Friday
Oct302009
Alan Titchmarsh: the hot debate!
Friday, October 30, 2009 
I have been booked to appear on The Alan Titchmarsh Show next week. The programme will be asking the question “Is it time to put cigarettes under the counter for good”? and I will be debating the subject with Deborah Arnott of ASH and former editor of the Sun Kelvin Mackenzie.
The programme is being recorded "as live" on Tuesday and will air at 3.00pm on Friday 6 November, ITV1.
PS. My previous appearance on the show was in March (above) when we debated the "problem" of binge-drinking. I wrote about it HERE and there is a clip HERE.
Reader Comments (27)
Simon - please will you try not to let slip that old 'we all know smoking is bad for you' thing like you usually do?
Correctly: we all know HEAVY smoking is PROBABLY bad for you. There are growing numbers of people who think light/moderate smoking is really quite good for you, particularly with regard to mental health. There's practically no evidence at all to suggest a few smokes a day are life-threatening.
Parroting over-simplified, untruthful cliches isn't very helpful to anyone other then the health zealots, who made them up in the first place.
Please?
I'll be watching Simon, good luck.
Simon -
Allow me to underline Karen's point above:
"We all know that smoking MAY be bad for you, depending on a NUMBER of factors - just as we all know that drinking MAY be bad for you etc. But in WHAT kind of a Free Society is TOTAL HEALTH to be made COMPULSORY............?"
Something along those lines would suffice.
Good luck - and thanks again for ALL your hard work on behalf of:
Decency, and
Truth, and
Freedom.
And could we have motor-cars and motor-bikes also sold in plain packaging ? And a ban on second-hand exhaust fumes ? No driving in public places please.
I'd like to echo Karen and Martin's point and ask also, please, that you challenge any assertion about the 'evidence' on passive smoking.
Good luck, Simon and I'm sure that you'll be able to out calm Ms Arnott (one of their more subtle tactics being to sound very reasonable and measured whilst spouting the most unreasonable drivel)
@ Karen
You are generally right. The 1964 American Surgeon Genral's report into smoking showed that pipe smokers lived on average 2 years longer than non smokers. I have another report from 1986 which suggests the same for all smoking if in moderation.
However I accept that 20 a day plus smoking is for some a major health risk for many people and a pension company overall will assume you will live 7 years less than a non smoker if you are a man and 6.3 years if you are a woman.
Alas Karen if you mention this in the main stream media you will be tarred as an extremist. We are still fighting battles on second and third hand smoke.
Good luck Simon, you tell 'em!
Perhaps a question to Ms Arnott about ASH's 'charity status'? It's not widely known that they are supported by Government funding. Many members of the public probably don't realise that ASH are supported by the tax payer and this may help change public perception as to the validity of their claims.
How about the Japanese Syndrome ?
"We are still fighting battles on second and third hand smoke." - Dave Atherton.
Oh, Dave, I wish you wouldn't! With allies like you who needs enemies? By even acknowledging the terms "second and third hand", you infer that there is truth in the dangers of so-called "first and second hand".
Due to your love of statistics you cherry pick amongst them oblivious to the fact that they are all contrived. . To quote even one set of statistics is to give credence to all of them. With you, it is one step forward and three steps back. It absolutely cannot be stated as a fact that non-smokers live longer then smokers. Just look around you.
You yourself have proved time and again that it is impossible to put cause of death down to smoking. You have pointed out that there are too many confounders such as hereditary, environment and occupational hazard. People have enjoyed and benefited from smoking ever since that most healing of herbs, the tobacco leaf was discovered in jungle times. [A reminder that so many pharmaceutical drugs have ALWAYS had nicotine as their base.] Like the varieties of food itself, smoking is enjoyed by some people and not by others.
If Simon takes on board advice given here he should listen to the other realistic contributors, headed up by Karen. Sadly, on this occasion, not to the usually brilliant you...
No death certificate has ever been written giving smoking as the cause of death - nor can it be. And no one can ever predict in advance the date of any individual's death.
Please stop quoting these contrived statistics. [But best wishes, anyway!]
@Margot
Alas this is an on going argument and the reason we have smoking bans. In a month or two I should have produced the definitive document on SHS, more on that soon.
