Fair play to ASH

The WHO has gone completely mental...

The World Health Organization says there should a ban on the use of e-cigarettes indoors and that sales to children should stop.

In a report the health body says there should be no claims that the devices can help people quit smoking - until there is evidence to support this.

WHO experts warn the products might pose a threat to adolescents and the foetuses of pregnant women.

Is it perturbing or reassuring that ASH, who have pumped out so much of this anti-nicotine garbage propaganda over the years, appear to be reining it in a bit..?

Hazel Cheeseman, at the charity Action on Smoking and Health, said there was no evidence of any harm to bystanders and warned regulation needed to be proportionate.

She added:

"Smoking kills 100,000 people in the UK alone. Smokers who switch to using electronic cigarettes in whole or in part are likely to substantially reduce their health risks.

"Although we cannot be sure that electronic cigarettes are completely safe, as the WHO acknowledges, they are considerably less harmful than smoking tobacco and research suggests that they are already helping smokers to quit."

Even the "100,000" figure is a step back from their previous exaggerations.
---------------------------------
UPDATE. "Unknown" left a link to NHS Smokefree: "Smoking is the biggest cause of preventable deaths in England, accounting for more than 80,000 deaths each year. One in two smokers will die from a smoking-related disease."

Well, call it half a million deaths a year, a fifth of people are smokers, so going by those figures about 50,000 people each year die somewhat earlier than they otherwise would have done as a result of having smoked. It's going a bit far to say that even 50,000 people are "killed" by smoking, let alone 100,000, but it's not as entirely plucked-out-of-the-air unreasonable as other claims which ASH have made.

A surprising U-turn...

From The Metro:

Smokers are turning to e-cigarettes in their droves, new research suggests.

More than 2million adults now regularly use the tobacco-free devices – three times as many as in 2012.

And despite fears that e-cigarettes are a route into smoking real tobacco, only one per cent of non-smokers polled by YouGov and Ash have tried 'vaping'.

Deborah Arnott, chief executive of Ash, said:

"It is important to control advertising of e-cigarettes to make sure children and non-smokers are not being targeted.

"But there is no evidence from our research that e-cigarettes are acting as a gateway into smoking."

It was only her and her ilk who ever made such a ludicrous assumption in the first place - see Dick Puddlecote et al, and even if it were true, then so what? - but it's heartening that she finally backtracked.

ASH logic

From the BBC:

The head teacher of a school for children with behavioural issues has defended her decision to permit pupils to smoke.

Students aged 14 to 16 at the Honeyhill Pupil Referral Unit in Peterborough are allowed two supervised off-site smoking breaks each day, with parental consent…

So far so good.

A spokesperson for anti-smoking group Action on Smoking and Health (Ash) said:

"If the unit does not allow alcohol or drugs, why would they allow smoking? It is totally out of kilter with current health advice and they should think seriously about reversing the policy."

Er, because…

a) allowing them to take drugs on the premises is almost certainly illegal under some law or other,

b) smoking might be a bit unhealthy but it certainly helps smokers concentrate better (i.e. on their lessons) as opposed to drinking alcohol which usually has the opposite effect (for which the school would presumably require some sort of licence anway, like those restaurants with a corking charge?), and

c) This is an educational establishment and not a health advice centre. That'd be like criticising a hospital for having a lending library for in-patients.

F1 Film Rush: Call to Show the Truth about the 70s

From FASH:

Rush – the new film about the 1970’s Formula One rivalry between drivers James Hunt and Niki Lauda – is a sharp reminder of how the polyester industry used sport to recruit new young wearers. The drivers are plastered in polyester clothing, while flares are commonplace both indoors and out throughout the film.

To counter the inevitable platform heel and sheepskin coat imagery shown in the film, taste campaigners in the UK are calling for warning ads about the impact of bad style to be shown in advance of the film.

