Difference between revisions of "Globalisation:Democracy Institue:Tobacco"

From Powerbase
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 3: Line 3:
 
The claim that the health of all non-smokers is at risk through environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) or passive smoke is the most significant justification for the smoking ban and is criticized by Basham and Roberts on the grounds that the methodology of studies carried out to measure the effects of passive smoking is problematic. Dr Gio Bata Gori has identified the ‘measurement problem’ which refers to how these studies are not based on actual measurements of exposure but on recall studies, which are unreliable <ref>Patrick Basham and Juliet Roberts, “[http://www.democracyinstitute.org/Images/PDF/DI_Public_Smoking_Ban_Report.pdf]”, Are Public Smoking Bans Necessary? Democracy Institute: Social Risk Series Paper, 17 December 2009, page 6, accessed 11 February 2010</ref>.  
 
The claim that the health of all non-smokers is at risk through environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) or passive smoke is the most significant justification for the smoking ban and is criticized by Basham and Roberts on the grounds that the methodology of studies carried out to measure the effects of passive smoking is problematic. Dr Gio Bata Gori has identified the ‘measurement problem’ which refers to how these studies are not based on actual measurements of exposure but on recall studies, which are unreliable <ref>Patrick Basham and Juliet Roberts, “[http://www.democracyinstitute.org/Images/PDF/DI_Public_Smoking_Ban_Report.pdf]”, Are Public Smoking Bans Necessary? Democracy Institute: Social Risk Series Paper, 17 December 2009, page 6, accessed 11 February 2010</ref>.  
  
−
Basham and Roberts also identify a second problem with this claim: “these studies are plagued by sampling errors, confounders, biases and misclassifications of smoking status” <ref>Patrick Basham and Juliet Roberts “[http://www.democracyinstitute.org/Images/PDF/DI_Public_Smoking_Ban_Report.pdf]”, Are Public Smoking Bans Necessary? Democracy Institute: Social Risk Series Paper, 17 December 2009, page 7, accessed 11 February 2010</ref> and that there are numerous other possible causes for heart disease and lung cancer. The claim is also made that several governmental and public health agencies undermine the notion that passive smoke is a serious health risk to non-smokers as studies such as the 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report have been rejected and nullified by the US District Court and other reports have failed to find a statically significant link between ETS and lung cancer based on exposure during childhood. Basham and Roberts argue that smoking bans are “built on a foundation of ignorance rather than knowledge”  
+
Basham and Roberts also identify a second problem with this claim: “these studies are plagued by sampling errors, confounders, biases and misclassifications of smoking status” <ref>Patrick Basham and Juliet Roberts “[http://www.democracyinstitute.org/Images/PDF/DI_Public_Smoking_Ban_Report.pdf]”, Are Public Smoking Bans Necessary? Democracy Institute: Social Risk Series Paper, 17 December 2009, page 7, accessed 11 February 2010</ref> and that there are numerous other possible causes for heart disease and lung cancer. The claim is also made that several governmental and public health agencies undermine the notion that passive smoke is a serious health risk to non-smokers as studies such as the 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report have been rejected and nullified by the US District Court and other reports have failed to find a statically significant link between ETS and lung cancer based on exposure during childhood.  
 +
 
 +
Basham and Roberts identify that the number of cigarettes consumed by males amongst the lowest socio-economic groups - which account for some of the hifgest smoking rates - actually increased sice the smoking ban and that 30% of smokers said the ban had only encouraged to stay at home and smoke where they were free to do so <ref>Patrick Basham and Juliet Roberts,“[http://www.democracyinstitute.org/Images/PDF/DI_Public_Smoking_Ban_Report.pdf]”, Are Public Smoking Bans Necessary? Democracy Institute: Social Risk Series Paper, 17 December 2009, page 13, accessed 20 February 2010</ref>. In the state of Ohio, smoking prevelance increased by 3% since similar legislation was introduced in 2006  <ref>Patrick Basham and Juliet Roberts,“[http://www.democracyinstitute.org/Images/PDF/DI_Public_Smoking_Ban_Report.pdf]”, Are Public Smoking Bans Necessary? Democracy Institute: Social Risk Series Paper, 17 December 2009, page 13, accessed 20 February 2010</ref>. In France, there was no change in tobacco consumption in spite of the implementation of a ban and, in Spain, tobacco consumption has in fact increased since their public smoking ban <ref>Patrick Basham and Juliet Roberts,“[http://www.democracyinstitute.org/Images/PDF/DI_Public_Smoking_Ban_Report.pdf]”, Are Public Smoking Bans Necessary? Democracy Institute: Social Risk Series Paper, 17 December 2009, page 13, accessed 20 February 2010</ref>.
 +
 
