Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Drink Driving, Don't Risk It!

'Few take up smoking without knowing the risks'

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: 20 December 2008
ANOTHER stunning government policy success. Nearly three years after the ban on smoking in public places and an extensive programme of health education, more teenagers than ever in Scotland are becoming addicted to cigarettes.


The numbers of young people between the ages of 16 and 24 who smoke have returned to levels last seen ten years ago and have risen by almost eight per cent in the last four years. One third of young Scots now smoke.

As part of its new health b
ill due to be published next year the SNP has outlined its strategy to tackle this reversal. The main thrust of its plans is to remove cigarettes from public display in shops. But while the legislation is no doubt well-intentioned it is open to question whether this will have any effect on the supply.

Toughening up on the supply of alcohol to under-18s has done nothing to deter children half that age getting their hands on booze Nor have decades of anti-drug legislation done anything to stem the flow of narcotics to a growing army of addicts.

The attitude of youngsters themselves as to why so many start smoking is revealing. Predictably, some say they started because it was perceived as grown-up or cool, while others cite peer pressure for taking up the habit. But who could have foreseen that some who say they welcome the ban also say that smoking outside gives them a chance to network with other teenage smokers in public.

The smoking ban was hailed as the greatest advance in public health by the last Holyrood administration. That may well prove to be true in the long term for the thousands who were previously forced to inhale other peoples' smoke. But for the growing number determined to puff it's a different story.

But now that the dangers of second-hand smoke have largely been eliminated in public places the only real reason for trying to stop people smoking is to reduce the cost to the NHS of treating smoking-related diseases.

While the dangers associated with smoking may have been hidden from previous generations, few people take up smoking nowadays without knowing the potential consequences. Slogans like "smoking kills" and "smokers die young" are emblazoned on every packet. If that doesn't deter people then hiding them under the counter won't either.

And as long as they don't harm anyone else in the process, if people are determined to kill themselves then that's their lookout.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 20 December 2008 10:47 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

George13,

Shetland 20/12/2008 12:04:56
After thirty years of twenty or thirty a day I gave up smoking two years ago and it was not difficult, the craving lasted about two days and that was it. I stopped for two reasons; firstly, it is bad for you, and secondly, it is socially unacceptable to poison the people around you. How is it that so many fail to see the stupidity of it?
2

Rollo Tommasi,

20/12/2008 13:31:31
Bits in the article I agree with; bits I don't.

The author is right that the Government shouldn't introduce measures for the sake of it. There needs to be strong evidence that the measures introduced will be effective in helping to tackle youth smoking, balanced against side-effects. Licensing schemes could be effective, if properly enforced. The evidence about the value of removing cigarettes from public display is more questionable.

But it's quite clear the anonymous author didn't read the recent youth smoking report. If they had, they'd have discovered that the biggest rise in smoking rates occurred in 2005 - before the public smoking laws were introduced. Smoking rates actually fell in 2006, the first year of the laws. I'm not even a health professional and I found that information easily enough. Check fig 12 at http://www.scotpho.org.uk/home/Publications/scotphoreports/pub_youngsmokers.asp.

I also don't agree "the only real reason for trying to stop people smoking is to reduce the cost to the NHS of treating smoking-related diseases." There is a shocking mismatch in the health and life expectancies of people in different parts of Scotland. I think many (most?) people want to see action take to improve the health of people in our poorest communities.

However, many (most?) people also believe "as long as they don't harm anyone else in the process, if people are determined to kill themselves then that's their lookout." Problem is, we can't both follow that line blindly and at the same time expect these huge variations in healthy life expectancy to be tackled effectively. Our governments have to achieve a delicate balance between these positions. I'm not sure they've got that balance absolutely right (see my comments on the proposed public display ban). But I do think they're making a serious and genuine effort.
3

Stuart Holmes. Anti smoking campaigner,

Manchester\London 20/12/2008 21:56:10
Protecting children from the tobacco holocaust - One billion deaths this century (World Health Organisation; that’s 15 times the war dead of 20th century.) is obligatory!
In order to effectively protect children would any right thinking person object if cigarettes were banned from sale and deleted from films? (The majority of films promote smoking Google- smoke free movies now showing)

4

Stuart Holmes. Anti smoking campaigner,

Manchester\London 20/12/2008 21:56:10
Protecting children from the tobacco holocaust - One billion deaths this century (World Health Organisation; that’s 15 times the war dead of 20th century.) is obligatory!
In order to effectively protect children would any right thinking person object if cigarettes were banned from sale and deleted from films? (The majority of films promote smoking Google- smoke free movies now showing)

5

mandyv,

21/12/2008 01:14:56
4# ahh protecting the children, so how come we have the oldest living generation ever? who have survived wars and the heaviest so called "passive smoking eras". You have no "proof" smoking even causes cancer, so your blown out of proportion figures are irrelevant.
8th August 2006 the HSE in the document OC 255/15 article9 state
for some strange reason hmm it has been changed to OC 255/16 Paragraph 14
” HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to second hand smoke to the raised risk of contacting specific diseases”.
You obviously did not like the longest study by Enstrom/Kabat I take it. You have estimates, guesstimates but no facts, so how can you say how many people would be saved.
Japan has the highest smoking rates per capita, yet lower cancer rates. I notice the antis have got a foothold in China, where abortions and baby deaths are high (population control), if smoking does take ten years off our lives, surely it is better for the children to actually be allowed a "life".
http://maps.unomaha.edu/peterson/funda/Sidebar/ChinaPop.html
Population Control and Consequences in China

