Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


House guests get the message 'you'll have had your smoke'

Premium Article !

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

Options

Premium Article !

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

Subscribe

Registered Article !

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

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

Published Date: 22 March 2008
Lighting up has become the most serious social gaffe for visitors, a new poll finds
ETIQUETTE for visitors decrees you shouldn't turn your nose up at a neighbour's decor, check the furniture for dust or arrive without a bottle or suitable gift to mark the occasion.

It really isn't the done thing to jump into granny's favourite a
rmchair, put your feet on her coffee table or take command of the remote control for the TV set.

But a new opinion poll shedding light on the most unpopular forms of house guest behaviour has thrown up a surprise winner in the offensiveness stakes.

With the nation still grappling with the introduction of smoking legislation in the past two years, lighting up in someone else's house has been voted the most terrible breach of etiquette.

According to the findings of a survey conducted by the BBC's Good Homes magazine, visitors who smoke in your home are less welcome than those who outstay their welcome, criticise the way your home is decorated or even raid the fridge.

Experts on both sides of the smoking debate yesterday agreed that the poll findings reflected a sea-change in public attitudes towards smoking.

Sheila Duff, chief executive of Ash Scotland, Scotland's leading anti-smoking organisation, said: "What this poll shows is how much more aware people now are about how harmful second-hand smoke can be. It's not about blaming smokers, because tobacco is highly addictive and is still heavily promoted all over the world.

"Although we have seen a lot of changes in how society views smoking, there is still a lot of work to be done to reduce the impact of second-hand smoke in the home, particularly in the more rural areas of Scotland."

However, Neil Rafferty, spokesman for the smokers' rights group Forest, said: "You would never have seen the same kind of findings in a poll like this 15 to 20 years ago.

"The anti-smoking brigade have basically managed to turn smokers into social lepers these days. These people clearly need to start calming down and get some sense of perspective about smoking, as once the impact of the anti-smoking legislation calms down they'll move on to something else."

And hotelier, writer and social commentator Lady Claire Macdonald said: "I frankly can't think of anything worse than someone checking for dust in my house. How awful.

"As a former smoker myself, there are much worse things visitors could do to offend me, especially stealing something from the fridge or looking for dust."

Bernie Herlihly, editor of Good Homes, said: "Having guests over can seem like a good idea but the result can be a minefield of house etiquette issues. Defining some gentle house rules, especially for guests that are due to stay for a night or two, can be key to a harmonious house guest experience."





The full article contains 487 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 21 March 2008 10:18 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

weeshooie1,

Wollongong 22/03/2008 01:44:36
The thing I hate most is grubby little ankle-biters who head straight for the fridge or the larder to look for something to eat or drink anytime they feel like it or, even worse, little baskets who open drawers and cupboards. It galls me more when their parents say or do nothing about it. I'd just like to break their fingers (the kids, not the adults)or give them a skelp on the erse for invading my privacy :0(
2

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 22/03/2008 01:57:33
weeshooie1,

NOW, NOW! your Not allowed to do that anymore!

Our 'Ankle-Biter's' have..'Rights'! :-))
3

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 22/03/2008 01:59:34
Now wheres my cigarrettes,??
4

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 22/03/2008 02:00:28
Now wheres my cigarette's,??
5

TheTerminator,

22/03/2008 02:08:33
Could this be a loophole in the smoking ban?.

http://www.smokeupstairs.com
6

Beth Boyle,

NY 22/03/2008 02:35:53
I hate people who come here and start chain smokeing the house stinks for weaks.Smoking and bratty kids are equally as bad.
7

Thomas Laprade,

Thunder Bay 22/03/2008 03:47:12
smoke from tobacco is a statistically insignificant health risk.
8

Thomas Laprade,

Thunder Bay 22/03/2008 03:50:22
There are two reasons for smoking bans and neither of them are about health.

1.Quarantine/isolate the smoker.

2. De-normalize smoking.

Unfortunately, the hospitality industry is caught in the cross-fire.

http://smokersclubinc.com
http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com
9

Rollo Tommasi,

22/03/2008 04:03:57
Thomas: You're absolutely wrong. Passive smoking is a clear and demonstrable health risk.

