Reply to: FOREST online petition against EU tobacco restrictions

[BobTheCrate]

I not comfortable having to pay your NHS bills

You're not. The duty on tobacco pays the entire NHS budget more than twice over. Smokers should be given NHS Gold Club cards.

... or any of the people that you inflict cancer on with second hand smoke.

The scientific evidence to support this also went up in a puff of smoke. It's nothing more than over used scare-mongering propoganda.

I'm amazed though from a business perspective, that the tobacco industry is not using its resources to get into electronic cigarettes themselves in a big, big way.

[ThomasSoerensen]

Mmmm, fags.

I did not you liked them so much.
What will the wife say?

[OwlHoot]

Precisely why I hate the idea of public health. Once something like the NHS is implemented, those in charge need to find ways to limit the costs of running it. One simple way to do this is to stop people from making their own free choices about partaking in activities that may harm them. Hence laws on wearing seatbelts, smoking, drugs, drinking, jaywalking, motorbike helmets, etc. Granted, none of those are particularly restrictive, but as health costs increase politicians will seek further ways to regulate our lives - where will it stop? Will they ban salt? Butter? Skiing? Who draws the line?

Absolutely spot on. That's the main reason I detest the NHS too, that and it's inherent gross inefficiency.

Second-hand smoke is an overhyped myth. There are people who smoke a pack a day and live till they're ninety. Given that, it seems unlikely that you'll contract cancer from a few sniffs of the odd cigarette as you walk past a smoker on the footpath.

Right on the button again. I'd only add the importance of adequate ventilation, both to minimize second-hand smoke (more specifically "naughty end" smoke, from the burning end), and the dampness which leads to chest infections and mould.

Aspergillus mould probably causes a hundred times the number of cancers as second-hand smoke. But you rarely if ever hear about that, as it isn't a fashionable health neurosis.

Also, with all this talk about energy saving, the last thing the Government wants to encourage is air conditioning and open windows.

[Old Greg]

I'm being completely serious - think about it logically. If one person can inhale first hand smoke directly, thirty or forty times a day for fifty years and not get sick, how can the odd breath of a much lower concentration of smoke once or twice a month be fatal to another person? I'm not disputing that smoking is unhealthy and will have dire consequences for most people who choose to smoke - I'm saying that it's not possible to inhale enough second-hand smoke to give you cancer. Firstly, second-hand smoke isn't strong enough. Secondly, no-one is exposed to enough of it.

What studies? What evidence? How many fatalities have been attributed to tobacco smoke inhalation in people who have never smoked?

Today, I will be the wikipedia fairy (there is some stuff down the linked page on controversy but it curiously focuses on research funded by the tobacco industry): Passive smoking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'Epidemiological studies

