Is the DoH about to score an own goal?
Monday, November 14, 2011 at 11:14 There have been precious few opportunities since the smoking ban to debate the alleged impact of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), aka passive smoking or second-hand smoke.
There are two reasons for this. One, the tobacco control movement refuses to debate the issue. As far as they are concerned, they have won the argument so why risk the spoils of victory by engaging further on the subject?
Two, the war on tobacco has moved on from ETS to tobacco display, vending machines and, now, plain packaging. Consequently many people consider a debate about passive smoking to be yesterday's news.
Inadvertently, however, the Department of Health may about to give us a platform to re-engage with politicians and journalists on the subject.
Two weeks ago, in a written answer to a question about smoking, the Department of Health declared:
As set out in the Tobacco Control Plan for England, the Department [of Health] will launch a marketing campaign to remind smokers of the harms of second-hand smoke [my italics] and to encourage them to make their homes and cars smokefree. This campaign is in the early stages of development and is expected to launch in March 2012.
The tobacco marketing strategy, to be published shortly, will set out further details of how we will support efforts by local areas to encourage smokefree homes and cars ahead of the smokefree campaign. As with all Government communication and marketing campaigns, plans will be developed to evaluate its impact.
Now if that's not an invitation to discuss, debate and, yes, refute the alleged dangers of ETS I don't know what is.
PS. Another own goal? Increasing taxation doesn't encourage smokers to quit. Click on the link to comment.
Reader Comments (15)
The purpose is clear enough. To discourage smoking in your own home and your own car, in your own private space in other words. It is not time to debate the SHS issue, it is time to tell these people to take a short walk to the lowest level of hell.
And we absolutely must because this "campaign" is one step away from criminalisation. I know people don't believe this but look at all that has happened so far and which way it has been moving.
We are already criminalised to some extent. Once we are bullied into quitting at home in our cars - and local councils are encouraged to exclude us from the open air - the formality of making tobacco and possession of cigarettes illegal will be the easy next step.
I hate this Govt and I honestly think the only way we will get any consideration or fairness is to stand together and stop voting to be turkeys at Xmas. They don't deserve our votes when all they want to do is treat us worse than animals.
Simon nice thought - but there is not one media org that wants to even raise the SHS issue. They've bought the lie hook line and sinker and any mention of it will be dismissed. The debate, in their opinion, has moved on. They believe SHS does harm and they believe "more must be done". That is the only matter of "debate" that they will be interested in.
I there was one aspect of the smoking debate that is my area of knowledge this is it. I have reached the stage on lung cancer and ETS that, based on the WHO/IARC's own papers they will have two choices. Either admit very few, if anyone has contracted lung cancer from ETS or the open up the whole debate on whether active smoking causes lung cancer in the first place. The WHO/IARC cannot have it both ways.
The alleged cause of lung cancer from active/passive smoking is based on the quantities of benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) ingested and the p53 gene mutations that result from it. On passive smoking you will ingest more BaP from a stroll down the high street or from a coal fire than from prolonged exposure to ETS.
If you take the WHO/IARC hypothesis that active smoking causes lung cancer then if a smoker's lifetime chance of contracting LC is 8% then if people are exposed to 1/1000th of that as a smoker then the figures become negligible. Also if synergistically the greater level of smoking produces even higher levels of LC then the reverse is true. The smaller the dose then even smaller % of people will be affected by ETS. So 1/000 x 8% = 8/100,000. Probably the reduction would be a further factor of 100 to a 1000 with the incidence of LC tending to 0.
Dave - what worries me is that although we know this, we are prevented from saying it. Why else were we stitched up with the FCTC, and as consumers not even told about it?
I know you've said you've tried to meet with Milton and the DoH but they don't want to listen. This new "debate" will be one sided and largely controlled by the DoH and it's quango ASH.
Prime time TV brain washing propaganda will be made to carefully establish parents who smoke inside as child abusers first - and it will be unPC to even think of challenging it in case one is seen as a supporter of child abuse.
I find this latest campaign sinister to say the least and wonder why, in this age of cut backs and austerity when people are losing jobs in all sectors and the economy is still fragile, such a huge amount of public money is being wasted on it.
The DOH have no intention of ever entering into any kind of debate whatsoever. Their stated aim is to simply push the ongoing agenda with the eventual criminalizing of smoking.
We have no platform from which to speak, or engage in any constructive debate. I believe if Forest can afford it, then they need to engage a public relations company to give us advice on where and how we can break into the main stream media and forcefully put our case. How much would it be to put up a series of adverts that counter-act the anti-tobacco ads? Can’t BT do this – it would be loose change in their pockets. No amount of palm-pressing with lower order politicians will take us where we want to go, we need to be more pro-active.
It also surprises me that tobacco companies haven’t sued in the courts for lack of evidence with regard to SHS being the massive lie that it is. Both the government and tobacco control say that it kills, but no post-mortem evidence has ever been put forward, because it has never existed.
A firm approach towards BT is needed, since it is in their own interests to explore all avenues with greater focus. They have the financial resources.
It's time to bring out the big guns.
They will, of course, strongly defend their position re SHS - the credibility of TC relies almost exclusively on the perpetuation of this myth. But ask any smoker why he/she is standing outside of a pub and the answer is usually because it is the law and they have no choice. Correct, but if they had any inkling that the the real reason was borne out of spite and the need to alienate them in the eyes of the non smoking public (rather than that they posed any threat to the health of non smokers), the proverbial would really hit the fan. The major weakness of the SOPAC campaign is that the SHS issue has not been clearly addressed. Simply campaigning for separate smoking rooms is not enough - the lies must be exposed. Ok, there is an outside chance that this facility will be allowed, but there will be a high price to pay. To save face TC may insist that smoking bans apply to all non licensed public spaces, cars and homes - all based on the current perception that passive smoking is potentially lethal.
