Smokers face tidal wave of regulation
Friday, May 25, 2007 
I spent much of today discussing strategy. There are some - latecomers to the smoking debate - who believe we should be spending all our time and energy fighting the ban. We did that, from 2003, when it became clear that the government was no longer interested in a voluntary solution based on public demand, to 2006 when MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour of a blanket ban.
During that period Forest commissioned regular opinion polls, launched advertising campaigns in national and local newspapers, published and distributed essays and pamphlets, lobbied national and local politicians with a variety of campaign tools, submitted written reports to local and national government, gave evidence (in person) to a variety of government bodies, generated support from public figures such as David Hockney, Antony Worrall Thompson and others, conducted hundreds of media interviews, organised special events and ad campaigns at party conferences - and, after all that, we lost.
Much as we oppose the ban on smoking in enclosed public places, nothing we say or do (including prohibitively expensive legal action) is going to stop it happening. We will always argue for exemptions (and fight our corner on issues such as passive smoking) but the battleground has moved on. Today the debate is about cars, care homes and unenclosed public spaces such as parks, footpaths and beaches. Already, there is talk of segregating smokers and non-smokers outside pubs. Some campaigners (and local politicians) want to go further still and introduce exclusion zones around pubs and clubs. That's right, you won't even be able to smoke outside the pub!
Our principal fear is that the "progressive" (ie gradual) changes of the past 20 years could become a thing of the past. If the anti-smoking lobby has its way we could find ourselves swept aside by a tidal wave of regulation, "moving explosively fast", as one person put it.
Another referred to Forest "shouting at the waves as they come in". It does feel like that times, but we aspire to more than that. Stretching the analogy further, I see Forest and The Free Society as seawalls designed to prevent the further erosion of individual liberties. Turning back the tide (of illiberalism and paternalism) is something else. It's our long-term goal but, for the moment, we must be realistic. If we can delay the rate at which Britain is drowning under an ocean of (frequently petty) rules and regulations, we'll be doing a reasonable job.
Reader Comments (84)
I was much disappointed by the latest F2C email, with its drivel about "We need to name our prototype weapon as The BFG 20 (Big Fucking Gun (Pack of 20) and our media warhead as the Mega RFM after our founder and Ghandi figure Bob."
In the meantime,
http://www.wma.net/e/press/2005_13.htm
Dr Yoram Blachar, chairman of the WMA, said: ‘We would now like to see a Framework Convention on Alcohol Control similar to that of the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control that took effect earlier this year.’
And that was 2 years ago.
Some of the points listed above including banning smoking in parks, on footpaths and outside pubs are even raising my eyebrows.
I can't imagine most people supporting that level of regulation. It would be unenforcable and in any event could not be supported by the type of argument (ie health grounds) of banning smoking in enclosed public places. So far as smoking outside pubs is concerned, bar staff and managers would be at work inside so could not be expected to be held responsible for what was going outside.
Banning smoking in enclosed public places is enough for me. I don't support, envisage or see any need for regulations being extended to outdoors. And I guess that most people would agree with that.
We are drowning under an ocean of petty rules and regulations just now because there is something pretty serious going on that we don't know about. No doubt all will be revealed in the fullness of time.
Robert,
I hear what you are saying, but I beg to differ. Who could have predicted that we would have the most Draconian smoker ban in the world (Bhutan excepted) in Scotland just 5 or 6 years ago? And look at us now. The shriekers are already trying to include "just" this park, and "just" this distance from the pub.
You know by now that a trend is being followed, and it kicked off in Kalifornia. All thats happening now is that we are playing "catch up". Take a look at Calabasas or Belmont for a glimpse of persecutions to come.
Now that we let them have the inside, they have to chase the outside as well.
Its all thats left.
Sorry to disappoint Idlex!
BFG was Just a bit of fun.
As well as a serious attempt at an analogy.
All figurative and metaphorical.
Its called satire.
I'm not quite sure how this crept into comments on this post.
However, whilst we are here, full marks to Simon & Forest for much good work over the years.
FOREST & F2C should surely compliment each others existance? Y or N
Perhaps a new topic Simon?
To Robert Evans above.
If smoking is banned outside pubs Robert, it just means that even more pubs and hospitality outlets will go bust than are already going to do so following the ban. Bans are not good for business and the US and Ireland provide plenty of evidence to support that fact.
Simon I quite agree that FOREST has done a lot over the last few years but I think I may be a bit more optimistic about your achievements than you are. You list some of the many activities you have been engaged in and in the end state that we lost. Well if the only effect you were after was to stop the ban then you are right .... for now. But there have been many other effects that organisations such as FOREST have achieved that have yet to come to fruition.
I'd say the majority of people who will be affected by the ban have yet to realize it but they will. When they do they will seek out organisations such as FOREST looking for a way to fight back. Your previous actions have made you the most likely place to turn to and I predict that in the next few months your website hits will take off.
Part of the reason for such a delayed reaction is the naive belief that "it couldn't happen here". When they see that it really has they will be angry.
But I don't think that appeasing type moves ("Yes smoking is a terrible killer but let's make it 10 feet from the pub instead of 25") is going to inspire anyone to get on board.
