Smoke, lies and the nanny state
Tuesday, May 1, 2007 
Joe Jackson is a musician and writer best known for hits such as 'Is She Really Going Out With Him?', 'It's Different For Girls' and 'Steppin' Out'. In 1999 he wrote A Cure For Gravity, "a book about music thinly disguised as a memoir", and in 2000 he won a Grammy for Best Pop Instrumental Album for the non-orchestral Symphony No.1.
Born in England, Joe lived in New York for 20 years from 1983 to 2003, when he returned to London. A “social smoker”, Joe has researched the subject of smoking in depth and in 2004 wrote a widely-read essay, 'The Smoking Issue'. He has also written articles on the subject for the New York Times, Daily Telegraph and Guardian, among others.
An outspoken opponent of smoking bans, Joe has given valuable support to Forest, lending his name to countless initiatives (see above). A high point was a letter he wrote to The Times (see HERE): other signatories included Bob Geldof, Stephen Fry, David Hockney, Simon Cowell, Lisa Stansfield, Chris Tarrant, Antony Worrall Thompson and others. Now living and working in Berlin, Joe has updated 'The Smoking Issue' and the new version - entitled 'Smoke, Lies and the Nanny State' - is published today. Click HERE.
Reader Comments (46)
This country is such a nanny state. Which is better to have a ciggie or be on a bucket load of antidepressants? Or take to drink? So sad very sad indeed. And now they are getting too much on with people who are fat. So what? LIVE and Let us Leave us smokers alone you will never stop a smoker. But how about the dreadful pollution all these cars make??AmandaH
I am the Publican Party candidate for the Lothian region in the Scottish Parliament elections on 3rd May 2007. The aim of the party is to get the current law amended to allow seperate well-ventilated smoking rooms in pubs and clubs. We have 6 candidates in 5 of the regions and being a small party,but getting bigger, publicity is our problem because the press and TV very rarely mention us ( is this on government orders?).
We have found that no matter how often you write to the newspapers or politicians nothing gets done. I would say to smokers in England that now is the time to form a political party to fight the ban due to start on 1st July.
YOU HAVE THE TIME BEFORE THE BAN STARTS-DON'T
WASTE IT.
Whilst I wish you the best of luck in the coming election you benefit from the Scottish PR system, something no English candidate would have the advantage of.
My hope is that Scotland manages to partially repeal the ban and afterwards it becomes obvious that the sky hasn't fallen in and leads us back to sanity.
Given the "ban it" fever that appears to be grpping MSPs this is, at best, a slim hope, but it's better than none.
In the meantime I will continue my grass roots campaign of educating people into realising that SHS is far less harmful for your health an oppressive government.
Does an alcoholic choose to drink? Is alcoholism a matter of civil liberty? Is the inability to function socially and emotionally without nicotine a matter for civil liberty? In both cases obviously not. By all means smoke but dont make this some sort of Pankhurst/Braveheart stand of the wee man against the big dum bureaucrats. And to Joe Jackson, almost certainly your breath stinks, your clothes and hair stink, every room you enter stinks like a coal shed. Your fingers are yellow, you hawk up green phlegm, your chest rattles when you sleep and you will almost certainly die of some form of respiratory disease. These are your choices. The thing with public smoking bans is that these arent my choices anymore (ex 30 a day). Im not preaching but all this daft conspiracy theory rubbish is just sounding like denial. Thats the problem with smokaholics. Alcoholics can degenerate and die without their demise impacting anyone else (apart from their families). With smokaholics we all get a bit and we dont even care if you die. Come on, cheer up, no ones taking your fags away. You will still get to enjoy a disproportionate amount of time ill and of course that long drawn out death to look forward to.
This is a great site, where we can all log on and moan to our hearts content. We can even puff away at our cigarettes, cigars or even pipes, whilst doing so.
But, moaning alone is not going to get us anywhere. I, and I am sure most of the people writing on here, have been moaning for the past few years at least, as we have gradually seen more and more of our freedom of choice being snatched away from us.
I am not asking for everywhere to be smoking areas, I am asking for the same freedom of choice as a non smoker is now getting. But neither I nor anyone else will achieve anything by simply moaning about it.
