I don’t smoke, never have. But then again, that’s my choice. Others exercise the same choice and do decide to smoke and I support their right to do so. I am sure it must be an unhealthy option for them but I do not wish to impose my choice on anyone else! But the rabid intolerance of the health fascists on the left has meant that smokers are portrayed as worse than rapists, lower than paedophiles. Take this BBC report – read it all the way through and you will surely conclude that it is entirely one dimensional and carries one message; if you smoke in your home, or in your car, and there are children present, then you are endangering their lives as well as your own. Parents who smoke are described as “liars” and a persons’ home is described as akin “to a workplace” which means they should go out of their own homes to smoke. The claim that passive smoking leads to all sorts of illness is repeated as if it were an indisputable fact. It’s nothing of the sort. But this is a puff of anti-smoking propaganda dressed up as if it were high science. There are issues here concerning freedom and liberty but they are neatly stubbed out by the BBC in this story. We should have a right to behave as we see fit (so long as it is legal!) in our homes regardless of how this offends Nanny State and it’s broadcasting arm. There is a serious danger that the State will extend control over what we do in OUR own private property through the calculated use of this type of story. That’s the real danger for me in this story – it’s that our liberties could be reduced to ash all in the name of making us healthier. What further behavioural modification might Labour and the BBC have in mind for us? The State has NO BUSINESS telling us what we can do in our own homes but we all know that it is intent to further regulate our activities, further limit our choices, and this is assisted by the propagandising of State Broadcaster masquerading as news.
HEALTH FASCISM.
Bookmark the permalink.
I believe in freedom and liberty. So let them smoke, drink alcohol, and eat themselves into a roly poly state those who have no cares or discipline — just make them PAY for their NHS treatment, all the way to the grave.
just make them PAY for their NHS treatment, all the way to the grave.
Do we assume that you are a student or living on benefits? If not do you not understand what NI Contributions are. Smokers, drinkers and fatties on average live shorter lives than the rest of us but by and large pay the same fees into the NHS.
So they have already paid for their treatment.
Infection: The trouble with that argument is where do you draw the line?
Should people who take part in extreme sports, for example, also have to pay extra should they get injured?
You may be holier than thou, but most of us have some personal peccadillos. Who gets to say which ones are OK to indulge in and which ones aren’t? Since we have an NHS and all taxpayers contribute to it, you can’t draw those sorts of distinctions.
And since fags and booze are particularly heavily taxed it’s a weak argument.
It’s not a weak argument. Those who suffer from self-imposed illnesses exceed the limit of their tax contributions. The rest of us who are healthy or who have unwanted afflictions have to pick up the tab for the reckless, thereby adding to the total costs for all.
Those who suffer from self-imposed illnesses exceed the limit of their tax contributions
You do have facts to justify this statement, rather than a simple “it must be the case because it fits my argument”. If so a link would be useful
Infection: “Those who suffer from self-imposed illnesses exceed the limit of their tax contributions.”
That’s not true for drink and fags. Smoking related diseases cost the NHS an estimated £1.7 billion or so. Roughly the same is spent on alcohol related problems. Meanwhile, the tax take from tobacco alone is something like £8 or 9 billion.
I’ve no idea what the score is with obesity, but if you die early you save the state a massive amount on pensions and welfare in later life. Here’s a piece by Tim Worstall if you’re interested:
http://timworstall.com/2008/01/04/were-killing-ourselves/
And even if you are right and Hugh and Arthur are wrong, you still haven’t answered my basic question, which is where do you draw the line?
Do we say you can’t drive because walking is safer? That you can’t play rugby because there are fewer injuries in cricket? That you can’t leave your house because it’s safer to stay indoors? It’s easy to take this argument to a reductio ad absurdum.
So I ask again, where do we draw the line and since everyone has a different attitude to risk, who gets to decide what constitutes reckless behaviour? You?
Joel:
“A Medical Director of Liverpool’s Alder Hey Hospital, says bronchitis, asthma and ear infections could be cut if parents quit smoking.” – end of story as far as I’m concerned.
Joel | Homepage | 10.03.08 – 1:23 pm | #
So the opinion of one doctor is sufficient grounds to legislate against the legal activity of millions of adults? ‘Could be cut’ by what amount? 100%? 10%? The statement is meaningless, apart from showing that all the arguments on ‘second hand smoke’ being harmful come down to the interpretation of statistics – the old ‘glass half full or empty’ debate.
Read ‘In Defense of Smokers’ by Lauren Colby, MD. It’s not ‘pro tobacco propaganda’ – just a critical analysis of statistics casting doubt on the hysteria of the anti-tobacco lobby.
asiplease:
So the opinion of one doctor is sufficient grounds to legislate against the legal activity of millions of adults?
Well put, sir. Or is it madam?
One teensy point. No-one is calling for legislation.
