Vending Machine Menace

Child addicts

A disturbing report from ASH Wales says that children in South Wales are able to buy tobacco in supermarkets and putting their life at serious risk of smoking addiction.

ASH Wales found that 8 out of 10 children surveyed have bought tobacco in local shops and 1 in 5 is able to buy tobacco in supermarkets. The survey also found evidence that children are buying single cigarettes in shops - a practice outlawed in 1991.

Daniel Clayton, of ASH Wales said:

“The fact that children can access tobacco so easily is a serious health concern. We know that the earlier children become addicted to tobacco the more likely they are to die a slow and painful death in middle age – taking around 15 years from their life expectancy.

“What is striking about this survey is the ease in which young people can feed their deadly habit. For instance 1 in 5 children can buy cigarettes from vending machines. Why are vending machines still legal when we have restrictions to protect children from this addictive drug?

It’s telling that a manufacturer of cigarette vending machine founded an organisation Freedom to Choose in 2004 that campaigned against the tobacco ban.

ASH Wales is urging anyone who wants a tobacco free future for our children to log onto www.ashwales.co.uk and send the Health Secretary Alan Johnson an e-card supporting the proposals in the Department of Health Consultation on tobacco
Control. The consultation is proposing an end to large tobacco displays in stores, banning the use of vending machines and making tobacco come in plain packaging, which will help end brand identity and the perceived coolness of smoking.

Amen to that.

Commons swearing

The Welsh  language radio programme  Taro Post has invited me to do a phone-in on the oath. The Daily Mail was in vintage moronic mode with their account of the plea for an alternative oath for parliamentarians.

They tried to build it up as an act of revolution. Nothing as exciting as that. It has not been noticed much in the Commons and only 22 MPs have signed this EDM. When the matter was debated and a vote taken, 131 MPs asked for alternative oath. It makes sense.

Sinn Fein MPs whose elections are as valid as any other MPs are now debarred from sitting because the oath is unacceptable. That is a distortion of our democracy especially now that the Sinn Fein MPs are part of the government in Northern Ireland.
Other MPs who are not in favour of the monarchy cross their fingers or read a preamble before taking the oath, such as ‘As a Republican of conviction and under protest, I swear etc…’

Not all of us will feel a debt of personal loyalty to King Charles and Queen Camilla. There is no plan to get rid of the royalist oath. But the 131 MPs who voted for an alternative should be allowed to swear loyalty to their constituents and the country.

Drink to that

Great programme tonight on BBC Wales about our beloved Murenger Pub in Newport High Street,

There was some reliable history from Les James, Alan Roderick and Terry Underwood plus a suspect choir who sing only Billy Bragg numbers. Not to worry, they reckon they manage only half a song to every eight pints of beer.

The series is the Great pubs of Wales. The customers ranged from doe-eyed art students to venerable gentlemen of the city.  The publican Rob Jones was well-informed and welcomng. The Murenger’s personality was displayed as robust, idiosyncratic and unique.

Without doubts, one of the best pubs in Wales.

Comments

[andy]

Mr Flynn

I do some voluntary work with teenagers in South Wales. Many are under-age smokers(since the new age restrictions came in). After enquiring as to how they now acquire tobacco, I found that instead of buying from shops they use drug-dealers or tobacco smugglers.

As an anti-prohibitionist do you not see a pattern developing here, with tobacco restrictions?

Where would most people have their 16/17 year old buy tobacco(and lets face it if they want it they will get it), a newsagents or a drugs den?

This latest 'its to protect the children' rhetoric from ASH, is just their usual emotive rubbish to try to shock people into supporting further tobacco restrictions.

ASH continue to play the children card and keep getting their way.

We all know the vast majority of vendors act responsibly and within the law. Yet ASH and their political dogs bodies would rather put every young smoker at risk by encouraging the illicit trade instead of a sensibly regulated one. All for the sake of a miniscule minority of irresponsible vendors.

You harp on about the dangers of smoking, yet you fail to realise that the further underground it goes the riskier it becomes.
Drug dealers have a new market for their drugs and smugglers can peddle their imitation brand cigarettes(containing goodness knows what) from abroad.

The difference here is I have seen it, ASH just make it up!

[Nitro]

Mr Flynn, I have read your post with interest:-

Just because ASH want to eradicate smoking and invite people to send in a e-card with no clear options, there are two sides to every arguement.

Let me point visitors to this e-petition.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Tobacco-displays/

The intro to this petition reads:-

The current proposal would not meet Government objectives to prevent underage smoking and in addition would have detrimental effects such as: - it will seriously affect the livelihoods of independent retailers and force some out of business; - it will cause retailers substantial unnecessary expense to pay for shop redesigns; >

Please take the time to read it, some of your local shops will be affected and it is your job to support these people and not take a biased stand, they probably even voted for you.

With regards to vending machines, this is really a simple one, cigarette machines should only be operated by tokens, these would only be available from the proprieter who would ensure that underage smokers can not purchase.

One last note it seems that MPs do not want to support all sections of the voting public, this has become glaringly obvious with the draconian measures on smoking.

[Basil Brown]

"It’s telling that a manufacturer of cigarette vending machine founded the organisation Feedom2Choose that is campaigning against the tobacco ban."