The websites you quote distort the science. Either deliberately or recklessly, they misquote people like Robert Temple and Marcia Angell about relative risk requirements.

I can give you proof too. The Marcia Angell & Robert Temple quotes both relate to a discussion about the relative risk required before a "single epidemiologic study is persuasive by itself" (http://www.nasw.org/awards/1996/96Taubesarticle.htm). In other words, they're not suggesting that studies reporting smaller relative risks aren't valid - they're simply stating that a SINGLE study needs to show a large relative risk to be conclusive without the need for further evidence.

As for Ms Angell, your websites cut off her quote before she finished her sentence - "particularly if it is biologically implausible or if it's a brand-new finding".

To further prove my point, while Ms Angell was executive editor there, the New England Journal of Medicine published a report which showed that "nonsmokers exposed to environmental smoke had a relative risk of coronary heart disease of 1.25 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.17 to 1.32) as compared with nonsmokers not exposed to smoke" and concluded that "Given the high prevalence of cigarette smoking, the public health consequences of passive smoking with regard to coronary heart disease may be important"? Surely if you were right, she wouldn’t have accepted that study for publication. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/340/12/920

These pro-smoking websites are the true homes of junk science.
10

Clancy,

US 22/03/2008 05:08:42
I still would rather have a house guest light up a smoke than shag my wife.

I'd say thats much worse.
11

Randomarrow,

Vermont 22/03/2008 05:51:16
I can't stand the smell. I quit about 30 years ago. Light up a dubie, it's OK. Light up tobacco it's out you go. Most folks around here are hip to the rules. Even smokers appreciate it and as a bartender it's what has kept me working this job.
12

Gloryhunter Leith,

Edinburgh 22/03/2008 07:11:47
# 10 - Depends on the wife...
13

Gina Gibson,

Wales 22/03/2008 07:31:36
#10 If that's what you think then you shouldn't have married a hooker.
14

r chee bold,

22/03/2008 07:36:38
I have seen the wife, pass me my fags, only joking..
15

,

22/03/2008 07:58:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
16

Gdgy,

22/03/2008 08:03:03
#1 your house - your rules - however if you attacked my child on the basis of your rules I would retaliate...but I won't be coming to your house...
17

Gdgy,

dundy 22/03/2008 08:04:46
It's common courtesy to ask if you can smoke even inthe smoke addled sixties my grandfather (40-a-day) did not smoke in the house or in front of visitors
18

Max Born,

22/03/2008 08:27:35
#1
So you don,t get many visitors then?
19

Martyk,

22/03/2008 10:59:15
6 House stinks for weeks? Dont think so. Open a window? I bet you are fun on a night out. Someone commandeering the remote really annoys me though.
20

joppa jock,

Huntingdon 22/03/2008 11:21:15
#19 What's the point of having visitors if you're just going to spend the evening watching TV?
21

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 22/03/2008 12:30:36
#5:

Yes. It is.

It is the height of bad manners not to provide an ashtray for visiting guests, even if you do not smoke yourself. It is also not the done thing to smoke outdoors.

Why can we not just stick to these traditional values and ignore the antis?
22

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 22/03/2008 12:32:43
#9:

"Thomas: You're absolutely wrong. Passive smoking is a clear and demonstrable health risk."

You are talking rubbish. Get a life, start thinking and stop quoting propaganda.
23

Rollo Tommasi,

22/03/2008 12:36:32
No.22: No, you're talking rubbish. I just did some research for myself, instead of simply believing what I want to believe.

Try it for yourself. You might find it enlightening. It does involve a bit of thinking, though. Are you up for that?
24

57Nomad,

california 22/03/2008 15:56:17
Does anyone have link to the studies, pro or con? The most common error in them is to compare the health of non-smoking who endure second hand smoke from a smoker in the house to the health of individuals who live in a smoke free home. It's important to control for other variables, usually this is done but not always.
25

Rollo Tommasi,

22/03/2008 16:10:47
57Nomad - Try this: http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/scoth/PDFS/scothnov2004.pdf
26

Resolutions,

22/03/2008 17:02:39
Your house = your rules!

