Doctors? Don't they make you sick!
Tuesday, April 24, 2007 
The British Medical Association excelled itself yesterday. Not content with banning smoking in public places, it issued a new report (left) containing a number of "key recommendations" - for example, banning the display of cigarettes in shops and "encouraging" parents to "adopt" smoke-free homes if they smoke. The magic word used to justify such measures is 'children'. Like most people, I prefer not to see children smoking. Nor do I condone those who smoke around children, but I don't condemn them either.
Let's put this in perspective. Millions of children grew up surrounded by tobacco advertising and sponsorship (let alone cigarettes on display in shops), yet the majority of us chose not to smoke. Nor is smoking around children the worst offence in the world. An entire generation of children grew up in the Fifties and Sixties with adults smoking around them - and we are living longer than ever. (I'm not suggesting these two facts are connected, but you get my point!)
Anyway, if you're interested, here are those recommendations in full:
- Smoking cessation services should be targeted at high risk groups to include those in the lower socio-economic groups, pregnant mothers, those with mental health problems and children who are looked after by the state, in foster care or in institutional settings.
- Taxation on all tobacco products should be standardised and increased at higher than inflation rates to reduce the affordability and therefore availability of cigarettes.
- Cigarettes should not be displayed at the point of sale and tobacco vending machines should be banned.
- Legislation to ban the sale of packs of 10 cigarettes.
- Legislation raising the minimum age of sale of tobacco products to 18 should be introduced across the UK and strictly enforced.
- A licensing scheme, already in place for shops that wish to sell alcohol, should be introduced for tobacco.
The UK governments should continue with country-wide media campaigns to inform the public about the health effects of exposure to second-hand smoke at home and in cars. - Parents who smoke should be encouraged and helped to quit smoking, and to adopt smoke-free homes if they continue to smoke.
You can see where some of these proposals are leading: (1) a ban on smokers as foster carers; (2) a ban on smoking at home and in cars; (3) an army of tobacco control officers to enforce the bans; (4) parents who smoke accused of "child abuse" etc etc.
What we are witnessing is a relentless, systematic assault on a significant minority of the population who are doing nothing worse than consuming a legal product. Ironically, some of these measures are sure to be counter-productive. Banning smoking in public places makes it MORE likely that people will smoke at home; increasing tobacco taxation further still is VERY likely to create a smuggling epidemic (it's happened before); banning the sale of packs of 10 cigarettes will hit those adults who want to cut down (possible on the road to quitting) because they will HAVE to buy a pack of 20. And you know what? They'll smoke 20 in the same time it would have taken them to smoke ten. It's called temptation and no government can legislate against that.
Meanwhile the BMA will continue its remorseless campaign to reduce smokers to the role of lepers, vilifying and stigmatising them until finally - browbeaten into submission - they quit the habit. If this is what the 'caring' medical profession has come to, God help us. And don't forget - today tobacco, tomorrow food and drink.
Reader Comments (33)
Well Simon since you pose the question the answer to it is a most definite and resounding yes.Think back to the thalidomide tradgedy,this was caused by doctors administering a substance to pregnant women without fully understanding what they were doing.No doubt this was well intentioned,but the pain and the grief will last for another 70 years,and of course it is not the doctors who have to suffer the consequences.It was doctors who gave haemophiliacs HIV infected blood without carrying out proper tests,to date 2000 people have died and many more will,but the doctors will not suffer the consequences.Look to the millions of £££s paid out in compensation to patients who have been maimed or have died because of the actions of doctors.How many patients have died because doctors have made mistakes with the placing of decimal points.Oh yes doctors do indeed make you sick,and in many cases will kill you.Trust me I'm a doctor,not bloody likely I say.
These doctors forget who pays their wages. We pay over seven billion in direct smoking taxes never mind the rest we have taken from our wages.They are already refusing to treat smokers unless they stop smoking. What next? Attempt suicide and no one will treat you? Swimming incidents, sports injuries, climbing and riding accidents, exposure cases for lost hikers & pot-holers. The list is endless where doctors could refuse treatment if they ignore their obligations under the Hypocratic Oath.
