Monday 16 July 2007

The Truth About Smoking?

I am a 35 year old ‘smoker’ that has been trying to discover the 'truth' about smoking for a number of years. I have found this exceptionally difficult as the facts that are presented are often tainted, in my opinion, by both sides of the debate for political reasons. The reason the word smoker is in inverted commas above is because I am what I think could broadly be described as a light smoker most of the time these days (about 5 per day) and a non-smoker at other times (I occasionally ‘give up’ completely for a few weeks here and there). The reason I have started this website is because I consider myself to be genuinely neutral in the debate about smoking but am frustrated by the fact that it seems impossible for people in my position to make a genuine risk based decision on whether to smoke at all or not.

By way of background information, although I have always been aware that smoking was likely to be detrimental to my health, it was not something that overly concerned me until my father died when I was 25 years old. He was only in his fifties when he died of a heart attack. My father had smoked in his younger days but had given up in his thirties. He was, however, overweight due to the fact that he ate too many of the wrong types of food and did not embark on much exercise. Additionally he led a self inflicted stressful life due to what I can only describe as his love of adrenalin.

All of my smoking, between 25 and 29, was laden with guilt about what I was doing to my body. Between the ages of 25 and 29 this was a huge burden to me and at the age of 29 I ‘gave up’. However, at the age of 31, for various reasons, I began smoking again but at a significantly reduced rate (5 a day from 20 a day). I found that this level of smoking was enough to relax me more and, most importantly, I found it enjoyable (I realise that this statement is itself controversial as I may have only ‘thought’ that I found it enjoyable depending on which side of the argument on smoking you fall). What I can say is that I found that this level of smoking meant that I did not suffer from the level of guilt that I had previously.

However, according to the anti smoking campaigns, there is no ‘safe’ level of smoking. I am unsure whether this actually means that, whilst there is no ‘safe’ level of smoking, there is a reduced risk or not (ie there is no “safe” level of driving your car but there are things you can do to reduce your risk of dieing in a car crash such as driving your car much less). On top of this, it would seem that there are numerous countries (Japan and Italy being just two) that have higher smoking rates than Britain but have significantly lower death rates from cancer and heart disease. Does this mean that a healthy diet can mitigate some of the smoking risks? This appears to have been the view of the 'controversial' Dr Ken Denson from the Thame Thrombosis and Haemostasis Research Foundation. Dr Denson was of the opinion that there had never been a scientific study to show that smokers of less than ten cigarettes a day, who had an otherwise healthy life style, had an increased risk of dying. Is this true? I have no idea. Some articles I have seen appear to intimate that Dr Denson conducted his reports on behalf of the tobacco industry with the implication being that whoever pays the piper calls the tune. Is this correct?

What does not help me is that the anti-smoking campaign seems to include people who have never smoked but died of such things as heart attacks in their statistics for people who have died of smoking diseases and also does not differentiate between people that died after the average life expectancy rates for men and women. Additionally, it is difficult for me to accept that smoking ten cigarettes a day is no different to smoking forty a day. It also seems sensible for me to conclude that family history must play a huge part in the disease rate of smokers (there is Alzheimer's in my family – pro-choice smoking groups often say that smoking can reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s whereas anti-smoking campaigners say this is not the case). But I am no doctor.

An example of the problems I have encountered can be found in the findings of the famous Framingham study. I have seen testimony that says the Framingham study supports the proposition that all smoking is bad. However, I have also seen other testimony that says the study supports the proposition that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that light smoking is bad for your health. I have even seen some testimony that says light smoking, in general, has a greater affect on women than it does men. But other testimony appears to indicate that light smoking is bad full stop. There appears to be, as is often the case with any political hot potato, some 'massaging' of the relevant figures wherever I look and a fair amount of ‘spin’.

Historically when I have given up smoking in the past my blood pressure has actually increased. This is a fact. On top of this I have felt less relaxed than I have done when I have smoked. This may not be a ‘fact’ as I accept this could be all in my mind but it certainly feels like it is true to me. Given that my father was a non-smoker when he died, if having not smoked for twenty years counts as being a non-smoker, I am conscious of the effect stress/quality of life can have on the human body. I am also conscious of the effect being overweight can also have on a person's life expectancy and that reformed smokers tend to gain weight, as well as the effect a person’s mood can have on it (for example it has been said that married people live longer than single people due to their general feeling of well being etc). That said, I would also say that my levels of taste and smell improve considerably when I do not smoke at all and also that I feel less breathless. So what I am asking, whether you are pro-choice on smoking or anti-smoking full stop, is the provision of any serious data which can assist me in making a personal, logical and calculated decision on whether to be a light smoker or not. By the term ‘serious data’ I also include personal testimonies about family members or friends who have died young or died old that smoked as long as it concerns basic information about their ‘lifestyles’. In short anything that might help to create a fuller picture. I would even be interested to know, if anyone has such information, just how profitable the nicotine replacement industry has now become in comparison to the tobacco industry in this country.

As I have said above, I am genuinely neutral in my thoughts on smoking. It is only this neutrality that prevents me from being entirely comfortable about giving up smoking completely based on the evidence I have seen presented. Given that smoking contains the amount of poisons that it does, I am quite comfortable with the proposition that smoking is not good for your health. What I am keen to establish, in my own mind, is just how bad is light smoking if you lead an otherwise sensible life style? I want to make an informed decision on smoking. I would like to make a decision that, if possible, might help me to increase not just the length of my life but also the quality of my life. As tough as it can be to give up smoking completely I beleive that I would if I was 100% sure that no good could come of it. I would add that I suspect that this might well be the case. However, the idea that I could die younger through not smoking at all, than if I had smoked lightly, and therefore been happier in general, is the basic concern that had driven me to write this rather than the ‘personal choice’ argument that is most commonly heard. Dr Denson, who I have of course already mentioned, made the following statement and, unlikely as it may sound to many, I would hate to think that there could be some truth in it, “smokers have the most atrocious lifestyles, but otherwise healthy smokers in my opinion live longer than non-smokers. What a terrible mistake the medical establishment has made”

It is about time this country had an open discussion on smoking that enabled people to make an informed choice on the risks. I cannot imagine that either the pro-choice groups on smoking or the anti-smoking campaigners could have a serious problem with this. I await any responses gratefully with interest. I am sending a link of this webpage to many of the parties that I believe would be most interested and, hopefully, most knowledgeable on the subject.

53 comments:

Gasdoc said...

I am most interested in your request "Truth Seeker" and would like be the first to respond. I suggest any respondants declare some basic information about themselves to assist you in your decision, along these lines and these are my declarations:

Job: NHS Hospital Anaesthetist
Country of residence: UK
Age: 49
Position: Pro-choice
Smoker/Non/Ex/Type/Amount: Smoker/Cigarettes/30 a day

I believe you raise an important point: How do you decide what to do for you own good? You suggest that the available information is tainted by agenda and I agree absolutely. I would also say however that the nature of scientific evidence is however very inexact and will never be able to direct one individual's personal choices with any level of certainty. So the influence of agenda is an additional complication. So that's the short answer, nobody knows the whole picture! There are simply too many variables.

I will next address your specific enquiry about Dr Ken Denson. I was fortunate to have correspondence with Dr Denson before he died last year. I very easily gained the impression that a more honest and dignified man did not exist. He told me that he had a unique medical career and life as he was fortunate to make a lot of money in a the business of laboratory equipment. This meant he was virually driven out of his NHS post as his outside interest was seen, probably wrongly, to somehow conflict with his post. This combined with his lack of any financial reliance on his NHS employers and colleagues meant he had no reason to hold back his views and reluctantly but willingly he set up his own private research facility with his own money. He was internationally renown for inventing/describing the INR (International Normalisation Ration), a blood test which remains the method used to monitor anticoagulation therapy. I can say absolutely without reproach, that he would have laughed, as he often had to, at his accusers, of any idea of tobacco sponsorship. He would never have contemplated it, if it had been offered, as he was all too painfully aware of the stigma the anti-smoker attaches to it. He waS after all a very intelligent man. Equally don't underestimate the intelligence of the tobacco industry. He described himself to me as more than comfortably well off and he did so in an embarassed and extremely modest sort of way. In my opinion his published work on diet and smoking knocks most other scientific work off the planet,in terms of its rigorous scientific method.

My next subject has to be the issue of mental health. It is my belief that this is the biggest confounding issue which studies on smoking fail to mitigate. There is a strong link between depression and smoking and no-one can scientifically say which is the chicken or the egg. It is my contention that "stress" is a big killer and that it is virtually impossible to conduct adequate work on this subject as stress is unreliably quantifiable. It is universally accepted however that stress is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease, particlularly ischaemic heart disease. Raised blood pressure is the other universally accepted important risk factor and closely linked to stress. I would contend that it will never be possible to quantify the raised risk to life of mental illness and everyday stress. Equally, it is not possible to quantify the relaxing effect of smoking. What I do know on this, however, is that some smokers demonstrate extreme stress when confronted with long flights and law dictating where they may smoke.

I contend that, even now, it is not correct to say that smoking "causes" lung cancer. It is correct to say only, that smoking increases the risk of an individual developing lung cancer. It is also possible to say that the quantification of this increased risk is fraught with hazard. Prof Dolls study on doctors basically says that doctors who smoked heavily in the 50's more frequently died of lung cancer than their non-smoking colleagues. If smoking caused lung cancer then all smokers would die of lung cancer. I am happy, in the ignorance, that should I develop lung cancer, I will not know if it is in anyway related to my smoking.

All the data available comes from the branch of science called epidemiology which is most inexact. Furthermore, these studies rely on a branch of mathematics called statistics. Most such work is easily disputed.

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that the risk of you smoking 5 fags a day intermittently should never be blamed for any disease you might develop.

Anonymous said...

Here's an excerpt from one of my blog entries posted in January this year. I hope this helps.

"Take a look at Joe Jackson’s web site (http://www.joejackson.com/index.php).
Yes, the old rocker responsible for “It’s Different for Girls” amongst other classic hits. This guy is a most unusual musician in that he’s not a raving left wing nutter. He’s done considerable research on the evidence for and against smoking, and thanks to his efforts (summarised in a pamphlet available on his site) I have for the first time in my life seen the figures which quantify the risks attached to smoking.

Essentially, research shows that the lung cancer mortality rate for smokers is 160 per 100,000 compared to 7 per 100,000 for non-smokers.

