Does nobody ever check the numbers?

Yesterday the official Australian government news agency published an interesting news story relating to Australian government policy.

The rate of smoking among young people in Australia has dropped to a record low, and there is hope it could be the early signs of a potentially smoke-free generation.

The story then goes onto to talk about various tobacco control measures that have been introduced in Australia. The underlying “news” is a paper published in Public Health Research and Practice. I’m not familiar with the standing of that journal and the paper itself reads more like an op-ed than a research paper.

This paper too makes the claim:

Adolescent smoking is also at a record low, with only 3.4% of people aged 12–17 years smoking daily.

It references the National Drug Strategy Household Survey as its source of information. But the NDSHS shows no such thing. Table 3.4 (excel spreadsheet) of the NDSHS shows the 3.4% figure the paper quotes in 2013, but it shows 2.5% in 2010, and 3.2% in 2007. Now I realise that maths education isn’t what it used to be, but 3.4% cannot be a record low.

Then there is a slight shifting of the goalposts:

Australia has seen consistent and marked reductions in both adolescent (aged 12?17 years) [not true] and young adult (aged 18?24 years) smoking.

It is true to say that up until 2013 the NDSHS did show a downward trend in daily tobacco consumption in Australia. But the authors of this paper are from the NSW Cancer Institute and the NSW Department of Health. One would expect them to be familiar with the NSW data on 18-24 year olds.

NSW smoking 18-24

That does seem a tad inconsistent with the message they are trying to convey.

If they are trying to stop people under the age of 25 from smoking, then whatever has happened in the last few years (including plain packaging) has failed – certainly in NSW.

This entry was posted in Plain Packaging, Take Nanny down. Bookmark the permalink.

89 Responses to Does nobody ever check the numbers?

  1. mundi

    Like the war on drugs, they will do whatever is needed to increase smokers, while still claiming they are winning on every front.

    I don’t give any weight to these numbers, as i have seen them undertake the survey is schools, and have seen the very different approach to supervision and intimidation of the respondants. The students are not idiots and are slowly realising that nothing good comes of telling the truth.

  2. So the raw data for NSW male 16-24s is:

    2002 25.6
    2003 28.9
    2004 29.2
    2005 26.6
    2006 19.0
    2007 22.3
    2008 20.7
    2009 19.1
    2010 21.6
    2011 17.1
    2012 18.1
    2013 20.2
    2014 21.0

    Once you take out the trend smoothing, it looks like a fairly spiky data set but there is a big difference from before 2005 and after, with not nearly as much variation after that. 2006/07 saw the states gradually roll out bans on smoking in public places, with NSW finally passing it in July 2007.

    The trajectory of the male trendline seems ambitious. Hard to see the data rising back near 25%.

  3. Some History

    For anyone who missed this latest phase of antismoking insanity from the previous thread.
    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2016/01/28/a-critique-of-durkin-et-al/

    Philippines

    General Santos starts arresting smokers in public places
    …..
    The ban covers public outdoor spaces where a crowd of people gather or congregate regardless of ownership.

    Considered outdoor spaces are parks, playgrounds, sports grounds, or centers, gaming areas, cock fighting areas, healthcare/hospital compounds, memorial parks, memorial gardens, beaches, resorts, pools, market streets, sidewalks, parking areas, walkways, entrance ways, waiting areas, stairwells, and the like.

    Councilor Rosalita Nuñez, principal author of the ordinance, said the local legislation carries with it fines and imprisonment or both for violators.

    The new anti-smoking ordinance also makes permitting, abetting, tolerating, or knowingly allowing smoking in the restricted areas as unlawful. Violators will be penalized for it.

    It will also be unlawful to obstruct or refuse the entry of any member of the Anti-Smoking Task Force or its duly deputized enforcers into places covered by the ordinance……
    http://www.rappler.com/nation/120380-general-santos-smoking-ban

    Anti-Smoking Gestapo Anti-Smoking Task Force…….. with sniffer? dogs dressed up in antismoking attire (see photo in article).

    God help us.

  4. Snoopy

    When the nannies finally declare victory, what will become of the smoking areas in pubs? I suggest that they rebrand them as full-strength beer areas.

  5. JohnA

    Snoopy #1930518, posted on January 29, 2016 at 11:48 am

    When the nannies finally declare victory, what will become of the smoking areas in pubs? I suggest that they rebrand them as full-strength beer areas.

    Careful, Snoopy, they may just take up that idea.

    It seems that we must stop asking the otherwise rhetorical question: “How stupid can people get?” because it is now being taken as a challenge, not a warning.

  6. Some History

    … there is hope it could be the early signs of a potentially smoke-free generation.

    Adolf, the German and American eugenicists, and the Hitler Youth and League of German Girls would all be so very, very….. incredibly proud (see previous thread).

    But the authors of this paper are from the NSW Cancer Institute and the NSW Department of Health.