This whole piece wouldn't be sour grapes over your failure to link F2C with Big Tobacco, would it Paul? ;-)

[timbone]

This subject of vending machines is very confusing for me. For a start, the only place I see them is in places of hospitality where there are adults. Added to this you need a pretty large amount of change to use them, so a youngster would have to go to a bar or reception to get the change. One may argue that they already would have the change, which brings me onto the main point. You pay well over £6 for a vending pack of 16 cigarettes, these vending machines are a last resort for an adult who can afford it!
Another point in this article is about the organisation Freedom2Choose and it's apparent connecting with vending machines. I am sorry, but I cannot stop laughing. I am sure that I am not alone in only finding out today, as a memeber of F2C, that one of the people who started this group had something to do with vending machines - and? Can I make it clear that Freedom2Choose is more or less a social network of likeminded people. It was started in the same way as many social networking sites are started, you don't need any funding to do that. All it is about is people who are dismayed, upset, and yes, angry, that the hospitality industry were not given freedom to choose whether individual pubs, clubs or whatever chose to be smoking, non smoking or both. Who is F2C funded by? ME, just an ordinary guy who doesn't like being bullied, and all the others who have made a donation to the cause, nothing more, nothing less.

[paulflynn]

'The Freedom2Choose campaign, started by Rod Bullough, managing director of Blackpool-based tobacco vending machine supplier Duckworth, has amassed 14,000 signatures in only two weeks.'

This is the first news story I can find about the origins on this group.

It is very similar to groups that opposed seat belts and the breathalyser. Public acceptance of these safety advances saw the demise of th protests. It is happening with the smoking ban.

In spite of invitations to do so, I have never said F2C is funded by the tobacco industy. but the far more influential body FOREST certainly is.

[Will S]

Mr Flynn, you appear to be struggling to answer the other arguments brought to bear upon you by andy. If you wish to be consistent you must drop either one view or the other.

Personally, as someone who works in a council estate convenience store, I cannot begin to tell you how ineffectual and counterproductive your proposed measures would be. There is already a flourishing black market in cigarettes in the area and hiding cigarettes away behind the counter would only deter currently legal smokers from buying their products legally and paying taxes on them. In my experience there is a far greater problem with the use of proxies in purchasing tobacco products, e.g. an adult purchasing products on behalf of the child than in the direct selling of these to children. I do hope you can be big enough to accept that your views on this might not be entirely consistent or sensible.

I understand your gut feeling on this issue, and as a non-smoker I'm all in favour of smoke-free public spaces. However there is no point in driving tobacco the way of other drugs, you're in favour of freedom as a path to the elimination of usage, be consistent in that view. And no, I'm not sponsored by the tobacco industry either (though they're welcome to if they want to)

[timbone]

Mr Flynn, or should I call you a Right Honourable Gentleman, I can assure you that I am secure in the knowledge that many, possibly no members of the Freedom2Choose forum have any commercial interst in cigarette vending machines. May I also add that, although I can respect your sensible but uninformed comparison with orgaisations such as ours and those who opposed seat belts and breathalysers, it is a lot different. F2C is just one of many groups worldwide who are opposed to obsession and prohibition.

[Jolly Roger]

Those MPs who spurn the oath of their loyalty,
Should remember that it's not to individuals of Royalty.
The oath is to Her Majesty's status,
'Scuse me that curry's brought on a slight flatus.
The Sovereign is at the heart of our Democracy.
To say otherwise is simple hypocrisy,
If Republicans and others object to this set-up.
They can simply leave once they get up.

We live in a Sovereign Democracy here,
Yet permit dissenters and hold them dear.
But sometimes they act a little like fools,
By objecting to Parliament's simple rules.
The finger-crossers who think that they're smart,
Are exposing the secretive depths of their heart.
If they LIE with this oath, but swear it despite.
What more LIES are hid, and kept from the light?

[patrick]

Andy
As usual more pro-smoking rot.
Smokers have been poisoning their own children for several generations. Non-smoking children of heavy smokers are lying in graveyards nationwide.
At what point will someone like you put the responsibility on the toxic exhaler rather than the promoter of health?
Remember the 77% British smoking ban support!

[patrick]

Non-smoking children of heavy smokers are lying in graveyards nationwide.

My own words above should have added (before the Benson and Hedges directors post on)

That these children died of smoking related diseases.

[patrick]

Smoking parents 'harm their kids'
Smokers in South Tyneside are being reminded of the danger secondhand smoke poses to children.

Experts have confirmed that childhood exposure to secondhand smoke is linked to longterm and lifelong damage to health.

Four in 10 children in North East England are exposed to secondhand smoke in their own homes.

Delegates at the Fresh Smoke Free North East conference heard the evidence from national researchers, including Dr Tanith Muller, researcher and author of British Medical Association report Breaking the Cycle of Children's Exposure.

She said: "Some parents try not to smoke in front of their children, however, the poisons in tobacco smoke don't respect people's good intentions, and evidence shows children in these homes are still at high risk."

Secondhand smoke exposure in childhood has been linked to cot death, low birth weight and premature births, as well as higher levels of childhood cancer and early onset of heart disease in adulthood.

Through discussion, delegates at the Darlington conference concluded that many health professionals are failing to provide parents and carers with the facts on the damaging effects of secondhand smoke.

They identified a need to focus on this area, to provide health professionals with the tools and information they needed to inform their patients.

Ailsa Rutter, Director of Fresh, said: "It has never been more important for us to protect our children's lives by taking a stance against tobacco and secondhand smoke."

"So many children are living with uncomfortable, avoidable illnesses due to secondhand smoke, such as glue ear and asthma."

"It is up to us to ensure we respond to the Government's National Tobacco Strategy consultation, and provide our children with the future they deserve. Let's make smoking history for our children."

Source: Shields Gazette, 7th August 2008

[paulflynn]

Andy makes an interesting point but his attack on ASH undermines it.

