Ire and smoke
Nothing annoys me more than false arguing. So, while sympathising with the British Medical Association’s (BMA) campaign to reduce smoking (your report, 16 November) I find this particular case as presented completely unconvincing.
Its “compelling evidence” for a ban on smoking in cars is nothing of the sort. I’m out and about daily, and apart from school times I find the huge majority of cars have no passengers.
Moreover, I rarely see anyone smoking in either case.
My lifetime experience suggests that the “secondary smoke” argument is false. Our generation – I’m retired – remembers the metal cups behind seats in buses, cinemas and theatres. People smoked everywhere: at work, in shops, phone boxes and pubs – even in bed. Even TV presenters smoked on camera.
If passive smoking was so deadly there would not be the present concern about affording pensions and care for our growing elderly population; they wouldn’t exist.
That apart, people are rightly becoming fed up with increasing intrusion in matters of personal choice. Many are now exercising that choice as the BMA would surely approve, by smoking outside their own homes.
I take it for granted that membership of the BMA is restricted to non-smokers.
Robert Dow
Ormiston Road
Tranent
Email to a friend
Print this page- Family mourn death of Glasgow ‘fight’ schoolboy
- Rangers takeover: Duff & Phelps threaten legal action against BBC
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Rangers administration: Fans fear Duff & Phelps claims could scare off Green
- Rangers takeover: triple penalty punishment enough, says Johnston
- Alistair Darling leads ‘No to independence’ fight over tea and biscuits
- Scottish independence: SNP flip-flops over Nato
- Scottish Independence: SNP ‘won’t be Yes campaign’s only voice’
- Scottish independence: Alex Salmond’s pledge to sign up 1m voters
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Sunday 27 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 10 C to 22 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 21 comments to this article
Page 1 of 2
cajwbroomhill
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 11:37 AMNo 19: Yes, it's when the literal truth is distorted for political ends, a "Tony Blair-lite" approach! Sure, smoking has its dangerous and disgusting aspects, but is not as insidiously-threatening to well-being and civilisation as lies and distortions knowingly uttered by those in charge, or even their wishful thinking proposed as facts.
Belinda-2
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 11:06 AMNew BMA briefing: http:www.bma.org.ukimagessmokinginvehicles_v2_tcm41-210651.pdf p. 7
Belinda-2
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 11:01 AMWe were prevented from smoking in bars because - to quote the authorities - there is NO SAFE LEVEL of secondary smoke. We were actually *prevented* from doing it, even in private clubs between consenting adults - not just discouraged or shown the dangers, but told YOU WILL NOT DO IT BECAUSE IT IS COMPLETELY lethal and UNACCEPTABLE to expose even consenting adults to it. Then after a few years we are told that exposure in cars was 23 times more lethal and we should stop doing it in cars. Five years later - *twenty-three times more lethal in a car* - and we know how children have no choice. This is not concern about children ... if they were so concerned about children a ban in cars would have come years ago. This is just using children as a propaganda tool in the next stage of restrictions on smokers. Twenty-three times more lethal than a level of danger so great that we were forbidden by law from taking the risk. (Note that they have quietly reduced this 23 to 11, but not before the public was fed a grossly inflated version). I think Robert Dow has it right on the button. A car is smaller than a bar, but there would usually be no more than two people smoking in the car, and most people would not smoke continuously in a car if they smoke at all. In a bar the upper number of smokers depends entirely on the size of the room, and also ventilation factors also vary so enormously that nobody could take this as a scientific measure. This is typical of the so-called science on secondary smoke. It is based not on measured amounts of anything, but guesswork and generalisations.
THX1138
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 08:37 AM#2 Unfortunately, it's still too early to know about v-CJD - infections peaked in the year 2000 and a small number of cases (2-3 p.a.) are still showing up. Virtually all those cases had a common genetic profile, indicating an inherent susceptibility. The problem is that there is still the strong possibility that the remaining 60% of the population are susceptible, but with longer incubation periods (potentially 30-50 years), as was the found with kuru. To be clear, I am NOT saying that another peak will definitely occur. I am saying that we can't dismiss it as crying wolf, and we won't know the score for at least another twenty years.
THX1138
Friday, November 18, 2011 at 08:08 AM#4 Mercutio, #8 JFR962. The general analogy is sound. Using self-selecting samples of people who survive a given influence to suggest that that influence isn't that bad shows a very basic misunderstanding of school-level statistics. It displays stupidity. A great put down?!? Hardly - it's on the level of a child shouting 'you smell, too'.
Slioch.
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 11:51 PM#15 Waiting on the tram public inquiry ------ Why do you address your comments and questions to me? I have made no statement concerning the subject of this article. I was merely pointing out the flaws in Robert Dow's letter and have not expressed a view about the BMA's recommendation.