    These organizations being such pillars of rectitude…… such paragons of impartiality…… such bastions of integrity, say no more. [giggle]

    ——

    Some mention must be made of The Children™. All of the prohibitionist shenanigans, lying, fraud, greed, and fear and hate-mongering are all acceptable because it’s [supposedly] for The Children™….. it’s always for The Children™. Those whose thinking hasn’t been completely addled by the prohibitionist avalanche of the last few decades could be forgiven for believing that The Children™ referred to those up to 10 years of age…… maybe up to 12 years of age. But they’d be wrong. The Children™ used to refer to those up to 16 years of age; then 18 years; then 21 years of age. But even this has been superseded in the healthist (hygienist – eugenics) assault. The Children™ currently refers to anyone up to 24 years of age. And, should they get their way, the moralizing Public Health nut cases would view all those up to 28 years of age as The Children™ in need of State “protection”, especially from the seductive wiles of [evil] Big Tobacco (and Big Alcohol):
    http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20130623/NJOPINION0201/306230007/Raise-drinking-smoking-ages-Science-suggests-28?nclick_check=1

    No….. no, I stand corrected. Another of those mind-cramping suggestions by the self-appointed “gods” of society would have all those born after a certain date be forever The Children™, from cradle to grave:
    http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/radical-action-needed-stop-people-smoking-prof-20130719

    If we haven’t figured it out yet, the only evil occurring is self-appointed, medically-aligned overseers of society turning one-time relatively free societies into an experimental quantity at their complete disposal in the quest for their dystopian, Statist “visions”.

  7. H B Bear

    With every year now the HOTTEST EVER why can’t bigger numbers be the lowest on record?

    And Sinc calls himself an academic.

  8. Turtle of WA

    If plain packaging reduced sales, the Beatle’s White Album would have been a failure. For many, it’s their favourite album.

  9. Some History

    Does nobody ever check the numbers? Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care? If so, I can’t imagine why we’ve all got time enough to lie.

  10. Good joke calling yourself Some History. A more accurate name would be Some Godwin.

  11. I am the Walras, Equilibrate, and Price-Take

    The purpose of a study isn’t to find out what’s happening – to check reality.

    The purpose of a study is simply so that when you want to say what you want to say, you can say that what you want to say is supported by this study.

    What’s in the study is neither here nor there.

    And the journalists won’t check what is in the study, because their critical faculties are employed only for messages which go against The Narrative.

    ‘We’re reducing smoking rates among de yoof’ is part of The Narrative, because Big Tobacco. Therefore no checking.

    But, on the other hand, someone says Tony Abbott punched a wall thirty years ago, and, well …

  12. Diogenes

    1st/2nd day back at school already 3 on suspension for smoking, a new record. Says he annoyed as he would cop a 1500 fine if he was caught & they have removed the nearest gate he could duck out of & have a quick smoke when refencing mumble mumble mumble

  13. Frank

    But what of the uptake in vaping?

  14. Some History

    Good joke calling yourself Some History. A more accurate name would be Some Godwin.

    And you must be…….. one of the resident antismoking morons? I’m guessing that you understand as much about Godwin’s Law as you do about history.

    I’ll have a shot at explaining. Who knows, you might understand it if all three of your neurons are functioning at the same time.

    Antismokers typically invoke Godwin’s Law to disqualify/ridicule the comments of anyone making a Nazi reference to the current war on tobacco. As with many other issues, antismokers have mangled Godwin’s Law as well. GL is a point of humour, indicating that the longer a discussion goes, the higher the probability that a Nazi reference will be introduced, usually without basis. GL is not a criticism of uses of the Nazi reference where it is relevant to the discussion:

    Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1 (100%).”[3][2] In other words, Godwin put forth the hyperbolic observation that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.
    Godwin’s law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread Reductio ad Hitlerum form.[citation needed] The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

    Are you with me so far, Monty, or have you blown an antismoking gasket? So there are instances where the Hitler comparison is reasonable/relevant. Can you see where this is going, Mont? The Nazis did have a war on tobacco rooted in [medically-aligned] eugenics, e.g.,

    Robert Proctor (1996), “The anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis: a little known aspect of
    public health in Germany, 1933-45”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2352989/pdf/bmj00571-0040.pdf

    So do you see, Mont, how invoking “Godwin’s Law” in this instance is senseless? If so, post a comment of “dot”, “dash”, “dot”. We don’t want to tax your limited capacity unnecessarily.

  15. Stackja

    I tried smoking tobacco when I was about 18. I didn’t like it and after a few packets I stopped and have not smoke since.
    I don’t know enough to judge other people’s habits.
    And regarding the survey, as mundi wrote, truth not a good idea, “truth” as Jessup said.

  16. Tel

    When the nannies finally declare victory, what will become of the smoking areas in pubs? I suggest that they rebrand them as full-strength beer areas.

    Small zones where people are allowed to take their helmet off for a limited time.

  17. Fat Tony

    mOnty – I’ve been reading your “writings” for some time now.