 +
Basham and Roberts argue that smoking bans are “built on a foundation of ignorance rather than knowledge”  
 
<ref>Patrick Basham and Juliet Roberts,“[http://www.democracyinstitute.org/Images/PDF/DI_Public_Smoking_Ban_Report.pdf]”, Are Public Smoking Bans Necessary? Democracy Institute: Social Risk Series Paper, 17 December 2009, page 13, accessed 16 February 2010</ref>
 
<ref>Patrick Basham and Juliet Roberts,“[http://www.democracyinstitute.org/Images/PDF/DI_Public_Smoking_Ban_Report.pdf]”, Are Public Smoking Bans Necessary? Democracy Institute: Social Risk Series Paper, 17 December 2009, page 13, accessed 16 February 2010</ref>
−
and also that these bans won’t necessarily motivate people to give up smoking.
+
and also that these bans don’t necessarily motivate people to give up smoking.

Revision as of 16:37, 20 February 2010

Dr Patrick Basham and Dr Juliet Roberts examine the rationale behind the public smoking ban implemented in the UK in 2007 and argue that the ban is not necessary.

The claim that the health of all non-smokers is at risk through environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) or passive smoke is the most significant justification for the smoking ban and is criticized by Basham and Roberts on the grounds that the methodology of studies carried out to measure the effects of passive smoking is problematic. Dr Gio Bata Gori has identified the ‘measurement problem’ which refers to how these studies are not based on actual measurements of exposure but on recall studies, which are unreliable [1].

Basham and Roberts also identify a second problem with this claim: “these studies are plagued by sampling errors, confounders, biases and misclassifications of smoking status” [2] and that there are numerous other possible causes for heart disease and lung cancer. The claim is also made that several governmental and public health agencies undermine the notion that passive smoke is a serious health risk to non-smokers as studies such as the 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report have been rejected and nullified by the US District Court and other reports have failed to find a statically significant link between ETS and lung cancer based on exposure during childhood.

Basham and Roberts identify that the number of cigarettes consumed by males amongst the lowest socio-economic groups - which account for some of the hifgest smoking rates - actually increased sice the smoking ban and that 30% of smokers said the ban had only encouraged to stay at home and smoke where they were free to do so [3]. In the state of Ohio, smoking prevelance increased by 3% since similar legislation was introduced in 2006 [4]. In France, there was no change in tobacco consumption in spite of the implementation of a ban and, in Spain, tobacco consumption has in fact increased since their public smoking ban [5].

Basham and Roberts argue that smoking bans are “built on a foundation of ignorance rather than knowledge” [6]

and also that these bans don’t necessarily motivate people to give up smoking.

  1. ↑ Patrick Basham and Juliet Roberts, “[1]”, Are Public Smoking Bans Necessary? Democracy Institute: Social Risk Series Paper, 17 December 2009, page 6, accessed 11 February 2010
  2. ↑ Patrick Basham and Juliet Roberts “[2]”, Are Public Smoking Bans Necessary? Democracy Institute: Social Risk Series Paper, 17 December 2009, page 7, accessed 11 February 2010
  3. ↑ Patrick Basham and Juliet Roberts,“[3]”, Are Public Smoking Bans Necessary? Democracy Institute: Social Risk Series Paper, 17 December 2009, page 13, accessed 20 February 2010
  4. ↑ Patrick Basham and Juliet Roberts,“[4]”, Are Public Smoking Bans Necessary? Democracy Institute: Social Risk Series Paper, 17 December 2009, page 13, accessed 20 February 2010
  5. ↑ Patrick Basham and Juliet Roberts,“[5]”, Are Public Smoking Bans Necessary? Democracy Institute: Social Risk Series Paper, 17 December 2009, page 13, accessed 20 February 2010
  6. ↑ Patrick Basham and Juliet Roberts,“[6]”, Are Public Smoking Bans Necessary? Democracy Institute: Social Risk Series Paper, 17 December 2009, page 13, accessed 16 February 2010
Retrieved from "https://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Globalisation:Democracy_Institue:Tobacco&oldid=108344"