Friday
Nov252011
Scotland: smoking ban isn't working
Friday, November 25, 2011 at 15:51 Researchers investigating the impact of the smoking ban in Scotland have produced a new report.
'Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation on Smoking Quit Attempts and Prevalence', published on November 16, concludes:
Quit attempts increased in the three months leading up to Scotland's smoke-free legislation, resulting in a fall in smoking prevalence. However, neither has been sustained suggesting the need for additional tobacco control measures and ongoing support.
Reader Comments (56)
Or put in other words, "Repeat what isn't working in the hope it will" - for some, the very definition of insanity (but then again, as we're talking about Tobacco Control, that really goes without saying).
If it was REALLY about getting people to give up, they'd look at the evidence, see what worked in the past, and do that more. But since smoking rates were dropping steadily in the 70s and 80s and only came to a halt with the rise of ASH et al hectoring and badgering smokers into a position of entrenchment, I suspect they won't be too keen on doing that.
Especially as we all know, as Dick Puddlecote so rightly says, it's NEVER been about health.
Yes, it's definitely a case of "Well that didn't work, so lets do more of it..."
Lord preserve us from these stupid, stupid people.
"Doctor, doctor, the treatment's not working!"
"Double the dose then."
The Graph at http://www.plosone.org/article/slideshow.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0026188&imageURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0026188.g004# is a beauty. It's a shame they haven't used data from earlier years but it'll do.
They explain NRT provision on a larger scale was possible after changes in 2001/2
SO
where's the effect shown on the graph = Provision of NRT (and much more) made no impact from 2002
AND
the 'success' of the 2006 ban is clearly NOT shown
THUS
Tobacco Control is an expensive luxury with dramatic effects on many activities except, of course, for the one it's designed for.
Why not open detention centres where smokers are compelled to go once a week and have their minds made right. Here in comfortable surroundings eugenics can be practised on smokers whilst being monitored for resistance/progress.
What about nicely tailored grey (the new black) jump-suits with a satisfyingly large yellow star on the back - original eh? Any
inmatecustomer who shows genuine promise will then mentor the others making sure alledictssuggestions are carried out.Each
hutresidence will be decked with streamers and balloons to give the air of normality, although apunishmentcatering block wherebrutal beatingsfurther advice will be given with a smile should anyfilthy smokerpupil fall behind.Re. earlier post - the weblink goes to a collection of graphs - I was referring to fig. 4
Just an extra thought -- Was this study designed to support Tobacco Control success or failure?
Mr A: It's worse than that - they're saying "that didn't work, so we have to be even more draconian".
So much for the 'most significant public health legislation for a century' claim.
""However, neither has been sustained suggesting the need for additional tobacco control measures and ongoing support.""
Equals greater suppression and persecution plus more millions for Big Pharm.
The stats say that current measures are not working - I assume that this is because the number of smokers has not fallen. But I wonder if the reality is actually worse (from the point of view of prohibitionists)? I wonder how many smokers are 'disappearing' from the figures as a result of buying from white-van-man? While I may say that I am going abroad to buy my tobacco, I most certainly would not say that I have a source of 'illegals'.
A friend of mine had to see a neurologist.....I report the gist of the consultation
Consultant: you mustn't be around smokers
Patient: I don't allow smoking in my house
Consultant: Just being around smokers would be dangerous for you
Patient: Well, as I said no one smokes in my house, or work, or car
Consultant: SMOKERS ARE BAD FOR YOU WHETHER THEY'RE SMOKING or NOT !!!
I kid you not...this is the sort of mediaeval superstition we are all up against .
@Xopher.
Perhaps one should point out that Figure 4 is the fifth of the pictures.
So, someone has come out and admitted what we all knew before the ban even came into effect! Brilliant, it has taken them this long, eh!
I am surprised they have admitted it at all as the criteria for smoking cessation methods via the NHS, according to a practice nurse, is that the smoker use the tools provided and remains off cigs for a month - most could probably manage that if they really wanted to - doesn't mean they have QUIT!
I saw a figure somewhere, quite possibly here, some time ago that said the FAILURE rate of the NHS quit programme was around 99.8%. No business would survive with rates lie that - any wonder the NHS is in dire straits? Then again, of course, they can blame the smokers!
Tobacco control:
Smoking rates are going down. All that money you give us is working.
Smoking rates up. We need more money to get them down.
Win-win for tobacco control.
These morons were bought up to follow the phrase "if you you do not succeed first time, then try, try and try again". What they fail to understand is that there may be a good reason why you keep failing, in which case it is time to change tact, technique or strategy. Well, this is what intelligent human beings normally do and have been doing over the millenia!!!
