Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Fire still burning in belly and ashtray of smoke-ban battler

AT LARGE

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

Published Date: 06 January 2008
AS I approach Blackpool by train, the famous tower juts above green fields, a raised middle finger to Middle England's settled ideas of good taste and restraint.
This Lancashire seaside town acknowledges no tomorrows, merely the right of the individual to party right here, right now. It is, therefore, the most natural place in the world for someone to take a stand against the smoking ban.

Hugh Howitt, a Gl
aswegian known to all as Hamish, has been a pub landlord in Blackpool for 11 years. He owns and runs the Happy Scots Bar, a former theatre so close to the sea front that spray soaks and corrodes the pro-smoking posters covering its facade. In November, Howitt became the first landlord in England to be prosecuted for flouting the smoking ban. He was fined £500 and ordered to pay £2,000 in costs. Yet he continues to allow customers to puff away on his premises.

I meet him on an ash-grey day. A slender man of 55 with spiky silver hair, Howitt has so much energy Blackpool Council could use him to power the illuminations. He and his wife, Jo, pick me up from the station in a Mercedes, the interior somewhat chewed by their two shih tzu dogs. The Howitts have 14 pets, including two toads, a lizard, a brace of lovebirds, Zasu the toucan, and a parrot which speaks fluent Glaswegian and is forever imploring Jo to "put the kettle on, doll".

In his car, Howitt points to the hole where the stereo used to be. "No point reporting it to the police," he says, shaking his head. "They won't do anything."

He says it's ridiculous that 200 police and enforcement officers have visited his pub since the smoking ban was introduced in July yet real criminals go unchallenged. Smoking has become the prism through which he sees the world. Through a fag darkly.

He parks outside his home and we go in. Having spent around £50,000 on his campaign, and expecting larger fines, Howitt is facing bankruptcy. The kids have been taken out of private school, and Jo's parents have loaned thousands. He, meanwhile, is exhausted, stressed and on every type of pill. It seems like an obsession tipping over into masochism, but Howitt is clear about why he is doing this and how it began.

"This all started with my boy," he sighs. "I lost my 21-year-old. I would never have done this if that hadn't happened. It was the pivotal point in my life."

Derek went missing in late September 2003. His body washed ashore the following month and the circumstances of death remain unknown. Howitt was devastated but found comfort in alcohol, cigarettes, and the sanctuary of his pub.

"After the funeral we opened up all three bars and had 2,000 people through that day," he recalls. "All these relatives and friends were coming up and giving me a cuddle. If it happened now, I would have to stand outside to smoke. When I most needed dignity and privacy, I would actually be mocked and stared at by people who never spent a penny in the pub in their life."

For Howitt the smoking ban is "a hate crime" against the working class, members of which he argues are more likely to be smokers and regular pub-goers. He no longer smokes, has taught his nine children it is a bad habit, and wishes the Government would ban tobacco. However, he believes that while people live in poverty they should have the right to smoke in pubs.

"If you are getting stuffed by society and the Government's not doing anything for you, why would you give up the only comfort you've got – a fag and a pint?"

We drive round to the part of the Happy Scots Bar in which Howitt allows smoking. Although the ban was only introduced in England in July, the ashtrays lying on tables already appear anachronistic, a feeling amplified by the smoke in the air and Spandau Ballet's 'True' on the jukebox. I am introduced to one regular, a 74-year-old gent, dapper in a check sports jacket, who tells me "human life would not be worth living" if he couldn't come here for a cigarette and drink.

People visit from all over just so they can smoke in his bar, says Howitt. One blind woman comes down from Denistoun. A Christian and socialist, Howitt regards himself as catering in particular for the old and infirm, people he says would otherwise be starved of human contact.

Howitt grew up in the north-east of Glasgow in the Garngad slums, one of 12 children, and dreamed of becoming a doctor. Although he won a partial bursary to grammar school, the family couldn't afford the rest of the fees.

Bitter, he became involved with a local gang and, aged 17, went to prison for serious assault. On release, he got out of Glasgow and spent 20 years running bars around the world before returning to spend time with his father, who was dying of lung cancer.

It's clear Howitt changed his life after prison, working hard to become a better person and make a good living. It's also clear that if he persists with his campaign he faces financial ruin and a custodial sentence for non-payment of fines.Yet he feels he would be an apathetic coward if he didn't resist the ban. He has formed a political party, Fight Against Government Suppression (Fags), and believes he can change the law eventually.

We go back outside. "I would never do this if I thought it was just about smoking," he insists. "If I win, my kids will grow up in a freer world. I've not got the funds, though, and I'm converting my house into flats to try to save everything. It's how far you'll go. But I've nowhere to go any more."

He leans into the wind coming off the Irish Sea, Blackpool Tower at his back. "I don't see a way out for me. I really don't."



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 05 January 2008 6:46 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Tobacco
 
1

Exocet,

In Nazi Occupied Britain 06/01/2008 00:32:11
Every licensee in Scotland reading this story should hang their head in shame at their lack of support for Hamish. This is not just about the Smoking Ban and the sooner you realise it the better, it is a concerted attack on society by the bigots of ASH and ASH Scotland and a Government full of MP's with no credibility. It is now a well accepted fact that passive smoking does not kill and neither ASH nor the Government can provide evidence to the contrary.
Hamish's fight is all about the " Freedoms" that the citizens of this country are slowly being deprived of, while the UK is the most " surveilled" country in the world with one CCTV camera for every four of the population. Support Hamish in this fight and you will be helping to halt the trend towards the ending of democracy.
2

Rollo Tommasi,

Edinburgh 06/01/2008 01:00:18
Sorry to rain on your parade Exocet, but your so-called "well accepted fact" is nothing of the sort. There is plenty of evidence showing a link between passive smoking and lung cancer, heart disease and other conditions.
3

lemat,

06/01/2008 01:26:46
How disgusting that the anti-smoking lobby have brought a proud and genuine man to the brink of bankruptcy, to think that the UK used to be a place where people came to escape tyranny, yet here we find smokers in the same position as those fleeing persecution. What the likes of Rollo don't understand is that this IS NOT about smoking, and I'm afraid that sooner or later he/she will wake up to the fact. What is being done is social engineering of the worst kind, polarising society.

Rollo states there is plenty of evidence showing links to passive smoking, if that's the case why is that ASH, whenever challenged to a public debate with pro-choice organisations quickly decline, demonising smokers is now the most fashionable pastime in the land. The evidence put forward by scienitists/doctors and others is for the sole purpose of maintaining their grants, any dissent they're withdrawn. Have you not realised yet Rollo, this is about money & control.

Sorry Rollo but the repetitive standard respone from pro-ban is, quite frankly getting very boring. Hamish has more integrity in his little finger, and understands more about freedom than you, ASH or the zealots ever will. Your time will come for a ban, make no mistake about it.
4

Tim85,

06/01/2008 01:59:23
Having met Hamish, he seems a very genuine bloke. He is right in saying that the smoking ban has hit the working class the hardest - it is working mens' clubs and wet led pubs that will go bankrupt before those in more affluent areas.

Still want to know 3 people passive smoking has killed, Rollo. (Or has been conclusively proven to have caused fatal heart disease / lung cancer in, since you'll most likely be pedantic).

By the way, Rollo, I've always meant to ask you this. Would you support the introduction of health warnings on whole milk?
5

Chuckles,

in Nazi occupied London 06/01/2008 03:25:44
Unfortunately I never met Hamish who I heard is a wonderful person but shame on the other publicans who are not backing him! Not only that he simbolises the battle against the tyranny of New Labour!

Exactly it is about the fact we are losing all the freedoms- you know theres more CCTVs in the UK than the rest of the world combined!
6

BeeGee,

06/01/2008 09:13:31
Rollo you claim ' There is plenty of evidence showing a link between passive smoking and lung cancer, heart disease and other conditions' My question to you is provide proof of that evidence as organisations such as the World Health Organisations would just love to read it.

The Scottish Government has failed to publish the most recent supposed study carried out by Prof Jill Pell after much hearalding in the media way back on the 10th September 2007. Even good old Aunty BBC has revealed the truth for once. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7093356.stm

So come on Rollo... provide the evidence just as we have been asking the Scottish Government to do.

7

Rob Simpson,

UK 06/01/2008 09:32:26
I'm sorry to be pedantic but Rollo is correct, there IS plenty of evidence to suggest an elevated risk of lung cancer associated with passive smoking, unfortunately most of the evidence isn't very good. Even SCoTH admit as much. This is supposed to be a freedom loving country and as such the removal of a choice, ANY choice should only be done with great reluctance and the evidence supporting it should be incontrovertable.
The principal defender of our freedoms, the government, should, at every opportunity, seek to increase the choices available to the public and not remove them on a whim (the smoking ban was debated for less than a day; that constitutes a whim in my book), especially when it's obvious that a new law will cause financial hardship for thousands.
This country would be a better place if we had more people like Hamish Howitt and far worse if we had more puritanical zealots like Maureen Moore.
8

Mikey,

06/01/2008 10:34:08
The non smoking brigade are the new Puritans, determined to stamp out choice and the ability to live one's life the way one sees fit.

As far as I'm aware, the majority of smokers do not demand the right to smoke anywhere they like, they just ask that landlords be given the right to CHOOSE whether their premises should be smoking or non smoking.

If we had two types of pub, then surely everybody would be happy? There again, the no smoking crowd would then complain that the only decent pubs were smoking ones!

Is that the REAL reason they want a ban? So that they can make everyone as miserable as they are?

Can someone please tell me why they are so against democratic choice?
9

GrahamB,

Planet Earth 06/01/2008 10:47:50
I know neither #1 Exocet or #2 Rollo Tommasi who apologises for raining on Exocet’s parade. But, as a non-smoker who abhors the present smoking ban and has many smoking friends, I, reluctantly, have to rain on Mr Tommasi’s parade by recommending he read “Scared to Death” by Christopher Booker and Dr Richard North, published by Continuum. The relevant section being: Part 2 Chapter 12 entitled “How they turned “Passive Smoking” into a killer, 1950 – 2007. This contains plenty of evidence which might colour, and possibly change Mr Tommasi’s current opinion.
10

bill-alba,

fife 06/01/2008 10:49:54
#8 and the pro smoking lobby are the new ludites refusing to see the evidence.
11

GrahamB,

06/01/2008 11:14:54
#6 BeeGee.

Quite right, anti-smokers might also like to reflect on the remark made by Professor Richard Doll, probably the prime architect of the present situation, who stated “that the consequences of inhaling other people’s tobacco smoke were so negligible that they had little or no effect on health at all”
Additionally, they might, or might not, like to read the original findings of research sponsored by the World Health Organisation (WHO) into passive smoking which they quickly withdrew and attempted to bury since the results were not that which they wanted. This can still, to the embarrassment of the WHO, be viewed on the www.
ps #10. The pot calling the kettle black!
12

english charlie,

suffolk 06/01/2008 11:43:42
Blackpool Council are trying to turn Blackpool into an upper class holiday resort. Not just rigorously enforcing the smoking ban, but also other bans and restrictions on other working class activities, like stag and hen parties. They will ruin Blackpool.
13

Rollo Tommasi,

Edinburgh 06/01/2008 11:57:37
Okay, here's evidence on the links between passive smoking and lung cancer/heart disease (Rob - note how SCoTH say in 2004 that the evidence is improving):

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7486/265
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7353/1544/d
http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/scoth/PDFS/scothnov2004.pdf

I've said before I don't have a difficulty in principle with enclosed smoking sections in pubs - but in practice it would not provide the easy solution that some people think it would.

Tim: Asking me to name people killed by second hand smoke may be fun for the purposes of debate on these boards. But it's completely irrelevant as far as evidence is concerned. As far as I'm aware, nobody - including the pro-smoking lobby - is saying that the most effective way to research the links between passive smoking and disease would be by closely monitoring individuals over a number of years , assessing their exposure to SHS and other factors and then assessing upon their death the causes of their demise. That's what you seem to suggest would need to be done in order to identify victims of SHS by name. The fact is that epidemiological studies allow additional deaths associated with SHS to be assessed without having to identify people by name.