    I have come to the conclusion that you live in some alternate universe of opposites but somehow have managed to find some rip in the space-time continuum to get your ideas through to here.

    I would be most appreciative if you could step back from that passage before you inadvertently destroy both universes.

    Either that, or you’re just a colossal fuckwit.

  18. The BigBlueCat

    Personally I think that tobacco smoking (and chewing tobacco for that matter) is a dirty, foul, risky and unpleasant habit, and not just for the smoker (or chewer). But if you want to smoke, then go ahead – it is your right (still), and the responsibility of others to warn you of the risks, and also be protected from your unpleasant, filthy, obnoxious and dangerous habit.

    So if people get prosecuted for smoking in areas designated as non-smoking, then I’m all for that too (though the Philippines example is going a bit too far – sniffer dogs??? Sheesh!).

    It seems that we must stop asking the otherwise rhetorical question: “How stupid can people get?” because it is now being taken as a challenge, not a warning.

    JohnA – you and I both know that people can get pretty stupid. Darwin Awards anyone??? Yes, it does seem that some would take “how stupid” as a challenge, if not a sport!

  19. James

    In fact, apart from over 60s, the 12-17 age group is the only age group for which the smoking rate is NOT a record low in 2014.

  20. .

    Apart from two groups you mention and the one in the graph, you’re not telling the truth, James.

  21. Geez you crap on, SH. You can copy and paste from Wikipedia, good for you.

    The reason Godwin’s Law exists is to highlight stupid invocation of things Nazis did as if every single thing they did was implacably evil. They operated sewerage plants, kept dogs as pets and fed their troops, are those things evil too? You are being silly.

  22. Struth

    We defend from a point where we are accepting that anybody has a right to interfere with someone else’s activities even when it harms no one else.
    The obesity epidemic started as soon as the government by way of meddling totalitarian busybodies started interfering in areas they should never have had the audacity to even try.
    Interfering with smoking and peoples diets has been a disaster for the west.
    Many countries without such stifling freedom abusing regulation and incorrect , corrupted dietary advice have much slimmer populations which helps when it comes to bonking.
    Therefore they have better reproduction rates.
    Therefore less immigration required .
    So on it goes , in many areas, everything the government touches, due to the inherent corruption of government, due to its parasitic nature, the reverse of what they are trying to achieve is always the result.

  23. As for you Tony, you obviously live in what you think is a parallel universe because you restrict your reading to the echo chamber of wingnut screed factories. It’s not surprising that you would be astounded to read someone with a differing point of view conducting some wingnut outreach on a site like this. It’s okay though mate, this is perfectly normal. We can agree to disagree without the cosmos exploding.

  24. .

    motny you are a Stalinesque screed factory.

  25. Struth

    Everything the nazis did was to an evil end.
    So feeding their troops to fight for Hitler was supporting evil.
    Socialist, left wing Hitler, the personification of extreme Left wing evil.

  26. cynical1

    1st/2nd day back at school already 3 on suspension for smoking

    Is that student or teachers?

  27. Some History

    The reason Godwin’s Law exists is to highlight stupid invocation of things Nazis did as if every single thing they did was implacably evil. They operated sewerage plants, kept dogs as pets and fed their troops, are those things evil too? You are being silly.

    So, Mont, what you’re telling us is that your three neurons aren’t functioning together. Many national leaders operated sewage plants, kept dogs as pets and fed their troops. But there were only two nations – 2 – early last century that had high profile anti-tobacco crusades – America and Germany. Why? Why, of all the nations in the world, only these two? You have no grasp of Godwin’s Law, or recent history, or what’s going on in your fear and hate-addled mind. You’re the crap merchant extraordinaire.

    OK, Mont, here’s your big opportunity. Explain to us how the Nazi “war on tobacco” was a “good” thing – what was it based on at the time – and can it be separated from its greater eugenics context? I can hardly wait for the ultra drivel you’ll serve up next. While you’re here, Mont, tell us what you make of the Philippines ban and punitive measures?

  28. SH, you point out yourself that America had an anti-tobacco campaign, which predated Nazism by more than a decade. So yes, it can be separated from eugenics, you blithering fool.

    You might as well say anti-smoking policy can’t be separated from Christianity, given the influence of the YMCA in American anti-smoking efforts of the 1920s. (Note: I am not saying that, I am merely making the rhetorical point that correlation does not equal causation.)

  29. Baldrick

    Facts are never a big issue for retarded Leftards like m0nster.

    It’s all about the vibe man.

  30. Some History

    SH, you point out yourself that America had an anti-tobacco campaign, which predated Nazism by more than a decade. So yes, it can be separated from eugenics, you blithering fool.