We need to stop trying to compromise with an enemy that doesn't have any integrity to appeal to. I would like to see mass demonstrations against the current ban and I am sure they could be arranged. We need some good old fashioned civil disobedience and huge numbers of unpaid smoking tickets.
Bernie, a great post. I agree...mostly.
Compromise? Anti-smokers couldnt even spell the word if asked. I know now that they want everywhere smoke free and they want it now. The smoking ban sailed through both Houses with ridiculous ease. I listened avidly to the live debates in the HoC and the HoL. The bias, and the incorrect assumptions and perceptions were obvious to anyone who had done even token research. The MP's, and most of the Peers were led by the nose to an obvious outcome.
I'd like to hear more from Simon about the "doomed" Judicial Review. I want to know why it wasnt feasible. I want to know why, in his opinion, the tobacco companies wouldnt shell out the money for one. I ask because my group has been receiving donations for quite some time in order to fund our JR. I am fully aware of the evidence we have compiled and I will tell you now that it will be very difficult for HMG to win a victory against us. There are a total of three JRs in the works, all coming at the legislation from different angles. All individually strong, together they are devastating.
I have to ask if the tobacco companies did not feel that their 14 million customers were worth defending?
The science behind SHS is tenuous at best. Hell, even the strength of the active smoking argument fell apart during the McTear case. If "they" could not prove in an open courtroom that smoking tobacco "causes" cancer, I ask you what chance has SHS got, realistically?
If anything is doomed, it is the anti's argument that SHS is as lethal as a loaded AK-47 with a dodgy safety catch.
We have learnt that the fastest way to get an anti-smoker off a blog is to ask him/her to back up their ridiculous statements with science.
Civil disobedience is a wonderful notion, but its a pipe-dream. Smokers, by their very nature, are amongst the most relaxed and laid-back group of humans on the planet. There will be no mass marches because apathy, and guilt, will both put out any defiant sparks.
IMHO, the ONLY way to get back on an even keel is to destroy the science in court. It is our strongest weapon, and it is their weakest.
Colin; you raise many points. I think the only tobacco company with any balls is Imperial in the case that you mention (McTear) but I have my doubts about a legal route that is not backed up with huge public demand expressed through demonstrations and fixed penalty ticket burnings.
I completely agree about their so called evidence but the ASH types are well aware of that too. They didn't concoct the whole thing to prove their case they did it to justify and win the case.
For me the whole appeasement and compromise line (let's agree the law is necessary but make some ammendments) is like the Jews on their way to the gas chambers always thinking the government is made up of reasonable people.
I would like to think that there still is some kind of spirit of liberty among the British even if we have seen precious little evidence of it so far. Maybe the ban will bring it home enough or maybe it has to get worse but I still have some faith.
Whilst agreeing that the science is bunk I don't think attacking the science is the strongest argument against bans. It is irrelevant. What is stronger is the right of property owners to dictate what goes on on their own property and the government has no moral right to interfere with that.
I don't agree with your last comment Bernie. Dead babies always beats property rights.
The only way to destroy the anti-smoker movement is to expose their so-called science for what it is: junk.
Without the great "ETS is dangerous" myth they would never have got as far as they have.
In the face of occasional successful legal battles against smoking bans I am confused about this statement of Simon's that nothing can be done to stop them (see http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/13365977/detail.html for one example). If Colin is right and there is no 'science' to justify the ban in its present form, why concede defeat? It seems we have a serious constitutional problem if we can allow ill-researched social engineering obsessions to become law. I am not criticising Forest but I can't say that I was aware of any of their campaigns – speaking as a person on the street – or the issue itself until it became headline news 18 months before the ban came in Scotland.
The relevant trade bodies seem to have mixed views on the subject and *the* organisation set up to represent the interests of smokers has accepted defeat on the issue. Once you accept defeat on an issue that depends on 'passive smoking kills', I am not sure how that equips you to withstand the deluge of interference that you predict.
Blad; Dead babies vs property rights... hmm well put but easier to handle than "the evidence is overwhelming". Property rights can be explained graphically and quickly to almost anyone.
A few years ago I was all for debunking the "science" as the main thrust. I was persuaded away from this on the sheer size of the task and that it wasn't necessary anyway if you did a good job on explaining property rights.
Belinda and Blad; Fighting the science in the courts sounds good but the courts are only as good as the sitting judge and your own representation and possibly the prejudices of any jury that might be present. And that is just the court aspect. Let's say these people are of the highest integrity and intelligence and they state categorically that the anti tobacco "science" is so weak as to hardly deserve reporting at all let alone basing legislation upon. So what? Will this be taken up and reported widely in the main stream media? Will the government act on it? Maybe. A case against the government itself is likely to get some coverage but it is not likely to be fast tracked through the system and it is likely to cost so much money that it probably couldn't be put on in the first place. If you wanted donations for something that might pay off in the years to come I would give a little. But I would give a whole lot more to getting big public demonstrations and the staged burning of fixed penalty notices in the months to come. It could easily be two to five years after the ban is in place before it even gets a hearing.
