Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 19th July 2008

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 Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

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

Fire still burning in belly and ashtray of smoke-ban battler


AT LARGE

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: 06 January 2008
AS I approach Blackpool by train, the famous tower juts above green fields, a raised middle finger to Middle England's settled ideas of good taste and restraint.
This Lancashire seaside town acknowledges no tomorrows, merely the right of the individual to party right here, right now. It is, therefore, the most natural place in the world for someone to take a stand against the smoking ban.

Hugh Howitt, a Gl
aswegian known to all as Hamish, has been a pub landlord in Blackpool for 11 years. He owns and runs the Happy Scots Bar, a former theatre so close to the sea front that spray soaks and corrodes the pro-smoking posters covering its facade. In November, Howitt became the first landlord in England to be prosecuted for flouting the smoking ban. He was fined £500 and ordered to pay £2,000 in costs. Yet he continues to allow customers to puff away on his premises.

I meet him on an ash-grey day. A slender man of 55 with spiky silver hair, Howitt has so much energy Blackpool Council could use him to power the illuminations. He and his wife, Jo, pick me up from the station in a Mercedes, the interior somewhat chewed by their two shih tzu dogs. The Howitts have 14 pets, including two toads, a lizard, a brace of lovebirds, Zasu the toucan, and a parrot which speaks fluent Glaswegian and is forever imploring Jo to "put the kettle on, doll".

In his car, Howitt points to the hole where the stereo used to be. "No point reporting it to the police," he says, shaking his head. "They won't do anything."

He says it's ridiculous that 200 police and enforcement officers have visited his pub since the smoking ban was introduced in July yet real criminals go unchallenged. Smoking has become the prism through which he sees the world. Through a fag darkly.

He parks outside his home and we go in. Having spent around £50,000 on his campaign, and expecting larger fines, Howitt is facing bankruptcy. The kids have been taken out of private school, and Jo's parents have loaned thousands. He, meanwhile, is exhausted, stressed and on every type of pill. It seems like an obsession tipping over into masochism, but Howitt is clear about why he is doing this and how it began.

"This all started with my boy," he sighs. "I lost my 21-year-old. I would never have done this if that hadn't happened. It was the pivotal point in my life."

Derek went missing in late September 2003. His body washed ashore the following month and the circumstances of death remain unknown. Howitt was devastated but found comfort in alcohol, cigarettes, and the sanctuary of his pub.

"After the funeral we opened up all three bars and had 2,000 people through that day," he recalls. "All these relatives and friends were coming up and giving me a cuddle. If it happened now, I would have to stand outside to smoke. When I most needed dignity and privacy, I would actually be mocked and stared at by people who never spent a penny in the pub in their life."

For Howitt the smoking ban is "a hate crime" against the working class, members of which he argues are more likely to be smokers and regular pub-goers. He no longer smokes, has taught his nine children it is a bad habit, and wishes the Government would ban tobacco. However, he believes that while people live in poverty they should have the right to smoke in pubs.

"If you are getting stuffed by society and the Government's not doing anything for you, why would you give up the only comfort you've got – a fag and a pint?"

We drive round to the part of the Happy Scots Bar in which Howitt allows smoking. Although the ban was only introduced in England in July, the ashtrays lying on tables already appear anachronistic, a feeling amplified by the smoke in the air and Spandau Ballet's 'True' on the jukebox. I am introduced to one regular, a 74-year-old gent, dapper in a check sports jacket, who tells me "human life would not be worth living" if he couldn't come here for a cigarette and drink.

People visit from all over just so they can smoke in his bar, says Howitt. One blind woman comes down from Denistoun. A Christian and socialist, Howitt regards himself as catering in particular for the old and infirm, people he says would otherwise be starved of human contact.

Howitt grew up in the north-east of Glasgow in the Garngad slums, one of 12 children, and dreamed of becoming a doctor. Although he won a partial bursary to grammar school, the family couldn't afford the rest of the fees.

Bitter, he became involved with a local gang and, aged 17, went to prison for serious assault. On release, he got out of Glasgow and spent 20 years running bars around the world before returning to spend time with his father, who was dying of lung cancer.

It's clear Howitt changed his life after prison, working hard to become a better person and make a good living. It's also clear that if he persists with his campaign he faces financial ruin and a custodial sentence for non-payment of fines.Yet he feels he would be an apathetic coward if he didn't resist the ban. He has formed a political party, Fight Against Government Suppression (Fags), and believes he can change the law eventually.

We go back outside. "I would never do this if I thought it was just about smoking," he insists. "If I win, my kids will grow up in a freer world. I've not got the funds, though, and I'm converting my house into flats to try to save everything. It's how far you'll go. But I've nowhere to go any more."

He leans into the wind coming off the Irish Sea, Blackpool Tower at his back. "I don't see a way out for me. I really don't."



The full article contains 1026 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 05 January 2008 6:46 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Tobacco
 
1

Exocet,

In Nazi Occupied Britain 06/01/2008 00:32:11
Every licensee in Scotland reading this story should hang their head in shame at their lack of support for Hamish. This is not just about the Smoking Ban and the sooner you realise it the better, it is a concerted attack on society by the bigots of ASH and ASH Scotland and a Government full of MP's with no credibility. It is now a well accepted fact that passive smoking does not kill and neither ASH nor the Government can provide evidence to the contrary.
Hamish's fight is all about the " Freedoms" that the citizens of this country are slowly being deprived of, while the UK is the most " surveilled" country in the world with one CCTV camera for every four of the population. Support Hamish in this fight and you will be helping to halt the trend towards the ending of democracy.
2

Rollo Tommasi,

Edinburgh 06/01/2008 01:00:18
Sorry to rain on your parade Exocet, but your so-called "well accepted fact" is nothing of the sort. There is plenty of evidence showing a link between passive smoking and lung cancer, heart disease and other conditions.
3

lemat,

06/01/2008 01:26:46
How disgusting that the anti-smoking lobby have brought a proud and genuine man to the brink of bankruptcy, to think that the UK used to be a place where people came to escape tyranny, yet here we find smokers in the same position as those fleeing persecution. What the likes of Rollo don't understand is that this IS NOT about smoking, and I'm afraid that sooner or later he/she will wake up to the fact. What is being done is social engineering of the worst kind, polarising society.

