Well, in 1990, the American adult smoking rate was 22% and now it's 19%. considering all the bans implemented since 1990, that should give us a much better estiamte of quit rates over the long haul.
Well, in 1990, the American adult smoking rate was 22% and now it's 19%. considering all the bans implemented since 1990, that should give us a much better estiamte of quit rates over the long haul.
Does it really though Dave K? Considering the denigration and discrimination against smokers since that time, I'd be willing to bet the smoking rates are actually higher than 22%, BUT most will not admit it and are closet smokers. I actually know a couple of people like that. Their family and co-workers don't know they smoke. I only found out having spotted them in dark corners of the parking garage and commenting that I didn't know they smoked, and then they told me why.
THIS is what Doc's precious movement has done. Turned normally healthy, law-abiding and productive citizens into sneaks full of shame and guilt (now talk about destroying someone's self-esteem).
Then given the number of people I've run into who have bummed smokes from me and admitted they only just started smoking because of all the uproar over it they just had to find out for themselves what the problem was. That and they had family members who smoked and lived nice long and healthy lives.
Ever notice its only the non-smokers who all have a relative they loved dearly die of lung cancer? As a smoker myself, with more than half of my family being smokers, I don't know one single person who ever had any smoking related disease. And if half the smokers die from a smoking related disease how is it none in my large family have? And yet every non-smoker seems to have a sob story to tell. It's one of those things that makes you go "hmmmmmm"!
"Why Follow Up Reports and Stories About the Benefits of Smoking Bans Don't Have to Be Scientific."
Whenever you train a pet to do a trick, in this case human pets to change their tobacco consumption behaviour, it is of the utmost importance to provide them with positive reinforcement that is easily associated with the performance of the trick or the change of behaviour as soon as possible. In this case it doesn't even matter if the human pets performed the trick at all. It's just as much about reinforcing, in the minds of trainers that the trick is a good trick to teach their pets.
Arf, Arf!
E=MC^2
In training to become a highly paid Big Tobacco shill.
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
Question: If the smoking rates are based solely on legal cigarette sales, then that would leave black-market sales out of the equation. Have, then, the estimates taken into account black-market sales? And how about people who economize because of higher and higher taxes by smoking only half a cigarette at a time? That would falsify the figures as well, would it not?
.
There is another important component not discussed in your post. Where do we derive the figure if 400,000 quit smoking it saves 40,000 lives?
We hear constantly about the "preventable deaths" Installing a belief if smoking were not a reality we would save in Canada for instance with six million smokers 47,000 preventable deaths is used. In the States with 10 times as many smokers we see ten times the preventable deaths figure bandied around.
It has been mentioned already; when someone quits smoking there are real effects to consider. They are more prone to depression which has a very real and a most disturbing mortality risk alone. The shock to a system which has been conditioned to expect a daily dose of tobacco smoke may tend to over compensate or require supplements to offset the effects which in many cases will be ignored, by deliberately ignoring the symptoms of withdrawal in a determination to quit, resulting in a multitude of depreciating effects along with a predictable and significant increased mortality risk.
To simply distribute a claim we would all be better off if none of us smoke, is lying by omission, because your claim is in respect to smoking being non existent ever, whereas we know there will be real effects and that perspective is not well researched or even considered.
In your lust to win the battle with a poorly thought out strategy on an unreasonably short time line, you may indeed loose the war, when your targeted demographic starts to die in large numbers.
How many will be stepping up to take the credit should that occur? ASH? The Charities? The Gov? The press?
As we have seen so far; if responsibility is to be found in any of these groups, demonstrated by their tactics to date, it will only be found by force, within a major pandemic of finger pointing and denials.