If young people get their cigarettes from backstreet dealers it could increase the 'forbidden fruit' attraction. In the dealings I have had with ASH, I have grown to respect them and the quality of their work

[paulflynn]

The very poorest reason for not following the advice of Ash is the financial one - for bringing in tax revenue or as
a marginal difference to the retail trade.
If the case can be made that the proposed changes will reduce the attraction of fags to children, then the change in the regulations would be justified,

The reason why most young people take up smoking is fashion, peer pressure and the 'rite of passage' to the adult world. The arguments are not clear on that.

The significance of the vending machine is that they are impossible to police to avoid use by children. F2C cannot escape their history in that they were founded by a dealer in vending machine, whatever they are now

[andy]

Paul thanks for acknowledging my point.
I hope you will give this and other non-ASH/anti-tobacco viewpoints the respect and serious thought they deserve.

As for my criticism of ASH, it was actually very reserved considering the damage this group have caused. They use tax payers money to spread their rhetoric via junk science and spin. They fooled parliament into voting for the blanket ban, which was based on junk science that they commissioned.
This disgraceful behaviour has continued via the heart attack science by press release campaign(3rd in the top ten junk science reports 2007), and their attack on tobacco point of sale.
Their sister group the RCP has this year announced a 20 year plan to prohibition.
Meanwhile tobacco use continues, will probably increase, while thousands of hospitality venues close, and millions of social lives and community based interactions have been ruined.

[andy]

Patrick
I admire your attempts to make an impact on this blog, but alas you continue to fall short of adding anything meaningful to the debate.
I will engage this time because you raise the emotive subject of childhood exposure to tobacco smoke.
The references you use are presumably extrapolated from some epidemilogical study or other.
Now, the 2nd largest and most comprehensive study on exposure to SHS was commissioned by the WHO. This study demonstrated that SHS had a no ill-effects on children, in fact it found it had a small protective effect.
This study was designed to confirm the dangers of SHS. In terms of the questionaires it was the most comprehensive ever,as attempts were made to avoid recall bias misleading questions.

Of course Epidemiology is fundamentally flawed as it cannot demonstrate or prove causation, or protection. But, if you are to use Epidemiology when assessing risks to children, surely the mother of all studies should be your reference point.

[Daniel Clayton (Youth Health Specialist)]

"I do some voluntary work with teenagers in South Wales. Many are under-age smokers(since the new age restrictions came in). After enquiring as to how they now acquire tobacco, I found that instead of buying from shops they use drug-dealers or tobacco smugglers."

Andy where do you do your voluntary work in South Wales? I would gladly come along and chat to the young people about how they access tobacco and give them information about how they might quit – if they want it. If you read our full piece in the Western Mail you will see that we too are concerned about young people acquiring smuggled tobacco. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/health-news/2008/08/14/shocking-teenage-smoking-figures-revealed-91466-21529736/ we are advocating more prevention work with young people to ensure they never start – something you would surely support?

“As an anti-prohibitionist do you not see a pattern developing here, with tobacco restrictions?”

I think you are missing the point. The issues raised in our small scale survey indicate that children under 18 are accessing tobacco with ease. Whether by smuggled sources or in shops. What we must first do is actually put restrictions on shopkeepers for selling children tobacco. I take it you agree that shops/supermarkets that sell alcohol to Under 18s should be fined or have restrictions place upon them? Well why not tobacco? Please read below for information on tobacco smuggling – much of it related to Big Tobacco.

“Where would most people have their 16/17 year old buy tobacco(and lets (sic) face it if they want it they will get it), a newsagents or a drugs den?”

I’d rather young people didn’t smoke AT ALL. The law is 18 because the fact is that if you start before you are an adult you are more likely to die from the product. Rather than facing it and letting them get tobacco we need to do more to educate them to the dangers of tobacco addiction.

“This latest 'its (sic) to protect the children' rhetoric from ASH, is just their usual emotive rubbish to try to shock people into supporting further tobacco restrictions.”

For your information I work for ASH Wales. We are a Welsh charity and my job is solely to try and protect children from tobacco disease, illness and death. This isn’t rhetoric, this is a hugely important issue. I’m not trying to shock anyone, I’m publishing a survey. If the results shock you and others then the way forward is clear, do more to stop young people smoking.

“ASH continue to play the children card and keep getting their way.”

Please do not dilute this important debate with such childlike arguments. We are trying to save lives, to give children the knowledge that if they smoke as children they have a 50% chance of dying slowly and painfully in middle age whilst paying for the privilege. Even Forest agree that children should not smoke.

“We all know the vast majority of vendors act responsibly and within the law. Yet ASH and their political dogs bodies would rather put every young smoker at risk by encouraging the illicit trade instead of a sensibly regulated one. All for the sake of a miniscule (sic) minority of irresponsible vendors.”

You said it yourself Andy ‘within the law.’ I agree that vendors who comply with the law should be applauded. Those who do not and continue to sell a deadly product to children should be penalised until they stop selling to children. 25% of supermarkets and retailers selling to young people is not miniscule Andy it is a sizeable percentage.
“You harp on about the dangers of smoking, yet you fail to realise that the further underground it goes the riskier it becomes.
Drug dealers have a new market for their drugs and smugglers can peddle their imitation brand cigarettes(containing goodness knows what) from abroad.”

You make an interesting point here. Imitation brand cigarettes do exist (North Korea being a notable maker of such items), but in reality smuggled cigarettes more often than not are introduced by Big Tobacco. Here are some links for you to peruse – I’m sure you can draw your own conclusions as to why Big Tobacco smuggles cigarettes (TAX!). http://old.ash.org.uk/html/smuggling/html/ricomenu.html http://www.reuters.com/article/consumerproducts-SP/idUSN3042051520070530 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/dec/17/britishamericantobaccobusiness.smoking

“The difference here is I have seen it, ASH just make it up!”

