Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 4th July 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Who'll be next once smokers are made social outcasts?



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Live and let live when it comes to enjoying cigarettes, pleads Neil Rafferty.
I HAVE never been a huge fan of cheeseburgers. They're not the healthiest food you can buy and, unless you've just arrived on Planet Earth, you may be aware of an obesity epidemic. But I don't really care about any of that. The fact is, they're jus
t not my kind of food. I like pies.

That said, I've got no problem with anyone else eating cheeseburgers. If that's what you're into, then crack on. As long as you know what you're doing and you're not bothering anyone else, what business is it of mine?

I wouldn't go around demanding fast food restaurants be banned from displaying the different types of burgers they have on sale, or that the burgers be sold from under the counter. I wouldn't demand those little cardboard burger cartons carry a picture of a swollen heart plucked from a recently deceased burger fan. I wouldn't demand that burger bars be forced to apply for a special "burger licence", nor would I demand that an 18 certificate be slapped on all films that depict gratuitous burger eating.

Similarly, if I called for bottles of Chardonnay or Martini to be sold in brown paper bags and carry a picture of a diseased liver, you'd probably advise me to take some time off, or have a few drinks.

When it comes to smoking tobacco, however, all of the above are either already happening or being seriously considered by our Government. Apparently it wants to "protect children" – the classic excuse from those who want to take away your freedom. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for protecting children, but not only will none of these measures actually do that, but those who say they will are lying through their teeth.

The reason they support all these measures is because they want to turn smokers, the vast majority of whom are normal, law-abiding people, into lepers.

It is all rather nasty of course, but Scotland's smokers are getting used to it. It's the rest of you I feel sorry for. They are already trying to "denormalise" driving a car or going on holiday by plane. They'll soon be trying to do the same with drinking, cheeseburgers and, yes, even pies. After that, how long before they denormalise the books and films you like? How long before they denormalise words and ideas? How long before they denormalise you?

And by the way, while they're doing this, rebellious teenagers will be finding new and innovative ways to get their hands on tobacco, and all because the adults keep telling them not to. In case you're wondering, the best way to prevent kids from smoking is to actually enforce the existing age limit, instead of just talking about it.

So if you want to team up with the denormalisers, the very best of luck to you. But while you're being re-programmed, the rest of us will be out in the beer garden with a drink, a fag and something with cheese on it.

• Neil Rafferty is Scottish spokesman for smokers' rights group Forest





The full article contains 534 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 02 April 2008 9:49 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Tobacco
 
1

Robert,

Kirriemuir 02/04/2008 10:19:15
Not so long ago there was a movement on tv to stop the elderly from driving as some (not all of them) were unfit to do so yet statiscally the highest incident of accidents and the most serious of them fell in the age range below 25. The crazy thing is if the most dangerous of drivers were stopped from driving there would always be a group recognised as being the most dangerous and the only way to resolve this paradox would be to stop everyone from driving! There has to be an area where those who chose to smoke can do so in comfort and without being treated as pariahs and this comes from someone who does not smoke but whose parents did. Consider too, should we, for example, also ban everyone who is ill from eating to reduce the burden on the poor overstretched medical services? Obviously this is a crazy statement but it looks like the direction in which society is going. A little more tolerance, please.
2

DeniseX,

London 02/04/2008 10:34:04
The Government is only thinking of our health? First the smoking ban. Next the drinking ban or the eating ban. We will soon be able to live sad lives until we reach 150 years old.
3

Davy,

Macdonalds 02/04/2008 11:01:04
Oppress & control the masses

http://www.theinsider.org/reports/new-world-order/

Check it out and you will understand the big picture.
4

Irn-Bruce,

Edinburgh 02/04/2008 12:31:15
The difference between Mr Rafferty's junk food and alcohol examples is the effects on the 3rd parties.

If someone near me is eating junk food, or drinking (a responsible amount of) alcohol, then I am unaffected by that person's actions.

If, however, that person smokes, then I _AM_ (adversely) affected - the effects of passive smoking are well documented.

In order to remain unaffected, I would have to move away from the smoker. In many situations, this may be possible (cinema, on a flight ... etc.) but, even if moving is possible, why should I? I was there first, when the place wasn't a health risk to me. Someone else has caused the place to become unhealthy (and/or unpleasant), so that person should move.

I appreciate that legislation may go to far, so Mr Rafferty's group can make _some_ valid points (I don't have an issue with, for example, sealed smoking areas in public places, so smokers can stay indoors without affecting me), but his examples in this article are bad.

I also feel that the new proposals around tobacco displays, and the smoking age, will have little no impact at all, so is probably pointless, but that doesn't invalidate the current (anti) smoking laws.
5

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

Newington 02/04/2008 13:06:16
Hopefully next in line will be wearers of perfume. I'm sick of coming under chemical attack from these freaks.
6

DaveA,

Forfarshire 02/04/2008 13:41:48
Irn-Bruce: I take it you have never has the displeasure of sitting on a bus with a Large Mac and Fries reeking of animal grease. I find it quite obnoxious. However would I want it banned, no I am naturally tolerant, it only lasts at the most ten minutes until I get home.
7

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 02/04/2008 13:51:31
Now what did I say 2 years ago?

The smoking ban has paved the way for even more oppressive legislation.

Stop for a minute and think about 10 things that annoy you and imagine how you'd feel if they were banned. Not difficult is it.

Now think about 10 things you enjoy but which may annoy other people and imagine if they were banned. Not very nice is it?

Living on this planet together is all about tolerance and compromise. It is not about minority groups of fascists deciding they will put a stop to something and then dream up all sorts of propaganda and hate to get their way.