Rush will remind older viewers of how the sideburn industry dominated hair until they were outlawed in 1979. Younger viewers will be surprised at the extent to which they were splashed on the sides of the drivers’ heads. Today, bugger grips only exist on the faces of ironic hipsters - something that would end if its prohibition were introduced by law.

The film shows how far we have come since the days when Fabergé shamelessly promoted their brands through sport. The sub-text of the companies’ near monopoly of Henry Cooper sponsorship was that their brands were as alluring and exciting as the sport itself.

And it worked. Evidence shows that children were more likely to start wearing Brut 33 after being exposed to Henry Cooper through advertising and sponsorship. There is also good evidence to show that adverts for cheap aftershave in films encourages young people to start a lifetime habit.

FASH acknowledges that felt hats were a major part of fashion in the 1970s and therefore it is not surprising that such appears in the film. However, FASH is also calling on the film industry to require the showing of anti-garish advertisements to be shown in advance of any film containing felt hats or flares, as there is evidence to show that this will help inoculate young people against the harmful effects of 70s fashion in films.

Parody Singularity

From the BBC:

Children living in flats have 45% more exposure to tobacco smoke than those in detached houses, a US study says. Researchers from Harvard and Rochester Universities say that is because the smoke seeps through walls and shared ventilation systems.

They tested cotinine levels in blood samples from 5,000 children across the US for the study in Pediatrics. Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) said there was a "strong case" for making blocks of flats smoke free.

This has got to be up there with the notion that if you smoke in car, opening the window does not make any difference as the smoke blows straight back in (the link to this claim is over at Dick Puddlecote's somewhere).

If you see her, remember to ask: "'scuse me love, have you got a light?"

Praise be to Trooper Thompson:

Apology Of The Week

Snowdon (aka Velvet Glove, Iron Fist) has tracked down the origin of the claim that secondhand smoke in a car is 27 times more toxic than in the home and concludes thusly:

We could use the same set of figures to make the claim that there is nearly as little secondhand smoke in a smoky car (92µg/m3) as in a completely smoke-free house (87.8µg/m3) and, even then, only while the cigarette is burning. After that, a smoky car is less smoky than a smokefree house!

... Nevertheless, I owe ASH and the Faculty of Public Health an apology. I accused them of falling for someone else's bogus figure. In fact, they came with their own.

Our new Hate Figure on top form

I nominated 'Professor' Mike Kelly (of NICE) as the new 'Sir' Liam Donaldson/Deborah Arnott* a couple of days ago, so I now follow his activities with a keen professional interest (lest I have misjudged him).

It would appear not:

"During pregnancy, smoking puts the health of the women and her unborn baby at great risk both in the short and long-term, and small children who are exposed to second-hand smoke are more likely to suffer from respiratory problems," Professor Mike Kelly, Nice director of the centre of public health excellence, said.

"One of our recommendations is for midwives to encourage all pregnant women to have their carbon monoxide levels tested and discuss the results with them. This isn't to penalise them if they have been smoking, but instead will be a useful way to show women that both smoking and passive smoking can lead to having high levels of carbon monoxide in their systems."

* Who must be seething with rage and envy. Until a couple of months ago, nearly every BBC article on the dangers of smoking included a rent-a-quote from her or her husband but this part of the BBC's style guide appears to have been amended.

"MPs vote to ban cigarette machines"

From The Metro:

Cigarette vending machines could soon be a thing of the past after MPs agreed to ban them. The House of Lords will now consider whether there should be an outright ban on the machines, after an amendment to the Health Bill by Labour's Ian McCartney was passed by the Commons on Monday night. MPs also voted to bar the display of cigarettes in shops (1), despite strong opposition to the Government's proposals from the Tories.

Former Cabinet minister Mr McCartney said the approval of his vending machines ban proposal "was going to change history" (2). Condemning the devices as an "outrageous loophole in our country's safeguards" to prevent thousands of children suffering illness and premature death (3), he protested that tobacco was still "the only product in Britain that can be sold legally, which routinely kills and injures its customers" (UPDATE). Mr McCartney's amendment was passed without a vote, and Health Secretary Andy Burnham said the Government would not oppose the measure in the Lords.