We surveyed 109 children across 5 regions of South Wales in June 2008. Our survey was anonymous, with no leading questions, no clauses and if the young people didn’t want to fill in the survey they did not have to. In terms of research it is not watertight by any means but is more accurate and broad than asking a few ‘teenagers’. I’d just like to let you know again that I work for ASH Wales not ASH and that we did not expect such depressing statistics, in fact if the results had been more positive (in regards to a lack of access) we would have published them and celebrated them. I’d like to ask you to retract ‘ASH just make it up!’ as you have absolutely no justification for making such a remark.

I’ll leave you with my favourite all time quote from Big Tobacco:

"We don’t smoke the shit, we just sell it. We reserve the right to smoke for the young, the poor, the black and the stupid." (R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company)

Nice people eh?

[PaulFlynn]

That's a great quote Daniel. It says it all.

So there are two organisations both called Freedom2Choose. They have the same aim of being opposed to the smoking ban. But, you claim, they are not connected in any way?

That is not really plausible. If the new one has no connection with the vending machine one, why did you not choose a different name?

Were you deliberately seeking to confuse?

Very odd.

[west2]

The quote is not from a R J Reynolds as such it was taken from what David Goerlitz,
who was the "The Winston Man," from 1981-88, said was said to him by a R J Reynolds tobacco exec.

Mr Goerlitz has recently spoken out about the problems associated with the tactics used by ASH and dissociated himself from TC.

ASH Wales can not distance itself from other TC groups unless it to speaks out.

One thing is odd though, how come children of the 50s, 60s and 70s as adults seem to be living longer, yet this current generation could be the first to live less than their parents.

Are we seeing more middle aged illness as a result of ETS exposure in the 50s-70s?

Why has Asthma increased with decreasing exposure to ETS?

west
----

[andy]

Paul

I think you should answer if you were deliberately seeking to confuse.
Without the vending machine business comments, you wouldnt have been able to discredit F2C.

Daniel
Makes a change for the politician to call ASH and they come running. Good to see favours are returned.
Im sure you would prefer children not to smoke atall, but that is a Dystopian view, and your campaigns are based on such unrealistic viewpoints.
You performed a small scale survey. Why are all ASH surveys small scale and no doubt targetted to meet a pre-meditated conclusions?
Tobacco will always be available. Coercive and patronising attempts to curb its use(as with illegal drugs) will be counter-productive.

If ASH(whichever guise) are concerned with health they would revert to their old policy of promoting moderation rather than cessation. Its a much more realistic(health orientated) approach, but of course doesnt help sales of NRT or anti-deppressants.

[Daniel Clayton (Youth Health Specialist)]

Andy can you link me to a copy of that WHO report please?

The way I look at data like this is as though I was looking at some scales. One side with the 'for' and one for the 'against'. Which side is heavier? Well there are literally hundreds of peer assessed studies that suggest SHS affects the health and mental well being of children. There is also evidence that shows SHS increases the risk of cot death.

Even if the scales were tipped in your corner (SHS doesn't cause any health issues for unborn babies and toddlers/children), which they aren't, due to the now accepted wisdom that smoking is bad for health isn't it actually prudent to protect children from SHS? Even if it just stops them starting to smoke themselves...*

*Of course big tobacco and their supporters discouraged research into the dangers of smoking and consistently denied that smoking was addictive or killed right up until the 1990s.

[Daniel Clayton (Youth Health Specialist)]

How can you promote moderation to a product that kills?

"You performed a small scale survey. Why are all ASH surveys small scale and no doubt targetted (sic) to meet a (sic) pre-meditated conclusions?"

Again +you+ have jumped to a conclusion you cannot prove. We expected poor results but did not expect such poor results. Our questions were not leading we simply asked under 18s if they smoked and where they got their cigarettes from. We cannot afford large scale surveys at this point but we will look into it in the future. Although I am beginning to think you are a lost cause, you seem to have no issue with young people smoking or becoming ill through SHS. If that is the case I can no longer hold a reasonable debate with you.

"but of course doesnt help sales of NRT or anti-deppressants."

You have let yourself down with that paranoid remark Andy...

[J Stewart]

Daniel,

Could I ask what evidence you have that people who start smoking when under 18 have a 50% chance of dying a slow and painful death in middle age and what evidence there is that banning vending machines, removing point of sale display and plain packaging will deter young smokers?

In stating that you work for ASH Wales and not ASH are you saying that you have no connection with ASH?

Is a sample of 109 children sufficient to be a representative sample? What were the demographics of the sample and how was the questionnaire administered and by whom?

Don't you think that there might be some merit in the argument that by continuing to demonise tobacco you only make it more 'cool' and that a more effective strategy would be to ensure that the laws that are already in place to stop the sale to under 18s are enforced?

[west2]

Daniel

"How can you promote moderation to a product that kills?".

Promoting Moderation is the approach adopted with alcohol, isn't it? Why the difference?

Wouldn't you rather reduce illnes by perhaps using Low Hazard Cigarettes?

west
----

[John Gray]

I have already explained to you once, Mr Flynn, that Freedom to Choose have nothing to do with the organisation of the same name that was sponsored by the cigarette vending company and headed by Rod Bullogh. NOR HAVE THEY EVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT! Our Freedom to choose was started by Dave Cheetham and Bob Feal-Martinez and did not come into existence until the end of 2006 despite the fact that before that we had a forum named "The Big Debate", which commenced in October 2005, and which has been incorporated into the existing F2C Forum.

Despite the fact that, as one of the earliest members of Freedom to Choose, I have explained the matters pertaining to our existence to you carefully, you persist in repeating a lie. Furthermore, I have also informed you that it is better to admit a mistake than persist with a lie in order to save face. The fact that this does not seem to sink into your mind indicates a certain acute weakness of character I think.