Rollo states there is plenty of evidence showing links to passive smoking, if that's the case why is that ASH, whenever challenged to a public debate with pro-choice organisations quickly decline, demonising smokers is now the most fashionable pastime in the land. The evidence put forward by scienitists/doctors and others is for the sole purpose of maintaining their grants, any dissent they're withdrawn. Have you not realised yet Rollo, this is about money & control.

Sorry Rollo but the repetitive standard respone from pro-ban is, quite frankly getting very boring. Hamish has more integrity in his little finger, and understands more about freedom than you, ASH or the zealots ever will. Your time will come for a ban, make no mistake about it.
4

Tim85,

06/01/2008 01:59:23
Having met Hamish, he seems a very genuine bloke. He is right in saying that the smoking ban has hit the working class the hardest - it is working mens' clubs and wet led pubs that will go bankrupt before those in more affluent areas.

Still want to know 3 people passive smoking has killed, Rollo. (Or has been conclusively proven to have caused fatal heart disease / lung cancer in, since you'll most likely be pedantic).

By the way, Rollo, I've always meant to ask you this. Would you support the introduction of health warnings on whole milk?
5

Chuckles,

in Nazi occupied London 06/01/2008 03:25:44
Unfortunately I never met Hamish who I heard is a wonderful person but shame on the other publicans who are not backing him! Not only that he simbolises the battle against the tyranny of New Labour!

Exactly it is about the fact we are losing all the freedoms- you know theres more CCTVs in the UK than the rest of the world combined!
6

BeeGee,

06/01/2008 09:13:31
Rollo you claim ' There is plenty of evidence showing a link between passive smoking and lung cancer, heart disease and other conditions' My question to you is provide proof of that evidence as organisations such as the World Health Organisations would just love to read it.

The Scottish Government has failed to publish the most recent supposed study carried out by Prof Jill Pell after much hearalding in the media way back on the 10th September 2007. Even good old Aunty BBC has revealed the truth for once. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7093356.stm

So come on Rollo... provide the evidence just as we have been asking the Scottish Government to do.

7

Rob Simpson,

UK 06/01/2008 09:32:26
I'm sorry to be pedantic but Rollo is correct, there IS plenty of evidence to suggest an elevated risk of lung cancer associated with passive smoking, unfortunately most of the evidence isn't very good. Even SCoTH admit as much. This is supposed to be a freedom loving country and as such the removal of a choice, ANY choice should only be done with great reluctance and the evidence supporting it should be incontrovertable.
The principal defender of our freedoms, the government, should, at every opportunity, seek to increase the choices available to the public and not remove them on a whim (the smoking ban was debated for less than a day; that constitutes a whim in my book), especially when it's obvious that a new law will cause financial hardship for thousands.
This country would be a better place if we had more people like Hamish Howitt and far worse if we had more puritanical zealots like Maureen Moore.
8

Mikey,

06/01/2008 10:34:08
The non smoking brigade are the new Puritans, determined to stamp out choice and the ability to live one's life the way one sees fit.

As far as I'm aware, the majority of smokers do not demand the right to smoke anywhere they like, they just ask that landlords be given the right to CHOOSE whether their premises should be smoking or non smoking.

If we had two types of pub, then surely everybody would be happy? There again, the no smoking crowd would then complain that the only decent pubs were smoking ones!

Is that the REAL reason they want a ban? So that they can make everyone as miserable as they are?

Can someone please tell me why they are so against democratic choice?
9

GrahamB,

Planet Earth 06/01/2008 10:47:50
I know neither #1 Exocet or #2 Rollo Tommasi who apologises for raining on Exocet’s parade. But, as a non-smoker who abhors the present smoking ban and has many smoking friends, I, reluctantly, have to rain on Mr Tommasi’s parade by recommending he read “Scared to Death” by Christopher Booker and Dr Richard North, published by Continuum. The relevant section being: Part 2 Chapter 12 entitled “How they turned “Passive Smoking” into a killer, 1950 – 2007. This contains plenty of evidence which might colour, and possibly change Mr Tommasi’s current opinion.
10

bill-alba,

fife 06/01/2008 10:49:54
#8 and the pro smoking lobby are the new ludites refusing to see the evidence.
11

GrahamB,

06/01/2008 11:14:54
#6 BeeGee.

Quite right, anti-smokers might also like to reflect on the remark made by Professor Richard Doll, probably the prime architect of the present situation, who stated “that the consequences of inhaling other people’s tobacco smoke were so negligible that they had little or no effect on health at all”
Additionally, they might, or might not, like to read the original findings of research sponsored by the World Health Organisation (WHO) into passive smoking which they quickly withdrew and attempted to bury since the results were not that which they wanted. This can still, to the embarrassment of the WHO, be viewed on the www.
ps #10. The pot calling the kettle black!
12

english charlie,

suffolk 06/01/2008 11:43:42
Blackpool Council are trying to turn Blackpool into an upper class holiday resort. Not just rigorously enforcing the smoking ban, but also other bans and restrictions on other working class activities, like stag and hen parties. They will ruin Blackpool.
13

Rollo Tommasi,

Edinburgh 06/01/2008 11:57:37
Okay, here's evidence on the links between passive smoking and lung cancer/heart disease (Rob - note how SCoTH say in 2004 that the evidence is improving):

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7486/265
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7353/1544/d
http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/scoth/PDFS/scothnov2004.pdf

I've said before I don't have a difficulty in principle with enclosed smoking sections in pubs - but in practice it would not provide the easy solution that some people think it would.

Tim: Asking me to name people killed by second hand smoke may be fun for the purposes of debate on these boards. But it's completely irrelevant as far as evidence is concerned. As far as I'm aware, nobody - including the pro-smoking lobby - is saying that the most effective way to research the links between passive smoking and disease would be by closely monitoring individuals over a number of years , assessing their exposure to SHS and other factors and then assessing upon their death the causes of their demise. That's what you seem to suggest would need to be done in order to identify victims of SHS by name. The fact is that epidemiological studies allow additional deaths associated with SHS to be assessed without having to identify people by name.