I was amazed and delighted by the McTear case against Imperial Tobacco in Scotland. Yes I was happy that Imperial won the case but I was absolutely delighted about the way they won their case. Everyone here should read the judge's opinion. It was an incredible slap in the face not just to ASH who were funding the attack but also to their patron saint Sir Richard Doll. It is a must read.
Most of us heard about the case when it was announced all over the media that Imperial Tobacco were going to challenge the science. Not just the science of SHS but of lung cancer which is the most easy to accept of all the anti tobacco claims. This was reported as incredible folly and "denial" on the part of Imperial and was widely derided by all the talking head "experts" on TV. When the final verdict came in it was barely reported anywhere.
We must not ignore the fact that the end result was hardly reported anywhere and where it was covered in the main stream media it certainly didn't get the kind of coverage it deserved but instead there were insinuations that the judge was in the pay of Big Tobacco.
On the bright side that case was very expensive for ASH and they lost it. Even better is the verdict document of the judge is still available and can be used by us for little cost (free).
We can debunk the science without spending lots of money in court as it has already been done in court. The question is how we get the word out on it. It is next to useless to depend on main stream media. I have some ideas that I'm still working out.... more later.
Colin- As you say, nothing is going to stop it happening, Its happened here in wales with disastrous results. but there's a lot that can be done by exploiting the laws weaknesses (and there will be many of them) but it will take an extensive knowledge of the law, and lots of money, I don't have much of either,but I do have a strong desire to do something constructive. I'll be back later to explain.
I didn't know that property rights are enshrined in law, Bernie – but I would be interested in hearing more on this. I have an idea that antis would say that we would force kids up chimneys on our property if we had our way on property rights ...
I have been reading the above comments carefully and would like to make the following observations: -
I am very new to this campaign. I've contributed nothing prior to April when I started reading the websites. I remember feeling very depressed at the beginning of this year knowing that this ban would come in. However,had I been more aware of the existence of Forest and Freedom2Choose and more 'clued up', I am sure I would have offered to support both movements, working towards the same goal, much sooner than I have done. Forgive me, however, for being rather dim and not attempting to act sooner.
Bernie made a very significant comment on 25th May. He stated, "I'd say the majority of people who will be affected by this ban have yet to realise it, but they will." This is absolutely true. People who frequent my local pubs only seem to have started talking about the forthcoming ban very recently. In another few weeks' time, when the ban becomes reality, the English people will really start to wake up and will need these organisations. Welcome them with open arms! Colin described smokers as being 'laid-back' - yes, a lot of us are by nature pretty 'laid-back' people. However, when the reality bites, people may not be quite so complacent. I find that if people upset me, I often feel depressed and upset, and then I start to feel angry. Perhaps, nationally, we are moving through the depression stage and then, suddenly, a lot of people will start to feel very very angry. Example - in March I watched a Calendar news programme (broadcast in Yorkshire) and ordinary people who went to working men's clubs in West and South Yorkshire were interviewed re: the forthcoming smoking ban. I was absolutely delighted to see how angry most of those interviewed were. One man (a smoker) said, "We might as well burn the place down when the ban comes in." (because the place will close down anyway ultimately due to lack of custom after 1st July). Non-smokers were interviewed and they were happy to allow their friends to continue smoking and were against this legislation as it would affect their livelihoods and social life. My suggestion is to analyse the potential for anger (and potential support) in certain areas. I believe that this movement will receive a lot of support in areas such as South and West Yorkshire, parts of Lancashire and other areas where smoking is still reasonably popular. When the ban came in in late April in Northern Ireland, I noticed that on the news people were interviewed but most were either non-smokers or those who supposed that the ban there would be a good thing. People with strong opinions against the ban somehow didn't seem to be interviewed. How strange! If some form of action is to be organised in the future, it may be better to organise a demonstration in an area where there is likely to be a lot of support and West Yorkshire is a very densely populated area.
Judicial review - I think this is a good thing and support it. I'm no legal expert and leave this aspect in more capable hands! However, I believe the avenue of 'anger plus action' could be explored more thoroughly because we are all human beings and experience the same kinds of emotions and many of us display similar behavioural patterns. Also, if anyone studies British history and uprisings, it becomes clearer that rebellion often follows oppression and people's depression associated with oppression.
Simon, I disagree with your contention that the general smoking ban should be ceded as a done deal. Yes, it's been passed. Yes, we lost.
But think how many times the Antismokers lost in their bid to PASS such a ban (I'm not actually sure of the situation over there, but I know that here in the States they just keep coming back, year after year after year until they eventually either wear down the opposition with the "It's Inevitable!" argument or just get lucky on the last day of a Council session.)
Just because a ban has been passed does NOT mean it is enshrined forever. Resistance can work if enough people are behind such resistance, and I believe the majority of pub owners, staff, and customers would indeed be solidly behind it if there was a resistance that was seen as well-organized and workable.
If you reduce yourself to fighting open-air bans etc, and ignore the basic injustice of a ban that denies me, a smoker, from opening my own pub FOR smokers and staffed BY smokers and open ONLY to smokers and their friends... then you've given up the war and are merely battling to hold out for a few extra months in tiny ghettos. The basic injustice is clear: you cannot simply accept that and have any ultimate hope.
