Eh?

>> In his case he knows in his heart of hearts that both smoking and passive smoking are dangerous to those who take part, but choses not to acknowledge the risks.

Somehow you’ve managed to completely misread every single one of my comments and come to the exact opposite conclusion of every single point I was trying to make.

>> He latch onto any “facts” or “research” however doubtfull which supports his destorted view of reality quoting them as proven facts.

The research I quoted is widely recognised by the scientific community as being valid.

>> There have been many investigations into smoking and passive smoking. All of these, except those conducted by interested parties, such as the tobacco industry or FORREST, have concluded that smoking and passive smoking are dangerous.

Exactly.

>> How can it be dangerous to smoke, but safe to breath second hand smoke? This is not possible and he knows it.

You’re right I know it. It’s the point I was attempting to make.

>> The smoking ban is the best law to come out of parliament in years

I wouldn’t go that far.

>> and research has shown it to be working as smoking related health problems have fallen significantly. I rest my case.

Your case is exactly the same as mine. Either you’ve completely misread my comments, or I’m terrible at making my point. I suspect it’s the former.

I would like to point out that the crux of this article is neither a debate on SHS nor whether the ban should have been implemented. Rather it is looking at how the ban has affected students. I am aware that this feature is not comprehensive due to limitations of space. Thank you for the comments that explore issues of the ban and SHS further.

All statistics quoted are from government resources. Obviously people are entitled to believe that the government doctors these.

“Dunhillbabe” – I find your comment particularly interesting. It certainly is a feat to establish a persons character from 1000 words. I’m sure I could form a judgment of you from your comment. However it would undoubtedly be as incorrect as your assumptions on me. I believe SHS is dangerous and I believe that the ban is a positive action, despite the annoyance of it. I make no apologies for my beliefs. I’m sure they are just as valid and well researched as your own. Simply because my opinions seem to be shared by the majority does not make them weak; just as your views are slightly more controversial and radical does not negate them. Lastly, if anyone is small minded and petty enough to dislike me because I smoke, they would be no loss to me.

Once again, thanks to all who have made interesting and informed comments.

The fact that this one article keeps coming up again, and again, and again, despite the fact the flaws in the study have been pointed out, and there are many, many articles directly contradicting Enstrom and Kabat’s findings, is just showing how desperate you are in attempting to justify your polluting lifestyle choices to yourself and others.

Your comparison to the climate change argument is apt, as the same is happening there. People attempting to justify their lifestyle choices in order to not have to change point at the same flawed scientific studies and ignore the large mass of facts out there that goes in contradiction to the scientific consensus.

Bouncing through these comments, I may have missed an earlier reference to it, but 2 guys named Elstrom and Cabat followed some 100,000 californians smokers, non smokers living with smokers, etc for 40 years. For 38 years, this study was sponsored by the American Cancer society. When the preliminary findings were revealed 2 years before the full 40 years was up – NO causal link had been found re passive smoking and ‘passive’ heart atacks, lung or any other cancers. The ACS was so outraged at being handed the ‘wrong’ results it withdrew funding for the final 2 years of the study. The funding which enabled these scientists to complete and compile their results IN THE LAST 2 YEARS ONLY came from an industry related to the tobacco industry. The ACS (and most of the hysterical anti smoking mob) denounced the study on the basis that it was funded by ‘big tobacco’ – despite having funded it themselves for 38 years. When the results were published in the BMJ, the response was so vitriolic – many taking the view that it should not have been published – that the then editor said – he had never witnessed such hostile opposition to any papers hitherto published, adding that the the detractors argument had ‘little to do with science, and everything to do with prejudice. The fact is that ANYONE in the medical/scientific community who goes against the ‘message’ is treated like a holocaust denier, and FYI, it’s no different re ‘global warming’. You figure it out.

No. It’s because I’m fed up of talking to an ignorant woman.

>> Tell you what, why not try to name 3 deaths from passive smoking throughout the world (afterall the lobbyists here are talking billions of people saved). You can’t though, because not one person has ever died from SHS.

And even if I could, you wouldn’t believe me because you’re so narrow-minded and ignorant you believe second-hand smoke isn’t dangerous. Like you casually discarded my friends lung cancer “because scientists didn’t discover second-hand smoke until 1998″, which is obviously a load of bull, as bemused so aptly puts it.

>> I’m over in the North West. There were quite a few non-smoking bars and restaurants where I lived before the ban came in.

Great for you. This is a newspaper about the University of York, so York is what is being discussed… Anyway, how many is a few? 3? 4? In the *whole* North West, which is a pretty big part of England.

>> I’ve not met one person who agrees with the ban

Maybe you’ve scared all your friends to the extent they don’t want to disagree with you because you go on personal attacks and accuse them of lying?

>> The ban also defeats the object. Obviously smoking rates will come down in the short term (people buying more abroad in protest, so the sales go down, 16 – 18 year olds not counted in the figures), but the trend will rise, just like in Ireland.