    Mont, you really – really – should stop while you’re behind: You’re just babbling off the top of your head, rambling from nonsense to nonsense. Why do you persist when it’s obvious that you have no grasp of the subject matter? Eugenics was popularized in America from the late-1800s. The Germans and Hitler were students of American eugenics. Some insight into the connection between American eugenics – California in particular – and German eugenics.
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/09/ING9C2QSKB1.DTL
    http://ahrp.org/eugenics-the-california-connection-to-nazi-policies/

    Eugenics is most notorious for its racial/breeding/heredity dimension. Way less known to out detriment today is that eugenics also has a behavioral dimension – anti-tobacco/alcohol (negative eugenics), dietary prescriptions/proscriptions, physical exercise. At the root of the eugenics framework is the perversity of physicalism, all reduced to the physical alone. Health was defined as only a physical, absence-of-disease phenomenon – applied biology.

    I would be happy to explain to you why we are currently witnessing a second wave of eugenics that these days goes by the term “healthism”. But I don’t think it will make any difference to your shallow perspective. It’d be a waste of time.

  31. Ragu

    They operated sewerage plants, kept dogs as pets and fed their troops, are those things evil too? You are being silly.

    Using Godwin’s law to defend Nazis

    Is this peak ‘net stupid?

  32. Some History

    Mont, here’s California recently apologizing publicly for its eugenics past. California had by far the most sterilizations of the American states.
    http://hnn.us/comments/9440.html
    http://hnn.us/comments/9561.html

  33. Some History

    The perversity is that, although California has publicly apologized for its eugenics past (i.e., forced sterilizations), it persists in the behavioral dimension of eugenics. It is an epi-center for the cult of the body – physicalism. It has especially been a front runner in promoting antismoking hysteria and draconian laws over the last few decades.

  34. Some History

    Mont, still waiting for your take on the Philippines ban.

  35. I would be happy to explain to you why we are currently witnessing a second wave of eugenics that these days goes by the term “healthism”. But I don’t think it will make any difference to your shallow perspective. It’d be a waste of time.

    So keeping yourself fit and free of disease is actually the new Nazism? SH, you’re a genius. A god among men. A Nietzschean superman, if you will. Do you have a pamphlet, or a Tumblr? You are so deep, bro.

    Fighting fascism by contracting emphysema, what a concept. Lung cancer for liberty. Freedom means cutting your own throat out to talk because smoke inhalation destroyed your larynx! Awesome.

  36. Diogenes

    Is that student or teachers?

    Students. Another one got caught at lunch time, and a couple of the year 7s bolted as we came closer & as they are still in school uniform (ie not stupid enough to wear distinctive clothing/caps) we have no idea who they were (don’t recognise them yet)

  37. Rabz

    This comments thread has inadvertently become bloody hilarious.

  38. Ragu

    mOnty,

    If you want to jog and do sit ups and not get emphysema, well, that’s your choice. There ain’t no billboards in the cities warning the lack of abs will kill you.

    So mind your own fucking business.

  39. If you want to jog and do sit ups and not get emphysema, well, that’s your choice. There ain’t no billboards in the cities warning the lack of abs will kill you.

    But no Ragu, this is what SH is telling us! Eugenicists are, as we speak, striving through less visible means like public smoking bans, bicycle paths and low-fat yogurt to create a master race of people without life-threatening preventable illnesses!! All that fluoride in the water and chemtrails in your blood have blinded you to TEH TURTH!!!1! Michelle Bridges is actually Eva Braun’s granddaughter you guys!!! You can’t spell jazzercise with out ZEE, and you know that means ZEE GERMANS!21!!%[email protected]!!!

  40. Some History

    Mont, you’re a wanton idiot. All you’re demonstrating, albeit a useful insight to observers, is that it’s impossible to reason with an antismoker because their beliefs have not been arrived at through reason. Ask them a simple question pertaining to fact and they’ll shoot off in all sorts of deflecting directions, completely unaware that they cannot hold a straight line of reasoning. Although, Mont, I’m surprised that today you’re very persistent with the stupid attempt to discredit inconvenient history through pitiful ad hom drivel. Am I annoying some of your higher-up antismoking buddies or did you come up with the idiocy all on your own? Careful, Mont, or you’ll get straw poisoning.

    Mont, still waiting on your take on the Philippines ban.

  41. Ragu

    It’s quite clear the obese red head has completely missed the point. Again.

  42. JC

    Monst

    You’re overweight. Stop complaining about smoking. Smokers don’t two seats on an airplane and require seating on the wings to maintain balance. Shut up.

  43. The first telltale sign of a loon is the immediate assumption that his opponent is talking as a representative of some vast conspiracy.

    This is exactly why Godwin’s Law was invented: to unearth the crazies who actually think that whatever relatively normal thing they are discussing is really as bad as full-blown Nazism. If you think that, like our lad SH here, you are a moron whose word means nothing, and it’s better for all participants in an online forum that their stupidity is unmasked for all to see, so that they may be appropriately laughed at and scorned.

  44. .

    Fighting fascism by contracting emphysema, what a concept. Lung cancer for liberty. Freedom means cutting your own throat out to talk because smoke inhalation destroyed your larynx! Awesome.