Why should any respect be given to the WHO –
WHO IS PREVENTING DDT USE?
Despite the cost in human lives, many groups stubbornly defend the ban. While the World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, and UNICEF have recommended continued DDT use, influential organizations such as the Norwegian Development Agency, the Swedish International Development Agency, the Swedish Aid Agency, and USAID — the sorts of groups from whom some poor nations such as Belize, Mozambique, and Madagascar receive the majority of their public health money — continue to insist that DDT be left out of malaria-control efforts.
6

mandyv,

21/12/2008 01:25:34
I should add, even though the WHO did recommended continued use of DDT, they did not manage to stop millions dying.
But they did try to withhold the Enstrom/Kabat study.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/03/08/wtob08.html
Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official
By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent
THE world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.
The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.
7

Chuckles,

21/12/2008 02:11:40
4- just pure propaganda that makes no sense at all- no such a thing as the "tobacco holocaust" as no death has ever been proven to be caused 100% by tobacco let alone passive smoking. That post is an insult to whoever was actually in the holocaust not to mention anti-tobacco's long history with Nazi Germany. It was there that the term "passive rauchen " was coined.
8

DaveA,

Room101 21/12/2008 03:00:49
Der smoking Fuhrers must be displeased. Rollo and Stuart being in the vanguard of the anti smoking movement is it not time you stopped being a parasite on the taxpayer? Do the decent thing and resign. Payment by results you definitely owe us money especially as in England smoking overall has increased in all age groups.

On cost to the NHS the figures are £1.7 billion to revenue of £9.8 billion from tobacco taxes.

George, could you show me one medical study that shows SHS is harmful. The conclusions of the 38 year passive smoking Enstrom/Kabat study said and I quote "evidence of incresed mortality is sparse."





9

soapy1,

Rainworth 21/12/2008 04:33:27
Protectingthe children? you are having a laugh where do you thhink all the smokers are smoking? most of them are too smart to risk hypothermia smoking out side in winter so they smoke at home with their loved ones and friends with some cheap supermarket booze and a cd player! The smoking is doing wonders for family relationshipsof course if you are really worried about the children you would ensure smoking is carried out in adult only premises like pubs with smoking rooms, and good ventilation that keeps children away from cigarettes, smokers happy and nonsmokers their smoke free environment.

Merry Christmas
10

ChrisC,

SouthWest 21/12/2008 07:00:10
Is the 'Tobacco Holocaust' a replacement for the 'Tobacco Epidemic' that emotively described the continuous fall in smoking prevalence.
Such terms set the scene for anti-smoking evidence -- ASH and friends demand we accept their so-called science and facts despite serious flaws AND ARE SO GUTLESS THAT THEY WILL NOT DISCUSS THEM PUBLICLY.
How often we hear - 'the discussion is over' when all they've done is conspire with their friends.
Now the emotional 'for the sake of the children' --- How about 'for the sake of truth'. Smoking isn't that sensible, few smokers encourage smoking and bans don't work.
Anti-smoking tactics have reversed the encouraging decline in smoking rates, damaged community, damaged industry, damaged the environment and cost a fortune. The only winners are the ineffective smoking cessation empire and pharmaceutical companies.
11

Belinda-2,

21/12/2008 09:03:34
Thank you for pointing out Table 12, Rollo. It would be nice to see it updated with 2008 figures. It looks to me as if smoking rates have gone up sharply since 2008 with a slight dip in 2006 followed by a sharp rise last year, and a projected drop (based on what data?) until 2012.

What is the evidence that youth smoking started to drop again in 2008, against an underlying increase? It looks as if the projection has failed to take account of recent trends but perhaps it is too early to say.
12

Belinda-2,

21/12/2008 09:04:02
Sorry, I meant gone up sharply since 2005.
13

Fricke,

Leith 21/12/2008 10:26:12
I'm always intrigued by the emotive language used by anti smokers and commentators. 'Tobacco Holocaust'? Also, in the story we're assured that teenagers are becoming 'addicted' to tobacco. I smoke but am not addicted, (I stopped at the age of 26 and took it up again at 49 because I no longer had a good reason not to). I can only speak for myself here but I find it harsh that you can call people addicts because they enjoy a certain product. Would you say that anybody who drinks is an alcoholic?, etc.

I did hear Maureen Moore say once, in a radio interview, that tobacco is more addictive than heroin. When asked by the interviewer why she made such a claim her reply was 'I saw it on a poster once'!

Nice one, Maureen. I once saw a poster for a Superman movie that said 'YOU'LL BELIEVE A MAN CAN FLY!'...
I don't.
14

Rollo Tommasi,

21/12/2008 11:14:58
Ah, our friends from F2S have discovered the article and are piling in.