Graham B: Richard Doll - you're quoting a 90 year old's views on the risks of SHS to him personally. If you want to know what he thought of the risks of SHS to the population at large, read this: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7353/1544/d.

And the WHO report. Is that the same WHO report where a story about its recommendations was fabricated prior to publication by the tobacco industry? WHO itself stuck to the results of the study. Read these:
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html
http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/who_inquiry.pdf (pages 193-227)

14

Belinda-2,

06/01/2008 12:57:48
Rollo, in your first WHO link the increased risk of lung cancer on exposure to SHS is 16 per cent.

SCOTH in 1998 estimated that 10 in 100,000 non-exposed non-smokers die of lung cancer. A sixteen per cent increase takes this to 11.6 per 100,000. I quake.
15

BeeGee,

06/01/2008 13:15:52
SCoTH, ah yes the report created by a kangaroo committee where all but two membes have financial links to the Pharma companies who manufacture the Nicotine Replacement Products. Can anyone honestly say that this report was and remains unbiased.

Scientist gauge incresed dangers by Relative Risk Ratio and this is recorded as Reletive Risk Ratio of 3.0 as being the point to raise concern or converting to percentage terms to compare with media reports 300%
16

BeeGee,

06/01/2008 13:33:45
This letter is from a doctor and past president of the New York Cancer Society and thought I would pass it along for everyone to read as it says it all about political interference:

I’m Robert E. Madden MD, FACS. I am also a non-smoker. HOWEVER I am a passionate opponent smoking bans. Most of the opposition to the smoking bans has been based upon economic factors such as loss of business revenue, even closings. My opposition is due to loss of individual freedom and abuse of scientific fact.

I am a practicing chest surgeon, a teacher and a former cancer researcher. I am also past president of the New York Cancer Society. I will not tell you that smoking is harmless and without risk, in fact one in eight hundred smokers will develop lung cancer. Asthmatics should avoid tobacco smoke. What I will say is: 1) it’s a personal choice and 2) so called second smoke (ETS) is virtually harmless. One may not like the smell but it has not been shown to cause cancer, even in bartenders. If people do not like the odor then they may go elsewhere. Those who support the ban have no right to deny 24% of the adult population their enjoyment of a popular product based on dislike, possibly hatred of smoking. This attitude is that of a bigot, akin to anti-Semitism or racism.

To me the most offensive element of the smoking bans is the resort to science as “proving that environmental smoke, second hand smoke, causes lung cancer”. Not only is this unproven but there is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for a scientist like myself to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society (of which I am a member) and the American Lung Association used to justify what is best described as a political agenda. Smokers enjoy smoking. Most non-smokers are neutral. Anti-smokers hate smoking. It is this last group that drives the engine of smoking bans. Smoking sections in restaurants, ventilated bars and the like have been sat
17

BeeGee,

06/01/2008 13:35:13
It is this last group that drives the engine of smoking bans. Smoking sections in restaurants, ventilated bars and the like have been satisfactory and used for years. To those who choose to smoke they do so at their own risk. To those eschew smoking let them patronize establishments whose owners prohibit smoking. To impose a city wide or a state wide ban is to deny people of their rights.

-Respectfully,
Robert E. Madden, M.D.
18

GrahamB,

06/01/2008 14:12:03
Nos 14 to 17
Says it all, Rollo.
Why not do the dignified thing and accept that the vast majority of the “science” was and is funded by the Big Pharma and is flawed to the extreme? Remember also, that distinguished Professor Doll was also funded to a huge extent by Monsanta.
19

Rob Simpson,

UK 06/01/2008 14:12:06
Rollo, SCoTH themselves admit most of the evidence failes to meet statistical significance. The evidence "getting better" isn't much, especially when they ignore the largest study EVER done on the subject (which failed to show any link). The Surgeon General also ignored that study.
As previously mentioned most of the SCoTH members have direct links with the people who produce NRT or anti smoking groups. Imagine the reverse situation; image SCoTH was populated by people with links to Big Tobacco, and their conclusion was there was no need for a smoking ban. Would YOU suspect some fiddling going on? Yes? So, why should we presume any impartially in the current situation?
The members of SCoTH have a vested interest in seeing anti smoking measure pushed through.
20

Rob Cook,

Herefordshire 06/01/2008 14:37:24
Superb post, BeeGee (Robert). Thank you.
21

Rollo Tommasi,

Edinburgh 06/01/2008 15:09:51
Belinda - Lung cancer deaths are not the only product of passive smoking. A recent mortality study by the NHS in Scotland concluded that passive smoking accounts for around 44 lung cancer deaths in Scotland each year - and for a further 400 deaths from heart disease. That's more than the number of people in Scotland who die each year from road traffic accidents.

Rob - Can you please point me to where "SCoTH themselves admit most of the evidence fails to meet statistical significance"? Far from ignoring the Enstrom & Kabat study (I assume that's the one you refer to), SCoTH discuss it directly, point to the shortcomings and limitations of its methodology and add that, even if the results had been considered within the IARC study, it would have changes the conclusions of the IARC study only marginally.

BeeGee / Graham - Instead of trying to attack the members of SCoTH personally, can you explain to me the ways in which their report is flawed? Rob was quite happy to refer to a study by Enstrom & Kabat, who have funding links with Big Tobacco. Should we just ignore that report too, or do you accept that all reports have to be considered on their individual merits?
22

Rollo Tommasi,

Edinburgh 06/01/2008 15:19:21
BeeGee: Re Robert Madden - Can you explain why the opinions of one doctor (or even a few doctors) should trump the views of the great majority of doctors, as well as the prevailing medical evidence?
23

Belinda-2,

06/01/2008 15:34:41
One thing I am sure of is that the average age of someone who dies (allegedly ... remember we are dealing with estimates of unnamed victims) of the effects of secondary smoke is older, possibly by a good forty or fifty years, than the average road traffic accident victim.

