Would you Adam and Eve it?
Tuesday, April 17, 2007 
Dr Luke Clancy is chairman of ASH Ireland. I've met him once or twice and I quite like him. Like many anti-smokers he means well and genuinely wants to improve the health of his nation. Unfortunately, like the good Samaritan who insists on helping the old lady across the road when she is perfectly happy where she is, he and his ilk go too far.
Yesterday it was reported that a study by a team from the Research Institute for a Tobacco Free Society in Dublin, led by Clancy, had found that "the smoking ban in Ireland has cut air pollution in pubs and improved bar-workers' health". (Full report HERE.) The study was (of course) widely reported yet a simple glance at the press release should have alerted even the most gullible health correspondent. By their own admission, the team relied on "volunteers" whose evidence consisted of "self-reported workplace exposure" and "self-reported health symptoms". And we're supposed to take this study seriously???!!!
It's hardly rocket science to conclude that smoking bans reduce exposure to airborne carcinogens. However it's the dose that makes the poison and although secondhand smoke may increase our exposure to carcinogens, the concentration of particles is usually very small. The best ventilation systems (which tests show can remove up to 90% of all gases and particles from environmental tobacco smoke) reduce it even further.
Many people find a smoky environment unpleasant but that doesn't justify a ban on smoking in EVERY pub, club and bar in the country. Luke Clancy's feeble report should be condemned for what it is - junk science designed to justify an unnecessary and authoritarian piece of legislation. Similar "research" has appeared in Scotland. Expect more of the same within six or 12 months of the smoking ban in England.
Reader Comments (28)
Simon Clark's argument is just academic and a return to passive smoking (I'm in Wales) in restaurants, pubs and clubs still gets a thumbs down from the majority of people. The tide of public opinion has been hardening against passive smoking over a number of years now and it is fair to say that most people are absolutely intolerant of passive smoking. Unless Forest puts up candidates in the next General Election then, thank goodness, no political party is advocating repeal of the latest smoking laws in enclosed public places.
Public support of the smoking ban is a graphic symbol of the intolerance that's gripping the nation - and it's not limited to intolerance of the smell of cigarette smoke, it extends out far further than that to encompass the 4x4 driver, the overweight, the gun owner and on and on and on. These days it seems you can't throw a stone without hitting an anti-something group.
And here's the thing they all seem BLISSFULLY unaware of; freedom cannot exist in an intolerant society.
The true legacy of ASH, MaG and their ilk will leave us with, they will consign personal freedom and responsibility to the history books.
For most of my life, I have been a reluctant passive smoker, and coming from Dublin, obviously welcomed the smoking ban. Considering the furore that preceded the ban, it was astonishing to see how the majority of smokers actually welcomed the ban. Its influence has spread beyond public spaces to social gatherings, where the rights of smokers and non-smokers to breath clean air takes precedence. Of course, there are the die hard 'aggressive' smokers who struggle with the concept that smoking has become socially unacceptable, but they are few and far between.
The above poster is clearly fond of indulging in fantasy, since that's that's all his post amounts to.
Lets consider the "majority of smokers actually welcomed the ban" comment. I'll be willing to bet hard currency that he hasn't undertaken any form of survey and has simply MADE THIS UP. This *could* be considered a lie if I was of that frame of mind, but I'm happy to leave it as fantasy.
As for the "rights of smokers and non-smokers to breath clean air" comment. Lets be VERY clear on this. NO SUCH RIGHT EXISTS and a smoking ban does not, under any circumstances usher it in.
For what Mr Conran seems blissfully unaware of is that for something to be a right you must be able to WAIVE it. You must be able to say, no I don't want that and thus not be subjected to it.
Just as the right to remain silent doesn't require you to actually remain silent if you don't want, a right to smoke free air would require you to be able to chose a smoky atmosphere.
A smoking ban negates such a right, at least in public places. I'm afraid the only way Mr Conran *could* enjoy such a right is to support the movement to allow some places to allow the very LEGAL practice of smoking, in a public setting.
The only indoor place such a right exists is within the confines of our own homes and even THAT'S under threat now.
