Conference calls
Friday, August 17, 2007 
Holding my credit card in one hand, and my nose in the other, I have just applied to attend a two-day conference in Edinburgh that should indicate very clearly (as if we don't already know) where the war on tobacco is heading.
'Towards a Smokefree Society' is a major international event that promises to "bring together researchers, policy makers and practitioners with the overall purpose of mobilising further effective action on smokefree legislation".
The programme is extensive. As part of the application process you have to decide in advance which workshops you want to attend. I was spoilt for choice! Eventually I plumped for sessions on 'International Tobacco Control Studies', 'Developing EU Policy for Smokefree Environments', 'SHS Exposure & Respiratory Health', 'Smokefree Legislation & Health and Economic Trends', 'Smoking in the Home' and - my favourite - 'Using the Media'.
I also applied to attend the conference dinner and ceilidh. (I couldn't resist.) Venue is the Edinburgh International Conference Centre (EICC, above) and it all kicks off on September 10. Full details HERE.
Reader Comments (5)
When you attend these meetings, please consider raising the following questions:
"Since anti-smoking legislation is supposed to be concerned with abolishing 'preventable diseases', please explain what exactly is an 'unpreventable' disease? Surely statistics can be created to show that any disease can be associated with just about anything, therefore, all disease must be considered 'preventable'.
Is the WHO's mission to prevent death itself (if so, they might as well give up right now), or are we going to be allowed to have some diseases after all in spite of statistical tricks that might show them to be 'preventable'? If we are allowed to have some diseases, which ones will they be?"
Are we all to believe that death is invariably our own fault? Does this not display a grave misapprehension of the nature of life? i.e. that it always ENDS, one way or another?
Would all this incredible effort (which amounts to interference in our lives on a massive scale) not be better spent on forcing the pharmaceutical companies to reduce the cost of their drugs so that people in the Third World might survive childhood rather than dying from easily treatable diseases?
Would they consider any of this effort necessary at all if the medical profession had made any GENUINE progress in curing cancer over the last 50 years? (I don't mean the deceitful figures that classify a five year remission as a cure. I mean a REAL cure).
Why is the treatment of chemotherapy considered a safe form of treatment when it annihilates the body's immune system? Surely people who survive it survive in spite of it, rather than because of it. (I know no-one who has managed to survive it).
Why is X-Ray technology used to determine whether someone has cancer, when it is known to cause cancer?
Is it not possible that the rise and rise of cancer, in spite of the reduction in smoking, is due to the massive increase in 'screening' for cancer using X-Ray technology?
Why is radiotherapy used to treat cancer, when it is known that radiation causes cancer? (I know no-one who has managed to survive radiotherapy either).
Why do you keep stating that 'smoking causes cancer' when only a correlation has been shown, not a cause?
If the pharmaceutical giants weren't selling nicotine replacement therapy, would these tobacco control edicts really have been pushed through at this time and at this pace?
Is it the WHO's contention that the only life worth living is a long one?
Is 'joie de vivre' not a consideration in a life well lived?
Does how we die matter more than how productive and enjoyable our life was prior to (inevitable) death?
How do they explain the amazing longevity of the world's oldest smokers?
If you can get any of those questions in and bring back their answers (proper answers, not 'fob-offs'), I would be grateful!
Struggling Spirit,
I really enjoyed reading your comment. Thank you.
Simon Clark,
"If you can get any of those questions in and bring back their answers (proper answers, not 'fob-offs')," /quote: Struggling Spirit/
I would be grateful too!
Thank you Luke :)
I too would be grateful, but think you will need several miracles to manage to get any straight answers out of corrupt organisations!
Good luck all the same - will watch this space for news after the event.
Lyn
The question I continually ask but only get total silence to is, If I hold a gun to your head and give you three options which one would you take 1 I pull the trigger now 2 you smoke 20 cigs a day for life or 3 you put your mouth to the exhaust pipe of a car that has the engine running for just 10 mins I never get any response whatsoever