I don’t think that was the point. I believe the point was to protect people who were forced to work in smoky situations.

Chris W: Great, that’s your personal choice. Here’s the opposite: I have a friend, she’s a music student, an opera singer to be precise. She now goes out *more* because she doesn’t have to worry about the smoke in the air irritating her throat when she has to practice the following day.

Infact the dangers of impure substances have been known for far, far longer than 10 years. Whether or not ’second hand smoke’ was the terminology doesn’t affect the science. Various buzz-words come and go…but you seem to imply that impure air wasn’t seen as a health risk before 1998…therefore smog wasn’t seen as dangerous, working up chimneys wasn’t dangerous etc…

The argument makes no sense.

Another point, as smoking is on the decline, how would pubs have dealt with a generation who don’t smoke as much without the ban?

Jack is also spot on about the government’s contempt for the greatest of british institutions. The price of beer is the main killer though, most of the increases go to the government. The pub has become a symbol of everything labour hates – enjoyment, community, and being responsible for your own consumption.

High rents mean pub buildings more attractive proposals for property developers. The phoenix by fishergate bar is on the market now not as a pub but as a property. The same is happening across the country.

The government should step in to keep the pub buildings as pubs. Not flats, but pubs.

Pubs are a cultural symbol , why not have some of the culture cash given to the pub trade to promote british beer as opposed to supporting pointless works of art which nobody likes, or jetting ministers off around the world to ‘research’ other cultures?

Certainly in york, pubs also face stiff competition from more expensive bars frequented by stag nights. Louder, more modern places such as most of micklegate charge a hell of a lot more than the nearest proper pub, yet get the custom of rowdy groups with a big budget and an urge to get drunk. Sadly us students don’t do our bit for the traditional pub either! Stop going to nags and rumours and crap places like that and go to some real pubs instead! Or maybe that’ll upset the locals…

The problem is that the free market wasn’t really working, because the choice that you keep going on about didn’t exist. I’ll repeat my earlier argument for you, as you appear to have either missed or ignored it:

>> YOU (and you friends) can choose the one for YOUR entertainment and leisure, and I (and my friends) can choose the other for ours’.

Yes, but please point out to me whereabouts in York there’s a non-smoking club (prior to July 2007). Additionally, of York’s famed 365 pubs, I only knew of 1 that was non-smoking. That’s not really much of a choice, is it? In fact, I’d say that despite smokers being in a minority of the population, they had a monopoly over drinking venues in York, which is unfair discrimination against those who don’t smoke, and don’t wish to inhale second-hand smoke, but have no choice.

>> Or does the concept of FREEDOM disturb you ?

Nope, I’m all for freedom. It’s just inconsiderate smokers that think their freedom is worth more than mine. I’ll explain to you what my Freedom is, it may help you understand me better. “Everyone is free to do whatever they want, without fear, prejudice or discrimination, as long as what they are doing does not impinge on the freedom of others”. Smoking in public places with people who do not want to inhale second-hand smoke, for whatever reason – health, social or otherwise, would therefore come under the second clause of impinging on the freedom of others.

I’m sorry if you don’t find that Freedom acceptable, and I’m interested in finding out what your version of Freedom is.

Helen: Are you calling me a liar?

I suggest you’re the one that’s mistaken, as you think passive smoking didn’t become known until 1998. There are plenty of reports that predate that:

South African Medical Journal, 1996: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8619139
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1992: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1727204
American Heart Association, 1991:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/1/1
US Surgeon General, 1986: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3097495
etc

As you can plainly see, the first major study in the scientific community giving a link from lung cancer to second-hand smoke is at least 1986, and between heart disease and second-hand smoke is 1991.

This report on passive smoking dates from 1996: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8619139. This one from 1992: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/267/1/94, and the one from 1986: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3097495.

So I’m not sure where you’re getting this idea that passive smoking didn’t exist before 1998 from.

Jack: Trust me, I’m anyone but a leftist hippy. The decline in pubs is unfortunate, but I would continue to argue that it’s just lazy landlords who don’t move with the times that are suffering and using the ban as a scapegoat.

I am a smoker now, and many places I will admit have benefited from the ban. If you overturned the ban now many places would still not allow smoking, for example Wetherspoon’s who implemented their own ban in may pubs before the countrywide ban came in. Yet a publican should be able to decide for themselves about the ban and put measures in place to accomodate both. Some places have benefited from the ban, but many certainly haven’t. The pub trade is a British institution and another source of pride Labour are trying to kill off……

And even so, I doubt I would consider the average demographic of this newspaper to be “very young”. Considering the average age of students at University is something like 18-22 (and as a third year, I’m 20), which would make me 10/11 in 1998.

Second hand smoke does have an effect on people. Replacing oxygen with toxic gases is harmful! All the evidence points towards passive smoking being dangerous to public health.

But many things we enjoy or permit have the risk of harm associated with them. Drinking, (and we really don’t need any more curbs on that wonderful pasttime!) fatty foods, even driving on a motorway.

