Smoking Related Deaths And Middlesbrough

I was just reading an article on the BBC about the perhaps surprising news that 33% of women in Blackpool smoke while pregnant. Then while I was wondering if that meant there were three pregnant women in Blackpool and one was a smoker (as there are no figures given in the piece), I read the following nugget;

Smoking related deaths from lung cancer were highest in Middlesbrough, with the illness claiming 71 victims per 100,000 in 2006-08.

Now how do you define smoking related deaths?

Is it that you were a heavy smoker all your life and then died of lung cancer? Is it you smoked 10 a day from the age of 12 until you were 30, then died of lung cancer? Or maybe you lived with a smoker for your entire adult life, then died of lung cancer?

The reason I suggest the last of those is, well, it's Middlesbrough. You could not smoke a day in your life and get lung cancer in Middlesbrough - as you could, in fact, anywhere in the UK - yet be classed as a "smoking related" death due to you having lived with a smoker (who may not have smoked in your presence at any point).

This isn't to deny the likelihood of smoking being a potential (or probable) cause of lung cancer, but does kinda lump everyone into one group.

In the post, Middlesbrough's ratio of "smoking related" lung cancer deaths is compared negatively to that of Guildford. The main thing that irks me about that is, I don't recall several major chemical plants in Guildford spewing fumes forth into the atmosphere, whereas the football team and supporters of Middlesbrough are known as Smoggies for that exact reason.

I'm not going to call Bad Science, but it does look like sloppy journalism.

The New Puritanism

Obviously keen to follow up their campaign to make smokers into a demonised section of society - latest plans show that smokers won't be allowed to adopt or foster children - the Government are now going after the other big revenue generators: drinkers.

In the past month I've seen proposals to increase the minimum age for purchasing alcohol to 21 (and hasn't that worked out brilliantly in the US?), for there to be a separate area in shops for alcohol so that customers have to queue twice (so that their "alcohol purchases can be scrutinised by other shoppers") and in Scotland, a proposal that while you can buy alcohol in pubs at 18, you can't buy it in a shop until you're 21 (which won't cause any confusion at all, will it?)

This is on top of the on-going campaigns the Government have to get fat people to eat less, and everyone else to eat what the Government decides is healthy and good for them. Combined with the recent call, by Ed Balls, to ban the opening of fast food outlets within a certain radius of schools, and you would suspect the Government are actively going after the Nanny State title.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol are both still legal, yes? Burger King, McDonald's and the like aren't force-feeding anyone, are they? We're not in some weird Arab state run by keep-fit non-smokers, are we? At least not yet, at any rate.

So why the hell are the Government insistent on interfering in people's lives to this extent?

You'd think that with the current financial crisis - nothing to do with Gordon Brown's management of the economy over the previous decade, oh dearie me, no - the Government would have less time to fuck about in the petty areas they seem to love. But no. You'd be quite wrong. Because the Prime Mentalist himself waded into the "scandal" of Jonathan Ross & Russell Brand's radio show to give his two pence worth.

Despite it being FUCK ALL to do with him - although handily deflecting public glaze from his general cockpuppetry - Brown demanded action be taken.

Why, you incompetent fucksock, are you getting involved? Oh wait, I know. It's because he's a fucking Puritan dictator.

He's the one who will decide what is good for us and what isn't. Anything that is bad will be banned, and the only things that are available will be those that are personally allowed by the Prime Minister. We people, you see, aren't pure enough of mind or deed to be allowed to make these choices for ourselves. We're too stupid to see the benefits or failings ourselves, so we *need* someone to tell us what to eat, what to drink, not to smoke, to do more exercise, to believe in a vengeful God who will punish us for not looking after the planet properly, to understand that the Prime Minister is doing a good job and not destroying the economy single-handed.

He is, in short, a cunt. A righteous cunt. A complete and utter righteous cunt.

Well here's something from me to you, Gordon. I will drink & smoke as I please and I will die when I'm supposed to. There's nothing you can do to stop me, because I am the revolution, and I want my fucking liberties back.

South Central

Not Los Angeles's infamous suburb, but the wild lands that are South London.

Following on from last week's mob attack on two policemen who tried to get a girl to pick up litter, news today of a woman being slashed by a 10 year old boy who wanted a cigarette off her.