We must discuss it by all means, and we must speak up for what we see as our human rights, but we need a Voice which will speak up for these rights for us. We have The Free Society and we have Forest, but to be perfectly honest, I do not see either doing very much for us.
How many members does either or both, of these societies have? Do they have solicitors working for them, and if so, what are they doing to tackle this problem? I am sure that there are enough people in the UK who would sign a petition to start with, and if money is needed to fight it from a legal standpoint, why doesn't Forest ask its members to all contribute?
How about some answers?
Eddie Douthwaite wrote:
“I would say to smokers in England that now is the time to form a political party to fight the ban due to start on 1st July.”
I strongly agree.
Discussing smoking freedom issues whit antismoker activists is like to tray to make reasonable discussion about religious mater with brainwashed follower of some cult. If you present any reasonable evidence that contradict his belief he will reply with abusive words.
Anti Smoking Cult should be condemn and defeat to the point of unconditional capitulation.
Stuart appears to be demonstrating why ex-smokers are generally regarded as "the worst". There's no conspiracy, the corporate profiteering (which I don't have any specific problem with in itself - it's corporation's job to make money)and there's the anti-smokers goal to make us quit by any means necessary.
We're also faced with a small and petty minded, but significant minority in the country who seem to think they have some right to walk onto someone's else property and have it just the way THEY like it, irrespective of what the owner wants.
Now we've got the NHS threatening to with hold medical treatment DESPITE the huge amount of extra tax smokers pay every year. You'd think we'd tak priority to keep us paying all that extra tax.
Peter, it is my belief that sites like this are, in this day and age, the essential first step. They offer a place for like minded individuals (at least on a narrow band of issues) to meet and discuss the issues.
I believe those who take a genuine interest should be out there recruiting more like minded individuals - or at the least advertising the site.
At the moment this site is very young, but I'm sure in time it'll link in with other sites concerned with civil liberties such as Libety or the ABD (which is concerned with driver-related issues) and the readership will grow and ideas will be discussed.
It takes time, we are unfortunately lagging behind the anti-smoking movement by 10-15 years.
Joe has given us the whole story on the Tobacco War,
for which he should receive a medal.
This book would make a fine gift for many. And the Medical Establishment's philosophy that having fun is bad for you should be ground into the dirt by smokers and nonsmokers alike.
I don't think the answer lies with politicians. I'd really like to see some big time civil disobedience.
Sites like these are excellent places to find somewhat different views to those given in the main stream media. 5 years ago I had no interest in politics. I don't have any interest today either in party politics (they vary only in the amounts they intend to steal and who they steal from and who their friends are that will benefit and who their enemies are that will be punished). I am considerably more informed on the games played in that field as a result of coming across sites like this and following up on some of the arguments I've seen presented.
I used to find it quite acceptable that tobacco and alcohol would always get an increase in tax in every budget. Not any more. I used to find it quite acceptable that "health" warnings appeared on tobacco products. But when they stopped saying "smoking may" and changed to "smoking causes" I began to wonder what evidence they had and proceeded to make my own investigations. It was the UK ASH site where I started to find most of the answers. It was (and probably still is) cram packed with claims about how bad smoking is yet strangely devoid of real evidence that comes anywhere near justifying the extent of the claims. Obviously if the facts don't justify the claims then there was more than met the eye to their operation. So I kept up the investigation.
So I would say these sites have a great value. They are certainly not the complete answer but they are a very good starting point.
I wrote my comment above before reading Joe Jackson's article. Having just read it I urge anyone else who hasn't yet done so to read it. It is an excellent piece that is very well written. I'm hoping to meet him at the dinner mentioned in an earlier blog on this site and shake his hand.
Conratulations on a well written and informative paper.
I work in the health service and would like to see more information on the following.
I believe, through my experiences in the health service, that there are 1000's of people that have died unnecessarily, due to government misinformation around giving up smoking.
While I agree that smoking can be unhealthy, there has been no published research or guidance that I know of, on the ill-health effects of GIVING UP smoking.
Imagine a body (and lungs) that have been used to smoke inhalation for 20, 30, 40 years or more. Suddenly stopping this smoke inhalation can have a severe shock effect on the body and lungs.
While the public are continually offered nicotine replacement, the body must suddenly go without this smoke inhalation, and in some cases, this can be fatal.
