Friday
Nov262010
And the big question is ...
Friday, November 26, 2010 I was interviewed yesterday by a charming freelance journalist. We sat outside a pub close to Broadcasting House in central London and discussed plain packaging and the war on tobacco.
She was fair, friendly and very professional and we had a good exchange of views. I sensed however that she was a strong anti-smoker.
When we had finished and were walking back towards Oxford Circus she confirmed my suspicions.
"I hope you don't mind me saying this," she said, "but shouldn't you be doing something more worthwhile with your life?"
Reader Comments (26)
"I hope you don't mind me saying this," she said, "but shouldn't you be doing something more worthwhile with your life?"
Like a self righteous, and I am sorry to say, 'ignorant' journalist perhaps?
If it helps, I think you're doing a great job Simon - a voice of sanity in an increasingly insane world. On that note (and I'm sure there'll be a posting about this soon) but today's numbers from the WHO... 600,000 people die of passive smoking... now, if my numbers are correct (and they may not be, maths not a strong point of mine) but 600,000 out of a world population of 7bn - thats .008% of the population. The headline could read 'WHO confirms the dangers of passive smoking virtually nil'.
(Simon, if my numbers are totally out - please delete post to save my embarresement!)
Sorry for being off topic Simon...but have you heard about the latest WHO study that says 600,000 people are 'killed' each year by 'passive smoking'?
It was given only a passing reference on the beeb this morning. I've seen this figure somewhere else before...but can't think where.
You can laugh out loud at this CRAP here
When the Guardian journalist Hugo Young met Margaret Thatcher many years ago, she asked him why he didn't do something useful like set up a small business.
My response is simply that shouldn't the anti-smoking activists do something more worthwhile with their lives?
This is not a fight that any of us wants. We've just been forced into a position of self-defence after forced social exclusion, denormalisation, and Govt backed hate campaigns.
If the Govt backs off, we back off, and the antis will continue with the worthless task of moaning for moaning's sake as they have done for as many years as tobacco has existed.
I was once in conservation at an event with a lady who worked for an eco group. She asked what I did. I explained I am an engineer and I have been in and around the automotive industry my whole working life. Well that was it; I was the devil incarnate and had wasted my life. I didn't bother responding. I just walked away without another word.
Noting the WHO report, as everyone else has, as far as I can see they have presented no proof. Wasn't it the WHO which started the flu pandemic scare last winter when Big Pharma relieved the UK of one billion pounds? Doesn't the board of the WHO allegedly include some members aligned with Big Pharma?
Over one million people are killed in road accident worldwide every year. Many, many millions more die from malaria and all sorts of other often preventable illnesses, and from drug addiction, wars HIV, etc. A wild estimate of 600,000 expiring from passive smoking seems a drop in the ocean especially as no proof is offered.
Simon, theres a article in the Morning Avertiser 'No evidence smoking ban has closed pubs' from Ann Milton M.P saying there will be no review of the smoke free laws so to me, this is (BLUE LABOUR) where did she get this information from ?
I can think of few more laudable goals that fighting the expansion of the state, the intrusion of legislation and the corruption and politicising of science.
Many of the most famous historical figures are famus BECAUSE they fought the state; Martin Luther King, Emily Pankhurst, Ghandi, hell, even Jesus (although arguable he's famous for alledgedly being the son of God - like Kelly Ozborne!).
Whilst I doubt you'll ever be as famous as any of that lot but this fight is important and has rammifications well beyond smoking no matter what some snotty anti-smoking cow thinks.
Well, there isn't any evidence if you choose not to look. Is Ann Milton anybody of consequence? or is she just somebody who's worried about the sanctity of the ban and wants to get her oar in first?
Ruined my morning almost before it had begun, hearing the 600,000 story on the 7am news today. Presumably this is some kind of extrapolation worked out on the back of a Nicorette packet?
As Mark points out, even if it were true, it's not actually as high a figure as you might expect, given how dangerous SHS is *supposed* to be. I believe about twice as many die worldwide annually in RTAs, also according to the WHO. Won't stop everyone from pointing the finger at us and us alone for killing kiddies, though, will it ...
That "wild estimate" of 600,000 expiring from passive smoking Chris, is not a wild estimate at all. It is nothing more than a blatant lie.
We all know that not one single person has ever died from "passive smoking". If they had, wouldn't people like the Who and ASH and Cancer Research, publish such findings for all to see?
The only thing that these organisations publish are sets of figures, that they say are proof. Anyone can come up with figures when no positive proof of how these figures ever came about is called for, and this is the reason that these bogus organisations refuse to debate the issue in an open court of law. They know they would be asked to show their evidence, which of course they do not have, it is nothing more than hearsay.