The woman, in her 50s, was confronted by the boy and his friend outside Selhurst railway station in south London on Wednesday. He tried to grab a lit cigarette from her mouth and attacked her when she shouted back at the pair. Passers-by rushed to her aid as she bled heavily from the wound which was inflicted with a craft knife or razor.

South London: it's the place to be, I tell you.

Fined For Smoking In Own Van

As someone who drives a van, this article worried me slightly.

I consider the van to be my own private space. Anything I do in it that doesn't harm anyone else outside of the van, I consider to be reasonable behaviour. I would extend that to "has the potential to harm anyone outside the van" to rule out me drink driving or under the influence drugs, but as the emissions from the van would probably cause some people to have an asthma attack, I can't fully commit to that proviso.

However, Ceredigion Council would appear to think somewhat differently.

Gordon Williams, a painter and decorator, says he had popped to the shops earlier this month, when he was pulled over by council officials carrying out spot checks on the safety of vehicles. "I was told that because my van is my place of work I had broken the smoking laws," he said. His vehicle, an unmarked blue Suzuki Carry van, is "not my place of work - I decorate houses not vans."

Good point that man.

He believes it is the first ticket of its kind handed out by the council since the smoking regulations came in last year - the fixed penalty notice was number 0001. Mr Williams' wife Sue has already paid the fine - of £30 - fearing it would increase if not settled promptly. Which it would, to £50.

Simon Clark, the director of smoking freedom group Forest, condemned the fine as "absolutely ridiculous". He said:

"It smacks of some jobsworth council official interpreting the law to the most extreme level. This surely is not what the change in the law was intended for - it was not meant to harass and persecute people going about their ordinary lives. It is ridiculous that someone should be fined for smoking in their own private vehicle away from any workplace."

Ceredigion Council said they could not comment on individual cases. Which is a shame as I'd just love to hear the justification for this.

Product Placement

Here's something for the beleaguered smoker. A smoke-less cigarette that gives you a nicotine hit *and* lets you exhale properly.

And there's not really any reason why you can't "smoke" them in the pub, on the train or on the bus, as what you're exhaling is essentially steam. No carcinogens, no tar, just sweet sweet nicotine!

Oh, and the site I've linked to is MUCH cheaper than the similar product being hawked at Harrods.

UPDATE: Just been told that if you order one and put an "X" by your name, then the manufacturer will know that you've come from here.

Going After Smokers Again

There was a report yesterday that the Government are considering removing cigarettes from view in shops, and vending machines from pubs. All of this in an attempt to stop children from taking up smoking.

I have a few issues with this.

Firstly, how does removing a product from display stop someone from wanting it? I don't recall there being huge adverts for cocaine anywhere, but the demand for that seems to be increasing. Surely the fact that the cigarettes are only available from under the counter would make them seem more appealing? "Oooh, these must be really exotic and dangerous, I'll simply have to try some" etc.

Secondly, this doesn't actually stop them from being sold to people under 18. Enterprising children can still pool their cash and persuade someone who is over 18 (someone homeless for example, in exchange for booze or drugs) to get the cigarettes for them instead. If you want to stop children from smoking, try making them all smoke a pack of cigars at the age of five: that should put most of them off. Alternatively, invite people suffering from smoking related lung cancer to go round schools and explain what has happened to them and why.

Thirdly, it's already illegal to sell tobacco to under 18's. Enforcing the legislation that is already in place, rather than bringing in yet more pointless laws and red-tape would seem to be a more reasonable idea, don't you think?

Also, why are the Government actually bothering with this? The amount of money they make from the taxes on tobacco more than covers the cost of the NHS care smokers receive. The extra money goes towards pensions, and dead smokers won't be needing a pension. Less people smoking means less money from taxes, and larger numbers of people expecting pensions and health care into their old age.

The Government should actually be encouraging people to take up smoking.

And while I'm ranting, why not have pubs for over 18's only? No children whatsoever. Then you wouldn't need to remove the vending machines. And since everyone inside was old enough to decide things for themselves if they understood the risks, have the landlord decide if the pub is to be smoking or non-smoking. Pubs then start making money again (which goes into the Government coffers eventually), people continue to die young (saving Government money in the long run) and I stop having to endure other people's children running around screaming when I'm trying to have a quiet pint.

Oh, and I wouldn't keep feeling like I'm living in a fucking Nanny state.