The science behind the bans is based upon exaggerations, distortions, and outright lies. They can be shown simply and clearly to anyone who takes even a few minutes to read the analyses of such travesties as the Helena or Otsuka studies. Once you can show that the opposition can't be trusted, you can win... that's exactly what the Antismokers did with the tobacco companies. You just need to get the information out there, in printed form and off the little keyhole we have here on the internet... and in my opinion at least THAT is what FOREST et al should be doing.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Bernie, I thought the McTear case against Imperial Tobacco was lost partly because Alfred McTear had ignored and dismissed public health warnings about the dangers of smoking that were being aired in the 1960s. Also that after decades of smoking his lung cancer could not be proved 100% to have been caused by his smoking. If 9 out of 10 lung cancer patients are smokers then there is a very high probability that his smoking was indeed caused by smoking.
The way that the McTear case is being referred to, anybody would think that it proved that smoking did not cause lung cancer or any other diseases for that matter.
Robert; In the McTear case ASH (oops Mrs McTear) had to prove three things;
1. That smoking can cause lung cancer.
2. That her husband died of lung cancer caused by smoking.
3. That her husband's lung cancer was caused by smoking the products of Imperial Tobacco.
They failed on all three points.
You also said that "...anybody would think that it proved that smoking did not cause lung cancer.."
That is not true. The case did not prove that at all and nor could any other case yet to happen. It is a fallacy to try. It is theoretically possible for smoking to be proven to cause something, though the evidence is very limited so far, but it is not possible to prove that it doesn't. You cannot prove a negative. Do a google search on "Negative proof". This is a well known logical fallacy and not something invented by those enslaved to tobacco.
What the judge in the McTear case did was demand evidence as opposed to just claims. The ASH types constantly repeat as their mantra that the "evidence is overwhelming" and then proceed to present....not one tiny scrap of evidence but just a page full of one liner sound bites.
Belinda; "I don't know that property rights are enshrined in law.." I am not a lawyer and certainly not an expert on law. I believe that what is called "common law" is largely based on the concepts of property rights. I do not think that a legal case is likely to be successful on the basis of property rights. I don't have much faith in courts anyway.
But I do think that a well designed campaign explaining the moral argument for property rights could go a long long way. It would have to be very short and simple. Here is an example that I quite like. http://tinyurl.com/287ql2
Jenny H: Imagine, probably around October when the evenings become chilly again, driving along a road in the evening and seeing groups of smokers standing outside every pub you go past. This will happen for a few days and maybe weeks and then is likely to stop as the smokers get fed up with it and start to stay at home. But during that time all those smokers will be ready to receive a message that they are not alone and that there are thousands of other people, not just smokers, who are also very angry at the situation. Along with that message is another; Something Can Be Done About It. And then another message announcing a local meeting where a plan can be put to them for consideration.
What would the plan be? Well I'm working on some ideas of my own at the moment but there are others who also have ideas as we have seen here.
I am convinced that large public demonstrations are a good idea but I'm still thinking about where and how to do them. I think they should be short in terms of time so as not to wear down the enthusiasm of the participants. They should be clever or dramatic in some way so as to drive home a point and make the participants proud to have taken part in them. They should point out that the pubs are now empty, if indeed they are. They should point out the pubs that close down. They should point out the destruction of "communities" so precious in the rhetoric of Nulabour. And I'm sure there are lots of other ideas ....
This unwanted legislation was introduced by HMG on the back of secondary smoking and not primary smoking. There is no scientific evidence that second hand smoke is anything other than an irritant that can be controlled and removed by modern Ventilation and Air Filtration.
During a recent radio debate on Radio Scotland I was invited to debate the ban against a member of the Health Committee, Dr Jean Turner. Several times during the debate both the presenter and Dr Turner tried to steer the topic towards primary smoking and the effect that a ban has on making people give up smoking. I refused to be drawn in that direction as it is obvious that Government and the pressure groups have yet again moved the goal posts to suit themselves.
When the Government Agency tasked with the health of employees namely the Health & Safety Executive cannot provide evidence that SHS raises the health risk then the general public has a right to know the truth.
A useful piece of modern technology that overcomes the perceived health issue of smoking in cars or vans
http://www.artin-co.com/services/icleen.htm
I know of a distributor here in the U.K.
Bernie, Aside from the requirement for 100% absolute proof that smoking causes lung cancer, do you believe that it is just a coincidence then that 90% of lung cancer patients are smokers?
Also, all that is written in medical books about the mechanism by which smoking breaks down the surface area of the lungs therby causing emphysema and COPD, is that just nonsense?
Robert; I do believe that smoking does have something to do with lung cancer and possibly other diseases "linked" with smoking. Here is my thinking in a nutshell.
For anything to be said accurately to cause an effect then it must cause that effect every time it is applied. It can't sometimes cause the effect and other times not cause the effect. Even if it occurs 99 times out of 100 this would still be the case. The fact of there being 1 time that it didn't cause the effect means that there must be another variable in operation. There is no research anywhere, even published by ASH, that claims a 100% hit rate concerning smoking as a cause.