I believe us smokers should fight back. I have begun to buy all my cigarettes abroad and fund the trips from the previous trips savings. Some one should organise 'Fag Flights' along the lines of 'Booze Cruises' and hit the anti smokers where it hurts. When the anti smokers [ including doctors ] find that they have to make up the shortfall to the Treasury they might change their tune towards us.
While these experts on our health dictate yet more of their Cromwellian diatribe to us, they seem completely oblivious to the real health hazards that surround us every day.
They make no mention of the enormous always half empty, bendy busses and huge lorries that belt out their poisonous fumes through out cities every day. Cars, they tell us, are an absolute menace, and even worse, are the expensive 4 x 4s, though why they pick them out, when they never mention busses, no one knows, apart from the fact of course, that it is mostly the well off that can afford 4 x 4s, and we all know what a menace the well off are don't we!
Now, we also have these ghastly local councils, which are cutting down their rubbish bin collections from once a week to once a fortnight. What on earth is wrong with these people, can't they see that this can only cause disease and vermin, and even more fly tipping on our streets?
In other countries, such as Spain, there are rubbish collections every day, yet here, they force upon us, this ridiculous two week collection. What sort of a country have we become since Tony Blair took over? No need for answer here, we all know it already!
So what do we get next from the health fascists, they try to stop people smoking cigarettes in their own homes, they try to ban cigarette vending machines, they try to ban cigarettes even being displayed in shops. They force us, the general public, not to smoke in restaurants and pubs, even bus shelters and grounds of football stadiums, but they are still very happy to collect their pound of flesh, in the form of huge taxes, from the terrible weed, which they insist will kill us all.
It is about time that the people of this country got to their feet and made their voices heard, just like they are now doing in the French elections. We are far too complacent here, we need to shout and to fight back at these fascists, we need a real leader who will stand up for us, and give us what the people want, not what they decide we should have.
I think the theory of unintended consequences is wrong. All of the bad consequences you mention as a result of the BMA's proposals are only bad for those of us who are forced to pay for them. But they are great for those who work for the state. There will be all manner of problems that will require more legislation and higher taxes. What could be better?
Smuggling already accounts for an estimated £3 billion in lost taxation. Creating a cigarette tax "escalator" will only see that number grow.
I disagree with Simon that smokers will eventually be brow beaten into submission purely because in order to quit smoking you really, REALLY have to want to. What people will more likely do is start lying about it and I can't see how that helps anyone.
In fact I'd be willing to bet that all the brow beating will ultimately prove counter-effective. When you push people they quite often push back. Trying to bully people into quiting is handing them a HUGE reason NOT to.
Just a thought about 'public spaces'. It's really important I feel that at every possible opportunity we use the term "enclosed public spaces". If we don't, this will slip into ALL public spaces - which is not the law. However, the human mind being what it is in the pc brigade if we don't make the clear distinction, then slip it will!! I have campaigned locally in Kent for outside spaces to be actively protected by local councillors, MPs and others with positive responses I'm pleased to say. This did include a little light pressure about future elections and voting .. which might have helped. Please can we all be vigilant about this seemingly simple form of words. It isn't simple - it's a minefield. We need firmly to make the distinction that the law relates to "enclosed public spaces". You might also like to see the question I have posted on Webcameron site about air conditiioning and whether the Tories will review legislation for segregated areas. We must keep up the campaign.
If you want to see where this is going, look across The Pond. In California smoking is banned on beaches; you can't even smoke in many seating areas outside cafes, bars and restaurants. The town of Calabasas recently banned all outdoor smoking apart from designated areas.
Click here for Calabasas article
Another Californian town, Belmont, is considering the toughest legislation of all banning smoking almost completely from the town. This includes all outdoor areas apart from a few designated areas, private homes and cars used for work mind you, I'd like to see them enforce that.