I shall await with interest to see if you either delete or alter this post as I am informed you have done with so many others. Incidentally, I have kept a record of it in order to check.

[John Gray]

Finally, with regard to your question: "were we deliberately seeing to confuse?", the answer is "no". As I recall, Rod Bullogh's organisation was so ineffectual that no-one had ever heard to it until some time after we were formed.

[Daniel Clayton (Youth Health Specialist)]

"Don't you think that there might be some merit in the argument that by continuing to demonise tobacco you only make it more 'cool' and that a more effective strategy would be to ensure that the laws that are already in place to stop the sale to under 18s are enforced?"

I partially agree with that statement, there is a danger that some children will always take 'risky' behaviour (from drugs to mountain biking...). I advocate giving young people the truth about tobacco whilst also making sure shops aren't selling to children and smugglers do not smuggle tobacco into this country. By showing children the attitude of big tobacco; their use of cartoons to advertise, billions on litigation, funding research that muddy the waters, catastrophic environmental affects of growing, selling and using tobacco as well as the billions set to die from it, I expect them to realise what a terrible product it is.

If I do my job properly I lose it (children don't smoke, they live longer) no need for ASH Wales youth team. If big tobacco does it's job properly they make more billions whilst people (adults and children) die. A very +simple+ equation for you to understand.

"Is a sample of 109 children sufficient to be a representative sample?

Read previous posts.

We work closely with ASH. They are an excellent organisation, with dedicated health professionals helping people give up whilst keeping Big Tobacco on their toes. The point I was making is that we are independent and dedicated to Wales. So please call us ASH Wales when commenting upon OUR work.

"Could I ask what evidence you have that people who start smoking when under 18 have a 50% chance of dying a slow and painful death in middle age and what evidence there is that banning vending machines, removing point of sale display and plain packaging will deter young smokers?"

A most cursory and balanced review of years of data and studies would give you all the information you will need to answer that. My favourite line about plain packaging is that Big Tobacco fears plain packaging...+because+ they fear sales will decrease. Imagine Coca Cola having generic branded products...do you think kids would buy that?

[Daniel Clayton (Youth Health Specialist)]

"How can you promote moderation to a product that kills?".

Promoting Moderation is the approach adopted with alcohol, isn't it? Why the difference?

Wouldn't you rather reduce illnes by perhaps using Low Hazard Cigarettes?

west

Alcohol does not account for 1 in 5 deaths in the UK (tobacco does). Tobacco cannot be used in moderation due to the highly addictive nature of nicotine products. In fact some studies show moderate drinking of wine to be beneficial for adults of a certain age. There is absolutely no evidence that suggests tobacco in any form is good for your health. When I say evidence I mean +credible+ evidence.

There is no such thing as low hazard cigarettes. Low or Light cigarettes are not allowed to be called by that name any more, blue silver etc being the legally accepted name (something I'd have discouraged). Big Tobacco documents reveal, in fact, that they were created for the purpose of growing their female customer base.

[Jim]

"We don’t smoke the shit, we just sell it. We reserve the right to smoke for the young, the poor, the black and the stupid." (R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company)

Nice people eh?
------------------------
This is from Dave Goerlitz (Marlborough man) The person who made the quote up...

I think it's time I hang up my Anti-Tobacco hat. To have watched and seen all the crap that has been going on with this issue, just shows me how irrelevant an issue it is. Being the former Winstonman, I can assure you that what happens behind closed doors with not only the tobacco industry and our government is real. I can assure you that not one penny of mine will ever be donated to the American Cancer Society, the Lung Association or Heart Association. The Anti-tobacco, so-called experts are even worse than the tobacco industry. At least with Big Tobacco, you have an idea of what you are dealing with. With the lies, the thievery of tobacco funds, and misleading information being put forth to the general population, it's no wonder nobody really gives a crap, including the media. The botton line is nobody really cares about this issue any more, and I for one do not wish to be guilty by association. The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids is "bogus", the Office on Smoking and Health is an
absurdity, ASH, CDC, NCI, and any other organization which has stood by and done virtually nothing should be ashamed of themselves. I'm embarrassed to say that for 18 years, I thought I was fighting the "good fight", and boy was I snowed by almost everyone, when they told me they cared. In my opinion they don't care ( and that includes the media). So, if there is anyone who remembers the Winston Man who came to your school and told you what the tobacco industry was capable of doing to get kids hooked, let me apologize for being a part of something that I thought was going to hopefully, be a part of the solution. It looks as though these organizations just want their $ cut, they just want their egoes stroked, and they love to hear themselves talk. I 'm sure they don't care about the truth, nor do they know how to fix the problem. Working with the so-called anti-tobacco movement is like living in a foreign country where nobody speaks English. Everyone is perplexed and confused, but not surprisingly making a "good living" doing it. The anti-tobacco movement is constipated and needs an enema. The anti-tobacco movement flows with the fluid grace of a midtown traffic jam. I can't deal with it anymore and I guess you can't go to war with the Army you got. I thought that being right would always prevail. I guess that's alot BS too. Upon reading this back, it sounds negative and whiny. I know what is going on with both sides and I'm not sure who is more evil any longer.
Dave G.
David Goerlitz | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 10:35 am |

[Jim]

And a similar quote from Michael Siegel

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/08/los-angeles-city-councilor-claims-that.html

The bottom line is that it can no longer be argued that the deception of the public about the health effects of brief secondhand smoke exposure is accidental. There has been plenty of opportunity to remove, clarify, or correct these claims and for the most part, organizations have made deliberate decisions not to do so.