#4: PASSIVE SMOKING DOES NOT EXIST. Got that? Good.
8

Bill Crombie,

02/04/2008 15:14:30
Excellent article by Neil Rafferty. I only hope it wakes up the general populous as to what our illustrious politicians are doing in our name - basically turning our country into a risk-adverse, dull place full of automatons. Wake up everyone and smell the coffee.
9

Lyn Smokes,

Worcester 02/04/2008 15:16:27
Irn-Bruce - should we assume then that you don't venture out doors due to the toxic effects of exhaust fumes, or do you wear a gas mask? These fumes are far more deadly and dangerous than any amount of second hand smoke! If you are in any doubt about this then there is a little experiment you can try. Just lock yourself in a garage with 20 or 30 smokers, who smoke constantly for an hour. At the end of this you may have a sore throat and runny eyes, but you will suffer no other ill affects. Now repeat the exercise but with one vehicle that has it's engine running - no smokers. It is quite likely that you will be dead at the end of an hour. Which is the more harmful?

We are surrounded by vehicle fumes every day, inside too when doors are opened and windows are open. If pubs, clubs, etc were allowed to permit smoking and use a certain level of ventilation to clean the air, then we would all be better off as this would also rid us of the toxins being brought in on the vehicle fumes whenever the door is opened or the windows are open.
10

Rollo Tommasi,

02/04/2008 16:20:53
More nonsense from the pro-smoking flat-earthers. There is clear evidence that passive smoking is a real health risk. And no amount of repeated yet unsubstantiated claims by the likes of Nazi-State Benzinkopf can counter that.

What you, as an adult, do to your own body is up to you. But your smoking is not just an inconvenience to others. It can affect their health. As IrnBruce says, the law is protecting innocent people from the effects of other people's smoke. And a good thing too.

Lynsmokes - All you are proving is why the law allows smokers to light up in the open air and why there are no drive-in pubs where patrons keep their engines running while they partake of a wee swally.
11

Plodjfriss, Hammer of the Numpties,

Edinburgh 02/04/2008 17:23:55
#7: "Stop for a minute and think about 10 things that annoy you and imagine how you'd feel if they were banned."

There's one thing I can think of straight away.
12

Bill Crombie,

02/04/2008 17:35:07
Rollo - No doubt your parents read you fairy stories as child and you probably enjoyed them. But your an adult now and these stories about passive smoking being so harmful are the same stories read by your parents - fairy stories to justify an unjustifiable smoking ban.
13

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 02/04/2008 18:19:34
I asked for that, didnt I Plodjfriss?
14

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 02/04/2008 18:35:34
The people wo believe in passive smoking are deluding themselves and are too sucked into the propaganda machine to think for themselves.

Take a look around you guys! Open your eyes!

The only people who have died because of smoking are HEAVY SMOKERS. Many of these smokers got through over 30 fags a day and some of them got through around 60 fags a day. Is it surprising that they made themselves ill?

Rollo,

If you are so insistant that you are right regarding passive smoking then give us all 5 examples of well-known celebrities who have been killed by passive smoking.

To start you off, here are 5 famous SMOKERS who died partly because they smoked to excess:-

1. Sammy Daives Jnr
2. Humphrey Bogart
3. Nat "King" Cole
4. King George V1
5. Betty Grable

Now let's see you contribute the NON-SMOKERS who were PROVEN to have died because of airborne tobacco smoke.
15

Rollo Tommasi,

02/04/2008 19:48:40
Fuel Head & Bill: Here are a couple of pretty compelling analyses of the various recent studies on passive smoking, which show just how real its risk to health is (in particular, the added risk of lung cancer and heart disease).
http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/scoth/PDFS/scothnov2004.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/drugs-alcohol/dn2430

And here's the evidence showing how passive smoking can be linked to hundreds of deaths in Scotland each year:
http://www.healthscotland.com/uploads/documents/MortalityStudy.pdf

The "Name X number of people who have proven to have died from passive smoking" line is a favourite of the pro-smoking lobby, but it's scientifically bogus. Of course, you could always try to prove me wrong by giving me the names of 5 medical doctors who disagree.

Now where's your evidence that passive smoking does not exist?
16

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 02/04/2008 20:05:42
#13, M. tête à l'essence.
Well, actually, yes.
However, I'm the last person to wish to have Petrol Man censored. I actually find his drivel more than a little amusing.
17

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 02/04/2008 20:22:35
#12, Bill Crombie.
BC surely realises that Neil Rafferty and FOREST are simply emissaries of the tobacco companies, and scarcely impartial commentators. Most of us would regard them as personifications of the wicked witch in "The Wizard of Oz", rather than of the tooth fairy. Or does Bill perhaps still believe in the tooth fairy too?
"an unjustifiable smoking ban."? Only to the dedicated nicotinics.
18

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K 02/04/2008 20:29:23
#4, Irn-Bruce,Edinburgh.
Very succinctly expressed.
Trouble is that the smokes have this antediluvian attitude that everywhere and everyone should accommodate their self centred desire for a nicotine fix, as when they require one.
19

Rose Leeds,

02/04/2008 20:31:01
Who is next?
The drinkers without a doubt, from the old lady with her sip of sherry to a drunk falling about in the street.No exemptions.
History is repeating itself, so after that it will be the obese.
We live in "interesting times".
20

Rollo Tommasi,

02/04/2008 21:09:54
Rose: Last time I checked, sherry wasn't known to cast off carcinogenic vapours which were linked to hundreds of deaths each year. So I think the old lady is safe.

