proposed UK smoking ban

[*Ant*]

Non-smokers are of course entitled to object about the smell (though some say they like it). And in closed or unventilated premises others may find smoke annoying - or worse. But according to the Health and Safety Commission (in its draft Approved Code of Practice on Smoking at Work, July 1999), there remains absolutely no convincing scientific evidence that second-hand smoke can do lasting damage to the health of innocent bystanders.

 

Implausible

 

Indeed, the notion that tobacco smoke, heavily diluted in the atmosphere, can kill non-smokers is so implausible that the stop-smoking brigade has gone to exceptional lengths to foster a fear of 'passive smoking'. They have conducted, sponsored or quoted dozens of research projects to nail down this illusive phantom, but all fail the acid tests of objectivity and statistical significance.

 

One of the few scientists who managed to publicise attempts to measure significant exposure to environmental tobacco smoke - in Swedish homes - was a toxicologist, Professor Robert Nilsson. Nilsson quoted findings that showed that non-smokers who consistently breathe other people's tobacco smoke are smoking the equivalent of one cigarette a week to two cigarettes a year, which is hardly going to give the nation nightmares.

 

(quoted)

[rob.i]

Would it be legal to have a smoking members only pub any legal chaps out there know the answer?

[*Ant*]

Are non-smokers at risk from ETS?

 

This is what everyone wants to know. The truth is that the scientific establishment has found it impossible to reach agreement on the issue. Interviewed on Radio 4's Desert Island Discs (23 February 2001), Professor Sir Richard Doll, the first scientist to publish research that suggested a correlation between lung cancer and primary smoking, commented: 'The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me.'

 

Professor Doll's comments may surprise some people but not those who have analysed the argument about passive smoking in detail. In 1992, for example, the American Environmental Protection Agency published a report that was said to demonstrate the link between passive smoking and ill health in non-smokers. In 1996 however a US federal court ruled that the EPA had completely failed to prove its case. It was found not only to have abandoned recognised statistical practice, but to have excluded studies which did not support its pre-determined conclusion, and to have been inconsistent in its classification of ETS compared with other substances.

 

Likewise, in 1997, the National Health & Medical Research Council in Australia was found guilty by a federal court judge of acting improperly in preparing its draft report on passive smoking because it didn't consider all the relevant scientific evidence and submissions.

 

If that wasn't damning enough, in March 1998 the World Health Organisation was forced to admit that the results of a seven-year study (the largest of its kind) into the link between passive smoking and lung cancer were not 'statistically significant'. This is because the risk of a non-smoker getting lung cancer has been estimated at 0.01%. According to WHO, non-smokers are subjecting themselves to an increased risk of 16-17% if they consistently breathe other people's tobacco smoke. This may sound alarming, but an increase of 16-17% on 0.01 is so small that, in most people's eyes, it is no risk at all.

[Steve Burke]

I wonder how many "studies" are funded directly or indirectly by the tobacco industry?

 

The following is from the Government's White Paper on smoking.

 

"Passive smoking

 

1.16 Passive smoking - breathing in other people's tobacco smoke- also kills. While most non-smokers are not exposed to levels of passive smoke sufficient for them to incur significant extra risk, many thousands are, such as those living with smokers or working in particularly smoky atmospheres for long periods of time. Non-smokers and smokers need to be made aware of the true risks.

 

1.17 Several hundred people a year in the UK are estimated to die from lung cancer brought about by passive smoking. Passive smoking almost certainly also contributes to deaths from heart disease - an even bigger killer than lung cancer.

 

1.18 Passive smoking, even in low levels, can cause illness. Asthma sufferers are more prone to attacks in smoky atmospheres. Children, more vulnerable than adults and often with little choice over their exposure to tobacco smoke, are at particular risk.

 

1.19 Children whose parents smoke are much more likely to develop lung illness and other conditions such as glue ear and asthma than children of non-smoking parents. The Royal College of Physicians has estimated that as many as 17,000 hospital admissions in a single year of children under 5 are due to their parents smoking. They also estimate that one quarter of cot deaths could be caused by mothers smoking. Women who smoke while pregnant are likely to reduce the birthweight, and damage the health, of their baby."

 

[ 20. November 2004, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: Steve Burke ]

[*Ant*]

Steve - just goes to show we could swap "evidence" all night. I've been searching the web for an hour or so and have yet to find any respected study to prove that passive smoking is dangerous, just as I havn't found one that proves it is not dangerous. :confused:

 

Scientists eh , even they can't seem to agree on this subject, what chance the rest of us.