Exactly Bill C, but who in their right mind ever thought these cretinous morons were intelligent?
I have come to the conclusion that it is a prerequisite for the majority of politicians, both local and national, NOT to be intelligent - the most, in my experience would have trouble finding a single brain cell between them.
The route to the top requires obedience.
The first rule is NOT to question.
I may/may not be intelligent but I do question and have resigned more than once because I would have had to promote what I thought was wrong.
My lack of immediate response to many questions was often regarded as a weakness but my response to that was - I thought the question was serious and worthy of consideration, obviously not! Sound bites are what's wanted.
Certain basics - When someone knows the answer they haven't understood the question.
and
When someone calls for change you can be sure their change will involve losing many babies going out with the bathwater.
A problem with Tobacco Control is that they actually believe they can control tobacco but forget they have no right or ability to control people.
So we were lied to about the ban being put in place to protect bar staff from the so called 'effects of second hand smoke' then?
It has not worked, so can we have our pubs back please ?
In the wake of the ban, the phrase "It's a success" was bandied about as the catch all answer to every question. I'm having trouble working out what, exactly, the success bit is.
Pub closures? yes, that's a 'success'. Compliance? yes, that's a success as we don't wish to be heavily fined or the Landlord to be fined even more, lose his license or go to prison. Health improvements? None at all unless you massage the data to extinction, a la Jill Pell, not even to bar staff that this was, supposedly, intended to assist. Quit rates? No, in fact the smoking rate seems to have increased.
Where are we going, here? how much longer can these facts be ignored? You can only go so far just denying things. How much longer can this nonsense last?
Frank I think you will find that this nonsense will last as long as the governments have the need to control us - it is the only way they feel safe! As long as the need to control exists in government then the quangos will continue their manipulation of government and continue to bleed us all dry!
From the NHS Information Centre. No change south of the border too.
"Statistics on Smoking: England, 2011"
"Smoking among adults and children.
Among adults aged 16 and over, in England, in 2009:
• 21% reported smoking, the same as in 2007 and 2008 and lower than the 39% in 1980
" There was no significant difference in cigarette smoking prevalence in adults 16 and over pre and post 1st July 2007. "
http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/003_Health_Lifestyles/Statistics%20on%20Smoking%202011/Statistics_on_Smoking_2011.pdf
Whatever might or might not have been intended, for people like me who truly believed that " it could never happen here," the smoking ban in Scotland acted as a wake up call.
Lyn: I would have thought it was in any Govts. interests to keep the population content. I suppose this simple piece of human nature escapes the stupid clowns we have in the House. Just because we've had no serious problems for a long time doesn't mean we never will.
If they think that by continuing to lie and ignoring the fact that the population is fully aware of those lies, they are surely hastening their own demise.
Frank, you are absolutely right.
Sadly, I believe that the riots we saw earlier this year are but just the tip of the iceburg, just the start. I am not saying that we do not need a revolution, I think that may well be the only way to wake these clowns up!
It is happening all around us, but of course the idiots in government are too stupid and too arrogant to ever think it could happen here in any serious way. Just let them keep pushing and lying though and they may just have their eyes opened and their arrogance consigned to the scrap heap, along with themselves!
We have taken too much already, but with their advancement in interfering now with alcohol and obesity more people will start to see the REAL truth and the more that do, the more anti nannying and anti government interference groups will spring up and at some point unite.
It may take a few more years yet, after all, we Brits were always a bit slow on the uptake, but the longer the fuse and the slower it burns ....... a lot more pressure to release.
I see doctors have been trusted with telling the truth with this report....lol.,get used to it folks simon will handpick the liars from the honest doctors to make more gimmick headlines.
Dickie - don't be so rash. My never smoking, nor drinking mother worked in the health service for over 30 years and would never trust what the doctor orders.
She won't trust a doctor because she understands the system from an internal point of view.
She understands how the targets work - they are not targets to improve the health of an individual, nor a nation as a whole; they are targets to tick boxes for the funding agency/ies only.
She is disgusted with the propaganda infiltrating our system.
OI know one thing is for certain, doctors will always be trusted when they produce reports that smokers want to believe just as in this case,...no doubts on the credibility of these so called researchers .
This silly talk of a doctors can't be trusted is really extreme ,do you mean all doctors in the world or are pro smoking doctors to be trusted because they carry 20 marlboro with them.
Honestly it's so bizarre to expect to be taken seriously with gimmick headlines in order to bait some attention to your cause
Dickie's a wind-up merchant, here to provoke. Don't pay attention and he'll go away.
