand smoke across SEVEN countries and could not find the evidence they were looking for. If you go to a GP these days with an ailment and tell them that you smoke, then without further ado, smoking is responsible for it.
It's a shame that too many people can't see by their dislike of smoking to appreciate just how far the Gov has overstepped the mark here, but no doubt - excuse the pun - they will when the Gov oversteps the mark again like coming into your house re council tax valuations. It is you folk who are giving them the green light to do as they please. So when the time comes, don't moan.
dennis, Liscard says...
8:38pm Thu 29 Mar 07
As for the latest advert I would like to know how they can show black smoke comming from ciggerttes the only smoke you get is white but if you take a good look at the fumes comming from diesal vechles that is where you can prove black smoke which the people are breathing each day they leave their homes.
If you take the time to observe todays pushchairs are just at the right height that those fumes blow straight into chidrens faces.
As for the chemicals found in tobacco they fail or choose not to inform the public that all these chemicals are in use everyday in greater quanaties in products that used everyday CHECK MICROSOFT ENCARTA ENCYCLOPEDIA 2000 for info on these
Craig, Wirral says...
9:18am Fri 30 Mar 07
Phil Watkinson wrote:Already in Scotland there are some 30 new 'enhancements' to the smoking legislation proposed. That's on top of glasgow city council banning it anywhere on there premises - including in your own car if you happen to be on council owned land. What next - banned in council houses? Council property after all.
Ah, how quick we are to give up our freedoms these days. People bleat on about \'Big Brother\' government, then in the next breath they can\'t wait to let that same government remove one more freedom. And do you think the anti-smoking zealots will be happy once this new legislation comes into force? Of course they won\'t. They\'ll set their sights on a complete ban on smoking next. And if they achieve that, they\'ll move on to some other \'social evil\' - be careful citizens of the UK, one day in the not-too-distant future your government may be dictating what sort of books you are allowed to read, or what sort of food you may eat. Then how foolish the self-congratulatory \'chattering classes\' will look...but it will be TOO LATE.
Whatever your feelings are around smoking, there is no reason for this blanket ban. There is an e-petition on the Downing Street website. If you value freedom to choose, then sign it:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/repeal-the-ban/
A.Cotgrave, Wallasey says...
11:46am Fri 30 Mar 07
first of all who is paying for the advitisments on, taxis, busses, and demonstrations around town and who is going to pay for the officers patroling the pubs, and so on mind you, it would be nice to see this happen ,then maybe we could get rid of drunken trouble makers and uphold the promisses that this lot made on the none alcohol areas thats never been kept,then we would not have to suffer the stench of stail beer and sick every where let alone pay for any damage done to properties, if you want to remove smoking altogether, then close down all tobacco factories, stop,selling tobacco/cigaretts in shops-stoes-pub they need the revenue in taxes to support the financing of the , i now ask them this,do prisons come under this ban [i dont think so becourse you would be in breech of there civil rights,i totaly agree with mr Alcott about desil admissions into the atmosphere, as more and more vehcles are introdued to the roads the more chest complaints you are going to receave, in nearly every earea none smokers where granted a none smoking zone to protect them against this myth of secondary smoking,thay are not giving this right to smokers and thay are telling the owners of business who they can have or who they cannot have on their premisses, i feel we are entering a very dangerous erra, becourse of what is beeing done without the peoples concent
dennis, Liscard says...
9:06pm Fri 30 Mar 07
Therefore these properties are available to ex-sex offenders Ex-crimals drug addicts drug supplyies alcholics of cause non-smokers
So those young people who have lived in this country all their lives and have been on a council list have got no chance if they smoke where do they live?
J.R.Hartley, Wallasey says...
1:50am Sat 31 Mar 07
Margaret Evans, Birkenhead says...
6:54pm Sat 31 Mar 07
1. The smoke from cigarettes increases the risk of cancer and heart disease - this is preventable.Try telling Roy Castle's widow that breathing in other peoples smoke is not dangerous.
2. Many of my friends who smoke are looking forward to this. By the way they also do not smoke in front of their kids. Like many smokers they are responsible.