As a matter of interest, Rollo, do you happen to know the ages of the alleged victims of secondary smoke?

Mortality in UK was over 610,000 in 2003. For Scotland assuming roughly a tenth of that figure, I would say that 44 or even 400 chances of getting lung cancer or heart disease is well within the bounds of acceptable risk, especially when you consider that roughly two-thirds of coronary heart disease victims (in 2003) were over the age of 75 at the time of their death. Not that any death is not regrettable but we are not talking about monocausal conditions, and to put the blame for these things on smoking is entirely speculative.

A friend of mine the same age as me (43) recently had an aneurism and was lucky to escape with her life. She has been a non-smoker and non-drinker all her life. Nobody gets out alive.
24

Rollo Tommasi,

Edinburgh 06/01/2008 16:09:12
Belinda: I don't know the ages involved, although I do seem to recall reading some report which suggested that roughly 50% of deaths might involve under 70s (and obviously half involving over 70s).

I know you well enough from previous discussions to know you don't make glib comments. I don't believe we should be overly concerned about the age at which people die. One of the worst things about heart disease and (perhaps even more so) lung cancer is the months and years of suffering they inflict on people, whether or not they eventually die from it.

The sad episode with your friend shows how nobody is guaranteed a long and healthy life. What we can and should do, though, is take reasonable steps to minimise avoidable illnesses and early deaths - especially when our actions can affect the health and lives of those around us.
25

Belinda-2,

06/01/2008 16:13:42
Ok but I still don't see 400 as a very high risk in the context of 60+ 000 deaths, whatever the age.

26

Rollo Tommasi,

06/01/2008 16:23:50
I disagree. 450 deaths (plus possibly other deaths relating to stroke, other cancers and respiratory disease) is a lot to me. Add to that the anguish of the diseases themselves for those people and others who might eventually succumb to something else.

Personally, I don't know how I could do something which was not essential to me but which was contributing to the serious illness and deaths of so many others.
27

Belinda-2,

06/01/2008 16:27:48
Absolutely it is a high number, and with the grief of the families and all that I am with you all the way. But you are not talking absolute numbers, you are talking *risk*.
28

Neil,

Glasgow 06/01/2008 16:30:19
Good for him.

Previous generations of Scots would not have put up with this nonsense. When McConnell introduced this he told Parliament that it would save "1,000 lives a year" which was a total & deliberate lie. The real scandal is not that McConnell deliberately lied to parliament but that Parliament deliberately decided to be lied to.

However Exocet I don't purely, or even mainly, blame licencees for not breaking this - their livelyhoods are at stake. Why are there not hundreds of people lighting up in public buildings - Central & Waverley stations, courts, bus shelters etc? No police or court system could handle even a couple of hundred of them.
29

Rob Cook,

Herefordshire 06/01/2008 16:35:43
Neil, actually there are "hundreds of people lighting up in public buildings".

In my experience, it's simply the case that ashtrays come out at about 10pm or thereabouts. And that's when the pubs become semi-busy again - because customers can smoke. Until the ashtrays come out, the pubs are dead. Very few non-smokers visit the pub and smokers don't want to go outside in the cold. It's just not the same experience.

I initially assumed that this was simply a matter of me living out in the countryside where almost every pub I visit has the same 'get the ashtrays out when it's late' policy. However, I've noticed the same thing happening when I visit other parts of the country, including London.

The above situation isn't going to happen in every pub, of course. However, it's a case of doing so or closing down and all staff losing their jobs for those pubs doing it. Good luck to 'em, I say.
30

BeeGee,

06/01/2008 16:53:43
Rollo...Where do I make any personal attacks on the SCoth Committee. Where do I mention Prof Jarvis who is also a Director of ASH U.K. come on again present ypour evidence.

As far as the study by Enstrom & Kavat is concerned..get your facts right before posting. This study was originally funded by the American Cancer Society but when initial results showed that it was not what they were looking for, bailed out. The Tobacco Companies offered no strings attached funding to complete the study.
31

BeeGee,

06/01/2008 16:56:55
Roolo

Open your eyes and at the same time...your mind

http://www.pro-choicesmokingdoctor.blogspot.com/
32

Belinda-2,

06/01/2008 17:03:03
#22 Rollo, you are certainly in a minority on this thread at the moment ... why should your views trump ours? :)
33

BeeGee,

06/01/2008 17:10:04
Another interestin development is taht we now have a bunch of politicians who are acting in breach of their constitution by refusing to discuss the current legslation and the devastating effects it is having on our social fabric. The do not see the need to look at the situation for at least 3-4 years if ever...where has our democratic rights gone, who pays their wages?
34

Rollo Tommasi,

Edinburgh 06/01/2008 17:16:25
BeeGee - You said "the report created by a kangaroo committee where all but two members have financial links to the Pharma companies who manufacture the Nicotine Replacement Products".

Enstrom & Kabat: get YOUR facts right ;). They were not funded initially by ACS, but by the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, the group that oversees research funds earmarked from proceeds raised by California’s state cigarette tax. They were denied further funding following consistent complaints from ACS about the FLAWED METHODOLOGY they were using, not the emerging results.
35

Rollo Tommasi,

Edinburgh 06/01/2008 17:19:18
32: Belinda - Rest assured I don't feel in a minority at all. I'd love to hear from you about what it's like to be selling a message which the general public doesn't believe in. How did National Smoking Day go? Couldn't find a thing about how it passed in this week's papers. :)
36

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 06/01/2008 17:21:13
We should all commit mass suicide now. Then nobody would die of any disease!