Oh…one more point. The doctor himself makes clear he’s simply asking people to consider their behaviour in front of children.
The statement is meaningless, apart from showing that all the arguments on ‘second hand smoke’ being harmful come down to the interpretation of statistics
Another fine point. Invalidated only by the tiny caveat that epidemiology – the branch of medicine which looks into the spread of disease in the population – depends very heavily indeed on the interpretation of statistics.
Biased BBC: 98.3% More Likely To Be Daft
epidemiology – the branch of medicine which looks into the spread of disease in the population – depends very heavily indeed on the interpretation of statistics
Indeed, I couldn’t agree more so why one wonders do so many journalists happily collude in the misrepresentation of the statistics?
By the way the comment The statement is meaningless by As I please is indeed a very serious comment. It would be a very different matter if the reduction was 60% when in fact I suspect that the reduction might be nearer to 0.1% (even if the good doctor actually knows)
Arthur D:
By the way the comment The statement is meaningless by As I please is indeed a very serious comment. It would be a very different matter if the reduction was 60% when in fact I suspect that the reduction might be nearer to 0.1% (even if the good doctor actually knows)
Possibly… if the doctor was demanding the change in the law which AIP thought he was. He’s not. He is simply asking people to consider their kids in enclosed spaces. Numerical precision is not the point, is it?
Hugh, it’s not just the costs of treating self-imposed illness that is of concern. Although one can surely present arguments for and against “sin taxes”. What should be of essential concern is the overcrowding of hospitals and clinics with self indulgent slobs, while those who are ill or injured through no fault of their own have to suffer long waits. So this is not just about money or “drawing the line” somewhere.
Assorted sillybunt comments.
As I surmised. Mr Smoketoomuch resurrected. What a silly bunt.
Numerical precision is not the point, is it?
Precision is not the issue, the issue is one of relevance. The good doctor is encouraging parents to refrain from something that they find pleasurable (regardless of the views of others)on the basis that this will bring benefit to their children. Fair enough, but you need to know the relative risks and benefits to know if this is worthwhile. The decision that you come to might be very differnt depending on whether the benefit was a disease reduction of 0.0001%, 1%, 10% or 60%.
As an analogy, I suspect that there would be a much larger benefit to childrens health if their parents stopped them using mobile phones. However I wouldn’t necessarily encourag epeople to do that either without an assessment of risks and benefits.
The doctor doesn’t need to be precise e.g. its a 0.1654% reduction, but should be able to say its a 0.1% reduction or a 50% reduction. I suspect that he either doesn’t know, or knows that it is in fact a trivial effect.
Why didn’t the journalist ask the relevant question, probably because its an item that feeds the paranoia about smoking being promulgated by the MSM.
tally ho chaps
still fighting the ban?
misusing statistics for ‘humour’ again?
hillhunt: 99.999% don’t read, contribute or care about his blog, the rest got there by accident.
Anonymous, if you stopped commenting here it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus help with climate change, so why don’t you stop?
Oh, by the way if you look at the figures the statement above is true, but it makes an infinitessimal difference to even your carbon footprint let alone that of society at large.
Saying do this and it wll improve things is by and large merely arm waving unless there is at least some attempt to quantify the improvement.
Arthur Dent,
Please reread my post, I was referring to hillhunt not you.
He just repeats his same pointless percentage statistic for ‘humour’ purposes again and again and again.
I was using his own ‘rhetoric’ against him, but I can see now how fruitless that is given the original material.
Whereas in fact you were using statistics from what I can see was an entirely correct fashion to support your specific argument with relevant statistics, whether I agree or not with your conclusion that is the correct manner of usage.
Infection,
Excellent idea eh?
Make ’em pay.
I’m all right Jack. I have private health so I can do whatever I want.
But for the poor saps who have to use the NHS its diferent.
As you say all smokers, drinkers, obese its self inflicted so they can pay.
You forgot drug users from the usual list, I expect that was an oversight.
Got to be fair though, so all lifestyle choice health issues must be denied too.
So no NHS cover for sexually transmitted diseases, that is clearly choice.
So all pregnancies must pay too, as its choice to have a baby.
All sports injuries, extreme or otherwise, must pay, it was their choice.
All car drivers who have accidents must pay, it was their choice, or they must prove they had to drive.
In fact the more I think about it, the more I can exclude almost everyone, including of course you.
So thats a lot of tax saved.
Why should I pay my tax to pay for you Infection?
Even better also put higher taxes on the fit that look after themselves, they will live much longer and will lead to to the most expensive care of all, that of the years of care for those in extreme old age, all the smokers and fatties will have done the decent thing and died years and years earlier so no alzheimers/parkinsons/etc drag.
So that is ‘Infection’ wrapped up, denied NHS care for most things and forced to pay higher amounts.
Got it covered…