3. In terms of cost, a small outlay at the beginning will save many millions more for the NHS in the long term as more people decide to quit and less people are exposed to cigarette smoke. But more important than money, the tragedy of thousands of lives being cut short through the effects of tobacco may be alleviated.
4. Why do people always go on about vehicle emmissions as though it is an either or situation. Yes I agree this needs to be tackled but this should not mean we do not protect people from cigarette smoke.
5.Forgive me if I'm wrong here but this legislation is not about whether people can smoke or not just where. I don't mind if people smoke but I do mind having to breathe in their smoke.
Joe, Wirral says...
4:24pm Sun 1 Apr 07
J.R.Hartley wrote:I don't think anybody is saying that smoking is healthy. Neither are many other things.
WE ALL DESERVE COMPO!
However, the ferocity of this legislation is outrageous given that many other things can be more attributed to ill health than smoking and are costing the NHS far more.
If the propaganda brigade are to be believed, then anyone who smokes should be dead within a year or two of taking up the habit. Doesn't happen though, does it?
So long as smoking is legal, it is outwith the government's remit to dictate whether or not it is allowed in places where people have a choice to go to, or not go to. That is democracy.
This Government is having a field day. Did you know that as of tomorrow, a £15 "surcharge" which will go to victims of domestic violence - will be added to any speeding offences if you go to court over it? And that the intention is to extend that to on the spot fines for motoring offences - so basically it will soon apply to all motoring offences?
When the smoking ban kicks in, I'll comply with it. Yet next time you caught speeding and fork out an extra £15 - I'm laughing at you because it is you folk who've allowed the Gov to do whatever it likes.
CAROL ANN LAZELL, lethbridge alberta canada says...
10:52am Mon 2 Apr 07
carolann lazell
lethbridge police service.
Mr Bollo, says...
11:19am Mon 2 Apr 07
Yes I may have a choice whether or not to go into a pub, but once inside I have no choice with regards to the atmosphere in which I have to sit, especially in the smaller pubs which lack air conditioning. Smokers complaining about the ban should remember they are actually in a minority now in this country...
I really like going to pubs, and will enjoy the experience far more once this ban comes in. I dont see it as a civil liberties issue you will still be able to smoke at home and in private memebers clubs. Maybe the British Legions etc. will enjoy a surge in membership as a result of this change.
I also happen to think we should make all drugs legal but I wouldnt propose allowing people to shoot up heroin in public places either.
Phil Watkinson, says...
11:43am Mon 2 Apr 07
For now. But, as I mentioned above, how long do you think it will be before the zealots try to stop that as well?
"...you will still be able to smoke...in private members clubs..."
No, you will not. Even a private club run BY smokers FOR smokers will not be allowed under this new legislation. Unless you can get it classed as a royal palace - how ironic to see out 'lords and masters' making a nice little exception for themselves - a case of 'do as we say, not do as we do'?
And politicians wonder why the public have so little faith in them...
and in private memebers clubs.
mike Donnelly, Wallasey says...
11:50am Mon 2 Apr 07
I would also like to point out that private members clubs like The British Legion will also be smokefree, earlier proposals to exempt them were overturned.
I honestly believe this will be a landmark piece of public health legislation, one which will reap benefits both in the short and long term.
Phil Watkinson, says...
12:18pm Mon 2 Apr 07
"Oh, Brave New World, that has such people in it..."
Mr Bollo, says...
3:30pm Mon 2 Apr 07
Phil Watkinson, says...
4:19pm Mon 2 Apr 07
mr bollo, says...
4:35pm Mon 2 Apr 07
Phil Watkinson, says...
4:47pm Mon 2 Apr 07
joe, Wirral says...
8:34pm Mon 2 Apr 07
mike Donnelly wrote:Mike, granted - tobacco companies denied nicotine was addictive, but also - the World Health Organisation buried the findings of its report on the dangers of second hand smoke because it couldn't substantiate its claims, so in actual fact, there is NO "overwhelming" evidence at all. Just a lot of clever manipulation.