So smoking certainly is a risky activity, but any given smoker still has a 99.84% chance of NOT developing lung cancer. As for passive smoking, it would appear that anyone exposed to a whiff of someone elses cigarette is unlikely to immediately drop dead on the spot as we are lead to believe. In fact, Joe presents a good case for passive smoking being essentially harmless.

The point of this post is not to promote smoking, but merely to suggest that in a free, informed society, unlike the oppressive controlled shit hole we inhabit, it’s nice to know just exactly where one stands."

Gasdoc said...

I very much approve of John East's presentation of the available incidence rates of lung cancer in smokers and non-smokers, respectively 160 and 7 per 100,000 people. It is also a good way of demonstrating how numbers can be used depending on your agenda.

John choses the 94% method, which is accurate and I feel a realistic representation of the facts.

The health fascist or anti-smoker would say that the smoker has 23 times the chance of developing lung cancer than a non-smoker. 160 divided by 7. This is in fact also true but distorts the truth by not representing the absolute risk.

In addition these figures are a stab in the dark and will be subject to study error. So they are an exageration of the difference. Dolls study claimed that there was a marked variation in lung cancer rates related to amount smoked. Therefore these figures would need adjustment for each individuals situation. They would also need interpretation as they do not allow for the exsmoker and how ex they are. So your own risk is somewhere between 7 and 160 per 100,000. Where exactly is not possible to say and so what anyway?

Unknown said...

The Truth About Smoking?

I followed the link from Gasdoc to your interesting article, which I have read with interest.

You are having problems sorting out fact from fiction in the matter of smoking tobacco.
This is understandable, as anyone who has taken any interest in this subject will confirm.

I am anxious to be of assistance, but I’m not sure how to proceed.
Would it be best to simply give you a history of my experiences or should I send you an outline of my findings of six years research?

After careful consideration I have decided to do both, after all, you can always delete!

My story and my friendship with cigarettes begin sixty years ago when I smoked my
first ‘fag’. I have smoked continuously ever since.
I estimate that I have enjoyed almost half a million fags in my lifetime.
I am now seventy four years old, have worked hard (I had to-I have no educational qualifications whatever and my parents were poor) and am retired.
I now live in my own bungalow which I rebuilt from groundwork to roof slates.

Health: - Usual operations- appendix and tonsils, plus at around forty five a “slipped disc” then last year a prostate job. Otherwise I’m doing fine and enjoying life.
At the time of the prostate op I was told that I have the blood pressure of a teenager and near perfect lungs.
I don’t, in any way, consider myself unusual. There are many, many of my contemporaries just the same as myself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Six years ago. I became aware of the gathering clouds of vilification of the enjoyment of smoking. The main thrust of this was that so-called passive smoking KILLED.
Now I am a very happily married man with a wife who I adore, so I determined to find out the truth about this “danger”, which could, maybe, pose a threat to her health.
So I set about researching all aspects of the smoking of tobacco, digging deep as I could into it. What I found out was incredible.

My extensive research has lead me on a path through all the aspects of the ‘smoke free’ farrago.
Time and time again I came to the same conclusion, that there is not any proof whatever that ‘passive smoking’ kills.
In addition, I have found no concrete evidence that active smoking does harm.
These two statements are backed up with proof.
They are also confirmed by history.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back in the misty past – the 1940s to be more precise – a certain epidemiologist named Hill was given the task of finding a connection between smoking tobacco and lung cancer.
This was the start.

NOTE. Mr Hill was not given the task of finding the cause of lung cancer.

The result of Mr Hill’s epidemiology? No provable connection.
BUT, a member of the ‘team’, a Mr Doll, saw an opportunity. If he could, somehow, find even a tenuous ‘link’, judging by the enormous disappointment of the fledgling but powerful anti-smoking clique, he would be able to make his name. The rewards would surely follow (and they did).

Doll produced an epidemiological ‘study’ that ‘proved’ (he said) that there was a link between smoking and lung cancer. It did nothing of the sort. It is a masterpiece of propaganda, because it is rubbish – it contains no concrete proof whatever.
All the “evidence” presented in this ‘study’ is either hearsay or speculation neither of which would last a couple of seconds in a court of law. Which is why (if you’ve ever wondered) tobacco has not been made illegal.

Upon this travesty was built the entire speculation about the effects of smoking tobacco.
Why? Money and power. Simple as that. Think of the billions spent by idiots who believed the propaganda which started to pour out of the anti-smoking lobby, spent on expensive ‘give it up’ pills and potions and ask, “who benefits”.
How many top salary jobs have been created by anti smoking?
Also never forget the “funding”!
The bandwagon really started to roll, more and more fantastical claims were made about the “deadly” effects of smoking. All were unsustainable, but that didn’t stop the propaganda (now known as ‘spin’- which still means ‘lies’) being pumped out again and again and again.
Herr Goebels said, “if you wish to tell a lie then make it a big one and repeat it over and over and over again until it is believed”.
The campaign to stop the simple pleasure of ‘having a fag’ has been based on such homilies, the antis have most certainly studied the powers afforded by the whole raft of big, big lies being shoved down our throats.

But, the anti-smokers had a problem, a big problem. People were not turning away from smoking. The reason was that non- smokers didn’t care what smokers did.
Then the ‘bright idea’ was thought up- if the antis said that the smoke from smokers’ tobacco KILLED innocent non- smokers, a new army of terrified believers in the new passive smoking scare would strengthen the antis’ case a thousand fold.
Every piece of junk science was wheeled out to scare the living daylights out of non -smokers and even some gullible smokers too. The truth, that passive smoke didn’t harm anyone, was ruthlessly suppressed.

Enjoyers of smoking are now subjected to the most awful, draconian legislation since the Enclosures Act.
It has no foundation in fact. It is as full of holes as a colander. It was built on lies, pure and simple.

Please consider the following: -

The claims made by the anti smokes include: -

1/ Smoking kills.
There is not one Death Certificate anywhere in the ONS that gives as cause of death – ‘smoking tobacco’.
Ask doctors, and they will say ‘perhaps, maybe, could, there is a chance. It is possible and not a chance.

2/ Passive Smoking Kills.
As Above.

3/ Smoking makes men impotent: -
When our soldiers returned from the two world wars the majority enjoyed smoking tobacco. Check the ONS and you will find ‘baby booms’ in 1919 and 1945/6.

4/ Smoking “gives” you cancer.
There is no evidence to support the theory that smokers are any more, or less, liable to contract cancer. A quick check as to when most cancer deaths occur will show you that cancer is a disease of the old.
There are a thousand ways of contracting the disease. No one knows what causes cancer to strike a particular individual. If the cause is known, a cure can be found.
As for lung cancer, in California were smoking bans have been in operation since the 80’s, and the amount of tobacco enjoyed has plummeted, the incidence of lung cancer has risen. Check the ‘Forces’ web site.

5/ Smokers die younger.
This is pure fallacy. People die; when they will die is unknown. Doctors do not know why natural death occurs at a certain time. When the heart decides to stop – that’s it.
To give this any credence the antis would have to know, beforehand, exactly when each and every living person was going to die.
Why are our Old Folks homes full to bursting? How can we be living longer when all people of my age were brought up in clouds of tobacco smoke, all our lives?

6/ Smoking causes asthma, emphysema, high blood pressure – you name it- smoking causes it.
Arrant nonsense. People who have never smoked suffer from each and every one of these, in proportionate numbers.

7/ Smoking causes wrinkles.
We are getting to the ‘funny farm’ section of the desperate anti propaganda.
Everyone ever born will, as they grow older, become wrinkly, some more than others.

To understand the reasons behind the frenzied campaign to stop us enjoying smoking, it must first and always come down to money, power, stature and acceptance by their ‘herd’, but primarily about funding. This is prime Nanny State territory.

It only takes a modicum of common sense to destroy the above ‘scares’.

Ask why the antis have never agreed to a level playing field type of public debate with the ‘pros’ and the ‘antis’ talking head to head. The ‘pros’ wish very much to participate, but the antis refuse to do so – WHY?
What are they frightened of? The truth?
[It is notable that our television stations have never, ever, broadcast such a ‘head to head’.]

I have written countless letters, to every anti I can think of, with a very simple request – “will you please furnish me with the name and date of death of three people who you say died from the inhalation of tobacco smoke and no other reason”. I have not received one single reply – WHY?

Try to put a pro smoking point of view into any newspaper, you will never get it published –WHY?
Write to your MP and ask him about the smoking ban and you will receive a standard, politically correct reply which will not tell you anything, no discussion is offered - WHY?

This is pure censorship and is enough to convince me that the case for the demonisation of the smoker is deeply flawed and simply does not hold water.
If people are “dying by the thousand from ‘smoke related’ diseases” surely there must be an enormous amount of evidence around, so why can’t anyone find it?

The ‘pros’ have an huge amount of provable evidence that smoking does not cause death or injury, what a pity that in our pseudo- democracy we have no way to bring it into the public arena.

I have struggled to find the definition of a ‘Smoking Related Death’ and failed. Does it include someone throwing himself off a twelve-story building with a pack of fags in his pocket?

Certainly I am angry, I am of an age that remembers being free and able to express oneself openly and without fear of large coppers banging on my door.
I can only say that I will be continuing to enjoy my fags until such time as I am unable to physically defend myself, the need for which will surely come.

Everything in this letter is the truth.
I hope that this lot has been of help. Please feel free to contact me.

Ben Ellis

Anonymous said...

Ben,
That post was a tour-de-force. I'm not sure I'd accept that smoking is totally safe, but I would fight for your right to hold those views.

Good luck with the smoking.

Rob said...

I like this article, which goes against the grain somewhat:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=557656&in_page_id=1965

One thing I will say is that only you know if you enjoy smoking, and if it relaxes you. The talk that smokers only enjoy smoking because they are addicted is utter nonsense - if that was the case, everyone who ever tried a cigarette would be addicted. It takes a conscious effort to become 'addicted' to cigarettes, and any physical dependency is easily broken. Some people may continue smoking due to peer pressure blah blah blah, but most do so because they enjoy it... can you think of anything that people get addicted to that they actually dislike??

If you enjoy having a cigarette, rather than needing a cigarette, then you enjoy it - full stop. If you feel relaxed when you're smoking, then it relaxes you. As Desmond Morris says in the above article, the most important thing is to stop worrying about it! :)

Michael J. McFadden said...

I intended to leave a rather long and technical comment, but after reading what others have left so far I see no need to.