Graham B: Richard Doll - you're quoting a 90 year old's views on the risks of SHS to him personally. If you want to know what he thought of the risks of SHS to the population at large, read this: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7353/1544/d.

And the WHO report. Is that the same WHO report where a story about its recommendations was fabricated prior to publication by the tobacco industry? WHO itself stuck to the results of the study. Read these:
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html
http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/who_inquiry.pdf (pages 193-227)

14

Belinda-2,

06/01/2008 12:57:48
Rollo, in your first WHO link the increased risk of lung cancer on exposure to SHS is 16 per cent.

SCOTH in 1998 estimated that 10 in 100,000 non-exposed non-smokers die of lung cancer. A sixteen per cent increase takes this to 11.6 per 100,000. I quake.
15

BeeGee,

06/01/2008 13:15:52
SCoTH, ah yes the report created by a kangaroo committee where all but two membes have financial links to the Pharma companies who manufacture the Nicotine Replacement Products. Can anyone honestly say that this report was and remains unbiased.

Scientist gauge incresed dangers by Relative Risk Ratio and this is recorded as Reletive Risk Ratio of 3.0 as being the point to raise concern or converting to percentage terms to compare with media reports 300%
16

BeeGee,

06/01/2008 13:33:45
This letter is from a doctor and past president of the New York Cancer Society and thought I would pass it along for everyone to read as it says it all about political interference:

I’m Robert E. Madden MD, FACS. I am also a non-smoker. HOWEVER I am a passionate opponent smoking bans. Most of the opposition to the smoking bans has been based upon economic factors such as loss of business revenue, even closings. My opposition is due to loss of individual freedom and abuse of scientific fact.

I am a practicing chest surgeon, a teacher and a former cancer researcher. I am also past president of the New York Cancer Society. I will not tell you that smoking is harmless and without risk, in fact one in eight hundred smokers will develop lung cancer. Asthmatics should avoid tobacco smoke. What I will say is: 1) it’s a personal choice and 2) so called second smoke (ETS) is virtually harmless. One may not like the smell but it has not been shown to cause cancer, even in bartenders. If people do not like the odor then they may go elsewhere. Those who support the ban have no right to deny 24% of the adult population their enjoyment of a popular product based on dislike, possibly hatred of smoking. This attitude is that of a bigot, akin to anti-Semitism or racism.

To me the most offensive element of the smoking bans is the resort to science as “proving that environmental smoke, second hand smoke, causes lung cancer”. Not only is this unproven but there is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for a scientist like myself to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society (of which I am a member) and the American Lung Association used to justify what is best described as a political agenda. Smokers enjoy smoking. Most non-smokers are neutral. Anti-smokers hate smoking. It is this last group that drives the engine of smoking bans. Smoking sections in restaurants, ventilated bars and the like have been sat
17

BeeGee,

06/01/2008 13:35:13
It is this last group that drives the engine of smoking bans. Smoking sections in restaurants, ventilated bars and the like have been satisfactory and used for years. To those who choose to smoke they do so at their own risk. To those eschew smoking let them patronize establishments whose owners prohibit smoking. To impose a city wide or a state wide ban is to deny people of their rights.

-Respectfully,
Robert E. Madden, M.D.
18

GrahamB,

06/01/2008 14:12:03
Nos 14 to 17
Says it all, Rollo.
Why not do the dignified thing and accept that the vast majority of the “science” was and is funded by the Big Pharma and is flawed to the extreme? Remember also, that distinguished Professor Doll was also funded to a huge extent by Monsanta.
19

Rob Simpson,

UK 06/01/2008 14:12:06
Rollo, SCoTH themselves admit most of the evidence failes to meet statistical significance. The evidence "getting better" isn't much, especially when they ignore the largest study EVER done on the subject (which failed to show any link). The Surgeon General also ignored that study.
As previously mentioned most of the SCoTH members have direct links with the people who produce NRT or anti smoking groups. Imagine the reverse situation; image SCoTH was populated by people with links to Big Tobacco, and their conclusion was there was no need for a smoking ban. Would YOU suspect some fiddling going on? Yes? So, why should we presume any impartially in the current situation?
The members of SCoTH have a vested interest in seeing anti smoking measure pushed through.
20

Rob Cook,

Herefordshire 06/01/2008 14:37:24
Superb post, BeeGee (Robert). Thank you.
21

Rollo Tommasi,

Edinburgh 06/01/2008 15:09:51
Belinda - Lung cancer deaths are not the only product of passive smoking. A recent mortality study by the NHS in Scotland concluded that passive smoking accounts for around 44 lung cancer deaths in Scotland each year - and for a further 400 deaths from heart disease. That's more than the number of people in Scotland who die each year from road traffic accidents.

Rob - Can you please point me to where "SCoTH themselves admit most of the evidence fails to meet statistical significance"? Far from ignoring the Enstrom & Kabat study (I assume that's the one you refer to), SCoTH discuss it directly, point to the shortcomings and limitations of its methodology and add that, even if the results had been considered within the IARC study, it would have changes the conclusions of the IARC study only marginally.

BeeGee / Graham - Instead of trying to attack the members of SCoTH personally, can you explain to me the ways in which their report is flawed? Rob was quite happy to refer to a study by Enstrom & Kabat, who have funding links with Big Tobacco. Should we just ignore that report too, or do you accept that all reports have to be considered on their individual merits?
22

Rollo Tommasi,

Edinburgh 06/01/2008 15:19:21
BeeGee: Re Robert Madden - Can you explain why the opinions of one doctor (or even a few doctors) should trump the views of the great majority of doctors, as well as the prevailing medical evidence?
23

Belinda-2,

06/01/2008 15:34:41
One thing I am sure of is that the average age of someone who dies (allegedly ... remember we are dealing with estimates of unnamed victims) of the effects of secondary smoke is older, possibly by a good forty or fifty years, than the average road traffic accident victim.

As a matter of interest, Rollo, do you happen to know the ages of the alleged victims of secondary smoke?

Mortality in UK was over 610,000 in 2003. For Scotland assuming roughly a tenth of that figure, I would say that 44 or even 400 chances of getting lung cancer or heart disease is well within the bounds of acceptable risk, especially when you consider that roughly two-thirds of coronary heart disease victims (in 2003) were over the age of 75 at the time of their death. Not that any death is not regrettable but we are not talking about monocausal conditions, and to put the blame for these things on smoking is entirely speculative.

A friend of mine the same age as me (43) recently had an aneurism and was lucky to escape with her life. She has been a non-smoker and non-drinker all her life. Nobody gets out alive.
24

Rollo Tommasi,

Edinburgh 06/01/2008 16:09:12
Belinda: I don't know the ages involved, although I do seem to recall reading some report which suggested that roughly 50% of deaths might involve under 70s (and obviously half involving over 70s).

I know you well enough from previous discussions to know you don't make glib comments. I don't believe we should be overly concerned about the age at which people die. One of the worst things about heart disease and (perhaps even more so) lung cancer is the months and years of suffering they inflict on people, whether or not they eventually die from it.

The sad episode with your friend shows how nobody is guaranteed a long and healthy life. What we can and should do, though, is take reasonable steps to minimise avoidable illnesses and early deaths - especially when our actions can affect the health and lives of those around us.
25

Belinda-2,

06/01/2008 16:13:42
Ok but I still don't see 400 as a very high risk in the context of 60+ 000 deaths, whatever the age.

26

Rollo Tommasi,

06/01/2008 16:23:50
I disagree. 450 deaths (plus possibly other deaths relating to stroke, other cancers and respiratory disease) is a lot to me. Add to that the anguish of the diseases themselves for those people and others who might eventually succumb to something else.

Personally, I don't know how I could do something which was not essential to me but which was contributing to the serious illness and deaths of so many others.
27

Belinda-2,

06/01/2008 16:27:48
Absolutely it is a high number, and with the grief of the families and all that I am with you all the way. But you are not talking absolute numbers, you are talking *risk*.
28

Neil,

Glasgow 06/01/2008 16:30:19
Good for him.

Previous generations of Scots would not have put up with this nonsense. When McConnell introduced this he told Parliament that it would save "1,000 lives a year" which was a total & deliberate lie. The real scandal is not that McConnell deliberately lied to parliament but that Parliament deliberately decided to be lied to.

However Exocet I don't purely, or even mainly, blame licencees for not breaking this - their livelyhoods are at stake. Why are there not hundreds of people lighting up in public buildings - Central & Waverley stations, courts, bus shelters etc? No police or court system could handle even a couple of hundred of them.
29

Rob Cook,

Herefordshire 06/01/2008 16:35:43
Neil, actually there are "hundreds of people lighting up in public buildings".

In my experience, it's simply the case that ashtrays come out at about 10pm or thereabouts. And that's when the pubs become semi-busy again - because customers can smoke. Until the ashtrays come out, the pubs are dead. Very few non-smokers visit the pub and smokers don't want to go outside in the cold. It's just not the same experience.

I initially assumed that this was simply a matter of me living out in the countryside where almost every pub I visit has the same 'get the ashtrays out when it's late' policy. However, I've noticed the same thing happening when I visit other parts of the country, including London.

The above situation isn't going to happen in every pub, of course. However, it's a case of doing so or closing down and all staff losing their jobs for those pubs doing it. Good luck to 'em, I say.
30

BeeGee,

06/01/2008 16:53:43
Rollo...Where do I make any personal attacks on the SCoth Committee. Where do I mention Prof Jarvis who is also a Director of ASH U.K. come on again present ypour evidence.

As far as the study by Enstrom & Kavat is concerned..get your facts right before posting. This study was originally funded by the American Cancer Society but when initial results showed that it was not what they were looking for, bailed out. The Tobacco Companies offered no strings attached funding to complete the study.
31

BeeGee,

06/01/2008 16:56:55
Roolo

Open your eyes and at the same time...your mind

http://www.pro-choicesmokingdoctor.blogspot.com/
32

Belinda-2,

06/01/2008 17:03:03
#22 Rollo, you are certainly in a minority on this thread at the moment ... why should your views trump ours? :)
33

BeeGee,

06/01/2008 17:10:04
Another interestin development is taht we now have a bunch of politicians who are acting in breach of their constitution by refusing to discuss the current legslation and the devastating effects it is having on our social fabric. The do not see the need to look at the situation for at least 3-4 years if ever...where has our democratic rights gone, who pays their wages?
34

Rollo Tommasi,

Edinburgh 06/01/2008 17:16:25
BeeGee - You said "the report created by a kangaroo committee where all but two members have financial links to the Pharma companies who manufacture the Nicotine Replacement Products".

Enstrom & Kabat: get YOUR facts right ;). They were not funded initially by ACS, but by the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, the group that oversees research funds earmarked from proceeds raised by California’s state cigarette tax. They were denied further funding following consistent complaints from ACS about the FLAWED METHODOLOGY they were using, not the emerging results.
35

Rollo Tommasi,

Edinburgh 06/01/2008 17:19:18
32: Belinda - Rest assured I don't feel in a minority at all. I'd love to hear from you about what it's like to be selling a message which the general public doesn't believe in. How did National Smoking Day go? Couldn't find a thing about how it passed in this week's papers. :)
36

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 06/01/2008 17:21:13
We should all commit mass suicide now. Then nobody would die of any disease!

BTW all this stuff about 'saving X thousand lives' is pretty dodgy. At best, it's death deferred; and quality of life is at least as important as quantity.
37

fife runner,

06/01/2008 17:28:28
anyhow, us facist anti smokers have won and there is nothing you can do. Of course we all know smoking is safe but hey, its good to get one over on the smokers.
38

fife runner,

06/01/2008 17:30:24
even although the tobacco companies admit their product is harmful, why believe them as they are just plain daft trying to harm their sales and profits.
39

english charlie,

suffolk 06/01/2008 18:07:36
Urban Guerrilla. You're spot on. Who would want to live until 150 and live a miserable life? If you want to die early, you could always go into hospital and catch MRSA or one of the other bugs, which kills thousands every year.
40

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 06/01/2008 18:23:29
The great thing about buying your cigarettes abroad is that you can start smoking them at a reasonable price in a bar in a country which has a reasonable attitude towards its smoking ban.