BTW all this stuff about 'saving X thousand lives' is pretty dodgy. At best, it's death deferred; and quality of life is at least as important as quantity.
37

fife runner,

06/01/2008 17:28:28
anyhow, us facist anti smokers have won and there is nothing you can do. Of course we all know smoking is safe but hey, its good to get one over on the smokers.
38

fife runner,

06/01/2008 17:30:24
even although the tobacco companies admit their product is harmful, why believe them as they are just plain daft trying to harm their sales and profits.
39

english charlie,

suffolk 06/01/2008 18:07:36
Urban Guerrilla. You're spot on. Who would want to live until 150 and live a miserable life? If you want to die early, you could always go into hospital and catch MRSA or one of the other bugs, which kills thousands every year.
40

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 06/01/2008 18:23:29
The great thing about buying your cigarettes abroad is that you can start smoking them at a reasonable price in a bar in a country which has a reasonable attitude towards its smoking ban.

Choice is offered alongside good beer. Never gave Broon or Darling a penny from tobacco tax in 2007 and don't intend to in 2008 (the savings pay for the shopping trips). I pass on that.

Wonder if the treasury feels the effects of my "passive smoking".
41

BeeGee,

06/01/2008 18:42:18
Rollo read this link and digest the truth, again you show just how out of touch you really are

http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/
42

Iain Inverness,

06/01/2008 18:48:35
To Clarify funding Re Enstrom and Kabat.

"Funding: The American Cancer Society initiated CPS I in 1959, conducted follow up until 1972, and has maintained the original database. Extended follow up until 1997 was conducted at the University of California at Los Angeles with initial support from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, a University of California research organisation funded by the Proposition 99 cigarette surtax. After continuing support from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program was denied, follow up through 1999 and data analysis were conducted at University of California at Los Angeles with support from the Center for Indoor Air Research, a 1988–99 research organisation that received funding primarily from US tobacco companies."

Source: James Enstrom writing in
http://www.epi-perspectives.com/content/4/1/11
43

Donnie,

06/01/2008 18:56:41
Rollo #35 it was an absolutely brilliant night, but you have to be in the know - morons do not get admitted.
44

Iain Inverness,

06/01/2008 19:00:04
This should let you know the type of creeps behind smoking bans and the way they behaved towards Enstrom & Kabat

"The instantaneous attack on our paper appears to have been a coordinated effort, primarily organized by the ACS and Glantz. Glantz is a well-known anti-smoking activist who has worked closely with the ACS for many years [10]. As part of this coordinated effort, Glantz organized a May 15, 2003 Miami, Florida press conference involving a panel of "international experts" in order to "debunk" our "Marry a Smoker, Get Less Cancer" study before the press embargo ended [11]. At the time of the ACS press release and the Miami press conference, neither the ACS, Glantz, or the other Miami "experts" had access to the full ten-page version of our paper, let alone time to read it and carefully analyze it. The full version of our paper was not posted on the BMJ website until the press embargo lifted at 7:01 PM EDT on May 15, 2003 [1]. The only version available when the embargoed BMJ press release was issued on May 13, 2003 was the abridged five-page paper that appears in the print version of the BMJ [12]. Obviously, these critics chose to hastily write a press release and hold a press conference based on limited information. They did not have the integrity or objectivity to read our full ten-page paper or to contact the authors before beginning their attack, which included erroneous claims about the paper's content and quality."
Source:
http://www.epi-perspectives.com/content/4/1/11

Perfectly obvious that because this 40 year study would blow all the others out of the water, and therefore the entire passive smoking industry, that they had to behave this way, and continue to do so!

They should have learned their lesson when the EPA report was thrown out and the conclusions from the WHO study which were so weak and against the political dogma that they resorted to similar tactics with it as well.
45

Rollo Tommasi,

06/01/2008 19:23:57
Do any of the pro-smokers know how to read independent sources of information for themselves? It seems all you are capable of is cutting and pasting bits from pro-smoking websites without any independent thought. And from what I've read, it's clear that they are twisting a lot of facts. It's time to OPEN YOUR MINDS.

So, in relation to the Enstrom & Kabat report, don't just rely just on what Enstrom had to say (or on what Glantz said, for that matter). You'll find their report has a contribution to play to the debate, but it is a flawed and incomplete report and its conclusions don't dramatically alter the overall balance of evidence.

And, Iain, as I said before (posting 13), the WHO published their 1998 study and stood by its findings. Claims that the WHO tried to hide their findings were bogus, invented by the tobacco industry to pre-empt publication of the report. See my earlier posting for evidence.

As for the EPA report, it has also been vindicated. A district court judge (Osteen) criticised some of it, but the Court of Appeal threw out those criticisms. From what I've read from some of the pro-smoking websites, they make it seem as if Osteen's comments have official standing. But they have absolutely no validity whatsoever. Here's the proof: http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982407.P.pdf.
46

Rollo Tommasi,

06/01/2008 19:36:16
It's a long read, but if you're genuinely interested in the truth, read pages 1210-1406 of this: http://www.tobacco.neu.edu/litigation/cases/DOJ/20060817KESSLEROPINIONAMENDED.pdf

If you think Enstrom has behaved totally above board, then you should read para 3785: "Enstrom wrote a January 15, 1997 letter following up on his proposal but directly to Carchman at Philip Morris, rather than to CIAR or its SAB:
'A level of trust must be developed based on my past research on passive smoking and epidemiology in general in order to work out the best way for me to conduct this research. A substantial research commitment on your part is necessary in order for me to effectively compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health effects of ETS and active smoking.'
2063654073-4073 (US 85811)."

In other words, Enstrom was deliberately looking to Philip Morris (not to a research body funded by tobacco) for funding for a study, on the basis that its results would be favourable for the tobacco companies. Is that the act of an independent, objective researcher?
47

jomountain,

blackpool 06/01/2008 19:41:11
poverty and poor diet and apathy are the real killers. a few thousand elite political activists lobby and run our country, grass roots have been abandoned laws now start at the top. condescending,patronising luvvies who couldnt survive poverty for a week run us. the health benefits of avoiding passive smoking are not proportionate enough to erode peoples civil liberties, a law of oppression that attacks,ostracises,humiliates and disects down trodden people and creates more apathy.the pub is the hub of british politics where else can north,south,east and west meet and have political discussion.this ban effects the most vulnerable members of our society ie the 40% who dont vote,they have given up believing they can fight or challenge unjust laws. its a hate crime against the elderly,the handicapped and the working and under class. hamish and jo howitt
48

Iain Inverness,

06/01/2008 20:54:42
Well said Jomountain.