Of course the new drinking laws simply bring the act of smoking in line with the act of drinking. Feel free to indulge, but just make sure others don't suffer as a result of your consumption.
21

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K 02/04/2008 21:30:31
#19, Tokyo Rose.
Rose's apocryphal allusion to the old sherry sipping lady is as realistic, and imaginative, as Shuggie Howitt's allegedly philanthropic concern for all his claimed army of disabled and unsighted smoking clientele. Any one know how he got on in court to-day? Any one care, apart from F2S?
22

Bill Crombie,

02/04/2008 21:39:48
The dynamic duo in the shape of Rollo and Dave the Rave Mills rear there ugly heads at the most predictable moments.

However, many scientific studies into passive smoking have failed conclusively to draw any conclusions to the whether passive sm0oking causes cancer in non-smokers. Only one in six studies show a possible raised risk in non-smokers. There are a whole myriad of others factors such as genetics, environment, lifestyle etc that could be the cause.

Laws should not be passed on bogus science and on the off-chance that it may cause cancer. Why not ban electricity pylons or mobile phones, as they could or maybe or perhaps cause cancers. Give me conclusive proof and I will be happy to concede, but at this point in time there is NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT PASSIVE SMOKING CAUSING ILL-HEALTH IN NON-SMOKERS.
23

Rollo Tommasi,

02/04/2008 22:05:09
Sorry Bill but you're wrong. You've been lied to by the pro-smoking websites. Deliberately or recklessly, they have completely misinterpreted the meaning of "Relative Risk" and misquoted experts in so doing.

If relative risk is used properly, you'll find the great majority of studies show a meaningful increase in risk from passive smoking - not just for lung cancer but also heart disease and possibly other conditions too.

The studies I cited at post 15 are possibly the most comprehensive assessments of the evidence out there. Both conclude there is a strong link between passive smoking and lung cancer and heart disease.

So do you have sound arguments against these conclusions, or are you just going to ignore their findings because they don't happen to fit your prejudiced viewpoint?
24

Rod,

Champfleurie Estate 02/04/2008 22:25:38
#5 Fernando
Hopefully next in line will be wearers of perfume

It has happened already, Fernando. My wife banned me from wearing perfume in May 2006!
25

Rod,

Champfleurie Estate 02/04/2008 22:29:34
There is a simple and effective way forward in all of this. The government should ban everything then the sactimonious will have nothing whatsover to crusade over except the ban on the things they enjoy but which harms others. I ask you, what could be clearer?
26

Rose Leeds,

02/04/2008 22:49:23
David and Rollo
The ‘passive effects' of alcohol misuse are catastrophic - rape, sexual assault, domestic and other violence, drunk driving and street disorder - alcohol affects thousands more innocent victims than passive smoking
http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/news/news.asp?PR_id=377
Don't be too sure.
27

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K 02/04/2008 23:12:30
#26, Tokyo Rose.
Rose, like so many of the smokes, chooses to attempt to try to deflect criticsm about smoking and its effects by shifting the agenda to the adverse effects of chronic alcoholism, overeating, diesel fumes, the war in Iraq, nuclear waste disposal, or any other straw that comes to hand. What's so very wrong with sticking to the main theme? Is it too hard to swallow?
28

Rollo Tommasi,

02/04/2008 23:26:48
Rose (26): I don't see your point. People are allowed to drink, provided their drinking doesn't harm others. All of the "passive effects" of alcohol misuse you refer to are already against the law.

That's exactly the same as what the new smoking laws do. People are free to smoke, but not in enclosed public places where their smoking may harm others.

The website you refer to lists a series of actions being called for by the Alcohol Health Alliance UK. As far as I can see, none of these measures are intended to reduce people's freedom to drink. They are about helping people make informed decisions about their drinking habits, encouraging not forcing) people to drink moderately and, in the case of of their last listed proposal, about changing assumptions about how much alcohol is "safe" for people who are driving.
29

Stef,

Bandera, Tx, formerly Edinburgh. 02/04/2008 23:40:27
Neil uses the word denormalisers, David from Newmills & Rollo Tommassi, certainly spring to mind, Government employed stooges covering the newspaper forums, just another part of the process of denormalisation this Labour junta have adopted. Fanatics and lunatics have taken over, get rid of all these useless critters.
30

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 02/04/2008 23:52:06
'Yep' folks, it starts with a little and just grows!

After-all, they got away with it!

10 years down the line, and the 'Blind' become,

"social outcasts"

Time to, 'Join the Revolution' .., 'Amigos'.
31

Exiled Leither,

03/04/2008 01:30:13
Until recently(new Year) I was a smoker, quite heavy I suppose about 20-30 a day. I Enjoyed smoking. everyone at work smokes. I gave up pureley for two simple reasons: 1, It was becoming expensive and 2, I watched several workmates older than I having to kickstart their lungs every morning by coughing up all manner of sh*t.
I just stopped, no cutting back and no patches etc, just stopped!
I now know how bad it was, I now sit in the smoky mess room on my boat and realise how unpleasent it is.
I don't get cravings and it doesn't bother me in that way but it is just unpleasent. Indeed I actually now feel guilty for doing it myself and infact appoligised to the only other non smoking crew member for all the stick I used to give him when he moaned about it.
I wouldn't like to comment on actual science of passive smoking but I do know that it is quite anti social which is ironic as it is quite a social habbit.
(Smoking act doesnt appertain to merchant vessels or oil rigs hense why there is still smoking allowed)
32

Riverkidca,

Swan River 03/04/2008 06:38:12
Try these.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/american-cancer-society-test-results.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2008/03/british-medical-journal-who-conclude.html

The latter from your esteemed British Medical Journal.
33

Rose Leeds,

03/04/2008 07:51:08
David and Rollo
Once again you miss the point entirely, prohibition seems to go in pairs throughout history. Smoking AND drinking.By your efforts to denormalize smokers you open the way for the persecution of drinkers.
The question in the title was "who is next?"
Now you can waffle on about smoking all you like,but I've been doing a little reading and my guess still stands.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/329/7480/1424
34

Rollo Tommasi,

03/04/2008 08:09:21
Riverkidca:
Well, unlike some other pro-smokers who thing that vindictive vitriol is the answer to any debate, at least you're offering some evidence.