Choice is offered alongside good beer. Never gave Broon or Darling a penny from tobacco tax in 2007 and don't intend to in 2008 (the savings pay for the shopping trips). I pass on that.

Wonder if the treasury feels the effects of my "passive smoking".
41

BeeGee,

06/01/2008 18:42:18
Rollo read this link and digest the truth, again you show just how out of touch you really are

http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/
42

Iain Inverness,

06/01/2008 18:48:35
To Clarify funding Re Enstrom and Kabat.

"Funding: The American Cancer Society initiated CPS I in 1959, conducted follow up until 1972, and has maintained the original database. Extended follow up until 1997 was conducted at the University of California at Los Angeles with initial support from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, a University of California research organisation funded by the Proposition 99 cigarette surtax. After continuing support from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program was denied, follow up through 1999 and data analysis were conducted at University of California at Los Angeles with support from the Center for Indoor Air Research, a 1988–99 research organisation that received funding primarily from US tobacco companies."

Source: James Enstrom writing in
http://www.epi-perspectives.com/content/4/1/11
43

Donnie,

06/01/2008 18:56:41
Rollo #35 it was an absolutely brilliant night, but you have to be in the know - morons do not get admitted.
44

Iain Inverness,

06/01/2008 19:00:04
This should let you know the type of creeps behind smoking bans and the way they behaved towards Enstrom & Kabat

"The instantaneous attack on our paper appears to have been a coordinated effort, primarily organized by the ACS and Glantz. Glantz is a well-known anti-smoking activist who has worked closely with the ACS for many years [10]. As part of this coordinated effort, Glantz organized a May 15, 2003 Miami, Florida press conference involving a panel of "international experts" in order to "debunk" our "Marry a Smoker, Get Less Cancer" study before the press embargo ended [11]. At the time of the ACS press release and the Miami press conference, neither the ACS, Glantz, or the other Miami "experts" had access to the full ten-page version of our paper, let alone time to read it and carefully analyze it. The full version of our paper was not posted on the BMJ website until the press embargo lifted at 7:01 PM EDT on May 15, 2003 [1]. The only version available when the embargoed BMJ press release was issued on May 13, 2003 was the abridged five-page paper that appears in the print version of the BMJ [12]. Obviously, these critics chose to hastily write a press release and hold a press conference based on limited information. They did not have the integrity or objectivity to read our full ten-page paper or to contact the authors before beginning their attack, which included erroneous claims about the paper's content and quality."
Source:
http://www.epi-perspectives.com/content/4/1/11

Perfectly obvious that because this 40 year study would blow all the others out of the water, and therefore the entire passive smoking industry, that they had to behave this way, and continue to do so!

They should have learned their lesson when the EPA report was thrown out and the conclusions from the WHO study which were so weak and against the political dogma that they resorted to similar tactics with it as well.
45

Rollo Tommasi,

06/01/2008 19:23:57
Do any of the pro-smokers know how to read independent sources of information for themselves? It seems all you are capable of is cutting and pasting bits from pro-smoking websites without any independent thought. And from what I've read, it's clear that they are twisting a lot of facts. It's time to OPEN YOUR MINDS.

So, in relation to the Enstrom & Kabat report, don't just rely just on what Enstrom had to say (or on what Glantz said, for that matter). You'll find their report has a contribution to play to the debate, but it is a flawed and incomplete report and its conclusions don't dramatically alter the overall balance of evidence.

And, Iain, as I said before (posting 13), the WHO published their 1998 study and stood by its findings. Claims that the WHO tried to hide their findings were bogus, invented by the tobacco industry to pre-empt publication of the report. See my earlier posting for evidence.

As for the EPA report, it has also been vindicated. A district court judge (Osteen) criticised some of it, but the Court of Appeal threw out those criticisms. From what I've read from some of the pro-smoking websites, they make it seem as if Osteen's comments have official standing. But they have absolutely no validity whatsoever. Here's the proof: http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982407.P.pdf.
46

Rollo Tommasi,

06/01/2008 19:36:16
It's a long read, but if you're genuinely interested in the truth, read pages 1210-1406 of this: http://www.tobacco.neu.edu/litigation/cases/DOJ/20060817KESSLEROPINIONAMENDED.pdf

If you think Enstrom has behaved totally above board, then you should read para 3785: "Enstrom wrote a January 15, 1997 letter following up on his proposal but directly to Carchman at Philip Morris, rather than to CIAR or its SAB:
'A level of trust must be developed based on my past research on passive smoking and epidemiology in general in order to work out the best way for me to conduct this research. A substantial research commitment on your part is necessary in order for me to effectively compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health effects of ETS and active smoking.'
2063654073-4073 (US 85811)."

In other words, Enstrom was deliberately looking to Philip Morris (not to a research body funded by tobacco) for funding for a study, on the basis that its results would be favourable for the tobacco companies. Is that the act of an independent, objective researcher?
47

jomountain,

blackpool 06/01/2008 19:41:11
poverty and poor diet and apathy are the real killers. a few thousand elite political activists lobby and run our country, grass roots have been abandoned laws now start at the top. condescending,patronising luvvies who couldnt survive poverty for a week run us. the health benefits of avoiding passive smoking are not proportionate enough to erode peoples civil liberties, a law of oppression that attacks,ostracises,humiliates and disects down trodden people and creates more apathy.the pub is the hub of british politics where else can north,south,east and west meet and have political discussion.this ban effects the most vulnerable members of our society ie the 40% who dont vote,they have given up believing they can fight or challenge unjust laws. its a hate crime against the elderly,the handicapped and the working and under class. hamish and jo howitt
48

Iain Inverness,

06/01/2008 20:54:42
Well said Jomountain.

Rollo,
Regarding the EPA report. It is still the case that they fiddled the figures. That part of the original report wasn't vacated. When the results weren't what they wanted they dropped studies from their meta-analysis. It still didn't yield the "correct" result. They then took the outrageous decision to drop the confidence interval to 90% and came up with a pathetic Relative Risk of 1.19. Is this the behaviour of an objective, independent organisation?

Anyway, stating that a relative risk of 1.19 at a 90$ confidence interval with these results based on memory based questionaires is proof of causation is just daft. If you use statistics like this you can link anything to an increased risk of anything. Sadly, this appears more and more in our daily health scare headlines when in effect there is nothing to worry about. It is just natural statistical variation.

Thw WHO study is interesting as it came up with the conclusion that exposure to passive smoking during childhood had a protective effect against lung cancer. That was the only part that had statistical significance anyway, although again the slight reduction in risk is probably just a statistical quirk. At least they kept to a 95% confidence interval if memory serves me correct. Yet they still had the brass neck to state these results proved passive smoking caused lung cancer. How anyone can claim causation with these results is beyond explanation.

Regarding Dr James Enstrom, asking for money from Philip Morris.
"Enstrom says the letter was part of the normal grant process and his words were "taken out of context" by the court."
"I told the American Cancer Society in 1998 that I got tobacco funding," he said. "There was no reason to tell them in 1992 because I was not using their data."

It's as a direct result of these fraudulent studies by the EPA and the WHO that people like Hamish find themselves being taken to court.

That is just not on!



49

Iain Inverness,

06/01/2008 21:29:46
Rollo,
You say the WHO report isn't buried. Can you provide a link to it please if you have one? I did have it but cant find it now!

I think this from the BMJ sums things up very well on this matter.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/317/7154/348#resp1

"There could be no more damning verdict on the intellectual falsehoods generated by contemporary epidemiology and the erroneous public health advice to which it gives rise." Dr James Le Fanu.

How true is that eh? I bet he never realised then that men like Hamish would be standing trial in court for allegedly allowing a customer to smoke in his bar. That;s where the lies have got to now Rollo and it needs to be stopped before any more harm is done.
50

Rollo Tommasi,

06/01/2008 21:31:41
Iain

The Osteen decision on the EPA report was vacated IN FULL. If you don't believe me, check the end of the Appeal Court's decision: "The judgment of the district court is accordingly vacated and the case remanded for dismissal for want of subject matter jurisdiction."

There's no firm rule about the Confidence Interval figure that should be used in a report. A 95% interval is used as standard as part of a research report's summary. But, while a 95% interval is certainly more robust than 90%, results based on a 90% interval can still be valid. There is nothing "fraudulent" in that.

There's a lot of fallacy out there as to what is or is not "statistically significant". The tobacco industry and pro-smoking websites would have us believe that no results of a study have any validity unless they demonstrate a Relative Risk is 2 or more. That is rubbish.

What is true is that the results of an isolated study will not be seen to be definitive unless they show that kind of Relative Risk. But studies showing much smaller levels of Relative Risk are valid and, where corroborated by similar evidence from other studies, can provide just as demonstrative evidence.

The fact is that there are many studies out there on the risks of passive smoking. Yes there are some outlying results, but most studies consistently conclude that passive smoking can increase the risks of non-smokers to lung cancer and heart disease by 20-30%.
51

NoBanJan,

Manchester 06/01/2008 21:35:04
Hamish is a true hero, he has put everything he owns plus his health on the line, standing up for the freedom he believes in, the very freedom that we are losing day by day If everyone else had the courage to stand up & fight for their freedom then the country would not be in the grip of this dictatorship! Hamish, you are one of lifes "good guys" and we love you!
freedom2choosedotinfo
52

Rollo Tommasi,

06/01/2008 21:42:34
Iain - How can you suggest the 1998 WHO report was buried when you admit you had a link to it?! Try this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9776409?dopt=Abstract
53

mandyv,

huntingdon 06/01/2008 22:36:16
Thank you Iain, for clarifying, it was the cancer society who first funded the Enstrom/Kabat study.

Further down in this link, some very intesting letters.
Also James Enstrom defending the study
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057#32346

It is quite clear, there are people who are not interested in the truth, if it does not agree with thier ideology
54

Tim85,

06/01/2008 22:44:47
Rollo # 13 - how very convenient. I can name scores of people killed by other 'risk factors'. All I've asked you to done is name 3. Could your failure have something to do with the fact that these deaths don't exist?

I asked you before if you would support health warnings being placed on whole milk. Please answer this question.

You said you believe risks should be minimised. This can be done with modern day ventilation systems / air filtration systems, and has been confirmed by various reports: one from the University of Glamorgan, published in Building Services Journal, one commissioned by the Dutch gov't, which is why they aren't implementing a total ban.

I think the fact that air management systems can even remove most viruses from the air proves that ETS levels can be reduced, AT THE VERY LEAST, by 90%:

http://www.iqair.com.hk/pdf/20070108_7.pdf (see p. 3).

Recently, Rollo, and Australian study concluded that printer toner can impact upon the air and lung in a similarly detrimental fashion to ETS. If this was supported by further studies (and an RR of 1.2-1.3 was consistently achieved), would you support a total ban on printers in the workplace and public places?

One study recently concluded that iPods can interfere with the functioning of pacemakers. If such results are supported in further studies, will you support banning them from public places and work places?

The harmful chemicals contained in air fresheners and cleaning products are well known. http://www.lesstoxicguide.ca/index.asp?fetch=household#carp

Total ban?

Gotta love the vagueness of JS Mill's Harm Principle :)
55

Rollo Tommasi,

06/01/2008 23:20:11
Tim: "Risk factors". We've been round here before. Death certificates only describe key and underlying causes of death. Risk factors, such as passive smoking, don't feature. You mentioned asbestosis and radiation poisoning in a different forum. They are illnesses, which is why they might feature as underlying causes. But the death certificate will never set out how, where or when they were contaminated. That is what we are talking about with passive smoking.