MandyV once again copies and pastes material she knows little about and doesn't understand their relevance to the issues in the article.

Chuckles takes a typically extremist position, with an almost inevitable (but no less offensive for that) Nazi reference.

I would usually expect more from DaveA than trying to suggest that Stuart and I are in the pay of ASH (I take it that's what he means by "resign". If I'm in the pay of ASH, he's on the paybooks of Philip Morris). If he'd bothered to actually read my earlier comment (or posts I've previously made), he would have realised that I'm not in favour of adding restriction after restriction onto smoking.

Still, I'm big enough to respond to his other points later on.

Soapy and ChrisC I don't know particularly well. But neither has much to offer other than foaming-at-the-mouth hysterics.

Belinda - I've been worried by your posts of late. I used to find you made a number of valid points in your contributions and showed signs of genuinely reflecting on the opinions of others. But recently you've often retreated to a more extreme and kneejerk position. Your latest post is more like the more thoughtful you of old.

I suspect we'll have to wait a few months for 2008 figures (I don't know, but I suspect 2007 figures have only been published now). I think the purpose of the dotted line is to show what smoking rate figures have to get to in the coming years if the government is to meet a smoking rate target by 2012. I don't think it's based on any evidence of what smoking rates are expected to be. Judging by year-on-year fluctuations of late, I don't think they could accurately predict future rates anyway.
15

Rollo Tommasi,

21/12/2008 11:42:11
DaveA: I said I'd get back to you on your more constructive points.

You'll note that the point about cost to the NHS was made by the Evening News, not the NHS or Scottish Government. I may be wrong, but I don't recall either making a big deal of the cost to the NHS being a major reason for wanting to tackle smoking.

And I hope our society doesn't just judge people by their financial cost. When loved ones have to witness people suffering from horrible diseases like lung cancer and dying prematurely, the human cost is immense.

And I can do better than show you one medical study that shows SHS is harmful. IARC (in 2002) and SCOTH (in 2004) conducted large assessments of available evidence. They separately concluded that passive smoking is a cause of lung cancer and heart disease. Incidentally, the SCOTH work was undertaken after the Enstrom & Kabat study was published. The SCOTH report said that E&K made little difference to their overall conclusions, since the overall sample size of their collective evidence dwarfs the data in E&K's work.

I should add that the methodology and use of data behind E&K's study are highly dodgy. For a start, the data which E&K used only looked at secondhand smoke exposure from participants’ spouses, ignoring exposure in the workplace (where smoking was extremely prevalent at the time). Amazingly, although the study continued until 1998, no attempt was made to check if participants’ circumstances changed after 1972. In this time, their spouse may have quit smoking or taken it up; they may have died, or the couple may have divorced or separated. Any of these changes could have had a major bearing on a participant’s exposure to passive smoke, but the study did not pick these up. And there was no control group of nonsmokers who were unexposed to secondhand smoke.

So what should we base our decisions on? The great majority of studies, which are broadly consistent in highlighting the dangers of passive smoking? Or a single
16

DeniseX,

21/12/2008 11:43:07
If the Government want to reduce smoking, then they ought to get rid of the smoking ban and stop all the anti-smoking propaganda. The smoking rate was coming down in leaps and bounds, until all the propaganda started. The Government have made smoking popular again.
17

Rollo Tommasi,

21/12/2008 11:47:46
[Contd....]

Or a single, outlying study (Enstrom & Kabat), which both is fundamentally flawed and runs counter to the overwhelming body of evidence out there?
18

Rollo Tommasi,

21/12/2008 11:50:59
Welcome DeniseX. Another person who won't let the facts get in the way of a good moan.

You're wrong. Smoking rates went shooting up in 2005. The smoking laws came into force in March 2006. In that year, smoking rates fell slightly.

So what's your point?
19

Nitro,

21/12/2008 11:52:31
Well smoking rates have gone up in England And Scotland, this is no suprise and they will continue while Smokefree policies are being pushed.

Continual advertising, tv, radio, leaflets you name it they have tried it are just encouraging smoking. Youngsters can even use the cool medium of texting to get smoking advice.

It is costing every UK taxpayer nearly £300 per year in extra taxation to keep up this smokefree barage, money that non smokers and smokers could be better spending on utility bills.

Eveyone on the planet at some time must have been told that smoking is not good for you, therefore the smokefree campaign should be stopped and a low key help for smokers programme introduced to help only those that want to stop smoking.
20

Rollo Tommasi,

21/12/2008 12:09:17
Nitro: Remember that the fundamental purpose of the public smoking bans is to protect people from having to inhale the tobacco smoke of others in enclosed public places. It's been really successful at protecting people from second hand smoke.

Reducing smoking levels requires different actions. I agree with you that the Scottish Government needs to be careful that it only takes action which is likely to be successful. It shouldn't take action against smokers just so it can be seen to be doing something.