Anti-smoking campaigners (4) welcomed the move. Deborah Arnott, chief executive of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), said: "Stopping tobacco sales from vending machines has made a strong Bill even stronger. We wouldn't tolerate other age-restricted products such as alcohol or knives being sold in this way. This prohibition means that a lethal and addictive product will no longer be easily accessible to children."

Harpal Kumar, Cancer Research UK's (5) chief executive, added: "We are delighted that MPs have voted to protect young people from tobacco marketing. Putting tobacco out of sight in shops and removing cigarette vending machines (6) will help reduce the number of young people taking up a lethal addiction: Tobacco kills half of all long term users.(7)"

The Tories expressed concern over proposals for a ban on the display of cigarettes, particularly during the recession when shops could suffer from a lack of business.

(1) Oh, they just snuck that in, did they? Shouldn't that be the headline, or had we already resigned ourselves to this happening?

(2) Hubris. Words fail.

(3) "Thousands of children"? How many children die of smoking-related diseases every year? Approximately "none", I would guess.

(4) Fakecharity

(5) Another borderline fakecharity

(6) I thought we only had cigarettes machines in pubs, usually within sight of the bar. How many children use them to buy cigarettes?

(7) Oh, it's "half" now, is it? Could they please make up their minds whether it's a third, a half or nearly all (see footnotes 4 and 5 here). In Scotland they reckon it's all of them.

UPDATE: as CFF points out, he missed off a few things: "Cars, peanuts, alcohol .. .. oh hang on, they're trying to control most of those things too .. .." And knives, aspirin, glue, strawberries, electrical parts, white asbestos (OK, that's not particularly harmful), and presumably in the near future bicycles, rope, mobile phones for minors etc.

ASH

Economic Voice asked in the comments to the previous post, "Isn't ASH a fakecharity?"

Well, duh. Fakecharities.org nail them, but woefully understate the level of taxpayer funding, of course.

ASH's 2008 accounts say: "The principal sources of project funding for the charity are the Department of Health Section 64 General Scheme, the British Heart Foundation (BHF) and Cancer Research UK. Both Cancer Research UK and BHF also provide the charity with core funding for our entire programme of work" (page 9).

Their total income is £638,332 (page 14) of which £595,362 was "grants" which consist of the following: Department of Health £191,000, ASH International £65,242 and two separate amounts described as "Supporting charities" which add up to £239,120. In the previous year ASH also received £110,000 from the Welsh Assembly Government (page 17).

ASH International is in turn funded by Pfizer, who are trying to create a market for all their 'smoking cessation products'.

ASH also holds a "Tobacco Control Alliance Fund" of £56,817. "The TCA fund represents the transfer of funds from the TCA on its cessation which have been set aside by directors to enable the continuation of the work within ASH." (page 20).

The British Heart Foundation is of course also a fakecharity, and received £4,266,000 of taxpayer's money in 2008, see note 5, page 44 to their accounts.

Cancer Research UK is a borderline fakecharity as well, of course.

Smoking related deaths in Scotland

I had to take a day off today to look after The Lass (who is a poorly) and ended up watching BBC Parliament, which was broadcasting a debate in the Scottish parliament (or is it called 'assembly'? Does anybody know? Or care?) on a new law to make life even more difficult for smokers.

Several people parroted a statistic saying that there were slightly over 13,000 'smoking related deaths' every year in Scotland, which struck me as rather high, bearing in mind there were only 55,699 deaths in Scotland in 2008 (pdf)*. But it is true that those pathological liars ASH claim that "in 2004 an estimated 13,473 deaths in Scotland were attributed to smoking, which equated to 24% of all deaths."

