Smoking - The Book
Well, I finally finished reading “Slow Burn” by Don Oakley. Normally, I wouldn’t write a whole post about a book, I’d just update my “What I’m reading” page, but I think this one deserves as bit more.
First off is a warning; this book is a chore. It’s about 600 pages of quite factual stuff that needs quite close attention. If you’re the sort of reader that skims, you probably want to avoid this one.
Second is another warning. The guys style is not the easiest in the world to get along with; he cares deeply about his subject, but the phrasing he uses to put his points across can be irritating. There were several occasions when I nearly threw the damn thing across the room because I was annoyed not by what he said but how he said it.
Taking those two points into account, what do you get? Well, what you get is an examination of the whole arena of smoking and the effect that it has had not only on people’s health but also on the way society functions. Oakley takes issue with practically every piece of anti-smoking reportage that has been produced in the last 40 or so years, starting with the Surgeon General’s 1964 report and continuing up to 1999 when the book was published.
He explains at great length the ways in which statistical probabilities have been manipulated to present the public with scare-mongering facts to encourage them to give up smoking (children have a greater risk of health problems from a glass of milk a day than they do from living in a house where one or both parents smokes). He discusses how many conclusions about smoking and health have been based on only one (narrow) study. He takes issue with the way that many studies into the effects of passive smoking (or environmental tobacco smoke) are based purely on after-the-fact anecdotal evidence provided by friends or relatives of the person supposedly effected.
There is a big hole in his arguments, though, in that at the same time as condemning statistical manipulation and extrapolating from only one study, a lot of his counter-evidence does just that. He accuses various bodies of having bias towards anti-smoking, but displays bias of his own. Having said that, though, there is enough evidence presented here to make you re-consider your anti-smoking stance; if only half of what he says is only half true, it still presents a completely different picture than the anti-smoking brigade, public health policy groups and politicians would have us believe.
The truly thought-provoking part of this book comes, though, when he moves on from discussing the implications for health to discussing the implications for society. We’ve all seen the way that smokers, over the last 20 to 30 years, have slowly been ostracised from society, but the picture presented by Oakley is much worse than I would ever have thought it could be.
Consider this; you’re a woman, or non-white, or Jewish - or perhaps all three - and you apply for a job. The company turns you down because you’re a non-white, Jewish woman. What’s the first thing you do - call your lawyer! Now, replace those groupings with just one - smoker. Don’t bother calling your lawyer, he won’t be in.
Smokers are being regularly discriminated against because they smoke. Not because they smoke in a room where co-workers may be effected, mind. Just that they smoke - or have done in the last 12 months, or whatever arbitrary time limit the prospective employer might like to put on it. Coupled with the fact that (in the States at least) they have to pay more for health care, and many other things, smokers are as victimised as any minority group since the slaves were brought over from Africa - but no-one seems to give a damn.
And that’s why I would encourage you to read this book (if you can find a copy); to make you re-think the social ramifications of anti-smoking policies.
- - -
I feel that I should point out that I am not a smoker. I never have been. I grew up surrounded by smokers and never really saw the attraction, but I don’t have any deep-seated feelings against smoking. I have never been convinced by the arguments against smoking, or passive smoking, and the recent introduction of a blanket ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces here in the UK quite frankly pisses me off. I realise that my opinion is not one that is shared by many people but there you go!
Smoking 3
The third installment in an occasional series about smoking. Check out Smoking and Smoking 2 for more on this subject.
It’s now 4 July - Independence Day for our American cousins - and while they are busy celebrating their freedom, in the UK we’ve lost part of ours, as the ban on smoking in enclosed public areas has now been in force for four days. [So far, the one change that I've really noticed is that there are a lot more people smoking while they're driving, which can't be good for road safety!]
I’ve already said that I’m not in favour of the ban for several reasons; the over-bearing “nanny state” attitude, the removal of personal liberty and the freedom to choose, and arse-about-face way that it’s being done. For instance, we now have to have “No Smoking” signs everywhere - even though there’s a blanket ban. As someone else said, do we have “No Murdering” or “No Burglary” signs? No. Why do we need all these “No Smoking” signs when it’s banned everywhere?
So I was cheered to see on the local news this evening the story of a vicar who tried to get himself arrested for smoking - by lighting his pipe in a police station. Good man! (This link should take you to a video of the story.) Unfortunately, it’s not a police matter - this stupid regulation is dealt with by local councils - so they just turfed him out.
But I think what his story does demonstrate is that there is quite a bit of feeling out there against this new legislation, not because lots of people want to be able to smoke but because they see it as another step along the slippery slope to total governance of our daily lives.
Of course, you can argue that the nation’s health is more important and you might have a point - if all of the medical evidence against smoking is actually true. I’m currently reading Slow Burn by Don Oakley which argues that a lot of the evidence against smoking is anecdotal at best and represents clever manipulation of statistics. I must admit that at the moment (not very far through the book) I am unconvinced by some of his arguments, but he does have the figures to back some of them up. I’d certainly recommend anyone - smoker or not - to check it out for a different viewpoint, if nothing else.