    You’re a child. If you want to argue like that in a fact free manner to support ever increasing government control of your life , go on FaceBook.

    Plain packaging, scaring kids, lying about the benefits of tobacco are all similar to what the Nazis did with regards to tobacco.

    How dare you lecture me about health monty – what is your current BMI? Mine is about 27. I can bench, deadlift and squat my bodyweight. I can clean and press about 80% of that. Can you?

    I have an occasional pipe or cigarillo to relax after work or celebrate an occasion. I’d like not to be treated like a criminal, idiot, child or tax serf for that pleasure.

    I don’t need fat slugs like Nicola Roxon protecting me from myself , let alone chancer like Susan Ley who has had an interesting career path, but never a doctor or sports scientist.

  45. JC, old man, you need oxygen when you get five feet above ground level. How do you deal when you fly with the constant need, like most old people, to go to the toilet constantly? How many times on a flight to NY do you need to change your Depends?

  46. JC

    This is exactly why Godwin’s Law was invented: to unearth the crazies who actually think that whatever relatively normal thing they are discussing is really as bad as full-blown Nazism.

    Garbage. Godwin created his so called law to assist leftwingers such as himself avoid the frequent accurate characterization with Nazism/Fascism. It’s almost always correct.

  47. JC

    Monst

    Good point. I drink water like a fish on flights to avoid feeling like shit at the other end. Consequently I take frequent slashes. I suffer terrible jet lag on that flight.

  48. Some History

    Mont, I’m actually flattered….. honored by “scorn” coming from you. 🙂

    Still waiting for your take on the Philippines ban (for the 5th? time)

  49. the benefits of tobacco

    Mmm hmm.

    what is your current BMI? Mine is about 27

    31, so not that much different to yours. And dropping gradually. I don’t lift weights, apart from my 14kg kid about 30 times a day.

    Careful with this fitness talk mate, SH will accuse you of being a eugenicist.

  50. .

    …um no monty. I’d have to put on 13 kgs to have the “same” BMI as you.

  51. .

    m0nty
    #1930852, posted on January 29, 2016 at 4:46 pm
    the benefits of tobacco

    Mmm hmm.

    You’re a child. There are benefits with regards to allergies and mental health.

    This kind of busts the lefty “I love science!” meme.

  52. JC

    Easy to do!

    I’m 24 BMI. At 31 you’re obese. Professor Chapman will have you executed at that level of body mass.

  53. Some History

    the benefits of tobacco
    Mmm hmm.

    Dot, here’s another “paradox”:

    Instructor in Anaesthesia Dr. Jesse D. Roberts, Jr., a member of Zapol’s research group, said the discovery also explains why mountain climbers short of breath often claim that smoking cigarettes makes them stronger. The seeming paradox may be due to the presence of nitric oxide in cigarette smoke.
    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1993/2/11/study-finds-benefits-of-pollutant-pa/

    Another “paradox”:

    Cardiac resuscitation
    The ‘smoker’s paradox’ after in-hospital cardiac arrest
    20 May 2014
    “A retrospective, observational analysis of data from a large US hospital database has shown that smokers have higher rates of survival and lower rates of poor neurological status after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) than do nonsmokers. This ‘smoker’s paradox’ of improved outcomes has been recognized in patients with acute myocardial infarction for 25 years,”
    Smoker’s Paradox’ Seen in Cardiac Arrest Data
    “Among patients treated with therapeutic hypothermia after a cardiac arrest, smokers had better outcomes than nonsmokers, a single-center study showed.”
    Half of smokers survived to hospital discharge with a good neurological outcome compared with only 28% of nonsmokers (P=0.003), according to Jeremy Pollock, MD, of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues.”
    “Smoker’s Paradox” in Patients Treated for Severe Injuries: Lower Risk of Mortality After Trauma Observed in Current Smokers
    2014
    “Background: Studies evaluating the effect of smoking status on mortality outcomes in trauma patients have been limited, despite the fact that survival benefits of smoking have been reported in other critical care settings. The phenomenon “smoker’s paradox” refers to the observation that following acute cardiovascular events, such as acute myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest, smokers often experience decreased mortality in the hospital setting. The objective of our study was to determine whether smoking imparts a survival benefit in patients with traumatic injuries.”
    Conclusions: Patients who smoke appear to have a much lower risk of in-hospital mortality than nonsmokers. Further investigation into biological mechanisms responsible for this effect should be carried out in order to potentially develop therapeutic applications.”
    http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/03/04/ntr.ntv027.abstract

  54. JC

    SH

    “A retrospective, observational analysis of data from a large US hospital database has shown that smokers have higher rates of survival and lower rates of poor neurological status after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) than do nonsmokers. This ‘smoker’s paradox’ of improved outcomes has been recognized in patients with acute myocardial infarction for 25 years,”

    It could also be due to statistical clustering. Without proper research this is possibly worthless information.

