Voices of Reason 1-0 Tobacco Control

Alex Cunningham’s Private Members’ Bill to ban smoking in cars with children came to a shuddering halt in Parliament this afternoon.

A lone voice shouting 'Object' was enough to stop the Bill from proceeding any further. There was no debate and no vote.

The good news is that the cry came from the Government benches and we believe it was from a Government Whip.

Like a bad smell the Bill won't go away just yet, however. It is tabled for another Second Reading on Friday January 20 but the odds are it will be ‘Objected’ to again.

Meanwhile it slips further down the list of backbench Bills, which means it has little or no chance of progressing.

A doctor writes: erroneous data "unforgivable" but message "sound"

Further to Brian Monteith's article in the Scotsman on Monday, Brian received this response from a former GP:

I fully appreciate the content of your article: the use of unchecked and erroneous data by those apparently representing all doctors is unforgivable; indeed a public retraction for the use of this would not be out of order. However, the principle behind the thinking is reasonable to many people. Tobacco smoke in a confined space will be more hazardous to all exposed to it than in the open air, where the concentration is much diluted. Just use your common sense. YOU may choose to expose yourself to your own cigar smoke, but would others have the same choice?

As a former GP, I find the generalization that one cannot trust doctors is particularly worrying. It may sell papers, but it does terrible damage to the doctor-patient relationship which HAS to be based on real trust. I have no idea whether you have had personal experience of significant ill-health or not, but I do know from the feedback which my patients gave me, that trust was very important to supporting them through difficult times.

I don't expect to see any apology for your damaging piece in the Scotsman as I'm sure you stand by every word. Whilst the BMA's pronouncement is based on erroneous data, the sentiment behind the health prevention message is sound. Perhaps you should think longer and harder about the effect YOUR message has on real people's health care.

There are two conclusions to be drawn from this. One, the end justifies the means. The erroneous data may be "unforgivable" but the underlying health message is "sound" so let's not worry about a few facts and figures.

Two, let's shoot the messenger. If anyone is to blame for damaging the doctor-patient relationship, I suggest it's the British Medical Association and no-one else.

If the media is to be criticised it's for accepting at face value the word of the BMA and fellow travellers like ASH. In future, perhaps, reporters, especially health correspondents, will think twice before they publish garbage statistics and other junk science.

If that were to happen some good will come out of all this. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Doctors losing faith in the BMA

Last week, when I was on the BBC Radio Wales phone-in, I was struck by a contribution from Brendan, a retired GP.

Brendan (a smoker) was extremely critical of the British Medical Association and its extreme anti-tobacco agenda. The gist of what he was saying was that the BMA is not only wrong to call for a ban on smoking in all private vehicles, but the union's behaviour could seriously damage the doctor-patient relationship.

I supported Brendan's common sense attitude and said that, in my experience, he was far more representative of most GPs than the organisation that claims to represent them.

I have never been lectured by my GP (I've had several over the years), even though I am significantly overweight and enjoy more than the "recommended" number of units of alcohol each week. On the rare occasion a GP (or dentist) asks me what I do for a living ("I run a smokers' lobby group"), they invariably smile, pat me on the head and tell me to run along. (OK, I made the last bit up, but it's never been an issue.)

Anyway, Brendan isn't the only doctor who has queried the BMA in the past week. An oncologist called Anne took part in another programme I was on and she too took issue with them. (Update: Frank Davis has the transcript here. Scroll down to near the bottom.)

PS. Patrick Hayes, who writes for Spiked, The Free Society and the Huffington Post speaks for many of us, I think, when he asks: After the dodgy smoking in cars stat, how can the BMA be trusted?.

And so it begins: the long road to banning smoking outside

It was reported yesterday that organisers of the London Olympics want to ban smoking in all ticketed areas, including those that are outside in the open air.

Whatever the event – archery, rowing, sailing – every venue, every towpath, will be "smoke free".

So too will the London Olympic Park because although most of it is outdoors (it's a park, innit?) that is going to be a "ticketed area" as well. (Yes, they're going to charge us for the privilege of rubbing shoulders with the corporate guests who have tickets for the actual events!!)

The good news? According to the Daily Star, "An Olympics spokesman said it would be impossible to impose the ban on people lining non-ticketed public roads to watch the marathon." I bet they'd like to try, though.

Truth is, the Olympics are being seized upon as a gilt-edged opportunity to experiment with outdoor smoking bans.

Far from being a celebration of a free and open society (with all its faults), we may as well be back in Beijing. At least they know how to put on an opening ceremony!

Dick Puddlecote has a dream

British American Tobacco Germany has launched an initiative entitled United Dreams of Europe.