If the public was honestly and truthfully informed about the effects of second-hand smoke, there would be fewer no-smoking laws in this country.
A little smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is going to harm or kill you?
There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and filtration systems kills or harms anyone.
As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology.
Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking.
Thomas Laprade
Michael Conran thinks smoking is universally socially unacceptable, but a year after the ban was introduced in Scotland smoking is still socially acceptable here – it is still popular, and people do it in company whether outside pubs or in people's homes. The idea that it is unacceptable is characteristic in communities where smokers are in a minority and next to impossible in communities where smokers are in a majority.
Far from being limited to a few 'aggressive diehards', opposition to the smoking ban is alive and well – as attested by the thousands of signatures gathered on petitions presented by Fife Smoking Action Group and Freedom to Choose – thank goodness.
Forest is not a political party and neither is Freedom to Choose, however there are a few candidates who are standing for election to the Scottish parliament as the Publican Party on a ticket of 'separate rooms for smokers'. Opposition to the smoking ban is also expressed in the manifesto of UKIPScotland, and in the manifesto of one (to our knowledge) independent candidate for Fife Council. See http://www.freedom2choose.co.uk/news_viewer.php?id=170.
Simon Clark is correct in saying that the dangers of so-called passive smoking do not warrant excluding everybody everywhere from smoking in enclosed spaces. And as Rob Simpson points out, a right that can't be waived cannot be described as a right, only as an imposition.
Anti smokers, like environmentalists and anti fat and many other anti type special interest groups are not the least bit interested in real science or real evidence and we play into their hands just talking about their evidence. Such groups exist to forward their own purposes via the power of government. Their purposes, no matter how they all seem to be completely different on the surface, always contain the "need for legislation" and taxes. The legislation "creates" jobs and research grants for their ilk. It is about money and power and the creation of more and more groups of "us and them".
Mr. Simpson, let's be VERY clear about this; the smoking ban has happened in Ireland. That is fact. I do not need to undertake some "survey" to legitamize the "fantasy" that I have apparently been seduced by. I have lived in Ireland for the majority of my life and I am more than qualified to provide a comment based on my observations, regardless of what ASH, the RITFC, the 'pro' or "anti type" special interest groups have to say.
It's comical to be dismissed as "indulging in fantasy" when your patronising tirade about rights makes it clear how both ill-informed and indignant you are.
The existance of a ban in Ireland is the ONLY factual piece of information in your post. Your living in Ireland for the majority of your life doesn't grant you any special authority to comment on the opinions of the majority of its inhabitants.
If that WERE the case then there'd be no need to ever do a survey, we'd just ask the first person we could find who'd lived there the "majority of their life".
Have you ever wondered why we DON'T do that? Probably not since you seem to believe you anecdotal knowledge is more than comprehensive enought to grant you authority to comment on majority opinion.
And I'm sorry to inform you but simply calling someone "ill-informed" (I admit to the indignation as all freedom loving people SHOULD be these days) without providing ANY justification for the remark is simply childish name-calling for the sake of it.
So, to ammend my previous postt... no, there's no need, apart from the existence of a ban you remarks are a pure flight of fancy.
I sense that Michael Conran is appeasing individuals like Rob Simpson and Thomas Lamprade, using "Ill informed" as an alternative for ignorance.
Rights are not limited to Rob Simpson's definition as a legal priciple but extend to morality and ethics.
We should welcome Thomas Laprade from the future where advanced ventilation systems extract pollutants from the environment.
Seriously, these people are clutching at straws to support their agenda. Bless!
AGAIN with the name-calling. Now I'm ignorant because my very specific definition of a right doesn't match up with EKs amorphous and esoteric notion.
A right is a very specific thing and needs to be enshrined in law in order to exist. No where on any book will you find ANY mention of a right to smoke free air. if you think you have such a right it is PURELY a result of your own imaginings.
Extending the notion of a right to morality and ethnics is nonsensical as, and here's the kicker, everyone's morals and ethics are different, and taking your argument on board, everyone's imagining of rights will be different.
So, it's rather pointless to even consider them UNTIL they're enshrined in law.
As for my agenda; here it is - to stop the erosion of freedom (how insidious of me). What's yours?