Even the Surgeon General's office has had plenty of time and opportunity to correct or clarify the Surgeon General's claim that a brief exposure to secondhand smoke is sufficient to cause atherosclerosis and lung cancer. No clarification was forthcoming, and the claim remains on the web site to this day, without any note of correction.

In my opinion, this means we are not just exaggerating or distorting the science - we are lying to the public. And we're doing so knowingly and intentionally.

And I don't think the tobacco control movement can remain as a legitimate and viable one within public health if it continues to do so.

[Daniel Clayton (Youth Health Specialist)]

Oh fair enough. A triple turn coat who uses speculation and conjecture and is unsure of what he is saying and admits it sounds negative and whiny.

To be honest why didn't I realise the American Cancer Society was self serving and they all had 'comfortable' wages...it must be the same for CRUK, all the ASH groups and hard working volunteers the world over who want to stop people dying from tobacco caused cancer. Shame on us!

You've got me convinced!

*SLAPS HEAD*

[Jim]

Just trying to show that there is deceit and corruption on BOTH sides.
It is not always
Big Tobacco = Bad
Big Pharma, ASH et al = Good

[PaulFlynn]

So you are a monarchist Jolly Roger?

MPs have choice of oaths , religious or humanist, English or Welsh. There is no choice for the third of the population and the 131 MPs who would prefer an oath to the people or the country.

If republicans did not take the oath, parliament would be composed entirely of monarchists. The get-out is to use the preamble which points out that the oath is taken 'under protest.' Until a change is voted through that is the only compromise. If it was not, no one with republican views could take their seats.

I am sure you not want that Jolly Roger?

[PaulFlynn]

John Gray, I am very happy to admit mistakes. The fact is all the confusion was caused entirely by you by choosing the identical name of an existing group for a new group.

One site is demanding that I grovel for saying F2C is funded by Big Tobacco. No can do, for the simple reason that I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT IT IS.

Comments and parts of comments have been deleted from the 500 cooments than were submitted on two recent threads. They were all either obscene, libelous, malicious or gratuitously offensive or provocative. Many threads descend into foul mouth free-for alls. That will not happen here.

500 comments are still there for all to see. No-one with a sensible contribution was deleted. After the first hundred I do a 1,000 rebuttal f the claims made. That's more than a generous ventilation.

[andy]

Daniel

I don’t doubt your good intentions, but your dystopian approach is unrealistic. It is as in effective as the war on drugs that Mr Flynn knows all about.
As for nicotine being addictive are you so sure about such a sweeping statement.
I smoke tobacco. But I don’t wake up during the night craving a hit. I don’t smoke much smoke during the week, never during the day. I do find it compliments social interaction and relaxation. It is more habitual than addictive. As with alcohol it might be addictive to some, but I’d suggest otherwise for many.

I take a realistic approach that an enjoyable life involves taking risks.
I cross busy roads, I ski, and I’ve climbed mountains. I will soon be cycling down the most dangerous road in the world in Bolivia.
I smoke tobacco. As a smoker I have a 99.8% chance of not dying of a smoking related disease. A non-smoker has a 99.9% chance.
So, do I stay at home in a risk averse, smoke-free bubble, or do I enjoy my life?

I do agree with many of your comments regarding BT.
The point is though that there are better alternatives to prohibition and coercion.
TC already put the brakes on BT producing Less harmful cigarettes. No I don't mean Marlboro lights or filtered, again do some non-TC research.

Big Pharma call the shots and safer tobacco is not conducive to NRT and Anti-depressant sales. NRT doesn’t work (96% failure rate, which again suggests nicotine isn’t addictive to most). Anti-depressants are where its at though. Big Pharma make the big money here. Groups like yours with their hysterical obsession against tobacco are pawns of Pharma, pushing their products instead of focusing on harm reduction.

You should be working together with pro-choice groups to make smoking as safe as possible rather than trying to eradicate it on the back of facilitating
the replacement of tobacco with drugs that have killed, and killed quickly.

Here is the link to the SHS study ignored by those who commissioned it.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/19/1440

[Nitro]

I think the government should be looking closer to home, they are funding their campaigns from tobacco, fuel and a vast range of unethical taxation.

This is totally hypocritical small shops, tobacconists will be going the same way as our pubs into oblivion, they pay the tax the government use the money to force them out of business.

[J Stewart]

Daniel, so plain packaging is a good idea because the brand can't be distinguished? I accept that some brands of cigarette are more fashionable than others but I'm sure that when people first smoke, the brand doesn't matter at all. If it did then why would youngsters buy single cigarettes which don't come in shiny packets and which can't be asked for by brand? I think rather, that once people have started to smoke regularly, they are drawn to a particular brand and probably for a variety of reasons (they want a brand that is perceived as a quality brand, they want a cheap brand, their friends smoke a particular brand and so on). If there is no evidence that plain packaging will reduce take-up in young people, but it is merely an hypothesis then, to me, that isn't a good enough reason to inconvenience millions of adults who have every right to be able to distinguish, at point of sale, the brand of legal product they want to buy.

I asked about your sample because at the time of writing my post others which dealt with it hadn't appeared. I take it that since your sample size isn't representative, you wouldn't base policy on your research but would look on it only as a possible pointer for future research? If the sample size isn't even representative then the findings are worthless.