But your first article simply covers exposure to nicotine. Tobacco smoke also contains other particulates, including tar (itself composed of many chemicals), benzene and benzo(a)pyrene. its also contains gases including carbon monoxide, ammonia, dimethylnitrosamine, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide and acrolein. Rather than trying to argue the risks of any of these contaminants individually, shouldn't you be looking at their collective effect when inhaled together as tobacco smoke? That's what the epidemiological studies.

As for your second reference, you'll be interested to know that the Enstrom & Kabat study was one of many which SCOTH considered in 2004. In light of all the evidence, they took the clear view that passive smoking constitutes a real risk of lung cancer and heart disease.
35

Rollo Tommasi,

03/04/2008 08:12:53
Rose: But smokers are not being "persecuted". Their right to smoke still exists. They simply have to make sure they don't do so in an enclosed public place where other people might be affected by their smoke.

And references back to Nazi Germany are as insulting and tasteless as they are irrelevant.
36

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 03/04/2008 08:37:45
It's fairly easy to see what has happened and what is happening.

We were allowed to become extremely liberal in our society where anything goes, everybody has rights and few unwritten rules. Now that the social deconstruction has taken place (and we have all noticed the consequences of too much liberlism) we are now cherry picking all the things that "annoy" us in the majority.

That is now leading to a banning of this or a banning of that or an enforced law here and enforced law there. It doesn't just effect the white middle class male of the UK (who thinks they are being persecuted more than anybody else) but has transcended all social strata.

Eventually it will turn a full circle and Social Norm will once again mean either conformity or exclusion.
37

Rose Leeds,

03/04/2008 08:43:22
I am sorry you find history insulting and tastless,most people try to learn by it. Presumably you consider Prohibition in America equally irrelevant.
38

DeniseX,

London 03/04/2008 09:52:45
Rollo
You are starting to doubt yourself. *28 'Their smoking MAY harm others'. *35 'people MIGHT be affected by their smoke'. You must be more positive.
39

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 03/04/2008 10:46:51
Rollo:

"The "Name X number of people who have proven to have died from passive smoking" line is a favourite of the pro-smoking lobby, but it's scientifically bogus."

What you really mean to say is that it is an awfully inconvenient question which you are unable to answer. This question must be a real thorn in the side of the antis. They are saying "passive smoking kills". Anyone with any sense is saying "OK, show me evidence of this". That is a perfectly reasonable question to ask. There is evidence that "active" smoking can kill. There is evidence that drinking to excess can kill. There is evidence that car crashes can kill. Need I go on? Why then does there seem to be no evidence that passive smoking kills, despite certain people banging on as if it was a proven fact?

This may be an "un-scientific" question to ask in the context of many passive smoking studies. In fact it probably is. The "science" surrounding passive smoking is non-science in any case. I have yet to read a study that says that passive smoking exists that properly examines the null hypothesis.

The pro passive smoking reports that I have read all start off by assuming that passive smoking is an issue and then use the shotgun approach to find out how many ways they can back this up. Once dressed up in scientific pomposity and jargon, with endless references to other such "works" added, it looks the part and to the layman is convincing.

Funny thing is, all the PROPER science on this subject tends to come down on the side of it not existing and at very best "inconclusive, but probably not".

Looking at the number of people killed by passive smoking is a logical next step once you have allegedly established the fact that passive smoking is an issue. Why on earth would you not want to do that? You have just found something that kills people. Why would you not wish to find out how many people it has killed already? Why would you not wish to back up your experimental conclusions with hard
40

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 03/04/2008 10:49:39
cont...

Why would you not wish to back up your experimental conclusions with hard evidence? If your science is valid then there should be no problem with this.

The collective pro passive smoking studies must be some of the only ones in scientific history where when people ask for demonstrable proof of the hypothesis, they are rediculed. This is not such a complex subject that it requires a high level of expertise to understand. Either people are being killed by passive smoking or they are not. If they ARE being killed by passive smoking, there would be evidence to support that in the form of dead bodies with death certificates and post mortum reports linking their death to passive smoking. If they are not then these would not exist. That is a simple and straightforward fact. You do not need to be a scientist to understand it.
41

DeniseX,

London 03/04/2008 11:23:59
*27 David of New Mills appears to be getting worried. He wants to stick to the smoking debate, simply to have a laugh at smokers. He calls himself a 'restrictionist' providing HE is not restricted. To ask what is next disturbs him, as he knows that he could will be next.
42

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 03/04/2008 11:25:50
#29, Stef,Bandera, Tx, formerly Edinburgh.
Poor Stefano, like Neil Rafferty, has the wrong end of the stick, as always.
The term "denormalisers" is superfluous, as smoking is neither the norm, nor natural.
Now that he has uncovered Rollo and myself as "Government employed stooges", perhaps he will come clean about himself and confirn that he's employed at the San Quentin mailbag works, with the sideline of Forest's U.S. correspondent.
Foolish boy!
43

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 03/04/2008 11:35:24
#41,DeniseX,London.
Denise is confused again. My feeling about smokers is more akin to pity and derision, although I do find the postings from the likes of stef, Petrol Head, Carlo Rossi, Charles Linskaill and others good entertainment value, if at times near incomprehensible. Viz #30, just what IS he saying? Any one know?
Perhaps Denise could forecast in what respect I "could will be next"? Which is it-could? will?
44

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 03/04/2008 11:52:21
#31, Exiled Leither.
Congratulations to EL for recognising the harm his addiction had been causing him, and its anti-social effects on others on his vicinity.
I really hope he continues to forsake his old "pleasure".
45

GrahamB,

Earth 03/04/2008 12:41:52
As an eminent rocket scientist who has also dabbled with brain surgery, theology, architecture, the history of Ancient Rome and Egypt along with a few other lesser subjects, I have, after much thought, concluded that the answer to our problems are, although not simple, pubs for non-smokers and pubs for smokers. I realize that this solution may be too complex to be understood by the masses but, given sufficient thought, a basic understanding of my theory might surface.
Thank the Good Lord for providing scroll wheels on some mice, if you get my meaning!
46

wee one,

03/04/2008 13:39:13
I don't smoke. My husband does.