You then ask me to say what I'd want under various scenarios. I don't pretend to know enough to say "yes" or "no" to any question. But what I will say is that, as someone who believes in objective thinking and an open mind, I'd ask myself several questions. (1) In what way might something be harmful/how harmful might it be? (2) How many people are at risk from harm if action is not taken? (3) What options to reduce risk are available, how successfully can they reduce risk and might there be any other consequences? (4) How sure can we be of the answers to these questions?

I'll comment on ventilation systems later.
56

Rollo Tommasi,

07/01/2008 00:00:59
Tim: You'll notice I'm answering all your questions. Last time I did so, you called me "obsessive". Seems I can't win with you. Perhaps you could encourage your mates to answer the questions I've asked them.

Like I said, I don't have a difficulty with enclosed smoking areas in principle. However, they must provide a guarantee that bar staff, as well as customers who don't wish to breathe in smoke, are protected from the smoke.

There is a view that all publicans need so is install some new super ventilation technology and - voila - problem solved. I think that's simplistic.

1. How well could the systems work in whatever setting they were placed? You'll doubtless point to the Glamorgan study as proof. But I ask the question as I've seen air curtain technology in action in a few places. Frankfurt Airport has smoking booths with air curtain walls. The ceilings there are high, but the terminal still reeks of tobacco smoke. I don't see how anything less than a separate smoking room could work.

2. How much would the systems cost a pub landlord to install?

3. What other installation costs would the landlord incur? Having seen a fair few pubs, I believe many pubs (especially smaller rural pubs) are not designed to accommodate a separate smoking room easily. What would be the building costs of constructing a separate smoking room?

4. How well would these systems continue to work? I've seen several pubs which supposedly had ventilation in the bad old days, but you'd never know because it was either switched off or not working properly. What kinds of maintenance / replacement parts would the new ventilation systems need and what would this cost? What guarantee would bar staff and punters have that the equipment was both switched on and working properly? I suspect pubs with enclosed smoking areas would need to be inspected regularly to provide the necessary reassurance. The costs of this would doubtless fall upon landlords of these pubs
57

Rollo Tommasi,

07/01/2008 00:02:45
4(contd). The costs of this would doubtless fall upon landlords of these pubs through higher licensing/inspection fees (after all, why should other landlords or council taxpayers pay for these costs?).

5. Other practical points - how would a smoking room be cleared of glasses and cleaned, if bar staff are to have the right not to be exposed to tobacco fumes? And how would you prevent leakage of smoke from open doors?

In other words, you're talking about an option which would not suit every pub and which would be expensive to introduce and maintain. It might suit some large city centre bars quite well but I suspect would be meaningless for many local pubs.
58

Thomas Laprade,

Thunder Bay, ONt 07/01/2008 06:27:12
A small amount of smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is miked with the air of a decently ventilated venue is harmful to your health??


If anybody belieds that, then I have a bridge I would like to sell you.
smoke from tobacco is a statistically insignificant health risk
59

Rollo Tommasi,

Edinburgh 07/01/2008 07:57:27
Pro-smoking groups would have us believe that studies on passive smoking are "statistically insignificant" or even "lies". Yet these claims are based on deceit.

The pro-smoking groups claim that studies have no meaning if (1) they show a Relative Risk of less than 2 or (2) the Confidence Interval straddles 1.0 at 95%. Both claims are WRONG.

The truth on (1) is that you only need to show a Relative Risk of 2 or more if you show a study's results are conclusive without the need for corroborating evidence. A collection of studies, each showing Relative Risk of more than 1 but less than 2, can provide just as good evidence when taken together. As for (2), there is nothing sacred about the 95% Confidence Interval.

Don't believe me? My challenge to you is DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH on Relative Risk and Confidence Intervals. Wikipedia is always a good starting point. Pro-smoking groups may try to quote remarks by Marcia Angell or Robert Temple. Before believing these quotes, check for yourself if they've been taken out of context.
60

David from New Mills,

U.K. 07/01/2008 12:29:53
#32, Belinda C.
Why should Rollo's views be any less pertinent than those of a small band of F2C pro-smokers and their rag tag collection of camp followers? Rollo is by no means alone.
61

David from New Mills,

U.K. 07/01/2008 12:32:07
#43, Tin Hat Donnie.
Perhaps there was no need as they were already there.
62

David from New Mills,

U.K. 07/01/2008 12:39:38
#35,Rollo Tommasi,Edinburgh.
Yes, Belinda C. or anyone else, do tell us about the success of National Smoking Day. Like Rollo, I couldn't find a peep of news anywhere. Even loser Howitt got a brief spot on local t.v. Or did the big non-event just go the way of the much vaunted but now dead in the water Judicial Review, and fall apart from "lack of support" as quoted by Belinda's esteemed chairman on F2C's website?
63

David from New Mills,

U.K. 07/01/2008 12:48:43
#39,english charlie,suffolk.
Chas is deluded if he believes that non-smokers are doomed to "live a miserable life", without an accompaniment of tobacco, or it's fumes. Why not ask a few? He should find lots of them about.
64

David from New Mills,

U.K. 07/01/2008 13:00:10
#51,NoBanJan,Manchester.
Hugh Howitt is a misguided fool who is going to end up bankrupt, probably in a prison cell. I do recall once seeing a poster exhorting the state to "Free Deirdre", but real life isn't quite like Corrie. Perhaps I'm wrong and we'll see hordes of self-labelled "freedom fighters" marching in the streets in support. There again, perhaps not.
65

Rob Cook,

07/01/2008 13:05:00
I sometimes think we get too carried away with the SHS aspects of this debate.

I'll be honest - I don't know for certain whether SHS is harmful or not. What does appear certain is that people are sincere in their believes regardless of which side of the argument they are on.

I still think we need to concentrate more on the simple fact that if you don't like the smell of cigarette smoke, or you believe it may harm your health, then don't go into a pub.
66

,

07/01/2008 13:11:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
67

David from New Mills,

U.K. 07/01/2008 13:17:20
#65,Rob Cook.
Conversely, I might say that if you don't like the absence of the smell and fumes of cigarette smoke, "then don't go into a pub." Or if you prefer a less "draconian" choice, just smoke elsewhere.
68

Rob Cook,

07/01/2008 13:26:36
David, I am genuinely interested in how you hold this opinion. Sometimes this discussion can descend into personal attacks and a decent non-confrontational debate is refreshing.

What's wrong with a pub-owner allowing people to smoke in his pub? After all, it's his pub and his customers can smoke in there with his permission, surely? Why should non-smoking customers who rarely visit and who he may not even want in there dictate what he can and cannot do inside his own business?

I've discussed this issue enough to know that with some people no amount of debating will change their mind. That isn't meant to be insulting at all - simply how I've experienced these debates. However, I'm interested in your feedback all the same.
69

banhater,

07/01/2008 13:46:47
Rollo

How ever many studies come up with a small RR, is irrelevant. If the RR is less than 2 it cannot be taken seriously. If you allow for errors, statistical bias and confounders,such a risk cannot be deemed high enough to implement smoking bans.In any other scientific field, these studies would be dismissed completely.

Quote from link below:
Over the years I have studied the issue of environmental tobacco smoke and have become quite familiar with the studies on humans that you cover in your background documents. I represent neither industry nor government and do not get paid for the work I do.

A major stumbling block with your recommendation that environmental tobacco smoke be included in your 9th Report on Carcinogens is that before you can list something as a human carcinogen, you must -- according to your own Criteria [1] -- provide "sufficient evidence" from studies on humans, and you have not done that in the case of environmental tobacco smoke.

For example, the tables provided in your background documents clearly show that the vast majority of studies find no statistically significant association between lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke.

What’s more, virtually all of the relative risks reported in those studies are below 2, and according to reputable epidemiologists, relative risks below 2 are weak and inconclusive:

"...relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret... Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." [2]

"The strength of association relates to causality. Relative risks of less than 2.0 may readily reflect some unperceived bias or confounding factor, those over 5.0 are unlikely to do so." [3]

The fact that you seem to equate "sufficient evidence" with weak relative risks that in most cases are not statistically significant gives the appearance that you have forsaken scientific standards and r
70

banhater,

07/01/2008 13:48:29
"The fact that you seem to equate "sufficient evidence" with weak relative risks that in most cases are not statistically significant gives the appearance that you have forsaken scientific standards and resorted to "advocacy" science in order to advance the government’s anti-smoking agenda."

http://www.junkscience.com/feb99/perske.htm
71

David from New Mills,

U.K. 07/01/2008 14:31:31
#68, Rob Cook.
I think my option for smokers was more of a suggestion than an opinion, as I was merely standing the smokers' "If you can't stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen" attitude on it's head.
Rob must realise that as the law now stands it's not all right for the landlord, be he the owner, lessee or simply tenant to permit smoking on the premises.
It's not non-smokers, but legislation that determines the situation regarding smoking, hygiene, opening hours, planning applications, fire precautions et al.
If any of these is not to the landlord's liking, then he must face the consequences of non-observance. He can always try to have the law repealed via the ballot box, or attempt a Judicial Review. As the latter of F2C failed miserably, civil disobedience is another option, but that is not without it's perils, as Mr. Howitt has found to his cost.
Trust Rob finds this answer helpful.
72

David from New Mills,

U.K. 07/01/2008 14:52:43
#65, Rob Cook.
Further to my #71, I really do not know whether SHS is truly likely to damage my health, hence my refraining from taking part in these lengthy learned arguments quoting reports from various authors of the past.
However, I am aware of the effect of tobacco fumes on my nostrils, eyes, and throat, before I even consider my lungs and my clothing.
I've made this point in the past to Colin Gee and Steve Cross (whatever became of him?) of F2C, which doesn't indicate cowardice on my part, merely an acceptance of my body's early warning defence indicators. This left both parties non-plussed as they seemed to prefer to indulge in hypothetical discussions about risk ratios and confounders, rather than more realistic and mundane matters like unpleasant fumes and smells, or lack of support for their campaign.
Consequently, Colin Gee once referred to me as a "risk averse Puritan", which I admired as an imaginative turn of phrase, if scarcely accurate.
In short, I don't know whether SHS constitutes any serious danger to my health, but in the meantime am content to enjoy fug free pubs, (and other enclosed public places) for the first time in years in the case of pubs. Long may the situation last.
73

banhater,

07/01/2008 15:47:27
David

As you are yet to be convinced by the harm of SHS, surprised you so venomously defend a blanket ban.
Would you not accept that separate pubs and clubs for that allowed smoking would be fairer?
It worries me that an outright ban encourages such hatred towards smokers. I would suggest that if the law had exempted certain establishments and allowed a degree of choice you would have been happy with that and would have less energy towards an ant-smoking diatribe.

With regard to your defence warning indicators. Maybe you shouldnt really on these so much.
Now that air fresheners are used more in pubs since they are smoke free, your senses probably wont tell you how carcinogenic these chemicals are. The chemicals emitted actually block your nasal receptors leaving you less protected from these and other toxins.

http://tinyurl.com/3drelf
74

jomountain,

blackpool 07/01/2008 17:05:48
Iwould like comments on the governments manifesto pledge to allow smoking in non eating pubs and clubs and to ban fox hunting which I abhor.Myself and millions like me believed a manifesto is a promise and the government would not be allowed to commit perjury.I was mugged for my vote,we have had an exact reversal of a manifesto promise. Fox hunters are putting two fingers up to the government and the electorate.The upper class green welly brigade can storm parliament (Odius) Otis Ferry with MPS help receives a derisory £300 fine while Hamish Howitt faces bankruptcy for defending his own business and believing the manifesto promise. Chief constables and enforcement officers have clearly stated fox hunting is not in their list of priorities,it seems its tally ho for the privelaged few and up yours to 14 million highly taxed,lawful smokers who are mainly working class,is it any wonder there is total apathy in this country.40% dont vote at general elections 60%at local elections,the informed and well heeled rule this country.
75

Rollo Tommasi,

07/01/2008 18:09:27
Banhater (69): Nice try but - you lose! You were never likely to succeed when you couldn't find a professional document or article to support your case and so had to rely on a letter written by a non-expert instead.