There has been no smoking in our home for years and guests know this, as they are politely told so. Nor in the car.

It is absolutely amazing how asthma has improved now that there is no smoking in public places and I notice far less folk with horrid, excrutiating coughs too.

No the height of bad manners is smoking in someone's house without asking.
27

Horrible Cankers at the Cyber Shebeen,

22/03/2008 17:16:00
1....Awrite weeshooie...aye a had a friend's kids do that when they came to mine recently, couldnae believe the bad manners..opening drawers and cupboards and sticking their nose in..then they went and scribbled on the bog wa'...its a good thing ave goat sum restraint...

Its no really the done thing any merr is it?...smoking I mean....I wouldnae go tae sumbiddy's hoose and start spraying air freshner aboot..so why is it acceptable to pollute my environment either?

Get oot oan the balcony wae ye and shut the door...aye ah know its snowin....
28

english charlie,

suffolk 22/03/2008 17:50:30
Resolutions
For decades, the number of smokers has gone down while the number of vehicles on our roads have increased. The Norwich Union state that asthma in children has INCREASED fivefold over the last twenty five years.
29

Evia,

22/03/2008 18:40:53
I'm glad I managed to stop smoking many years ago. I don't commit that faux pas and when I did smoke, I would ask permission or go outside if possible. Smoking is a horrible addiction and difficult to stop but it can be fairly easy to stop if you really set your mind on it.

I can't stand undisciplined kids doing whatever they want. Anyone, child or adult, stealing from my fridge would soon know this is not acceptable behaviour. One of the worst things would be a guest putting feet on my coffee table - how unhygenic.
30

Beth Boyle,

Rural NY 22/03/2008 19:34:44
So what if it is not a health risk? It would still be rude to go to someone's house and start smoking if they were not smokers. You wouldn't go to someone's house and track mud on the carpets would you? Smokers have to realize us non-smokers put up with their sh--- all these years because we had to. They are addicted to something so they can't sit and have a cup of tea without twitching. They think if they "need" a smoke the rest of us should show sympathy. Oh get real! It stinks up a house and colors the curtains and makes stinky ashtrays that then have to be cleaned. Should we allow spitting in our houses and provide a spittoon as well? It's time for smoking to be seen for what it has always been a dirty habit. You smokers who think it is your right need to look at this with a different point of view. It's gross and it always has been. You are slaves to you habit and its easy to tell because why else would you ever ask anyone to put up with something so impolite.
31

avictor,

USA 22/03/2008 19:44:36
When someone complains about me smoking in my own home, that's the worse.

I smoke in 1 room in my house. OK here's my beef my father-in-law actually had the nerve to wear a face mask at my house, during a dinner invitation he accepted!

He sat on my sofa so I plugged in although totally unnecessary an air purifier next to the sofa and he still dramatically coughed for about 20 minutes until he realized he wasn't getting any attention from it. The he wouldn't shut up about my smoking and how I needed to quit. After dinner I went into my office to smoke and he had the never to follow me in and blabber on about something! He didn't cough once. Now that too me is the worse guest ETIQUETTE I have ever experienced!

I only smoke in my office which has 4 windows and is in the farthest back corner of my house and in the window right behind me I put in one those fitted in the window double rotor fans, which has an exhaust mode that sucks the smoke outside. I also sit farthest from my office door. You really can't smell smoke anywhere but in my office and its not strong in there either.

Thank you all for letting me vent, it was so satisfying, I need a smoke :)
32

David from New Mills,

Pl;easantville, U.K. 22/03/2008 20:51:23
#28,english charlie,suffolk.
Can chas w. explain the connection, if any, between his contribution, and the context of the above article?
33

David from New Mills,

Pl;easantville, U.K. 22/03/2008 20:56:18
#21, Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,Edinburgh.
Petrol Man wouldn't recognise good manners if they stared him in the face. Any one remember the old convention of asking in polite company, be it in a restaurant or elsewhere, "Do you mind if I smoke"? Mind you, Petrol Man possibly isn't too familiar with polite company.
34

DaveA,

Forfarshire 23/03/2008 00:25:16
Rollo and David, I hink you need to become literate, just read and digest.

