Freedom to poison

Smoke damaged brains

The most stupid claim for months arrived in an e-mail today.

Colin Grainger, Chairman of Freedom2Choose says “One thing, however, is clear: the Smoking Ban has not been a success.” No? Apart from: -

 

* The number of smokers successfully quitting has soared because of the smoking ban in England, which celebrates its first anniversary this week. Research shows that almost 235,000 people managed to stub it out with help from the NHS in the nine months from April to December 2007 - a rise of 22 per cent on the year before.

* Chief Medical Officer Sir Liam Donaldson writes: We expect many lives have been saved. Everyone has the right to enjoy the benefits of a cleaner, healthier environment.'

* Fears that smokers would smoke more at home appear to be unrealised, with 67 per cent imposing a ban at home, compared with 61 per cent before the ban

* 80 per cent of those polled believed the legislation banning smoking was a good thing.

* In a survey of more than 1,000 people with lung conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma, 56 per cent said they were able to go out more without the risk of suffering attacks of breathlessness from passive smoking in pubs and restaurants.

Hilariously Colin Grainger adds, “Freedom2Choose is not pro-smoking - it is a pro-choice organisation - we neither condemn nor condone what is, after all, a legal pastime for adults.” I have replied asking who funds this group.

No prize for guessing whom it might be.

Cause for joy

There has long been concern about the health of a Scottish Labour MP.

It was no surprise to hear that one was resigning for health reasons. The shock is that is Glasgow East MP David Marshall who appeared to be hale and hearty in the Commons a short while ago.

The one rumoured to have a terminal disease is continuing in office. I wish David Marshall well. It has been reported that he is suffering from severe depression. It must be a cause of very serious concern for David to resign. He has had a great deal of bad luck in his parliamentary career. He lost the Chairmanship of the Transport Select Committee in a deal with the Tories to get a chairmanship of the Culture committee for Gerald Kaufman.

While I have no wish to understate the seriousness of David’s condition, there is probably an epidemic of low spirits among Labour MPs. Things have never been worse. Even in 1983. Deepening this gloom is the subterranean standing of MPs in public opinion, probably now below that of estate agents and double-glazing salesmen. Those who define their status by the office of MP are deflated.

The rest of us are not. The sleaze allegations are greatly exaggerated. MPs are still in a wonderfully privileged position to question and influence Government. For the first time in history, MPs have the resources to serve our constituents well and to promote our services. Much has gone wrong, but we are well place to push reforms.

This week we celebrate the greatest political achievement of politics in 100 years – the NHS.  As a PM once said, ‘Rejoice!’

In denial

How long can it continue?

The death of soldier number 110 in Afghanistan was announced today. The inevitable ritual follows. Heartfelt tributes to the courage and character of the casualty are made followed by a Ministerial statement of regret. Then an assurance that the sacrifice was worthwhile because we are fighting an essential war.

Tonight there was a repeat of the fatuous claim that if we were not fighting the Taleban in Afghanistan we would be fighting them here. No we would not. El Qaeda may be a threat but the Taleban are not.

These tired justifications for the deaths of our courageous soldiers are now gossamer thin. No one has re-defined the purpose of the Helmand incursion since John Reid said he hoped it would last  ‘ three years  without a shot being fired.’ That was two and a half years ago.

How many more lives must be lost before the Government reassess this abjectly failing mission?

 

Comments

[Belinda]

'I have replied asking who funds this group.

No prize for guessing whom it might be.'

Go on, give it a shot, Mr Flynn! As Treasurer of Freedom2choose I can easily confirm whether or not you win the (non-) prize!

[Paul Flynn]

Are you still maintaining that the smoking ban has NOT been a success?

[andy]

Paul

Do you believe that passive smoke kills people?

Honestly?
I mean really, no crossed-fingers or tongues in cheek? Do you genuinely believe 98% water vapour mixed with tiny amounts of chemicals which all fall well within the HSE's Workplace exposure limits actually kills people?

Just in case you arent having us on, and you do believe this.
Why is it that Olive Oil is considered more of a risk to health, yet we dont ban restaurants or cooking in public places.

Why are women in Northern England not banned from dinking tap water when the risk of giving birth to a still born baby is 3 times more than harm from passive smoke?

[paulflynn]

Freedom2choose is funded by opponents of the Smoking in Public Places ban. I understand it was originally financed by publicans who obviously have a vested financial interests.

Do you believe that nay political party would reverse a ban that has already saved thousands of lives with a quarter of a million people giving up smoking?

If not, what's your point?