Anyway, Martha Perske falls into the same trap as others who misquote references to Relative Risks. She quotes from a press release by the National Cancer Institute about a study into the links between abortion and breast cancer. The release does say "relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret." But the quote is made in the context of a single study which lacked supporting evidence. Far from stating the results of the study were irrelevant, the National Cancer Institute states "...the findings are not conclusive. Further research is needed to interpret the results". In other words, the research was valid, but not conclusive in itself without further evidence. Here's the release: http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2072055014-5016.html

And to prove what the position of the National Cancer Institute is on passive smoking, here's what they say about lung cancer:

"Tobacco smoke causes most cases of lung cancer. It's by far the most important risk factor for lung cancer. Harmful substances in smoke damage lung cells. That's why smoking cigarettes, pipes, or cigars can cause lung cancer and why secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer in nonsmokers. The more a person is exposed to smoke, the greater the risk of lung cancer." (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/lung/page4).

Face facts, pro-smokers: You may try to pretend otherwise, but the evidence linking passive smoking with disease is real and it is strong.
76

DaveAAA,

Forfarshire 07/01/2008 18:18:51
Rollo and David New Mills, I do not think this is your day. I also note that Dr Geoffrey Kabat is a doctor of epidemiology, oops.

"For these reasons most scientists (which includes scientifically inclined epidemiologists) take a fairly rigorous view of RR values. In observational studies, they will not normally accept an RR of less than 3 as significant and never an RR of less than 2. Likewise, for a putative beneficial effect, they never accept an RR of greater than 0.5. Sometimes epidemiologists choose to dismiss such caution as an invention of destructive sceptics, but this is not the case. For example:
In epidemiologic research, [increases in risk of less than 100 percent] are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident .[Source: National Cancer Institute, Press Release, October 26, 1994.]

"As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more before accepting a paper for publication." - Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine"

"My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." - Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration.

"An association is generally considered weak if the odds ratio [relative risk] is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer." - Dr. Kabat, IAQC epidemiologist


http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/RR.htm


77

DaveAAA,

Forfarshire 07/01/2008 18:22:59
Amanda Sandford of ASH ia rare lucid moment.


"Even Amanda Sandford admits: "A lot of the studies that have been done on passive smoking produce results that are not statistically significant according to conventional analysis.""

"Dr Ken Denson, of the Thame Thrombosis and Haemostasis Research Foundation, says: "I simply do not know where they conjure up their statistics. The statistics for passive smoking, in particular, would not be published or even considered in any other scientific discipline. Deaths from smoking in general have been grossly exaggerated, particularly in relation to heart disease. " Dr Denson is a medical scientist. He has published peer-reviewed research in respected academic journals. He is not funded by tobacco companies"

http://www.ipcvision.com/page05/t-luckhurst-01.htm
78

Tim85,

07/01/2008 18:43:02
"Tim: You'll notice I'm answering all your questions. Last time I did so, you called me "obsessive". Seems I can't win with you. Perhaps you could encourage your mates to answer the questions I've asked them." As far as I can see, you are not. I apologise if you have answered the question on whole milk, as there are many many posts in this comment section. I have, however, searched for 'whole milk', and have found that it only comes up on my posts. Please answer the question.

I called you obsessive in relation to your consistent derogatory references to F2C. I uncovered your double standards, in that you don't apply the same standards of scrutiny to ASH, who are partially funded by the tax payer, are purportedly a charitable organisation, receiving money from CRUK and the BHF, which has been donated by people in good faith (such as my mother, who donates to CRUK), to be filtered through to ASH to make misleading statements, exaggerations, and tell outright lies. This is not an acceptable use of taxpayers' money / charitable contributions. F2C are a volunteer group. ASH are not. ASH was founded by the foremost epidemiologist of the 20th-C, yet are caught, repeatedly, if you'll forgive the metaphor, with their pants around their ankles.



"Don't believe me? My challenge to you is DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH on Relative Risk and Confidence Intervals. Wikipedia is always a good starting point. Pro-smoking groups may try to quote remarks by Marcia Angell or Robert Temple. Before believing these quotes, check for yourself if they've been taken out of context." No it isn't. To quote one of the founders of wikipedia, it is 'broken beyond repair', and is, to paraphrase him, is staffed by power-crazed editors.


"1. How well could the systems work in whatever setting they were placed? You'll doubtless point to the Glamorgan study as proof. But I ask the question as I've seen air curtain technology in action in a few places. Frankfurt Airport has smoking booths with air cu
79

Tim85,

07/01/2008 18:43:36
walls. The ceilings there are high, but the terminal still reeks of tobacco smoke. I don't see how anything less than a separate smoking room could work." Just because you can smell it doesn't mean its presence hasn't been minimised. I myself would be perfectly happy with separate smoking rooms. Like I've always said, I want smoking restrictions with a degree of choice, such as have been implemented successfully in Spain, Portugal, Holland, Slovakia, most of Germany, Sweden, Finland, etc., etc.

Question 2 - an estimate for a smoking room - somewhere between £500-£1500. I will consult with someone who is something of an authority on ventilation, and will get back to you.

"3. What other installation costs would the landlord incur? Having seen a fair few pubs, I believe many pubs (especially smaller rural pubs) are not designed to accommodate a separate smoking room easily. What would be the building costs of constructing a separate smoking room?"

These questions are all dependent upon the particular venue. As many wet-led, rural, traditional pubs are heading into the abyss anyway, at least they'd have some choice if they can get the cash together to invest, and we won't all be drinking at McPub (i.e., places like Wetherspoons), in the future.


"4. How well would these systems continue to work? I've seen several pubs which supposedly had ventilation in the bad old days, but you'd never know because it was either switched off or not working properly. What kinds of maintenance / replacement parts would the new ventilation systems need and what would this cost? What guarantee would bar staff and punters have that the equipment was both switched on and working properly? I suspect pubs with enclosed smoking areas would need to be inspected regularly to provide the necessary reassurance. The costs of this would doubtless fall upon landlords of these pubs" Your claims to care about the costs incumbent upon struggling landlords ring a little hollow to me, given
80

Tim85,

07/01/2008 18:44:48
given your outright denial that the smoking ban has had a negative impact on profits. Nevertheless, I shall take you at your word. Ventilation systems have improved markedly in recent years. Some opponents of it still use to Frogatt report from the late 80s as evidential of its ineffectiveness.

I would suggest the ventilation option would be 'self-policing'. It would be obvious if it weren't working properly, and then a good little Orwellian can ring the 'smoke police' as they can currently, and set in motion an EHO / HSE inspection. If results show that the systems aren't working, they should have the chance to put either put it right or face losing their right to provide a smoking area.

The cost wouldn't necessarily fall upon the landlords of the pubs. Holland is able to implement such legislation, and I would suggest it can / could work in this country by being complaint led. Rules dictating the inspection of effectiveness of equipment in public areas should apply similarly to ventilation systems, unless a specific problem is reported, in which case it should be addressed.
81

english charlie,

suffolk 07/01/2008 18:52:45
#63 re #39 David, I said not such thing. You must 'work' for ASH, as they are the experts of making up 'stories'.
82

Rollo Tommasi,

07/01/2008 19:04:40
DaveAAA (76): Unfortunately for you, it's not your day. I warned you to watch out for sites (like Numberwatch) misquoting people like Marcia Angell and Robert Temple, but did you listen?

National Cancer Institute - see my previous comment.

Marcia Angell & Robert Temple: Both quotes relate to a discussion about the relative risk required before a "single epidemiologic study is persuasive by itself" (http://www.nasw.org/awards/1996/96Taubesarticle.htm). In other words, they're not suggesting that studies reporting smaller relative risks aren't relevant - they're simply stating that a SINGLE study needs to show a large relative risk to be conclusive without the need for further evidence.

As for Ms Angell, why did you cut off her quote before she finished her sentence - "particularly if it is biologically implausible or if it's a brand-new finding"?

If you still believe you are right and I am wrong, can you explain why, while Ms Angell was executive editor there, the New England Journal of Medicine published a report which showed that "nonsmokers exposed to environmental smoke had a relative risk of coronary heart disease of 1.25 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.17 to 1.32) as compared with nonsmokers not exposed to smoke" and concluded that "Given the high prevalence of cigarette smoking, the public health consequences of passive smoking with regard to coronary heart disease may be important"? Surely if you were right, she wouldn’t have accepted that study for publication.

It’s time to OPEN YOUR MINDS, pro-smokers!!
83

Rollo Tommasi,

07/01/2008 19:08:06
DaveAAA:
I can't find where Kabat is supposed to find what you quote. Where's your source?

Amanda Sandford has been quoted out of context for the purposes of a biased article. And Ted Denson was hardly typical of the medical community, was he? Are you saying that his word counts for more than the great majority of medical and statistical experts?
84

Rollo Tommasi,

07/01/2008 19:08:36
Sorry. "Ted Denson" should be "Ken Denson". And I didn't even watch Cheers.....
85

english charlie,

suffolk 07/01/2008 19:14:45
One thing that amuses me with all the comments on these rants is that there are people who openly admit to be members of Freedom to Choose, but nobody admits to be members of ASH. Maybe Rollo or David are such members. Why don't members of ASH come on these rants or those who are admit it?
86

Rollo Tommasi,

Edinburgh 07/01/2008 19:21:21
Tim: What have I done to fill you with such bile?

Whole milk: I answered in post 55. I don't know enough to comment about it. I set out issues which I thought would influence how I would react to that and the other scenarios you set.

I think you'll find I exposed YOUR double standards on another forum. I wanted to find out why you go so far to defend any palpable misrepresentations on the F2C website but are happy to describe anything similar by ASH as "lies". All of this was in the context of Chas from Suffolk asking why F2C isn't taken seriously. I was making the point that, in order to be treated seriously, F2C has to behave responsibly (note: not necessarily any more responsibly than ASH). Nothing you or your colleagues has said since has led me to change my view.
87

Rollo Tommasi,

07/01/2008 19:28:17
Charlie - Can't help, I'm afraid. No association with ASH!

88

Rollo Tommasi,

07/01/2008 19:31:37
Tim: if you're not happy with Wikipedia as a starting point, perhaps you can advise me on how else I encourage pro-smokers to look at independent sources of information, and not simply rely on cutting and pasting from pro-smoking websites.