[poledark]

Ant, I don't care what the experts say, if tobacco smoke can make my clothes stink after only a couple of minutes in a smoky room, then I am pretty damn sure it is affecting my lungs as well.

 

I listened to the Health Secretary explain why the Gov't did not go for an outright ban on pubs and smoking...it appears that in Ireland where there is a total ban, a considerable number of smoking drinkers have started buying from an Off licence and drinking and smoking at home. This could put their families at an even greater risk from passive smoking.

 

Our Gov't considered this and decided it was better if those that insisted on smoking and drinking should be allowed somewhere to do it outside of the home, but not where people go to eat.

 

Den

[*Ant*]

Den - I'm not dismissing the risk of passive smoking, the truth is that there is just not any solid proof that passive smoking is harmful.

All to do with particles, atoms and chemical reactions with various ellements, please don't shoot the messenger.

[tugmistress]

Quote

1.19 Children whose parents smoke are much more likely to develop lung illness and other conditions such as glue ear and asthma than children of non-smoking parents. The Royal College of Physicians has estimated that as many as 17,000 hospital admissions in a single year of children under 5 are due to their parents smoking. They also estimate that one quarter of cot deaths could be caused by mothers smoking. Women who smoke while pregnant are likely to reduce the birthweight, and damage the health, of their baby."

 

I have 3 daughters, eldest 17 no asthma, no hospitalisations due to parents smoking, born 2 weeks early(normal!) 6lb5oz healthy.

next, age 15, no asthma, hospitalisation only due to sister poking her eye under 5, born 10 weeks early (normal for me, all 3 tried it they let her out) 4lb 1oz....bloody glad i didn't go term with that elephant!

next age 13, no asthma, no hospitalisation, born 2 weeks early 6lb 7oz.

 

non of my kids has had any lung illness due to us smoking, they live active healthy lives. maybe i have been lucky, all 3 of them are taller than i!

[Wordbender]

Paula, just out of interest, did you give up smoking when you were pregnant, and if so, why?

 

To the 'smoking is good for the economy' protestors - please can we get real, here? None of you are smoking for the good of the UK, are you?

 

The vast majority of smokers are simply caught up in a massive, hugely damaging addiction that they really want no part of - but can't get out from under.

 

If honesty ruled here, and you all could wake up tomorrow as non-smokers - how many would still rather have smoking as the major part of their lives it is now? I've never met a smoker that claims their habit is a good thing, or one that wishes their children would become smokers.

 

Lastly, please let's dispense with this issue of 'freedom of choice'. The last thing nicotine addiction is about, is 'freedom'. Smoking is a powerful addiction to a dangerous drug that WILL harm you and quite possibly kill you and those around you, when used EXACTLY as designed. Alcohol harms when abused, smoking does so when used - there's a massive difference.

 

Those that smoke fund an industry that is actively hunting our children. It needs our kids to form the next generation of smokers and it'll try every angle it can to get them, from sponsoring events to giving away cigarettes to young people in countries where the rules are not as strict as they are here. Sponsoring the entrapment of our kids IS a by-product of smoking - and I find it hard to respect that.

 

I've seen too many of my friends and relatives die in misery just because they couldn't stop sucking smoke through a paper tube. The tobacco companies knew it was killing its customers a long time before the rest of us did, and it'll keep on killing them - over 110,000 a year in the UK alone - as long as smokers keep sponsoring the campaign. Again, I find it hard to respect the 'right' to do that.

 

Please be honest with yourselves on this one. Your loved ones want you for you, the tobacco companies just want your money - and when you've killed yourself to give them tens of thousands of your hard-earned pounds, the b@stards won't even send you a wreath. They'll just be hunting down your kids with the money you gave them.

 

Other than that - I've no strong feelings either way.

 

Terry

[tugmistress]

no, i did not stop smoking whilst i was pregnant with any of my kids.

if 'honesty rules' then if i woke up tomorrow as a non smoker then yes i would miss it and probably start again. i know a lot of people will flame me for this but i get pleasure from it, i relax. I get a real enjoyment out of smoking. i don't claim it is a good thing, i know there is a Risk i MAY develop cancer from doing it. i have seen all the pictures on the net of tarred up lungs etc.

i wont say i wish my daughter to smoke because i don't, but i do refuse to molly coddle her, she is capable of making her own informed choices. (she has also seen the pics).