I am with you once again Lynda. In the last 2 months, I have had a sister and a nephew come forward to admit they are secretly smoking and a very good friend who is also a Doctor's wife. Naturally, they wanted to bum from my pack but I stopped that from the start, though I did volunteer to go inside the stores with their money to buy them so no one would see and report their purchases to their spouses. My dad was one of 16 kids, my mom was one of 9 and there are no smoking related deaths in either family. I see good genes for me. My dad has passed away, but not from a smoking disease and my mom is now 85. She has a sister who is 92. My mother in law is 84 and her husband is 86, both smokers and they still work 16 hours a day in their bar/restauant trying to make a living that is becoming even more difficult. First New York's smoking ban, now the economy and some people are not eating out as they are afraid of different ingredients and salmonella. I told them of Geo's comments about smokers over the age of 60 and they are now considering posting a black wreath on the door and tell people that the business and themselves are supposedly dead. Still, it looks like my kids inherited lots of good genes too!
Harry
Not to mention the brisk trade in cross channel shopping.
Meanwhile
I am not sure where to begin with this one
Nigeria: Ban On Smoking And Its Enforcement
"passive smokers are perhaps 3 times more likely to die of lung cancer than smokers. Smoking causes both physical and psychological addiction. Some are of the view that cigarette makes them agile and completely whole while others believe that it keeps body and soul together"
"Amanda Sandford, from the pressure group action on smoking and health (ASH) equally noted that the results published in the journal of the Association for research into otolaryngology should serve as a warning particularly to young smokers"
However
"Long term ex-smokers are likely to have deficits in memory and verbal reasoning ability"
Can't argue with that.
http://allafrica.com/stories/
200...0807070785.html
How the Cleveland Clinic compares with other top hospitals in the US
http://blog.cleveland.com/medica.../
04CGNURSEB.pdf
Wonder how much the new NO SMOKERS policy affected the outcome...
Cleveland Clinic is bending over backwards trying to bring up the numbers yet the smokers ban remains in place...trans fats are taboo too...
will they ever learn...
promoting bigotry and hatred backfires BIG TIME.
An interesting parallel on another topic: Sandy Szwarc from Junkfood Science:
In a study of Child Obesity to be launched next week by Havas media agency MPG, 9-in-10 parents (89%) believe the government should actively tell parents if their child is obese.
[...]
How much of those parental sentiments are actually real, though?
As we know, a survey of parents conducted by a media marketing agency is not scientific research. What is it? [All together now...] Marketing!
Surveys or polls are one of the oldest marketing techniques used to shape public opinions by creating the bandwagon effect. How questions are worded and ordered, who is polled and how the answers are interpreted can create any perception a pollster may desire, all to promote whatever idea they're trying to sell and convince us of. The bandwagon effect especially takes advantage of people who don't understand science or feel able to think for themselves and who will look to see what everyone else is thinking or doing when making up their own minds about what to believe or do. - http://junkfoodscience.blogspot....want-to-
be.html
Arf, Arf (Hat tip to EinsteinSmoked)
Well, callous,
it could be that the current smoking rate is above 19%, if so, any possible impact from the plethora of bans since 1990 would even less, than the miniscule 3% which could be theoretically attributed to bans, if not, then most is proabbly the secular 'quit" trend established between 1960 and 1990, and if any is attributed to the onslaught of cig tax hikes after 1990, it becomes highly unlikely any of that 3% decline is due to bans.
All I'm saying is it is very unlikely from our own data, that any possible smoking reduction in England is due to their ban.
lastly, we can't even show any decline in teen smoking after 2003, when bans really began to poliferate.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25393862/
OT- beware of socialist government. Your children are not safe.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/...oup-
claims.html
Children as young as three should be reported for 'racism', Government-funded group claims
Excerpt
It told nursery teachers, playgroup leaders and childminders to record and report every racist incident involving children as young as three.
These could include saying 'Yuk' about unfamiliar food.
Even babies should not be ignored in the hunt for racism because they can 'recognise different people in their lives', a new guide for nurseries and child care centres said.
Nursery staff are told: 'No racist incident should be ignored. When there is a clear racist intent, it is necessary to be specific in condemning the action.'
If children 'reveal negative attitudes the lack of censure may indicate to the child that there is nothing unacceptable about such attitudes'.
Nurseries are encouraged to report as many racist incidents as possible to local councils.
