Smoking and the media: if you think it's child's play, give it a go
Tuesday, June 4, 2013 at 12:44 The Government has launched a new campaign to remind smokers of the "dangers of second-hand smoke".
Second-hand smoke, we are told, can cause middle ear infections (glue ear), asthma and even cot death.
Forewarned, Forest issued a press release yesterday afternoon. It will go down badly with those who want us to deny that smoking poses any risk to anyone - including smokers - but I don't care.
This is the real world and I'm getting a little bored with people who say Forest doesn't represent smokers because we (a) acknowledge there are health risks associated with smoking or (b) make comments such as "Everyone knows there are health risks associated with smoking".
It's true we don't represent the head-in-the-sand smoker who wants to party like it's 1959.
Nor do we represent the smoker who wants to quit and is perpetually apologising for his "disgusting" habit.
Forest, I like to think, represents the middle ground, a broad church that includes millions of adults who choose to smoke in full knowledge of the health risks (some of which are exaggerated) yet are considerate to those around them, especially children, accepting the need for some restrictions on where they can light up.
Anyway, this is our response to the Government's latest campaign:
A consumer group has accused public health campaigners of "unwarranted scaremongering" after the government launched a campaign to highlight the "hidden dangers of smoking in homes and cars".
Simon Clark, director of the smokers' group Forest, said:
"No sensible person would expose children to tobacco smoke in a small room or car, but to suggest that homes and cars should be entirely smoke free is, we believe, unwarranted scaremongering.
"In our view the risks of secondhand smoke are being exaggerated to meet the demands of a public health industry that won't rest until smoking has been banned in all public and private spaces.
"It's a deeply illiberal agenda that has no place in a free society.
"If the government is so concerned about people smoking at home or in their own cars they should amend the smoking ban so pubs and clubs can offer separate smoking rooms for adults who want to smoke.
"Education is better than coercion but government needs to offer smokers a carrot as well."
On several radio stations this morning I went a little further. I repeated our position that we do not condone smoking in a small enclosed space with children present but are strongly opposed to legislation.
I said I was sceptical about some of the information that is being bandied about, pointing out that glue ear – to take one example – is not exclusive to children of smokers. Far from it. My own son had it and he was never exposed to tobacco smoke as a child.
Likewise cot death and asthma. The number of asthma sufferers, as we know, has tripled in recent decades while the percentage of smokers has halved. Go figure.
I also asked listeners to put things in perspective. In the Fifties and early Sixties, when a majority of adults smoked, millions of children were exposed to cigarette smoke every day in their homes and cars.
Bizarrely, if you believe every piece of anti-smoking propaganda, that generation is living longer than ever before (ie in the history of mankind). I'm not suggesting there is a correlation, I hastened to add, but we should avoid scaremongering and exaggerating the effects of second-hand smoke to the extent that even smoking outside the back door is considered unacceptable.
Anyway, in a hostile political and media environment, smoking and health (especially where children are involved) is not the easiest subject to handle without being portrayed as a flat Earther or a swivel-eyed loon.
If anyone thinks they can do better I invite them to have a go - beginning with their local radio station - instead of whinging on the sidelines.
Good luck.
PS. This morning I was on BBC Radio Newcastle, BBC Radio Tees, BBC Radio Sheffield and BBC Radio Devon. This afternoon I'll be on BBC Radio WM (at 4.35).
Update: Angela Harbutt is on LBC shortly after 2.00pm talking about whether smokers are being bullied too much.
Reader Comments (11)
[quote]Education is better than coercion[/quote]
As shown by the German experience and their government report I linked you to a couple of days ago. For those who don't know, smoking among 'da Yuff' has reduced by more than half in the last decade in Germany and that without panzer blast doors and plain packets and by and large, as far as I can tell, without quite the level of Mum's Net style hysteria we have in the UK.
Terrible consequences of second hand smoke on children brought up in a smoke filled busy pub ... we are all healthy, thank you very much.
http://nothing-2-declare.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/the-terrible-consequences-of-second.html
I dunno whether my pre-recorded interview was used by BBC Radio Newcastle but I concur with Simon. It isn't easy sticking your neck out for what you believe in a hostile media and when you stand your ground they do treat you like you've come from another planet.
However, I will believe until the day I die that SHS will not kill, maim or harm. It is, at worst, an irritant to those sensitive to environmental factors of all kinds and for that reason smokers should be considerate - but the other side of the coin is that anti-smokers should be tolerant - especially where smokers can meet without affecting them like their own pubs and clubs, for example.
