Kicking ash
Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 11:14 Spent an enjoyable hour at BBC Radio Cambridgeshire yesterday.
I was invited with two other people to discuss smoking in cars. That evolved into a general debate about smoking.
Fellow guests were Barbara, a tobacco control coordinator at Addenbrookes Hospital in Cambridge, and Ellie, a 14-year-old Kick Ash "ambassador".
I'd never heard of Kick Ash or their ambassadors. They describe themselves as "Young people proud to be smoke free across Cambridgeshire".
Ellie was very composed, on and off air. If she was nervous she hid it very well. I thought she answered questions honestly and in her own words, unlike a lot of 'professional' campaigners who simply repeat the same tired old phrases.
I vowed not to interrupt or say anything that might sound aggressive but I cracked when she complained that her stepfather "smells" after he has been smoking.
She admitted that he never smokes in front of her and always goes outside, well away from the rest of the family, but that's not enough, it seems.
According to Brazilian-born Barbara, Ellie's stepfather still represents a threat to children because of the particles on his clothes.
This is complete hokum, of course. Nevertheless I've a good word for Barbara too. Not only was she very friendly, she told me she had read this blog which put her in my good books immediately.
Thinking about it, she may read it again so I warn you now – any unpleasant personal comments will be strictly moderated!
What drives Barbara, an ex-smoker, in her pursuit of even more anti-smoking legislation is the fact that in the course of her work at Addenbrookes she sees what she says is the direct result of smoking.
I don't doubt her sincerity, or the fact that she experiences first hand people who are seriously ill, but I do think that people who work in hospitals get a distorted view of the world which can affect their sense of perspective.
To witness every day people with lung cancer or emphysema must be distressing. But it's not the whole picture. I'm 53 and outside of a television studio I can't recall having ever met (or known personally) anyone with either illness.
So I imagine it's a bit like working for the vice squad. You experience life, but not as most of us know it.
Of course there's an element of Russian roulette about smoking and a lot of people are willing to gamble. That's their choice. What we need, instead of the demonstrably ridiculous 'quit or die' message, is more research that tries to discover why some people are more prone than others to develop certain smoking-related illnesses.
Smoking may be a trigger but there must be other factors otherwise every long-term smoker would die of a smoking-related illness. What the consumer wants is more information so he/she can assess the risk (which seems to vary from person to person) and make a proper, informed choice.
Unfortunately the current propaganda about smoking is so black and white that many people turn their backs and ignore it. And don't get me started about harm reduction products such as snus and e-cigarettes which many within the tobacco control industry refuse even to discuss.
Anyway Barbara suggested I should go to Addenbrookes to see the damage caused by smoking. I received a similar invitation when I spoke at a conference on alcohol. An eminent surgeon said I should visit St Mary's Hospital in Paddington, where he worked, to see the damage caused by alcohol.
Certainly, I shot back, but nothing came of it. Ironically I later found another reason to visit St Mary's, albeit as a patient.
But I digress. Towards the end of a lively discussion, genial presenter Jeremy Sallis, who reminded me of Five Live's Richard Bacon, invited me to agree that the world would be a better place if no-one smoked. (I paraphrase but I think that was the gist of it.)
I can't remember my exact response but it began with a fairly sharp "No!".
Ellie was given the final word but I can't remember what that was either because I was still absorbing what she said, off air, a few minutes earlier.
During the traffic report she revealed that her nan smoked all her life, even when she was reduced to one lung.
"So," I enquired, "what age did she live to?"
"Ninety," said Ellie.
Update: To listen to the discussion Click here. It begins around 20 minutes in.
Reader Comments (9)
I must say that Ellie sounds a very nice, honest girl.
What worries me however is this type of so obvious propaganda, which is used on youngsters like Ellie.
I was watching a television documentary the other day, where a class of school children (looked around 12 to 14) were being shown a film about driving under the influence of drugs. The teacher then told them that we all know that driving under the influence of drink will impair one's driving abilities, but drugs such as marijuana are now classed as at least as dangerous as alcohol , probably more so.
When the lesson finished, the children were asked by the presenter did they know these facts before and what did they now think of them?
Every child that they asked agreed with their teacher that drugs were dangerous and should be banned for drivers.
I am not saying that I agree with driving under the influence of either drugs or alcohol, for I do not, but what I do say is that children should be encouraged to think for themselves and to "debate" such arguments - both for and against and give their reasons for their beliefs, not just believe every word their teacher tells them, and to accept it as fact.
Children today seem to be indoctrinated, rather than taught. If we all accepted everything that we read or hear on TV then we are in danger of becoming a nation of automatons - believing in Big Brother.
I do not want our children to believe piecemeal in everything their teacher tells them - I want them to question everything that is put in front of them - that is the only true path to freedom.