If reserach was done, they would find that within the first 5 years of giving up smoking, and extremely large number of people die from all sorts of illnesses and cancers. Not just lung cancer, but other cancers and illnesses like Hodgkin's disease. People that, up until they gave up smoking, were perfectly healthy.
Why has no-one ever followed this up?
I realise this is a controversial subject, and that you would probably find it almost impossible to find out the truth. But we need research and guidance now, on how to avoid the ill-health effects of giving up smoking, before more people die, while trying to do 'the right thing'.
Stuart Ray's vitriolic rant at smokers, and Joe Jackson in particular, really shows what we are up against. Freedom of choice doesn't seem to play any role in Mr Ray's world, he has given up smoking, which he seems to see as likening himself to an angel, and every smoker as some sort of devil.
There is no give and take in the world of Mr Ray, he doesn't like it, so it must be wrong, no matter that millions do like it, and in a free society, should be given the right to go about their every day lives in the manner they chose, without breaking the law of course.
The stand of the wee "smoking" man against the big bureaucrats is indeed a reality. It is not just a case of being able to "smoke", it is a case of being able to go about one's life in a law abiding manner in which one chooses, and that seems to be exactly what Mr Ray, and many like him, wish to abolish.
How on earth can any reasonable minded person describe someone, as Mr Ray did Joe Jackson? Almost certainly his breath stinks, his clothes and hair stink, every room he enter stinks like a coal shed. His fingers are yellow, he hawks up green phlegm, his chest rattles when he sleeps and he will almost certainly die of some form of respiratory disease.
This sounds very reminiscent of the Nazi Party when describing the Jews in Germany during the thirties. It is abhorrent to describe anyone in such a manner, and if anything should be banned, maybe it would be better to ban this type of diatribe against another human being than to try to inhabit their perfectly lawful pastimes.
I wonder if Mr Ray ever goes into an Indian,, a fish and chip, or a Chinese restaurant, and smells his clothes afterwards? No better and no worse than the smell of tobacco. I wonder also if Mr Ray chews sweets and chewing gum, and what his breath smell like afterwards? I wonder also if he has ever been ill with any of the conditions he almost seems to wish upon Joe Jackson? I certainly hope not, but I will tell Mr Ray, that those conditions he relates, and not purely confined to smokers, and that is a fact.
Smokers, he tells will still get to enjoy a disproportionate amount of time ill and of course that long drawn out death to look forward to. Mr Ray sounds such a caring person doesn't he, just the type to make you want to give up smoking, I don't think!
Rob, your idea about 'a significant minority' believing that they have the right to enter someone's private property and have it just the way they like it, irrespective of the owner's wishes is unfair to non smokers. Pubs and restaurants are more than just private property - they are, by their nature, open to the public and therefore must abide by health and safety rules as laid down by parliament. And yes that includes the new smoking rules in enclosed public places.
Much has been made about the so called 'nanny state' and about issues of freedom. Firstly, the new smoking laws were passed through parliament on a free vote and so were no reflection on our current government. If the Conservatives or Lib Dems won the next election and held yet another free vote would the smoking laws be overturned? I don't think so.
The way that 'freedom' and 'rights' have been debated recently you would be forgiven for thinking that the state had confiscated these liberties once and for all. In fact, what has happened, is that there has merely been a redistribution of rights and freedoms away from the minority who smoke and in favour of the majority who don't. The balance previously had been entirely in favour of smoking and this did need to be redressed.
I believe that the new rules are fair and that the inconvenience to smokers of having to light up outside is a small price to pay when balanced against the potential to improve the health of the nation and make inroads into the 100,000 premature deaths each year in the UK from smoking induced diseases.
I hope that everyone who contributes to this debate enjoys excellent and rude health for life. But in advocating the right to smoke in enclosed public places please spare a thought for those 100,000 annually who do not and rue the day that they ever started smoking
I think research along the lines that Kay suggests would be excellent too.
In addition to Forest, there is also Freedom to Choose, which does have solicitors working for it and has been investigating ways to challenge the ban on various grounds: www.freedom2choose.co.uk. It includes a discussion forum which can be accessed separately at www.thebigdebate.org. It has many members who post regularly on various aspects of the ban and learn from each other.