Since the ban, he has been able to cut down to smoking only one or two cigarettes a week. For this, he is extremely grateful for the ban. I am also grateful as I can go out for a drink or a meal with my husband and not come back stinking of smoke. I can also wear my contact lenses when I'm out, which I couldn't do before as the combination of smoke and contact lenses made my eyes sore! A minor point, I know.

However, I say all this because the reasons that most people I know (both smokers and non-smokers) agree with the ban are nothing to do with the risks of passive smoking - which we could argue about all day.

They are everything to do with simply being able to socialise in a pleasant atmosphere (for the non-smokers) and feeling more able to either cut down or stop smoking (for the smokers).

I think the main benefit of this ban will be seen in future generations, who won't see drinking and smoking as coming hand in hand. And anyone who thinks "denormalising" smoking is a BAD thing has obviously never seen a loved one die of lung cancer. Not nice.
47

DeniseX,

London 03/04/2008 17:55:58
David. Your turn is coming. When the Government puts restrictions on drinking, the smokers will be lining up to laugh at you.
48

Bill Crombie,

03/04/2008 19:08:58
#47 - Denise, the likes of David New Mills are cowards, happy to hide behind a keyboard and mouse, but unlikely to venture into a pub and spout out his support for the smoking ban and obvious hatred of smokers. As you say, HMG is gunning for the drinkers and the car drivers, so one way or another the smug David New Mills will become a target. I, for one, will not weep at this prospect.
49

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville. 03/04/2008 19:59:26
#47,DeniseX,London.
When that day comes, smokers will either be dead or a distant memory. Either way, they'll be in no state to be lined up laughing, unless she believes "Torchwood" is reality.
50

David from New Mills,

Heroic and fug free Pleasantville 03/04/2008 20:27:09
#48, Bill Crombie.
BC, like many of the smokes, lives in some fanciful dream world, as I probably "venture" into more pubs than he.
In my "venturings" I have often expressed my support for fug free pubs. Many patrons, bar staff, and landlords have agreed with me. The difference now is that the hardened smokers have to slope outside for their fix, disgruntled and scowling, or otherwise.
Not sure when or how Denise mentioned drivers, but am happy to await further restrictions from HMG be they on burgers or Rafferty's favoured pies.
As I've said in the past, I don't "hate" smokers per se, just their obnoxious fumes.

51

Rollo Tommasi,

03/04/2008 21:42:14
Fuel head: The danger of passive smoking is not that it kills people directly. It's that it increases the risks of people succumbing to lung cancer and heart disease. Death certificates might explain what people die of, but they're not good at explaining what factors led to somebody contracting a particular ailment.

There are many risks to people's health that you won't find on death certificates. For example, radon gas, air pollution, exposure to various chemicals, too few vitamins, UV light as well as passive smoking. All of those risks are real nonetheless.

Most of the epidemiological studies showing dangers from passive smoking are sound and robust. They're also subject to peer review, which I hope you don't mind my saying involved more expertise and objectivity than your comments provide.

If you think I'm wrong, don't bother with any more unsubstantiated witter. Either point me in the direction of the various passive smoking studies you claim to be flawed or provide some proper evidence to back up your polemic that passive smoke is safe.
52

Tim85,

Lancs, England 03/04/2008 22:10:47
There are plenty of passive effects from alcohol misuse, Rollo. Ethyl alcohol, after all (the alcohol which many of us drink) disperses in the air, and is a recognised Class A carcinogen. Don't believe me? Try leaving a large glass of Martini in a room on its own for a couple of days. It will most likely all but disappear. Unless the cat drank it, it will have dispersed throughout the air. And you breathe class A carcinogens every time you enter a pub ...

And remember, these class A carcinogen disperse throughout the air in far larger quantities than the amount contained within cigarettes.

When are you joining the Prohibition campaign, Rollo?

Too few vitamins? Have scurvy or aneamia never appeared on death certificates?

David # 49 - I always knew you were a Nazi. And before anyone invokes Godwin's Law, that post REALLY DOES sound like he's advocating the extermination of between a fifth and a quarter of the population. Unless he's saying that no current smoker will be alive to see the day alcohol is banned (which may or may not be true, but then again, if the prospect is so far into the future, no non-smoker will be either. Sorry to disillusion you of your eternal life fantasies). Or unless he is suggesting that tobacco can ever effectively be banned (Bhutan!)

So which is it? Are you a Nazi, a prohibitionist, or simply an idiot? Or would you care to retract that comment and apply for re-entry into the human race?


"What you really mean to say is that it is an awfully inconvenient question which you are unable to answer. This question must be a real thorn in the side of the antis. They are saying "passive smoking kills". Anyone with any sense is saying "OK, show me evidence of this". That is a perfectly reasonable question to ask. There is evidence that "active" smoking can kill. There is evidence that drinking to excess can kill. There is evidence that car crashes can kill. Need I go on? Why then does there seem to be no evidence that passive smo
53

Tim85,

03/04/2008 22:17:10
(Cont'd):

High Octane Fuel Head:

It is an unreasonable question to ask for proof that anyone has actually died from passive smoking. Epidemiology is unimpeachable. Never mind the fact that its foremost pioneer testified to the safe effects of Agent Orange. Or was in the pay of asbestos companies. Or studied in Nazi Germany. IT IS UNIMPEACHABLE.