We all know of people well into their 70s, 80s, 90s or even older that have smoked all their lives without getting lung cancer. (yes I know there are many other diseases they may have been subject to, and the same theory applies to each of those, but if smoking were a cause of lung cancer then why didn't these people fall prey to it? I am not saying that smoking is not involved at all. What I am saying is that smoking alone cannot cause lung cancer. There is at least one other variable that must be in the "right" condition for lung cancer to occur. What is that other variable? Well it might be diet. It might be genetic. It might be psychological. I don't know what it is but the variable must exist or everyone without exception who has smoked a certain definite number of packs per day for so many years would get lung cancer if they hadn't been killed by something else first.
There is another point to make about the wording of your question itself. "Aside from the requirement for 100% absolute proof" implies to me that you could have 50% or 90% proof. It also implies that I am being unreasonable in requiring a higher standard than 50% or 90%. Is it possible to have less than 100% proof? The closest type of thing to that I can think of would be a combination lock with 100 barrels. If I could set 99 of them correctly I still wouldn't be able to open the lock. Could you then say that it was 99% open? How far could you reach your hand into a briefcase that was 99% open in this way?
The other point is that you would know with total certainty that there is something else involved in opening the case and if your intention was to open the case then you would exert all your efforts into finding out what it was and how to deal with it. Now consider how this relates to tobacco research. It is completely obvious in every single research project ever done that there is more involved in causing whatever disease is under investigation than smoking. There is always at least one other variable. If these researchers were honest and also interested in health they would certainly have done research to find out what the variable or variables are. So where is that research?
Good post Bernie. Your logic is flawless and I like the combination lock analogy. It will be interesting to see Roberts reply.
In the meantime, I trotted off to the statistics page of the Scottish Executive website. These are the figures that I found for 2005, but I also looked at the timeline from 1950 to 2005. (I only looked at lung cancer, as it seems to be a particular bone of contention on this thread).
In 1950, 73 Scots died of LC. (58 males, 15 females). Smoking prevalence was around 48% (figures vary).
In 2005, 108 Scots died of LC. (70 males, 38 females). Smoking prevalence was around 27% (again, figures vary).
Of those 108 LC deaths, Health Scotland would have us believe that 44 cases were "caused" by passive smoke.
Furthermore, within that 108 figure, non-smokers are included. The graphs, and the additional information do not separate smokers and non smokers, so it is difficult to find an exact number of Scottish smokers who contracted lung cancer.
Population figures for 2005- 5.1 million.
Number of smokers- 1.2 million.
LC deaths (active, passive, & non smokers)-108.
I am not medically trained. I am not an epidemiologist. I am not a statistician.
Even without those qualifications I can see that there is no epidemic.
Using the most accurate information available, we seem to have very few LC deaths in Scotland. Even if we say that all 108 LC deaths in 2005 were contracted exclusively by smokers, when expressed as a percentage of 1.2 million, that number looks ridiculously low.
Of course, I could be wrong. I could have over-simplified. If anyone here can see a different picture, please correct me.
It is not fact but just an obvious lie that “90% of lung cancer patients are mokers”
This data are product of quasi medical researchers and fraud done by antismoking fanatics.
In reality, increased incidence of lung cancer in smokers and as well increase of lung cancer in non-smoker is correlated with antismoking campaign that was invented by Nazi doctors with intention to please Hitler and after Nazi time the anti smoking campaign is driven by antismoking fanatics.
As anecdote, I know a three people that contract lung cancer and died. Two of them was long-life non-smoker and third give up smoking then years before cont5racting lung cancer.
On the other side I don’t know no one smoker that contract lung cancer.
Yes, I can imagine that this anecdote sounds strange to many but I am serious.
Robert: 'it is just a coincidence then that 90% of lung cancer patients are smokers?'
As suggested by posters already, the more pertinent question is not how many lung cancer patients are smokers, but how many smokers get lung cancer.
Also, to follow Colin's example, some figures demonstrating the fallacy of the passive smoking argument, this time covering the whole of the UK. In 2003, total mortality was nearly 611,000. Total lung cancer deaths nearly 33,500. This is just over 5 per cent of total mortality. Ten per cent of this (the non-smokers) equates to about 3,350 deaths that could be attributed in part to 'passive smoking'. Factor in considerations such as genetics and other environmental influences, and the number gets smaller still. Of the 33,500, just over 15,400 people were over 75 when they died, which exceeds government figures on life expectancy in some areas. I agree with Colin that this barely points to an epidemic, and certainly does not prove smoke to be a deadly toxin with no safe level of exposure.
Other facts from 2003: two-thirds of coronary heart disease deaths, four-fifths of stroke deaths and three-quarters of deaths from respiratory disease also occur over the age of
75.
It seems that there is very little evidence to suggest that passive smoking is the exclusive cause of death for any condition.
Well put, Belinda. These figures, 10% of L.C.patients being non smokers rather destroy the "passive smoking is deadly" argument, especially considering, as you say, genetics, etc. Which is something rarely mentioned with regard to L.C. yet is definitely a factor. If it weren't, why would health questionnaires ask if any of one's family had had it? I've never been asked in one of these if any relatives had ever, for instance, fallen off a ladder. Why not? Presumably because there is no genetic causality involved.
