Cutting the Mustard
Friday, June 10, 2016 at 10:17 Norwich City Council has become the latest local authority to introduce a 'voluntary' ban on smoking in children's play areas.
Forest was quoted in the local paper last week and yesterday I was interviewed on BBC Radio Norfolk.
I was also invited by to discuss the issue on Mustard TV. I'd never heard of the station so I was curious and said yes even though it meant a four-hour round trip.
Bizarrely Mustard TV is named as a "nod to Colman's mustard in Norwich" although there's no direct connection between the two.
Instead it's owned by Archant, a local community media group with an extensive range of titles including the Eastern Daily Press.
I had a pang of regret when I arrived because this is exactly the sort of company I wanted to join when I left university.
Instead I was side-tracked by an offer of work in London, where I had always wanted to live, and found myself in public relations instead.
Anyway, I enjoyed my visit. There was a green room, and make-up facilities, and after a short wait we were ushered in to a small studio where we met the presenter, Clare.
Fellow guests were Bill, an ex-smoker who now works for a local stop smoking service, and Tracy, an NHS nurse.
Recorded 'as live' the atmosphere on the 30-minute programme was relaxed and friendly. It was lively - we disagreed on several points - but it never got personal or unpleasant.
Although Bill and Tracy are committed to helping smokers quit, I sensed an empathy for smokers you never get from anti-smoking politicians and professional lobbyists like ASH.
At one point Bill even accepted that designated smoking rooms in pubs and clubs might not be a bad idea.
The programme was broadcast on Freeview in the Norwich area last night.
Reader Comments (2)
Voluntary smoking bans are unnecessary. There is essentially no risk from second hand smoke.
See the latest study confirming this: Peter N Lee, John S Fry, Barbara A Forey, Jan S Hamling, Alison J Thornton, Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and lung cancer: A systematic review. World J Meta-Anal. Apr 26, 2016; 4(2): 10-43, doi: 10.13105/wjma.v4.i2.10
CONCLUSION: Most, if not all, of the ETS/lung cancer association can be explained by confounding adjustment and misclassification correction. Any causal relationship is not convincingly demonstrated.
Core tip: We present an up-to-date meta-analysis of the evidence relating non-smoker lung cancer to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure. We demonstrate a clear risk increase for spousal, at-home, workplace and total exposure, but not childhood exposure. For husband smoking, the relative risk (RR) is estimated as (RR = 1.22, 95%CI: 1.14-1.31). However, adjustment for confounding by education and dietary variables, and correction for misclassified wife’s smoking reduces it to (RR = 1.08, 95%CI: 0.999-1.16). Given the other data limitations and biases we discuss, one cannot reliably conclude that any true ETS effect on lung cancer risk exists. Our results suggest caution in drawing inferences from weak epidemiological associations where known biases exist.
Let's not kid ourselves that this is about health. It's about forcing consumers to quit for ideological reasons because of a bunch of extremists who hate industry, and tobacco especially. Those who do not want a world without smokers or the ambience of smoke will be punished, excluded and marginalised.
As we have said many times, it is a hate campaign by phobics. That's all.