  55. There are benefits with regards to allergies and mental health.

    I think the mental health problems associated with addiction would cancel that out. Not to mention the whole emphysema, cancer, stroke, heart attack, bronchitis, blood pressure, diabetes and circulation thing. And that there are major poisons in smokes, like carbon monoxide which messes with your blood by replacing oxygen. And that one in four fire deaths are caused by cigarettes.

    But hey, I’m just a Nazi for caring about healthism, right?

  56. JC

    There’s no question nicotine is a top drug.

  57. Li’l tip for you, Dot and JC: don’t side with the bloke who thinks gyms, parks and playgrounds are all Hitler’s lebensraum. Don’t stick your click in crazy.

  58. Ragu

    One in four fire deaths are caused by cigarettes?

    I need a link mOnty.

    Not to mention the whole emphysema, cancer, stroke, heart attack, bronchitis, blood pressure, diabetes and circulation thing

    All the above can happen to a person living near a major road.

  59. Ragu

    There’s no question nicotine is a top drug.

    Preventing premeditated murder since 1672

  60. JC

    Monst

    Nicotine on it’s own is actually a wonderful drug. It keeps away brain fog maintaining you bright eyed and bushy tailed. It helps with depression and also has benefits in reducing Parkinson disease.

    The only problem is how it’s administered to the body. However the health benefits of this wonder drug are will known. One negative could be a loose association with pancreatic cancer, which is not good if further research suggests it. Otherwise stop knee padding to Chapman and try to learn something at this blog, you big fat idiot.

  61. JC

    One in four fire deaths are caused by cigarettes?

    Five out five deaths are caused by death.

  62. .

    I think the mental health problems associated with addiction would cancel that out.

    Oh god. Dementia is only as bad as quitting smoking?

    bronchitis

    The pack of Borkum Riff I have does not come pre-loaded with gram negative bacteria.

    Please stop the hysteria monty. Unlike my neighbour who died of lung cancer, I don’t smoke a pack of winnie reds/blue a day.

  63. .

    One in four fire deaths are caused by cigarettes?

    Ban fuckwits, not cigarettes.

  64. Ragu

    Five out five deaths are caused by death.

    But it’s not as though we have a choice about that. We need state intervention

  65. Some History

    And that there are major poisons in smokes, like carbon monoxide which messes with your blood by replacing oxygen.

    How “poisonous” – you know, “dosimetry” – is smoking when a smoker has to inhale a few million doses for it to be supposedly “lethal”? (see comment in previous thread) And half of smokers are apparently not “killed” by their smoking despite inhaling 3, 4, 5, 6 million doses of smoke. How does this figure?
    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2016/01/28/a-critique-of-durkin-et-al/comment-page-1/#comment-1930737

    Further, where were you when “fire safe” cigarettes were made mandatory by prohibitionists? These increase, particularly, the carbon monoxide load per manufactured cigarette by over 20%.

    And that one in four fire deaths are caused by cigarettes.

    Mont, you’re doing the standard antismoking thing. Notwithstanding the percentages, it’s not cigarettes that caused the fire deaths. It’s carelessness or accidents with cigarettes. Cooking fires are responsible for the greatest number of fire deaths. These are typically listed as due to carelessness/accidents while cooking and not cooking, per se. Why isn’t the same applied to cigarettes?

    I think the mental health problems associated with addiction would cancel that out. Not to mention the whole emphysema, cancer, stroke, heart attack, bronchitis, blood pressure, diabetes and circulation thing.

    Apart from some questionable causal attribution, you’re not understanding the point of these “benefits” posts. They are simply providing evidence contrary to the longstanding prohibitionist claim that there are NO – none, zero, zip – benefits to smoking.

    Here’s the doosie, Mont. While you can rant on about physical hypotheses, you’re blind as to the criticality of mental and social health. It’s not the behavioral dimension of eugenics that makes eugenics dangerous. It’s what’s left out of the definition of health that makes eugenics or physicalism dangerous. The promise of eugenics was that it would eradicate poverty, disease, and crime – “health equality”. It did no such thing. It brought out the worst in people – racism, bigotry, cruelty, brutality. It had no regard whatsoever for mental and social health; these don’t register in the physicalist definition of “health”. Its entire repertoire was targeting “undesirables” (groups and behaviors) and denormalizing them through incessant fear and hate-mongering masqueraded as “science” with a view to eradication.

    Mont, still waiting for your take on the Philippines ban (6th request).

  66. Yeah right SH, the anti smoking lobby is responsible for a new holocaust. Except this time it saves six million lives. So it is the opposite, when you think about it. Which you clearly have not done.

    Looking forward to your next trick, which will no doubt be to equate smokers with African American slaves. It’s a cavalcade of bullshit! No logical fallacy left uninvoked.

  67. Bruce of Newcastle

    You will never see a reduction in tobacco smoking in young people until you repeal biology.