One of their pet sayings, is "there is overwhelming evidence". "There is overwhelming evidence" that this amount of people die from passive smoking, "there is overwhelming evidence" that the smoking ban is a huge success, "there is overwhelming evidence" that the vast majority of the population want more smoking restrictions.
If there is all this so called "overwhelming evidence" then I challenge them to show it.
I say "there is overwhelming evidence" that these organisations are telling blatant lies in order to further their own political and monetary agendas.
Some of these comments have cheered me up a little, however:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/11/is_passive_smoking_a_problem.html
Sorry, it won't let me post the full URL. It's the "Have Your Say" link to the BBC news story which Bill posted above
Passive smoking 'causes one in 100 deaths worldwide'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1333184/Passive-smoking-causes-100-deaths-worldwide.html
"Two-thirds of these deaths occur in Africa and south Asia," the authors write in the medical journal The Lancet. "Children's exposure to second-hand smoke most likely happens at home."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/26/passive-smoking-deaths-who-report
Previously
Indoor air pollution behind COPD, not smoking: study
"You don't have to be a smoker to suffer from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Indoor air pollution is enough for one to contract the infection, says the first-of-its-kind study conducted at 22 villages of Pune.
Out of 3,000 people randomly selected for the study, 210 suffered from COPD. "At least 93 per cent of those who had COPD were non smokers," says Dr Sundeep Salvi, coordinator of the Chest Research Foundation (CRF)."
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/indoor-air-pollution-behind-copd-not-smoking-study/712430/1
"The study shows that exposure to indoor air pollution is the most important cause for COPD. It was found that since a significant percentage of Indians live in villages with 75% of the homes using biomass fuel, it was exposing 700 million people to high levels of indoor air pollution."
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Smoking-is-not-the-sole-cause-of-smokers-disease/articleshow/6951217.cms#ixzz16OktfZWl
"Air pollution in major cities in Asia exceeds the World Health Organisation's (WHO) air quality guidelines and toxic cocktails result in more than 530,000 premature deaths a year, according to a new report issued on Tuesday."
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AM1OX20101123
Meanwhile
Britain faces a £300 million fine for pollution after the second and final warning from Europe to clean up air quality
"The UK has one of the worse rates of air pollution from cars and factories in Europe.
Previous research shows air pollution already kills 24,000 people a year and could kill up to 36,000 because of lung complaints.
But despite repeated warnings from Brussels the Government has failed to cut pollution.
The main problem is exhaust fumes and emissions from power stations or factories around London."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7801436/Britain-faces-fine-for-air-quality-after-final-warning-from-EU.html
I don't know how anyone could even attempt to separate that lot out, as they all happen simultaneously.
Think of a number
This figure of 600,000 is derived from epidemiological studies. These are nothing more than observational studies carried out through questionnaires. In other words a person standing on a street corner with a clipboard asking how many cigarettes did your parents/parent smoke, did they smoke upstairs, downstairs, in what rooms, how many windows were open at the time etc.
Epidemiology is nothing more than statistical conjecture, number crunching moulded to whatever agenda you choose. It is not a stand-alone tool that can determine the cause of death and by what.
It should be only used as an adjunct to a scientific discipline that can determine the cause of death i.e., post mortem evidence.
But no such post mortem evidence that anyone has ever been killed by ‘passive smoking’ exists or has ever existed.
Anyway – why would you want to clutch at the straws of conjectural epidemiology if you had intrinsic medical or scientific (post mortem) evidence?
If they had this kind of proof…they would be shoving this down our throats every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
You're very quiet today, Simon. Out doing something more worthwhile with your life?
Little bit off subject I know, but I was watching Andrew Neil's "This Week" show on BBC 1 last night, and they had the writer P J O'Rourke on there.
They had made a little bit of film about him first, and as it started it made me look twice as the first thing it showed was a cigar shop (I think), it didn't mention the shop or why it was being shown. It then cut to PJ, who was sitting at a desk and speaking to the camera. As he did so, he took out a large cigar, lit it and carried on talking as he smoked it.
It was so refreshing to someone sitting and talking and smoking this beautiful cigar without a care in the world, just like how it used to be, and how it still should be.
I wonder if anyone else saw the programme, and if they know anything more about the cigar shop and the smoking to camera etc?
Simon
It puts me in mind of a comment made at a drinks party when I was working in the tobacco industry. A friend of a friend's wife responded, when she enquired what I did, "oh well, I guess someone has to"! My response was that the industry acknowledged that smoking caused harm and that accordingly it was vital that, as purveyors of risky products, they employed people with the highest standards to ensure their business was conducted responsibly (and in light of today's news that 600,000 people die annually from passive smoking, that's probably doubly so?). Caustically I asked her "whether she'd prefer to hear the industry employed cowboys?"!