Also the last epidemiological study into passive smoking is the Neuberger 2006 into Iowa women, the results were.
"A significant inverse association was found for those with some college education (OR=0.63, 95% CI=0.48-0.81) and for those with adult passive smoke exposure at home (OR=0.37, 95% CI=0.26-0.54)."
What is remarkable here is that exposure to passive smoke is not only protective, but is unargueably statistically demonstrable.
Put in simple terms exposure to SHS reduces your chances of getting lung cancer by 2/3.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876736/
How come the electorate does not accept Politicians lies when it comes to their expenses, but are quite willing to accept their lies when it comes to junk statistics on SHS and all smoking related matters?
Is it because, when it comes to politicians expenses, their Spin Doctors are noted for their absence in the media?
'Sack em Simpson' would never allow mere science get in the way of stubbing out smokers.
Fortunately for us he has showed exactly how he works when confronted with those scientists that do not tow the party line.
No problem with Deborah there, but as over 30% of the Irish are now smokers (an increase) the ban does not seem to be going as planed.
A lot of money is being spent and business being closed on a failed experiment, black markets have become fashionable, and the Debera's of this world will soon be out of a job.
Perhaps Deborah Arnott can answer these simple questions.
1. How many people were 'KILLED' last year by 'passive' smoking?
2. How are these figures recorded?
3. What autopsy evidence exists to support such claims?
I recently contacted ASH(Scotland), they told me that they do not record deaths by 'passive' smoking because, wait for it...they do not have a DEFINITION for death by 'passive smoking', in which case how do they know anyone has ever been killed by so-called SHS?
You must keep Arnott impaled on the hook of 'death by SHS'
You must not ask how many have died...but how many have been KILLED.
You have to bring her back to this contentious crap whether she likes it or not!
Perhaps she can give you the name of a pathologist...who at anytime, anywhere in the world has carried out an autopsy and declared - THIS PERSON HAS BEEN KILLED BY 'Passive Smoking'.
If she can...she would be the first person in the world to have ever done so!
You can get the figures on fake charity ASH here. http://fakecharities.org/pages/posts/action-on-smoking-and-health-ash5.php
I didn't realise there was also a Scottish and Welsh branch. They are listed as well. I hope you will give this self-righteous harridan some stick over draining taxpayer funds during such hard times. Ask her how much we are paying her, it should be public information and would be interesting to know.
@Chris
Hi Chris. I am writing a definitive essay on passive smoking, is it possible I could have a copy of your letter? I am up to 10 pages of A4 and reckon I am half way through.
If anyone else has any evidence, URLs or quotes I would be very interested to hear from you.
BTW the November 2004 Scientific Committee On Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) and its report is the reason for our smoking bans. I have read it from cover to cover and has more holes in it than a sieve, for example.
On page 10, “SHS AND RESPIRATORY DISEASE IN CHILDREN.” They say “In 1999, the World Health Organization (WHO) convened an international consultation on SHS and child health (48). Its conclusions were similar to those of the 1998 SCOTH report.” Alas on future lung cancer childhood exposure to SHS is protective, albeit statistically non significant and I quote directly from their paper. Results: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64–0.96). The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93–1.44).
I also like this quote “Yes, it's rotten science, but it's in a worthy cause. It will help us to get rid of cigarettes and become a smoke-free society" so said Alvan Feinstein, Yale University epidemiologist writing in Toxological Pathology in 1999.
My private email is daveatherton20@hotmail.com
Dave, how come lying deceptors like Alvan Feinstein who can blind people with false statistics, just because they have the right sounding words and because of their so called degrees, are allowed to get away with statements like that.
Surely such statements coming from the antis side, should be taken up when fighting the false smoking statistics issue.
Pub and restaurant owners in Ireland yesterday, made a plea for govt help to reduce the excise duty, before thousands of more jobs will go within the next 15 months.
This, after several pub owners have reduced the price of drink by a whopping 25% to entice customers for the last couple of months, and not one of them still have the same amount of customers they had prior to the smoking ban.
They said that since the SMOKING BAN and drink driving ban their businesses had been decimated.
And the surprising thing was, that the word SMOKING BAN was the first time to be mentioned as the cause of job losses in the media!
How can the world expect to get out of the mess we're in if the people who would have an influence on society cannot talk plainly!