Rollo,
Regarding the EPA report. It is still the case that they fiddled the figures. That part of the original report wasn't vacated. When the results weren't what they wanted they dropped studies from their meta-analysis. It still didn't yield the "correct" result. They then took the outrageous decision to drop the confidence interval to 90% and came up with a pathetic Relative Risk of 1.19. Is this the behaviour of an objective, independent organisation?

Anyway, stating that a relative risk of 1.19 at a 90$ confidence interval with these results based on memory based questionaires is proof of causation is just daft. If you use statistics like this you can link anything to an increased risk of anything. Sadly, this appears more and more in our daily health scare headlines when in effect there is nothing to worry about. It is just natural statistical variation.

Thw WHO study is interesting as it came up with the conclusion that exposure to passive smoking during childhood had a protective effect against lung cancer. That was the only part that had statistical significance anyway, although again the slight reduction in risk is probably just a statistical quirk. At least they kept to a 95% confidence interval if memory serves me correct. Yet they still had the brass neck to state these results proved passive smoking caused lung cancer. How anyone can claim causation with these results is beyond explanation.

Regarding Dr James Enstrom, asking for money from Philip Morris.
"Enstrom says the letter was part of the normal grant process and his words were "taken out of context" by the court."
"I told the American Cancer Society in 1998 that I got tobacco funding," he said. "There was no reason to tell them in 1992 because I was not using their data."

It's as a direct result of these fraudulent studies by the EPA and the WHO that people like Hamish find themselves being taken to court.

That is just not on!



49

Iain Inverness,

06/01/2008 21:29:46
Rollo,
You say the WHO report isn't buried. Can you provide a link to it please if you have one? I did have it but cant find it now!

I think this from the BMJ sums things up very well on this matter.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/317/7154/348#resp1

"There could be no more damning verdict on the intellectual falsehoods generated by contemporary epidemiology and the erroneous public health advice to which it gives rise." Dr James Le Fanu.

How true is that eh? I bet he never realised then that men like Hamish would be standing trial in court for allegedly allowing a customer to smoke in his bar. That;s where the lies have got to now Rollo and it needs to be stopped before any more harm is done.
50

Rollo Tommasi,

06/01/2008 21:31:41
Iain

The Osteen decision on the EPA report was vacated IN FULL. If you don't believe me, check the end of the Appeal Court's decision: "The judgment of the district court is accordingly vacated and the case remanded for dismissal for want of subject matter jurisdiction."

There's no firm rule about the Confidence Interval figure that should be used in a report. A 95% interval is used as standard as part of a research report's summary. But, while a 95% interval is certainly more robust than 90%, results based on a 90% interval can still be valid. There is nothing "fraudulent" in that.

There's a lot of fallacy out there as to what is or is not "statistically significant". The tobacco industry and pro-smoking websites would have us believe that no results of a study have any validity unless they demonstrate a Relative Risk is 2 or more. That is rubbish.

What is true is that the results of an isolated study will not be seen to be definitive unless they show that kind of Relative Risk. But studies showing much smaller levels of Relative Risk are valid and, where corroborated by similar evidence from other studies, can provide just as demonstrative evidence.

The fact is that there are many studies out there on the risks of passive smoking. Yes there are some outlying results, but most studies consistently conclude that passive smoking can increase the risks of non-smokers to lung cancer and heart disease by 20-30%.
51

NoBanJan,

Manchester 06/01/2008 21:35:04
Hamish is a true hero, he has put everything he owns plus his health on the line, standing up for the freedom he believes in, the very freedom that we are losing day by day If everyone else had the courage to stand up & fight for their freedom then the country would not be in the grip of this dictatorship! Hamish, you are one of lifes "good guys" and we love you!
freedom2choosedotinfo
52

Rollo Tommasi,

06/01/2008 21:42:34
Iain - How can you suggest the 1998 WHO report was buried when you admit you had a link to it?! Try this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9776409?dopt=Abstract
53

mandyv,

huntingdon 06/01/2008 22:36:16
Thank you Iain, for clarifying, it was the cancer society who first funded the Enstrom/Kabat study.

Further down in this link, some very intesting letters.
Also James Enstrom defending the study
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057#32346

It is quite clear, there are people who are not interested in the truth, if it does not agree with thier ideology
54

Tim85,

06/01/2008 22:44:47
Rollo # 13 - how very convenient. I can name scores of people killed by other 'risk factors'. All I've asked you to done is name 3. Could your failure have something to do with the fact that these deaths don't exist?

I asked you before if you would support health warnings being placed on whole milk. Please answer this question.

You said you believe risks should be minimised. This can be done with modern day ventilation systems / air filtration systems, and has been confirmed by various reports: one from the University of Glamorgan, published in Building Services Journal, one commissioned by the Dutch gov't, which is why they aren't implementing a total ban.

I think the fact that air management systems can even remove most viruses from the air proves that ETS levels can be reduced, AT THE VERY LEAST, by 90%:

http://www.iqair.com.hk/pdf/20070108_7.pdf (see p. 3).

Recently, Rollo, and Australian study concluded that printer toner can impact upon the air and lung in a similarly detrimental fashion to ETS. If this was supported by further studies (and an RR of 1.2-1.3 was consistently achieved), would you support a total ban on printers in the workplace and public places?

One study recently concluded that iPods can interfere with the functioning of pacemakers. If such results are supported in further studies, will you support banning them from public places and work places?

The harmful chemicals contained in air fresheners and cleaning products are well known. http://www.lesstoxicguide.ca/index.asp?fetch=household#carp

Total ban?

Gotta love the vagueness of JS Mill's Harm Principle :)
55

Rollo Tommasi,

06/01/2008 23:20:11
Tim: "Risk factors". We've been round here before. Death certificates only describe key and underlying causes of death. Risk factors, such as passive smoking, don't feature. You mentioned asbestosis and radiation poisoning in a different forum. They are illnesses, which is why they might feature as underlying causes. But the death certificate will never set out how, where or when they were contaminated. That is what we are talking about with passive smoking.