In fact, medical science is unimpeachable. Those cots deaths caused by bad medical advice given out for years? They never happened.

In fact, science is unimpeachable. That ice age they predicted in the 1970s? There's clear evidence that we accelerate towards it every year.

We have reached the pinnacle of human existence. The Victorians, the Romans, the Greeks, all thought they had. They were idiots. We have. So just shut up and believe what you are told, you annoying fly in the ointment ;).
54

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 04/04/2008 01:39:40
43 David from New Mills,Pleasantville, U.K.,

"Viz #30, just what IS he saying? Any one know?"

OK who is to say! People that are discriminated on, like our 'Smokers'

Wont Lead, to.."I Don't Like your Face". being,

'Social Outcasts'?
55

Stef,

Bandera, Tx, formerly Edinburgh. 04/04/2008 03:54:45
#42 David from Newmills, FINALLY WE HAVE THE ADMISSION FROM
DAVID as I have always suspected, you are just another of these small time weasels employed by this corrupt, inept and wicked Government. Just like in the 1930's the Nazi's had no problems in finding fanatics like yourself and this lunatic Rollo character to perpetuate 'THE BIG LIE'. Thankfully like that wicked regime expired after a terrible period of history, this wicked regime wont last much longer, folk are slowly waking up to the corruption, deceit and lies. I hope there will be a full inquiry, ASH, CRUK exposed along with all the seedy characters like yourself and Tommassi who carry out their grubby clandestine dirty work. What's this new drivel about San Quentin? David, like your employers another load of old rubbish to detract from any sensible debate and spread hatred.
56

Rollo Tommasi,

04/04/2008 07:46:00
Well pro-smokers. You really have excelled yourselves this time.

Your dedicated reliance on homespun conspiracy theories.

Your absolute refusal to point to any evidence to back up your case.

Your determination to ignore objective, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence, again without the slightest hint of any supporting evidence.

Your continued success in failing to point out any specific examples of the so-called "lies" by the likes of ASH and CRUK.

All of these have reached new levels on this topic.

And you've even managed to demonstrate the full extent of your debating prowess by throwing such devastating terms as "Nazi", "lunatic" and "seedy characters" at David and myself.

You must be so proud.
57

Fj,

London 04/04/2008 09:26:21
Sorry, I'm not aware of these unquestioned and fully peer reviewed 'surveys' you mention. I'm aware of many surveys - including 9 on ETS that state a beneficial effect- and I'm also aware that the majority show no change, but not the one's you mention. On the basis that you'll never prove a negative, which one's are you talking about? It's not really relevant as the ban is political, but I'd be interested to see something I've missed. Another question. After 50 years at least and many millions spent, can you blame people for being just a little suspicious over the failure to find a direct link?
58

David from New Mills,

Articulate Pleasantille, U.K. 04/04/2008 11:41:56
#54, Charles Linskaill,Edinburgh.
Could Charles please put some energy into making a contribution in some kind of meaningful English so we might possibly understand his point.
59

David from New Mills,

Sane, untroubled Pleasantville, U.K. 04/04/2008 11:56:46
#55, Stef,Bandera, Tx,
If Stefano is really happy to believe that I'm part of some Government inspired conspiracy to repress the populace, so be it. At least it'll keep him subdued for a while until the men in the white coats manage to recapture him.
"another load of old rubbish to detract from any sensible debate and spread hatred." Quite so, pardner.
60

David from New Mills,

Highly intelligent Pleasantville, U.K. 04/04/2008 12:24:23
#52,Tim85,Lancs, England.
Oh dear, oh dear. Tim is really having to scrape out his barrel of laughs by substituting allegations of Naziism for any form of cogent argument. I would placate his fertile imagination by stating that I was never advocating that the smoking populace be marched off to the gas chambers or taken out and shot, but simply that they would either have expired or seen reality and renounced their harmful addiction (viz. #31) by the time Denise's imaginary restrictions came about. Note Denise didn't use the word "ban", which the pro-smokers are so careless in the use of.
As non-smokers will probably outlive most smokers, perhaps they'll have a better chance of seeing Denise's hypothetical forecast come true. Let's see who's still posting here in 10 or 20 years' time?
So I'm neither Nazi nor prohibitionist, and feel no need to prove my sanity to the likes of Tim or his unmerry ragtag band of cohorts.
Sadly Tim's posting seems to tail away and jump to....
#53, where it's not clear whether he thinks he's Petrol Head, or is addressing him. Until he regains his balance and the plot, I shall happily ignore his idiocy in that posting.
61

DeniseX,

London 04/04/2008 17:03:11
Pleasantville (The film).
David has few friends and cannot even drum up the courage to talk to a girl on whom he has a crush. He spends most of his spare time on the couch, watching television.
62

Rollo Tommasi,

04/04/2008 17:28:02
FJ: Check the references to the SCOTH report for a whole heap of studies: http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/scoth/PDFS/scothnov2004.pdf.