And click here for the Belmont one
The only answer here is a concerted campaign by smokers and liberally minded non-smokers to boycott bars and restaurants that have already gone non-smoking before the ban. That's what I'm doing.
In fact, I plan to maintain my boycott on these establishments thereafter; tough on the employees I grant you but I didn't start this fight and I won't be the first to quit.
Do you realise that smokers in Britain today outnumber those who voted Labour at the last General Election? That's a Hell of a pressure group if mobilised.
I think this wretched Government are taking this smoking thing too far. There will a huge Revolt by many people. Yes I am a smoker with my husband and we will smoke in our own home. No one has the right to tell us what and when we can do things as they are not paying our Huge Bills.MR Blair has really gone too far What ever happened to proper Ventilation ??? Cars and lorries make more nasty polution than 1 ciggie. I think the streets will be covered by dog ends who gives a monkies? I dont Ha ha I say .This is going too far. Live and let live. What about drinking heavily Do Doctors do anything about that?Next they will not treat us for eating the wrong foods. god Help us all. amandah
I have just seen an e-petition calling for a reversal of the law and allowing ventilated rooms in pubs and restaurants, especially set aside for people who wish to smoke, and all there are on it is just a mere 600 and something signatures.
Here is the link to it, http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Smokingchoice/
please sign it, and get as many people as you can to also sign it.
The BMA has become politicised and is working well outside of its remit i.e. treat people who are sick and advise on healthy living, but forget about the social engineering. Health professionals should try sticking to the basics and prevent deaths from viruses such as MRSA for a start.
Every one of their recommendations should be dismissed as complete nonsense; for people who are meant to be intelligent, they do indeed lack common sense and do not understand human nature one iota.
Message to the BMA: LEAVE US ALL ALONE AND STICK TO YOUR DAY JOB.
The BMA has, in my opinion, failed to represent doctor's for many years now. It has failed doctor's in negotiations with the government and it's position on smoking is blinkered to say the least. I myself am joining an increasing number of my colleagues in pressure for a vote of no confidence in the BMA leadership.
I am particularly frustrated by my other smoking colleagues who continue to hide their habit. I believe they may have taken the Hypocritic Oath in error.
The other comments on this post are only too true, however, the medical profession has never been more wrongly targeted by the venomous media. We are desperately trying to work in an increasingly inept and clumsy beurocracy orchestrated by an incompetent Health Secretary and hapless government. Our trainess have been shat upon from a ridiculous height by MMC and MTAS. Medical staffing will hit a dangerous crisis on 1st August 2007, when even if MTAS makes appointments their will be a preposterous shortage of medics. We are disillusioned and miserable, still working long hours and battling through administrative madness. The nursing profession lost their minds some time ago.
However despite this we are mostly highly motivated to continue to care for people and do the right thing by them at their time of need. NICE restricts what we can use and the cleaners hands are tied behind the backs with petty rules as well. Workers across the board in the health service need the public's support an end to the re-re-reorganisation of the health service. Whoops I started ranting. Sincere apologies.
To Charles Matthews and Dr. Phil Button: Great posts. Do you realise that, in the two major segments of the population you mention (the 14m smokers God bless us, and the nurses/medics) - we have the heart of a real revolution if it can only be harnessed. The air conditioning issue, civil liberty and individual choice related to tobacco could be a representative campaign for saying NO to so much that is wrong in the way we value people. I wouldn't leave a dog in the care of the current Health Secretary never mind the complexities of the human mind, body and spirit.
When, when do we all say NO and really mean it and make the changes we need to restore choice and democracy. Please think about it. It wouldn't take much; only a concerted will and campaign. We could do it.
Phil, I couldn't agree more. We spoke to an ex nurse this very day and he said that most nurses are smokers. Even more to the point, my mother died in hospital 7 years ago, and her last few weeks were made more bearable by being able to smoke in a small smoking room in the hospital.