To use smoking as a platform for the erosion of freedom amounts to nothing more than flogging a dead horse, and is quite frankly self-indulgent. There are far more worrying issues that affect everyone. You only need to listen to the warblings of John Reid and his fascist manifesto to be seriously concerned about freedoms that we currently take for granted.
I don't smoke and once I don't get smoke blown in my face I don't really care who smokes and where.
On this forum, the pro-smoker lobby don't do themselves any favours at all. Counter argument is dismissed as nonsensical, indulging in fantasy, a pure flight of fancy etc. etc.
I assume poster Rob doesn't currently live in a region where a smoking ban is in place, though nor do I for that matter. However, I would have more faith in the Scottish and Irish (anecdotal?) information, than any official survey that is based on hypothesis.
Finally, I don't think anyone is interested in bets, wagers or kickers with an obstinate indivudual. They never pay up.
Mr Canzio demonstrates the most dangerous attitude of all; "I don't really care".
You see Mr Canzio, I care about the legalisation of drugs, despite not using them. I care about ever tightening gun laws, despite not being a shooter. I care about the fox hunters, despite never having been near a hunt.
I CARE about ALL of these things and yet none of them are part of my life. Their legal/illegal nature makes little difference to my life. Why I DO care about is freedom, and not just my freedom, I care about yours just as passionately. I want you to have as MUCH choice as humanly possible.
On a secondary note; the anti-smoking posters have yet to actually post an argument. We have someone claiming to know the opinion of all of Ireland WITHOUT even having to go ask - I can only assume it's through magical means. The rest of us rely on surveys. That's not an argument. I HAVE seen name-calling from the anti-smoking posters and none from the pro-smokers.
I'd like to point out as well; you didn't offer up any arguments, although you do seem to consider yourself some kind of authorative figure when it comes to deciding what issues are important and what aren't.
Are you seriously suggesting we should stop worrying about the smoking ban and concern ourselves only with the issues YOU have deemed important? I have to ask as that's exactly what it looks like.
For many of us, rendering a legal activity illegal and marginalising 25% of the population IS a big issue.
Mr Simpson, you mentioned in a comment above: "I care about the legalisation of drugs, despite not using them"
To clarify: you don't smoke?
Also, I think you are not getting your message across clearly. Especially in the last post where you seem to reinforce the comment made by Mr Canzio, although I imagine you intend the opposite. Perhaps, you could leave others to post their comments without hijacking the discussion.
Regards,
D. Magro
"Mr Canzio demonstrates the most dangerous attitude of all."
You are indeed an ignoarant man.
"Perhaps, you could leave others to post their comments without hijacking the discussion."
I'm sorry, how do you have a discussion without replying other people's comments?
Can I also point out the irony of you doing the very thing you're suggesting I should stop.
"You are indeed an ignoarant man."
And you DO seem to enjoy name calling.
"So there!!"
The above post is not from me, but from someone who made the astute discovery that you can put any name you want in the author box and pretend to be someone else.
The shame here is that the person couldn't come up with anything better to say than "so there!"
The last FOUR posts are by this Rob Simpson guy. There's definitely not enough room for your ego here friend. But at least we've the freedom to hijack something!!
Rob Simpson - 9 posts
Machael Conran - 2 posts
Richard Canzio - 2 posts
Robert Evans - 1 posts
Elliot King - 1 .....
David Magro - 1 .....
Bernie - 1 .....
Belinda - 1 .....
Thomas Laprade - 1 .....
This particular study is fairly close to one I analyzed a couple of years ago. That one was by Michael Eisner, and I reproduce my analysis here.
========
Eisner’s 53 Bartenders Study
(Eisner et al. Bartenders’ Respiratory Health…. JAMA.1998; 280: 1909-1914)
Huge headlines were made in 1998 when a study claimed to show a dramatic improvement in the health of California bartenders after a smoking ban. Those headlines never mentioned three important facts though:
At least 24 of the 53 bartenders were smokers who obviously smoked less after the ban. All 53 were friendly enough toward the ban that they agreed to participate in the study: many others refused. Thus the study pool was strongly skewed from the very beginning!