Now, we also know that about a quarter of adults in Scotland smoke (slightly more than UK average, as confirmed here) and that 'passive smoking' is almost certainly a complete myth, so in other words, what they are saying is that absolutely every smoker dies of smoking related illness. Or when they are doing death certificates, they put a tick in the box for "Smoking related illness" if the deceased ever smoked.

Simples!

* Obviously, I didn't know the total number of deaths off by heart, but I know the population of Scotland is about 5 million so I multiplied that by one per cent to give me an approx. number of deaths.

More Internet tomfoolery

I hereby invite you to "send a message" to Martin Dockrell of fakecharity and all-round bansturbators ASH, by clicking on the Google search results here and then clicking on the link to Dick Puddlecote's article, which is currently number three, but hopefully we can budge it up to number two or even the top spot.

UPDATE 12:54, he's still stuck at number three, please keep clicking.

Innumerate twat of the afternoon

You can't read it properly on this picture from the Manchester Evening News, but take it from me, the sign actually said "1 Billion Deaths This Century". 


From the context you would assume, would you not, that he is referring to deaths from smoking in the 21st century? But no, with a world population of 6.8 billion and an average life expectancy of (say) sixty years, that makes 113 million deaths a year, and assuming 'this century' to have started on 1 January 2000, after nine-and-a-half years, this equates to 1.077 billion deaths (which we can conveniently round to 1 billion), so either he is:
a) Using completely the wrong figure, 
b) Implying that all deaths are caused by smoking, or
c) Referring to last century rather than this century, or using 'this century' to refer to the period 7 July 1909 to 6 July 2009 (in which case his one billion figure, around one-in-ten deaths may well be accurate).

All things considered, I'll go with option d): "The man is a complete f***wit."

Die, you bastards!

Here's something I overlooked, a report co-published by fakecharities ASH, Cancer Research UK and The British Heart Foundation last October:

...when "Smoking Kills" was published ten years ago the cost of smoking to the NHS in England was estimated to be up to £1.7 billion a year. Using NHS spending data this new report reveals this cost has risen by £1 billion despite a drop in the number of smokers.

The reason behind the continued rise is a combination of factors. These include more expensive treatments and better survival times for people with smoking-related diseases, combined with a better understanding of the range of diseases caused by smoking.

So, er, they'd prefer worse survival times, or what?

Also, let's put that £2.7 billion (assuming it to be accurate) in the overall context of the £27 billion in extra taxes that smokers pay plus old age benefits that they never get to collect.

Deborah Arnott of ASH

The boss of everybody's fakecharity was on Radio 4 this morning, discussing the Advertising Standards Authority's decision to stop a certain anti-amoking ad from being shown before 7.30 pm.

It all trundled along in its usual highly predictable fashion, what stood out was Ms Arnott boasting about the fact that her husband, as a child, had once taken all his father's cigarettes out of the packet and written 'cancer stick' on each one.

There's not much point kidding ourselves that we'll ever get to beat Ms Arnott and her husband to death with their own faces, but let's just hope that her father-in-law gave his son a good thrashing, the smug little shit.

NB, this is not an April Fool's joke.

"Call to ban sale of electronic cigarettes"

From The Metro:

Trading Standards chiefs are calling for a ban on the sale of electronic cigarettes to children because of fears they could ingest potentially lethal doses of nicotine.

The battery-powered "e-cigarettes" look like real cigarettes but users inhale a mist of nicotine instead of smoke. However, some of the e-cigarettes contain up to 18mg of liquid nicotine in refill cartridges which could prove fatal to children if swallowed, The Sun reported...

Anti-smoking group Ash [ahem, "fakecharity Ash", actually] said while it welcomed "safe and satisfying" alternatives to smoking, it had seen no proof that e-cigarettes are safe.

A spokesman told BBC Radio 5Live: "We're not entirely sure these products are safe and that is the problem. We haven't had the tests through yet that show they are safe and that is why the regulators are worried."