The most important consideration for you is how much you enjoy smoking and whether you feel that enjoyment balances what you conclude the risks to be. The lies of the Antismokers are evident in the area of secondary smoke exposure. See the "Generic Stiletto" at:

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4472

for some classic examples.

I have no doubt that the same kinds of lies exist throughout a lot of the literature dealing with the effects of smoking itself although I feel a reasonably strong case has been made linking primary smoking to an increase in the risk of lung cancer.

Note that I say a "reasonably strong case". There's always the possibility that other factors, themselves correlated but not causally related to smoking, could account for the statistical link.

I think smoking offers great benefits to some people in life in terms of enjoyment/happiness/relaxation and such things. Does that balance the possible health concerns? That's a question only you can answer.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains
http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/

Shaftmonde said...

What a sensible, level-headed enquiry. So refreshing in these days of hysterical hype. Thank you.

I am a sixty-eight year old smoker, now retired, and have smoked cigarettes from the age of ten, when most people routinely smoked. Starting at a rate of about three per week, by the time I was eighteen this had risen to twenty-a-day.
Oddly, this seems to be the right amount for me as at sixty-eight I'm still only on about twenty-two.

Over the years I have given up a few times for short periods, the longest of these being for three years. Each time I quit I felt something was lacking in my life, a sort of torpor, or lack of zest. So I knowingly and deliberately started smoking again.
Although I smoke mostly cigarettes I also occasionally smoke a pipe, and the odd cigar, (But have never tried cannabis or any other recreational drugs).
Weight has never been a problem for me, although I would put on a half-stone when I wasn't smoking.

My philosophy is simple. Everything in life carries a risk and it is up to the individual to balance their own pleasure against that risk.
Nobody ever told me that, apart from mental stimulation, smoking was good for my health. Neither is alcohol nor caffeine drinks.
In my youth older men would say "Smoking ruins your wind son." Meaning that it would mar ones potential in sports requiring stamina. Never having been an enthusiastic athlete myself I can't say I've noticed.

As to my own attitude to smoking, the risk of contracting lung cancer from smoking is quoted at 160 out of 100000 smokers, which to me suggests that out of a room containing 625 smokers only one of us will get the disease.
They sound like good odds to me for a lifetime of doing what I enjoy.
Especially considering the fact that, had I never smoked in my life, I would still not be guaranteed immunity anyway.

Anecdotally, during my lifetime I have only ever personally known two people to suffer from lung cancer. One was my mother-in-law, who smoked till she was sixty-six. The other was her other son-in-law, who gave up smoking thirty years beforehand. Her own daughter, although a heavy smoker all her life, died in hospital from MRSA after breaking her hip.
My own father smoked for most of his life, eventually succumbing to skin cancer aged eighty. My mother died from heart failure aged sixty-seven, never having smoked in her life.
Recently I visited a friend in hospital after his heart attack. He is a light smoker the same age as me. In the next bed was a man with a more serious weak heart condition who was an avid anti-smoker.
Some of the world's longest lived people have been smokers.

All very unscientific I know, but no more unscientific than the preposterous claims being made about so-called passive smoking, all bought and commissioned by powerful interests. But remember that all smokers are passive smokers too, unless they smoke through a tube going out of the window.

Heart trouble is a red herring. In their enthusiasm to prove that smoking causes everything from cancer to ingrowing toenails, the anti-smoking movement latched onto this acknowledgedly major disease to try to prove a connection.
I have known a good many people with heart trouble, most of them non-smokers and most of them overweight.
I am in no doubt whatsoever that nearly all heart problems are caused by not exercising the heart. Because I smoke I exercise by playing badminton regularly. If I didn't smoke I probably wouldn't play; and be worse off for it.

I won't claim that I have never suffered ill effects from smoking. Like a hangover after drinking too much, a smoker can get a smoker's cough for a while. I even joke to my non-smoking friends "If I get ill I can always quit. What can you do?"
All in all, I have never regretted being a smoker. I think I am better for it, but wouldn't recommend it to everybody. There are some people who just shouldn't smoke.

I think the whole business about giving up smoking being difficult is because the quitters don't really want to quit. They are quitting because they think they ought to, they've been told to, or to save money. Anything can be hard to stop doing if one likes it. Notice I don't use the word addiction, because smoking is not addictive in any proper use of the word. It is habit-forming though.

Far worse than smoking is the corrosive social engineering taking place today. When our traditional way of life is destroyed and social groups fragmented. Friendships split, and a quarter of the population told to stand outside like naughty children - Yes, sometimes even by their own children and grandchildren. And every public door in the land disfigured by threatening signs. And all thanks to our governments who nurtured a state of intolerance, at the behest of their puppet masters, the pharmaceutical corporations and their satellite campaign groups

So I say smoke if you want to, but please bear in mind that a cigarette now identifies a smoker as surely as a yellow star identified a Jew in the Third Reich.

Good luck Truthseeker, I hope you can find the guidance you seek from the responses

Shaftmonde

Lyn said...

Hi. I cannot answer in any kind of scientific way, just really anectdotal, but these are my thoughts.

Firstly I am a 51 year old female who has smoked since the age of 13 and currently smoke around 20 a day.

My extended family was and still is quite large. Most of my great aunts and uncles smoked or lived with a smoker and not one of them died from anything smoke related. In fact, one of my great aunts celebrated her 100th birthday last year. I cannot remember if she herself smoked, but her husband did. My grandfather smoked all his life, in fact during the first World War, part of his ration was 100 cigarettes a day! He was never ill, but at 95 did have a minor prostate problem. His generation believed that if you went into hospital, you went there to die and with the help of the staff, he did. Apparently he suffered oxygen starvation to the brain during the minor operation, however, he was the oldest patient at the time for the procedure and also the only one given a general anaesthetic!

I could go through the list of what family have died from, but apart from my first husband, none were remotely connected to smoking, yet most of my family smoked or lived with at least one smoker.

My first husband did die of lung cancer when he was 51, almost 12 years ago now. He was also, however, an alcoholic, he did not eat a healthy diet either. He had also had some recent (previous couple of years) physical traumas, which I have been led to believe can also bring on the onset of cancer. Even having nursed him through until his death and brought up our then 13 year old daughter, it never occurred to me to give up smoking - it was the one thing that kept me going.

I am a person who suffers depression and anxiety and mental stress can be extremely physically debilitating and unhealthy in terms of heart disease and other conditions and I firmly believe that if smoking helps to reduce some of the pressure then it is by far the lesser evil.

Having said that I suffer anxiety I also have the mindset that, and I have told my doctor the same and he tends to agree, if I am destined to get cancer, or anything else for that matter, then I will get it, whether or not I smoke or continue with HRT, or whatever else is supposed to increase the risk.

Everything in life is a risk, even getting out of bed in the morning and going downstairs - people fall and break their necks far more often than we hear about.

Ultimately the choice is up to you. If you smoke so little but get enjoyment from that and deem that the enjoyment is worth the possible minor risk, then carry on and stop worrying about it. If you find you cannot stop worrying about the risk possibly involved, then perhaps you would do better to stop.

Sorry if I have gone on, but I am not a scientific person and do not always understand that side of the argument, however I do feel that we have been lied to and manipulated in so many areas of our lives in recent years that I am extremely sceptical of anything 'big brother' tells us, negative or positive!

I hope this might help in some way.

Xopher said...

I think the answer is already in your article.
The science is weak, there is no safe level, laden with guilt, enough to relax, conscious of the effect stress/quality of life can have etc..
A powerful movement declared war on smoking many years ago and a group such as ASH has had the ear of the healthists since they were set up by the Royal College of Physicians in the early 1970s.
You are asking the question now simply because they have assumed a moral high ground high enough to challenge all aspects of our daily life. Anti-smoking and smoking cessation groups are even paid to bombard smokers with insults, isolation and denigration that other groups are legally protected from.
Our legislators could be accused of murder more foul than any claimed to be caused by SHS. Their regulations have destroyed many sources of pleasure, camaraderie and social interaction and ignore the role tolerance and pleasure play in a healthy life. Smokers and non-smokers are adversely affected when cafes, bingo halls, clubs and pubs close. They are even affected in their final years when socialising is restricted in communal homes. A life without pleasures is hardly worth fighting for.
The truth about smoking is that there are downsides but the greater truth is that depressed people will die earlier as a direct result of the demonic demands of the anti-smokers.

Gasdoc said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gasdoc said...

These are the views of Dr E F Gagliano:

I read your plea for help and decided to give you my opinion. I also read the comments to your train of thought and I agree to what was written. So I will try to cover those issues that remained unanswered.

I am a physician, specifically a pathologist, and I can confirm that there is not one single disease, or death, directly attributable to tobacco smoking. While it is true that, in specific cases, it may be strongly suspected that the smoking might have played an important role in the development, or worsening, of a determined disease, it cannot be stated that smoking was the cause of it like, for example, it can be said, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that diphtheria is caused b y the Corynebacterium diphtheriae, or syphilis by the Treponema pallidum.

Regarding your father’s clinical history, I can assure you that his heart attack could have been caused by a number of factors, except the having smoked twenty years before. Even the (scaremongering) US Surgeon General, in his 1994 and 2004 reports, states that, 15 years after quitting, the risk of coronary heat disease is back to that of a nonsmoker’s! Is that enough for you? Among the possible causes of your father’s myocardial infarction, I would put the lack of physical activity, the overweight, the stressful life and genetic factors.

About your smoking most of the time 5 cigarettes/day, and some time none at all, it certainly does not make you an irreducible smoker. Instead, what I find noteworthy is the fact that you feel more relaxed when you allow yourself the enjoyment of a cigarette. Believe me, I would not replace it with a psychopharmacological pill. So, go ahead and relax!

As to your wondering “how profitable the nicotine replacement industry has now become in comparison to the tobacco industry”, I can assure you that Big Pharma has made it! The fact that the tobacco industry surrendered to the pharmaceutical industry shows that its leaders were not up to it. They just took good care of their gigantic salaries.

To conclude, your saying: “I cannot imagine that either the pro-choice groups on smoking or the anti-smoking campaigners could have a serious problem with an open discussion on smoking”, I may only say that you are too naïve: the anti have never accepted any confront.

This is my thought.

Dr. E. F. Gagliano

truthseeker said...

Thank you for all your comments so far which are helping to compile a very interesting picture.

I have been informed by ASH that they will be contributing to this discussion. They will be adding their opinion within the next two weeks.

