In defence of smoking.
BY THE EDITOR:
Few vices evoke as much disgust, contempt and fury from the general public and consequently politicians and regulators as does smoking tobacco. Whereas the laws concerning alcohol licensing regulations and the consumption of a whole manner of illegal drugs have been continually liberalised (on paper and enforcement), the laws regarding the consumption of tobacco have all went in the other direction.
For Labour, under whom the most onerous of restrictions were imposed, such restrictions don’t go far enough.
According to Wes Sterling, the Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the Labour Party is considering a ban on the sale of cigarettes altogether, off the back of, and inspired by, legislation in New Zealand which raises the smoking age consistently year on year until nobody is permitted to purchase a tobacco product.
Mr Sterling floated such legislation on national television on the grounds of protecting public health and the NHS, the same grounds that previous restrictions have been introduced under. And the very same justification that was used to deprive all of us of our most basic liberties under the covid regime, for what was for all intents and purposes a cold.
Even to the bewilderment of those at the heart of the health bureaucracy, the supposedly liberty loving British public plodded along compliantly as usual without much of a whiff of protest for months upon months. This revelation of vain mindless compliance to the most asinine of government diktats, though foreshadowed by numerous other concessions, still fills me with dread whenever I ponder it.
So, I very much doubt the opposition to the proposed policy from Labour will be very fierce but I will give it a bash anyhow.
For a start, as with the lockdowns, the argument that such measures will be for the good of the NHS appear to be baloney.
“If we’re going to get the NHS back on track, we also need to focus on public health”.
I note that, according to Wikipedia, Mr Sterling is a practicing homosexual. I only bring this up because it is demonstrably true that homosexual lifestyles have been shown to be many times more dangerous than heavy use of cigarettes. Should, under the same logic, such behaviour be criminalised? Should gay bars be faced with additional taxes? Should the media be banned from promoting such behaviour, as in Russia?
While there are of course costs to smoking in the form of resulting medical expenses incurred by the state, these sums are far outweighed by the revenue which goes to the treasury from tobacco duties. (The correct answer is yes btw).
It is said that the government spends £3.6 billion treating smoking-attributable diseases on the NHS and up to £1 billion collecting cigarette butts and extinguishing smoking-related house fires. Overall, however, according to the Institute of Economic Affairs, smoking results in a net saving of £19.8 billion, through a combination of tobacco duty revenue and (rather morbidly) early death’s at just the right time resulting in pension savings.
This is far less than the sum expended on treating obesity related illnesses, the cost of which is said to be around £58 billion per annum to the treasury. I note that in the last thirty years, the rate of obesity in this country has doubled, affecting 15% of the population in 1990 to 30% today. Meanwhile, during the same period, the rate of smoking has decreased parallel to the increase in obesity- with 30% of the population smoking in 1990 compared to around 15% today. This trend has been observed in many other countries as well. It is well documented that smoking reduces appetite, potentially allowing those who do so to stave of hunger and keep the pounds off.
*statistics from Britain
*statistics from Australia
*statistics from the United States
In addition, alcohol abuse not only costs the NHS billions (thought to be fair alcohol duties make up for this cost, even if the tax is considerably less than that which is charged on tobacco) it also costs the public purse even greater sums on public order and criminal justice related matters. Over half of all violent crimes, murders and rapes involve a perpetrator who is drunk. No man has ever beaten, raped or murdered anyone because he had a cigarette or a cigar beforehand.
Yet, in contrast to the ever-tightening restrictions on tobacco, the alcohol licensing regulating have been continually relaxed since the 1980’s. To a point where today pubs are permitted to stay open and to serve alcoholic beverages more or less continually- whereas under the old alcohol 1915 licensing laws opening hours were restricted to luncheon (11:00 or 12:00 to 14:40 or 15:00, depending on the region) and supper (17:30 or 18:30 to 22:30).
While I readily acknowledge that smoking cigarettes can have serious adverse consequences on one’s health (pipes and cigars are an entirely different matter) that doesn’t make them a burden on the NHS. The statistics bear out that the exact opposite is the case. Cigarette smokers more than pay for their bad habit in extra taxes and the increase likelihood that they will die shortly after retirement.
Rather than being condemned and scapegoated as burdens and parasites on the system they ought to be thanked for paying extra into it and checking out early.
Instead our society has been consumed by an increasingly irrational, arbitrary and unfair anti-tobacco zeal.
This is to say nothing of the benefits of tobacco consumption (aside from reducing the risk of obesity) which are as understated as they are numerous.
Few people know that numerous studies have shown a significantly reduced risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.
Don’t take my word for it, according to Parkinson’s UK (the largest charity funder of research into Parkinson’s in Britain), one of the largest studies carried out concerning the relationship between cigarette consumption and instances of Parkinson’s disease demonstrated that:
· former smokers were 20% less likely to develop Parkinson's, and this increased to 50% in current smokers
· both an increased frequency and duration of smoking was linked to a decreased risk of Parkinson's
· passive smoking was also shown to reduce risk
Though despite tobacco being a demonstrably effective treatment in combatting Parkinson’s (the main focus of the charity in question) they still cuck out when it comes to their official line on the question. Dr Beckie Port, Research Manager at Parkinson's UK, comments:
"While this and many previous studies have presented evidence pointing towards smoking decreasing the risk of Parkinson's, this does not outweigh the fact that smoking increases the risk of other conditions, such as lung and mouth cancer, by a far greater extent.”
Such is the fervent vitriol of the anti-tobacconists, who regard any deviation from their anti-smoking dogma as a heresy, one website “Neurology Advisor” titled an article the following.
“The Troubling Link Between Parkinson’s and Smoking: Can We Deny the Benefits?”
Why would a massively reduced risk of Parkinson’s be troubling? Quite clearly because it upsets the deeply ingrained preconceived ideology. The public health message concerning smoking has after all been ubiquitously and unconditionally negative for decades, such that when the demonstrable health benefits of smoking are brought up a kind of cognitive dissonance is brought up in the minds of those who are so zealously anti-tobacco.
There has been a war on tobacco and, like any war, truth is the first casualty.