It was a pokey wee hole, but it was a place she could go with my dad for a bit of comfort in her final days.
Now, people in that situation are denied even such small comfort.
My mother grew up in Nazi Germany. Her father was forbidden to sell his work- he was an artist- due to his opposition to the nazi agenda, and the family suffered accordingly. Coming home from school one day, my mother told her father what they had heard in class that day; namely, if a youth encountered an older person on a narrow road; what should the young person do?
All said, 'step into the road'. 'Good,' said the teacher, 'but what if it is a Jew?'
'Push him into the street', was the required response. On learning of this, my grandfather told my mother quite clearly that he expected her to behave to a Jew with the same respect as she was expected to show to any older person.
My own father fought Naziism.
At times I am glad they are dead and don't have to live under such a repressive regime. It is now expected to refuse a seat indoors to a smoker on government orders and regardless of our own instincts. This might seem trivial to some but wedges have thin edges.
Doctors have little to do whit antismoking hysteria.
Doctors are obligated to follow guidelines imposed by health officials.
Health officials are under constant pressure from self-appointed health crusader.
P. S.
Can we be more active to stop this insanity and to regain some human’s dignity?
Why we should be silent majority.
What's your point about buses, Peter Thurgood? Are you going to force me to buy a car? Or would you argue for the ditched Labour project for continental-type trams (on which you can, as on much of the continent, smoke)?
Nigel Hall asked me What's my point about buses, Am I going to force him to buy a car? Or would I argue for the ditched Labour project for continental-type trams (on which you can, as on much of the continent, smoke)?
I am not quite sure what you are asking here Nigel? I live in London, where the streets are packed solid with ghastly Ken Livingsone's huge bendy busses. They are nearly always 80 to 90% empty, carrying something like maybe between 4 and 8 people at the most, and to make matters worse, there are always about 6 to 8 of these monsters in a row, driving head to tail so close that pedestrians cannot even walk across the road safely. But my main objection is the amount of poison these monsters belt out, just to carry the odd passenger here and there.
If you want to buy a car Nigel, please go ahead and buy one, you won't do half the damage to the environment that those monsters do. I am not sure about trams, they seem to work well in Croydon, south London, but as for smoking being allowed on them, can you imagine what Adolf Livingstone would say about that!
Well Michael; you might be interested in this.
The Third Reich comes easily to mind in the current regime (and regime it is, make no mistake). As one ex-pat lovely German lady said to me recently: she had escaped her country ten years ago because of the all pc pressures on health and fitness. She is appalled to see it rising up here. Her comment was that we would all be doing communal PE soon in the London squares at 8 a.m. We must fight this intelligently and without compromise.
To Peter Thurgood, I have duly signed the petition you list however, I noted an oddity shall we say.
The number of signatures remained the same after I signed it as it was beforehand. Could this be yet more Blairist spin to give what I'm sure he sees as the "Unwashed Masses" the appearance of involvement?
I have a petition of my own which I cordially invite you all to sign.
Petition to Support the inclusion of an exemption for Airports from the Smoking Ban
In conclusion; I am starting to sense a glimmer of insurrection here and, if real, would that not be truly marvellous? Would it not be something special if we English were the first to say to the Tobacco Taliban;
"Stop! Enough is enough. You can have California - probably not for too long - and you're welcome to the rest of the U.S. too. You can have Ireland, Canada, Australia, Scotland, Wales; wherever they'll have you in fact but - not here!"
After all, we're pretty used to dealing with Nazis are we not?
I mean; just what is Tony going to do if we all ignore this stupid law? Imprison all 14 million of us? Given that he can't even accommodate the 80,000 real criminals we have I think it unlikely.
And then would an unenforceable law drift back across the Atlantic where it would rise sodden from the waves to scamper across that great country where it would arrive where it started - California - with its tail between its scraggy legs.
How sweet a day but then, I'm probably just daydreaming.