@Ann
I can only but concur with your thoughts, that is why I am writing my piece.
Probably the most damning observation on smoking bans are the closures in Ireland. One year after the figures speak for themselves.
Ireland's pubs are mainly freeholders who tend to pass the licence down from generation to generation, i.e. no pubcos, so an even playing field on the price of a barrel of beer. Also 2004-5 they also enjoyed a net gain in GDP of 7%, hence no recession.
In urban areas the number of pubs fell 15% and in rural areas 25%. The extra 10% in rural areas can be ascribed to the drinking and driving crackdown.
Source: Velvet Glove, Iron Fist. A History Of Anti-Smoking.
Chis Snowdon. Page 234
Simon Clark
Hope you have time for a last minute read of this topic.
Please read and re-read Chris's comments above in which he says:-
"You must keep Arnott impaled on the hook of 'death by SHS' You must not ask how many have died...but how many have been KILLED."
You can extend this to include first hand smoking also. It is not for us to defend, but for them to prove. His entire comment is the forceful strategy you need.
No reasonable gentlemanly, please. Take the gloves off and attack right from the start. The other relevant posters here have pinpointed good attack strategy too. You may never get this chance with the odious woman again.
Good luck! We are all with you.
Some excellent posts here (again).
Dave -
To save me the problem of googling, could you please post the link for the longevity-of-pipe-smokers stats ?
Ditto the 1986 report you refer to.
I have an elderly neighbour who'd like some re-assurance - in the face of a Wife Who Recently Quit.
He's 87.
Cheers.
Here is the povenance for the pipe smoking, but you will have to email me for the cigarette smokers one, I do not have it in HTML. BTW it was for light smokers, not heavy smokers.
http://www.meerschaumstore.com/health.htm
http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/80631029-1086.html
@Martin
Tell a fib, I've found it.
http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/SG8.htm
Ann. I also live in Ireland and have seen the damage caused to pubs by the ban. However, they did not fight the ban and were even used as evidence of the benefits when the British ban was mentioned. Now, given the recession and the strength of the Euro these publicans will say or do anything to get punters back into their pubs.
Call me heartless but the unions were the biggest supporters of the ban and if their members are jobless it was because turkeys voted for Christmas. They will not have to worry about smelling of smoke anymore since they have no uniforms to wear.
The Irish government is borrowing 400 million Euro every week to meet it's liabilities and I am not going to help them by buying drink or cigarettes so will continue to shop in the North.
Stuff the lot of them as they brought it upon themselves. Amendments or not I will never give my custom back to the country and industry that was hugely responsible for the blanket introduction of bans everywhere.
Dave
At the moment I'm upgrading my usual computer, so I'm using a much slower one, and it's a pain, it does not have the original reply on it from ASH Scotland...as soon as my upgrade is complete I will comply with your wishes.
Dave -
Many thanks !
I say, stuff the lot of this EU hugging shambolic irish govt too, Michael, who were riding high on the crest of a corrupt paper tiger wave, they were stupid enough to believe would go on for ever and who are shamefully responsible for the blanket introduction of bans everywhere, which, I am sure, they were not even aware of being used as pawns by their new masters in Brussels.
Just like the way they have let down the rest of europe with the Yes vote on Lisbon in the selfish belief that it would save jobs.
The 'world leaders' of bans are now on their knees crying out for help, after shooting themselves in the foot by their silence on the smoking ban, when things were flying.
So therefore, I feel no patriotic duty in helping those who took away my civil liberties and freedom to smoke where I choose, and will continue to shop up North for my fags and drink!
Margot, I know it is a much smaller scale, but with regard to town councils, we, and no doubt plenty of other towns, have a very similar problem in that our towns are run by counsellors who do not live in them, therefore have no feeling for the history, the people who have been born and bred in the town for generations and the immense pride they have for their old town as an old town.
Just a small taste then of what it to come, now that we are doomed as our pathetic excuse for a government reneged on yet another of their manifesto pledges!
Is it really possible, after this last total shambles, that we can possibly trust any politician, but mainly any of the 3 major parties, to actually tell us the truth in their manifestos? After all, labour have triumphantly won elections on manifestos packed full of lies, only to pull the rug from under the voters feet once in power!