    The biology in this respect is weight control in teenage girls.

    They smoke because it helps them stay slim, plus other reasons that any woman will tell you about. Staying slim is a biological imperative which cannot be repealed by PPL or any other action by a bureaucrat.

    Then the guys smoke because the girls smoke. That is what social pressure does.

    So rather that fart about doing stupid studies, invest the money into a safe cheap way to keep teenage girls from getting fat or suffering hunger and other pangs.

  68. Some History

    Mont, still waiting for your take on the Philippines ban (7th request). Why are you avoiding the question like the plague?

  69. Ragu

    They smoke because it helps them stay slim, plus other reasons that any woman will tell you about. Staying slim is a biological imperative which cannot be repealed by PPL or any other action by a bureaucrat.

    It’s a fine line though Bruce, for some girls the pill makes them stack on weight regardless. Some girls smoke because their friends are always smoking bongs. Some girls just like smoking.

  70. P

    Bruce of Newcastle
    #1930990, posted on January 29, 2016 at 7:15 pm

    You are correct.
    I smoked for 53 years till 2yrs 5mths ago.
    Since then I have had replace my whole wardrobe, and then further buy larger sizes.
    I regret that I have replaced nicotine with alcohol (wine) and had to replace coffee with tea.
    Having been a heavy smoker and heavy coffee drinker since I turned 20 I could now not continue to drink coffee because of my association with cigs.
    My health is at present good and AFAIK I suffer from no disease or ailments. I take no medication of any any kind.

    Bloody Roxon and Plibersek and their mob have caused the cost of smokes to be too much for my budget.
    I’ll never forgive them.

    I am in the highest private medical insurance scheme (HCF) and have been since my youth which was then Manchester Unity, and I have only used hospital services to have my babies many long years ago.

    I am damned sick of everyone saying how I’m costing government etc, etc.
    Bugger ’em all.

  71. .

    m0nty
    #1930988, posted on January 29, 2016 at 7:08 pm
    Yeah right SH, the anti smoking lobby is responsible for a new holocaust. Except this time it saves six million lives. So it is the opposite, when you think about it. Which you clearly have not done.

    Looking forward to your next trick, which will no doubt be to equate smokers with African American slaves. It’s a cavalcade of bullshit! No logical fallacy left uninvoked.

    Vulgar whining and interference running for unchecked government power.

    It is sad to see someone argue so vitriolically for their rights to be taken away.

  72. Some History

    P, even when you were a smoker and if you didn’t have private health insurance, you weren’t “costing the government”. It’s just one of a number of con jobs inflicted on the populace by government pandering to prohibitionists and robbing smokers something shocking. The unelected, unaccountable World Health Organization eggs on government to hike the tobacco excise by ever increasing amounts.

    Disturbing is that the greatest offender in this regard is the Labor Party which supposedly represents the working class. Rather it’s fleecing those of lower income blind. The Libs, supposedly representing individual freedom and small government, aren’t that much better, typically agreeing with the baseless, draconian measures.

  73. Tel

    … even when you were a smoker and if you didn’t have private health insurance, you weren’t “costing the government”…

    I offered government an opt-out clause and they weren’t interested which I think means they did OK on the deal.

  74. Tel

    One in four fire deaths are caused by cigarettes?

    Ban fuckwits, not cigarettes.

    That explains why government insists on outlawing e-cigs, because they want citizens to burn to death. Provides jobs the Keynesians tell me, go break a window.

  75. sdfc

    Smoking is shit. Vaping is the way to go.

  76. Some History

    The unelected, unaccountable World Health Organization eggs on government to hike the tobacco excise by ever increasing amounts.

    From a commenter on another blog looking at the WHO’s Conference of the Parties (Tobacco Control) held in Moscow just over a year ago. Tobacco tax was at the top of the agenda. It was a secretive conference with the public and press barred from the proceedings. It also highlights the 5-star pampering to which the political class has become accustomed by making themselves subservient to unelected, unaccountable internationalist organizations such as the WHO. The planning and “strategies” of the self-installed elite living the high life on how to further rob their constituents back home is utterly perverse.

    The WHO’s secret tobacco tax
    “The U.N. health agency approves a new global levy after banning the press and public”
    “Moscow — After booting the public from its meetings on Monday, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) tobacco control convention ramped up its assault on transparency on Tuesday when the press was also banned from the Moscow conference.”
    “All indications were that the global tobacco tax would not pass until Thursday or Friday, if at all. Without the public and the media there to watch, delegates ratified the tax almost immediately.
    When I and a handful of other accredited journalists, showed up for a Tuesday morning press briefing, we were told that the briefing was canceled and the press was no longer allowed to attend any convention events at all.
    The rest of the convention, which cost world taxpayers nearly $20 million, will now take place in secret, behind closed doors. It’s a chilling and disturbing attack on the freedom of the press — especially given the impact decisions made at the convention will have on people throughout the world.”
    “On Tuesday, when the journalists were banned, there was no meeting and no vote. Protocol was not followed — not that “properly” banning the media would be appropriate — it would just be a touch less despicable. The secretive nature of the press ban comes across as particularly sleazy and shocking.
    A security thug representing the convention secretariat said the decision to prohibit the press was made overnight by the delegates and the secretariat. That same secretariat pockets $403,000 a year courtesy of world taxpayers for the task of overseeing a convention that meets every two years.
    As I was escorted away from the convention area by two guards, I passed a German reporter being physically restrained from entering the room while being yelled at by WHO officials.”
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/14/johnson-whos-secret-tobacco-tax/