Licence To Smoke

As reported by the BBC on Friday, there has been a proposal that in order to purchase tobacco, people should pay £10 a year for a licence. And the application for the licence should be hideously complicated and annoying as possible (so standard Government issue then) so that people would be discouraged from purchasing tobacco.

Other people have commented on the somewhat totalitarian approach of this (although this should be read just for the line "Julian Le Grand: 1984 is a warning, NOT A FUCKING INSTRUCTION MANUAL, you terrible cunt.") but I think they've all missed a couple of points.

First up, there seems to be nothing in these proposals that would stop me (or anyone else) from popping over to Europe and buying cigarettes over there. Obviously they would only be for my personal consumption, so I could - technically - bring back as many as I want with no need for a licence. Obviously there would be a very lucrative black market in these "imported" cigarettes, probably amongst people who didn't want to appear on yet another Government database, or couldn't provide all the required information in order to get a licence themselves.

Secondly, if someone from outside of the UK were to try to purchase cigarettes here (although Lord knows why as it'd probably be cheaper for them to bring them with them) would they have needed to get a licence before entering the UK? If so, how? And if they don't need a licence but can show a foreign passport instead, then anyone of foreign nationality who lives in the UK would be at a distinct advantage over people who were born & bred here.

Thirdly, why are the Government so keen on persuading people to quit smoking? The income raised on cigarette sales + expenditure reduced by shorter pensions to smokers > cost of NHS care for people with smoking related illnesses. Smokers effectively subsidise the national pension contributions of non-smokers. As it has been predicted for many years that there will be a crisis in pensions, surely the Government would be better served by *encouraging* people to smoke?

National Smoking Day

While looking for answers to the post below, I came across a site which proposes a day of civil disobedience by smokers. It also raises points I've mentioned previously about just where the Government will stop in deciding what you can and cannot do (drinkers, I still think you're next).

National Smoking Day is planned to take place on December 31st this year, and the organisers are hoping that there won't need to be another one after this. Although I suspect that there'll have to be many, many more. Unless it's combined with a coup as I mentioned in a previous post.

The "event" has tacit support from FOREST (as you would expect) and a growing number of premises that will not stop people from smoking should they want to on that day.

How successful this is will depend on just how bothered security and local officials are going to be in stopping what should be a peaceful (if smoky) protest, given how much drunkenness and fighting there's likely to be going on at the same time.

Smoking Outdoors

Since July 2007, it has become illegal to smoke indoors in pretty much every building in the UK (although apparently not in the bar in the House of Commons). However, since then, it has also become very tricky to smoke outdoors in an ever increasing number of places.

You can't, for example, smoke on the pavement in front of Kings Cross station in London (at least not on the yellow markings). Much to my surprise at the weekend, I also discovered you can no longer smoke in the outdoor shopping market in Enfield. Despite them having ashtrays set on top of the bins. And this only applies, oddly, to the old section (with the red brick floor) not the new bit (with the grey flagstones).

Two questions. First up, does anyone have any other examples of places you can no longer smoke? Secondly, if anyone of a legal persuasion is reading this, what, if any, is the offence if I smoke outdoors on private property where there are instructions telling me not to smoke? I feel a legal challenge coming on.

Smokers! You're Next

Despite being one of the biggest income earners for the ex-Chancellor (through Duty paid on tobacco products) and one of the least likely groups to be worrying the inevitable pensions shortfall in coming years (due to dying conveniently early) smokers are yet again being targetted by the Government.

Having introduced legislation in August to make public enclosed spaces 'smoke free' (which roughly translated means pretty much anywhere - for example outdoor platforms on train stations, outside King's Cross station, and possibly in your own Council house) there is news today that even smoking in your own car could be banned in the near future (smoking in company vehicles is already banned under the current legislation).

Okay, that's not *exactly* what it says, so don't panic just yet, but the Government seem to have gone from this position in May - where the Department of Health said there were no plans to introduce a ban - to this news item today, where smoking drivers would be charged if it is thought they were driving without due care and attention.

Funnily enough, smokers action group (now there's an oxymoron if ever I've heard one) Forest say "There's not a shred of evidence that smoking is a cause of accidents, or any more of a distraction than changing a CD or air-conditioning controls. They're treating adults as if we're all stupid. Our concern is that they say it's just a guideline now but within a year or two there will be people who say 'let's ban smoking while driving'."