On passive smoking. Here are the conclusions from a study done on passive smoking from 1959 to 1998. It involved 188,000 Californians of whom 35,000 had partners who smoked. It is the largest study ever done. The study was peer reviewed by 6 professors who were either in the medical profession or were statisticians. Because they came up with the “wrong results” the report and the peer reviewers had to go through a whole new level of scrutiny which confirmed the findings were 100% accurate. It was published in the British Medical Journal in 2003.

“Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.” And

“Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, primarily asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, has been associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, but the evidence for increased mortality is sparse. 2,3”

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
35

DaveA,

Forfarshire 23/03/2008 00:25:50
And yes I did spell think wrong.
36

DaveA,

Forfarshire 23/03/2008 00:31:27
Back to good manners. I have friends and family who are non smokers who would allow me to smoke in their houses. However I have always declined and prefer to smoke outside. Fashions do change and we shoud be in a pub smoking instead.
37

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 23/03/2008 01:03:39
#23

By your last comment, you have just proven to the world that you arre a moron.
38

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 23/03/2008 01:26:09
#31:

If somebody did that to me, he would be asked to leave---there and then, and would never be invited back again.No matter who he was.

Stand up for yourself man! Tell this mindless bigot where to get off!
39

Rollo Tommasi,

23/03/2008 02:51:02
Dave A (34): Well, for a start I don't recognise your account of the history of what I assume is the Enstrom & Kabat study, which has been the subject of strong criticism.

In any case, read and digest the 2004 SCOTH report (http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/scoth/PDFS/scothnov2004.pdf). It takes account of a whole range of studies into the dangers of passive smoking - yes, including Enstrom & Kabat. It concludes that there is a clear association between passive smoking and both heart disease and lung cancer.
40

Rollo Tommasi,

23/03/2008 02:53:26
Fuel Head (37). I don't think I've heard that line since I was in Primary 6. You truly have the debating skills to match your intelligence.
41

Ja Si,

N.Y. 23/03/2008 06:41:15
Do you eat peppers? Well, they contain nicotine and so do many other vegetables. With cigarettes it's tar that causes cancer, not nicotine. Concentrated nicotine is the additive substance in cigarettes not the recognized cancer cause. Tars in cigarettes cause cancers.

Beyond second hand smoke we are getting plenty of tar and it carcinogenic compounds indoors and outdoors.

Ever sit around a camp fire or BB-Q? How about sitting inside near a fireplace. Ever consider how poisonous the air is around vehicle traffic. Any time something burns there is an output of tars and cancerous compounds.

As for cancerous compounds, comparing tar intake. Being near someone having a cigarette in the kitchen, is nothing compared to a day breathing the air in traffic.

How some of you are thinking is big oils ad dollars at work...

Jog anyone?



42

english charlie,

suffolk 23/03/2008 06:43:36
~32 David of few friends of Pleasantville.
Learn to bl00dy read. I no longer want to read your vile comments. Soon after I lost my lovely wife you said 10.57 Fri 21 Mar 'so when did chas. stop beating his wife'. You are a nasty piece of work. You are SPITEFUL, NASTY, A WOMAN HATER, DISGUSTING, VILE. I have met ant-smokers, but nothing as bad as you. You didn't even have the manners to apologise. I apologise to anybody else reading these comments, but they have to be said.
43

Rollo Tommasi,

23/03/2008 09:39:34
Ja Si (41): Let the dangers of vehicle exhausts, real fires, etc be considered on their own merits.

What is becoming increasingly clear is that passive smoking is behind around 100 deaths from lung cancer in Scotland each year and a further approx. 800 deaths each year from heart disease. That's more than the number of annual deaths from road traffic accidents and MRSA combined. It's potentially also behind just as many additional deaths from either stroke or respiratory diseases other than lung cancer. All of this is in a nation with a small population (5 million).