Personally I get fed up with the view that only smokers die, only smokers get ill, only smokers' kids get ill. That simply isn't true and I said, whether it was heard or not, everything on that made up list for dramatic effect also affects non smokers too. They die, they lose babies, they get ill, their children get ill. To anti smokers I say get off our backs and leave us alone.
Incidentally, as for flat-earthers I think it's quite significant that one of the most famous was W G Volivia who was also a rabid anti-smoker. Go figure.
"It is, at worst, an irritant to those sensitive to environmental factors of all kinds and for that reason smokers should be considerate - but the other side of the coin is that anti-smokers should be tolerant - especially where smokers can meet without affecting them like their own pubs and clubs, for example."
And that succinct way of putting things, Pat, is why you're excellent on radio. :)
The 'evidence' for all this stuff about SHS and children comes from the report of the 'Tobacco Advisory Group of the College of Physicians' (2010). Here is the URL for anyone who wants to read it:
http://bookshop.rcplondon.ac.uk/contents/pub305-e37e88a5-4643-4402-9298-6936de103266.pdf
As regards ASTHMA, the evidence quoted by the report is extremely sparse.
Age up to and including age 2. (Four studies).
Smoking:
Prenatal maternal. 1.91.
Maternal 0.70.
Household. 1.17.
The numbers above (1.91 etc) are 'relative risks'. According to the studies, if the mother smokes in pregnancy, her child is 1.91 times as likely to suffer asthma up to the age of 2 than if the mother doesn't smoke. BUT, it DOES NOT have anything to say about whether or not the child will actually suffer from asthma! It is important to remember that.
The 'maternal smoking after birth' figure of 0.70 is the result of only one study (or at least only one study that the authors chose to use).
The 0.70 figure means that LESS babies suffered asthma in that age group for smoking mothers than non-smoking mothers, if the mother smokes AFTER the birth.
Better perhaps that people should look at the study themselves. The asthma bit is on page 86. You will see these 'relative risks' described as 'Pooled OR (OR meaning 'odds ratio' - much the same thing as RR).
Remember that statisticians require RRs MUCH greater than those quoted. The ABSOLUTE MINIMUM is an RR of 2, so these RRs of 1.91 and 1.17 are useless. Statisticians require RRs of at least 3 or 4 before they will even consider 'causality'.
I thought that information might be useful.
This post might be better entitled "Tobacco Control have launched a new campaign...." Forget PP and move on to 'the next logical step'.
Junican, thanks for the info but in the context of a post about the media this a good example of where online commentators go wrong. On radio or television you may be asked for a 20 second soundbite. Even in a longer interview, if you tried to say even half of what you have posted you would have lost the listener – and probably the presenter – within seconds. We have to speak in plain English, not try to impress people with our knowledge of risk ratios etc.
Thanks DP. By the way, having seen the TV ads again last night I'm reminded that the campaign to ban smokers from using a legal product on their own private property, whether car or home, is based on the scam of Third Hand Smoke - aka invisible smoke - and there is no evidence that it even exists - much less that it is harmful in any way at all to anyone.
Nicotine as self-medication
Functionally, the purpose of tobacco use is to deliver nicotine, a CNS and respiratory stimulant [11]. The Native American population has used tobacco for 2000 years. Tribal shamans used this medicinal herb to treat respiratory disorders [12,13]. In the late 1800’s, physicians used tobacco products to treat asthma [14]. ACE’s have a graded effect on tobacco initiation and use [15], especially in the current population [16]. Those with ACE’s are more likely to be depressed in adulthood [17]. Adolescents with prior or current asthma are 1.5 times as likely to smoke [18]. It has been proposed that nicotine is being used as self-treatment for sleep apnea [19]. It should not be surprising that many are unknowingly using this medicinal herb to treat stress related respiratory disorders. Yes, tobacco use has purpose. However, nicotine improves breathing only temporarily as long as nicotine is in the system
http://www.health-matrix.net/2013/01/21/nicotine-the-insular-cortex-and-empathy/
Simon.
Gosh! I wasn't for a minute suggesting that you could use the info on the radio! I was simply making a general observation of where the 'evidence' is which is being used to justify bans and frighten people. The trick used is to take the sparse evidence and then estimate the number of infants which will have asthma if the mother smokes - thousands of babies with asthma, for example.