I'm all for breaking the law for a good cause (can I say that?), actually I agree with Martin Luther King in that it is our DUTY as citizens of a free country to break laws we find unjust.
HOWEVER, when it comes to the smoking ban there's a problem. Whilst I'll gamble against a £50 the hugely excessive £2500 that would be levied against pubs and clubs that too openly turned a blind eye will likely be enough to discourage dissent.
We know the ban is being flouted in Scotland and Ireland, but it's quiet, out of sight and no one really admits to it. The same will likely be true in England.
Rob,
I agree with you however, I'm pretty sure that the court system could not cope with fining every smoker and bar in Britain.
Funny isn't it; I'm nearly 50 and grew up pretty Conservative (case choice intentional) but am becoming more radicalised the older I get.
Funny how it took a Socialist to do this. Sorry - I meant Blair so, of course, this term does not apply here.
According to the Office of National Statistics 24% of the adult population smoke cigarettes. Conversely, looking at Parliaments website, the turnout in the 2001 general election was 59.4% of which 42.0% voted Labour. 42.0% of 59.4% is 24.94%, so slightly more people voted for these idiots than smoke. Wonder if that'll change?
I won't be deliberately breaking the law, too well indoctrinated for that I suppose, however lifting directly from the Health Act 2006, part 1, chapter 1:
"(2) In this Chapter—
(a) “smoking” refers to smoking tobacco or anything which contains tobacco, or smoking any other substance, and
(b) smoking includes being in possession of lit tobacco or of anything lit which contains tobacco, or being in possession of any other lit substance in a form in which it could be smoked.
(3) In this Chapter, “smoke” and other related expressions are to be read in accordance with subsection (2)"
By my (admittedly rather barracks room lawyer) interpretation, I can still sit indoors at my local with an unlit (or even unfilled) pipe in my mouth and wait for the smoking police to come for me in complete innocence. The landlord of my local has made his opposition to the ban clear to the council, along with reserving the right to ban anyone unjustifiably harrasing his customers for life.
Rufus,
sadly, a lot of Conservative MPs and almost all of the "Liberal" Democrats (not Lembit Opik, whom God preserve!) voted for this rotten ban.
Things might not change much.
How long has the majority of the electorate supported the death penalty?
Charles, I agree with and appreciate your point. What you're talking about is civil disobedience and it is a powerful political tool, but it requires a lot of cooperation.
Since the natural state for a British citizen these days is; complacent it'll take a while to whip up that kind of cooperation.
That's why I'm gratified to see this an other sites start to pop up. Concern over civil liberties is moving away from the fringe and towards the mainstream (long way to go yet, but it's on the move).
I was present at a hustings in Edinburgh (there is a general election here one week from today). Present at this hustings were the candidates from major parties, and we went along in the company of the Publican party candidate for Lothians, Eddie Douthwaite. The chair of the meeting took a show of hands on the smoking ban, and the result was 3:1 in favour of the ban/against the candidate. The candidate unfortunately did not get much opportunity to go into his subject properly and explain that his position was not to overturn the ban but to provide for smoking rooms and full discretion for licensees on the issue of smoking. He was happy with the 3:1 vote, since if he got a third of the vote in the pr system we have here, this would get him in. It was not a particularly pub-oriented audience.
The legislation is designed to discourage people from flouting it by including a whacking great fine for allowing smoking. You can expect what we had ... you will be told before the ban that you are law-abiding citizens and that all will go smoothly. After the ban starts, everybody will be in some degree stunned and you will be told it's a runaway success and the expected trouble did not occur! Media stories will make you think you are the only one against it ... sorry if I am stating the obvious.
Keeping opposition alive in Scotland has been a matter of some internet stuff but crucially MEETING face to face with people who feel the same way. We had a couple of sympthetic licensees and that has helped a lot. The Fife working men's clubs did this in style and once we found out about their activities we were a lot stronger. Because Fife is close knit and old fashioned, in the sense of behaving in neighbourly ways and acting as a community, signatures were much easier to get ... far easier than they are on the net. They talked of Thatcher destroying their industries and Scottish Labour destroying what was left.