Passive smoking presents a real threat to people's health and it is right that action be taken to reduce people's exposure to it in public places.
44

David from New Mills,

Pleasantly sunny and smoke free Pleasantville, U.K 23/03/2008 14:16:28
#42,english charlie,suffolk.
If chas. were to have taken the trouble to "bl00dy read" or even think, he might have realised that my question had not been intended to be taken seriously, but simply used as a way of highlighting all the silly suppositions and accusations he has made in the past about myself.
These range through "says he doesnt skmoe or drink", "maybe he is a muslim?", "David needs the AA to get his life started", "if David went into hospital for a blood transfusion or transplant, that he would ask and make sure that he didn't receive any from a smoker", "David should frequent his locals more often", "For tips on giving up drinking visit AA or get advice from your doctor", "abusing smokers, while promoting alcohol", "encouraging others to drink more", "The AA can also help you get off the evil drink", "going to AA to help him get off the evil drink", need to "live a little, spend a little. Above all get a life.", "you tell untruths, just like ASH", "Definately a member of ASH", "I am not a grass like you", "would even report his own (late)grandmother for smoking inside a pub", claiming to be his father(??).
The list is not necessarily comprehensive, but certainly illustrative of his approach.
When I refute any of chas.' many silly allegations, or ask for corroboration, he tends to go strangely dumb, and apology is never received or expected.
Perhaps, rather than feel slighted, chas. should pause the next time he's about to indulge in his mindless scatter gun approach of tossing fatuous accusations about so liberally, and "Above all get a life."
Whether chas. chooses to continue to read my posts is entirely his freedom to choose. I shall certainly continue to enjoy his for light entertainment, as I can never really take him seriously.
45

Tim85,

Lancs 24/03/2008 00:56:37
Rollo 34 - but how much of that criticism was of the report itself? Indeed, it was much easier for anti-smokers to level ad hom attacks at its authors (as, I seem to remember the BMJ editor of the time noted).

There are occupational exposure limits for every chemical contained in second-hand smoke, none of which have ever been shown to have been exceeded by second-hand smoke. However, the toxicological principle of the dosage making the poison is now out of the window.

I therefore hope that all of you who support the ban on the grounds of passive smoking supposedly being a health hazard support the workplace prohibition of all chemicals contained in second-hand smoke. After all, if there is 'no safe level of exposure' (House of Commons Health Select Committee; Surgeon General), to second-hand smoke. This logically entails there is no safe level of exposure to any of the numerous chemicals and carcinogens contained therein, no matter how infinitesimal in quantity.

This begs the question - why should hospitality workers have better protection against these chemicals than workers in other industries? Why is it acceptable to expose heavy industry workers, manual labourers, factory workers, and so on, to these chemicals, but not hospitality workers (if, indeed, hospitality workers are protected from all of the chemicals and carcinogens contained in second-hand smoke, given the amount of carcinogenic chemicals that can be found in air freshener, cleaning products, etc., items which have been used more since the ban to mask the smell of BO and *****). Equal protection, anyone?
46

Rollo Tommasi,

24/03/2008 02:37:12
Tim (45): There was plenty of criticism about the Enstrom report:
- It used data from the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study I (CPS-I), instead of more up-to-date and relevant data from the subsequent CPS-II.
- The Enstrom study could not distinguish people who were exposed to secondhand smoke from those who were not
- Participants were enrolled in 1959, when exposure to secondhand smoke was so pervasive that virtually everyone was exposed to ETS, whether or not they were married to a smoker.
- No information was collected on other sources of ETS exposure besides spousal smoking.
- No information on smoking habits after 1972 was included in the analysis, even though the observation period continued for another 26 years.
- Study participants were, on average, 52 years old at enrolment. Many spouses who reported smoking in 1959 would have died, quit smoking, or ended the marriage during the 38-year follow-up, yet their surviving partners were still classified as "exposed" to ETS in the Enstrom report.
- Much of the follow-up of CPS-I to 1998 pertained to older age groups where the effects of many environmental risk factors become less apparent.
- During the course of the Enstrom study, American Cancer Society researchers repeatedly advised Enstrom that using CPS-I data to study the effects of secondhand smoke would lead to unreliable results. He continued regardless and ended up being refused ongoing funding from the scientific, peer review panel for the programme which had initially sponsored his study.

