Sunday
Feb072010
Scots refuse to quit smoking despite ban
Sunday, February 7, 2010 The Scottish Sunday Mail reports that "The smoking ban has failed to persuade Scots to pack in the habit ... Government figures show the numbers of smokers are about the same as when the ban was introduced in 2006."
Full story, including a quote from me, HERE.
Reader Comments (17)
The politicians shouldn't be shocked as they should have known better in the first place.Obviously they shouldn't have let themselves be swayed by lobby groups like ASH.Historically these measures have resulted in increased tobacco use.Nazi era Germany tried similar tactics such as bans etc. only to experience a dramatic increase in smoking.France tried less draconian measures about the same time and their smoking rate also rose fairly sharply,though not as much as Germany's.Today's results are much the same.The U.S. recently announced their first smoking rate increase in 15 years.Ireland is up,showing an 11 year high.Canada shows a such a sharp slowing in the decline,since bans were enacted,that it has pretty well stagnated.Canada is also a good example of what happens when you raise tobacco taxes.Illegal tobacco use has sky rocketed.Current estimates are that 50% of all tobacco used is untaxed.It could be 80% soon unless they are drastically lowered again.They just had to do this in the 1990s,but Canadian politicians also rather stupidly listened to so called tobacco control after much coercion.It should be obvious to all by now,that "tobacco control" certainly does not control tobacco.With results like this,one would think that they're incompetent.We would all be better off without them.
This is now what you could call the sinister effect of the bans.
Simply because with no real result in fact a complete failure of smoking bans .
All the bans are doing is subjecting smokers themselves to demonisation.
So what is it all about now .
Persecution, spite and nothing more.
It was banned not because there was ever any foreseeable benefit.it was because they could .
Stark raving bonkers.
Meaness in the extreme.
There must be much gnashing of teeth at ASH today. Also this is very much the thin end of the wedge too as prevalence is often under reported, this is or a number reasons.
Some people, especially in this climate mislead that they smoke, many people who smoke the odd cigar describe themselves as "non smokers,"
What is the proof? This paper from Cork, Ireland on bar staff found 4% of respondents fibbed about being regular smokers.
"Results Self reported smoking prevalence among Cork bar workers (n = 129) was 54% (58% using cotinine-validated measures), with particularly high rates in women (70%) and 18–28 years old (72%)."
Peter Lee is an Oxford educated statistician and with his peer reviewed work at one end of the spectrum are Asian women where smoking is a shame can misclassify is up to 40%. In the west it is thought to be 1%-4%
"We argued that, for bias estimation,an equivalent rate (ER) of 2.5% was better than one of 1.75%, but we noted that large between-study variation in misclassification rates suggested that the ER might plausibly lie in the range 1%–4%.."
Also "that...17.7% of occasional,and 10.8% of former smokers report they are never smokers.." actual smoking rates could be as high as 30%.
ASH have a lot of explaining to do. Also the inaccuaracy of smoking rates has enormous implications for second hand smoke (SHS), lung cancer and heart attack studies. A 2% misclassification would instantly wipe out any studies that show a raised risk of 25%-30% and with 17% of people who smoke occasionally and 10.8% of people who have given up and state they are "never smokers" you would need to demonstrate a risk factor of 300%. I can only think of one out of 80.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v15664h75x2k8u6l/
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/91/6/560.pdf
So what accounts for the reports from the that heart attacks have dropped since the smoking ban? More smokers equals less heart attacks? What an entertaining idea.
Would not suprise me in the least.
Most of the so called studies on the alleged harms of smoking are rigged.
Or at the very least exaggerated.
As a footnote good old greece !
I have visited greece many times and I like the greeks ,its a pity we didnt do the same.
Absolute poppycock, balderdash. What on earth has Ash gnashing teeth got to do with those damn Scots smoking more?
Of course they smoke more, don't we all?
And?
Speaking of Scotchmen (inc the ones who speak with English accents), let us not forget the words of Cameron McCameron (of that ilk) back during the 2008 Parteitag:
"Many people wrongly believe that the Conservative Party is all about freedom. Of course we care passionately about freedom from OPPRESSION and STATE CONTROL....
But freedom can too easily turn into the idea that we all have the right to do whatever we want, regardless of the effect on others. That is libertarian, not Conservative - and it is certainly not me....
For me, the most important word is RESPONSIBILITY....Personal....Professional... Civic... Corporate... to our family, to our neighbourhood, our country....to behave in a DECENT and CIVILISED way....."
Verstanden ?
'The EFFECT on others' (eg 'secondhand smoke', bar staff, children etc etc etc ?)
'Our RESPONSIBILITY' (eg not to smoke ?)
Two possible escape hatches for Dave - should (God forbid) HE ever be charged with winking at 'oppression and state control'.
And as for those Irresponsible Libertarians in Scotland who (selfishly) refuse to do as they are told...................
Not surprised that smoking has increased.
The stupid dickheads should have known, if they had learned anything from history, that after the alcohol prohibition of the twenties in the USA, drinking increased and Speakeasies opened up all around the place and it put the Mafia on its feet.
Just shows how detached from reality these guys who dictate to us are.
All that these bans have proved is that their only agenda was to make jobs for themselves at the electorate's persecution and expense, while shooting themselves in the foot.
WE NEED A NEW POLITICAL PARTY1
And kick all these wankers out.
"Government figures show the numbers of smokers are about the same as when the ban was introduced in 2006."
"A separate Scottish government report shows that since the smoking ban there has a 19 per drop in heart attacks among smokers."
Now,
I must come clean and admit I'm no maths student, and know fuck all about the "science" of epidemiology either, so I'm at a total loss to try and reconcile the two statements above,
Must be just me then is it?
Joseph K,
No, it isn't.
Epidemiology evidence is based on statistics. Statistics from Wales show that there has been a decline in Welsh women smokers for decades and yet there has been a big increase in Welsh women getting lung cancer. Statistics indicate that not smoking causes lung cancer.
I say Ann old girl, bit harsh wasn't it, referring to these people as penis-heads and saying that all bankers should be kicked out?
As for a new political party, what wrong with jolly old Labour?
Hooray for the Scots
From a non-smoker, these are the profound words of philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand, "I like to think of fire held in a man's hand. Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips. I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking. I wonder what great things have come from such hours. When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind--and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression."
Words of this nature come from the courage of Capitalistic thinking, not the cowardice of Fascist thinking in which anti-smoking legislations are in part,
Quote from the novel "Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand."
"WE NEED A NEW POLITICAL PARTY"
I sense that a growing number of people are coming to that conclusion, Ann - and not JUST a 'new party', but a brand new SYSTEM (which takes the best from the old, but leaves the rest where it belongs).
But what to CALL it ?
Perhaps Simon could start a thread on that one sometime.
For myself, I STILL believe that 'The Independence Party' has a nice ring to it, and sends ALL the right 'messages'.
Time to leave Nanny to her gin.................
I second that Martin.
Well in America of all places, they have just started the TEA PARTY, bloody cheek really don't you think, after all it's our national drink isn't it? They should have called it the Coca Cola Party, that would have been more apt I'm sure.
As for us I don't think the Independence Party sounds too clever either, independent from whom?
I would like to nominate the Referendum Party, where no votes are allowed through Parliament without a referendum from the people.
I used to smoke cigarettes 15x a day. if not more. Here in Canada most of the places smokers were allowed to take their daily puffs they are now banned! This one sense really helped me to quit. I read up on "kiwi drug" about nicorette inhaler and have found it to be very helpful. Plus who wants to go outside in -30 and light up? Best choice I made