[Carlos]

Paul do you think it is up to you or their choice whether they quit smoking?? Actually studies from both Ireland and Italy show smoking rates increase after smoking bans get introduced.

Funded by publicans?? How is that a vested interest when it is their livelihoods that are at stake from this legislation? What about big pharmaceutical companies funding groups like ASH who have a vested interest in selling Nicotine Replacement Therapy products.

[Paul Flynn]

I repeat you are on to a lost cause. The ban will never be repealed after it has been proved to be a wonderful success.

[andy]

If its a lost cause then why do you pursue the legalization of cannabis?
If we are going down the road of restricting freedoms on the back of health, then what chance does cannabis have?

You mention the vested interests preventing reasonable cannabis laws, yet fail to see the similar reasons for smoking bans.

Tobacco control is a multi-billion pound industry, that makes big tobacco look puny. Passive smoking is a fraud to further this cause. Any health implications of active smoking should be left to personal choice, the same way taking cannabis or drinking alcohol should be.
Please consider your hypocrisy and look beyond the propaganda.

[andy]

"I repeat you are on to a lost cause. The ban will never be repeals whan it has been proved to be a wonderful success".

Tell that to the Germans

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2475001/German-court-overturns-smoking-ban.html

[Paul Flynn]

The federal Givernment in Germany retreated from a proposed ban becaues they did not have the power to introduce it. The Landers do. All countries including UK, Ireland, Italy and now France have successful smoking bans that will never be changed.

You miss the point. It's nothing to do with freedom. You are free to destroy your health and life in any way you chose. What you not entitled to do is to poison the air that others breathe. No problem with Snus.

Cannabis is at its most dangerous when smoked - to the smoker and anyone near. It can be ingested in safer ways, in food, drink or as a gas.

[J Stewart]

I'm interested in the figure of the 235,000 people who have quit in the period April-December 2007.

Does this figure only include those who have been off cigarettes for the full nine months or does it include people who have begun their programme within the period. If the latter wouldn't it be somewhat premature to claim that a newbie starting in November had quit smoking by December?

How does the NHS check for recidivism during the programme? Does it check at all? After all, smokers might simply be attending NHS smoking cessation clinics for the free NRT while continuing to smoke.

What measures, if any, are in place to follow up?

I understand that the NRT programme has a very high failure rate because the quitters backslide after completion of the programme. Why, then, is NRT the only method of quitting advocated by the NHS?

[Paul Flynn]

J Stewart, What does it matter? It may be an under or over estimate. The truth is that a vast numbers of people have been helped by the smoking ban to escape their addiction.

[andy]

You miss the point. It's nothing to do with freedom. You are free to destroy your health and life in any way you chose. What you not entitled to do is to poison the air that others breathe.

Poison the air?
Should we ban cars?
Which is the most dangerous to health?
Check out the toxicology of tobacco smoke.
The chemicals are so dilute its impossible outside of a lab for them to reach harmful levels, as i have stated in previous posts.
Other wise the HASW act would have covered this area.

Again i ask you to look beyond the propaganda and liberate your anti-tobacco ridden mind.
http://tinyurl.com/39ctz7
http://tinyurl.com/yrhc7q

Modern Air amangement systems can remove 99.997% of airborne toxins, regarless of smoking. All the chemicals in SHS are still prevalent in indoor spaces without smoking.
Formaldehyde for example is used tomanufacture furniture, adhesives, cleaning products.
These chemical roam free unchecked. But in most cases and as in all cases with tobacco smoke are in such minute quantities that they cant do any harm.

First rule of toxicology- The dose makes the poison.

Few people are asking for the ban to be repealed, but many(probably most) would support an amendment based on choice and separation.
Denying this choice is an infringement on civil liberties and property rights.

[Helen]

And I thought that the smoking ban was about keeping the 'ambiguous dangers' of passive smoke away from those who didn't smoke (which are much less than drinking tap water and using your mobile phone, not to even mention air pollution).
It wasn't anything to do with getting people to quit, or at least, that's what your government told us.

This ban is in force for health and safety in the workplace reasons, at least that is what the Dept of Health keep stating. Are you therefore suggesting that it was passed for other reasons?

[andy]

Paul
You are contradicting yourself.
On the one hand you say its ok to smoke as long as you dont poison others. Then you justify the ban by saying it 'encourages' people to give up.
Which is it?
Both are false.
And the latter is no business of the state to coerce people to change their lifestyle choice by legislating against them.

I am an occasional , as are many people.
Am i anymore an addict, than someone who occasionally drinks alcohol.
Am i a caffeine addict because i like a cup of coffee in the morning?