So what studies are you claiming "show no change"? I don't recognise that term. I hope you've not been duped into misapplying the Relative Risk test. Pro-smoking groups may tell you that no finding is significant unless it shoes a relative risk of 2 or more. Well they're wrong. They've corrupted the science and selectively misquoted scientists in doing so. The many studies showing a relative risk of, say, 1.2 or 1.4 still demonstrate a clear association between passive smoking and disease.
63

Fj,

London 04/04/2008 18:47:47
So statisticians and the BMJ sre wrong, then? That anything below 3 could easily be the result of error, statistical or otherwise? That the BMJ doesn't bother with results below this figure for the same reason? O.K. they're both wrong, then. As an example, take the WHO which if I'm correct is said to have found an 'increase' of 24%. This sounds a lot until you e.g. put it into Doll's statistics. He stated that a non smoker has a 0.001% chance of lung Cancer anyway, so without going into the model, that would mean an increase to the dizzy heights of 0.00124%! This is precisely why these things don't see an official light of day. They're nothing, with a massive statistical chance of error or subject misrepresentation at this level. Yes, I've seen what SCOTH says and it's not what you intimate. Sorry, I still fail to find these 'robust' and 'peer reviewed' surveys. Most of them are available to be checked, you just don't like the majority that don't agree with you, a bit like polls. The other point is that in any other walk of life, after this length of time and costs involved, it would by now have been ditched as a failure.
64

David from New Mills,

It's a Wonderful Life, the movie. 04/04/2008 20:07:06
#61,DeniseX,London.
Couch potato Denise exhibits the same wondrous degree of imagination as the rest of the pro-smoking lads and ladettes. Keep dreaming, as they say. It may all come true one day, just as U.K. wide smoking restrictions have.
Perhaps she's been reading too many Mills and Boon novelettes when Paul O'Grady and the Weakest Link became too much to stomach, even for her?
65

Rollo Tommasi,

05/04/2008 12:15:25
FJ: Show me where the BMJ is demanding a relative risk of 3. Point out the other scientists who are demanding likewise. It’s a lie, spun by the likes of Dave Hitt, Michael J McFadden and forces.org. They’ve deliberately misquoted the National Cancer Institute, Robert Temple and Marcia Angell in an effort to back up their corrupted interpretation of the science.

If the BMJ doesn’t accept the science behind passive smoking, why has it accepted for publication so many studies which show a clear link? Here are 3 recent examples:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/bmj.38146.427188.55v1
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7495/812
http://heart.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/93/3/309

You severely under-estimate the risk to health which passive smoking presents. SCOTH said “we would expect an additional 2-3 lung cancer cases a year per 100,000 non-smokers regularly exposed to ETS.” Year by year, that risk would increase. So, over 40 years, a non-smoker’s risk of contracting lung cancer from passive smoking would increase to around 1 in 1,000. Research suggests that passive smoking is responsible for around 9 times deaths from heart attacks than from lung cancer. So, over 40 years, a non-smoker’s risk of contracting either lung cancer or heart disease from passive smoking might be 1 in 100. Suddenly those figures are looking quite a bit scarier, are they?

The bottom line is that the overall conclusion to be drawn from the many studies out there is that passive smoking presents a clear risk to people’s health and can be associated with the deaths of hundreds of people in Scotland alone each year. If you want to follow the pro-smoking lobby’s corrupted interpretation of these studies to get the answer you want, then feel free. But it doesn’t make you right.
66

Bald headed John,

UK 05/04/2008 17:04:18
Rollo,
The reason that Relative Risks that have been found in passive smoking studies are statistically insignificant is not because they are below 2.
The reason is that the confidence interval takes the rr to below 1, therefore showing a protective effect.

Please do better research.
67

Rollo Tommasi,

05/04/2008 17:55:06
Bald headed John,

You'll find the pro-smoking websites are very quick to claim that passive smoking studies are meaningless unless they show a Relative Risk of 2 or more. That is at the heart of their claim that passive smoking is supposedly safe.

As for the ranges of results from a study, that all depends on the confidence interval you quote in a particular case.

Please do better research.
68

DeniseX,

London 06/04/2008 08:23:13
David.'He spends most of his spare time on the couch, watching television'. This should have said on his computer. As for couch potato, some of us have to work for a living and have social lives. I'll carry on reading 'Mills and Boon' and leave you to continue reading the Beano and Dandy.
69

Fj,

London 06/04/2008 12:12:20
Again, Rollo, you ignore the others that don't show any change. You are being selective. All you're doing, like polls, is selecting the ones you like whilst ignoring the majority. The SCOTH you selectively mention is on a par with the WHO i.e. 2/3 per 100,000. It still has the effect of producing a 'risk' factor as I've stated above incorporating Doll's figures and is, therefore statistically insignificant. Statisticians and BMJ apply this procedure to all studies, not just smoking. This shows nothing unless you are firmly of the belief that 1/2 per 100,000 justifies completely banning the remaining 999,000+. At best, it's disproportionate nonsense. This ban is pure politics and bad governence. When you've got nothing fresh to do and your ideals are failing, this is what happens.
70

David from New Mills,

Comic free Pleasantville, U.K. 06/04/2008 13:36:52
#68, Deni seX, London.
May Deni enjoy her working and social life, on or off the couch, in between chapters of Mills and Boon's latest novella. My couch is a bit bit low to reach my computer How low is Deni's?
Not sure if Beano and Dandy still being published. Perhaps she could advise?
71

DeniseX,

London 06/04/2008 14:57:54
*70 The Beano and Dandy were for children, but perhaps you now prefer men only.
72

Rollo Tommasi,

06/04/2008 15:05:50
Fj: I am being anything but selective. I am quoting the most comprehensive assessments of studies out there. You claim I'm ignoring the majority of studies but you don't seem to be able to refer to any of these yourself. You them claim - again with absolutely no supporting evidence - the BMJ and statisticians rule the results of these studies as "statistically insignificant". You have no answer for the examples I give of studies published in the BMJ which conclude that passive smoking presents a clear risk to health.

