Chris – If you’ve not already done so, then I suggest you read the BMJ study for yourself: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c2161.full. Although you leap to a conclusion of “lies”, in fact the authors directly answer the claim that they over-stated the actual drop in emergency MI admissions in the Rapid Responses section. You may agree with what they say. You may disagree. In either case, I don’t know how you can reasonably accuse them of deliberately lying in their study – nor accuse Keith Barron of lying for referring to it.

To me, the more dishonest speech in that Commons debate came from David Nuttall. In his entire statement, he made absolutely no reference to the reason the smoking laws were introduced in the first place – the dangers of secondhand smoke. It’s clear to me he was unable to downplay these dangers in any convincing way, so he just decided to ignore the issue.

As for YouGov surveys, I agree great care is needed in preparing them. But I don’t think YouGov surveys are any less reliable than anyone else’s. If anyone wants to challenge the merits of YouGov’s work, they can always do so by referring to the survey methods used. It seems, though, that the posters here aren’t interested in that – all they want to do is throw mud at Peter Kellner.

Hi Jo.
I do not remember who said what about Rollo Tommasi. I just think that we ought not to get into personal insults. Let us stick to the facts.

But your particular problem seems to be: 'how can I persuade kids not to smoke when they are well aware that the science, as described by RT and co, is crap'.? Erm.....age range 13 to 16? I doubt that that age range could understand the words that RT uses.
What are you up to, Jo?
Get this idea.
The attitude of children to smoking is their business and the business of their parents. It has nothing to do with you. If children ask you about smoking, refer them to their parents. End of story.
I am not sure that you are genuine. Your statements are too simplistic - almost childlike.
It is almost as though you are trying to persuade someone to tell you to tell the children that smoking is OK.
No. Just like alcohol, the enjoyment of tobacco is for adults. Children should stick to sweets and chocolate - but not too much on account of the teeth.
Moderation in all things.

But is that not the problem with the anti-smoking brigade? They do not understand 'moderation' - they can only think in terms of 'zero'. That is why we have the smoking ban - only zero will do.
The same applies to the global warming lobby.

@Rollo

I do not think for one second that second hand smoke induces lung cancer, but let me review your figures and prove your 6,500 are plucked out of the air.

Lets go to Cancer research and in 2008 35,261 people died of lung cancer, and 86% of lung cancer cases are smokers.

Hence: 35,261 x 14% = 4937 non smokers died of LC in 2008.

Firstly Rollo how many of the 4,937 contracted LC as a secondary cancer? Sir Bobby Robson died of LC but his initial cancer was melanoma of the skin.

John Hartson the Welsh footballer had testicular cancer and it spread to his lungs. Thank God he has survived.

Terry Fox a Canadian teenager had a leg amputated because of knee cancer and after trying to run across Canada died of LC at the age of 21.

So out of 4937 non smoking LC patients contracted it from another form of cancer?

Let's assume no one.

The SCOTH Report page 5 gives an RR of 1.25. So hence the number of excess deaths due to SHS would be 4937/5 = 987 per year.

Not 6,500.

Also Rollo if you peruse the Cancer Research graph the median age for LC is 74-79.

If you go to page 8 of SCOTH Prof Jarvis of ASH admits that non smokers breathe in 1% of an active smoker does.

So are you telling me after 50 years of smoking breathing in 99% of the smoke and finally contracting LC, a non smoker breathing in 1% or less is going to contract LC?

Rollo your hypothesis is fantasy.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/mortality/

@Rollo Tommasi on 23 October 2010 at 18:50:-

"Some of the comments are outright lies. For instance, when Dave A states “SCOTH quotes for LC a relative risk of 1.25 and is in epidemiological terms statistically insignificant.” Actually, SCOTH claims a relative risk of 1.24 for lung cancer which is statistically SIGNIFICANT. "

Sorry Mr Tommasi, a RR of 1.24 (which at the standard CI of 95% could easily bracket unity) would probably not even be considered significant in a major double-blind medical trial. For the type of studies under discussion there would need to be a RR of at least 2.0 or more likely 3.0 in order to indicate any form of statistical significance.

If this is the "knowledge base" from which you are shooting I guess that it's best to treat any further "contributions" from you as irrelevant.

As a CTN shopkeeper I can say that this ban will 100% adversely affect my business. The consequences (to name but a few) will be shop closures, job losses, reduced taxes and greater monopoly power for the big supermarkets.

I feel the justification - children - is just another excuse to hammer smokers and promote a political agenda. Kids don't take up smoking because they see a picture. Only education, social mobility and social stigmas is the means to stopping them.

Tobacco is a legal product used by informed adults, why legislate against them? I don't buy the 'social' impact story as this is disproportionate. I've never come across a 40 a day smoker getting so high he goes out and starts a fight and ends up in A&E on a friday night.......... alcohol does that and yet is not given a tenth of the anti social and NHS costs attention as tobacco.

Surely a different approach to satisfy all would be more appropriate. For example, ban the sale of tobacco where food/groceries are sold. Licence shops to sell tobacco. there are so many alternatives that seem not to have been considered.