Stop reading from the Anti-tobacco crib sheet and think outside of the box. do your constituents some justice.

[Belinda]

Publicans who opposed the ban funded our movement because they had vested interests? But I thought the ban was good for business, Paul?

The National Clean Air Award, part of the Roy Castle Lung Foundation and giving recognition to employers that banned smoking (pre ban), is supported by NiQuitin. No vested interests there I suppose? Why is it only the tobacco branch of Vested Interests Incorporated only comes in for criticism?

In modern post-industrial society the vital matter of clean air has been reduced to the issue of whether smoking is allowed in public places. Indoor air pollution comes from many sources. Instead of trying to isolate and eliminate specific toxins we exclude tobacco smoke, a very weak mix of water vapour and other elements commonly found in other everyday objects. Instead of approaching the problem scientifically we have approached it in an authoritarian manner, threatening people with fines.

As to a success: well that is a very subjective term, isn't it? What were the aims of the ban ... to keep a flourishing hospitality industry or to put a record number of pubs out of business? To lower smoking rates? To reduce exposure to one of the most dilute toxins known to man?

The CMO claims lives saved on the basis of people giving up smoking. That's rather hypothetical, rather like deaths from passive smoking. How long do you have to give up smoking before you become a success story? One month? Three?

Yes we do believe that this should be an issue of fully-informed choice. What about allowing the millions of smoking Britons a social outlet, as all people should have? What about allowing the licensed trade and other sections of the community to cater for them?

By all means refuse to consider that we have a case, but it won't stop us from pushing it. Resorting to the tactic of insinuating that we are not thinking straight because we smoke ('smoke damaged brains') is going to do you no favours either. Our organisation was founded by and includes many people who don't smoke.

[J Stewart]

I think, Paul, that it matters a great deal because otherwise it is a figure which is presented as fact when it might bear no relation to the truth. The truth might actually be that 235,000 went through the door of the clinic but only 100 quit, in which case it hardly amounts to a 'vast' number.

The answers to my questions should be readily available from reputable data capture as part of its terms of reference, with the exception of the one about NRT being recommended. Do you know why it is?

Actually, I don't really understand why the figure is important at all, anyway, as justification of the smoking ban which, I understood, was brought in to protect the health of non-smokers and had nothing whatsoever to do with active smoking.

[paulflynn]

Andy, it's not my job to teach you how to think. There is no contradiction. Some people are addicted to tobacco, alcohol, drugs. Other users are not.

Addictions are never desirable because it means that the addiction is in control over the person's judgement.

Against a mountain of evidence that tobacco is harmful to users and other, your argument amount to no more than an eccentric quibble. Why pursue a cause that is lost?

As far as I am concerned my vote for the ban was very much to improve the health of smokers and non-smokers.

[Huw O'Sullivan]

So a month after posting the whingers brigade swings into action.
Successive governments declared health policy has been to reduce the number of smokers.
So you freedom to choose lot can wail all you want, you can state and restate factually or not that the case for 2nd hand smoke causing harm is tenuous or even nonexistent.
You can claim it is a breach of your human rights not to be able to poison yourselves in the company of others in pubs, clubs and restaurants.
You can insist on your right to help the people who sell you cigarettes, profit from causing you ill health or premature death.
You can do all that, and it won't make a blind bit of difference, because generally when people do things that are harmful for them, others do try to stop them.
They also try to stop them getting others to follow them.
We have immoral and illegal wars, we have people in danger of starvation, we have issues with education, law enforcement, the health service, pensions, incapacity benefit, fuel poverty.
You however have found the niche for your political action, a lost cause that no one cares to support.
I guess that as it can do no harm, its a bit like train or plane spotting, but what a monumental waste of time.

btw
I am a smoker, but at least on this one issue I am both rational and a realist.

[J Stewart]

How, if addiction is in control over the person's judgment, as you state, Paul, has Huw managed to escape this control to post a comment with which, I take it, you agree?

[Huw O'Sullivan]

I will hopefully spare Paul from pointing out the obvious.
I still smoke, which, given the immense stupidity of doing so, demonstrates what control addiction has. But that's all about personal selfishness and personal weakness to cravings, I simply don't have the supreme self centredness and egoism to require that the rest of the world panders to my addiction.

[Carlos]

Huw, it isnt an addiction Huw it is a habit and a passtime. Just like those you mention.