People will know whether to trust their doctor irrespective of what nonsense the BMA comes out with.
Ha! an anti complaining about cherry picking! Now there's the laugh of the decade.
Could somebody advise the poor fool that we only have a ban as a result of extreme cherry picking. Dear me.
I would call millions and millions of non smokers opinions anything but extreme cherry picking. It's all about the government and control and stas with smokerloonies and nothing about the real opinions of real people
Bury your heads in silly gimmick statements and feel Cosy in this pro smokers moaning club, the real world,real opinions about the publics view on shs being repulsive and driving with a fag in your hand will still be there,
This tiny niche group of pro smoker moaners are un organised rabble with daft blog rants who are shunned by smokers despite the ban being here for 4 years.
"I would call millions and millions of non smokers opinions"
And you speak for them all? typical of antis arrogance as is the ignorance of 'millions and millions' of smokers opinions. In fact smokers opinions don't exist in your pathetic, deficient and frightened little world, do they? and if they do, what matter? who cares? they're filthy addicts, anyway and, worst of all, they stink. Ooh, how horrible!
Imo, you people are both physiologically and physcologically deficient.
BTW, Doctors have little to do with the above report.
"I would call millions and millions of non smokers opinions"
Assuming that everyone who smokes is entirely socially isolated, has no friends and no family who thoroughly disapprove of the appalling treatment meted out to those they care about.
No one who recoils in horror at the way their elderly father is treated.
No one who feels it's shameful that the sick are sent outside.
How about thousands?
"Yet only a handful of those 96,000 respondents came from individuals submitting their personal views. Almost 70,000 came from those collected by pressure groups entirely funded by the Department for Health.
Among the groups submitting block responses were SmokeFree NorthWest, SmokeFree Liverpool and SmokeFree North East, which were all set up by the Government to lobby against the tobacco industry.
The finding has prompted critics to accuse the Government of spending taxpayers' money on establishing groups designed merely to back the Government line on public health issues.
Ministers have effectively been accused of "astroturfing" - cultivating a fake grassroots movement in order to make a position appear more popular than it really is."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/4076290/Government-fixing-health-consultations-with-taxpayer-funded-groups.html
All is not what it seems.
I'm not an anti but a truthy, smokers opinions do exsist and they should be treated better and they have just causes to be fought and won...the problem is that a handful of extreme loonies who think doctors shouldn't be trusted and driving whilst smoking is safe or shs is no issue do smokers no good whatsoever.
The real shame is that the civil liberty angle of smokers being treated unfairly by being kicked outside is downright cruel in some
cases and is really an outrage but nobody seems to give a shite at the moment,the pro smoker lobbyists have failed to even get smokers onboard .
It seems the answer to this long running failure is to get extreme with anything goes as long as it gets heard,government control and doctors in some evil conspiracy theme along with other loony suggestions is madness, it's lobbyists failing and getting desperate and dosent it show
The subject of shs is a good example where the simple truth that a truthy like me can see is that shs is repulsive to millions with everyone knowing someone who hates it, loonies decide to ignore the no brained facts but try and pull about stats instead and claim laws get passed on bad stats ,
Seriously Lobbyists are failing miserably except John Mallon the Irish chap who is head and shoulders above anyone else
If you'd watched the Murray trial in LA, you would have heard the DA state to the press that the reason this trial was pursued with such vigour was that the 4th largest cause of death in the USA was DOCTORS'!. They were trying to put an end to what they called 'Doctor shopping'.
You bet your life I/we remain sceptical of them unless their diagnosis and prognosis makes good sense or if told it is just their opinion. Especially so in the light of so called 'evidence' over SHS where the vast majority of surveys (call it Epidemiology if you will, it's still surveys) show little or no change. We know, we've seen them! And more especially with Politico Medics who appear to be simply rent seeking, i.e. Doctor's shopping.
You treat them as Holy Men if you want. Pardon us with more experience of human nature for being slightly more sceptical
So, Dickie D. - give us your Action Plan
"The real shame is that the civil liberty angle of smokers being treated unfairly by being kicked outside is downright cruel in some cases and is really an outrage but nobody seems to give a shite at the moment"
You couldn't be more wrong.
But under article 5..3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which the previous government signed, nobody in authority is allowed to listen to you.
"The measures recommended in these guidelines aim at protecting against interference not only by the tobacco industry but also, as appropriate, by organizations and individuals that work to further the interests of the tobacco industry."
http://www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/article_5_3.pdf
"treated unfairly by being kicked outside is downright cruel"
Yes
But under article 8 of the FCTC
"No exemptions are justified on the basis of health or law
arguments."