As Smokefree Wirral Co-ordinator can I just respond to some points made here. If there is any organization that has been responsible for misleading the public then it is the tobacco industry NOT the government. This industry denied for years that smoking caused any harm and that it was addictive. It buried any research that proved this and knowingly continued to promote and advertise to young people. They are continuing to do mislead the public on the dangers of secondhand smoke despite the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. I would also like to point out that private members clubs like The British Legion will also be smokefree, earlier proposals to exempt them were overturned. I honestly believe this will be a landmark piece of public health legislation, one which will reap benefits both in the short and long term.
And it's ludicrous to use 'denied that it was harmful' - many things that are perfecly legal, can be classed as harmful. So, don't be singling out smoking. It's just a lame argument.
In fact, directly and indirectly, alcohol is by far a more social scourge in terms of health and well being than smoking could ever hope to match, yet the Gov gives us 24hr licensing facilities. No doubt closely followed by obesity, and not to mention all the other pollutants going on around us.
Got our best interests at heart? Na, course not. Simply won over by the anti smokers and health freaks.
It's going to be very interesting in the coming years to see what the cause of ailments gets attributed to next - can't blame it on passive smoking anymore remember.
mike Donnelly, Wallasey says...
9:42am Tue 3 Apr 07
Can I just clear up this notion that the WHO "buried" a study on the dangers of secondhand smoke. This is untrue. The results of the study in question by the International Agency for Research on Cancer where in line with other research and showed - secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in non-smokers. There was a delay in publishing the findings at the time (1998) as the study was sent for peer review which is standard scientific practice.This however was mis-reported in the British media (The Sunday Telegraph in particular)on the eve of the publication of another report proving the links between secondhand smoke and disease.The Sunday Telegraph report extensively quoted the opinions of the tobacco company BAT.
As for your concerns about alcohol, I completely agree there is a problem here but this does not mean we should forget about smoking. I do not mean to diminish the harm caused by alcohol here but in terms of health, alcohol related deaths are around 8,000 a year which is shocking. However, smoking related deaths are 114,000 a year.You say I should not single out smoking but I'm afraid it is my job to do so - it is up to others to flag up their health concerns.
Joe, Wirral says...
4:09pm Tue 3 Apr 07
On the other hand, what constitutes an alcohol related death is a pretty narrow remit. Hence such a distortion of the figures.
UNITED FRONT: Phil Dickson, Principal Environmental Health Officer for Wirral Council, Council Chief Executive Stephen Maddox, Marie Armitage, the joint Director of Public Health for Wirral and Mike Donnelly of Smokefree Wirral
In this section
- Concern for missing Tranmere woman Carol Nursaw
- Birkenhead man died trying to steal copper cable from abandoned factory
- From Wirral Magistrates Court
- Wirral man denies murdering his grandmother
- Wirral MP calls for drains to be inspected following flash floods
- Man behind New Brighton revamp is appointed chairman of regional development agency
- Wirral man told to behave or face losing his home
- Birkenhead Park's link with New York celebrated in tree-planting ceremony
- IT'S ONE RULE FOR US, ANOTHER FOR THEM
- UPDATED: Alan Mahon returns to Tranmere Rovers
Sponsored Links
Local advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
alcott, Liscard says...
6:08pm Wed 28 Mar 07
Questions
like all the survevies reported to be made who took part because I have asked people in Liscard and Birkenhead and I have found none that knew about any survey never mind take part
2)on envioment issues I did not see smoking as a caurse of pollution
2There is more danger from motor vecheles and industrail pollution than smoking
3)when the cherry tree orchard went no smoking why was 1 cafe in the centre allowed to smoke and the one that closed in the middle of the complex and now as re-opened has a smokers cafe yet a foot outside is non-smoking
4)In the last week Scotland reported loss of jobs and busnesses closing down because of the lack of trade
5)Mecca bingo halls closures in Scotland and a lose of 40% and have made comments that bingo halls will have to following because of the loss of trade.
Marie Armitage stated she had spoke to smokers I'd like to know who they were
6)How many Councillers run or have conections to busnesses that sell or supply tobbacoo
I could go on but I don't know how much room I've got
Thank you D.Alcott