But remember also that smokers are not one large single homogeneous group. Different smokers will respond in different ways to the same message or action. For instance, a smoker who wants to quit but doesn't know how will react in a different way to a smoker who has no intention of quitting. Don't assume that all smokers necessarily think in the same way as you do.
21

DeniseX,

21/12/2008 12:45:24
Rollo. ASH started their anti-smoking propaganda in the 1990s when the smoking rate was tumbling. The propaganda has made smoking 'cool' again.
22

Carol2000,

Madison WI 21/12/2008 13:43:48
It's the anti-smokers and their accomplices who ruthlessly lied to everyone! The anti-smokers are guilty of flagrant scientific fraud for ignoring more than 50 studies, which show that human papillomaviruses cause over ten times more lung cancers than they pretend are caused by secondhand smoke. Passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, so the anti-smokers' studies, because they are all based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, have been cynically DESIGNED to falsely blame passive smoking for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV.

http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm

The anti-smokers have committed the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on smoking and passive smoking, as well as ignoring other types of evidence that proves they are lying, such as the fact that the death rates from asthma have more than doubled since the anti-smoking movement began.

http://www.smokershistory.com/newviews.htm
23

DeniseX,

21/12/2008 14:11:36
Rollo said 'It's been really successful at protecting people from second hand smoke'. Tens of thousands of hospitaly staff are now 'protected from second hand smoke', because they are no longer in a job.
24

soapy1,

21/12/2008 14:11:38
Soapy and ChrisC I don't know particularly well. But neither has much to offer other than foaming-at-the-mouth hysterics.

Thank you for your opinion Rollo of course you have a right to it but is is just that an opinion which shows a decided lack of tolerance for any view other than your own. In my opinion you must be really insecure in your argument if that is the best you can do.

I would pointout that it was hysterics from ASH, BHF and CRUK that got this law imposed in the first place. would you not agree thta all the smoking ban has acheived is to destroy peoples financial lives (two thirds of whom statistically don't even smoke) and decimate the hospitality industry and their support industries.

They claim that second hand smoke is dangerous, I do not believe them, so they force a law that moves the alleged danger out of adult environs into the home where the children are and then claim we endanger children gross hypocrasy Rollo and these are measures that you support by your own standards you are killing children.

Merry Christmas Mr. Tommasi.

25

Chuckles,

21/12/2008 14:44:36
Rollo14 lets see if you can answer this:

Anti-smoker drug company shills claim that SHS kills and say that the number killed is about 50,000 per year.

That is 500,000, at least, over the last 10 years!!!

That’s strong language, because that means smokers aren’t simply inconsiderate louts subjecting protesting non-smokers to the foul stench of tobacco smoke.

That means smokers are murderers! At the very least, they’re guilty of manslaughter!!!!

There’s no way to come to any other conclusion.

If you use a gun to kill someone, it’s not the gun that goes on trial; it’s the individual who pulled the trigger who is responsible. The same is true if you use a knife. The individual wielding the knife will face a jury of his/her peers and, if found guilty, be punished.

Does it really matter what weapon is used in the commission of a crime when people are killed?

But of the 50,000 people the health scare professionals claim were killed by secondhand smoke, not a single perpetrator has been apprehended, much less incarcerated.

How is that possible?

Even if the deaths were accidental, there is usually an investigation by some legitimate authority to determine cause; to determine whether or not negligence was involved; to hold those responsible accountable.

Where are the police? What have they been doing? Did they investigate a single one of these 50,000 deaths? And if not, why not?

The reality is that, to investigate a death, the police need a body; a victim. It doesn’t really matter if the death resulted from murder, manslaughter, suicide or by accidental means; they need a body to begin an investigation.

And, no one has ever provided the police, or any other authority, with a victim.

Not a single individual, allegedly killed by secondhand smoke, has ever been identified. Not a single death has been investigated.

NOT A SINGLE DEATH, INTENTIONAL OR OTHERWISE, HAS EVER BEEN REPORTED TO THE POLICE!!!

Would the anti-sm
26

Chuckles,

21/12/2008 14:45:36
OKAY looks like I need to finish it here:

the final question is: Would the anti-smoker fascists please explain the above?
27

Tim85,

Lancs, England 21/12/2008 15:26:55
"I should add that the methodology and use of data behind E&K's study are highly dodgy. For a start, the data which E&K used only looked at secondhand smoke exposure from participants’ spouses, ignoring exposure in the workplace (where smoking was extremely prevalent at the time). Amazingly, although the study continued until 1998, no attempt was made to check if participants’ circumstances changed after 1972. In this time, their spouse may have quit smoking or taken it up; they may have died, or the couple may have divorced or separated. Any of these changes could have had a major bearing on a participant’s exposure to passive smoke, but the study did not pick these up. And there was no control group of nonsmokers who were unexposed to secondhand smoke."

Most of the studies on passive smoking, which constitute the wider body of research to which you refer, are fraught with similar methodological problems. Not least of these is the mis-classification of current or former smokers as never-smokers, which, it has been suggested, all but entirely accounts for the 25% increased risk identified by the above reports. This is also one of the many problems, which, by its very nature, meta-analyses of studies cannot effectively overcome.
28

Tim85,

Lancs, England 21/12/2008 15:32:59
"Nitro: Remember that the fundamental purpose of the public smoking bans is to protect people from having to inhale the tobacco smoke of others in enclosed public places. It's been really successful at protecting people from second hand smoke."