Please keep telling people about this site because the more people add their opinions the more useful the outcome will be.

All the very best
Smoking Truth Seeker

Anonymous said...

I smell a rat, but whether it's a pro- or anti-smoking rat remains to be seen.

Apologies if I am wrong.

truthseeker said...

John East

When you say your "smell a rat" is that a reference to me and my reasons for this site or something else entirely?

Smoking Truth Seeker

truthseeker said...

As the comments of John East above seem to have coincided with a cessation of posts to this site, I feel it is time (if it is not too late already) to make absolutely clear that this site is exactly what it says it is. I am a person with no link whatsoever, be it direct or indirect, explicit or implicit, to any pro-smoking group or non-smoking group. I am someone that quite simply wants to discover the truth about smoking so I, and hopefully others, can make our own risk based life choices on the issue.

As I touched upon in my blog, my main reason for writing about this was, quite simply, because I found it exceptionally difficult to get any untainted opinion, facts or figures on the issue. This was largely because anyone who mentioned anything vaguely pro-smoking was quickly dismissed as a ‘crackpot’ or of having links to the tobacco industry. I must say, somewhat naively I can now see, I hadn’t expected to see that there would be so called ‘freedom seekers’ prepared to act in exactly the same way so easily. I can only hope that Mr East’s judgement is better on whatever issues it is he talks about on his own blog.

If anyone has any further comments to make I would urge you to not be put off by the comments of John East. Thank you once again to all that have contributed so far, particularly the Pro-Choice Smoking Doctor.

Shaftmonde said...

Thank you Truthseeker for that last post.
I have to confess that, like John East, I too was slightly bemused by the motivation for this blog. Past experience with forums has taught me that pro-choicers can quickly become victims of antismoking trolls with fanatical opinions, issuing vile threats and intimidation. But being a simple soul, I accepted your sincerity at face value.

Perhaps the reason for a hiatus here is that others like me, felt the motivation issue was off-topic and hence a waste of productive blog space.
Also, you mentioned that ASH would be contributing soon and, having said my bit, it would be interesting to see the views from their ivory tower before responding further.

Michael J. McFadden said...

Truthseeker, about 10 weeks ago ASH promised you they'd present their side of the argument in two weeks.

Of course they haven't.

Truthseeker, THAT should tell you something about where the truth actually lies in case you had any doubts left over.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Pat Nurse MA said...

I can only tell you of my own experiences which I hope will help.

I am 48 years old. I started smoking at 8 years old and I can't even remember why. I do recall giving up aged 11 for a couple of months but taking it up again as all my friends at that time smoked.

I have never been ill but five years ago I developed asthma. I believe this co-incided with the expansion of my city and the extra vehicles which now clog the roads so bad you can see a haze of pollution above the skyline.

I am quite fit and enjoy sports such as running, cycling, walking and horseriding.

I also believe that if I gave up smoking now, I would die as my body has grown and evolved from childhood and taken on board that smoking is something it needs. I don't know if that's true because I'm not a scientist and unfortunately, hatred of smoking has meant that the issue has never been examined impartially.

All of my family smoked. None got cancer except for one non-smoking relative who believes her breast cancer was caused by an artificial sweetener in a certain popular fizzy drink that she drank consistently for 20 years.

I have smoked between 70 cigarettes per week to 80 a day. I currently smoke hand-rolling tobacco because I believe it has less chemicals than manufactured filter cigarettes.

I've given birth to four healthy children.

I hope this helps.

Dick Puddlecote said...

Can this be chalked up yet as another dodged opportunity for debate by ASH?

They don't like the truth at all over there, do they?

Shaftmonde said...

I am disappointed because, somewhat naively, I was hoping that ASH would deign to comment here.
As the 'Joseph Goebbels' of the NHS it seems like a dereliction of duty for ASH to miss any chance like this to spread their doctrine.
Perhaps they think they are above such things now. Although I like to think of it as hubris.

truthseeker said...

Please find attached ASH's response for my blog. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.


I apologise for the very late reply but I have been extremely busy lately. I thought it best to wait until I could give you a detailed response rather than a hasty reply.

I have read your blog and the comments posted so far. I do not intend to comment on the respondents' comments but will address my reply solely to your original posting. I will leave it to you to decide whether or not you wish to post this reply on your website.

The first thing I should declare is that I have never smoked so I am not able to fully empathise with you as a smoker. (You may be interested to know, however, that I am a minority at ASH - most of the staff here are ex-smokers.)
My views are therefore shaped partly by my own experience and partly by my working at ASH.

As you may know, ASH is an independent charity working to reduce the harm caused by tobacco. We are not anti-smoker as the tobacco lobby would have you believe, nor are we in the business of trying to get smoking banned. We accept that smoking is a legal activity and is likely to remain so for many decades to come (if not indefinitely). ASH bases its campaigns on the best available scientific evidence. To give one example: we recommend people use pharmacological aids such as nicotine replacement therapy to quit smoking because there is good evidence that people who use it are about twice as likely to succeed in stopping compared to people who quit going 'cold turkey'. For more on quitting smoking see the relevant section on our website: http://www.ash.org.uk/ash_vfdp5x10.htm

Now I will try to answer your specific questions:

1. The risks to health of smoking 5 or fewer cigarettes a day & 'safe' level of smoking.

The reason we argue that there is no safe level of smoking stems from the fact that cigarettes are poisonous. Just as there is no safe level of consuming household bleach, smoking tobacco involves the inhalation of at least 40 carcinogens - ie substances known to cause cancer in humans. It follows, therefore, that no health organisation would ever recommend that people take up smoking.

On the question of the degree of harm - yes it is true that there is a dose-respone relationship for some diseases, particularly for cancer. In other words, the more you smoke, the greater the risk. For some conditions, however, such as heart disease, this releationship does not exist, meaning that relatively small amounts of exposure to tobacco smoke can trigger heart disease. This applies equally to non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke and this is why we are beginning to see a fall in the number of heart disease cases since the smoking ban has been in place.


2. Positive feelings associated with smoking.

I don't doubt that this is the way you feel and it is very common for smokers to report feeling relaxed or calmer after smoking. However, nicotine is in fact a stimulant and certainly for heavily addicted smokers it is likely that the feeling of relaxation comes about because smoking relieves the craving for nicotine which kicks in soon after the effect of the last cigarette smoked has worn off. For light or occasional smokers it is less clear whether the same mechanism applies but there is evidence that even occcasional smokers have trouble quitting, suggesting that nicotine does have the same effect on even light smokers.


3. Risk of smoking compared to other unhealthy behaviours.

Whilst it is true that heart disease, for example, can be caused by a number of different factors, smoking is the biggest single risk factor. So someone who smokes is, on average, at greater risk of heart disease than someone who does not smoke, even if the non-smoker is overweight, for example. In the case of lung cancer, over 80% of cases occur in people who smoke. Of course there will always be some individuals who live to 98, smoke 20 a day, and may be drink vast quantities of alcohol too, but they are rare.

Another way of assessing the risk is to look at life expectancy. Smokers lose, on average, 15 years of life and 1 in 2 smokers die prematurely, ie before their expected lifespan. But quality of life is also afffected. As a smoker, you may escape heart disease or lung cancer but develop bronchitis or obstructive lung disease. It is possible to live with this condition for decades but it gets progressively worse so people who survive to their retirement with COPD generally have such poor lung function that their quality of life is serioulsy impaired.


4. Countries with higher smoking rates & longer lifespan

Japan is an unusual example of a developed nation with high smoking rates, yet currently with a longer than average life span. It is possible that diet may have a mitigating effect on overall death rates although if this is the case then we should expect Japanese lifespan to fall as the take up of junk food increases. It is also generally accepted that the Mediterranean diet is healthier than that of northern Europe and may partly explain lower rates of heart disease in countries such as Italy and France. Incidentally, smoking rates in these countries are are not significantly different from those in the UK.


5. Tobacco Industry & its allies

There will always be some people who question the science behind studies on smoking. Not all of these people will be directly linked to, or paid by the tobacco industry but the majority will be. The question you should ask yourself is what are their motives/rationale for casting doubt on bodies of research that have been given overwhelming support by international medical organisations and independent bodies such as the Royal College of Physicans? Most health bodies are not trying to make a point - they simply want to present the evidence in the best possible way so that people can understand the risks and take appropriate action. The tobacco industry, on the other hand, has a vested interest in trying to play down the evidence of the harm that smoking causes, or at the ver least to call for yet more research in order to delay or deter measures that affect its business. In the case of Dr Denson my understanding is that he was not entirely neutral on the subject of smoking and there is certainly no basis for his assumption that "otherwise healthy smokers live longer than non-smokers".

6. Your decision

Ultimately, it is your choice whether or not you continue to smoke. As a health advocate my instinct is to advise you to consider quitting because the short term 'benefits' (such as feeling relaxed) are far outweighed by the substantial risks of disease and premature death by continuing to smoke. But the choice is yours.


I hope this is helpful but do let me know if you still have any further questions and I will do my best to anwer them.

Regards

Amanda Sandford
Research Manager
ASH

Shaftmonde said...

Thank you truthseeker for revealing ASH's comments.
My observations, taking the points in their order are:
(Preamble) It is no surprise to me that most of their staff are ex-smokers, these being the most vehement on the subject.
Although ASH may indeed be an independent charity it is still just one of many who owe their livelihood to an anti-smoking crusade, funded in part by our own government and Big Pharma. In other words, if smoking were to become non-existent they would be out of a job - or turn to another mission.
Therefore anything they say must be viewed in the same light as information coming from 'Big Tobacco'. (Whereas others posting here have no such vested interests.)

ASH always insists that it is antismoking, but not antismoker.
I find this claim simply incredible, coming from an organisation which has been instrumental in segregating society by imposing intolerable conditions upon a quarter of the population, and removing personal choice from businesses and property owners. Not to mention the ludicrous sight of virtually every door in the country being defaced with unsightly draconian reminder signs.
In my opinion, to divorce smoking from the smoker is akin to discriminating against someone for their body weight. "I have nothing against you as a person, but you can't come in here because you are overweight, addicted to eating and set a bad example to others". Yet this discriminating principle has been enshrined in laws against smokers. It would be illegal if applied to religion or race.
Similarly, ASH claims that it is not in the business of getting smoking banned. But honestly! Given the inexorable pressure over the last few decades, can anyone see a time when they will say "Okay, we've got smoking down to x percent, let's sack ourselves and go home now"?