You then ask me to say what I'd want under various scenarios. I don't pretend to know enough to say "yes" or "no" to any question. But what I will say is that, as someone who believes in objective thinking and an open mind, I'd ask myself several questions. (1) In what way might something be harmful/how harmful might it be? (2) How many people are at risk from harm if action is not taken? (3) What options to reduce risk are available, how successfully can they reduce risk and might there be any other consequences? (4) How sure can we be of the answers to these questions?

I'll comment on ventilation systems later.
56

Rollo Tommasi,

07/01/2008 00:00:59
Tim: You'll notice I'm answering all your questions. Last time I did so, you called me "obsessive". Seems I can't win with you. Perhaps you could encourage your mates to answer the questions I've asked them.

Like I said, I don't have a difficulty with enclosed smoking areas in principle. However, they must provide a guarantee that bar staff, as well as customers who don't wish to breathe in smoke, are protected from the smoke.

There is a view that all publicans need so is install some new super ventilation technology and - voila - problem solved. I think that's simplistic.

1. How well could the systems work in whatever setting they were placed? You'll doubtless point to the Glamorgan study as proof. But I ask the question as I've seen air curtain technology in action in a few places. Frankfurt Airport has smoking booths with air curtain walls. The ceilings there are high, but the terminal still reeks of tobacco smoke. I don't see how anything less than a separate smoking room could work.

2. How much would the systems cost a pub landlord to install?

3. What other installation costs would the landlord incur? Having seen a fair few pubs, I believe many pubs (especially smaller rural pubs) are not designed to accommodate a separate smoking room easily. What would be the building costs of constructing a separate smoking room?

4. How well would these systems continue to work? I've seen several pubs which supposedly had ventilation in the bad old days, but you'd never know because it was either switched off or not working properly. What kinds of maintenance / replacement parts would the new ventilation systems need and what would this cost? What guarantee would bar staff and punters have that the equipment was both switched on and working properly? I suspect pubs with enclosed smoking areas would need to be inspected regularly to provide the necessary reassurance. The costs of this would doubtless fall upon landlords of these pubs
57

Rollo Tommasi,

07/01/2008 00:02:45
4(contd). The costs of this would doubtless fall upon landlords of these pubs through higher licensing/inspection fees (after all, why should other landlords or council taxpayers pay for these costs?).

5. Other practical points - how would a smoking room be cleared of glasses and cleaned, if bar staff are to have the right not to be exposed to tobacco fumes? And how would you prevent leakage of smoke from open doors?

In other words, you're talking about an option which would not suit every pub and which would be expensive to introduce and maintain. It might suit some large city centre bars quite well but I suspect would be meaningless for many local pubs.
58

Thomas Laprade,

Thunder Bay, ONt 07/01/2008 06:27:12
A small amount of smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is miked with the air of a decently ventilated venue is harmful to your health??


If anybody belieds that, then I have a bridge I would like to sell you.
smoke from tobacco is a statistically insignificant health risk
59

Rollo Tommasi,

Edinburgh 07/01/2008 07:57:27
Pro-smoking groups would have us believe that studies on passive smoking are "statistically insignificant" or even "lies". Yet these claims are based on deceit.

The pro-smoking groups claim that studies have no meaning if (1) they show a Relative Risk of less than 2 or (2) the Confidence Interval straddles 1.0 at 95%. Both claims are WRONG.

The truth on (1) is that you only need to show a Relative Risk of 2 or more if you show a study's results are conclusive without the need for corroborating evidence. A collection of studies, each showing Relative Risk of more than 1 but less than 2, can provide just as good evidence when taken together. As for (2), there is nothing sacred about the 95% Confidence Interval.

Don't believe me? My challenge to you is DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH on Relative Risk and Confidence Intervals. Wikipedia is always a good starting point. Pro-smoking groups may try to quote remarks by Marcia Angell or Robert Temple. Before believing these quotes, check for yourself if they've been taken out of context.
60

David from New Mills,

U.K. 07/01/2008 12:29:53
#32, Belinda C.
Why should Rollo's views be any less pertinent than those of a small band of F2C pro-smokers and their rag tag collection of camp followers? Rollo is by no means alone.
61

David from New Mills,

U.K. 07/01/2008 12:32:07
#43, Tin Hat Donnie.
Perhaps there was no need as they were already there.
62

David from New Mills,

U.K. 07/01/2008 12:39:38
#35,Rollo Tommasi,Edinburgh.
Yes, Belinda C. or anyone else, do tell us about the success of National Smoking Day. Like Rollo, I couldn't find a peep of news anywhere. Even loser Howitt got a brief spot on local t.v. Or did the big non-event just go the way of the much vaunted but now dead in the water Judicial Review, and fall apart from "lack of support" as quoted by Belinda's esteemed chairman on F2C's website?
63

David from New Mills,

U.K. 07/01/2008 12:48:43
#39,english charlie,suffolk.
Chas is deluded if he believes that non-smokers are doomed to "live a miserable life", without an accompaniment of tobacco, or it's fumes. Why not ask a few? He should find lots of them about.
64

David from New Mills,

U.K. 07/01/2008 13:00:10
#51,NoBanJan,Manchester.
Hugh Howitt is a misguided fool who is going to end up bankrupt, probably in a prison cell. I do recall once seeing a poster exhorting the state to "Free Deirdre", but real life isn't quite like Corrie. Perhaps I'm wrong and we'll see hordes of self-labelled "freedom fighters" marching in the streets in support. There again, perhaps not.
65

Rob Cook,

07/01/2008 13:05:00
I sometimes think we get too carried away with the SHS aspects of this debate.

I'll be honest - I don't know for certain whether SHS is harmful or not. What does appear certain is that people are sincere in their believes regardless of which side of the argument they are on.