On the whole, if a public health initiative is designed to save lives, then the smoking ban has been a failure across several countries. Smoking prevalence has risen in Ireland, Italy and New Zealand and, according to recent data, remains unchanged in Britain and France. Any public health benefit gained (however speculative and nugatory) from reducing workers' exposure to second-hand smoke is dwarfed by its failure by its very nature as a tobacco control measure, simply because it fails to reduce the use of tobacco!
29

Tim85,

Lancs, England 21/12/2008 15:34:17
Rollo - Also, going back to Enstrom and Kabat, it is a little rich to suggest that a failure of the study is to only take into account spousal exposure. From memory, the majority of passive smoking studies have looked solely at spousal exposure.
30

Rollo Tommasi,

21/12/2008 16:05:11
Ooo, I seem to have excited a few pro-smokers. I'll have a start at replying to some of the points.

DeniseX (21): It's your opinion. You're entitled to it. But you're not going to convince me unless you offer supporting evidence.

Carol2000 (22): Do you mind if I ask you what research of your own you have done to find out whether what the Smokershistory website is saying is true? Have you read the research reports for yourself? Have you checked to find out whether there are any opposing arguments to what they're claiming? I'm quite happy to look into your links when time allows. But I would like to know you're raising the issue because you've verified for yourself that your point is valid. Please don't tell me you've read what smokershistory said and believe it to be true.

23 & 24: Yes, the smoking laws have caused some damage to the trade. Some pubs were always going to suffer, while the credit crunch has limited the opportunities for some others to benefit from going non-smoking. But don't try to pretend the woes of the pub trade are wholly or even mostly due to the smoking laws. They've got bigger problems to contend with. Trying to compete with supermarkets selling cheap booze. Increasing prices owing to cost increases in grain, etc. Reduced demand as a result of the economic slowdown. And, in the case of tenanted pubs, having to contend with rising rents and being tied to buying stock from pubcos at uncompetitive rates.
31

DeniseX,

21/12/2008 16:20:16
Rollo. Are you saying that you don't believe that the smoking rate was tumbling between the 1950s and the 1990s? Even ASH admit to that.
32

Rollo Tommasi,

21/12/2008 16:22:25
26 & 27: I don't see your point.
Nobody was arrested for burning smoky coal when it was allowed, even though hundreds of people died from smog.
Nobody was arrested when it was legal to use asbestos in construction, even though may people died from asbestosis.
Nobody was arrested for allowing legal levels of exhaust fumes to be emitted from their vehicles, despite the harm it can cause.

Harm from passive smoke is as real as harm from smoky coal, asbestos and vehicle emissions.

28: You say "Not least of these is the mis-classification of current or former smokers as never-smokers, which, it has been suggested, all but entirely accounts for the 25% increased risk identified by the above reports". I'd be interested if you'd point me towards where this has been suggested.

29: I don't see your point. First, I don't accept that public smoking restrictions cause smoking rates to increase (e.g. check Scotland in 2006 and Eire since 2004 - OTC figures show smoking rates always stayed below the level when the laws there were introduced). Secondly, smoking rates are a completely different issue from reducing other people's exposure to second hand smoke. I think you're conflating the issues and I'm not sure why.
33

Bald headed John,

The Untied Kingdom 21/12/2008 17:11:30
Rollo @30 wrote...

Trying to compete with supermarkets selling cheap booze.

I expect better than this from you, Rollo.
I am in my mid forties and off-sales from shops and supermarkets have always been cheaper than pubs and people accepted this as in a pub/club one is not just paying for the drink. One is also paying for the hospitality. Something that, since the smoking ban, is simply not there anymore.
34

soapy1,

rainworth 21/12/2008 17:17:20
Harm from passive smoke is as real as harm from smoky coal, asbestos and vehicle emissions.

So why then are not campaigning for the banning of the internal combustion engine?
Asbestos is banned, few people today use coal fires so they are pretty much negated. I note also your lack of enthusiasm for looking out for the interests of children as save the children seemsto a large part of the anti-smokers rhetoric.

I also note that you appear to object to being likened to the Nazi's, just what did you expect to happen since you are clearly espoused to Nazi science and doctrine.

Most Parents know how children think, the more you say no the more they want it, it is true of drugs, alcohol and tobacco. Can you not see that by driving it underground you are merely encouraging them!