24. This creates an obligation to provide universal protection by ensuring that all indoor public places, all indoor workplaces, all public transport and possibly other (outdoor or quasi-outdoor) public places are free from exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke.
No exemptions are justified on the basis of health or law arguments. If exemptions must be considered on the basis of other arguments, these should be minimal. In addition, if a Party is unable to achieve universal coverage immediately,
Article 8 creates a continuing obligation to move as quickly as possible to remove any exemptions and make the protection universal."
http://www.who.int/fctc/cop/art%208%20guidelines_english.pdf
So what do you suggest?
You may of course smoke in the workplace if you are an MEP
I haven't any action plan because I'm not a lobbyist or even a smoker now, i just can see from an outsider looking in that extreme views are not the way to go, these views are so full of holes it's almost funny,these cock eyed gimmick headlines about doctors amongst other matters are what will be remembered and it's from the leader Simon himself .
Lobbying , lobbyists , does anyone have a clue about it,because I haven't and the ones i have seen or heard except John Mallon fall well short of credibilty
Which 'holes' would they be, then? And where in the above headline does it mention anything about Doctors?
The word researchers was used rather than doctors cos they just cant be trusted so it would make simon look silly accepting this report from doctors when he has slagged them off so much
Anyone doubt this report?...nope I didn't think so,
The holes about not trusting doctors are obvious , and also the smoking ban is working because its happening and other reports are glowing about it's successes. It also appears it's a celebration of smoking numbers not being reduced, (judging by forum posts) when no lobbyists should be happy with that cos new smokers not starting up is the ideal for everyone.
Smoking and driving
Babies breathing in smoke fumes
Not trusting doctors
Health groups in conspiracy
Government control
The holes are there and it's your own making because lobbying has failed
I don't see why new smokers would be any less desirable than new drinkers; everything in moderation.
The WHO in 19998 tried to suppress its own study into SHS as it got the wrong result.
I would rather be in a smoky bar than breathing in traffic fumes TBH. Traffic fumes kill.
Britain used to be known as a tolerant society.It now closely resembles a soviet socialist state.
"The word researchers was used rather than doctors"
Wrong. Mackay, Pell and Hawe are NOT Doctors. They work in 'Public Health' and Social management. This is a factual (accounting) report with no scope to manipulate. Their opportunist angle on this is to try and use it as a means to more control.
Which 'other reports' show the ban to be working? over 9000 pub closures since 2007 maybe? The rest is emotional blather and repetitious slogans which have already been adequately answered without response from you.You add nothing to the debate. Come up with provable and sourced facts and points of interest or go away.
John
I was looking at that yesterday, though the newspaper articles have gone, ASH has copies.
Challenging the Telegraphs reporting
On March 8th 1998 the Sunday Telegraph published a front-page headline report accusing the World Health Organization of suppressing a study that the newspaper claimed showed there was no link between passive smoking and lung cancer. The Sunday Telegraph headline was: "Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official".
ASH immediately contacted the Sunday Telegraph requesting a withdrawal and correction. When it refused, ASH concluded there was no alternative but to make a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC).
This page brings together the various pieces in the story (pdf files).
http://www.ash.org.uk/information/secondhand-smoke/challenging-the-telegraphs-reporting
Sunday Telegraph reports on passive smoking
Articles and editorial from the Sunday Telegraph regarding passive smoking. Appendix 1. Published : 08/03/1998
http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_654.pdf
@Rose2
As you can guess ASH went onto smear Conrad Black the owner of the Daily Telegraph as being in the pay of tobacco companies. Also ASH's complaint to the Press Complaints Commission failed.
"The Commission, in examining the entire coverage of the report, therefore considered that the substance of the complaint by ASH had been resolved. There was no further matter under the Code to pursue.
The complaint was not upheld."
http://www.pcc.org.uk/cases/adjudicated.html?article=MTg3MA==
People maybe interested to know the Boffetta/WHO study which was pan European included incomplete data from Portugal and I think Sweden. The real RR is 1.02
IARC 1998 is without any doubt a no-risk study, which becomes very clear when you examine the study’s Technical report with the raw figures – page 220 for workplace SHS:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wtp67e00/pdf
Controlling for educational level and type of residence more than halved the SHS-workplace risk from unadjusted Odds Ratio 1.17 in the article to OR 1.08 (page 220, row 1, column 3). Furthermore:
Eliminating 7 Portuguese cases (out of 650 cases in total) with incomplete data reduces the ratio to OR 1.02 – (page 220, row 3, column 3).