Predictably it has been hijacked by anti-smokers who have posted a raft of comments including the following:

• I dream of a Europe where my girls aren't surrounded by an easily accessible, legally available, addictive, carcinogenic drug.

• I dream of a Europe where children are not exposed to harmful chemicals as a result of those around them.

• I dream of a Europe with smoke free streets, cancer free lungs and where people make informed choices based on truth, not advertising.

• I dream everyone associated with the tobacco industry would die the same painful death as the evil they inflict on children.

• I dream of a tobacco free Europe.

And so on.

H/T Dick Puddlecote who commented on this last night and and has posted his own 'dream':

My European dream is for a time where hideous interventionists have realised that their way of living doesn't suit all, and that, you know, we would all like to be left to decide our own way of navigating our way through life without being dictated to by people who are arrogant enough to think they know best how we should live. It's a long shot, I know, but one day they may just shut the hell up. We can but hope.

Click here to post your dream.

Shaggy dog story

It's all getting a bit serious around here so here's some light relief with a twist in the tale (no pun intended).

Roly, our cockapoo puppy, is now 20 weeks old and here he is, photographed yesterday. He's not looking his absolute best because we'd just got back from a walk in a wet and muddy field in Peterborough where my son was playing rugby. (You should see the state of my car after he shook all the mud out of his fur. It's like the Somme in there.)

I've had lots of pets in my time – rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, fish – but never a dog, so I'm still getting used to it. From the moment we got him, however, Roly has been the sweetest, most sociable animal you could wish to have. I don't think he's the brightest mutt in the world (more cocker spaniel than poodle, I would guess) but we love him to bits.

Others seem to like him too. Children are always coming up to stroke him. (Perhaps they think he's a teddy bear.)

A few weeks ago, when we took him into London, a taxi driver stopped his cab, climbed out, ran across the road to where we were standing, and gasped: "Is that a cockapoo?" We chatted for at least five minutes while his taxi sat, engine running, blocking one lane.

Back home in Cambridgeshire, walking around the village with Roly been quite an education. We've lived here for twelve years and I have discovered houses and cottages that I barely knew existed.

It's been an education in other ways too. On the whole the village is fairly clean and well maintained. (It should be. Our MP lives in a big house in the centre of the village directly opposite the Post Office.)

Off the beaten track, however, there's more litter than I care to see. I've seen plastic bottles and containers, fizzy drink cans, sweet wrappers, crisp packets, fast food cartons, paper tissues, even a traffic cone.

Interestingly, since we started walking Roly eight weeks ago, I have seen very few fag ends and only one cigarette pack. Discuss.

Thanks to the BMA, doctors can no longer be trusted to tell the truth

Doctors, eh?

Brian Monteith, former spokesman for Forest in Scotland, former member of the Scottish Parliament and now a columnist for the Scotsman, has today written a searing indictment of the British Medical Association. It sums up what many of us feel about this and other anti-tobacco organisations (notably ASH).

Full article: BMA’s ‘facts’ prove to be all smoke and mirrors

BMA apologies for "error"

Hot off the press.

The British Medical Association has just issued the following news release:

Headline: CORRECTION TO BMA briefing paper: Smoking in vehicles – press release issued on Tuesday 15 November 2011 (publication date – 16 November 2011)

Please note, there is an error in the BMA briefing paper: Smoking in vehicles. On page 4, in the 3rd paragraph, the following sentence is incorrect:

“Further studies demonstrate that the concentration of toxins in a smoke-filled vehicle is 23 times greater than that of a smoky bar, even under realistic ventilation conditions”. a, 17, 18, 19

THIS SENTENCE HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH: "Further studies demonstrate that the concentration of toxins in a smoke-filled vehicle could be up to 11 times greater than that of a smoky bar”.

We apologise for this error.

How embarrassing.

Still no definition of a "smoky bar", though. Nor indeed what they mean by a "smoke-filled vehicle".

When was the last time you a smoke-filled vehicle? I thought so.

H/T Patrick Hayes

Update on Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 18:31 by Simon Clark

Chris Snowdon has also blogged about it. He writes:

Aside from removing the now-notoriously fictitious "23 times" claim, it is significant that the BMA has removed all reference to "realistic conditions". As I have said before, when experiments have been conducted in realistic conditions (ie. with one or more windows at least partially open), the amount of secondhand smoke in a moving vehicle is much lower than in a smoky bar. When all windows are closed and the ventilation is turned off, however, concentrations are higher than in a smoky bar. Of course they are. Cars are smaller than bars. That's why people who smoke in a car open the window.

See: BMA retracts claim about smoking in cars