Nothing ad hom in these criticisms.

As for your other point, as I said in 43, let the dangers of other substances be considered on its own merits. It is increasingly clear that passive smoking lies behind the deaths of hundreds of people in Scotland each year. Can the same be said of these other substances you allude to?
47

Angoos,

Baku 24/03/2008 07:31:39
I smoke, I don't particualrly like it and have quit several times only to start again.

The thing that really bugs me is the "help" available to stop.

How come junkies on smack get prescription methadone (for God knows how long) on the NHS but if you are a smoker all you get is a bloody phone number and maybe, if you're REALLY lucky, a one off course of patches ?

Another thing (excuse the ranting but I've started now)... How come the bloody patches cost as much as a packet of fags ?? Robbing barstewards !!
48

Poetess,

Dundee 24/03/2008 12:41:57
I DON'T CARE if people smoke in my house.

What bothers me are people who:

* show up empty-handed repeatedly
* take over my TV remote
* leave streaks in my toilet bowl, or
* read my cards/open mail

Now, where's my fags...anybody got a lighter?
49

Seasider,

Blackpool 24/03/2008 17:47:18
Rollo (46),
Can you name any of these people who supposedly died from passive smoke ? just three will do ,no you can,t because there arn,t any just Junk science numbers churned out from a computer !
50

Rollo Tommasi,

24/03/2008 19:47:32
Seasider: That is a question which pro-smokers love asking but serious scientists never do. Because trying to suggest that something is not a genuine risk factor unless you can name 3 people who have died as a result of that one risk factor alone (whether it is passive smoking or UV light or radon gas or high cholestrol or high blood pressure) is the real junk science.

Happy for you to try to find proof that I am wrong.
51

Tim85,

Lancs, England 24/03/2008 22:56:30
Rollo, those might be legitimate criticisms of the study, however,I cannot comment on the validity of those, and your recitation of the (potentially legitimate) criticisms of the study - many of which could doubtless be applied to numerous other studies on SHS - is nothing more than a diversionary tactic. The fact is, there was a huge amount of baseless criticism directed at the authors of the report, which the editor of the BMJ at the time found very concerning, and saw fit to speak out against.

The substances in SHS? Yes, I would imagine, if one follows the principle that passive smoking can kill, then the chemicals within second-hand smoke could. Unless you are admitting that SHS has never killed anyone, in denying its chemical constituents (arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide, etc., etc.) have ever killed anyone? Recently, researchers believe they have discovered that the hydrogen peroxide emitted by cigarette smoke is the chemical which causes lung cancer, a substance which is used in industry every single day, potentially damaging the health (and killing) scores of people. I take it you favour a total ban?

You say the substances must be considered individually, EXCEPT, of course, in the case of SHS (not a single substance), EVEN THOUGH all of the substances in SHS have never been proven to exceed their individual occupational exposure limits. Dare I say, double standards? It's simple. If there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke, there can be no safe level of exposure to the chemicals which make up second-hand smoke. There is a fundamental disparity in that hospitality workers receive protection, but those in other industries do not. For more information about how the gov't is failing to deal with work-related cancers, see: http://www.hazards.org/cancer/hsecriticism.htm

"Because trying to suggest that something is not a genuine risk factor unless you can name 3 people who have died as a result of that one risk factor alone
52

Tim85,

Lancs, England 24/03/2008 22:57:22
Cont'd:

"Because trying to suggest that something is not a genuine risk factor unless you can name 3 people who have died as a result of that one risk factor alone (whether it is passive smoking or UV light or radon gas or high cholestrol or high blood pressure) is the real junk science."