Governments?- in reality since 1997- they didnt mention the methods- perhaps they didnt know but now for sure it is clear they are using such fascist methods as smoking bans and denial of healthcare- this when smokers tax money more than covers any of the health care burden of so-called smoking "related" illnesses which cost 1.5 billion to treat. That raised from cigarette tax revenue-9.8 billion. What a farce!!

Now when it comes to smoking bans ok non-smokers are clearly in the majority, but this is no excuse to mandate the personal choices of the minority, nor of the business owners that prefer to cater to that group. Non-smokers Freedoms, Rights and Civil Liberties end precisely where these things begin for everyone else; when those intangibles infringe on the well-being of others. This of course includes people that have made the personal choice to smoke, and more importantly the property owners that would allow that legal activity to occur on Private Property. Why do I mention the latter?? As pubs arent owned by me, you or the government like Paul thinks they are. They pay the taxes and costs of running the business not me or you.

Paul carry on blagging on about how smoking bans are "popular" when in fact they arent- the reason why they are obeyed is through coercion in the form of hefty fines for business owners. Now to est your theory of how popular the ban is- why dont you repeal it for six months and see how many pubs will go back to allowing smoking. Or even easier just eliminate the fines then see how self-enforcing it is.

PS your satire cartoon isnt funny in fact

[Carlos]

(cont from previous- limit of words?)it is rather pathetic and unrealistic!! Unlikely theyd all die at the same time. More likely they moved to a different pub with a good outdoor area or stayed at home.

In addition Id like to add another question- how would you like it if I drew such a cartoon and replaced the cigarette with control of other people. As it seems to me people like you are addicted to it!!

[Belinda]

In sum: smokers' views on the subject are affected by the fact that they smoke, and the ban is fine because the CMO thinks lots of people might have stopped smoking and many lives might thereby have been saved.

Sounds like blind prejudice and guesswork to me, but then I can't really comment (might have had three or four roll-ups earlier in the day).

[Tim Clarke]

Mr Flynn,

Your comments about the smoking ban never being repealed are ill-founded. Historically, pretty every major smoking ban in existence has been repealed.

The Ottoman Empire banned smoking on pain of death (presumably for the good of its citizens' health) - repealed. The Catholic Church was virulently anti-smoking during the middle ages, banning smoking throughout papal premises - repealed. The USA saw a spate of smoking bans during the Prohibition era - and a few of these, albeit the minority, were state laws prohibiting the sale and consumption of tobacco, not just bans in public places - thankfully, all of them were repealed.

Local, town instituted bans are frequently repealed in the USA. Smoking bans in Germany have collapsed on two historically distinct occasions. Firstly, after the collapse of the Third Reich (Hitler wasn't too keen on smoking), and in the rather more recent case.

[Huw O'Sullivan]

Ah so very much a tale of sound and fury from the freedom2inflicthorriblediseasesuponthemselvesgroup
even smoker's views are mixed as is evidenced by this smoker who thinks you are a very small pack of idiots.
A good portion of the twentieth century was taken up with lots and lots of medical studies seemingly denying what should have been blindingly obvious at least to anyone who smoked that smoking was bad for you and caused serious harm. It certainly was obvious to medical people dealing with cancers and heart disease, lung problems etc.
Can this perhaps help you to understand why it doesn't matter how many reports you can come up with that are unclear or claim there is no proof of second hand smoke causing medical problems.

Smoking is an addiction although a mild one compared to crack cocaine or heroin, it is also a habit, a rather unpleasant one.
A pastime?
An activity that makes time pass pleasantly?
Only in the sense that withdrawal is unpleasant.
Smoking robs you of health.
It robs you of money.
It robs you of breath.
It robs you of your sense of smell.
It robs you of time spent doing things with people you care about. How much time have smoking parents or relatives, failed to play with their children, either because they could not, or because rather than play with them they stood back and watched and smoked instead.
Now with the smoking ban we hear about people cutting interesting or enjoyable conversations short so they can go out and smoke.
Smoking in other words is not a pastime, it is a habit and an addiction, costs a ton of money and does no good for anyone.

I challenge all of you who want the freedom2choose, to choose to not smoke for 6 weeks. You won't of course, because you cannot make that choice, because you are addicted. Interesting concept of freedom you have.
Paul's choice of cartoon was inspired.

On the other hand, stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes right up tight and sing nah nah nah over and over while wishing very hard to get what you want. Perhaps threaten to hold your breath for 5 minutes or stamp your feet really hard. Honestly, if you tantrum hard enough, you just might get your way.
Saying it's not fair in an elaborate drawn out and whiny manner will undoubtedly meet with equal success.