Smoking 2
Back at the beginning of April, one of my early blog posts was about smoking (click here if you want to go and read it first). Well, it started out being about smoking and then turned into a bit of a lament about how pubs aren’t pubs anymore.
So, with the imminent smoking ban, I thought I’d revisit the subject and see if I could actually get across this time what I had meant to say in that earlier post.
It is not illegal to sell cigarettes and tobacco products. It is not illegal to buy cigarettes and tobacco products. Up to now, it has not been illegal to use cigarettes and tobacco products. But as from 1 July, it will be illegal to use cigarettes and tobacco products pretty much anywhere except your own house.
This is the latest development in a long-running saga which has seen the humble cigarette move from being the must-have fashion accessory (remember all those film-noir flicks from the forties where absolutely everyone smoked?), through to being the pariah of the modern age - it even beats binge-drinking as the all encompassing evil.
The Government wants people to stop smoking because it’s bad for their health, and puts a terrible burden on the health service. Non-smokers want people to stop smoking because they don’t want to passive smoke. Already banned from quite a number of places, smoking in a public building becomes outlawed from 1 July.
But if smoking is so bad for you, and the health experts insist that it is, why not go the whole way and make the buying, selling and using of cigarettes and tobacco products completely illegal? Why have this halfway house situtation? Well, partly because of the money; at the same time as trying to get people to stop smoking, the Government actually loves it when they do because they earn a mountain of cash out of it. “Oh, but that gets used up to pay for the extra health services needed by all the sick smokers”, I hear you say. No, it doesn’t. There’s still plenty left. (You could even look at it another way; if smoking is bad for you, encourage people to smoke more. That way, they’ll all die early and you won’t have to worry about paying them a pension for who knows how many years!)
I think the smoking issue really goes to the heart of the way that Government is trying to make us live our lives now; they seem to have decided that we can’t be trusted to look after ourselves anymore so they’re going to do it for us. The Nanny State as is it known is reaching ever further into people’s lives and I, for one, object. Smoking may not be good for you or others (although, there is some evidence to suggest it’s not as bad as it’s made out ) but at the end of the day it’s legal! Just like fatty food, fizzy drinks, take-away, alcohol and all the other things that they’re trying to stop us enjoying.
I’m a grown-up adult; I can make my own decisions regarding my health - if I want to smoke, drink and eat bad food why shouldn’t I be allowed?
Smoking
Smoking is an emotive subject. The popular view now seems to be that smokers are, at best, deluded fools hastening themselves to an early grave and, at worst, murderers.
I’ve never smoked (well, I say never - when I was 19 I smoked for about half a day but stopped because I couldn’t see what the fuss was about) but I have lived with smokers all my life. My mum smokes, my paternal grandparents smoked, my maternal uncles smoke - many the Christmas I sat after dinner in a room with up to 8 other people, all smoking, watching the air gradually fill with blue smoke.
But I’ve never been a smoking Nazi; if you want to smoke, I don’t mind. Indeed, there are certain instances where I WANT people to be smoking. The major one of these is in a pub.
There’s been a trend over the last few years to turn pubs into family entertainment. Woe betide the pub that doesn’t do food these days, or have a family room, or a kids play area, or a non-smoking policy. But I’m sorry that is not what a pub is for. Even though as a kid I spent quite bit of time in various pubs (nods to the Martello and the Windsor Tavern at this point), I don’t agree with kids in pubs. (Sorry to those friends of mine that have kids and like a drink). A proper pub is not a suitable place for children.
Proper pubs, though, are fading fast. What do I mean by proper pub? Well:
- You can smell it from the other end of the street; a proper pub has a distinctive smell, of died-in-the-wood ale, smoke, and long-term drinkers.
- It’s generally on the corner of the street - preferably with those green tiles half way up the building. You know, those green tiles that you only ever see on pubs.
- It is quite dark inside; the hardened drinker doesn’t want to see himself too well in the mirror above the bar.
- You can buy crisps and peanuts - maybe even chocolate - but you can’t buy dinner. Dinner is something you have before you come in or after you leave.
- You can smoke and they sell cigars from behind the bar.
- Regulars have their own seat and their own glass.
Most establishments that call themselves a pub these days aren’t proper pubs. You have to put up with kids running about (we’ll leave the poor parenting rant to another day), you have to put up with people eating all round you, you have to put up with clean air and no atmosphere.I’ve never got this whole “passive smoking” idea either. As I said, I grew up with a family of smokers and it doesn’t seem to have done me any harm. I don’t have asthma - a friend of mine, from a family of non-smokers, is way worse off than me there - it hasn’t stunted my growth (6′ 4″), and it doesn’t seem to have effected my ability to think for myself. So what’s the big deal?
I agree that smoking may not be the best thing that you can do for yourself (after all, you’re setting fire to something and then breathing in the results) but it is legal, so if you want to smoke, go to it. In fact, I’ll buy you a pint!
Wolfs Stuff
Wolfs Helpers
-