I would never suggest relying on the word of Wikipedia alone. But the references cited there are often helpful (as in this case). Following these, and doing more googling, can unwrap all sorts of interesting information, for those who are prepared to investigate with a reasonably open mind.
89

David from New Mills,

U.K. 07/01/2008 19:44:25
#81,english charlie,suffolk.
At #36, Urban Guerrilla,Edinburgh said "all this stuff about 'saving X thousand lives' is pretty dodgy" At #39,english charlie,suffolk replied with "Urban Guerrilla. You're spot on. Who would want to live until 150 and live a miserable life?" As previous postings had been talking about the possible harmful effects of passive smoking,I had inferred that not smoking and avoiding such effects led to "a miserable life", or did chas mean that the effects of passive smoking would lead to a miserable life? I'm all agog for his clarification.
90

english charlie,

suffolk 07/01/2008 19:50:05
David. As with your previous postings I assume that you would love to live 'til 150 and live a miserable life?
91

David from New Mills,

U.K. 07/01/2008 20:14:33
#90, chas.
No particular desire to live to 150, or any other specific age, as long as I'm not as miserable and frustrated as many of the pro-smoking brigade on this site appear to be. Was that intended to be his clarification of his #81, or was it just a cantankerous gripe?
92

David from New Mills,

U.K. 07/01/2008 20:23:20
#87, Rollo.
Me neither chas, old spud.
F2C member chas winfield's supposition is as fanciful and inaccurate, as various accusations in previous forums that I work for a pharmaceutical company, am a Maureen Moore clone, Me Bungo Pony, a twin of James Donald, a professor in English or someone who has lost a close relative due to cancer. Rather than indulge in such fanciful notions, can those in the pro-smokers brigade not just accept there are many not in their camp, but with a contrary view, and that we're not likely to go away?
93

Rollo Tommasi,

07/01/2008 20:25:58
David (92): Next they'll be saying you and I are the same person! Or perhaps we can make them suspect we're F2C double agents!!
94

David from New Mills,

U.K. 07/01/2008 20:31:40
#76,DaveAAA,Forfarshire.
My day's been fine, and I note Rollo has replied to Dave No Stars separately. Wasn't Dave No Stars DaveAA before. Did he get an extra merit badge for something?
95

english charlie,

suffolk 07/01/2008 20:32:07
So, Rollo and David deny being members of ASH, So why don't members of ASH appear on these rants?
I admit that most smokers have been miserable and frustrated since the ban, but most anti-smokers have always been.
96

David from New Mills,

U.K. 07/01/2008 20:43:40
#93, Rollo.
Nothing would surprise me. Even I realise that F2C has more than one member, if not a great deal more. They also seem to suffer from the delusion that those not of their faith are infiltrating "the movement" as moles, by registering as non bona fide supporters. Perhaps they think MI6 regard them as a bigger threat to the security of the nation than terrorist plotters. Dream on lads and lasses!
97

Donnie,

07/01/2008 20:49:23
Oh David you are not still at it are you, joined up with rolly polly I see, science is not on your side mate, you lose every time - give it up go and have a fag
98

David from New Mills,

U.K. 07/01/2008 20:52:47
#95, chas winfield.
Chas seems reluctant to accept my and Rollo's statement that we are not members of ASH. If he's still suspicios, let him infiltrate ASH as a mole, and find out the REAL truth.
As a non-member, I can't speak for ASH's policies, but perhaps they feel F2C just aren't worth the candle?
I was discontent, though not miserable, before smoking restrictions, so did something about it, and am a happy boy now.
If F2C members and other smokers are "miserable and frustrated", then let them do something about it. As a clue, the judicial review approach would appear to have foundered.
99

David from New Mills,

U.K. 07/01/2008 21:00:39
#97, Tin hat Donnie. No, I'm not a conjoined twin, as I have my own thoughts. The law, like public opinion, "is not on your side mate, you lose every time - give it up go and have a fag" if that's your particular predilection. How's Smintair's schedule coming along?
100

Iain Inverness,

07/01/2008 21:17:38
Rollo,
Thanks for link to WHO study.
"There's a lot of fallacy out there as to what is or is not "statistically significant". The tobacco industry and pro-smoking websites would have us believe that no results of a study have any validity unless they demonstrate a Relative Risk is 2 or more. That is rubbish."

No, your'e confusing two terms.
You're confusing statistical significance with Relative risk. In the WHO study only one result reached statistical significance (barely) and that was the no increase in risk of lung cancer in children exposed to ETS. The other results all contained 1 within the confidence interval meaning that the result could well be no effect at all. The relative risk needs to be put in perspective.
Yes, maybe in e.g. double blind placebo drug trials you could maybe accept very low RR's like these. But not on memory based questionnaires about how much immeasurable exposure, duration and proximity to something in various strengths you experienced over your life. I have no idea how many cigarettes I have been exposed to during my life. I honestly don't know how anyone can possibly quantify this.

The EPA again. Even if it was vacated, the fact remains they removed studies that didn't fit the agenda and reduced the confidence interval to an unheard of 90% and could still only come up with the 19% increase. They did this because it didn't give the desired result at 95% with all the studies included. That is an absurd thing to do.

Let's get these risks in perspective. If it is acceptable to implement a smoking ban policy on the available statistical evidence then it must follow that using these same statistical standards then there should be a call for the banning of traditional heating and cooking as this increases the risk, with statistical significance at a 95% Confidence Interval of lung cancer by 125%

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/kwk117v1/TBL3

Of course, as there are not any cooking hating psychopaths in po
101

Iain Inverness,

07/01/2008 21:20:08
Sorry the rest got cut off.
Of course, as there are not any cooking hating psychopaths in position to forward their hatred of traditional heating and cooking then there is no such call for a ban on health grounds that are substantially more risky than the passive smoking studies that the Govt chose to accept.

Let's see. Exposure to both heating and cooking for women produced a statistically significant increase in risk of 125%. Compare this to no risk from the WHO and I'll even give you the EPA figure of 19% or your own quoted 25-30%

Finally you say that
"Yes there are some outlying results, but most studies consistently conclude that passive smoking can increase the risks of non-smokers to lung cancer and heart disease by 20-30%."

Here is a list to look at. And remember there is also the publication bias to consider i.e. those studies that get dumped as they don't fit the agenda.

http://www.forces.org/evidence/study_list.htm#tables
102

Tim85,

07/01/2008 21:40:11
"Tim: What have I done to fill you with such bile?"

I wasn't aware you had. Admittedly, I do get rather 'into' arguments, but if you meant me in real life you'd probably find me an affable and genial character. Nothing personal, Rollo, and I do mean that.

Whole milk - you didn't answer it. Your answer, in my opinion, was wishy washy and non-committal.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2703270&dopt=Citation

You will notice the RR for the consumption of whole milk 3x a day is 2.14. Passive smoking, with its RR of 1.25, is sufficient for two gov't health warnings, 'Protect children: don't make them breathe your smoke' and 'Smoking seriously harms you and others around you'. Thus, by the logic with which these health warnings are place on packets of cigs, whole milk should have a health warning of its own. Now, this is 1 study, admittedly (although I did also find a study of women in Missouri which concluded that frequent consumption of red meat in women raises their risk of lung cancer by 90% - 95 per cent confidence interval = 1.2-3.0, so perhaps meat should have a health warning too. Here's the link: http://www.springerlink.com/content/t35v31943013w01t/) Anyway, these individual studies are significant, if RRs of 2 or more in individual studies are significant (which they are, according to the "The Causes of Cancer" by Peto and Doll).
103

english charlie,

suffolk 07/01/2008 21:49:38
#David. I am not 'reluctant' or 'suspicios'. I was simply asking if you are members of ASH. I would still like to know why members of ASH do not take part in these rants. I can only presume that they are afraid of being exposed.
104

Tim85,

07/01/2008 21:51:21


"I think you'll find I exposed YOUR double standards on another forum. I wanted to find out why you go so far to defend any palpable misrepresentations on the F2C website but are happy to describe anything similar by ASH as "lies". All of this was in the context of Chas from Suffolk asking why F2C isn't taken seriously. I was making the point that, in order to be treated seriously, F2C has to behave responsibly (note: not necessarily any more responsibly than ASH). Nothing you or your colleagues has said since has led me to change my view." But you also said I'm willing to describe ASH's statements, when I think, they are misleading and exaggerations, as being misleading and exaggerations. Are you accusing me of accusing ASH of lying when it's not merited? You haven't been able to repudiate what I've said when I have amply demonstrated ASH have been lying. The rest of time, I am happy to admit to their exaggerations and propagation of fallacies :)

'Not necessarily'. So have ASH behaved responsibly or irresponsibly? Let's not forget they receive taxpayers' money. Ka-ching.

Iain - a study by a couple of statisticians from Warwick Uni, published in the BMJ, has revealed that publication bias has had an impact on passive smoking results.

Re wiki, Rollo - fair point. There are some good articles linked from wiki, and there are some bad ones (most notably the hyperbolic crap from that trumped up engineer, Glantz). It's ok for more 'low level' topics, but I'm not really sure where I'd advise looking. It just wouldn't be wiki. (And if you think I'm applying double standards to the passive smoking article, the wiki article on Christopher Marlowe's Dr Faustus is atrocious! I'd improve it a hell of a lot if I could be arsed).
105

Tim85,

07/01/2008 21:59:01
Iain - I am terrified - I'm never going to a restaurant again! Chefs and restauranteurs - they'll kill us all!!!!

From now on I shall only eat cold beans. Or should I risk toasting some bread?
106

banhater,

07/01/2008 22:09:00
Rollo

'Nice try'

You have had upteen documents posted on this and probably other forums that back up my post and you know only too well.

There are 67 published studies on SHS.
None of them put a relative risk anywhere near that which would merit a ban. The fact that none of them resulted in a significant risk proves the point. The indoor air quality in smoking establishments was well within the limits set by H&S regulations. Here is a quote from a recent HSE Document:

"The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act."


107

David from New Mills,

U.K. 07/01/2008 22:13:35
#103, chas of Suffolk.
Chas asked the question, we answered. As I've no reason to think Rollo's answer was any less truthful than mine, chas should then direct his curiousity to ASH themselves and determine whether his presumption is valid.
108

Rollo Tommasi,

07/01/2008 22:28:48
Iain – Thank you for a more reasoned response. And point taken about “statistical significance”.

I’ll agree with you on a more important point. That is, there is no perfect study out there. Not the EPA Report. Not Enstrom & Kabat. These studies need to be considered with care and caution in meta-analyses.

But my problem is that this is not what the pro-smoking websites (including Forces) are arguing. They wrongly claim a study which shows a smaller RR than 2 is absolutely invalid. They wrongly treat a 95% Confidence Interval as sacrosanct. (And I also query why Forces treats Hill’s conditions of causations as being the only valid conditions). Based on these distorted views, they then claim that studies showing an association between passive smoking and illness are “insignificant”, “junk science” or “lies”. In doing so, they shamelessly misquote remarks attributed to the likes of Richard Doll, Robert Temple and the National Cancer Institute.

This idea of “junk science” was invented by the tobacco industry. And the recent Kessler judgement in the US District Court concluded that tobacco companies were aware of the hazards of secondhand smoke but fraudulently denied that passive smoking causes disease.

Statistical significance is important, for 2 reasons. First, there is good reason to suggest that passive smoking causes around 450 deaths per year in Scotland, from either lung cancer or heart disease. To me that is an unacceptably high number. And, while the number of attributable deaths may be lower than this, they might just as easily be higher AND passive smoking might also account for even more deaths from other cancers, respiratory diseases and stroke.

The second reason is that deaths (and accompanying illnesses) related to passive smoking are due, not to the behaviour of the afflicted person, but to the avoidable actions of people around them. That is a key difference between passive smoking and other possible risk factors like c
109

Rollo Tommasi,

Edinburgh 07/01/2008 22:29:31
Just to finish....

The second reason is that these deaths (and accompanying illnesses) are due, not to the behaviour of the afflicted person, but to the avoidable actions of people around them. That is a key difference between passive smoking and other possible risk factors like cooking from open fires or drinking whole milk, which are the results of choices we make for ourselves.
110

David from New Mills,

U.K. 07/01/2008 22:31:38
#103, chas winfield.
O.K. chas, I'll come clean. I'm actually a F2C mole, masquerading as Carlo "Chuckles" Rossi. Happy now, old thing?
111

Rollo Tommasi,

07/01/2008 22:33:43
Tim - Thanks for 102. I've referred a bit to whole milk in 109. Sorry I'm depriving you of a firm answer. I am actually quite slow to judge....

112

Rollo Tommasi,

07/01/2008 22:34:32
112. David/Carlo. I knew it.... You cad! You bounder!!
113

David from New Mills,

Nazi-occupied U.K. and sometimes Padova. 07/01/2008 22:47:56
#112, Rollo.
Well, now that I've come out of the closet I'll have to try to emulate Carlo's boyish enthusiasm and jingoistic anti-nazi slogans to convince any doubters.
114

Rollo Tommasi,

07/01/2008 22:48:18
Banhater (106): So after completely misquoting the National Cancer Institute, you're back for more, are you?

My views on this are simple (and they reflect the consensus professional position). That is, there is no study on passive smoking which ALONE AND IN ISOLATION provides enough evidence to justify restrictions on smoking in public. However, WHEN TAKEN TOGETHER, the studies provide strong evidence of links between passive smoking and lung cancer/heart disease and astrong justification for the steps that have been taken to protect people from the effects of second hand smoke.