Strange the you are incapable of relating restrictions and increases of usage, it is true again of drugs alcohol and tobacco and at the end of the day all that will be acheived is a thriving black market funding god knows who (the government have already claimed tobacco smuggling funds terrorism)where the government loses more and more revenue which is fine because they will no longer be able to fund charities that think they are political parties. Of course they'll hike the taxes up to cover this but since 70%of the population are non smokers it hurts them more than me.
35

Tim85,

Lancs, England 21/12/2008 17:49:01
Rollo 30 - The hypothesis is detailed in Hans Eysenck's article, "Meta-analysis and its problems" from 1994 (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/309/6957/789#R16), See the section on Lee's analysis (Lee PN. Misclassification of smoking habits and passive smoking. New York: Springer Verlag: 1988):

"Lee carried out a meta- analysis on about 100 studies in an effort to discover the extent of misclassification when smokers pretend to be non-smokers.16 He found that in smoking cessation studies, percentages in excess of 15-20% were commonplace, ranging up to 40% of misclassified non-smokers. Again, the percentage of true smokers found among self reported non- smokers tended to be higher in studies of men and women with lung cancer than in studies of those without lung cancer. In general, Lee suggests that of self reported never smokers, 2.5% are actually current smokers and 10% have smoked in the past. These figures may seem to suggest a rather modest level of deception, but it is sufficient to cause Lee to conclude "that the epidemiologically observed association between passive smoking and lung cancer arose from bias due to misclassification of a proportion of smokers as non-smokers."

The repercussions for meta-analysis are as follows:

"Clearly this suggestion is of vital relevance to any consideration of the theory that passive smoking causes (or is related to) lung cancer, yet the meta-analyses of this topic quoted already failed to consider it because the structure of meta-analysis is concerned with estimates of the size and significance of effect but not with the possible causes of the observed effect, which are always interpreted in terms of the original hypotheses involved without looking at evidence suggesting alternative interpretations. It is of course open to the investigator to step outside the rigid limitations of the meta-analysis format and add a discussion of alternative interpretations of the observed effect size, but this is strictly outside
36

Tim85,

Lancs, England 21/12/2008 18:03:04
" ... outside the rigid limitations of the meta-analysis format and add a discussion of alternative interpretations of the observed effect size, but this is strictly outside the rules imposed by meta-analysis and forms no part of its raison d'etre."

Rollo 32 - I am only conflating issues which have already been lumped together. I am taking my lead from Joossens and Raws "tobacco control scale [sometimes called scorecard]", in which Britain is ranked top and Ireland second in terms of its policies on tobacco control (which, to me, and most people, means reducing smoking prevalence). The criteria used includes bans in public places, quit support, banning tobacco advertising and so on. These factors apparently means that the UK are the European leader in tobacco control.

Although the rationale behind the smoking ban was supposedly to protect non-smokers from exposure to second-hand smoke, Patricia Hewitt boasted that 600,000 would quit as a result of the ban. Why did she do so, if this is irrelevant? Was she wrongly conflating two separate issues? Was Prof West, in his Cancer Research UK study which (incorrectly) claimed 400,000 people had quit smoking as a result of the ban. And was Gordon Brown also guilty of this, for mentioning the 400,000 figure in Parliament as a measure of the success of the ban? This figure is now being included in emailed responses to e-petitions on the Parliament site calling for a relaxation of the smoking ban. I am merely responding to an official reason given to justify the implementation of the ban.

Re: Ireland - these are two separate sets of statistics, but having examined the OTC figures, the reduction has hardly been earth shattering, and cannot said to be a deviation from the secular trends already recorded by this particular body.
37

ChrisC,

The Lizard 21/12/2008 20:06:22
I keep seeing this pairing - pro & smoking. This seems to suggest anyone disagreeing with the ban are promotors of smoking although I have met few if any. They are a rare beast, far rarer than the ever present foaming at the keyboard Rollo.
The sole purpose of the ban was, we hear now, nothing to do with the public but soley for employees in their workplace who were apparently dropping like flies before the ban.
Tobacco smoke is a rare substance since unlike radiation , mustard gas or asbestos there is no safe level of exposure so even such workers as those roofing a high-rise in a gale are threatening others.
How can I refuse to accept this propaganda as fact?
38

Belinda-2,

21/12/2008 21:50:54
Well apart from the choice factor, it seems to me that the more smokers there are in a population, the more secondary smoke inhalation will take place.

So I don't think you can really say that the legislation is successful in spite of the impact on smoking levels. Twenty million smokers are not all smoking in isolation.

Personally I don't believe there is a significant danger from secondary smoke. Before the ban came in I believed it was a lot more dangerous than I now believe it to be and I happily put up with it then.
39

Rollo Tommasi,

21/12/2008 22:08:19
Tim85: Thanks for pointing me towards the Eysenck article. Relying on PN Lee is always a bit dangerous, since he’s a tobacco industry consultant. But let’s take his arguments on their merits anyway/

Lee made the same claims here, in response to a BMJ article by Hackshaw, Law and Wald: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/317/7154/346?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&title=smoke&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1106868160261_22326&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1,2,3,4.
I have to say that, in their right of reply, they tore Lee’s argument to shreds. Note for instance, their comment that cohort studies have produced similar findings about the risks of passive smoking as have case-control studies. But there is no recall bias in cohort studies. I should also add that the 2002 IARC monograph (published 2004) discusses the issue of confounding factors in some depth and pours scorn over Lee’s claims too.