A few weeks ago, on a different thread, I made a statement about the split between smokers and non smokers lung cancer.
Technically, I owe an apology.
I just visited a website today that shows the breakdown for LC as:
Smokers---50%.
Never smokers---28%.
Ex-smokers---22%.
Technically, at least, that gives us a 50/50 split
The website also had this to say:
"It has been shown that smokers tend to get falsely diagnosed with lung cancer while this is often missed in non-smokers due to inculcated assumption, and that 40% of autopsies show misdiagnoses/major medical conditions missed, although relatively few and progressively fewer autopsies are now conducted".
So I feel that I owe a partial apology. 50% of LC cases involve current smokers, and the remainder involve people that do not currently smoke, or people that have never smoked.
I can provide a link if necessary.
.
Going back to earlier comments about demonstrations, the article here describes an event planned to mark the beginning of the ban in England (comments follow):
http://www.boltoneveningnews.co.uk/display.var.1425660.0.0.php
Bernie, I agree with you on a number of points. Firstly that smoking does not cause what you call a 100% hit rate in terms of causing disease and secondly that there are likely to be other variables at work.
Fortunately, most smokers do not get lung cancer. Their genetic profile, diet and general health may protect them. Concerning other predominantly smokers' diseases such as for example emphysema, the presence of the alpha one anti trypsin enzyme (not all people have this) would keep this disease in check.
So far as smoking causing heart and vascular diseases is concerned through bumping up blood pressure and messing up cholesterol profiles, the effect can be partly offset by taking in a diet rich in anti oxidants (The free radicals in cigarette smoke oxidize the good HDL cholesterol and turn it into the bad LDL which then clogs up the arteries). Although I must say that the smokers I know have never been avid consumers of large amounts of fresh fruit and veg.
So I would agree with you Bernie that there are other variables at play, that smoking does not always cause lung cancer or indeed any other disease associated with smoking. Where I would differ with you however, is that I firmly believe that smoking remains a significant risk factor for lung cancer, COPD, coronary heart disease, stroke and early death. Further, that the highest percentage of people that I have ever spoken with, including colleagues, friends and indeed smokers agree with me.
Robert Evans wrote:
“smoking remains a significant risk factor for……stroke and early death.”
Smoking have protective role against stroke, Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease and Dementia and many another deadly desease.
Smoking is correlated with long life span.
Here is link: http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamilton/other/oldest.htm
Even in face of such evidence I think it will be inhuman to make SMOKING PROPAGANDA based on slogan that NON-SMOKING IS A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR FOR STROKE AND EARLY DEATH.
It gives idea how anti-smoking campaign is inhuman. It makes people sick and whole world less human.
Great discussion. Just for the record (noting Robert Evans' comment), I'm a smoker, vegetarian (but definitely not preachy!) and cyclist. So is my partner, and so are a number of our friends.
I just wanted to point out that smokers are many and varied and not all vegetarians are health freaks or preachers.
I think the great danger in 'health fascism' is that so many things are measured by numbers and that we are all treated with a 'one size fits all' mentality. There are so many factors that contribute to health or illness (stress, family history, loneliness, cleanliness, heating, achievement, wealth, satisfaction, pleasure, stored up negative feelings, bacteria, city vs country living) - I often wonder why we see so few 'contributory factors' measured.
Ultimately the thing that kills all of us (outside of accidents/murder/medical error)is a failure of our (usually brilliant and incredibly powerful) immune system to respond effectively to what's thrown at it. In my view, state of mind and enjoyment of life has a great deal to do with keeping the immune system 'up'.
It would be interesting (I think) to assess whether the things that are measured are solely the things for which Big Pharma can sell a purported "solution".
I believe Jeanne Calment (smoker who died at 127) put her longevity down to a mild climate and a good humour.
Don't mean to interrupt you though... do carry on as you were. I'm enjoying the read :)
Belinda - thanks! actually I went on to the Forest website this morning and discovered this article and read it. I am wondering if there's anything going on 'over the border' in Yorkshire around that time - if not, I shall probably go over to Lancashire to support this as July 1st is a Sunday.
Bernie - thanks for your comments and I shall 'watch this space'. Regarding October onwards - I was only thinking today that it is the Spring Bank holiday and the weather here is 'lousy' (awful!!) and not exactly cafe society weather. I would have no inclination to walk up to my local and stand outside in this lot! As the ban hasn't started yet, I shall make a great effort and walk up the road later this evening!
"Further, that the highest percentage of people that I have ever spoken with, including colleagues, friends and indeed smokers agree with me".
Robert,
I am not being snippy when I ask if any of these people are doctors or scientists?
Good point Colin, but even if they were scientists or doctors, why should that make their comments accurate? We should all be well aware of "received wisdom" and the subsequent notion that such wisdom provides infallible axioms on which to base our decision making processes.
The Roy Castle case also serves to make the point in that Castle did not "know" that ETS caused his lung cancer. He assumed this due to the propaganda, and his cancer type was not the type normally associated with the inhalation of tobacco smoke. Yes, I know Castle was not a doctor or scientist, but the latter too, jump on bandwagons frequently as it provides easy convenient explanations. In addition, contrary to popular belief, doctors can be incredibly gullible too.