I'm glad that you believe that telling the truth about smoking is more important than peddling propaganda. I'm still very uncertain, though, about the 50% dying in middle age. If it comes from epidemeological research than I simply don't accept it for this reason: if two 50 year olds, one a smoker, one a non-smoker both die of massive heart attacks, why can't the same factors that contributed to the heart attack in the non-smoker be the same factors that contributed to it in the smoker? I suspect that the research that 'proves' that 50% of smokers die in middle age of a smoke-related illness simply doesn't prove any such thing because all smoking-related illnesses are multi-factorial, not peculiar to smokers only and the other factors are just not controlled. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

[west2]

Daniel
"Alcohol does not account for 1 in 5 deaths in the UK (tobacco does). "

The WHO suggests 1 in 10 worldwide. Why the higher figure in the UK that has had declining smoking rates?

"Tobacco cannot be used in moderation due to the highly addictive nature of nicotine products"

This would suggest that a person who smokes would consistantly increase the amount they smoke (as a drug addict would). Is this the case? Why do people who smoke only smoke 5 or 10, 20 a day stay at the same level consistantly?

"There is absolutely no evidence that suggests tobacco in any form is good for your health"

There was some evidence presented on the other threads about this.

"There is no such thing as low hazard cigarettes"

I was asking why research could not be put into this area if it reduces illness? If people can not (or will not) give up then surely you would avocate for at least a safer product?

Wern't Low or light cigarettes once promoted by TC advocates as being safer? I believe in debates in the HoC this was said.

Lower nicotine (as advocated by the EU) actualy makes things worse. Since a person who smokes Say 10 a day with 1.0mg Nicotine is likely to smoke 20 a day with only 0.5mg.

So to reduce the amount of cigarettes smoked surely nicotine amounts should be increased?

What actualy is your aim here? Although you want to stop children smoking, are you for prohibition on adults? If not prohibition on adults then why not advocate for safer cigarettes to reduce harm?

If prohibition than why not be open and call for prohibition?

west
----

[Jolly Roger]

Ok, Paul, I'll grant you that.
A variety of oaths that'll fill a hat.
But monarchist? Yes, it must be confessed.
Our basis of culture and by far the best.
No Republics, banana or otherwise,
Will sway our loyalty or even our eyes,
From the Unity of these Islands of ours,
Her Majesty Rules and smells of nice flowers.

Republic eh? That's a president then.
Who do you suggest from your fine merry men,
There's hardly a woman right now in the House,
That has leadership qualities much more than a mouse?
Whilst some may criticize the next Royal incumbent,
There's the next generation who are hardly recumbent.
Our Monarchy, it has been time tested,
And will remain a long time after I'm rested.

There are crude attempts at fragmentaion,
Of our United Kingdom Nation,
By separatists and independents.
Whose future state depends on dependence.
United we stand, divided we fall,
And when our backs were to the wall,
Our unity saved us from Germany's jaw.
The separatists would have just opened the door.

God save our Gracious Queen,
Warm Welsh cakes and Ovaltine,
And all the other lovely things,
That being British surely brings.
Our Union flag with which we're vested,
Stands us United when we're tested.
And although Wales seems to be ommitted.
Don't worry Paul, we Brits are committed.

[timbone]

"Just about any substance whatsoever would be more beneficial than what you are already smoking."
Patrick, referring to the statement you made which I have quoted above. I am not giving a pro or anti comment here, just a fact to a non smoker who understandably does not know how ridiculous his statement was, and I do not want you to look foolish. Imitation brand cigarettes do not have any quality control ( a bit like generic medication). As a smoker, I can assure you that if smoking a genuine brand of tobacco can reduce my life by approximately ten years (not long left for me then) if I smoked a generic brand regularly, it would reduce my life by twenty years.

[timbone]

Jolly Roger, I think your verse is funny, I like it, well done. Funnily enough, my own polital and social persuations are not quite the same as yours, and I am not really on here to discuss that anyway. Having said that, do you notice how, even though I do not agree with what I percieve to be your inclinations, I still congratulate you on your abilities and respect you as a fellow human being. As a smoker, I do not find some non smokers as friendly to me as I have been to you.

[Jolly Roger]

Thank you timbone for your complimentaries,
That's really got me in the alimentaries.
And though we may differ on things and another.
If danger threatened you could call me your brother.
Our mutual respect is the base of our 'xistence.
Respect one another and offer assistance,
If ever you find yourself boracic and broke.
Just give me a call and I'll roll you a smoke.

[patrick]

timbone
Thank you for saying you did not want me to look foolish about imported tobacco.

You then go on to say -

"As a smoker, I can assure you that if smoking a genuine brand of tobacco can reduce my life by approximately ten years (not long left for me then) if I smoked a generic brand regularly, it would reduce my life by twenty years."

Two examples of Foolish to the extreme!

[Fredrik Eich]

Daniel,

Cooked food contains carcinogenic hydrocarbons including benzene see table 1.1.1

http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scf/out154_en.pdf

Would this table look dissimilar to a list of hydrocarbons in tobacco smoke?

No it would not.

So why don't we all eat raw food then?
The answer is that the energy used in oxidising the food outside of our bodies saves us that energy inside the body.
This net energy saving reduces life time biological stress and therefore increases life span despite the presence of carcinogenic substances like benzene.
There is a similar net biological benefit from smoking because the the main component of the 4,000 or so compounds
(including carcinogenic ones) in tobacco smoke is niacin which promotes NAD+ to give the body a cheaper and cleaner source of energy.
Smoking saves energy, which means you need to eat less food (cooked or not). So the best way to live longer is to cook your food and smoke tobacco.
A good way of not living as long as possible is to eat raw food and never smoke. This is why we can not give animals diseases by making them smoke.

What is somthing that inceases your chances of diseases and yet is still good for you?
Somthing that makes you live longer - like cooking food and smoking tobacco.

Although chucking a lump of fresh flesh on a fire may have seemed an unhealthy practice in the past, it is in reality a very healthy practice which
has stood the test of time for 40,000 years.