WOTTPI
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 10:52 PMSlioch @ 14. My point exactly. No quantified information but it is reported as being claimed there is a serious health risk. Is it more serious now because cars have cloth seats (to absorb the chemicals) as opposed to the leather and plastic of days gone by. Is it assuming that all smokers in cars drive with the windows up? Does it quantify how many people actually smoke with kids in the car. ( (The few people I know who are still smoking make every effort not to smoke in their kids company) Until we see the figures reported and a balanced view taken then it is just the doctors and media making a sensationalist headline which, like the AWG, most people turn off and say oh here they go again with their scaremongering rubbish, regardless if it is good science or not. .
Slioch.
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 07:23 PM#14 Waiting on the tram public inquiry ----- The BMA statement emphasized that second hand smoke in cars was particularly hazardous: that is the situation in which the words "serious health hazard" was used. Robert Dow's reference to people having survived passive smoking referred to the general, historical exposure to second-hand smoke, not specifically that in cars. (That, of course, was part of its irrelevance). --- It was to that statement by Mr Dow that I referred and my words were appropriate to that situation. ----- Having said that, neither the BMA, Mr Dow nor myself gave quantified information. It is that quantified information that is required for any proper assessment of the risks involved.
WOTTPI
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 05:07 PMSlioch @ 7. Yes we all know smoking isn't great for you and nobody is saying otherwise. However yesterdays story said the following ---A briefing paper from the BMA's board of science said evidence suggests the levels of second-hand smoke in cars could "contribute to a serious health hazard for adults and children". ---- The key words here are 'could' and 'serious'. You on the otherhand, in relation to passive smoking, use the terms "modest impairment to health and a slight increase in mortality". therefore which one is it? A serious health hazard proposed by the doctors or a 'moderate health risk' as proposed by yourself and witnessed by Mr Dow being all his friends and family who, despite previously being exposed to much more passive smoke than we are today, are still alive and relatively healthy. If the latter then is there really the need for a ban on smoking within private cars. BTW I would be happy if no-one smoked as I think its a flithy habit but this latest call for a ban is a step too far.
SlowNeutron
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 04:09 PMDear Scotsman, is this really the best letter you got in defence of this subject? Shame on you for publishing such errant nonsense. So, Bob....nothing annoys you more than false advertising, eh? Best have a look in the mirror and examine the black pot staring back at you. I’m rarely in the car alone but, hey, that’s not important as that’s as invalid a sample as your example. If only we’d know your “Lifetime experience” was so well informed then we could have saved billions on scientific research over the years. Any inside track on the Higgs Boson, mate? It’s not personal choice for a kid in the back seat of a smoke filled car. I'm no lover of the evil weed but even I concede there could be a case to be made here; your non-arguments just didn't make it.
Charles11
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 02:39 PMWhat annoys me is the way that ASH continually lie. Ms Arnott said on the radio 'our aim in life is not just to get rid of smoking'. She then tried to deny that she said it.
cajwbroomhill
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 02:04 PMSupporting Robert Dow's messages, it's boring when self-appointed advisors pontificate, especially using a rather trumped up clinical scientific argument to suit their case, like the convenient but usually-exaggerated passive-smoking claims. Some paediatric specialists say that passive-smoking worsens childhood asthma, but, apart from the often unpleasant "fug" in pubs or cars or aircraft, there's very little to these health claims.Officials of the BMA are not "doctors' leaders" but elected representatives in a trade union which does not debar smokers. In general, medics have a duty to advise their patients and make health advice available to others, but should not hector the public, which can be irritatingly boring. People are quite capable of deciding for themselves on their reactions to "the weed."
samcoldstream
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 01:11 PMFreedom to smoke is the unalienable right of every motorist.......................so long as he is alone, or accompanied by other smokers.
JFR962
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 12:19 PMFor passive-smoker deniers, a word of warning - I suspect we are approaching a point where a smokers son or daughter will sue their parents for damage or illness brought on by their smoking habits. No doubt the tobacco industry can head off the first test case, but their sphere of influence is gradually diminishing. May take another 100 years to eradicate, but the day will come. Nobody (and especially non-smokers) can argue that public places (incl pubsrestaurants) are not hugely more inviting places without the fog and stench of tobacco. And can you imagine the reaction if tobacco cos were to propose cigarettes as a new product today? I know all about the arguments for personal choice, although few smokers seem to support others rights to inject themselves with heroin and other unpleasant substances. I agree that a car ban is impractical, but it is extraordinary that respected medical opinion is so defiantly rubbished by the smoking lobby. I would certainly prefer a qualified surgeon rather than the CEO of Imperial Tobacco operating on me, thank you!. BTW - Fine put down by #3 of the fatuous logic employed by the letter writer.
Slioch.
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 11:29 AMWaiting on the tram public inquiry ------ Well, I agree with your implication that Robert Dow's words are as misinformed on both issues. Other than that, there is no sense in pointing out that many people survive smoking, passive or otherwise. No-one has ever claimed that such smoking kills all people - indeed the evidence from passive smoking is for modest impairment to health and a slight increase in mortality. Both Robert Dow's and your objections are therefore straw-men arguments -- you are objecting to something that no-one has asserted.
Page 1 of 2
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.