'Some people think that if a large number of racist incidents are reported, this will reflect badly on the institution,' it said. 'In fact, the opposite is the case.'
The guidance said that anyone who disagrees is racist themselves.
Groupthink, indoctrination, brainwashing, call it what you will, the next generation of UK citizens will be nice, obedient little drones, running around going "arf arf".
Personally, I find racism abhorrent, but I find the idea of the State dictating behaviour and thought more abhorrent and a damn site more frightening.
GreatScot
Hehe, nice stories Diane and Lynda F. Same story here – my dad was from a family of 7 kids and my mom from a family of 5 kids. All current or ex smokers, and all refuse to drop dead before well into their 80s or 90s. In fact, my dad’s brothers and sisters are notorious for their love of partying. If only you could see those septuagenarians dance 
Not counting accidents, only three of my relatives died young. My mom, sadly, at 64 from a non smoking related disease. A cousin in her late fifties, also not smoking related. And my paternal grandfather, whom I never knew. He was a politically astute, clean-living socialist. In the thirties that meant no booze and no tobacco. He died at 39 from a stroke. Some years later, my grandmother remarried to the man I’ve always called Granddad. I never saw him without his cigar. He lived to be 96.
Still, I *DO* know a smoker who died of lung cancer. He was about 80, or slightly over. He was not related to me, but married to one of my aunts. She herself used to smoke as much as he did, until a couple of years ago. She’s 89 now and was given a clean bill of health just two weeks ago.
Funny, isn’t it?
.
A couple of posts on an anti smoker MP's blog re the recent announcement on the number of quitters.
MP blog link
http://kerry-mccarthy.blogspot.c...7/smoke-
it.html
Post1
http://www.ic.nhs.uk/statistics-...stical-
bulletin
Here's the official figures for pre-ban Kerry. So even if the projections for the year since the ban are correct, there has in fact been a drop in the level of people giving up.
Now since we all know the real reason for the ban is to reduce smoking prevalence, it has quite apparently been a failure.
Never has there been more pressure put on people to quit. Look how they have reacted. Persuasion and choice will succeed over coercion everytime. I hope if dont realise that by now, you soon will. The Irish figures bear out this fact quite clearly.
How about some honesty and integrity now?
Post2
The recent press report claimed that 234,000 people had quit smoking using the NHS servcies in the 9 month following the ban, equivalent to a yearly rate of312,000. The NHS claim that, for the year 2005/6, just under 330,000 smokers quit using their services. The post ban rate represents a 6% DECREASE on this figure.
Further more the report states that 'In the nine months before the ban, there was a 1.6% fall in the prevalence of smoking across England. But in the nine months after the ban, this fall was the much higher 5.5%'. This suggests that the number quitting before the ban was less than a third of that after it - or around 25% of the 2005/6 rate.
In total, this represents around 300,000 smokers who did not quit before and after the ban, who would had been expected to do so had the 2005/6 continued.
If the 'evidence' claiming the 'success' of the ban is so blatantly fabricated, what credibility can be placed on the 'evidence' supporting the implementation of the ban in the first place?
GreatScot
"As a smoker myself, with more than half of my family being smokers, I don't know one single person who ever had any smoking related disease."
Don't push your luck. Wild conspiracy theory or not, it would be no surprise at all if healthianity has plans to covertly strike down smokers with a barrage of illnesses in order to push the negative health statistics about smoking to their favor.
For example, there is serious talk to deny health treatment to smokers. Smoking related diseases, indeed.
Ever notice its only the non-smokers who all have a relative they loved dearly die of lung cancer? - Callous Linda F
Certainly true of Kerry McCarthy MP who wrote on her blog yesterday:
When my grandmother was diagnosed with lung cancer she was completely incapable of quitting, after nearly 60 years of smoking. I remember her on her death bed, as she wasted away, asking 'how long does it take to die?' She died at 73; her three sisters died at 98, 100 and 101. My uncle's partner, who spent most of her working life on a production line in a factory where everyone smoked, died of lung cancer a couple of years ago, in her fifties, a few months after diagnosis. My dad - who smoked roll-ups and always insisted that the link between cancer and smoking, or cancer and diet was 'not proven' - died of cancer ten years ago this week. He was 56. So that's where I'm coming from.