Robert
With respect, you are too partial to one side of the argument to be trusted to determine what is a fair compromise between smokers and non-smokers – apart from anything else, non-smokers don't necessarily share your view that all public places must be forced to respect only their needs
Health and safety rules I don't have a problem with. These, for the most part exist to cover things you can't check up for yourself. If the government wished to stay within the health and safety ethos they would have simply specified air quality. Oh, wait, I think they DO that already. The problem is the levels of the toxins found in cigarettes never rose above, in fact never got close to breaching established safe levels. In other words, according to the health and safety guidelines the air was safe to begin with.
Now, the question YOU should be asking yourself is why is smoking a special case - why have the hundreds of thousands of people who work in much dirtier environments, welding shops spring to mind, but so do garages and machine shops - all of which have MUCH lower air quality - being ignored. It should be obvious that there's an agenda here.
There has been no redistrubtion of rights - the property owner lost part of their property rights and no one gained extra rights, and a "redistribution of freedoms" is a monsterous thought. Where a freedom TO DO has been replaced with a freedom FROM - a VERY socialist attitude (the UUSR was very fond of ensuring its citizens were free FROM things as well).
The problem is Robert that tobacco is a legally obtainable product to anyone over the age of 16. But put a group of them in privately owned property that happens to be a place of business with the owners permission, even lock the door's so no one can get in and it's STILL illegal to use this perfectly legal product.
Lets go even further and consider the 50% rule. The first thing that had to happen in Scotland after the ban (aside from putting up no smoking signs in areas that had been non smoking for years) was they had to cut chunks out of the smoking shelters, so they didn't actually do much in the way of sheltering anymore.
Who's protection was that for? The legions of non-smokers who tend to hang out in smoking shelters perhaps?
The goal is very clear - to make it as inconvenient and unpleasant as possible to smoke so that people give up and that's social engineering and our government (even all of Parliment) has no business doing that. They ARE supposed to be our servants after all.
And you KNOW it's not going to end here - suddenly bear gardens are going to packed with smokers and I'll bet good money you won't like that either and it's only a matter of time before than ban extends to cover them, and who will that be to protect?
If smoking is bed for the humans health than why are the WORLD'S OLDEST PEOPLE ARE ALL SMOKERS.
http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamilton/other/oldest.htm
Robert, you say "Firstly, the new smoking laws were passed through parliament on a free vote and so were no reflection on our current government."
Then, surely, a free vote is representative only of the views of the individual casting their vote? No party guidance. No consultation with their constituents. Our elected representatives are permitted to vote for themselves, with nothing but their own morality clocks, on issues with national and international repercussions.
You can approve of the smoking ban all you like, but approving of a debate-free pseudo-democratic process to achieve it, or any other piece of legislation, is madness!
There's only one minority who you should be worrying about seriously damaging your health - they're in parliament.
The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of "second-hand" smoke.
Indeed, the bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat, a cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved – the cancer of unlimited government power.
The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. The issue is: If it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the "right" decision?
Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than trying to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the bans are the unwanted intrusion.
Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops and offices – places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is negligible, such as outdoor public parks.
The decision to smoke, or to avoid "second-hand" smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on.
All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must be free because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only his own judgment can guide him through it.
Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are a numerical minority, practising a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.
That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the unlimited intrusion of government into our lives. We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Laprade,
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph.807 3457258_________________
Thomas that was very nicely put.
Thanks to Joe for an excellent, truthful neoteric look at Smoke, Lies and the nanny state.
I've added links on my websites hoping it gives access to more people and makes them think.
I've done some risk assessment on ETS and reached an interesting conclusion. Here it is;
In England the lung cancer incident rate is around 75 per 100,0000 per year. I'm willing to bet about 65 of them are smokers (based on 86% bias towards smokers), leaving 10 lung cancer victims per 100,000. Now, the worstcase figures I;ve seen for those "high risk" groups, i.e. those who work in a smoky atmosphere or those who live with smokers is a 20% increase in the risk of cancer - or 1.2. So, if we consider 100,000 people in this high risk group we would expect to see 12 cases of lung cancer a year instead of 10 - a difference of 2 per 100,000 per year.
Now, this is where it gets interesting; there are 30 million motorists in the country and last year approximately 3000 were killed in traffic accidents - if we rework that we get 10 per 100,000 per year.
So ETS is 5 times less risky than driving a car!!