It is the issue of choice that should be driving the smoking debate, not disputing the science (although of course it would be wrong to stop discussing the science, for the time being and at this level of debate i think we should accept the concensus among the medical profession). If people consent to the possibility they may harm themselves, I have less of a problem with smoking areas.

My ideal solution would be to allow certain establishments to open a completely isolated smoking room, where staff would have to consent to working in a smokey environment (with the option of not working in smoke available by law.)and adequate ventilation should be provided. A ban on meals in the smoking area seems appropriate too.

This suggestion doesn’t seem too different to the current law, except there’d be walls and a ceiling on the smoking area, rather than making people smoke in uncomfortable conditions.

Of course, the vehicle smoking ban is a step too far, and the system should allow lone workers to smoke in a vehicle, or if fellow workers consent, to smoke with more than one occupant.

Let’s try and get the argument back onto the choice debate, not throwing stats at each other, when, lets face it, i doubt we’re all health professors…

>> I trust that he/she is fine now, but didn’t you know that there are numerous reasons for lung cancer, not just smoking.

He’s dead now (not smoking related I should add, he was hit by a car). The point I was trying to make is that the reason he gave for the lung cancer was the passive smoking from his parents.

>> I notice that you couldn’t answer my question though – name 3.

I’m no expert in the subject, so I can’t answer this question. However, if second-hand smoke leads to someone losing a lung, does that make it okay, just because he didn’t die from the passive smoking?

>> I know that the anti-smoking lobby would have us believe that lung cancer would be more or less eradicated if smoking was banned altogther.

Again, conjecture. I believe most people are smart enough tobacco smoke isn’t the only cause of lung cancer.

>> Perhaps then the rates of lung cancer would begin to reduce, instead of spiralling out of control which they are at the moment

I’m sorry, but I’ve looked and looked but can’t find any evidence either way. The only evidence I’ve found relating to the rate of lung cancer is this rather interesting article on the US’s National Institure of Health: http://web.archive.org/web/20030217151857/http://press2.nci.nih.gov/sciencebehind/cancer/cancer31.htm

Martin V: The point I was trying to make is that is tobacco companies accept these facts, then surely they’re not just propaganda bandied around by the pro-clean air groups, and maybe, perhaps, there’s some truth to them?

>> YOU (and you friends) can choose the one for YOUR entertainment and leisure, and I (and my friends) can choose the other for ours’.

Yes, but please point out to me whereabouts in York there’s a non-smoking club (prior to July 2007). Additionally, of York’s famed 365 pubs, I only knew of 1 that was non-smoking. That’s not really much of a choice, is it? In fact, I’d say that despite smokers being in a minority of the population, they had a monopoly over drinking venues in York, which is unfair discrimination against those who don’t smoke, and don’t wish to inhale second-hand smoke, but have no choice.

>> The Health of the Little Ones is irrelevant (who wants them in an adult environment, anyway ?)

I don’t know about you, but when I was younger, I often was taken to pubs by my grandparents for a nice family Sunday lunch, and considering that the evidence points to infants being more affected by second-hand smoke, surely this is anything but irrelevant?

>> Furthermore, The Public will pretty soon let us know FOR SURE what it REALLY wants

I’m not quite sure what you mean by this.

>> Or does the concept of FREEDOM disturb you ?

Nope, I’m all for freedom. It’s just inconsiderate smokers that think their freedom is worth more than mine. I’ll explain to you what my Freedom is, it may help you understand me better. “Everyone is free to do whatever they want, without fear, prejudice or discrimination, as long as what they are doing does not impinge on the freedom of others”. Smoking in public places with people who do not want to inhale second-hand smoke, for whatever reason – health, social or otherwise, would therefore come under the second clause of impinging on the freedom of others.

I’m sorry if you don’t find that Freedom acceptable, and I’m interested in finding out what your version of Freedom is.

Jo:

I resent the implication I’m talking trash. I’ve read the article in question, and as a student, there are two main flaws with it: It only makes reference to two sources and does no original research of its own. Secondly, the second source it mentions, Enstrom & Kabat when published contained the editorial comment: “The authors of this article have massively overstated the negative link.” (or words to that effect). It bases its whole structure around the premise that a lower CI makes that one particular study worthless. It completely disregards the hundreds of other studies (including the ones done by the DoH in the UK) out there proving the link between second hand smoke.

Martin V (again): My Dad’s an NHS consultant anaesthetist, I’m more willing to trust him than some random blogger (the link you gave doesn’t load, btw) – undoubtedly I will now be accused of being indoctrinated against smoking from a young age because of his profession. This could be true, in which case you might as well stop. I’m always going to believe my Dad over some random Internet commenters.

I may be naive, but I do have trust in the scientific community as a whole, and if there’s an overwhelming bulk of scientific evidence pointing one way, well…

This argument does remind me a lot of the creationism vs. evolution debate. A bunch of angry fanatics swearing blind they’re right, even though the voice of scientific reason flies in their face.

I’ll have a read through the Joe Jackson stuff in a bit.