Epidemiological studies show that non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke are at risk for many of the health problems associated with direct smoking.
In 1992, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a review of available evidence on the relationship between secondhand smoke and heart disease, and estimated that passive smoking was responsible for 35,000 to 40,000 deaths per year in the United States in the early 1980s.[65] The absolute risk increase of heart disease due to ETS was 2.2%, while the attributable risk percent was 23%.
Research using more exact measures of secondhand smoke exposure suggests that risks to nonsmokers may be even greater than this estimate. A British study reported that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of heart disease among non-smokers by as much as 60%, similar to light smoking.[66] Evidence also shows that inhaled sidestream smoke, the main component of secondhand smoke, is about four times more toxic than mainstream smoke, a fact that known to the tobacco industry since the 1980s, which kept its findings secret.[67] [68] [69] [70] Some scientists believe that the risk of passive smoking, in particular the risk of developing coronary heart diseases, may have been substantially underestimated.[71]
A minority of epidemiologists find it hard to understand how environmental tobacco smoke, which is far more dilute than actively inhaled smoke, could have an effect that is such a large fraction of the added risk of coronary heart disease among active smokers.[72][73] One proposed explanation is that secondhand smoke is not simply a diluted version of "mainstream" smoke, but has a different composition with more toxic substances per gram of total particulate matter.[72] Passive smoking appears to be capable of precipitating the acute manifestations of cardio-vascular diseases (atherothrombosis) and may also have a negative impact on the outcome of patients who suffer acute coronary syndromes.[74]
In 2004, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer. It concluded:
These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes. The excess risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after controlling for some potential sources of bias and confounding.[4]
Subsequent meta-analyses have confirmed these findings,[75][76] and additional studies have found that high overall exposure to passive smoke even among people with non-smoking partners is associated with greater risks than partner smoking and is widespread in non-smokers.[66]
The National Asthma Council of Australia cites studies showing that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is probably the most important indoor pollutant, especially around young children:[77]
Smoking by either parent, particularly by the mother, increases the risk of asthma in children.
The outlook for early childhood asthma is less favourable in smoking households.
Children with asthma who are exposed to smoking in the home generally have more severe disease.
Many adults with asthma identify ETS as a trigger for their symptoms.
Doctor-diagnosed asthma is more common among non-smoking adults exposed to ETS than those not exposed. Among people with asthma, higher ETS exposure is associated with a greater risk of severe attacks.
In France, passive smoking has been estimated to cause between 3,000[78] and 5,000 premature deaths per year, with the larger figure cited by Prime minister Dominique de Villepin during his announcement of a nationwide smoking ban: "That makes more than 13 deaths a day. It is an unacceptable reality in our country in terms of public health."[79]
There is good observational evidence that smoke-free legislation reduces the number of hospital admissions for heart disease.[80] In 2009 two studies in the United States confirmed the effectiveness of public smoking bans in preventing heart attacks. The first study, done at the University of California, San Francisco and funded by the National Cancer Institute, found a 15 percent decline in heart-attack hospitalizations in the first year after smoke-free legislation was passed, and 36 percent after three years.[81] The second study, done at the University of Kansas School of Medicine, showed similar results.[82] Overall, women, nonsmokers, and people under age 60 had the most heart attack risk reduction. Many of those benefiting were hospitality and entertainment industry workers.[83]
[edit]Risk level
The International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded in 2004 that there was sufficient evidence that secondhand smoke caused cancer in humans.[4] Most experts believe that moderate, occasional exposure to secondhand smoke presents a small but measurable cancer risk to nonsmokers. The overall risk depends on the effective dose received over time. The risk level is higher if non-smokers spend many hours in an environment where cigarette smoke is widespread, such as a business where many employees or patrons are smoking throughout the day, or a residential care facility where residents smoke freely.[84] The US Surgeon General, in his 2006 report, estimated that living or working in a place where smoking is permitted increases the non-smokers' risk of developing heart disease by 25–30% and lung cancer by 20–30%.
[edit]Biomarkers
Environmental Tobacco Smoke can be evaluated either by directly measuring tobacco smoke pollutants found in the air or by using biomarkers, an indirect measure of exposure. As of 2005, Nicotine, cotinine, thiocyanates, and proteins are the most specific biological markers of tobacco smoke exposure.[85]
Cotinine
Cotinine, the metabolite of Nicotine, is the preferred biomarker of Environmental Tobacco Smoke exposure. Typically, Cotinine is measured in the blood, saliva, and urine. Hair analysis has recently become a new, noninvasive measurement technique. Cotinine accumulates in hair during hair growth, which results in a measure of long-term, cumulative exposure to tobacco smoke.[86]
Urinary cotinine levels have been a reliable biomarker of tobacco exposure and have been used as a reference in many epidemiological studies. However, cotinine levels found in the urine only reflect exposure over the preceding 48 hours. Cotinine levels of the skin, such as the hair and nails, reflect tobacco exposure over the previous three months and are a more reliable biomarker.[85]
Cotinine is a much more reliable biomarker of Environmental Tobacco Smoke than surveys. Certain groups of people are reluctant to disclose their smoking status and exposure to tobacco smoke, especially pregnant women and parents of young children. This is due to their smoking being socially unacceptable. Also, recall of tobacco smoke exposure may be difficult. Cotinine measurements are therefore more reliable biomarkers.[86]
In 2007, the Addictive Behaviors Journal found a positive correlation between secondhand tobacco smoke exposure and concentrations of nicotine and/or biomarkers of nicotine in the body. A significant amount of biological levels of nicotine from secondhand smoke exposure were equivalent to nicotine levels from active smoking and levels that are associated with behavior changes due to nicotine consumption.[87]'