So her smoker grandma died aged 73 of lung cancer - unlike her longer-lived sisters (who may also have been smokers). Someone else (who probably wasn't a smoker) is implied to have died from lung cancer contracted via passive smoking. And her roll-up-smoking father died of some unspecified cancer (probably not lung cancer, otherwise she'd have highlighted it) - suggesting that smoking causes any and every form of cancer.
Yes, I can see where Kerry McCarthy is coming from.
Dr. Siegel wrote (in headline):
"IN MY VIEW: Study on Effect of England's Smoking Ban on Quit Rates Not Only Represents Science by Press Release; It Also Appears to Be Shoddy Science"
I was wondering if since you started this blog, if you've seen ANYTHING anti-tobacco has done that wasn't shoddy, shitty, or stupid?
If not, could you start looking back in time at anti-tobacco's work and see what you find?
You can skip your own work if you like.
Thank you.
Ah. I second James's astute question. What was the last piece of "good" anti-tobacco "science" ?
On the quit rates: weren't these ostensibly determined by telephone interview rather than gross legal sales? And then weren't the stats from the relatively small sample simply projected against the total population? If so, aside from all the other pitfalls of this particular method (lies, for example) it would be important to know how many people refused to answer.
When (I believe it was) the CDC, attempted to guage the smoking rate by this method, they made a point of remarking on the inordinately and unexpectedly high numbers of refuseniks. We may, perhaps, postulate that aside from ornery Libertarians, a very large percentage of the none-of-your-business crowd are actually smokers. This could then tip the polls.
Then too as our old friend Mark Twain remarked, "It's easy to quit smoking, I've done a hundred times." People who quit smoking for a couple of weeks (which I believe this poll counted as successful quitters) are likely, in large numbers, to take it up again, so their numbers, even if legiion, are illusory.
As to "lives saved," if a 50 year smoker quits at age 68, can you swear his life is "saved" by the act of quitting? It's widely stated now that 50% of new lung cancer cases are among people who quit smoking-- and that includes many who quit 20 or more years ago. Peter Jennings, for one. And one of my favorite writers, Ross Thomas, for another.
In the steps of Einstein and benpal, of course the purpose of the jiggered stats are to give the general message that "everybody else is jumping off the bridge" and it's the hip thing to do.
Finally, I didn't yet read the link to the article about smoking out racist infants, but the idea that it's racist to say "yuk" to a food makes it sound like satire, tho it's hard to tell what is or isn't these days. Still, if a kid says Yuk to spinach, I suppose it he can't claim that he's so egalitarian that he doesn't care if his food is "black, white or green."
:
Walt,
sadly not satire. It's from a government sponsored advisory agency funded by taxpayers to the tune of £12,000,000 per year. The link provided is to a national newspaper and the groups 368 page report has just been submitted to the government for consideration.
GreatScot
"a very large percentage of the none-of-your-business crowd are actually smokers"
Absolutely right, to say you smoke to any official leaves you open to being a target to be achieved, and a shed load of antismoking propaganda direct to your door.
No thanks.
Any other personal questions will get the same reply.
The study, which by its own admission appears worthless, seems to be about smokers quitting (please correct me if I have misunderstood), but the public health minister Melanie Johnson and others talk about 400,000 fewer smokers. No account seems to have been taken of the number starting to smoke during the period. It seems to me that the Government is desperate to hit its target of 21% smokers by 2010 and that only such convoluted surveys give it any chance of making such a claim. I no longer completely trust the Office of National Statistics, given the interference from the Government in recent years and I'm sure the Goverment is worried that the figures it eventually produces for 08 and 09 will show an increase, as in Ireland. We shall see.