And I see your tendency to misquote continues with the HSE reference. They totally accept the risks of passive smoking - their document states "There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban". What your quote refers to is the difficulty that HSE inspectors may have in stating precisely that X time of exposure will increase a person's risk by Y%. Remember that a high burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) applies to criminal prosecutions such as those under the Health and Safety at Work Act.
115

Fredrik Eich,

London 07/01/2008 22:56:12
Rollo,
I have some sympathy for some of your argued comments concerning risk. Just because RR is less than 2 does not mean to say that people are not being killed by smoke of any kind. But this risk is very,very small and may even be smaller than the risk of death that Smoke Free legislation causes. We know that the cold kills and we know that old people are smoking outside in the cold when they didn't before. We also know that people have been murdered as a result of this legislation. But on the other hand we can not fear making laws just because some people might die. I think the point is that this legislation could have been framed to eliminate most of whatever risk there is (measurable or not) but it wasn't because the intention of the legislation is to humiliate smokers by abolishing all smoking venues. And that is discrimination in the law and that is why I do not obey this Law.
All the Best Fredrik.
116

banhater,

07/01/2008 23:09:13
Rollo

Please be realistic none of the studies revealed a significant risk of harm. Your argument that collectively the results are significant is crazy.

For a start in order to get a study published it has to show significant results to be published in the first place.

Put that fact together with the flawed methodology(interviewing a few select people,surveys,data-dredging,cohort studies, case-control studies, and all the confounders), and they can still provide very weak results.
And 'coincidentally' the most thorough study ever made, was rejected by the anti-smoking fraternity because it didnt fiddle the figures.

Regarding the HSE statement,why was it it was withdrawn and replaced by a statement omitting the the part i quoted- strange dont you think?

I dont know how you can cite misquoting when the entire theory of SHS harm is based on manipulation of words, numbers, and emotions of relatives of cancer suffrers.

Why dont you just admit it, you hate smoking but you dont believe SHS is harmful. However you are still bitter enough to demand that other people dont enjoy smoking in a public place.
117

Rollo Tommasi,

07/01/2008 23:17:35
Fredrik - Thanks for your comments. I'll challenge you on a couple of points.

1. Smoking-related deaths. If you're talking of the nurse (Cheryl Moss) and the bouncer who was stabbed by some smoking louts, neither smoking nor smoking controls were responsible for their deaths - murderous maniacs were. I also don't buy the notion of people dying from cold by going outside for a smoke for 5 mins - how long would they have to be out in the cold anyway as they make their way to and from the pub?

2. I don't believe the intention of the legislation was to humiliate smokers. If I were to be cruel, I'd criticise people who believe this for thinking the world revolves around them. As far as I can see, the legislation was introduced to protect bar staff, protect non-smoking punters and also to protect patrons who do smoke but want to cut back. Far from being singled out for bad treatment, I think the interests of smokers who want to smoke were simply given less attention.

As I said previously, I don't object in principle to the idea of enclosed smoking sections in pubs. You may have read some banter that Tim and I have had above on this.

Kind regards, Rollo.
118

banhater,

07/01/2008 23:29:53
Rollo -come on the ban is nothing to do with protecting staff.
Protecting them from what?

"Technology, not toxic toxicology, is the solution

Rather than desperately attempting to sustain the myth that ETS is some mysteriously lethal substance, we urge an honest, open-minded look at real risk factors and real solutions for respiratory health. Rather than accepting the incremental lowering of ventilation rates for indoor air, we would insist that energy efficiency take a back seat to respiratory health.

If buildings were designed to accommodate smokers, air quality would inevitably improve for us all, since fresh air exchanges would be increased and biocontaminants such as bacteria, fungi, viruses, algae, amoebae, dust mite and cockroach feces, pollen, would be diluted. Potential toxins -- from building materials, office chemicals, cleansers, cooking, etc. could be exhausted rather than inadequately filtered and re-circulated."
http://tinyurl.com/2bbekr
119

banhater,

07/01/2008 23:36:12
Better ventilation makes indoor spaces healthier, whether smoking occurs or not. This the model being adoptedby other countries such as Holland.

If our ban was about protecting health, then it would be a similar one to the Dutch ban.
As we instead opted for a blanket ban, the obvious conclusion to is that its function is to humiliate and discriminate against smokers as Fredrik suggests.
120

Fredrik Eich,

London 07/01/2008 23:37:25
Rollo,

With reference to the cold I was not thinking about pub goers I was thinking about old peoples homes. As for the humiliation I was thinking about the people who lobbied for the Laws not the people who passed them or general public.
I won't comment any further on the murders other than to say I agree with you in part.


121

Rollo Tommasi,

07/01/2008 23:44:02
Banhater: My argument about the collective value of the study results is both logical and in keeping with proper professional practice. You seem to be believe that exposure to passive smoke must either cause at least twice the harm as non-exposure or else there is no additional risk at all. That is quite clearly nonsense.

There is considerable evidence to show that passive smoking creates additional risk which can affect the lives of hundreds of people in Scotland each year. We can argue for years and years about exactly how great this additional risk is. Or we can get on with trying to save people's lives and protect their health NOW.

I've already said that no study is perfect. By the way, the Enstrom & Kabat report is as guilty of poor methodology as the EPA report. We need researchers conducting meta-analyses to look at evidence rationally, comprehensively and without fear or favour. That seems to be happening more now than in the 1990s when the tobacco industry was at the height of its mischief-making.

As for the HSE documents, compare the 2 versions for yourself. You'll find the earlier version was replaced to take account of changes in the law in the UK outwith Scotland. Removing the text you quote doesn't materially change the sense of the paragraph. It may have been removed simply because it was being misquoted so much. After all, defendants could misquote it where HSE were leading prosecutions against them under the Health & Safety at Work Act.
http://wispofsmoke.net/PDFs/255_15.pdf
http://www.hse.gov.uk/foi/internalops/fod/oc/200-299/255-16.pdf

And yes, the laws are about protecting staff, and others. As both versions of the HSE document state: "There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban."

122

Rollo Tommasi,

07/01/2008 23:47:52
Fredrik - I had understood that smoking is permitted in old people's homes, at least here in Scotland, so there's no need for smokers to go out into the cold. Is the situation different in England?
123

Fredrik Eich,

London 08/01/2008 00:04:06
Rollo,
You are correct. But it is happening anwyway and it is hard to belive that smokefree legislation is a disinsentive to this cruel practice.
124

banhater,

08/01/2008 00:39:41
Rollo

Poor methodology is poor methodology.
The projected risks from SHS are nowhere near the level to merit a smoking ban.
Why arent restaurants, air freshners, andall forms of transport banned? The risk to health from these is greater than that of SHS.
Any risk can be removed using ventilation.

The ban is an exercise in anti-smoking- it is nothing to do with protecting health.
If you and your apparent colleagues at ASH were concerned with health and not pure hatred of smoking you would advocate ventilation rather than smoking bans and the resultant hazardous indoor air quality.
125

banhater,

08/01/2008 01:18:17
Rollo thanks for the http://wispofsmoke.net link.

How come you didnt pick this page out from the same site?
http://tinyurl.com/2vnu6d

Or virtually all of the others.
It seems clear that when it comes to SHS, the epidemiological company under pressure from the anti-smoking fraternity, has now lost all credibility.
The science they use is junk science.

This fact is becoming more commonly accepted.
The argument has moved on to should a smell be banned or not.

126

Rollo Tommasi,

08/01/2008 09:27:14
Banhater: I googled for the redundant version of the HSE document and found it there. I didn’t see the rest of Wispofsmoke’s refreshing account of the truth (although I have read most of the sources they refer to. Having seen it now, I realise I wasn’t missing anything.

Even the report you cite states explicitly "there is little doubt that inhaling smoke is unhealthy." It simply questions whether the extent of the risk is as great as other epidemiologists claim. It also states that the researchers received examples of cases where the tobacco industry abused epidemiology, but they didn’t publish these because these stories had already been reported. That raised my eyebrows, especially when the authors produced conclusions based solely on the examples they refer to, while ignoring the many reported cases of tobacco industry abuse.

Here's my question for you. Attached to the report you cited were a whole host of articles, most of which show how the tobacco industry has tried to corrupt the debate and coin a concept of “junk science” which you have fallen for hook, line and sinker. How come you (and Wispofsmoke for that matter) didn't pick out any of these reports?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Link&db=pubmed&dbFrom=PubMed&from_uid=17953746

The truth is that the pro-smoking lobby have tried to predicate a myth that the risks of passive smoking are “junk science”. Unfortunately, there are too many people who are desperate to clutch to any straws that might support their prejudiced views, rather than be prepared to look at all the evidence with an open mind and eyes. You seem to have fallen into that trap yourself.
127

english charlie,

suffolk 08/01/2008 10:22:46
#117.1.Rollo. I thought that you were not going to mention poor Cheryl again. I also thought that everybody agreed that there were two facts. 1. She was murdered by some maniac. 2. If it wasn't for the hospital smoking ban, she'd be alive today.
128

David from New Mills,

U.K. 08/01/2008 11:01:17
#127, chas winfield.
It might be relevant to point out that Rollo at #117 was only responding to Fredrich Eich's comment in #115, namely "We also know that people have been murdered as a result of this legislation."
Re chas' "two facts", I think most people would agree with #1. Re #2, chas persists in confusing cause and effect, as you could equally argue that "if only" Cheryl Moss hadn't been on that shift, or working at that hospital, or living where she did, or addicted to nicotine etc. etc. The list of "if onlies" could go on for ever, a bit like chas' flawed arguments.
129

english charlie,

suffolk 08/01/2008 11:21:39
#128. David. Fredrich did not mention any names, but Rollo did. Do you disagree that if it wasn't for the hospital smoking ban, that she'd be alive today.
130

David from New Mills,

U.K. 08/01/2008 12:01:15
#129,chas w.
As Fredrich made the accusation, Rollo was entitled to question it.
Chas is old if, not wise enough,to know that we live in a far from uncomplicted world. By the line of chas' train of thought, and I'm being charitable in using the phrase, we should not pass any legislation or carry out any actions that just might, possibly, maybe, perhaps, set off a chain of events leading to an undesired conclusion. To avoid that, we'd all have to stay in our beds, or perhaps our caves.
To answer chas' hypothesis. "Do you disagree that if it wasn't for the hospital smoking ban,(together with a number of other factors, elements and unfortunate coincidences) that she'd be alive today."
By inserting the words in brackets to give a more rational question, I can say "no", in that the hospital's rules in isolation were not the sole cause of the event.
131

banhater,

08/01/2008 12:02:58
Rollo

Of course in the past the tobacco industry have tried to distort the debate.
However that is old hat. The anti-smoking lobby have used similar tactics, and alot further, and with alot more backing.
The junk science has been exposed, some of it by the guru of anti-smoking Michael Siegel. He has since been ostracised by the very community that worshipped it previously.
Please dont play the tobacco industry card. Bans suit them. They sell more tobacco. BAT shares have soared since July for example. Credible independent scientists have questioned and exposed the myths of SHS, it play its part it did its job, but its still bogus.