I don’t know the basis for Patricia Hewitt’s claims (she of course never had responsibility for health policy in Scotland). Ireland has had smoking laws in place for longer than the UK nations or France and so is a better marker of the links between public smoking controls and smoking prevalence. The OTC figures in Ireland are the only ones I know that compare recent smoking prevalence there with smoking rates when they introduced their smoking laws in 2004.
40

Rollo Tommasi,

21/12/2008 22:09:32
Tim85 (contd):
I strongly believe that the scientific evidence of the risk of passive smoking to people’s health is enough in its own right to justify the laws, regardless of whether more or fewer people smoke as a result. I also believe (as I said at the outset) that action to persuade smokers to quit for the sake of their own health needs to be targeted to what is likely to be effective – governments shouldn’t take action in order to be seen to be doing something.

You came back on one of my criticisms of Enstrom & Kabat (@29). Can I take tacit approval for my other criticisms from your silence on these points? On the criticism you make, there are distinguishing factors about the CPS-I data on which their findings were based. I understand the study was started in 1959 to measure the effects of active smoking. The data was not intended to collect valid estimates of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. No information was obtained on sources of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke other than the smoking status of the spouse. Tobacco smoke was so pervasive in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s that virtually everyone was exposed, at home, at work, or in other settings.
41

Rollo Tommasi,

21/12/2008 22:12:37
Belinda: The issue is not just about the number of smokers.

It's also about how many cigarettes they're smoking, and where they're smoking (In an enclosed space of outside? In the presence of how many people?).
42

Rollo Tommasi,

21/12/2008 22:19:47
Soapy1: Guess what? As you've proven, actions are taken to reduce risks to health.
Polluting coal: can no longer be burned.
Asbestos: now banned.
Vehicle pollution: vehicles are now subject to increasingly stringent controls on permissible exhaust fumes.
Smoking in an enclosed public space: Like the other risks to health, now subject to legal controls.

And yes, I do object to the continual Nazi references. I could just as easily paint pro-smokers in Nazi terms. After all, you're allowing millions of people to be poisoned to death, while at the same time denying you're doing it. Find that offensive? Then think about how offensive other people find the Nazi references that you make.
43

Rollo Tommasi,

21/12/2008 22:23:36
BHJ: You insist on blaming all the pub industry's woes on the smoking laws. It's a totally false claim!

Supermarkets are discounting booze like never before. And at the same time, as I've already mentioned, landlords in tenanted pubs are increasingly being required to buy their stock from PubCos at cripplingly high prices.
44

soapy1,

Rainworth 21/12/2008 22:48:39
the fact still remains that you endorse a law that in your opinion saves lives that in fact has destroyed the lives 0f 80,000 workers and their families by forcing them out of work, almost 3/4 of these do not even smoke how are they protected?

It has also moved smoking into the home where perversely it endangers children which you clearly don't object to you claimit is dangerous notI yet you and your ilk are forcing it on children.

Now you may climb out of your pram about Nazism as much as you like itdoes not alter the fact that science was pioneered by the Nazis and it was Nazi Ideology to stamp out smoking, you obviously support that point of view So I suggest you either get out of the kitchen or accept the fact you endorse Nazi ideals.

As for the internal combustion engine speaking as an engineer who has worked 2 stroke through piston, gas turbine and pure jet engines there is no way to remove
the carcinagens from fossil fuels they are there naturally so you had better ban the internal combustion engine too.
45

Trom,

'timbone' from Manchester 21/12/2008 23:18:22
"Ah, our friends from F2S have discovered the article and are piling in."

Hello Rollo, don't forget me.
I am too tired to say much as I have been out to Riponden today visiting a relative with a new baby. I did not have a cigarette while I was there, because I chose not to, not because there was a law against it. I suppose I could have had a smoke in the hall with the front door open, but I chose not to.

Of course, you are far too clever to have made a typo when you said F2S, however, for those who don't know, it is F2C, that is, Freedom to Choose - exactly what I did today.

Of course, this comment from the anti smoking campaigners says it all really:
“To examine how a Government committed to a voluntary approach was forced to introduce comprehensive smokefree legislation”




46

Rollo Tommasi,

21/12/2008 23:19:17
Soapy: You're yet another pro-smoker who is trying to pin all of the blame for the pub industry's woes on the smoking laws. I've already acknowledged that it's affected some parts of the sector. But you conveniently choose to ignore that there are other bigger causes. So don't you try to pin all those job losses on the smoking laws.

Do you drive an affordable family car? Do you drive on motorways? They were practically invented by the Nazis. Does that make you a Nazi?

You claim "you and your ilk are forcing it on children". Are you seriously trying to suggest that there are smokers, who never would have smoked in front of children before, but who now will do so because of the smoking laws? Come off it!!

My position on passive smoking is based on accumulated evidence about the dangers of secondhand smoke to health, based on research studies since the 1980s. None of it is based on Nazi ideals.

I accept there is no way of removing carcinogens from fossil fuels. Luckily there are no drive-in pubs, which have car engines running in enclosed spaces for prolonged periods of time. Outside, I'm happy to accept the risks of both vehicle pollution and tobacco smoke.
47

Rollo Tommasi,

21/12/2008 23:29:09
Welcome to the party, Tim. Your timing is perfect.

Soapy seems to think that smokers are suddenly going to start smoking in front of their children because of the smoking laws. Your behaviour in Ripendon today was to be careful about where and when you smoked. You were considerate, as most smokers usually are. If smokers light up in front of their children, that is an action they have to answer for.