I could find the names of people who have been killed by UV light, radon gas, high cholestrol, and high blood pressure. Hmmmm. Funny that, wouldn't you say?
53

Rollo Tommasi,

25/03/2008 08:26:32
Tim (51): You ask me at 45 "but how much of that criticism was of the [Enstrom & Kabat] report itself?" I provide you with examples of criticism made about the report itself. How on earth can doing what you ask of me be "nothing more than a diversionary tactic"?

Of course, as I said at 39, the 2004 SCOTH report took account of a wide range of studies into the potential dangers of passive smoking, of which Enstrom & Kabat was only one. SCOTH concluded that there is strong evidence overall about the link between passive smoking and lung cancer and ischaemic heart disease. This report is an inconvenient truth for you which you continue to turn a blind eye to. Tell me if you can, why all of these studies cited in the 2004 SCOTH report should be ignored.

I did not say that "substances must be considered individually". I said that possible threats to human health must be considered on their own merits. If there are potential health threats to people in various industries (which presumably don’t involve the same combination of chemicals as tobacco smoke contains, the same level of exposure or the same forms of ingestion), then let these be investigated further and acted upon if appropriate. None of this takes away from the dangers of passive smoking which, evidence already shows, lies behind the deaths of hundreds of people in Scotland each year.
54

Rollo Tommasi,

25/03/2008 08:28:05
Tim (51): You say you can find the names of people who have been killed by UV light, radon gas, high cholestrol, and high blood pressure. I take it you have the same conclusive proof that these risk factors lay behind the deaths of these individuals as you expect when asking for the names of people who have died from passive smoking? I’d be interested in both those names and the supporting proof.
55

Ileach,

25/03/2008 21:53:43
Here's what I really hate: My sister is a smoker, but she does not smoke in her house except in the loo. I am a non-smoker, and can visit her once a year only. So we start a good blether, and off she goes to the loo, to smoke. After 50 tries, I usually just give up and fall asleep on the lounge. Jet-lag, or my sister's smoking habits?
56

Tim85,

Lancs, England 26/03/2008 00:28:46
I didn't ask you to provide the criticism (much of which can be applied to most passive smoking studies), I merely made the point that most of the criticisms of the study were ad hom attacks against its authors, as the former editor of the BMJ pointed out. Why? Because, as people such as Michael Siegel and Elizabeth Whelan have found out, to question even small amounts of anti-smoking orthodoxy, is to face being ostracised by the movement. Is that what you're worried about? You have failed, despite huge amounts of evidence, to criticise the lies and misleading statements of anti-smoking groups and individuals. You prefer to take aim at unfunded volunteer groups.

An inconvenient truth? Who are you, Al Gore? The study does not even mention the possibility of 'publication bias'. When did I say they should be ignored?

You are quite simply grasping at straws by denying the need for workers to be protected against the chemicals within second-hand smoke, to which there is 'no safe level' of exposure. (By the way - do you actually believe there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke?) You frequently, mention the legions of people passive smoking supposedly kills every year, but fail to mention the workplace related cancer epidemic that continues unabated across the UK. You are, to quote Bernard Levin, a 'single issue fanatic'.

Hundreds of people in Scotland per year? Don't forget, 19,000 people in the EU in 2007. Whereas in 2006 it was 11,000. Good lord, it just gets deadlier and deadlier doesn't it? Next year in Scotland, it will doubtless kill thousands.

54: I shall do further research on this, although, having looked at it cursorily, I may have trouble with radon gas. Are you seriously going to question that high cholesterol or high blood pressure have been cited in coroners' reports as causes of death?
57

Rollo Tommasi,

27/03/2008 08:14:29
Tim: I’m confused. You claim in 56 that “I didn't ask you to provide the criticism” about Enstrom & Kabat. But in 45 you asked “but how much of that criticism was of the report itself?” after I’d said at 34 that E&K had been the subject of strong criticism. That’s why I gave you reasons that were given about E&K.

Then you complain “You have failed, despite huge amounts of evidence, to criticise the lies and misleading statements of anti-smoking groups and individuals.” But nobody has asked me to comment on any supposed “lies” on this board. What am I supposed to have commented upon?