More in the comments on Snowdon’s blog:”
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2010/05/tale-of-two-studies.html?showComment=1275138882892#c4588064262918327442
2 doctors and 1 professor , take a look at BBC news 25 march 2011 Scotland smoking ban hailed as success.
Sorry the simple truths I repeat annoy you frank, lobbying has failed and extreme nonsense has taken it's place.
The trouble with these sorts of studies is in the initial data collection...it is opinion based, rather than measurement based....guesstamations of exposure to SHS is not scientific
The smoking ban is deemed a success because people are complying with it...(.unlike certain other countries )
Take a look at their profiles. Jill Pell of the famous heart attack 'miracle'? Their expertise is not medical but social. As said, make valid and supported points not slogans or go away.
Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Exposures to second-hand smoke lower than believed, ORNL study finds
"OAK RIDGE, Tenn., Feb. 2, 2000 — Exposures to environmental tobacco smoke may be lower than earlier studies indicated for bartenders, waiters and waitresses, according to a study conducted by researchers at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL).
While people who work as wait staff and bartenders may generally be considered to be more highly exposed to environmental tobacco smoke, data from our study suggests that the situation is more complex," said Roger Jenkins of the Chemical and Analytical Chemistry Division.
The study, which involved 173 people employed at restaurants or taverns of varying sizes in the Knoxville area, concluded that exposures to respirable suspended particulate matter (RSP), for example, were considerably below limits established by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for the workplace."
http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20000203-00
"Samples from the subjects were analyzed for ultraviolet absorbing and fluorescing particulate matter, solanesol, 3-ethenyl pyridine, nicotine and RSP."
http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20000203-00
To put that in perspective.
ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE –
ESTIMATION OF ITS CONTRIBUTION TO RESPIRABLE SUSPENDED PARTICLES –
METHOD BASED ON SOLANESOL DETERMINATION
"Many plants of the Solanaceae family, which includes the genus Nicotiana, of which the tobacco plant is a member, contain solanesol; particularly those that contain trace amounts of nicotine.
These include the tomato, eggplant, potato, and pepper.
The potential interference due to these sources is negligible, cooking being the only likely potential source of interference. An interference of this type would bias results high, overestimating the contribution of ETS to RSP.
http://www.coresta.org/Recommended_Methods/CRM_52.pdf
But of course by 1999 the WHO had already established the partnership project with the drugs companies "to help smokers quit"
After the Scottish smoking ban, when I started looking, these articles were still on line.
Heres a copy from the Electronic Telegraph
Passive smokers inhale six cigarettes a year
"PASSIVE smokers inhale the equivalent of just six cigarettes a year from other people's smoke, according to the largest ever study of actual exposure levels of non-smokers.
The figure, which undermines previous warnings about the dangers of passive smoking, is a thousand times lower than that faced by direct smokers, and so tiny that it could not be measured statistically. Results from personal air monitors carried by more that 1,000 people in cities across Europe reveal that even the most highly-exposed passive smoker inhales the equivalent of 0.02 of a cigarette a day - 10 times lower than Government-backed estimates.
The findings, published by an internationally respected UK-based team of air monitoring experts, are the biggest blow yet to the credibility of the Government's insistence that passive smoking causes fatal diseases. Until now, ministers have based calls for action on claims that those living with smokers face a 20 to 30 per cent increased risk of lung cancer.
The reliability of such claims has now been thrown into doubt by the measurements of real-life levels of cancer-causing substances inhaled by passive smokers. A team led by Dr Keith Phillips of Covance Laboratories, an independent consultancy in Harrogate, has found that even passive smokers who live and work with smokers are typically exposed to just 0.1 per cent of the dangerous components of cigarette smoke inhaled by smokers."
http://tinyurl.com/be5q4
ASH's reaction?
the Covance laboratories study into non-smokers' exposure to ETS
"These are the fingerprints of tobacco industry propoganda."
Clive Bates
Director
Action on Smoking and Health
http://www.globalink.org/tobacco/docs/ets/Covence.shtml
@Rose2
"Dr Phillips said he had encountered considerable reluctance by some scientists even to consider the new evidence. He said: "They try to dismiss it by arguing that our research receives support from . . . the tobacco industry. Our findings are completely independent of any influence from the industry."
http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/passmok2.htm
This paper is from 1975 and was published in the New England Journal of Medicine and the figures are cigarettes per hour.
Commuter train 0.004
Commuter bus 0.005
Bus waiting room 0.001
Airline waiting room 0.003
Restaurant 0.004
Cocktail lounge 0.009
Student lounge 0.002
The last figure is the the equivalent of cigarettes per hour based on the nicotine the machine picked up.
http://www.legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hmf16b00/pdf