And then you continue to hide behind a statistic about an individual's risks from ONLY ONE DISEASE and only in ONE SINGLE YEAR. As I said earlier, a non-smoker suffering regular exposure to passive smoking faces a risk of dying from lung cancer or heart disease of the order of 1:100 over the course of 40 years.

Taking your own argument, a non-smoker regularly exposed to passive smoke has a 2-3 in 10,000 chance of falling to lung cancer or heart disease in a particular year. Here's a comparison for you. In a particular year, around 1 in 20,000 people in Scotland will die in a road traffic accident. So a person's risk of falling foul of disease from regular exposure to passive smoke is a lot higher than their risk of adding to RTA statistics. Presumably then in your world there is no point in having measures to make cars, roads and pedestrians safer, if the chances of dying in a RTA are so insignificant??
73

Fj,

London 06/04/2008 18:32:57
Rollo, The Greek coronary survey you mention cannot be taken seriously. 'Despite the limitations that our survey has' I presume this means that it has to be dependant upon questions such as 'How often a day are you exposed to SHS and for how long?' A bit like the famous and laughable Butler report. I'm afraid most of us need a little more convincing that any conclusions drawn from leading questions to somebody in a state of need and fully dependant on an honest answer. Life's a bit like that. On the 'honest' answers to these 'questions' they conclude that 46% were due to ETS? Hardly robust science, is it? And that is the problem with these surveys. They are completely unconvincing. Anyone relying on stuff such as this is a bit desperate. Sorry, I'll continue to relate to Doll as the only one difficult to argue against. The rest is finger in the air. And if he says it takes 50 years for a smoker to reach a 16% chance of LC, how long will it take a non smoker who is occasionally exposed to diluted smoke? I'd hazard about 10,000 years. It's not the job of smokers to prove, it's the anti's who have to prove and it isn't there.
74

Rollo Tommasi,

06/04/2008 19:22:10
Fj: I quoted 3 reports. You only took exception to one. Can I assume that you accept the conclusions of the other 2 studies?

I listed the 3 reports as examples of what the BMJ considers appropriate to publish. The Greek study is not the definitive word on passive smoking. But, however much you object to it, it was scrutinised and found suitable for inclusion in the BMJ.

I don't recognise the statements you attribute to Sir Richard Doll. Please provide a hyperlink and I'll be happy to consider the contents.

In any event, if you treat Doll and the BMJ as authoritative sources on passive smoking, you'll be interested in these reports published in the BMJ in 1997. Doll contributed to both. They show a clear link between passive smoking and lung cancer and heart disease respectively.

http://www.bmj.com/archive/7114/7114pr2.htm
http://www.bmj.com/archive/7114/7114pr1.htm

And you still haven't pointed out where the BMJ and statisticians say they ignore any study with a relative risk of less than 3. Nor have you directed me towards your so-called "majority" of studies which show no increased risk from passive smoking. Again, please provide hyperlinks and I'll be very happy to look at them.
75

David from New Mills,

Smut free Pleasantville, U.K. 06/04/2008 20:06:39
#71, Deni seX, London.
No idea whether Men Only, Lilliput, the Beano or Dandy are still in print, as Deni hasn't elucidated.
Personally, I prefer more serious reading material, leaving the likes of the tabloids and other juvenile literature to the couch potatoes and "tinnie" drinkers.
So Deni, as is her wont, seems to prefer to indulge in perpetually futile fantasies.
76

Stef,

Bandera, Tx, formerly Edinburgh. 07/04/2008 05:47:19
#56 Rollo'
Not pro-smoking, PRO-CHOICE, something that offends fanatics, there was always a compromise, it did not occur, and it is these evil characters that you support.
77

David from New Mills,

Smoke free Pleasantville, U.K. 07/04/2008 11:37:15
#76, Stef,Bandera, Tx, no longer of Edinburgh.
Our fanatical extremist, and conspiratorial theory detection expert, Stefano may have failed to note that Rollo had employed the term "pro-smokers", as opposed to those who are "pro-smoking". The two are not of necessity synonomous, as people can recognise smokers' legal right to smoke in appropriate places, without advocating the unhealthy habit itself.
Stefano really must stay out of the hot Texas sun, and not partake of too many tequilas in order to avoid being haunted by his fixations about "evil and seedy characters".
78

Fj,

London 07/04/2008 12:12:49
No, Rollo, You disagree (unsurprisingly), you quote. There is no point checking this link and that link as they are all the same format. You're unable to give any survey whatsoever that isn't reliant on complete heresay with not one verifiable fact at it's base and then awards itself a 90+% confidence factor. It is no answer to say 'you prove it doesn't'. This whole scam is incredible and lowers the 'integrity' of genuine science.
79

DeniseX,

London 07/04/2008 20:54:53
*75 David. I seem to have hit a raw nerve with your preferences. If you don't like futile fantasies, may I suggest that you don't keep trying to insult others and making futile comments yourself, like you have just done with Stef. If you are cannot make sensible comments, don't bother.
80

David from New Mills,

Fantasy free Pleasantville, U.K. 07/04/2008 21:14:32
#79, Deni seX.
No raw nerve was pierced, and no preferences were detected. I have no problem with Deni indulging in whatever fantasies invade her life, and I'm sure vindictive Stefano can speak for himself in his own peculiarly vituperative way. "If you are cannot make sensible comments," This means what exactly? Regardless of Deni's preferences, I shall continue to bother.
81

Rollo Tommasi,

07/04/2008 23:12:04
Fj: I've offered studies which have been peer reviewed and published in authoritative professional journals.

What do you do? Make wild claims about what statisticians, the BMJ and Sir Richard Doll are supposed to have said....and then wilfully refuse to offer any proof to back up these claims.

I'm confident in the facts behind what I'm saying. How can you say the same?