The net has its uses but it doesn't substitute for political meetings, even small ones.
Rufus Trotman states "(2) In this Chapter—
(a) "smoking" refers to smoking tobacco or anything which contains tobacco, or smoking any other substance, and
(b) smoking includes being in possession of lit tobacco or of anything lit which contains tobacco, or being in possession of any other lit substance in a form in which it could be smoked.
(3) In this Chapter, "smoke" and other related expressions are to be read in accordance with subsection (2)"
I am still unsure of exactly what can and cannot be banned in an enclosed space, when they speak of "smoking any other substance, how on earth can this be upheld by law? If someone lit a rolled up piece of paper, for a joke, and made out to smoke it like a cigarette, would this be classed as an offence?
If an Indian restaurant lit joss sticks, and someone happened to pick one up, would this also be an offence? How about birthday cake candles, they smoke don't they, could restaurants be prosecuted for allowing them on tables? Or the little candles or night lights which many restaurants use?
We were originally told that it was the harmful chemical products in tobacco, that was causing so many problems that it was making us all ill, and therefore should be banned in public enclosed places, but now it seems the wording of the law has been written to cover any substance being smoked, which is utterly ridiculous.
It looks to me, that this absurd wording, might just become the downfall of this ridiculous and unjust law. Does anyone out there knows any lawyers, who are willing to work (there just might be???) for free, to help overturn this law?
An afterthought on my last post (above) a friend of mine says that he dries herbs and flower petals, crushes and then rolls them into cigarette papers, which he then smokes. He says that they are lovely and completely harmless.
Does anyone know how the new law would stand on this?
Peter, does this mean that herbal, tobacco free, cigarettes would still be legal to smoke in enclosed public places?
On second thoughts, the "any other substance" part of the law would seem to close that loophole - which is a blow.
re Charles Matthews 26/4/07
On reading Charles Matthews article a thought struck me. Let them inprison 14 million smokers, at least you get free board and lodgings AND you are allowed to smoke in Prison. At the same time when in London have a coffee in Westminster as you are allowed to smoke there. They are great our hypocritical MP's arent they? I am sure we will be voting them all in for another term so they can really ruin Britian.
Rob Simpson states "On second thoughts, the "any other substance" part of the law would seem to close that loophole - which is a blow"
This is exactly what I am talking about Rob, how on earth can they implement a law, which was allegedly brought in to protect bar workers and restaurant staff from the "poisonous" fumes given off from tobacco, if no such plant is being smoked? How can anyone say "any other substance" like what? As I said earlier, if you lit a birthday candle in a restaurant, would this be classed as one of those other "substances" which was then being smoked?
I see this as a law waiting to be broken, and the sooner the better if you ask me!
Would really need to read subsection (2) to see how they define "smoking" as it seems to be THAT with any substance that's been banned rather than the thing smoking itself.
So it would seem to be all right to build a little fire with sticks, but if you used tobacco as the kindling then it would be illegal.
The way I see it is that wherever I am banned from smoking, I won't go. No more restaurants or pubs for me from July 1st (I stopped using MacDonalds when they brought their smoking ban in which was no real sacrifice), I won't be renewing my season ticket, going to the theatre, or any indoor gigs.
My one concession to the above? I still have to go to work, but am seriously looking at ways of working from home.
How sad that I feel the need to develop a 'siege mentality' in order to enjoy something that is not only legal to buy, but is taxed to the hilt, in a so-called 'free society'
Bad for health, bad for other peoples health, bad for smokers social life (post 1st July), bad breath etc. Is there anything good about smoking other than the fleeting chemical induced high which is addictive and can lead to dependency, which can only be described as a bad thing.
I'm not suggesting it should be banned but can FOREST accept majority rule and go smoke somewhere else.