I suggest you have been snared by anti-smoking propaganda, because it is convenient to your dislike of the smell of tobacco smoke.Judging by your posts on other subjects, you simply follow the Government/authoritarian line. For someone who is obviously very intelligent, i urge you to slip out of your comfort zone and realise the truth is often beyond the front pages and government spin.
132

banhater,

08/01/2008 12:20:53
Not content with smoker numbers having stabilised,
The World Health Organisation announced at the 1975 World Conference on Smoking: “We must foster an
atmosphere where it is perceived that active smokers would injure those around them.”
The anti-smoking groups now had the green light to find the 'science' to acheive this perception.
However, hazardous levels of SHS were only acheived in sealed laboratories. This didnt stop the results from being publicised(conveniently leaving out the fact that they were totally unachievable in real life).But they realised that manipulation ans massaging of stats and studies got results. They have been doing it ever since ,steadily becoming more out of touch with reality.
Hence the recent 'SHS exposure can cause heart attacks within 30 mins' that lead to Michael Siegel saying enough is enough.
133

english charlie,

suffolk 08/01/2008 13:25:26
#130. David. So your answer is 'no'. You need to grow up. By the way my 'English' is not too good, so could you give me the definition of 'complicted'.
134

Fj,

London 08/01/2008 18:26:57
What a woeful, idiotic and triumphalist lot you anti-smokers are! Do you honestly think this ban was done for your benefit? It was done to curb smoking not to benefit you, to make it more difficult to smoke. We all know ETS is garbage, inc. the Govt. All part of this Govts. drive to save the NHS money and the NHS per se, one of the last 2 core ideologies. To bring the medics onside along with paying them more money for less hours. Idiots! As things progress, so will the ban.
135

David from New Mills,

U.K. 08/01/2008 19:42:43
#133, chas w.
Poor old charlie still seems to be struggling with a basic comprehension of the "English" ( Why the quotation marks, chas old spud?) language.If he can just about struggle through my #130 again, he might just possibly, perhaps, maybe, be able to grasp the fact that he received no unequivocal "no", but one with a crucial caveat.
To further assist him in his apparent poor understanding of the English language, "uncomplicted", more usually spelt as "uncomplicated", which chas seemed only able to read as "complicted", means "not complex, entangled,intricate, difficult or confused".
Perhaps these comments will help him improve his grasp of his mother tongue, or is he half Italian like the other Charlie? Hope I don't "grow up" to become as crankie as old chas.
136

David from New Mills,

U.K. 08/01/2008 19:52:17
#134,Fj,London.
"As things progress, so will the ban." Music to my ears. Bring it on, man, bring it on!
137

Fredrik Eich,

London 08/01/2008 20:32:55
Rollo,David,
May I clarify my position.
I think that there must be risk to the lives of non-smokers through the activity of smoking and I would say there is risk to life from the promotion and implementation of smoke free legislation. How small those risks are is up for debate but I think it is fair to say they are very small and hard to measure. The problem I have with Tobacco Control is that there seems to be a creeping willingness to bend the truth for the sake of the very noble goal of reducing risk through ever more draconian measures. I also think that legislation of this nature will have a substantial impact on smoking prevalence in the UK and that this success will act only help to “justify” even more bending of the truth and even more Draconian measures to chase diminishing returns. I believe that there are Tobacco Control advocates who are uneasy about this but have long since lost control of those who are not uneasy about it. I think that Tobacco Control is out of control. It does not take much to see that if that if this Rubicon has been crossed this has very grave ramifications for the course of Public Health – especially more so if it is successful. I have to say I do not see how this will stop unless people in Tobacco Control are willing to take a stand against it. In my opinion there is only one Tobacco Control Advocate in the UK who may have both the integrity and the credibility to put the brakes on this – but that person has not shown their hand and I doubt that they ever will. In the mean time I shall continue to smoke and disobey this law.

I offer no evidence, these are my opinions.

All The Best.
Fredrik
138

Fj,

09/01/2008 08:36:07
#136, David from New Mills

"Music to my ears"
I won't bother asking why it's music to your ears as what smokers - or anybody else for that matter - choose to do, is none of your business. Suffice to say that, typical of your type, you only see in my remarks, your limited and linear view. Most will see other meanings.
139

english charlie,

suffolk 09/01/2008 09:21:16
#135. David. Why didn't you then spell the word as 'uncomplicated' if that is what you meant. I have never before seen it spelt as 'uncomplicted' before, so I thought it was a new word.
140

David from New Mills,

U.K. 09/01/2008 12:20:00
#138, Fj.
At #136. Fj said "As things progress, so will the ban." I am as entitled to favour smoking retrictions as he is to decry them. If his words had some other underlying meaning, it would be interesting to hear of them for the benefit of "my type". Regardless of his opinion, I really have very little interest in smokers' addiction, as long as the effects are not in my nostrils.
141

David from New Mills,

U.K. 09/01/2008 12:26:37
#139, chas w.
I do not really believe even old chas is so naïve as to fail to recognise a simple typographical omission, as newspapers have numerous examples. Does he write to the editor when he spots them?
"so I thought it was a new word." To paraphrase Ricky Tomlinson:- "New word my a--e!"
142

ipcvision,

Gloucestershire 09/01/2008 12:32:38
The stimulating discussion of this relatively well-mannered debate has compelled me to add a “social smoker’s” perspective!

My position has always been that those who don’t like the smell of smoke should not have to suffer it, regardless of whether it is harmful or not (see http://www.ipcvision.com/page05/smoke-int.htm).

Some may consider this quite a generous stance, since there are many activities of others that we dislike (and may harm us) but are accepted as part of living in our crowded communities. However, such a stance is possibly justified because of the arrogant way smokers, in general, have in the past imposed their smoke on others. So let’s start from there.

As a Social Smoker I only smoke for pleasure (less than 20 per week). For me this was meeting with like-minded friends in a pub, restaurant or café and enjoying the social interaction along with alcohol and good quality tobacco. It was an intensely pleasurable and relaxing activity, which substantially relieved the stresses of everyday life. Stress, I believe, is probably one of the biggest long term killers.

Now, I can never again do this. I am extremely resentful that this joy has been denied me, even though solutions exist which would enable me to continue without affecting non-smokers or harming employees. Why do so few anti-smokers empathise with this position?
It seems clear that many anti-smokers hate smokers with a vitriol that is hard to comprehend, and would never even contemplate legislation which would be fair to smokers regardless of any scientific logic. Remember, we used to burn suspected witches at the stake and we can be thankful that those days are gone – but the bigoted mindset is obviously still around, waiting to emerge down new avenues given the right opportunity. (comments continued in next posting)
143

ipcvision,

Gloucestershire 09/01/2008 12:35:43
continuing from post no 142..
There are two key facts emerging from the above debate :-
1. The anti-smoking legislation ignores the protection of individual liberties by not allowing rational solutions which would protect the sensibilities of non-smokers and the health of workers.
2. This is an extremely dangerous precedent – what freedoms will the next powerful lobby be capable of curtailing?

Can any right-minded person argue against this?

I also feel so frustrated that there seems to be so little I can do about it. The various pro-smoking factions are hopelessly uncoordinated, and day after day anti-smoking propaganda consolidates its position through the radio, TV and newspapers. I have lost count of the number of items I have heard/read which leave me reeling with dismay at the lack of credible criticism of the current position. I had high hopes for F2C but its increasingly peevish and abusive headlining, and digressions into global warming and the like, just play into the hands of the opposition.

The whole pro-smoking lobby has to raise its game by an order of magnitude, focus solely on the one key issue of amending the ban, agree a strategy for achieving this, and conduct itself with statesman-like dignity and credibility. In fact, they need to take a leaf out of the ASH and other anti-smoking manuals who can, unhappily, only be admired for the way they have manipulated public opinion with the weakest of data.

Once the identity card comes in, one can imagine (tongue in cheek perhaps) eventually having to swipe it before buying a drink, beef burgers, chips, etc to ensure you don’t consume more than the “recommended” amount per day…

We must all, smokers and non-smokers alike, fight for the principle that our limited freedoms cannot be eroded without properly investigating all viable alternatives - then we must bend over backwards to maintain them.
144

english charlie,

suffolk 09/01/2008 12:37:16
#141. I only pointed this out as you love to criticise others' mistakes, as if you were perfect. You even had a go at my mistake of 'dozen' even though I corrected it immediately. We are ALL capable of making mistakes, so don't criticise others when you make them yourself.
145

Fj,

09/01/2008 16:40:57
#140, David from New mills.

For somebody who purports to have little interest in smoker's 'addiction' you, certainly, have a lot to say about it! Worried, maybe?
146

english charlie,

suffolk 09/01/2008 17:11:34
Fj. David gets bored. He even pretends that he drinks in pubs a lot.
147

David from New Mills,

U.K. 09/01/2008 20:12:28
#145, Fj from out of nowhere.
Not worried in the slightest.
148

David from New Mills,

U.K. 09/01/2008 20:19:26
#146,chas w.
Never get bored having stimulating discussions with the likes of chas.
I've only stated I enjoy fug free pubs, so why does he say that David "pretends that he drinks in pubs a lot". Or did he mean "drinks a lot in pubs"?
Either way, he's welcome to continue guessing, as always.
149

David from New Mills,

U.K. 09/01/2008 20:46:36
#144, chas w.
I see chas has owned up to his false claim at #139, but I shall refrain from F2Cspeak and not accuse him of telling a lie.
I have no compunction about highlighting correspondent's spelling and grammatical blunders, especially when they are as basic as confusing "to" and "too" and "lose" and "loose", as we are all supposed to be corresponding in some meaningful version of English. Again, I have had to point out confusing insertions or omissions of the word "not", which have made a nonsense of the intended argument.
Mandy v used to make contributions, which were so badly composed that I had to ask her what she meant, but I am relieved to note a vast improvement in her language.
I do recall chas' error, which I think was about dozens and dozy, and just couldn't resist poking fun at him because of it.
I also recall in the past, admitting that I can and do make errors,which confession he said made him a happy boy. I make the same admission here, so will chas be doubly happy now?
Apart from all this, I shall continue to feel free to castigate others, when I feel they have made nonsensical claims or arguments. At least, I always try to answer points made, and just wish some correspondents could do the same.
150

claire,

20/01/2008 18:14:43
Hi David/Bungo/Rollo! Nice to see you 'firing on all cylinders' this year! It's very comforting to see you still getting up to your old tricks trying to sabotage/demonise and generally take the moral high ground against the pro-smoking lobby! I knew it was you when I seen a passing reference to Me Bungo Pony along with a couple of other small clues.

I'll never agree with you as you know, but love your command of the written word and your ability to take down the poor unsuspecting victim who dare to cross your path! I know for a fact that you are not Carlo (call it women's intuition) but cannot shake off the suspition that you are married to Maureen Moore.

Are you a column writer? if not why not? You should really think about writing in some kind of satirical publication such as Private Eye.

Best wishes
Claire
151

claire,

20/01/2008 21:26:16
Just wanted to corrrect a couple of mistakes in my above text (please forgive me David!) Dare should have read dares and suspition should have read suspicion. Sorry!
152

David from New Mills,

U.K. 25/01/2008 20:38:18
#150/1, Claire 77.
I have been a tad tardy in replying to C.77, but had thought this thread had come to the end of it's reel.
I have never chosen to seek any "moral high ground", but if I appear intellectually superior to some other correspondents, that is only a question of relativity.
I have never met, let alone wed, Maureen Moore.
Claire may wish to feverishly seek clues to my true identity, but I am STILL not Me Bungo Pony, and the merest glimmer of perspicacity would tell tell her that I am vastly ahead of Carlo "Chuckles" Rossi in terms of intellect.
Would she agree with "smoking is a filthy ant-social habit" as a concept? Or how about "smoking sucks!"?
She should appreciate that I do tend to satirise, rather then demonise or ostracise. Must give Ian Hislop a call.
Noticed her deliberate, undeclared, error of "when I seen" to test me.
Sayonara, Cumbria Lass!
153

celtic4,

USA 28/05/2008 04:03:37
I would have looked forward to a small sip in a pub, with a good smoke, but now...well, it isn't my country, even tho I cannot have that here either. Sigh.
Suggest ALL of you wake up,quit pointless argument and smell the coffee! Or tea, as it were. Your rights, your civil liberties are being stolen out from under your noses and all you can do is argue about the use of the English language! Woe is me! You need perhaps,and it is only a suggestion, mind you, a Civil Liberities Union. To protect your rights since you do not seem to recognise it yourselves. What is to be next on their list? How many times you can visit the loo in a day's time? How many hours sleep you're required to have by law? Think about it. The government is going where no government should go. Freedom to choose is at risk here, as those who visit Hammish's would atest to.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.