That's enough for the preamble, now to the points.

(1 ) You can safely disregard all of the first part because it is completely wrong and unscientific. Practically everything we ingest or breathe contains poisons, including tapwater, especially when the poisons in tobacco smoke have to be measured in nanograms! (A billionth of a gram)
There is a safe level of everything, even household bleach and cyanide. Homeopaths would lose all their customers.
'The dose makes the poison'.

However, I agree with the dose-response argument. The more you smoke, the greater the risk. But let's not get too obsessive about it, the risks are very small to start with, and there are no health guarantees for anyone who has never even seen a cigarette in their life.
But as for the effect of relatively small amounts of exposure to tobacco smoke triggering heart disease, I would say that anyone that close to the brink is obviously already suffering from a deeper seated condition not necessarily smoking-related. Perhaps we should, for instance, hold airlines responsible for deep vein thrombosis?

(2) True there are positive feeling associated with smoking, that's why we do most things. And it's true that nicotine is a stimulant, as is coffee and tea. So what is wrong with that? Or do we prefer a psychoactive depressant like alcohol?
It's our lifestyle choice.
Incidentally, the word 'craving' is a pejorative term, where I would use 'desire'.

(3) I strongly disagree that smoking is the biggest single risk factor in heart disease. It just ain't so.
The fact is that heredity, being overweight and sedentary are the main causes of heart disease, but with a quarter of the adult population being smokers or ex-smokers, when patients arrive with a heart disease then naturally a quarter of them will have a smoking history. An easy diagnosis, so there is no need to look any further for the cause.
(Correction?) "...even if the non-smoker is overweight,..." I assume this was meant to read "even if the non-smoker is not overweight"

The second paragraph is so subjective with its weasel words such as 'may', 'it is possible', 'generally'. It is based mainly on the usual 'smoking-related' circular arguments such as the above.
In any case, the entirely superfluous assumption is made that anyone escaping heart disease must necessarily develop bronchitis or COPD. Again, this is a falsehood, and ignores the fact that even non-smokers eventually die, some with severely impaired quality of life. And they won't like it, whatever the cause.

(4) Alway difficult to compare one lifestyle with another, so I can't disagree here.

(5) There are indeed many people who question the science behind smoking studies, and with good reason. And most of them with no connection whatsoever with the tobacco industry. They are people who are defending their life choices against aggressors.
This is a well-worn canard; that anyone who questions these studies must necessarily have been influenced by Big Tobacco.
The question is: Can antismokers claim that they are not being influenced by Big Pharma?
The motive for casting doubt on these studies is for the very reason that most research is carried out by organisations dedicated to the eradication of the tobacco industry.
Why? Because pharmaceutical industries are the natural enemies of Big Tobacco, and have the power to influence the entire medical profession with its associated organisations. (You don't even get to join the profession if you disagree with them on smoking).
And governments, who can be persuaded to support them, using evidence supplied by - Guess who?
Why then has the public not heard about some studies that actually show a beneficial or protective effect from secondary smoking? Surely newsworthy and requiring further investigation.
What is difficult to grasp is the simplicity of antismoking arguments; dredge numbers hard enough and they can prove almost anything. And Big Tobacco can be blamed for any harm.
Conversely, It is impossible to prove a negative, which is what is demanded from Tobacco. And, the average person cannot readily conceive the extent and influence exerted by all things Medical.
Therefore I completely disagree that "Most health bodies are not trying to make a point".
Most of them are trying to make a point, in the best possible way - for them.

Are we influenced by the power of Big Tobacco? If we are I should like to see how, when we are not allowed to see their adverts or sponsorships, are barred from using their products in most situations, and grotesque labels on their products saying, in effect, "Don't buy me".
Plus millions of government (our) money spent on anti-tobacco advertising.

(6) Your decision? Well not exactly if antismokers have their way. As opportunities for smoking lessen at their present rate it won't be long before their won't be any - legal - choice at all.
I know anecdotal evidence is valueless, but I can cite the case of my own father. He was a professional dance-band wind instrument player performing for forty years in very smoky clubs and halls. He was a lifelong medium smoker, consequently a passive smoker too, and died aged eighty from a non-smoking-related skin condition. Which in 1974 wasn't considered a bad innings.
My mother never smoked in her life, and because father worked away most of the time, she wasn't even a passive smoker, apart from the occasional exposure to my own adolescent puffs.
She was overweight and took little exercise, and died of heart failure in 1984 aged sixty-seven.
So although worthless as evidence, it does at least indicate the fact that nothing is as inevitable as powerful antismokers would have you believe.

The trouble with trying to prove the negative is that it takes so many words. So as Amanda says: "Ultimately, it is your choice whether or not you continue to smoke."
And I must give her credit for her friendly and full reply to your enquiry.

Michael J. McFadden said...

Shaftmonde made some excellent comments here and I will try not to repeat them. I will however add a few slightly different ones that I feel are appropriate and which do not reflect very well on ASH.


The promised 2 weeks for a reply turned into 12 weeks, and most likely only resulted in a reply at all because of the extremely direct challenge I made here two weeks ago myself. Very poorly done, and it should certainly have resulted in an unassailable and convincing response: after all, ASH is where it's at in terms of well-paid experts... at least compared to those of us on the other side in these discussions. Someday perhaps I'll have the luxury of taking three months to craft a single blog posting while getting paid nicely for my efforts. Amanda, I apologize for the harshness of some of my commentary here, but I feel it is deserved.


Amanda wrote, "We are not anti-smoker as the tobacco lobby would have you believe, nor are we in the business of trying to get smoking banned."

The "tobacco lobby" eh? Amanda, I believe that FAR more than people than any who could reasonably be called the "tobacco lobby" believe and state that ASH is anti-smoker as much as anti-smoking. Of course the paid flaks certainly do NOT want smoking banned or they'd be out of a job, but there are still plenty of neurotic or simply idealistic Antismokers out there who would love to see such a ban.


Amanda then wrote, "smoking tobacco involves the inhalation of at least 40 carcinogens - ie substances known to cause cancer in humans."

Sheesh. three months of research and preparation and she can't even get one of the single most basic numbers of the campaign correct? What the Q are we dealing with here? ::sigh:: There are somewhere between six and ten "Class A" carcinogens in tobacco smoke. "Class A" is defined as "known to cause cancer in humans." Amanda, if you feel you can name 40 and show where they are classified as Class A, please go right ahead and I'll apologize. Unlike some Antismokers, I have a VERY strong history of ALWAYS backing up what I say. I'd also like to point out that most nonsmokers in any decently ventilated environment would be exposed to most of those substances in the femtogram range. If femtograms were marbles and I gave you a shovel, you could shovel your entire life away before you'd have produced a milligram.


Amanda then wrote, "- yes it is true that there is a dose-respone relationship for some diseases, particularly for cancer. In other words, the more you smoke, the greater the risk. For some conditions, however, such as heart disease, this releationship does not exist, meaning that relatively small amounts of exposure to tobacco smoke can trigger heart disease."

Anyone familiar with Michael Siegel's blog (not just his own writings, but the excellent blog followups to them) knows how ridiculous this is. Go to:

http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/257.html

and read the "Stiletto" there to see the sort of "studies" comments like Amanda's are based on.


Amanda then wrote, "This applies equally to non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke and this is why we are beginning to see a fall in the number of heart disease cases since the smoking ban has been in place."

Are you talking about the English ban Amanda? The headlined 40% drop that which actually was only a 2 to 3% drop? A post-smoking-ban drop that was actually SMALLER than in a number of years when there was NO smoking ban? Or are you cherry-picking one of the other Helena copycat studies that have been ripped apart with virtually not a speck of defense by their authors?


I think Shaftmonde answered a number of points in the middle quite well so I won't belabor them. Let me skip to Amanda's statements about the "Tobacco Industry & its allies" ... "There will always be some people who question the science behind studies on smoking. Not all of these people will be directly linked to, or paid by the tobacco industry but the majority will be."

Really Amanda? Do you care to produce any evidence for that statement? I probably know several hundred people through personal emails who question such "science" and I am fairly certain that at least 98% of them are not linked in any significant way to nor are paid by the tobacco industry. How about you list 100 who are and I'll see if I have difficulty coming up with more than 99. Will I need to wait three months for this?


Amanda then wrote, "The question you should ask yourself is what are their motives/rationale for casting doubt on bodies of research that have been"

I think it's pretty clear: resentment over their lives and others lives being disrupted and debased through a systematic campaign based upon lies and distortions. Respect for scientific integrity. There are two good motives, and neither of them TOUCH "being paid by the tobacco industry."


And Amanda wrote, "Most health bodies are not trying to make a point - they simply want to present the evidence in the best possible way so that people can understand the risks and take appropriate action."

I most strongly disagree. The goal is to ban comfortable social smoking and the means to doing so rests upon a greatly distorted and exaggerated perception of risks designed to facilitate INappropriate action: total smoking bans rather than healthy ventilation.


And Amanda wrote, "The tobacco industry, on the other hand, has a vested interest in trying to play down the evidence of the harm that smoking causes, or at the ver least to call for yet more research in order to delay or deter measures that affect its business."

Of course it does. And I'd believe something coming out of the tobacco industry no more readily than I would believe something coming out of ASH. That doesn't defend at ALL the stuff coming from ASH.


Finally, after being so mean to Amanda above, I have to agree with her final statement: "Ultimately, it is your choice whether or not you continue to smoke. As a health advocate my instinct is to advise you to consider quitting because the short term 'benefits' (such as feeling relaxed) are far outweighed by the substantial risks of disease and premature death by continuing to smoke. But the choice is yours."

However I disagree with her blanket recommendation. I believe that for many individuals the short term "benefits" may well outweigh the longer term risks, but I respect the fact that we all should have the freedom to make choices about such things in life for ourselves. To try to sway those choices through the dissemination and promotion of misleading information, particularly when one does so for pay, is despicable.


Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Gasdoc said...

Thanks for putting up the long awaited official reply from ASH's Amanda Sandford. The earth has not moved for me but my expectations were consistant with this outcome. I would however be very interested in any thoughts you had after the experience of reading your personal reply from this independent charity. After all, I feel that is what has interested all the contributors.

My own comments are rather cynical, I suspect, and are as a result of reading more lies from these self-confessed "smoke and mirror" con artists.

I started by dissecting every word I read, but after getting as far as Amanda's admission of her lack of empathy, I thought I would never stop writing.