And then you say “You prefer to take aim at unfunded volunteer groups.” But the complaint I made at the start of this board about pro-smoking groups is far stronger than that they’ve been telling lies. It’s that their only argument that passive smoking is a “myth” is based on a wrongful interpretation of relative risk requirements. I've made an entirely reasonable criticism of what these groups say. To date nobody has provided any kind of explanation in defence of their comments, let alone a convincing one.

Then you ask “When did I say they [i.e. the studies referred to in the 2004 SCOTH report] should be ignored? You didn’t. But, while you were keen to come back on other points I’ve made, you ignored the report altogether until your latest post, despite the fact I’d referred to it in posts 25, 39 and 53. Even now you’re not discussing the SCOTH report, other than a throw-away and unsubstantiated remark about the possibility of publication bias.

And after that you accuse me of being a “single issue fanatic”. But I clearly said in 53 that there may well be reason that risks in other industries should “be investigated further and acted upon if appropriate”. And forgive me for pointing out a certain hypocrisy in your accusation. I contribute to online newspaper discussions in Scotland on a range of issues. It is not me who as a “single issue fanatic” searches high
58

Rollo Tommasi,

27/03/2008 08:16:38
Contd....

It is not me who as a “single issue fanatic” searches high and low for articles on the smoking laws in newspaper websites across the whole UK.

As for the number of passive smoking related deaths, I’ve been consistent in the figures I’ve used for Scotland, taken from http://www.healthscotland.com/uploads/documents/MortalityStudy.pdf. The results from this UK study appear consistent: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7495/812.

I’ll come back to you on the death certificate issue. From some further research, I accept that high blood pressure (hypertension) and high cholesterol are referred to in death certificates. Sorry for barking up the wrong tree there. But there appear to be important issues to raise, which I shall do as time allows.
59

Rollo Tommasi,

29/03/2008 10:21:26
Tim: I said I’d come back on the whole “name 3 people who have died from passive smoking” argument. A death certificate will show the actual cause of death, predisposing conditions and other relevant diagnoses. The death certificate is normally completed by a GP or relevant hospital doctor. As far as I can tell, these are based principally on the deceased’s medical records and a brief examination of their body. Post-mortem examinations are usually limited to where there is a sudden or unexplained death, or where volunteered by relatives.

But all those will show are the symptoms which show on the deceased’s body. There are many risk factors which do not make themselves obvious in the body. Think about some of main risk factors associated with lung cancer – smoking, passive smoking, radon gas, air pollution, exposure to various chemicals, too few vitamins. As far as I can see, they won’t show up as symptoms on the body of the deceased.

Doctors can ask relatives about whether the deceased was exposed to these risk factors. But this can be upsetting for the relatives, time-consuming for the doctors and the quality of the information can be questionable too. This was discussed in 2 articles about how smoking appears in death certificates. If these problems exist around a simple question about a person’s own smoking habits, how much harder must it be to expect relatives to judge a person’s exposure to passive smoke?
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/317/7170/1456
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/316/7144/1606

So, given the clear limitations of death certificates as a form of evidence, why would you want to place so much emphasis on it at the expense of other evidence?

Wouldn’t a better way to assess the dangers of passive smoke be to take a group of people, record their lifestyles over a period of several years and find out what happens to them? Well, this has been done – see http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/95/10/2374. It’s
60

Rollo Tommasi,

29/03/2008 10:22:17
Wouldn’t a better way to assess the dangers of passive smoke be to take a group of people, record their lifestyles over a period of several years and find out what happens to them? Well, this has been done – see http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/95/10/2374. It’s not conclusive proof on its own about the dangers of passive smoking, as it doesn’t completely eliminate all confounders. But it shows a very clear association:

“Compared with women not exposed to passive smoking, the relative risks of total CHD—adjusted for a broad range of cardiovascular risk factors—were 1.58 (95% CI, 0.93 to 2.68) among those reporting occasional exposure and 1.91 (95% CI, 1.11 to 3.28) among women reporting regular exposure to passive smoking at home or work.”

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.