But lets have even more fun; your average motorist travels 12,000 miles a year, lets assume at an average of 30mph, so that's 400 hours per year.
Our bar worker spends around 2000 hours a year working (roughly), that's 5 times longer than the average motorist.
Combine the results (5 times the risk in a 1/5th of the time for the motorist) and we get driving a car is 25 times more dangerous than being exposed to ETS - and that's using the worst case figures!
Anyone want to have a go at refuting those figures?
Rob; ASH types do not go in for logical refutations. Their response would be, "The evidence against ETS is overwhelming. It kills... blah blah blah"
Well, I can't argue with that, but ASH are zealots and not interested in debate. I'm more interested in the middle of the road people who're being constantly bombarded with the message that SHS is dangerous.
1/25th the risk of driving HARDLY qualifies as DANGEROUS. If it does then by definition driving down to the shops must be VERY dangerous.
So, a little bit of perspective for the masses. If it causes one person who reads it to question the "party line", then it was worthwhile.
Rob, I don't know how many people die early each year in this country from passive smoking but it is interesting that your calculations entirely focus on lung cancer.
What I do know is that smoking kills more than 100,000 people annually in the UK before their time and that doesn't mean 100,000 lung cancer deaths. Any type of smoke is toxic and that includes tobacco. Focusing on cigarette smoke though, it is known to accelerate the clogging up the arteries via a number of mechanisms. Firstly it messes up your cholesterol profile (oxidizes the good HDL and turns it into the bad LDL). Secondly it stimulates heart rate and at the same time constricts blood vessels hence bumping up blood pressure. The levels of oxygen carried in the red blood cells go down and are substituted by carbon monoxide. So all the time we're actually making the heart work harder but on less oxygen. It's a bit like making somebody run the marathon and insisting that they close their mouth and,worse, just breathe through one nostril only. How cruel can you get? And this is what cigarette smoke does to the heart. Not to mention the fact that blood vessel walls are thickening up with fat deposits.
I do wonder if some people think that the only risk from smoking is just lung cancer or that the smoke doesn't go beyond the lungs. It most definitely does and once in the bloodstream goes on to cause heart disease, clogging up of brain and leg blood vessels leading to stroke and leg amputations. Whenever I see some poor soul in a wheelchair having lost one or both legs the first thing that always comes to mind is 'I wonder how many cigarettes they used to smoke'. COPD is also highly prevalent amongst smokers and is a particularly cruel disease.
So within the 100,000 annual death toll from smoking induced diseases we've got cancer of all parts of the body, heart disease and stroke, COPD and lung cancer.
If smoking leaves all this devastation in its wake how can the average person believe that passive smoking is safe or harmless as you imply? Against this background it is surely quite reasonable to ask smokers for their goodwill in refraining from smoking in enclosed public places.
Hi Robert, yes someone picked up on my lung cancer focus elsewhere and I;m forced to concede it's a valid point.
So, I did a but more digging.
Lung cancer is responsible for 38% of smoke related deaths. And since it's EXACTLY the same stuff that's supposedly killing passive smokers I;d say it was fair to say the proportion holds true. So the 2 deaths per 100,000 becomes 5.28 per 100,000 which still means driving is more dangerous than being HEAVILY exposed to passive smoking.
Bringing my albeit rough and ready number down from 25 road related deaths per passive smoking death to 10 road deaths per passive smoking death.
Or to put it another way, driving down to Tescos and back is 10 times more dangerous than popping in to a smoky pub for a pint. Now, my argument is this; given that driving is more dangerous than passive smoking and given we consider driving an acceptable risk then why can't SOME places remain smoking to be frequented and staffed by people who willingly accept this risk?
Does the decrease in percentage of smoking population has anything to do with this fact.
“The number of people with asthma increased by 42% in the last decade, according to a recent report by the Centers for Disease Control”.
“Not only is asthma becoming more prevalent, but it is also more severe.” http://www.ehponline.org/docs/1996/104-1/focusasthma.html
Brain washed antismoking propaganda crippling any productive thinking in way to understand and counteract to rapid increase of almost any know illnesses.