My body, my life, my choice, no one else's business. My parents, grandparents, all adults smoked around me from my conception to birth to older age and never made me ill, likewise smoking around my own before smoking was ever an issue - which it never was before 2005 to anyone other than a few hysterics - has never made them ill.
I absolutely resent the fraudulent and paranoid assertion that I am dangerous to everyone who ever comes into contact with me - even when I'm not smoking - which seems designed more to make my friends, neighbours, and family shun and avoid me. There should be a line that cannot be crossed and this is it.
Sorry, no offence to Ellie, but wheeling her out for the use of emotive pressure in light of any real evidence about invented THS is Grandad's Law http://harridanic.com/wiki/Grandad's_Law - hate campaigning also comes to mind and it's time that you realised that is exactly what these over paid zealots are pushing based on no more than their own made up and paranoid assertions decide at the latest conference.
What next? Our houses are contaminated so therefore will be demolished and every single thing we have worked for all our LONG LIVES will be worthless to those we leave behind. Hell - why not just dig up old smoker graves and burn the bodies to ensure no trace can contaminate the earth?
Please, Simon, you're all we've got. Make them stop this damaging nonsense. It has gone too far without foundation and without basis.
Tobacco companies have money. They should be challenging this utter rubbish in the courts for the sake of their consumers who are being defamed. Under the microscope of biological science, this propaganda will fail and they must be taught via legal action that there is a line and they can't say what the hell they like just because in this current climate they can get away with it.
I once did a brief piece on Kick Ash Cambridge and how children are used as propaganda tools for the Tobacco Control Industry.
(And I was once invited to see in person, the work that a taxpayer funded childrens charity, who I had slated on the blog. Just like your hospital invite, nothing came of that either)
I have three offices I do my work in as an IT type.
The London one typically being on the seventh floor has a lift and stairs.
What gets me is the smokers like me on the whole being slimmer tend to use the stairs, I practically run up them.
The majority of the non smokers being "bigger", take the lift.
If they think overeating is a safer substitute for smoking I have a feeling their in for a rude awakening in their middle age, i'm 52 and still running up the stairs.
ps
And I never get out of breath, which is strange because according to the accepted propaganda, I am supposed to.
To back up my theory take a look at people from parts of the world who have low cardiovascular risk.
The people in these regions have one trait in common.
They are thin, compared to the average westerner, stick thin.
Well said, Pat.
I haven't yet listened to the piece so not sure whether Ellie's objections are to THS or "just" the smell but either way it is no longer enough to avoid smoking - a culture is developing that people have a right to avoid smokers and, if it is allowed to continue, we will be banned from smoking anywhere and anytime lest we offend an anti-smoker that we happen to run across.
As for the risks of smoking, it seems that the medics consider it impossible to predict which smokers will be susceptible (very reasonable) so they have decided that the message should be "quit or die" (in my view unreasonable, misleading and therefore offensive to the rights of adults to decide the level of risk they want to take, and, of course, inconsistent given that in other areas of life adults are left alone to decide risk - in fact we have the media swooning with admiration that the 68 year old Ranulph Fiennes intends to embark on his adventure which, in terms of probability of negative outcome as well as consequence must surely be every bit as risky as smoking).
"The World would be a better place if no-one smoked." What a pointless, one-dimensional comment that is. It's the sort of statement that would come from a person who has no comprehension of the diversity of our multi-faceted World. This diversity helps drive innovation, helps generate ideas and is the very thing that drives us forward as a society. The above statement is of the ilk of statements like "The World would be a better place if all food was in pill form providing all the nutrients and energy the body needs" or "The World would be a better place if Democracy were removed and all Governmental decisions were made by a benevolent despot".
Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Sallis, you might just get it!
You think people who work in hospitals have a distorted view on this subject? Maybe they have the correct view and the rest of us who are shielded from confronting the effects of smoking on a daily basis are the ones who have a distorted view?
And Pat - no need to demolish your house. But recognise that a smoker's house is contaminated and will sell for less. You're a loser in so many ways, not just health.
No it isn't. Just hateful bigots want others to believe it is which was the point I tried to make about reining in these nutters before they do any more damage to decent people.
I wouldn't sell my house to a smokerphobic in any event and they are the only ones paranoid about a non existent threat so I wouldn't have any trouble selling it.
I really wish funding could be made available to help those poor tortured souls who are harming their own mental health and those of others around them.
But recognise that a smoker's house is contaminated and will sell for less.
The only thing to recognize here is the above utter tosh being peddled by smokerphobics. A smoker's home being "contaminated"? What with? The traffic fumes from outside? To take this a little further, Kevin, what is the natural background radiation in your area?
You're a loser in so many ways....
Is this supposed to impress or to add credibility?