It will provide an opportunity but it will also be difficult. I can't see the MSM giving any time at all to opposition. In any event, the response would be that SHS has already been debated, it's a fact, it kills, end of story. The main question will be why it's not illegal already.
Sure, it's an opportunity but it'll be hard. Still, any port in a storm.
I'm afraid we are in "the science is settled" territory. As already pointed out, without a high profile campaign in the MSM - which they have no interest in - there is about as much chance of success as a snowflake settling in hell. The antis are on a roll, they have a stranglehold on all organs who might otherwise let the truth out, and they aren't about to let go.
Where is the NHS marketing department getting funds for another denormalising campaign against smokers? Cameron - you have let us down again! We are meant to be in the middle of an economic crisis and stony-broke, BUT we still find money to waste on this purile rubbish.
The first thing that has to go is the idea of secondhand or passive smokING.
This idea of “secondhand smoking” (which originated with the Nazis, by the way) is just another baseless inflammatory term. The term secondhand smoke (highly diluted) is OK, but SH smokING or passive smokING are not. There are some nonsmokers who believe that when they are exposed to SHS they are being forced to smoke, that they are effectively smokING. Being exposed to SHS, which is breathing air with highly dilute remnants of smoke, is nothing like smoking. Those who believe they are passively “smoking” have obviously never smoked a cigarette. The quickest way to resolve the issue is to borrow a cigarette, light it, take a drag and inhale (drawback) the concentrated “packet” of smoke. That’s smoking. You should notice immediately the incredible difference between smoking and simply being exposed to ETS which cannot be equated in any way with smokING. There is no active and passive smoking. There is only smoking which involves inhaling a concentrated packet of smoke.
If you are not prepared to test the hypothesis, it should dawn on you that if smoking was simply being exposed to SHS, then why don’t smokers just leave their cigarette lit and breathe the ambient air? No. They actually take a drag on the cigarette – a concentrated packet of smoke - and inhale. That’s smokING.
When you are sitting by an open fire, do you believe you’re “smoking” then? If you’re close-by to lit candles, do you believe you’re “smoking” then? If you’re close to cooking or BBQ smoke, are you “smoking” then? Etc. See the point?
The only term that has some vague sense is “involuntary smoking”. This would refer to someone being forced, e.g., at gunpoint, to inhale a concentrated packet of smoke – as in smoking.
Dear Dave A, don’t play that statistical game; that’s how the fanatics have pushed their deranged agenda. It will get you into trouble because regardless how small the SHS/disease statistic, you are conceding a causal relationship. It must be noted that smoking and simply breathing air with highly dilute remnants of smoke are two VERY DIFFERENT phenomena. It makes no sense to simply assume causation based on lower dosage for SHS. The data concerning SHS and disease involves tiny RR differences on a tiny baseline. Causal argument cannot be based on such flimsy nonsense. And bear in mind now that exposure to SHS does not resemble in any way the act of smoking that involves the inhalation of a concentrated packet of smoke. Risks associated with smoking concern this inhalation of a concentrated packet of smoke.
There have been several marketing campaigns since the introduction of the ban, none of which have presented any opportunity whatsoever to discuss, debate and refute the alleged dangers of ETS so I see no reason to suppose that this one will, either. It will do as it's intended: reinforce the idea that ETS is dangerous, so dangerous that children must not be exposed anywhere. There will be no need to actually criminalise smokers, we will be treated by society as such anyway.
There was never a time for debate in the first place: tobacco control wouldn't have had to resort to smoke and mirrors had their case been less flimsy, and they could never have allowed that flimsiness to be exposed.
I agree with the comment above, that this needs a massive counter PR campaign. Although TC appears to have a stranglehold on the media, I can't believe that the press and TV companies could afford to turn down the fees they could charge for full page statements etc. - and the tobacco companies could afford it.
We really need to take a leaf out of the AGW sceptic's book. They are still fighting a difficult battle against the Gores and the Huhnes of this world, but they are slowly making headway, and public opinion is gradually swinging away from the "there is no argument" stance of the warmists. The reason this is happening is that there are people like Booker, Delingpole and Monckton, to mention just a few, who have regular columns in the MSM in which to state their case. Thus they can get their message (their message being that "no, the science is not settled, and in fact it is junk science you are being fed") out to the wider public, and influence opinion.
Our problem is that we have no Delingpoles or Bookers. FOREST does what it can, but that is very little, and they have a very low profile. I would guess that 90% of smokers don't even know FOREST exists, let alone non-smokers. We need high-profile smokers (like Jeremy Clarkson, for instance) who have access to the MSM to start getting vocal and public about the Big Lie that is ETS, and all the other junk statistics that don't stand up to scrutiny. Then, and only then, will we be able to even contemplate turning back the tide of bullshit that is washing over us.
Most of these comments are spot-on. 'Own goal'? Unless the nature of the opposition ('our side') changes in some dramatic way (e.g. a major infusion of imagination, guts, and money) it will be more like a renewed attack on a goal with no goalkeeper in it.
@Magnetic
If I was not explicit enough I was implying that there probably has never been anyone who has contracted lung cancer from SHS.