Rob, you've started off with what looks like credible figures in that the UK lung cancer incident rate is 75 per 100,000 capita and that perhaps 10 of these would be down to passive smoking. But you've then gone on to focus on those 10 against a background of 100,000. Assuming that 76% of the population are non smokers and are therefore candidates for passive smoking induced lung cancer then up to this point would it not be fairer to hold these 10 poor souls against a background of 76,000?
Even if we reach agreement up to this point there still appears to remain one major flaw in your analysis. Namely, that many, if not most, of these 76,000 non smokers won't be exposing themselves to passive smoking anyway. They'll either be positively avoiding smokey atmospheres or just not going to pubs and clubs anyway. So it would be wrong to imply these people have been exposed to PS and no harm has come to them. My point is that even out of the 76,000 figure a further significant subtraction needs to be made before you start calculating true risk.
In your favour you've mentioned a 20% increase in risk of lung cancer for people who are exposed to PS. I'm not sure how this figure's been arrived at but at least it appears to focus on those people at the coal face.
Beyond lung cancer we're still not giving recognition to all the other perils of cigarette smoking and in conclusion I still don't believe that the majority of people believe that passive smoking is healthy, safe or as harmless as you would have us believe.
There have been numerous reports concerning the link between passive smoking and lung cancer. The very WORST figure I could find (and there's a range) is a 20% risk increase. I can't remember the exact report I lifted this from, but WHO published a increased risk of 17% for example, so it's not unreasonably low or anything in an attempt to skew the figures in my favour.
OK, so lets take smokers out of the equation. So the base rate of lung cancer amongst non smokers in England is 10 per 100,000. Now, at this point I played a bit fast and loose, but again not to my advantage - the 100,000 are 100,000 people in the HIGH RISK bracket. If I took your suggestion, which is perfecly valid and assumed only a % of the population are in the high risk bracket then that's works in my favour.
Lets assume only 30% of the non smoking population fit into the high risk category. I have to apply this % to my risk factor or 1.2.
1.2 x 30% = 1.036 - not this assumes everyone else has no passive smoking risk factors.
Thus, of 100,000 people which represents a cross section of the population the total expected number of lung cancer cases with the ETS risk factored in is 10.36, as opposed to 10.
Thus, in terms of the whole population 0.36 persons per 100,000 due to ETS. Assume lung cancer accounts for 38% of fatalities (as it is with smokers) and we get 1.
1 per 100,000 - MUCH better then the 5.28 per 100,000 (the latter essentially assumed EVERYONE had a risk of 1.2 which obviously isn't the case).
From Cancer Research UK website;
It is almost impossible to work out the risk of occasional smoke exposure to second-hand smoke for non-smokers (passive smoking). We know that the risk to passive smokers goes up the more cigarette smoke they are exposed to. There is about a 25% increased risk of lung cancer in non-smoking husbands or wives of heavy smokers (that's the average risk plus a quarter again). And other research has measured that exposure to a lot of smoke at work (in a smoky bar or club, for example) may increase your lung cancer risk by about 17% (that's the average risk plus another sixth).
OK, they're saying a 25% increase in risk for the partners of smokers.
So lets plug that into our 10 per 100,000.
10 per 100,000 with the risk factor added becomes 12.5 per 100,000.
So we get a difference of 2.5 per 100,000, in other words 2.5 per 100,000 can be attributed to passive smoking. This is for the group in the VERY highest risk bracket.
If we again assume that lung cancer acounts for 38% of deaths then our 2.5 becomes 6.6 per 100,000 and this is as dangerous as passive smoking gets.
Now, lets keep these poor souls in persepctive - the death toll for road traffic is you take the population as a whole is 5 in 100,000 i.e. that's the risk that's spread across all of us, whether we get in a car or not.
If you own a car then the chances of that car being involved in an accident where someone is killed is 10 in 100,000.
We take these risks without giving them any serious thought and based on Cancer Research UK's own figures the risks associated the passive smoking is you LIVE with a smoker are in the same ballpark. Thus the risks with lesser exposure are lower (17% for those working in a smoky environment for example).
So, why have we assumed the risk to driving as acceptable, but the LESSER risks of passive smoking as unacceptable.
Cor Rob! the narrow minded won't want to belive those figures. That would mean that the car would have to be banned and that would be taking away their rights!