You also have to watch when the "random survey" happens. In Jan there was a "convention" of anti smokers, and they were asked questions about support for legislation and later there was a "random" poll done and showed 80% support!
These "random polls" are a mockery as well. You can say its random if you have a influx of anti smokers to "randomize as the general public, as well. Remember its not what they ask its the questions that they don't answer. Of course amy smokers are going to "quit" when their job relies upon them being nonsmokers; since many "charities (cancer societies, lung association gov't organizations that get taxes from cigarettes mandate that only nonsmokers apply for any position inorganization)!
"The study, which by its own admission appears worthless, seems to be about smokers quitting (please correct me if I have misunderstood), but the public health minister Melanie Johnson and others talk about 400,000 fewer smokers."
No, it isn't about "quitters", that is something of a red herring.
The statistics quoted by CRUK are based on a monthly survey that collects postal questionnaires from about 1800 people, of whom about 500 are smokers, and asks the latter a number of questions about quit attempts, methods used, success or otherwise etc. - so it sounds as if they would be counting quitters (and their own press release headline screams that "over 400,000 have quit").
But the survey also includes a single question about smoking status (multiple choice - including the option "Don't Know" - I kid you not!), and it is the totals from this question (in fact it is actually the %age of cigarette smokers aged 16 and over) that are presented, and from which the pre and post-ban trends are calculated.
From my own analysis of this press release (a rather lengthy dissertation that is now with Colin Grainger with a view to going on F2C) the 400,000 fewer cigarette smokers is explained by a whole population extrapolation from the monthly samples. Do you want to guess how many fewer self-reported smokers actually produce these wonderful statistics?
21!
Yes, that's all it takes to enable the world to be informed that "at least 400,000 people quit smoking as a result of the ban" - CRUK's exact words!
Now take on board all of the obvious comments made above and on the other thread and ask yourself - just how much reliance can be placed on the honesty of 21 people?
BTW - All of the survey respondents received 'shopping vouchers' to the value of £5 each for their completed forms. Bribery, anyone?
Perhaps the final word should come from CRUK's own press release...
"The study is currently funded by Cancer Research UK, McNeil, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline."
£5 shopping vouchers for anyone who can suggest why this UK registered charity would receive research fundng from these 3 pharmaceutical giants for a study into smoking cessation!
Anyone?
Brian,
Please don't take this personally!!
I have had a healthy skepticism about (publicised) statistics for many years, however that skepticism has developed into downright disbelief of any statistics I now see or hear. The people that rely heavily on stats are simply flim-flam men.
The use of statistics should be regulated by law and independently verified before use. Misuse of stats to advance an agenda should be punishable by mandatory gaol time. The media should also be held accountable and punished for repeating, reporting and publishing any statistical crap.
Rant over.
Thanks for the above and I look forward to seeing your piece on F2C.
GreatScot
GreatScot
No offence taken - I totally agree with you!
It is because I have made my life's career out of 'understanding numbers' that I have to suffer a double-whammy with what is going on.
Not only am I persecuted for daring to enjoy my tobacco habit, but I am deeply - deeply - offended by amateurs treating my professional discipline as some sort of bandwagon onto which they can jump, and then off again, whenever it suits them.
To say that this angers me would be a massive understatement!
That's why you may sense a thread of sarcasm running through my analyses of their - er - analyses!
Ultimately the worst of all are those who place such blind faith in the abused statistics - who won't, or more likely can't - see that they (the numbers and the individuals) are being manipulated for 'political' ends.
My rants will never be over!
My rants will never be over!
I hope not, Brian!!!!!
Brian
I need your rants to put things in perspective for me,as I just see a wall of numbers.
You're welcome Dr. Siegel - glad I could be of assistance. I would have replied sooner, but I've recently had a new computer delivered, and internet teething problems mean I've only just seen this post.
Another useless study. This was already done by Mr Philip Morris himself back in the early '90's.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/
t...3FBE88E91896E36
A non-smoking policy will always result in fewer smokers. Not right away but after a few winters below zero, even the most habituated will give it up.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