Next I was faced with the "independent" and "charity" point and my blood boiled, seriously interfering with my objectivity and temperature regulation.

Then I got confused with the distinction between "anti-smoker" and "anti-smoking". I soon remembered by time in December and January last winter when my blood froze whilst I was "enjoying" evenings out with my wife outside pubs, hotels and restaurants. I am afraid the actions of ASH are very clearly outright vilification of human beings who happen to be smokers. We are labelled by ASH as murderers and they think they are not anti-smoker.

My word by word analysis stopped when I got to the throw away bracketed comment "We accept that smoking is a legal activity and is likely to remain so for many decades to come (if not indefinitely)." That reveals quite overtly the agenda that the sentence apparently attempts to deny. It should at least read "We reluctantly accept..!"

I don't think I need go any further, save to say, bunkum!

Please Truth Seeker, give us your thoughts and perhaps indicate how your decision making process is going.

truthseeker said...

Having now received ASH’s response to my blog. I agree that it is a good time for me to pen my current thoughts on the issue.



I would like to start by saying that I am very grateful for ASH taking the time to provide such a full response. I think it would have been easy for them not to bother. It took longer than expected but, frankly, so what. The point is that they did not take the easy option. In terms of ASH’s response I would like to comments as follows:



1. I am pleased to see confirmation of the dose response issue. Perhaps I have been looking in all the wrong places but I have found it quite difficult to locate this being said by any anti-smoking (rather than anti smoker) group before. It is however, as you might expect, ASH’s comments regarding heart disease that interest me the most. ASH has said that “small amounts of exposure to tobacco smoke can cause heart disease”. Putting to one side the use of the word “can” which “can” of course be applied to most things in life (driving your car “can” kill you, eating a grape “can” kill you etc) what I would like to know is where is the evidence of this as a meaningful proposition? It is all very well saying it and, perhaps, saying it enough times until it is accepted as fact. But where is the actual evidence? I say this not in a dismissive way. If there is evidence, and I am assuming that there must be, then it would be genuinely helpful to see it. I mentioned Dr Denson in my original blog post. He seemed to certainly be of the opinion that it was the diet of most smokers that was killing them rather than the tobacco smoke. This still seems very plausible to me. A walk down any high street in your town is likely to show that (sorry if this offends anyone) the social status of most visible smokers tends to be towards the lower end of the scale. These are people that are more likely to eat processed food from a supermarket then they are to eat a meal cooked from fresh ingredients. These are people more likely to eat, for example, KFC as a snack then they are a selection of fruit. Generalisations I know and feel free to disagree or even be outraged by then but, in my personal experience of people, they are truisms. So what I would like to know is on what basis can it reasonably be said that tobacco smoke is a major cause of a heart disease (if that is actually what is being said). Are there statistics that show the percentage of people who have died of a heart attack in this country over the last twenty years who were smokers has been greater than the percentage of people in this country who smoke? Is anything known about the social status or general health of those people that have died from a heart attack? Were they fat or skinny? Were they relatively well off or poor (and therefore have may have had quality of life issues with the stresses that can bring) Is it really the case that heart attacks have dropped 40% since the smoking ban? Seems more than a little fancifull to me but, as with all things related to this issue, I am certainly prepared to be convinced.



2. I actually think there is some truth in what ASH has said here regarding the feeling of relaxation being related to the nicotine addition withdrawal. I don’t think it tells the whole story (as Alan Carr I believe does) but I think it has the ring of truth about it on certain levels. Whether that matters or not is another thing entirely and, for many, I am not sure that it does. Pleasure is pleasure. It’s nice to feel nice. For the record, this is an area of smoking that I am becoming increasingly unsure about personally. I feel like I enjoy some of the cigarettes I have but not all. Yet I still want the ones I am not especially enjoying. Also I will have one sometimes to tick me over if I know I am not going to be able to have one for a while due to a meeting. This makes the area of enjoyment/addition increasingly ambiguous in my mind. I suspect the reality is that it is a combination of the two. Some I smoke are for enjoyment, certainly socially, othres are from some form of low level addition. If I ever reach the point that I think I only enjoy the ones I enjoy because of the addition then personally I suspect it would become a ‘give up’ issue.



3. I would refer again to my comments on point 1. Is there any actual evidence that an overweight non-smoker is less likely to suffer from heart disease than a non-overweight smoker? I would like to see such evidence. I accept the point about lung cancer. But statistically, my understanding is that the risk of contracting the disease is still less than 1% for both non-smokers and smokers. In terms of other lung diseases that can impair the quality of life, are there any dose response studies on this? Whilst nobody can of course predict the future, and I don't want to sound flippant, but isn’t it, in reality, largely heavy smokers who tend to get these diseases on the whole?



4. What ASH is saying in point 1 and point 3, as touched upon above, does not rest very easily with what it is also saying in point 4. If the dose response relationship does not exist when it comes to heart disease, why would diet have any meaningful mitigating affect on it? Equally, if it is true that an overweight non-smoker is, statistically, more likely to live longer than a non-overweight smoker then, again, why would diet have any meaningful mitigating affect? This last example particularly seems very contradictory. I think the figures from countries such as Japan and Italy where they eat more fish and vegetables, smoke more and live longer than us, gives the anti-smoking groups a massive problem. It is the elephant in their room. And at the risk of sounding like the Dr Denson fan club, this I feel is the point he was trying to make and yet it is a point that never seems to be properly tested despite it being in the interests of public health.



Amanda you said that it was your understanding that Dr Denson “was not entirely neutral on the subject of smoking”. I would be grateful if you could, even if you reply to absolutely nothing else I have written, clarify what you mean by this.



5. I accept that tobacco groups have a vested interest in the provision of pro-smoking information. This has been one of the problems I incurred whilst looking into this subject. However, it is an unavoidable fact that the pharmaceutical industry is merely the other side of the coin. Equally, it has to be said that ASH never seems to acknowledge any evidence it finds unhelpful. This is why I have tried to burrow my own field on this issue. ASH may in your view be well meaning but, for me, it has ironically been what I have seen as the hysteria on this issue created by anti-smoking groups, with their ‘Daily Mail style’ horror headlines, that have led me to question things much more than I would have done. And on the subject of vested interests, I am prepared to accept that it might well be possible that ASH does not want a full ban on all smoking. After all, they’d have to find new jobs if they ever succeeded…..





6. In terms of my own decision, I am still (at the risk of sounding lilly livered as well as tarry lunged....) undecided. I do not feel I have enough of the salient facts yet so I am hoping that ASH, or someone else, may be able to provide some further evidence and arguments as per my comments above particualy in reference to diet. I have a young child so there is still a large part of my brain that says why even gamble with your health. But then I keep returning to what if that decision leads to an increase in bad food, stress and therefore quality of life issues which, all along, had in fact been the real health issues. What I can certainly say it that does not preoccupy my thoughts as much as it did so I am very thankful to absolutely everyone who has contributed so far. Nobody has a crystal ball so who can know what will happen to each of us with our own unique genetic make up. Some people have a genetic make up that can make them die from eating something as ordinary as a peanut. Others can drink every day and smoke 40 cigarettes a day and live to be 100. My Nan used to say to me “everything in moderation”. I expect there is a lot of truth in that.



STS

Fredrik Eich said...

truthseeker,

I am a smoker who has shifted from the view that smoking causes diseases to the view that smoking causes no diseases whatsoever. But as you are mostly concerned with smoking and risk of heart disease I shall stick to that subject.


The sole evidence that smoking causes diseases rests on observation there is a strong relationship between
smoking and diseases and as Amanda points out this is less pronounced with vascular diseases


But why do we assume this is a causal relationship when smoking could be benefical due to its high content of good stuff
compared to its low content of bad stuff bad stuff .
Never smokers are exposed to the bad stuff as well as smokers but you have to smoke to get the good stuff. And we have animal experiments to show
that smoking animals are slimmer than never smoking animals and that smoking animals live longer.

Would this graph look much different if it were comparing people who use

heart attack drugs to people who do not?
Best Fredrik.

BarneyBear said...

A very good balanced blog, shows there are still some sane levelheaded people in this world (Excluding the slanted, generalised, uninformative, standard response from ASH)

BarneyBear said...

In general people are getting fed up with the state micromanaging their lifestyles, which is Social Engineering! The backlash has already started, the pendulum will swing towards equilibrium. Draconian Bans & Prohibitions never last long, as they tend to have opposing effect to what it is trying to achieve.

Gasdoc said...

You are very wise STS, as you demonstrate in your considered response. Thank you for letting us know how your thoughts are developing. I must say I find that aspect of this blog very interesting. I wonder what you think about asking the BMA for their considered input? It would be grand also if Amanda did answer your point about her cleverly worded, posthumous allegation against Ken Denson. In some way,I regret having been so negative in my earlier comment as it might put her off, but I speak as I find. Amanda, if you are taking a sneaky peek, I meant nothing personal and you can either ignore my comments or happily rip into me!

As a matter of observational interest, as I am supposedly a privileged or middle class smoker, it might be of interest to note my diet is particularly unhealthy. This is not a deliberate attempt to prove a point (maybe partly due to abnormal intestinal anatomy as a result of surgery, causing me permanent indigestion) but maybe because there is a link between smoking and bad diet separate to social class. Unfortunately, I do not get an endorphin boost with exercise, so don't do that either. Furthermore by BMI is 29!

So if I don't die of heart disease or lung cancer, there is definitely something spooky going on!

vincent1 said...

I would like to say how much I have enjoyed reading your blog Truthseeker along with the many well written comments.
I would like to add my thoughts on the subject, but I cannot express myself as well as others, but I will give it a go.

I am a smoker, since I was 13, but never really smoked a full packet until I started work at 15, when I was able to buy them easier.

I am 52, I smoked about 30ish, depending on what time I go to bed, or how engraged I am from the "news" of the day.

I am rarely ill have never spent a night in hospital for an (operation), just giving birth, to 3 healthy children, who are not delinquent either.
I have been married for 32 years to a never-smoker.

This is the study, they tried to hide, so this is one, I will believe in. Two non-smokers, funded originally by a lung cancer charity, funding was then "stopped" I believe because the study was not reaching a conclusion for an anti agenda. It was then Big Tobacco stepped in, for the study to be peer reviewed.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/03/08/wtob08.html
Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official
By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent

THE world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.
The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.
Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week. At its International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, which coordinated the study, a spokesman would say only that the full report had been submitted to a science journal and no publication date had been set.