[GreenLabel]

Anyone who brings out the argument if one person they know who smoked and lived to 90 isn't being serious, there have been many studies done and the evidence is clear. I agree people have the right to smoke, but that's not the issue. Most people start when they are young and impressionable, and I'm sure most smokers faced with agonising death would rather they never started.

I'm being completely serious - think about it logically. If one person can inhale first hand smoke directly, thirty or forty times a day for fifty years and not get sick, how can the odd breath of a much lower concentration of smoke once or twice a month be fatal to another person? I'm not disputing that smoking is unhealthy and will have dire consequences for most people who choose to smoke - I'm saying that it's not possible to inhale enough second-hand smoke to give you cancer. Firstly, second-hand smoke isn't strong enough. Secondly, no-one is exposed to enough of it.

What studies? What evidence? How many fatalities have been attributed to tobacco smoke inhalation in people who have never smoked?

[kandr]

Good old FOREST. Good to see that the tobacco industry cares so much about our freedom. FOREST - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'Funding and membership

FOREST has been described as an astroturf group created and primarily funded by the tobacco industry.[10] Its establishent was planned by the Tobacco Advisory Committee, the British tobacco industry trade association. At a 1979 meeting, the Tobacco Advisory Committee discussed the launch of FOREST as well as ways to maintain its appearance of independence.[11]
After its founding, grassroots interest in FOREST was meagre and failed to make the organisation self-financing, despite aggressive membership campaigns.[2] In one instance, 10,000 cigarette retailers were solicited to join FOREST, but only four joined.[12] Thus, financial support from the tobacco industry remained the major source of funding for FOREST, while funding from outside the industry was minimal.[2]
Notwithstanding efforts to create the appearance of independence, the Tobacco Advisory Council controlled leadership at FOREST. Internal industry memos stipulated: "If money invested [in FOREST] is to be properly effective then control and management are essential." Contact between the Executive Director of FOREST and the Tobacco Advisory Council was envisaged "on an almost daily basis."[13]'

busted!! I think that concludes the thread.

[Old Greg]

Good old FOREST. Good to see that the tobacco industry cares so much about our freedom. FOREST - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'Funding and membership

FOREST has been described as an astroturf group created and primarily funded by the tobacco industry.[10] Its establishent was planned by the Tobacco Advisory Committee, the British tobacco industry trade association. At a 1979 meeting, the Tobacco Advisory Committee discussed the launch of FOREST as well as ways to maintain its appearance of independence.[11]
After its founding, grassroots interest in FOREST was meagre and failed to make the organisation self-financing, despite aggressive membership campaigns.[2] In one instance, 10,000 cigarette retailers were solicited to join FOREST, but only four joined.[12] Thus, financial support from the tobacco industry remained the major source of funding for FOREST, while funding from outside the industry was minimal.[2]
Notwithstanding efforts to create the appearance of independence, the Tobacco Advisory Council controlled leadership at FOREST. Internal industry memos stipulated: "If money invested [in FOREST] is to be properly effective then control and management are essential." Contact between the Executive Director of FOREST and the Tobacco Advisory Council was envisaged "on an almost daily basis."[13]'

[GreenLabel]

- the import of ANY tobacco or nicotine product into the UK without the licence is a 10 year prison sentence.
- providing ANY tobacco or nicotine product to a person not on the Tobacco Programme without the licence is a 10 year prison sentence.