At the end of the day, large numbers of scientific paradigms get dumped along the way and this one with ETS is such a bad one it is barely a step removed from the product of witch-doctory. No-one in their right minds should continue to uphold it and it is to the disgrace of the medical profession that so many have sought to.
I only asked Blad, out of curiosity. I am right there with you when you say that the "professionals" are not necessarily to be trusted.
I popped into my corner shop once to get some carrots. When I got to the front of the queue, Derek, the shop owner remarked that I was looking more tanned than usual. I said that I had just got back from a 12 week stint in the Sahara, hence the tan. He asked how I was getting on with the Arabs. Just fine says I, they are a wonderful bunch of people, even though some of them in Algiers wanted to kill me (!). Then the woman behind me said "Arabs? They stink, dont they? They never wash". I pointed out that water was more precious than gold in the desert, and that most Arabs (those that are practising Muslims, at least) washed five times a day, just prior to praying. I asked the woman how many times a day she washed. She didnt answer, so I asked instead,"How many Arabs have you met"?, "Oh none" says she, "Edna down the road told me that they stink".
I am using this (sad) tale not just to demonstrate observed ignorance in my wee village, or that old classic, Mistaken Certainty, but to point out that Roberts friends and colleagues, even the smokers, might just be wrong.
Belinda; Great link about the Bolton pub. I think this is a great idea but it should certainly not be the only one in the country. I'm thinking that one or two in each smallish town would be about right. I think all the other pubs would support this kind of move too. And perhaps they could move to different pubs each weekend as they continue the same actions each week???? Sounds good to me.
Robert: Thanks for your reasoned reply. I owe you an apology as somewhere else I think I dismissed you as an ASH troll. You are not from what you have said in this thread.
I have nothing particularly significant to argue with you on what you said. But I will pose a question I have many times asked elsewhere. If ASH and similar organizations were genuinely concerned with the health of smokers don't you think it would be appropriate for them to have a website dedicated to helping smokers minimize their risks by doing such things as eating more vegetables, getting regular exercise or whatever else has been found to minimize risks? They do not have to say that smoking is okay but if they were genuine, note that ASH stands for Action on Smoking and Heath, then they could still be antagonistic and say you should stop smoking but if you do continue then you should do this, this and this and it might prolong your life. That is what I would have expected from anyone who claimed to be genuinely interested in my health.
I do not believe they have the slightest interest in the health of anyone including non smokers who might be "exposed to SHS". Their agenda has nothing to do with health. It seems to me that they employ the same silent "C" as the "C" in rap music and that their name would be more appropriate if it were CASH.
Apologies to those who may like rap music:-)
Just one other point. Science totally accepts the 'placebo effect' (i.e. the power of the mind to bring about physical healing through positive expectation). In studies, we often see words along the lines of ' can be written off to the placebo effect'. When criticising reports of healing brought about by alternative medicine, science writers and doctors often dismiss these cures as 'the placebo effect'. So we can be in no doubt that it's existence is accepted.
My point is this. If it is accepted that the mind can bring about cure in the body, it must also follow that it can bring about illness and destruction. In which case, the constant bombardment of health warnings over all these years, coupled with the current 'de-normalisation of smoking' (which effectively means 'denormalisation of smokERS' - which in turn means social ostracisation of smokers) are likely to have a negative impact on people's health.
I find it quite incredible that this does not appear to have been considered, at any stage, by those who purport to care about our 'health' or by those who are supposedly intelligent enough to thrink through health legislation - or indeed any legislation that detrimentally affects our civil liberties.
Colin, no problem in you asking but a good many of the people that I referred to are indeed doctors and scientists.
Bernie, once again I agree with you that it would be a good idea if health care organisations and indeed the likes of ASH were to better inform people on how to reduce or manage certain areas of risk - that is if smokers cannot or do not want to give up.
I'm not defending ASH, but I do find it hard to believe that they don't care about public health. Aside from ASH, the message about risks to health from smoking are much the same from health care professionals who actually owe their customers and patients 'a duty of care'. So I would argue that they do care about your health Bernie, even if you can't quite believe it.
I'm not sure that anyone is arguing whether smoking adds a significant risk factor to any of the conditions mentioned (although only lung cancer actually kills more people under the age of 75 than over it). The issue about bans is to do with passive smoking not smoking ... and also about whether smoking bans deter smoking or encourage it. Quite apart from the health impact of propoganda on the issue described by Gerry, the necessity for already vulnerable people to expose themselves to cold air etc ...
Robert, whether ASH care or not is largely irrelevent. Their goal is to erradicate smoking from society - period. What their actual motivation for this goal isn't important.
They are not interested in informing people of how to reduce the risks associated with smoking, they simply want people to stop doing it.
To this end they believe deliberate manipulation of the truth, overstating the risks and petitioning the government for social engineering measures are all justified.
You yourself have suggested that "making inroads to reducing the death toll" is a worthy goal, but what price are you willing to pay for that?