I believe the study below is the one the article refers too.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
Enstrom/Kabat study

I would like to know why? The antis, never mention Allan Carrs book, only drug company products, if nicotine is so addictive, why would you want to give so called "therapeutic" nicotine to children, which I understand has a lower rate for quitting than Allan Carrs method.
I believe it is all about, money and control.
I am not in the pay of Big T, or Allan Carr lol,

timbone said...

Here is a quote from Allen Carr's website:

"In November of last year, Deborah Arnott, Director of ASH claimed that specific success rates quoted by Allen Carr Easyway were “plucked out of the air” and “basically made up.” She made these comments whilst on the BBC Radio 4 “PM” programme during a piece concerning the death of Allen Carr, founder of Allen Carr’s Easyway organisation.
Deborah Arnott’s comments referred to two independent studies conducted by eminent experts in the field of smoking cessation which had already been published in peer reviewed journals indicating a 53% success rate for Allen Carr’s Easyway to Stop Smoking Clinics after 12 months."

Here is what Allen Carr said about his final book:

‘SCANDAL’ is the book that the pharmaceuticals, the Department of Health, the NHS, ASH and QUIT will not want you to read!

Xopher said...

Amanda's response has been well covered but one of my favourites ----- "...... and 1 in 2 smokers die prematurely, ie before their expected lifespan." --- has not.

The statement is a nonsense. It is a simple scaremogering statement that could just as well read

"and 1 in 2 smokers do not die prematurely, ie after their expected lifespan"

Karen said...

I've spent the last three months looking at the topic of smoking benefits, and feel that I've barely scratched the surface.

When tobacco first came to Europe
it was widely hailed as a panacea. There wasn't an illness or ailment not cured or alleviated by smoking, chewing or drinking some form of the stuff; it was even taken as an enema! 500 years later and the situation couldn't be more different.

I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between these two extremes.

What impresses me most with the pro-tobacco movement is that many of their claims seem able to be confirmed by subsequent 'hard' (ie. laboratory-based) scientific research, whereas the claims of anti-tobacco (especially those concerning so-called second hand smoke) remain mired in the land of 'soft' (epidemiological and statistical) science.

You mention Alzheimers in your initial blog. Epidemiology has shown for years that smokers run a reduced risk of developing this disease; hard science is beginning to find out why. (I wanted to leave you a link at this point, but don't know how to shorten it!)

I would have thought that 5 - 10 roll-ups a day, an upper limit of 42 units of alcohol per week, a sensible level of exercise, a good, fresh, varied diet and a contented marriage/partnership is a recipe for a long, healthy and happy life (genes permitting!)

I wish you well whatever you decide to do.

Pat Nurse MA said...

"We are not anti-smoker as the tobacco lobby would have you believe".

I'd just like to point out that I, as a pro-choice - and NOT pro-tobacco - campaigner, am not any part of any "tobacco lobby" and I don't get paid for writing pro-choice articles.

Like you, Truth-seeker, I just wanted to discover evidence that smoking kills (full stop) after years of being oppressed, ostracised, and made to feel like a murderer.

If a charity such as ASH isn't responsible for this, and the propaganda NHS campaigns which are outrageously exagerated, then who is?

Certainly the British Heart Foundation admitted that it's "I've got you under my skin.." health propaganda campaign wss not factual but designed to scare people into stopping smoking.

As for ASH being made up mainly of ex-smokers, yes, they are the most vitriolic towards smokers usually. I can only assume that is because they have been bullied to give up ... and we all know bullied people tend to become bullies themselves.

The other point I'd like to make is about addiction. Smoking is phsycologially/emotionally addictive but not physically addictive. Everyone I've ever known who has wanted to stop has without dificulty. That is the key. Smokers can give up if they want to. It only takes willpower.

Phsycologically, you think you want a cigarette but you don't need it. Personally I don't have physical withdrawal symptoms if I don't smoke, but I can get short-tempered if I'm denied a cigarette although that is often because of my stance on Freedom and so I get annoyed when prevented from smoking just to prevent me from smoking.

Compare the phsycological/emotional addiction to that of a physically addictive drug like heroin, or alcohol. Both cause real physical problems such as stomach cramps, sweats, pains, nausea. This pain only ends when more of the drug is taken. Users who want to stop simply can't. Their bodies won't let them. Willpower is simply not enough. Giving up for them is absolutely impossible without medical intervention and support.

Pat Nurse MA said...

This isn't a comment, just an attempt for me to be able to ensure follow-up comments are emailed to me. I'd like to keep abreast of this debate which is fascinating.

Adeimantus said...

Some great points made throughout here.
I think one of the key failings in the 'anti' message is the apparent lack of hard science (laboratory) to back up the soft science (epidemiology). It is highly significant that experiments to induce cancers in laboratory animals using tobacco smoke have failed. You may have seen early footage of those smoking beagles; as I understand it, not one of those, or any other laboratory animals, ever developed cancer.

That point really is as stark as it sounds; it implies that tobacco smoke doesn't cause cancer in humans (on its own, that is, although it doesn't discount a causative role in conjunction with other factors) since the whole point of being able to label a substance 'carcinogenic' is that it can cause cancers in lab animals.

Sure, tobacco smoke contains known carcinogens, but as others have pointed out, the quantities are minute, and seemingly innocuous substances such as common foods also contain hundreds of 'chemicals'. I would repeat: OK, show it in the lab; bring me a previously-healthy animal that has developed cancer from smoking cigarettes!

Adeimantus said...

Incidentally, Truth Seeker, since my last post (which was only this morning!) I have come across the following introduction to the thesis "Smoking is good for you".

http://www.forces.org/tavern/viewtopic.php?t=528

Its author, Nightlight, I discovered only recently and I have been delighted to read and digest his articulate and well-researched arguments. If you follow up all his links you will find yourself on a wonderful journey!

Never mind "smoking is not so bad for you"....you may find yourself on the cusp of accepting that "tobacco is a medicinal miracle" (like me, you may need more time to make the mental leap but hey, there's time)! My Gosh, ASH would choke on their cornflakes!

truthseeker said...

Hello all,

There have been some really excellent contributions to this site so far.

I was browsing on a few health websites and see that ASH attribute 17% of heart disease deaths to smoking. Putting to one side where they get those figures from, given that it is widely accepted that between 20 and 25% of the poppulation smoke, shouldn't those figures be higher if there really is a significant link? What I mean is, I would have thought that the figure would have been greater than the accepted 20 - 25% that is the smoking poppulation. I am now however especially mathmatical so does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Regards
STS

Gasdoc said...

Taken out of context and at face value STS, you do not have to be a mathematical genius to conclude from those numbers that smoking protects the heart!
However, it might help if you included a link to the exact article for us to apply our brains to?

Shaftmonde said...

I view this apparent anomaly with caution.
Leaving aside the fact that the 17% is probably a false claim anyway, coming as it does from ASH, there is insufficient correlation between the two figures.
I mean, from the information given it would still be possible that a higher percentage of smokers might suffer death from heart disease than non-smokers, (although I actually disagree that this is the case) nobody, not even ASH, has claimed that 100% of smokers would fall victim.
Those are my thoughts, I'm no mathematical expert, but a Venn diagram would probably illustrate it better.

truthseeker said...

Looking at this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5016720.stm) it would appear that there are presently approximately 106,000 Heart Disease deaths in the UK annually. Using ASH's figures of 17% (http://www.ash.org.uk/ash_4k3664v4.htm )we can therefore say that approximately 18,020 are attributed to smoking. ASH also say that approximately 1/6 of the UK poppulation are smokers (16.6% - lower than anywhere else you look). The present UK poppulation is approximately 60,000,000. There are therefore approximately 10,000,000 smokers.

Taking ASH's figures:

If you smoke you have a 1 in 555 chance of contracting heart disease in any given year (10,000,000 divided by 18020).

If you don't smoke you have a 1 in 568 (50,000,000 divided by 87,980)

The figures are very similar I think you'll agree. However, Cancer Research have the smoking prevalance figure at 24% (and beleive that this figure may be under reported by 2.8%) http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/smoking/#percent These figures are for 2005 which is also where the BBC's figure of 106,000 deaths from heart disease comes from so they are certainly like for like.

If you smoke you have a 1 in 799 chance of contracting heart disease in any given year (14,400,000 divided by 18020).

If you don't smoke you have a 1 in 518 (45,600,000 divided by 87,980)

Neither of these calcualtions take into account there are approximately 12 million people younger than 16 in the UK and the overwhelming majority of these will be non smokers. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=6

Don't get me wrong, I realise that these figures are at best rough and ready. Also I am sure that ASH probably has some other variables that it brings into consideration which, if you click on their link and are prepared to pay them 20p, you can find out. And as I said before I am not a mathmatical person so the method of calculation I have used I am sure has many many flaws......

Any further thoughts anyone.

Regards
STS

Fredrik Eich said...

truthseeker,

That ASH number of 17% is excess heart disease deaths that people speculate is caused by
smoking - hence smokers are at higher risk of heart disease and/or people that are higher risk of heart disease are more likley to smoke.
Your number of 87,980 heart disease deaths includes smokers! There are no diseases that just smokers get or just never smokers get.
That smoking causes diseases in humans is speculation based on links that do not alone prove causation.
That smoking animals live longer than never smoking animals is not speculation.

Best
Fredrik

Gasdoc said...

I agree fully with your calculations and would be fascinated by ASH's comments on this revealing "fact"!

Gasdoc said...

Fredrik, the ASH website clearly states that 17% of heart disease deaths are attributable to smoking, not any reference to the word excess at all.

timbone said...

Hello. What I find most difficult about the whole risk factor, is different figures, some which differ remarkably. This applies to everything, not just smoking related allegations. It can also become even more confusing when one discovers that a percentage may not be per 100, but per 100,000. I suppose that one of the problems with epidemiology, which seems to be the main discipline in the area of smoking, is that it is a number game, an estimate based on figures which can change radically depending on which process they go through to arrive at a given destination. There is another problem, a given destination. As an analogy, one could look at transaltaion from one language to another, and what a few words say can have a completely different meaning, in many cases being that which was decided before the words were translated. For example, it would be equally correct to translate an existing text to say either IT, HE or GOD was manifest in the flesh, but what a difference one word can make. I digress. Getting back to the epidemiology, 17% this, 40% that, 0.002% the other - wait a minute, you can't say that, it is 2%, that is 2 in every 100,000. What is 2 in every 100,000 - the amount of smokers who get lung cancer, and that is still the case if you work out the latest figures from Cancer Research UK. Wait a minute, the figures don't look like that at first glance. NO, and the NHS says that 1 in 7 smokers get lung cancer!! See what I mean? Have I lost you? I am not surprised, I am going for a smoke!