I still think we need to concentrate more on the simple fact that if you don't like the smell of cigarette smoke, or you believe it may harm your health, then don't go into a pub.
66

,

07/01/2008 13:11:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
67

David from New Mills,

U.K. 07/01/2008 13:17:20
#65,Rob Cook.
Conversely, I might say that if you don't like the absence of the smell and fumes of cigarette smoke, "then don't go into a pub." Or if you prefer a less "draconian" choice, just smoke elsewhere.
68

Rob Cook,

07/01/2008 13:26:36
David, I am genuinely interested in how you hold this opinion. Sometimes this discussion can descend into personal attacks and a decent non-confrontational debate is refreshing.

What's wrong with a pub-owner allowing people to smoke in his pub? After all, it's his pub and his customers can smoke in there with his permission, surely? Why should non-smoking customers who rarely visit and who he may not even want in there dictate what he can and cannot do inside his own business?

I've discussed this issue enough to know that with some people no amount of debating will change their mind. That isn't meant to be insulting at all - simply how I've experienced these debates. However, I'm interested in your feedback all the same.
69

banhater,

07/01/2008 13:46:47
Rollo

How ever many studies come up with a small RR, is irrelevant. If the RR is less than 2 it cannot be taken seriously. If you allow for errors, statistical bias and confounders,such a risk cannot be deemed high enough to implement smoking bans.In any other scientific field, these studies would be dismissed completely.

Quote from link below:
Over the years I have studied the issue of environmental tobacco smoke and have become quite familiar with the studies on humans that you cover in your background documents. I represent neither industry nor government and do not get paid for the work I do.

A major stumbling block with your recommendation that environmental tobacco smoke be included in your 9th Report on Carcinogens is that before you can list something as a human carcinogen, you must -- according to your own Criteria [1] -- provide "sufficient evidence" from studies on humans, and you have not done that in the case of environmental tobacco smoke.

For example, the tables provided in your background documents clearly show that the vast majority of studies find no statistically significant association between lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke.

What’s more, virtually all of the relative risks reported in those studies are below 2, and according to reputable epidemiologists, relative risks below 2 are weak and inconclusive:

"...relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret... Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." [2]

"The strength of association relates to causality. Relative risks of less than 2.0 may readily reflect some unperceived bias or confounding factor, those over 5.0 are unlikely to do so." [3]

The fact that you seem to equate "sufficient evidence" with weak relative risks that in most cases are not statistically significant gives the appearance that you have forsaken scientific standards and r
70

banhater,

07/01/2008 13:48:29
"The fact that you seem to equate "sufficient evidence" with weak relative risks that in most cases are not statistically significant gives the appearance that you have forsaken scientific standards and resorted to "advocacy" science in order to advance the government’s anti-smoking agenda."

http://www.junkscience.com/feb99/perske.htm
71

David from New Mills,

U.K. 07/01/2008 14:31:31
#68, Rob Cook.
I think my option for smokers was more of a suggestion than an opinion, as I was merely standing the smokers' "If you can't stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen" attitude on it's head.
Rob must realise that as the law now stands it's not all right for the landlord, be he the owner, lessee or simply tenant to permit smoking on the premises.
It's not non-smokers, but legislation that determines the situation regarding smoking, hygiene, opening hours, planning applications, fire precautions et al.
If any of these is not to the landlord's liking, then he must face the consequences of non-observance. He can always try to have the law repealed via the ballot box, or attempt a Judicial Review. As the latter of F2C failed miserably, civil disobedience is another option, but that is not without it's perils, as Mr. Howitt has found to his cost.
Trust Rob finds this answer helpful.
72

David from New Mills,

U.K. 07/01/2008 14:52:43
#65, Rob Cook.
Further to my #71, I really do not know whether SHS is truly likely to damage my health, hence my refraining from taking part in these lengthy learned arguments quoting reports from various authors of the past.
However, I am aware of the effect of tobacco fumes on my nostrils, eyes, and throat, before I even consider my lungs and my clothing.
I've made this point in the past to Colin Gee and Steve Cross (whatever became of him?) of F2C, which doesn't indicate cowardice on my part, merely an acceptance of my body's early warning defence indicators. This left both parties non-plussed as they seemed to prefer to indulge in hypothetical discussions about risk ratios and confounders, rather than more realistic and mundane matters like unpleasant fumes and smells, or lack of support for their campaign.
Consequently, Colin Gee once referred to me as a "risk averse Puritan", which I admired as an imaginative turn of phrase, if scarcely accurate.
In short, I don't know whether SHS constitutes any serious danger to my health, but in the meantime am content to enjoy fug free pubs, (and other enclosed public places) for the first time in years in the case of pubs. Long may the situation last.
73

banhater,

07/01/2008 15:47:27
David

As you are yet to be convinced by the harm of SHS, surprised you so venomously defend a blanket ban.
Would you not accept that separate pubs and clubs for that allowed smoking would be fairer?
It worries me that an outright ban encourages such hatred towards smokers. I would suggest that if the law had exempted certain establishments and allowed a degree of choice you would have been happy with that and would have less energy towards an ant-smoking diatribe.

With regard to your defence warning indicators. Maybe you shouldnt really on these so much.
Now that air fresheners are used more in pubs since they are smoke free, your senses probably wont tell you how carcinogenic these chemicals are. The chemicals emitted actually block your nasal receptors leaving you less protected from these and other toxins.

http://tinyurl.com/3drelf
74

jomountain,

blackpool 07/01/2008 17:05:48
Iwould like comments on the governments manifesto pledge to allow smoking in non eating pubs and clubs and to ban fox hunting which I abhor.Myself and millions like me believed a manifesto is a promise and the government would not be allowed to commit perjury.I was mugged for my vote,we have had an exact reversal of a manifesto promise. Fox hunters are putting two fingers up to the government and the electorate.The upper class green welly brigade can storm parliament (Odius) Otis Ferry with MPS help receives a derisory £300 fine while Hamish Howitt faces bankruptcy for defending his own business and believing the manifesto promise. Chief constables and enforcement officers have clearly stated fox hunting is not in their list of priorities,it seems its tally ho for the privelaged few and up yours to 14 million highly taxed,lawful smokers who are mainly working class,is it any wonder there