This is what the Health and Safety Exec said about passive smoking
9 The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in
exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot
produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the
raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove
health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act
So if HSE carnt produce epidemiological evidence how is this government getting away with a smoking ban.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/foi/internalops/fod/oc/200-299/255_15.pdf
If you want to fight this ban join Freedom2choose, a site of publicans, smokers and non smokers who are raising funds for a judicial review to expose the lies and deceit.
http://www.freedom2choose.co.uk/
You Smoke You Vote
Rob:
Interesting figures so can you work
l out the risk if someone enters a pub for half an hour?
Have you enough noughts to put after the decimal point before adding a significent figure?
Rob, I don't think you should have to exclude smokers from your 100,000 equation.
After all, as Antis see it, smokers are more at risk from their own passive smoke than they are from their own primary smoking.
Rob, I would agree that the risk of lung cancer for the average person going about their normal life is very low and that a 20% increase in that risk due to exposure to passive smoking would still constitute a relatively small risk. In the year 2003 there were 37,127 UK lung cancer deaths. 90% of lung cancer victims are known to be smokers so now we're down to about 3700 non smokers contracting lung cancer. I have checked the ASH website this morning and they suggest that about 600 of these would be down to passive smoking. I don't know how they've arrived at this figure but in a country of 60 million people it is very small and in line with the risk calculations that you've done.
Relying on this figure alone I would concede to you that as a stand alone risk factor it would be much harder to justify a smoking ban in enclosed public places. Having said that I'm sure Roy Castle's widow would have something further to say.
My support of the smoking ban, however, draws on the much wider health risks associated with passive smoking. These include the risks of coronary heart disease, clogged up leg arteries and brain blood vessels together with raised blood pressure leading to risk of stroke. Cigarette smoke as a pollutant is rich in free radicals which oxidize the good HDL cholesterol and turn it into the bad LDL which then lines the arteries. Smoke then goes on to load the blood up with carbon monoxide and raise fibrinogen levels and so predispose its victims to blood clots
Meanwhile, in the lungs cigarette smoke attracts protease enzymes which break down alveolar cell walls leading to emphysema, brochitis and COPD. As well as this passive smoking can precipitate asthma attacks and shortness of breath.
So the effects of passive smoking go much further than simply being carcinogenic. When it is claimed that in Wales alone that the smoking ban will save more than 400 non smokers' lives annually and then the Chief Medical Officer saying that thousands of UK lives will be saved every year, then at the very least, I can see the mechanism and the logic behind these claims.
In conclusion, the loss of the right to smoke in enclosed public places is a minor inconvenience when set against the potential to safeguard so many people's health and wellbeing.
Robert
I haven't noticed a drop in Scottish mortality rates in the last year.
I am not an expert on this but I understood the form of lung cancer that was found to have killed Roy Castle is not associated with smoking.
Asthma and lung cancer have both increased against a drop in smoking rates.
Our CMO in Scotland predicted that lung cancer would be eradicated in a generation, a prediction ridiculed by many people including the Roy Castle Foundation. Such predictions are hardly proof that the smoking ban is effective in improving health. We still have no evidence that tobacco consumption is dropping.
As for the rest of these things that you claim are caused by tobacco smoke, it may be a minute aggravating factor, but at the level most people experience it, smoke is not primarily responsible for the conditions you claim it is. Most people who die of stroke are over 75 (four fifths of them in 2003), in other words for much of the time we are talking about inevitable wear and tear on the body and not a monocausal deterioration!
In addition, amending smoking ban legislation would not be to re-introduce smoking by force but to allow smoking back at the discretion of licensees and in separate rooms. That should allow sufficient choice as to whether people wish to work and socialise in smoking or smoke-free environments.
Robert.
Looking at the total count of smoke related deaths amongst smokers we find that Lung cancer accounts for 38% of all deaths. I think, given that it's the same stuff that's allegedly killing non-smokers that that proportion would hold true.
So, if we take ASH's 600 figure and assume the 38% we come out to around 1600 deaths annually, again, around half the death toll we see on our roads.
It's important to remember that that 1.2 risk factor ONLY applies to those in the very highest risk situation of working in a smokey environment or those living with a smoker. I would suggest that accounts for no more than 25% of non smokers, and so that 600 become 125 and the 1600 become 400.