Kendra said...

Hello Truthseeker,

I just discovered your site yesterday and certainly intend to keep up with it as it is a quest for knowledge and understanding.

Michael mentioned Dr. Siegel's site but did not give the link. I find the site extremely informative as well as very interesting, including the comments. It would be well worth your while to check it out:

http://www.tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/

Although I am a truthseeker like you and do not profess any scientific expertise, I will take gasdoc's advice and give some basic information (at least to show I'm not a Shill for Big Tobacco).

Education: B.A. in Anthropology; Graduate level studies at University of Zurich: Ethnologie, Anglistik

Profession: Many years of office work, including managerial positions. 20 years self-employed (partnership with Swiss husband) as translator; presently working in a friend's office (Forex) managing the "backoffice"

Country of residence: Switzerland, American by birth
Age: "A certain age"
10-60 cigarettes a day (huge variation due to circumstances)

Personal Position:

Smoker also interested in objective knowledge of health effects on myself but also in the effects on others. Since tobacco smoke can be a nuisance to others, I believe in consideration in any case, but also seek knowledge on the real hazards to others.

Political Position:

I do not believe I have a right to smoke on anyone's private property unless invited to do so. If the public so decides, I do not have the right to smoke indoors on public property, where the members of the public are from time to time forced to be. Since I am also a member of the public, I see no justification to forbid my smoking outdoors. Simple courtesy is all that is required to avoid being a nuisance to others.

Most articles on smoking bans with comments revolve around whose rights are at stake, especially in bars and restaurants. I believe that the public may make decisions regarding public property - although not with a basis on bogus science. Smoke can be a nuisance to others, that is enough to justify no-smoking policies in such places as city halls, post offices, anyplace supported by public funds and where the public must also enter. In this case, other nuisances and irritations to the public should also be banned (perfunes, etc.)

However, I do not believe the public has a right to make decisions about private property which I consider bars and restaurants to be. To me, it is a question of proprietors' rights. They make an investment and take on the risk. Rather than being supported by taxes, they pay taxes to the public funds. They are supported by the public in that an offer is made, e.g. Mexican food, vegetarian, fancy cocktails, smoking / non-smoking (including those which can offer both), karaoke nights, heavy metal, etc., which may or may not be accepted by certain members of the public. If successful, not only does the proprietor make a living, but also provides livelihoods to those employed, not to mention contributing to public funds through taxes and even acting as a tax-collector (value-added / sales taxes).

As the percentage of smokers declined, offers for non-smoking venues were increasing. Perhaps one day most would be non-smoking and I would accept that completely.

In addition, I believe employees' rights also include freedom of choice: non-smokers and smokers alike have the right to seek employment that suits their abilities and ideas of what constitutes pleasant working conditions. This can include a non-smoking environment or an environment where smoking takes place (I phrase it like this since I know several non-smokers who like to be around smokers because they think they are more "interesting" and "fun.")

Since blanket bans are predicated on protecting the employee at the expense of the proprietors' private property rights, including the right to decide what offer to make to members of the public, it is essential that the science behind that be legitimate (even if, in my opinion, still not applicable, since no employee is "forced" to work anywhere.)

Those who believe the opposite, that private property rights take the backseat and that employees must be protected from their own choices, have the burden of proof, i.e. have clear, incontrovertible, scientific evidence that a toxic working environment indeed exists.

This is an area where the tobaccoanalysis blog is especially of interest. Not only are the studies analyzed but inconsistencies in the application of the principle of "protection of the employee" are pointed out as well as what actually constitutes toxic environments.

This is the extent of my contribution for now; I certainly hope this site continues and I hope with this the basis of any future comments I make will be transparent.

Fredrik Eich said...

Truthseeker,

This may interest you. I bumped into an old work mate the other day and noticed that he was looking a bit chubby. I asked him wether he had stopped
smoking and he said yes. Before he could allude any more I told him that I stopped smoking for two years but decided to start again before "I gave myself a heart attack".
He told me that he had had a heart attack last christmas (oops) and to make it worse, it his heart attack was year and a half after he had stopped smoking.
So he has had his stent inserted, is on statins/niacin but sadly he is still smokefree and chubby. You said yourself "Historically when I have given up smoking in the past my blood pressure has actually increased"
This is also my experience but mine now hovers around 120/80 and I am in my forties.
ASH have a presentation on their site which extols the virtues of smoking cessation. (Now this document is duplicated on other sites so I don't know if it is authored by ASH UK or not)
After the usual look at self-selected studies such as CPS-II and the doctors study, here
is a section on " (slide 13) Blood pressure, stroke, renal function". Now this document is duplicated on other sites so I don't know if it is authored by ASH UK or not.
But its points are

. Blood pressure increased (independently of body weight) after cessation in several long-term studies
. 24-hour BP monitoring showed daytime lowering of BP after 1 week of cessation (Hypertension 1999;33:586)
. Former smokers have decreased carotid artery stenosis compared to current smokers
. Cessation reduces risk of stroke to non-smoker level after 5 years
. Drug treatment of hypertension is less effective in smokers
. Former smokers have less renal function abnormalities than continuing smokers

The way I read this, is that in return for a long term hypertention risk you a rewarded with a week of reduced risk if you sacrifice smoking. Drug treatment
would naturally be less effective if someone is already using an effective one (smoking tobacco).
It would seem that if you are lucky enough not to die of a heart attack after 5 years of cessation then you can enjoy the same risk as everyone else by treating stenosis with hypertention!

Maybe ask ASH UK to clarify if going smokefree is a long term risk for hypertention?

Loose the smoke, get a heart attack.

Michael J. McFadden said...

Hello again Truthseeker!

Last time I gave Amanda and ASH ten weeks to respond to the questions here, but this time I decided to cut them a bit more slack and give them a full hundred days plus a few.

As expected, no response.

Amanda or ilk, if you ever DO feel like defending your statements, here are the two that were the most directly questioned:

====

Amanda then wrote, "smoking tobacco involves the inhalation of at least 40 carcinogens - ie substances known to cause cancer in humans."

Sheesh. three months of research and preparation and she can't even get one of the single most basic numbers of the campaign correct? What the Q are we dealing with here? ::sigh:: There are somewhere between six and ten "Class A" carcinogens in tobacco smoke. "Class A" is defined as "known to cause cancer in humans." Amanda, if you feel you can name 40 and show where they are classified as Class A, please go right ahead and I'll apologize. Unlike some Antismokers, I have a VERY strong history of ALWAYS backing up what I say.


and


Let me skip to Amanda's statements about the "Tobacco Industry & its allies"  ... "There will always be some people who question the science behind studies on smoking. Not all of these people will be directly linked to, or paid by the tobacco industry but the majority will be."
 
Really Amanda?  Do you care to produce any evidence for that statement?  I probably know several hundred people through personal emails who question such "science" and I am fairly certain that at least 98% of them are not linked in any significant way to nor are paid by the tobacco industry.  How about you list 100 who are and I'll see if I have difficulty coming up with more than 99.   Will I need to wait three months for this?

====

It's going on four months at this point....

So Amanda? Wherefore art thou fair lady?


Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Fredrik Eich said...

TruthSeeker,

You may like to look at this study which seems to show that smoking cessation is a significant risk factor for hypertension and therefore
heart attack and stroke.

After a short period of improvement (less than a year) ones chances of heart attack increases via increased risk of hyptension.

Compared with the current smokers, the adjusted relative
risks of incident hypertension in the quitters for >3 years
were 3.1 (95% CI 1.3 to 7.5) in the weight gainers, 40.4 (95%
CI 4.2 to 385.9) in the weight maintainers
, and 1.4 (95% CI
0.1 to 14.8) in the weight losers.

This may help to explain why in self selected studies people who choose to smoke are at higher risk.

eg people who smoke tend to have a higher Body Mass Index but smoking reduces BMI!

Unknown said...

Hello everyone, I've enjoyed the discussion about smoking and how the risks are greatly exaggerated. I commend you truth seeker for asking the same question I've been wondering about for a few years now. I'm a smoker who smokes moderately maybe 1-3 packs per month depending on whats going on in my life. I've come to the same conclusions you have tobacco is very enjoyable to me, and I think the positives out way the negatives. Have a question for you more knowledgeable posters to answer, I have portal hypertension of the liver, I've read conflicting studies on how tobacco affects this condition. Some studies state tobacco thins blood, and increase white cell and platelet count (due to nitric oxide in nicotine I think) (which is good for someone who has portal hypertension and an enlarged spleen that "eats" a lot of platelets and blood cells the body produces.) others however state that nicotine constricts blood vessels and increases blood pressure. Has anyone found and information regarding this issue? Or the other possible benefits of tobacco?

Shaftmonde said...

Hi William,
the previous post by fredrik refers to this interesting study. http://hyper.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/37/2/194
It's mostly about smoking/quitting/BMI but it does indicate a little-known effect of smoking.
Briefly, it seems that many studies show that smokers have a lower blood pressure than non-smokers. But after quitting smoking their BP drops below average. Good?
Except that during the following year their BP goes up again.
Worse, after three years their BP goes up still further until it's worse than a never-smoker.
So the message I take from this is; if you don't smoke, don't start. But if you smoke, don't quit.

Michael J. McFadden said...

The main harm from low levels of smoking (e.g. a pack or so a week) is probably a small absolute increased risk in lung cancer. The Antis will stress that their studies show a large increase in relative risk but since the causal effect is at least slightly questionable and the absolute risk is very low to begin with, even an increase of 100 or 200% in the relative risk only adds about one chance in a hundred of developing lung cancer.

For individuals with a special genetic susceptibility to COPD, low levels of smoking could also have a significant impact (I believe this is true for only about one person in a thousand however.)

There are several positives associated with smoking, (alzheimers disease, ulcerative colitis, Parkinson's Disease, obesity, all lower in smokers if my memory is correct) but the MAIN positive is enjoyment in life. If you're a person who can happily smoke at a reasonably restricted level and you feel like you get a lot out of it, no one should be pressuring you to quit: we all have things that make our life more worth living and enjoying, and for many of us smoking is a part of that.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com