More on the smoking ban in scotland...

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-01-13 03:59pm

War of words over smoke ban plan

Two scientist have entered into a war of words over plans for a ban on smoking in public places in Scotland.

Imperial Tobacco's Dr Steven Stotesbury told a conference of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association he was not convinced a ban would save lives.

He said he was "amazed" ministers had used a passive smoking study by Glasgow University's Professor David Hole.

But Prof Hole said he would not take criticism from someone whose product was responsible for deaths.

In November last year, First Minister Jack McConnell announced that a smoking ban would be introduced into all enclosed public places by March 2006.

On Thursday, chemicals expert Dr Stotesbury addressed members of the licensed trade who had gathered for a conference in Edinburgh.

He said the relative risk factor attributed to passive smoking by various studies was less than that for problems linked to mobile phone use, diesel exhausts and breast implants.

Premature deaths

The doctor challenged Prof Hole's often-quoted figure, 865, for annual Scottish deaths from heart disease, stroke, respiratory deaths and lung cancer linked to environmental tobacco smoke.

Dr Stotesbury claimed it involved an "arbitrary selection" of risk factors, saying these were particularly varied in relation to heart disease.

He also questioned the inclusion of 355 stroke deaths in the figure, saying the UK Government's own study on tobacco and health found insufficient evidence of an association between the illness and passive smoking.

Prof Hole hit back, saying it was "bizarre" to be called irresponsible by someone whose industry's product was responsible for almost 10,000 premature deaths annually in Scotland.

He said a "consensus view" had emerged from more than 25 worldwide studies on links between passive smoking and heart disease, of an increased risk of about 20-25%.

Prof Hole said the World Health Organisation and the International Agency for Research on Cancer had declared passive smoking as a class one carcinogen.

He added: "That means there's very strong evidence that it was a causal agent of lung cancer, I don't think anybody can seriously dispute that unless they are coming from a vested interest."

Prof Hole conceded there were very few studies specifically on passive smoking and stroke, but insisted this did not disprove a link.

The latest poll on the smoke ban issue found two-thirds of people in Scotland believed pubs and clubs should be able to accommodate smokers in separate areas.

A majority (59%), surveyed on behalf of smokers' lobby group Forest, backed new legal curbs on lighting up in enclosed public areas.

Ventilation systems

But more than 75% said smokers had the right to smoke in public providing they did not inconvenience non-smokers.

The Scottish Licensed Trade Association's chief executive Paul Waterson accused politicians of "headline grabbing" and repeated his call for a compromise ban on lighting up where and when food is served and the creation of more non-smoking areas.

The current plan posed "the most serious threat" ever faced by the industry, he said.

But Dr Peter Terry, chairman of the British Medical Association Scotland, has insisted that "passive smoke kills".

He went on to say that the licensed trade association was wrong to believe that ventilation would protect their employees from the "deadly effects of smoking".

The BMA has claimed that ventilation systems use a filtration method to re-circulate air. But while this method can clear the smoky atmosphere, the toxins present in the gas of second-hand smoke remains.

BBC

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2005-01-13 04:03pm

I'm all for a lively debate on the issue ... hope the anti-smoking guy buries the other dude.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2005-01-13 05:10pm

let me tell you, I LOVE going to the pubs in Boston now that they are smoke free! You can actually smell the perfume of the girl you are dancing with, and instead of smelling like an ashtray when you go home, you smelll like the tasty offerings of the streetcorner food vendors. Providence goes smoke free on March 1st and i may just have to do a night on the town because of it!

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-13 05:15pm

I have to admit I'm torn on this one ... I loathe the smell of cigarettes and my skin crawls at that first indication that I'm downwind of one. Yet the free-marketer in me says that this is something the market can work out ... smoke-free restaurants and pubs get my business, smokey hellholes don't.

The only problem I end up with in saying we should let the market decide is workplace safety. You shouldn't have to choose whether to endanger your health when you take a job, and jobs are not so easy to come by that you can just quit and hope you get a waiter or busboy job in a smoke-free restaurant. We regulate known, hazardous workplace conditions, and I think any non-smoker who spends 8-hour shifts being satured with secondhand smoke is being exposed to a lot of additional health risks that are avoidable.

So ... it's a toughie.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2005-01-13 05:35pm

I hope these laws spread. Tempe has them, and restaurants don't smell like fucking smoke inside because of it.