Part of the ASH propoganda machine is trying to apply that 1.2 risk factor to coronary heart disease, which it being much more widespread amongst non-smokers it allows them to claim a much higher death toll - despite there being no evidence suggesting such an increase in risk.
Remember, smokers endure a greated than 25 fold increase in risk in lung cancer, 100 times the GREATEST published risk I could find for non-smokers.
The point behind all of this is to put the risk, based on the WORST figures into some kind of perspective and demonstrate that to anyone interested that it doesn't justify a TOTAL ban.
Oh, as for the "fairest way" of repealing the vote being another free election, then no. It's important to remember that elected officials answer to us and not to each other.
I guess you like that idea for the exact same reason I don't - you don't imagine the outcome being very different from the last one.
It's important to remember that we don't live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional monarchy and one that's supposed to place great stock in the idea of individual liberty.
ANY law that take away ANY choice from an individual, and in this case I mean pub and restaurant owners, is a DIRECT attack on civil liberty. I would have thought that given the underlying premises of our society that such an attack should only be launched if there was a very clear and present need.
Given that I;ve demonstrated that ETS is less dangerous than driving I don't see sufficient justification.
After July 1st, when pub-goers who enjoy a smoke (like me) lose their right to sit quietly and enjoy relaxing in a traditional way, the same people who are in favour of this ban will want to ban darts (they may be dangerous!), dominoes (too noisy) and ultimately, alcohol (addictive and leads to behavioural problems). Let's all sit around sipping mineral water being good little boys and girls,then everyone will be happy and Utopia will have finally come into existence. Yes, this is an anti-fairytale.
Well binge drinking IS a problem and contrary to the pro-alcohol group is does effect other peope. A&E rooms up and down the country are flooded with the victims of second hand alcohol :)
My hope is the constant assault on civil liberties knocks people out of the comfort zone and they shake off the fog of complacency to realise that freedom requires a bit of give and take as well as an element of risk.
Yes, I agree with Rob about the binge drinking. I think it poses a far greater threat to others (and is a terrible onus on the emergency services) than people enjoying smoking tobacco in certain areas of meeting places (eg. in a pub or private club). However, given the amount of fuss about the effects of passive smoking, I can imagine that under the present governing regime, alcohol will eventually be banned in traditional drinking places due to the horrible effects/consequences of binge drinking. I anticipate a puritanical society, rather like the one Cromwell set up in the 17th Century. However, fortunately the people got bored of this and restored the Merry Monarch (Charles II) in 1660. I want a restoration before the bans!!
I went down to my local pub last night - guess what - the non-smoking room was sparsely populated (as usual) and other areas were packed with people enjoying drinking, smoking tobacco, playing dominoes and darts and chatting. It was a great relaxing atmosphere -perhaps the only place locally I really enjoy going to. After July 1st, and the highly-paid council enforcement officers come along to make sure new rules are being observed, if I don't die of smoking, I shall certainly die either of boredom (ie not going out and socialising) or the stress of thinking I am being watched!
I had the same experience as you Jenny a couple of weeks ago. I was in an English Town, Saturday night loads of Pubs all heaving with smokers and non smokers, chatting, socialising etc (I did about six pubs) walked past a pub which boasted as being the towns only 'smoke free' pub. I counted 6 people in there!
In reply to Stuart Ray from 1st May - Now I get the picture, its all so simple , You gave up so we should all to give up.
Following the excellent story on Sky News last
week on public protest at the awful NHS campaign with fish-hooks, you may be interested to know that I have unsuccessfully challenged the other NHS campaign - "England will be smoke-free .." "Islington will be smokefree .." with the Advertising Standards Authority. The headlines are inaccurate in my view since the law states that smoking will be banned in "enclosed public places". You may appreciate the slippage and its implications.
Their decision is that these headlines are acceptable since they are "qualified in the copy" that follows. I dispute this strongly. Either a headline is accurate or it is not - rather like offering 'Leather shoes' in a headline, which then turn out in the following copy to be 'well, actually plastic'. The ASA do not see it this way. I have protested, but probably to absolutely no avail.
This decision smacks of propaganda and should be challenged in my view. It is about time the adult population who choose to smoke had a bit of justice and some respect for once.
I have also advised the advertising industry journal, Campaign, but with no response or acknowledgement to date. ASA complaints nos.
26387 and 26618, May 07. - Beverly Martin.