Airstrip One

[kandr]

In any case, if I were a smoker, I would be comfortable with that. I can be addicted and comfortable, particularly since I knew that the addiction would take hold before I started buying the product. Personally, I'm probably addicted to my morning coffee - I feel terrible if I don't have it. But I enjoy it, I know that I'm addicted, I know that I can kick the habit if I truly need to, but for now I don't mind.



Precisely why I hate the idea of public health. Once something like the NHS is implemented, those in charge need to find ways to limit the costs of running it. One simple way to do this is to stop people from making their own free choices about partaking in activities that may harm them. Hence laws on wearing seatbelts, smoking, drugs, drinking, jaywalking, motorbike helmets, etc. Granted, none of those are particularly restrictive, but as health costs increase politicians will seek further ways to regulate our lives - where will it stop? Will they ban salt? Butter? Skiing? Who draws the line?

This is probably a separate discussion, but I'd be interested to hear what others think.



Second-hand smoke is an overhyped myth. There are people who smoke a pack a day and live till they're ninety. Given that, it seems unlikely that you'll contract cancer from a few sniffs of the odd cigarette as you walk past a smoker on the footpath.



I've made my choice, and I'm happy to leave others to make theirs.

Anyone who brings out the argument if one person they know who smoked and lived to 90 isn't being serious, there have been many studies done and the evidence is clear. I agree people have the right to smoke, but that's not the issue. Most people start when they are young and impressionable, and I'm sure most smokers faced with agonising death would rather they never started.

[GreenLabel]

Your not comfortable, you are addicted.

In any case, if I were a smoker, I would be comfortable with that. I can be addicted and comfortable, particularly since I knew that the addiction would take hold before I started buying the product. Personally, I'm probably addicted to my morning coffee - I feel terrible if I don't have it. But I enjoy it, I know that I'm addicted, I know that I can kick the habit if I truly need to, but for now I don't mind.

I not comfortable having to pay your NHS bills,

Precisely why I hate the idea of public health. Once something like the NHS is implemented, those in charge need to find ways to limit the costs of running it. One simple way to do this is to stop people from making their own free choices about partaking in activities that may harm them. Hence laws on wearing seatbelts, smoking, drugs, drinking, jaywalking, motorbike helmets, etc. Granted, none of those are particularly restrictive, but as health costs increase politicians will seek further ways to regulate our lives - where will it stop? Will they ban salt? Butter? Skiing? Who draws the line?

This is probably a separate discussion, but I'd be interested to hear what others think.

...or any of the people that you inflict cancer on with second hand smoke.

Second-hand smoke is an overhyped myth. There are people who smoke a pack a day and live till they're ninety. Given that, it seems unlikely that you'll contract cancer from a few sniffs of the odd cigarette as you walk past a smoker on the footpath.

If you smoked, which you don't.

I've made my choice, and I'm happy to leave others to make theirs.

[TiroFijo]

Anyone interested in signing this online petition can do here, until 17th december, and if you're interested in preserving personal freedom of choice please spread the word.

And before glibly laughing it off and claiming to approve of these health Nazis' proposals, it's worth bearing in mind that sooner or later they'll want to restrict or ban something you do care about!

Remember, campaigners like these EU fascists will never never stop - One victory just means they can move onto the next thing. It's what they do.

If the bans keep make the killer weed even more out of sight from younger children when they are at their most impressionable age then I'm all for supporting the bans.

For those that do and want to continue to smoke, I couldn't give a tulip, as long as the taxes you pay it it cover your smoking related diseases that you will get later on. I couldn't think of anything worse than being in the same room as someone who s smoking...

[RichardCranium]

If you're serious about all this cranky BS, you're completely berserk, worse than those EU health Nazis (or a few years ahead of them).

Explain.

It is a solution that should keep everyone happy, without affecting anyone's perceived 'rights', nor costing an immense amount in administration, nor losing the tax revenue.