You do an invaluable role in pointing out some of the silliness associated with tobacco regulations which at times seem to have little to do with well-intended efforts to reduce the harm caused by tobacco but more to do with grabbing headlines and, as your recent report highlighted, to maintain an industry of "tobacco control experts" who provide taxpayers' with disproportionate costs and returns.
Please carry on doing all you can to promote a grown-up and adult debate as to how tobacco and smoking, and all the issues that flow therefrom(!), can be regulated in a common sense and sensible fashion!
Charles Hamshaw-Thomas
Principal
CSR Solutions
The report that I heard on the Beeb said that 600,000 are estimated to die etc. That 'estimated' says it all.
Why, despite her professionalism etc, did you, Simon, suspect the journalist to be a strong anti-smoker? Was she, perhaps, wearing the quizzical expression that we smokers now sometimes see on people's faces (when we're not treated to looks of disdain)?
And I'd love to know what you replied in response to her impertinence about your pointless life!
I saw PJ O'Rourke. I thought he got some kind of cancer recently and gave up smoking. Was looking old but pleased to see him OK. They were flouting the workplace smoking ban. Good on PJ and the programme makers. The only excuse could be a necessary part of a dramatic performance; which is stretching things a bit. Everyone write to smoking enforcement at whatever council the Beeb studio is located. Demand action be taken. That will cause them some hassle. I suggested Dick Puddlecote adds a feature on unpunished floutings of the ban.
I also noticed Andrew Neill's jibe about tobacco addiction as he introduced O'Rourke on the couch after the report which did show a cigar shop.
It can't be 600,000 killed yearly by passive smoking in the world - not if the latest government paid propaganda piece being aired daily in California, USA, a bankrupt state who can barely afford basic services but has enough money to pay for anti-smoking propaganda, is correct.
The daily propaganda on TV in California shows various ways in which people might die then shows a close-up of a burning cigarette - with the warning in words and in voice-over - claiming that a person dies from tobacco related causes every 6.2 seconds.
So if one person is dyng every 6.2 seconds due to tobacco related causes, at that rate, there shouldn't even be anyone left alive before one year is out..
600,000 - really?
And I might suggest a lot of this is just a cover-up for the real culprits that cause disease and sickness, sacrificing one industry for the sake of 20 others - bearing in mind, go high up enough in the economic ladder to the highest classes and their money is safely earning returns no matter how they're invested. Sacrifice one industry (tobacco) while blinding everyone to the dangerous reality of all the others (petrol-chemical, automotive, nuclear, food additive, electronics, manufacturing, etc.).
That journalist you spoke with wears her ignorance proudly I'll bet too. My fear is it just gets worse as there's nobody in the younger age groups going to be able to see through the charades and thus the ignorancy just grows like cancer over the next 20 years until we end up with a totally ignorant population beholding to the arrogant at the top who have manufactured all this falsehold into fake-truth.
It's called Big Brother. That generation was born around the year that George Orwell wrote about - 1984.
Perhaps people like the lady journalist in question should be sent my 'Adopt A Quitter' pamphlet ?
The idea is this. Miss Prim (as we shall call her for now) 'adopts' a smoker on the verge of quitting, and - once he DOES finally break free of his addiction - SHE signs a legally-binding pledge to compensate the Treasury by HERSELF paying to it the amount of tax it would otherwise lose as a result of said smoker's revenue-denying action (the selfish bastard).
I like to think of it as ‘Asymmetrical Socio-Economic Symbiosis’ (partly to appeal to American academics, I confess) – a concept which my team is currently seeking to implant in Mr Cameron’s brain, as part of our ‘Big Society’ drive. The finer details (as to duration etc) could be worked out by someone trusted to be statistically imaginative, and not overly hidebound by real-world considerations. An epidemiologist, for example.
Such a magnanimous gesture would ensure two things:
a) The perpetual (and justified) preening of Miss Prim at having Saved A Sinner by her socially-aware altruism, and
b) The Sinner's relief at not having deprived the Exchequer (usually referred to as ‘the NHS’ in this context) of much-needed funding as the result of his forgoing a cherished pastime.
How's THAT for Blue-sky thinking ?
Please DON’T be afraid to point out ANY flaws in my little scheme.
Martin V
Lovely idea. But expanding the idea - X starts smoking again and Miss PRIM, being unaware of this fact, continues to pay. Thus, the Treasury doubles its income.
From this simple, stupid idea, we see that the Treasury cannot lose. It therefore follows that it is in the interests of the Treasury (aka the Government) to encourage disputes.
It is in the interests of Tobacco Control and The Government not to BAN tobacco. By not banning tobacco, much more treasure is acquired from THE PEOPLE, as a whole.
What is awful is that THE PEOPLE (including our politicians( do not know what is going on.