Now that's what I call sick
Wednesday, October 31, 2012 at 16:16 More propaganda masquerading as research.
A new report by the University of Nottingham claims that absenteeism by smokers costs employers in Britain £1.4 billion each year.
This figure is said to be the result of smokers taking time off work due to ill health. God knows how they calculated that but never let it be said that tobacco control allows facts to get in the way of a good estimate.
I haven't seen the report (it's published tomorrow, I think) but a journalist who wanted a response from Forest tells me that it also suggests that smokers are more likely to call in sick when there is nothing wrong with them.
So, if they're not sick they're devious and dishonest.
NB. Nottingham is part of the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies, a network of nine UK universities working in the field of tobacco control.
Reader Comments (13)
If they compare smokers and non smokers, they might find it to be true (not the dishonesty bit). The problem is, people in certain jobs may be more likely to smoke and these jobs may be more unpleasant and stressful. It will turn out to be just more junk paid for by us.
I thought they said last week that non-smokers were working 8 days a week plus overtime (without pay) and no breaks to make up for smokers. So the cost to employers is zero.
Denormalisation - the programme that deliberately promotes the following ( for no other purpose than to deliberately stigmatise and marginalise and "spoil the smoker's identity" )
Smokers As malodorous
Smokers as employment liabilities
Smokers as undesirable housemates
Smokers as excessive users of public service
Smokers as litterers
It's just propaganda. Shame on the British media for swallowing it.
Interestingly we just saw media articles in Denmark reflecting what is closer to the truth:
The smoking ban causes more sickness absenteeism
http://www.tinyurl.dk/35752
I suppose Dr Goebbels could have made use of these people
I have smoked all my working life and have never had any serious illness - never lost a day's work through illness - I do not suffer from respiratory illness or any other form of illness - apart from the occasional toothache - in fact the last time I went to see a doctor was 38 years ago for tennis elbow. I have never been since then, in fact I am not even registered with a doctor any more - the truth is after all this sort of thing that I keep seeing then agreeing with I just do not trust doctors any more.
If I win the lottery, I'll sue every single newspaper for defamation given that I have never taken a day off work for an alleged smoking related illness and I've often worked longer hours than idle anti-smokers who find any excuse to skive in many other ways.
This IS an unfounded hate campaign designed to make adult tobacco consumers homeless, jobless and friendless and the media should recognise how it is being played on this issue to promote that hate.
Of course they only pick on us because they know they can and we don't have the funds to stop the abuse. I really do wish the tobacco companies would stop rolling over on this and start actually protecting their consumers by funding such legal action.
p.s. to my post above, a part of which doesn't make sense. It should read: "the truth is after all this sort of thing that I keep seeing "them" agreeing with I just do not trust doctors any more"
I had said "then" in instead of "them" - sorry about that!
"The Mail clearly didn't care for my response because they have ignored what I told them."
Yes, and this disrespectful treatment is all too common.
I think the time has come Simon, that when the media ask you for a quote, then perhaps it would not be unreasonable to say that “I have given many comments that have not been allowed the courtesy of publication. I shall give a quote on this occasion, but if it is not published when I have made the effort then please don’t approach me again”…or something along those lines.
You have better things to do rather than spend time and effort coming up with something and then it isn’t used.
You aren’t their lackey or some afterthought for their convenience, just so that they can say – well we did ask Forest for a response.
Your time is too valuable - don't let them waste it.
Right then - if that's the attitude they're taking, I suppose I should join the rest of them, seeing as that is what they expect.
I'm 45 now and have smoked since I was 15. The only time I have had off work is when I was pregnant and gave birth, and even then I worked up until birth.
To be honest, after 28 years of hard toil, I may as well join the rest of them and take the odd sicky.
It's not in my nature though - but if that's how they're painting me, then I may as well take advantage of what the expectation is.
If all the working smokers took the sick days off that they quote, the country would grind to a halt.
What an interesting link from Denmark, which according to the OECD is the happiest country there is despite not being in the top 10 when it comes to life expectancy.
The miserable UK comes nowhere of course. Possibly because we can't afford nurses to staff our hospitals but are happy to pay the fat salaries of socially divisive tobacco control activists and to sit by whilst they carry out a vicious and dishonest campaign of denormalisation.
The very concept should have been consigned to the history books with demise of totalitarian 20th century regimes but this twisted doctrine is being actively promoted by allegedly learned UK institutions.
Is anyone surprised that the DM and the Guardian published this socially divisive junk? For very different reasons of course.
Funny that Dennis should say that. I have been thinking for some time that the requests from papers for comments on 'news' stories are very unfair. How many times have we seen multiple propaganda quotes from various zealots with only one quote from Forest? Even then, Zealots are given quite a degree of freedom, whereas Forest's comment is truncated. It seems that the newspapers only want something from you for 'balance'. Maybe it would be better not to give them that luxury. Alternatively, do not address their point directly. Make a general comment like "This is just propaganda. I have nothing further to say" That comment could apply especially to anything involving children. The papers will not print what you say, of course, but if they do not, then they have no 'balance'. Sod them. Newspapers sold their souls a long time ago. Wait until they start to question the propaganda and then give them something for them to use. Until then, there is nothing to be gained for our cause (being freedom to decide for ourselves) from going along with their game.
The same could be said about radio and TV appearances. Don't let Tobacco Control dictate the debate. Recently, there was a debate (I cannot remember the details - I think that it was about alcohol) wherein the Zealot kept claiming that OUR children need to be protected. The Respondent insisted upon discussing the use of OUR. The Zealot became hysterical when her claim to OWN all children was questioned.
Essentially there are only a few really important things:
1. Is the enjoyment of tobacco public health or private health?
2. Can adults decide for themselves?
3. Can adult providers of hospitality for adults decide the conditions upon which they provide the hospitality (smoking or non-smoking)?
4. Do parents have the right to bring up their children as they wish?
Perhaps 4 is the most important one from a smoker point of view. If the answer is: "No", then Anglican parents cannot bring up their children in the Christian faith, nor can Muslims in their faith. According to the Healthists, they must teach them the Healthist religion.
If the answer is: "Yes", then smoking parents can tell their offspring not to smoke until they are 16, or so. After that, it is the decision of the youth. Beware of the Zealot's indescriminate use of the words "children" and "young people". As far as Tobacco Control is concerned, there is propaganda virtue to be gained from the phrase "young people" since they count young people to be up to the age of 25.
Parents decide, and Tobacco Control does NOT own all children.
Here is a weird thing. According to Doll's Doctors Study, a person can smoke from the age of 19 to about 35. if that person then quits, his chances of dying from a 'smoking related disease' resemble the chances of a non-smoker. Did you know that? The point is that it does not matter is a youth smokes, provided that he stops in early middle age.
Think i'm going to start reading the Times again. I did read the Mail because the correspondents are good. The lady at the Times will have no truck with this propaganda nonsense whatsover. It just gets thrown out in the skip. If thats any consulation not all the media are the same.