Okay, I admit I was mischievous about the reference to F2S (copyright David of New Mills). But I also happen to think Freedom 2 Smoke is a more accurate description for your group. I don't recall you campaigning for people to be guaranteed the choice of non-smoking sections in pubs. Increasingly your group have moved well away from the public smoking laws to become a collection of people standing up for the rights of smokers who have no intention of quitting.
48

Belinda-2,

21/12/2008 23:53:44
What specific message from Freedom2choose's activities gives you the impression that we are only out to protect the rights of smokers who choose not to quit?

(Smoking is a legal product, and so why should they be pressured to quit? Why have we dropped the age-old wisdom that you have to want to quit ... other people wanting you to quit is not a sufficient motivator? All this anti-smoking propaganda is clearly geared to manipulating people into wishing they did not smoke. This will not get good quit rates. Guilt is not a good motivator either.)

Recent F2C press releases cover the contentious issues of heart studies in Scotland; the Ban your MP campaign; the working men's clubs campaign; the issue of pubs' rates being revalued. None of these has any direct bearing on people who don't want to quit smoking.
49

Rollo Tommasi,

21/12/2008 23:58:08
Belinda: when was the last time you issued a message stating that the public smoking laws must be changed in a way that guarantees people the right to be in a protected, smoke-free part of a pub if they so wish?
50

Rollo Tommasi,

22/12/2008 00:00:43
Or take this front page article, written by a certain Belinda Cunnison. What has this got to do with laws about smoking in enclosed public places?
http://freedom2choose.info/news_viewer.php?id=862
51

Belinda-2,

22/12/2008 00:45:32
Rollo, Freedom2choose is not only concerned with the smoking ban, but with interference in choice.

I have written a post but unfortunately was interrupted, timed out and it was lost.

Our position has developed from the threat of, and the imposition of, a public smoking ban, which has deprived everybody, and especially the hosptiality providers, of any choice in the matter of public smoking, on their own premises.

We have expressed our aims as 'traffic lights', where red means no smoking, amber means restricted smoking and green means smoking throughout. Thus the principle of choice will be established, and implementation will be at a local level.

We don't believe any customer group dictates the terms under which it receives hospitality. Smokers have never dictated policy. Non-smokers haven't either, except via lobby groups, and they haven't come forward to fill the empty pubs left by smokers.

As far as the pub prices and other crippling disadvantages that you mention are concerned: if all the anti smokers knew that it would stop them coming into the pubs and replacing smokers, why didn't you tell us before the ban came in? The we would have had no need for it. Had we no ban, I can bet you whatever you please that smokers would have continued to use the pubs, and we would not seen them close at the rate of five a day.




52

Rollo Tommasi,

22/12/2008 08:35:41
Belinda:

You say "We have expressed our aims as 'traffic lights', where red means no smoking, amber means restricted smoking and green means smoking throughout. Thus the principle of choice will be established, and implementation will be at a local level."

Who would decide on the colour for each pub?
53

soapy1,

rainworth 22/12/2008 09:01:46
Oooh sarcasm! Run for the hills! Rollo you and I both know people have always smoked at home, the point was that now home is the only place to smoke and it is the law's fault.

I do not drive, I do not have a licence nor have I ever learned.

The research done in the 80's stems from the research of the thirties which Adolf Hitler personnally partially paid for and which Sir Richard Doll is alleged to have participated in.

As regards vehicle emmisions firstly they have 600 times the carcinagens of a cigarette, the exausts are set below the level of children's prams and toddlers noses so it has not had time to dissipate before reaching them, because you can't see does not mean it not still there. On still days or foggy weather it creates smog keeping it closer to the ground for longer periods increasing the chances of cancer, bronchial complaints far and away above cigarette smoke which is harmless. Enjoy the greater risk Rollo it's safer in a smoky pub than in a traffic jam!
54

DeniseX,

22/12/2008 09:43:01
I've seen comments in the past by anti-smokers saying that SHS kills and gives non-smokers lung cancer. Even Rollo only states 'harm'. More and more people are seeing through the propaganda.
55

Belinda-2,

22/12/2008 10:30:07
Rollo

The point is to get the principle of choice established and accepted. In the first instance, the licensee or proprietor would choose. If 'too many' places opt to go smoking, the onus should be on larger venues to provide choice within the venue. There are many European models where flexibility is allowed.

Many commentators are unable to understand why choice was not built into the system.

When the smoking ban was introduced, we were told it was because passive smoking is a completely intolerable risk. We were told this in Scotland in about 2004, the legislation went through in 2005 and implemented in 2006. Passive smoking was so dangerous ('no safe level of secondary smoke', etc) that they were prepared to let people experience it for years after it was 'discovered' to be a risk, just as at present they are telling us that passive smoking is *so* dangerous they are going to stop smoking adults fostering under fives in 2010. If there is no safe level of secondary smoke, the only sensible thing is to implement such bans immediately they are found to be necessary. A long-term implementation of a zero tolerance regime is nonsensical.



 

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.