Most “improvements” noted were purely subjective: “I don’t notice my eyes itching as much.” or “I don’t think I cough as much now.”
The one scientifically measured difference, a small improvement in some Pulmonary Function Tests, was both below clinically significant levels and quite sensitive to both experimenter effect and patient effort.
Finally, if you actually read the study rather than the headlines, you once again find the claim of causality is not quite what it appears: Eisner actually wrote that “the possibility that unmeasured (infections) or reduced active smoking could still partially explain the observed improvement… reduced ETS exposure… was associated with improved adult respiratory health… smoking prohibition appears to have immediate beneficial effects....”
Possibilities of
unmeasured partial explanations.
Associated with.
Appears to have.
Not quite the way the story made the headlines, certainly nothing to indicate any long term harm or health risk, and quite certainly nothing like the definitive statement of causality blasted over the media.
=====
Antismokers have gotten lazy. They now know they can get their grant money for simply turning out formulaic studies patterned after those done elsewhere and get the same pleasing funder-approved results.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
It's interesting to note that whilst Rebecca went to the trouble of counting my posts she obviously didn't bother reading them. If she had then she'd know the third in the series of FOUR (So astonishing it had to be put in caps) posts wasn't mine, as explained in the fourth in that series.
I realise this is a new site, but surely someone reaching the heady heights of 3 posts/day on a single thread isn't all that remarkable. I'm sure once this blog gets going it'll be downright ordinary.
As for there being "room for my ego", why don't we let Simon be the judge of that. This is his world, we're all just visiting.
Well, I guess you've corrected my previous faux pas.
I was thinking about doing another about words you use that are "So astonishing it had to be put in caps", but this is Simon's world after all and you've been getting more attention than you deserve.
Enjoy your weekend!
How about, and this might be a radical idea, you comment on the actual topic rather than the posters.
What everyone seems to miss is the fact that although smokers have no 'right' to smoke, neither has anyone any 'right' to clean air.
We all have choice, or should have. So why should the ability to choose be removed from a quarter of the population? Anyone who hates smoking so much should have the choice to visit a non-smoking venue, but their intolerance does not stretch to affording the same courtesy for others.
And please don't forget that cigarette smoke is actually a pleasant fragrance to some people. Far better and less harmful than some eye-stinging chemical air-fresheners you can buy.
I am an Irish, and a pipe smoker.
I used to enjoy an occasional visit to my local pub for a pint or two. That little avenue of pleasure is now cut off for me. I miss my odd pint, and the social interaction, as I don't see why I should stand out in the rain to "enjoy" my pint.
Strangely, I am intolerant [physically] of cigarette smoke. I find it irritates my eyes and sinuses. But it was my choice to enter a smoke filled pub, so I never complained. It was my choice.
I am also allergic to so called "air fresheners" which Irish pub owners now find so alluring, so even if I wanted a pint, I can't go in.
In all my years of pipe smoking, I never once had a complaint about my smoking. On the contrary - people welcomed it. They enjoyed the aroma.
I like to have a few pints when on holiday, so after the ban was introduced here, I took my holidays in Northern Ireland. It was great. But that is now out for me. Last year I went to France. That will soon be a no go area. Can anyone suggest somewhere where a simple soul can go and have a quiet holiday, with a quiet pint and a puff on the pipe without some Health Nazi descending on me screaming that I'm killing everyone within a 50 mile radius?
Grandad from Ireland asks Can anyone suggest somewhere where a simple soul can go and have a quiet holiday, with a quiet pint and a puff on the pipe without some Health Nazi descending on me screaming that I'm killing everyone within a 50 mile radius?
He could still try southern Spain, Nerja and Almunecar in particular, where he will still find quite a lot of freedom. In fact the only restaurants I know there that have a ban in place, are those frequented by the Brits, whom for some reason, the Spanish seem to think, are all anti smoking Nazis.
Anyone who contributes towards this website and fancies a holiday there, please have a look at www.realspain.net and if you see anything you like I will give you a 10% discount.
That's funny you should mention that Peter, myself and my girlfriend were talking about a holiday to Spain. I might take you up on your offer :)