Are you willing to support draconian regulation? Are you willing to support measures that will cost thousands their jobs? Are you willing to support measures that will have knock effects that will require further legislation that ultimately alienate a large section of the population for the crime of doing something that's bad for their health?
Now, consider that obesity is as big a killer than smoking, and unlike smoking is on the rise and will need even tougher legislation to curb than smoking. Will you support government intervention i.e. force designed to make people thinner because it'll make "inroads" into the death toll it causes?
The point of a free society is that we are free to choose things that are bad for us. We're free to make decisions that other people disagree with.
In terms of the smoking ban that choice has been taken away from the bar owner. And this was based on fairly flimsy evidence regarding ETS. This was only a strategy to make it harder for people to smoke.
I wonder, what choices will they take away and what strategies will they adopt to make it harder for people to eat food that's bad for them.
Thank you Robert. Like Blad, I have seen far too many so-called professionals succumb to the never-ending funding, as long as the "right" conclusions were reached. So I trust the scientific community about as far as I can throw them. Most of them appear to have sold their integrity for a pretty coin, and the bias in their studies reflect this with tedious regularity. Dr Richard Smith, ex-editor of the BMJ, was particularly scathing in his book when he took us through the (previously vaunted) "peer review" process. He also explains that Rapid Responders almost never declared vested interests.
I am reasonably certain that we will never see an accurate picture on SHS. There is more money to be made declaring it lethal than there is in telling the truth. In fact, telling the truth seems to be a certain way of ending your career, and/or waving goodbye to lucrative funding.
After all, if Scotlands CMO, Dr Harry Burns, can make statements like "We will end cancer in Scotland within 20 years if we get all smokers to quit" and NOT get fired, that pretty much opens the floodgates for doctors and scientists in much less junior positions to say whatever they like. And they frequently do.
We should all remind ourselves, every single time we see a study or the "latest" research, that "He who pays the piper, calls the tune".
Like never before, in last 25 years we are experience rapid increase in almost every known illness and nearly every sort of cancer.
Explanation for recent increase of incidence of almost every known illness and most types of cancer is bad life style.
Whether you are smoker or non smoker if you are affected with some negative health condition it is socially acceptable to blame your life style.
I think that we are entering new Dark Age where cognitive abilities of humans are impaired by fear from illnesses and death
Gerry: Excellent point about the placebo effect. I made the exact same point to an ex chairman of ASH (Clive Bates - who left ASH to take a government appointed post) several years ago and had it ignored entirely.
I don't think you will have to wonder for too long Rob.
The beginning of the next agenda. Drinkaware, it would seem, have all the signs of being the ASH of alcohol. Look what's on the agenda. Does this sound familiar?
.
Caroline Flint:-
"We will continue to work closely with them on the voluntary introduction of this new labeling information and with them will monitor the effect of the agreement on peoples drinking habits"
Pubs were volunteering to segregate and ventilate smoking areas in their pubs 3 years ago on government recommendations. They got shafted!
http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news_detail.aspx?articleid=35490.
Thanks Bernie. I'm glad you raised this yourself, my guess is that ASH members ignore anything that doesn't fit their (tunnel) vision. I'm sure it's like talking to a brick wall and not a very pleasant pastime.
However, I would have expected government members and health bodies to have given weight to this aspect - and it saddens me enormously that we seem to have been reduced to mobile lumps of productive and measurable meat & bone with no recognition of our minds or spirits (which I think are by far the most interesting things about us humans).
Luke thanks also for your comment earlier today. I saw it before it was removed. Most grateful to you.
Loraine, thanks for the Drinkaware heads up.
I took their stupid test "check your drinking" and discovered the ONLY way to get a "drinking responsibly" result was to answer their four questions the following way;
NEVER
NEVER
NEVER
NO
Drinking 3 pints of Stella Artois at any point in the last twelve months returns a "your drinking may be causeing your problems" result.
Utterly ridiculous. Damn puritans.
They couldn't wait, could they? The need to boss and bully another group was simply irresistible. They didn't even allow the smoking ban to start and bite before they started picking on the drinkers! Blessed are the non-smokers, blessed are the non-drinkers! I enjoy drinking, but I am, in a way, delighted now that the anti-smoking drinkers have been picked on because they should now get a taste of the medicine they have administered to people like me (smoke-drinkers) and smokers in general. Perhaps people may begin to realise that those in charge of us aim to close down every pub/bar and club in the land! Signs everywhere - 'rauchen verboten', 'Alkohol wird hier nicht serviert!' - und sie werden weitermarschieren! Was kommt noch? (what next?!!!)
ps - no disrespect to Germans or German speakers - I love the country and can't wait to go there for a holiday in July. However, I believe I have made my point!!!
Only recently Alcohol Concern and their ilk were pushing for prosecutions if parents gave their children a glass of cider with the dinner. On the continent this is how people develope respect for alcohol and the problems of the UK are not replicated to the same extent. ASH and Alcohol Concern are made up of reformed smokers and drinkers who now know better. Just because the members of Alcohol Concern got children drunk and then physically or sexually abused them does not mean that the rest of the population does the same. Some of us know what limits are and do not need the advice or protection from those kind of people.