    ‘Broke’ WHO host £1.6million caviar-fuelled beano
    Oct 26, 2014
    “WITH two types of caviar, Champagne and an ocean of salmon, it’s a world away from Ebola ravaged West Africa”
    “Delegates from 175 countries descended on the conference in Moscow as part of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). The body, funded by the WHO, met to discuss tobacco control policies and the role of e-cigarettes.
    Organisers of the Moscow conference spent more than £40,000 just to provide Wi-Fi access for attending journalists, wasted after a last-minute decision to ban all press from the event.
    Of the five hotels assigned to delegates, two boast five-stars including the Government-owned Golden Ring Hotel, self-proclaimed as “one of the most luxurious” in Moscow, and the city’s Crowne Plaza which commands a majestic £1,169-a-day for a suite, though the WHO has secured a small corporate discount.
    The Sunday Express can reveal the dinner gala, held last Monday, offered delegates Salmon carpaccio with cucumber tartar, Salmon as the main course, Vitello Tonnato beef with tuna fish sauce, Red caviar, Scallop with white wine sauce, a fish plate of smoked halibut, smoked sturgeon, eel mix; Smoked eel, and Salmon under white syrup with flying fish caviar.”
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/527493/Fury-after-WHO-1-6million-party-Ebola-crisis

  77. sdfc

    How many do you smoke a day Some Propaganda?

  78. All hail the Capnophiliac

    With any luck, life insurance underwriters will ditch their unhealthy reliance on actuarial mortality tables which unfairly penalize smokers, and instead rely on Some History’s smoking centenarian anecdotes. And Nazis. Don’t forget the Nazis.

  79. BorisG

    Nazi references are often used as a hyperbola to highlight totalitarian policies. I thin it pretty offensive to the victims of the Nazis. And it is not accurate, because while the Nazis were arguably the most evil regime in recent history, they were not the most totalitarian. They allowed a considerable freedom of thought, mich more than their communist cousins, in places like Stalins Russia and Mao’s China.

    And, monti, indeed the left and the progressive are totalitarian in nature, in that they think they know better than the common people what is good for them. It isn’t wrong to promote healthy lifestyle but it is wrong for governments to push it down your throat. Of course the term ‘left’ is broad. Not all people identified as left are totalitarian. Think of anarchists or left libertarians. But they are a minority.

    Of course totalitarian policies are not confined to the left. Think of prohibition or war on drugs.

  80. BorisG

    They smoke because it helps them stay slim, plus other reasons that any woman will tell you about.

    My daughter was weight conscious to the extreme yet she never smoked, nor did any of her school friends.

    I think this has much more to do with fashion. In my time at school, only boys tried smoking, imitating adults. Then one day it became fashionable for girls. Now that almost no adults smoke, it might actually fade away a bit.

  81. .

    sdfc
    #1931099, posted on January 29, 2016 at 9:37 pm
    How many do you smoke a day Some Propaganda?

    Does it matter you big government shill?

  82. AndrewL

    Mobile phone surveying has only been occurring since 2012 with that NSW data. Previously landline only, that might have something to do with the pick up in young smokers? Correlation between young smokers and mobile only may be high?

    Mobile phone numbers have been included since the 2012 survey (using an overlapping dual-frame design) because of diminishing coverage of the population by landline sampling frames (<85 % since 2010). Associations between mobile-only phone users and some health indicators, even after adjusting for age, sex and region, were observed in 2012. Thus significant differences that were observed between 2011 and 2012 should be reported with caution, as they will reflect both real and design changes. LL/UL 95%CI = lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence interval for the point estimate.

  83. Neenee

    Some History
    #1930997, posted on January 29, 2016 at 7:21 pm
    Mont, still waiting for your take on the Philippines ban (7th request). Why are you avoiding the question like the plague?

    If I may butt-in: The quoted General Santos is one city in the Philippines. The current Council has imposed the ban. As with most rules it may be safely ignored, and at worst one could bribe an official with one’s remaining cigarettes.

    Elsewhere, other than in the nearby city of Davao, one may continue to blow smoke anywhere except in airports. One may purchase cigarettes, alcohol and fireworks anywhere, anytime and from anyone. The Philippines is an outpost of freedom in many ways, and I recommend a visit to all libertarians.

Comments are closed.