This is what will happen with smoking, it will come to be seen as a healthy practice and attempts to stop it will be seen as one of the biggest public health disasters of all time.

Smoking is good for you.

[Jim]

Daniel, Can you give us some more info on your survey?

What other questions were asked?
How old were the teenagers?

[Jim]

Just noticed something... The most popular brand of Snus sold by BuySnus.com is sold in a plain white carton.

http://www.buysnus.com/snusbrand/Skruf_Strong_Portion.aspx

Psychologically, white is pure, clean, fresh, innocent and is synonymous with everything good. So what idiot suggested plain white packaging for cigarettes?

[Martin V]

Daniel -

You sound like a nice sort of chap, and implicicitly believe in the strength and utility of 'credible' evidence. Excellent !

It's rather sad, therefore, that you - in effect - brushed off a sensible query by another blogger on this site, namely:

"Could I ask what evidence you have that people who start smoking when under 18 have a 50% chance of dying a slow and painful death in middle age...........?"

Your non-response, I fear, had all the appearance of Evasive Waffle (something, I imagine, you would not normally tolerate yourself).

This must be one of those 'counter-intuitive' facts that one reads about, since - intuitively (as well as empirically) -it seems PALPABLY ABSURD.

So, ONE in TWO of those who begin the Evil Habit under 18 either HAVE died or WILL die a 'slow and painful death'(crucifixion ?) - is that correct ? In 'Middle Age', too !

If only my parents' generation had known that ! At least HALF of them would have had the decency to die younger.................

Sadly, almost all of those of my acquaintance who HAVE died (most of them smokers), did so rather peacefully - and that includes the one or two who DID have cancer (lung, breast,liver). Oh yes, and they were ALL in their Seventies, Eighties, and Nineties - with two exceptions.

Perhaps they were too stupid to realise that they were, in fact, a Statistical Anomaly ?

Or - perhaps - your statistic IS just plain absurd, after all ? Useful to the Sacred Cause, of course (ANYTHING that scares people into quitting will do)- but still absurd.

So - in the furtherance of Scientific Truth -perhaps you'd be kind enough to answer the question properly: WHAT is the SOURCE of this disturbing statistic, please ?

In view of the fact that fewer than ONE person in every THOUSAND SMOKERS in Japan dies from lung cancer, for example - according to the WHO (that Font of Scientific Integrity) - this does seem RATHER alarming (and one may assume that not ALL Japanese smokers begin to smoke only in adulthood).

I only ask because I WANT TO KNOW..........

Well ?

[patrick]

NewScientist.com news service

Smoking wipes 10 years off a person's life on average, according to the longest ever study of smokers, but giving up at any age brings huge benefits.

Quitting at 30 virtually eliminates the risk from dying prematurely, and giving up at 50 halves it. But half of those who fail to kick the habit will die as a result of smoking, and a quarter of all smokers die in middle-age.

The results come from a 50-year update of the landmark 1954 paper which first linked smoking with lung cancer. One author of the update, published in the British Medical Journal, is Oxford University epidemiologist Richard Doll, now 91, who was a co-author of the original paper.

By following the fate of the original 34,439 male British doctors recruited for the study in the 1950s, the update has yielded fresh insights into how smoking affects survival to middle age and beyond.

“Now, we have the lifelong story, and that’s never been available before,” says Richard Peto, professor of medical statistics and epidemiology at the University of Oxford and lead author of the update. “The bad news is that smoking is even better than we thought at killing people. The good news is that stopping smoking gives you more extra years of life than we thought.”

Buying time

The gains are substantial. Stopping at ages 60, 50, 40 or 30 buys you, respectively, 3, 6, 9 or 10 years of life expectancy that would otherwise be lost to smoking-related disease.

Peto said the new study emphasised the value of giving up even relatively late in life. “You often hear people say: ‘I’m 40 now, so it’s not worth giving up'." But stopping really does work – giving up at 40 means that just one year of life is lost on average, instead of 10.

“If you enjoy life like I do, it’s damn silly to smoke because you won’t get so much of it,” says Doll, who himself quit at the age of 37.

The new data show the huge impact of smoking on middle-age deaths and the way that it destroys rapid gains in health enjoyed by the non-smoking population.

A third of non-smokers born around 1915 now live to between 70 and 90, for example, compared with just seven per cent of smokers born around the same time.

Conscript generation

This generation was the hardest hit by smoking because many were introduced to free cigarettes in their late teens when conscripted to fight in the Second World War. Many continued smoking heavily, and this is borne out in the latest data.

Of the smokers in the study from earlier generations who never smoked regularly, 85 per cent reached the age of 70, for example. Yet only 57 per cent of the “conscript generation" made it to this age.

Peto says that in the half-century since Doll’s landmark paper, smoking has claimed around six million British lives. But smoking is now most popular in developing countries.

“There are 30 million new smokers each year worldwide,” says Peto. “Worldwide, tobacco will soon be causing six million deaths each year.”

Andy Coghlan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[PaulFlynn]

Phew! Thanks for that Patrick.

I gave up at 33.

[Jim]

I don't think you should be quoting Richard Doll or believe anything he said, he has a very poor reputation

http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/other/doll.htm

In his study of doctors he found that those who didn't inhale were more likely to contract lung cancer than those who did.
In his follow up study he dropped the inhalation question.

[andy]

Quitters die first
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2007/oct/16/highereducation.research1

As for Richard Doll, he was paid a huge salary by Asbestos companies and the chemical industry. No wonder he came up with the smoking causes all cancers theory.

He did though after retiring saying he would have no problem sitting in a room full of smokers, as the risk from passive smoking was negligible.