[OwlHoot]

I've been mentioning my solution to the whole smoking thing for some years but nobody seems to think it is a good idea.

My idea:
- existing smokers must register at their GP by the deadline of 3 months from now.
- the GP will check any smoker who turns up and test the carbon monoxide levels, etc to confirm they are a genuine smoker.
- if the person is a real smoker, they get enrolled on the Tobacco Programme.
- once the 3 month deadline has been reached, NOBODY will be added to the Tobacco Programme.
- people enrolled on the Tobacco Programme specify their current fags-per-day and sign an agreement not to increase beyond that.
- Tobacco Programme people get their fags on prescription every 2 or 4 weeks but still at the current price (about £6 per 20, IIRC) + prescription charge.
- all nicotine-replacement and reduction products and smoking cessation products / education / techniques will be provided free on the NHS to anyone on the Tobacco Programme. You can either be receiving tobacco or be on the cessation scheme and can switch from one to the other as many times as is necessary to get you to stop.
- an ex-Tobacco Programme person can return to the cessation scheme at any time in the future, but will only get non-nicotine treatments.
- only special licensed outlets will be permitted to provide or import tobacco products.
- the import of ANY tobacco or nicotine product into the UK without the licence is a 10 year prison sentence.
- providing ANY tobacco or nicotine product to a person not on the Tobacco Programme without the licence is a 10 year prison sentence.
- providing ANY tobacco or nicotine product to a person who was not 16 years old on the day the 3 month deadline ended is a 20 year prison sentence.
- new prisoners will be automatically put on the cessation scheme.

So:
- existing smokers can continue smoking for the rest of their lives. Their rights are unaffected.
- the treasury continues to get their tax.
- there should be no new smokers.
- every year, the smoking population will decrease.
- those addicted to nicotine but don't want to smoke can have nicotine replacement products thereby offending nobody else.
- want to immigrate to Britain? Better not be a smoker.

I suspect smokers would also have to use special ash-trays to collect their dog-ends to hand in with their prescription; this will stop them handing out their fags and stop them dropping dog ends on the ground.

And I don't see how this would be hard to administer. It is all similar to existing rules on importing spirits, dishing out methadone and registering for Prescription Prepayment Certificates so no new technology or processes are needed.

But it would piss off the airports (duty free), ferry companies (duty free) and small newsagents.

If you're serious about all this cranky BS, you're completely berserk, worse than those EU health Nazis (or a few years ahead of them).

[TykeMerc]

Your not comfortable, you are addicted.

You're (totally different word despite it sounding similar). Possibly, but it's impossible to know if a smoker is happy being a smoker. As an ex tobacco user I was pretty comfortable when I smoked.

I not comfortable having to pay your NHS bills, or any of the people that you inflict cancer on with second hand smoke.

You don't appear know that smokers pay vastly more in tax that they cost in NHS treatments, or appreciate that they die earlier saving a considerable amount in Pensions. There's very little if any plausible evidence that second hand smoking causes cancer as much of the old research has been debunked.

Incidentally there's a very large body of evidence that conventional nicotine replacement therapies have a success rate of smoking cessation less than 5%.

Various smokeless tobacco products have been banned in the past and there are official bodies in many countries (MHRA in the UK and FDA in the USA included) plus the WHO which are actively trying to ban others such as electronic cigarettes which is what stopped me using tobacco on the first day I got one.

[kandr]

True, however the consumer is informed of the risk of addiction at the time of purchase. Anyone who starts smoking without being aware that it may become addictive is an idiot.

Many things are dangerous and present risks of an early death. Perhaps I know that smoking will shorten my life, I'm comfortable with that, and I choose to smoke because I enjoy it*. Why should I be penalised for my choice?



(No, I'm not a smoker, unless you count the odd cigar.)

Your not comfortable, you are addicted.

I not comfortable having to pay your NHS bills, or any of the people that you inflict cancer on with second hand smoke.

If you smoked, which you don't.