LibLink: John Leech – Smoking ban working

No smokingOn his blog, John Leech MP, reminds us that there has been a 12% decrease in childhood asthma since the smoking ban was introduced in 2007 (with Scotland leading the way a year earlier).

Smoking is an issue I feel passionate about; I have long supported campaigns to ban smoking in public spaces. However, I believe we need to go further and that research finding such as these studies should give us that impetus. In February of last year I signed an Early Day Motion (EDM 2724) that noted “the designs on tobacco packaging attract children to try smoking” and called on the government to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes which many believe will reduce the number of young smokers.

There is strong evidence that packaging tobacco products in standardised packets makes them less attractive, particularly to young people, increases the visibility of the health warnings and stops smokers believing (incorrectly) that some brands are less harmful than others.

You can read the full article here.

* Mary Reid is the Tuesday Editor on Lib Dem Voice.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/32788 for Twitter and emails.

10 Comments

  • Angela Harbutt 22nd Jan '13 - 5:49pm

    You say “On his blog, John Leech MP, reminds us that there has been a 12% decrease in childhood asthma since the smoking ban was introduced in 2007 (with Scotland leading the way a year earlier).”

    The 12% decrease is not fact – it is an assertion made in one “research” paper recently published, and reported on the BBC . The research has been undertaken to prove a point. It is poorly executed and draws conclusions that are simply not backed up the the facts. Indeed it is impossible from the asthma stats to determine just how the authors arrived at their extravagant claims.
    See – http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/asthma-and-smoking-ban-find-decline.html

    The above article clearly demonstrates that the 12% claim is junk science pure and simple. The authors of the report made a guesstimate on what they think asthma would have been without the smoking ban – then look at what the actual asthma rates were – and conclude the difference is a result of the smoking ban. Asthma is a serious condition, with many complexities and much still unknown. We should certainly not allow John Leech MP or others to kid us that some form of asthma miracle has taken place because of the smoking ban – however much people may want to believe it.

    The Lib Dems are right to insist on evidence-based policy. If we are serious about that, regurgitating junk science is something we should resist at every opportunity.

  • Paul McKeown 22nd Jan '13 - 6:23pm

    ROFL.

    Research is published by Imperial College showing a marked – and statistically significant – fall in admissions to hospital for childhood asthma in England and Wales, following the ban on smoking in public places was enacted, mirroring a similiar fall in Scotland.

    And what happens? The reactionaries from “liberal” (so-called) “vision” (sic) are raging about “junk science”, armed with some dodgy graphs on an even dodgier website.

    Tickled by laughter gland that did.

    For anyone who wants to see the opinion of a very impressive list of doctorates, rather than the guff promoted by the “lets blow our smoke in your face brigade” (aka liberal-vision), the abstract from the paper can be found at http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/01/15/peds.2012-2592.abstract.

  • How a ban that mainly affected places that children don’t actually frequent decreased child asthma rates is unclear…

    Anyhow – disappointed with John Leech’s continued pursuit of further anti-smoking legislation.

  • Angela Harbutt 22nd Jan '13 - 10:09pm

    Not entirely sure that my comment constituted a “rage” – just pointing out that the conclusions don’t stack up with the data. People can read the link in Paul McKeowns comment and indeed my link and draw their own conclusions.

  • Richard Dean 22nd Jan '13 - 10:44pm

    I find the link to Pedriatics more believable, partly because I am a scientist. Although I am often rather sceptical of so-called scientific papers, particularly in my own subject, I am even more sceptical of blogs.

    However, I do question why there should be an immediate change in asthma statistics – for the reason mentioned by James, and also because I was under the impression that asthma is a rather serious long-term illness which is either genetic or else results from long-term exposure to noxious gases. Is three years long enough?

    I certainly support the ban in public places. Why allow people including children and babies even to be poisoned there? And as an ex-heavy-smoker I now find it very unpleasant to smell smoke.

  • Paul in Twickenham 22nd Jan '13 - 11:00pm

    I am a scientist too and I have to say that I am puzzled by some of the graphs in the AAP paper. For example, the authors cite an overall 12% fall in net admissions in the first year after the introduction of the legislation, but (admittedly from a simple cursory inspection of the data) the following year showed a substantial increase in hospital admissions relative to the “predicted number of admissions” for which the authors offer no explanation (nor in fact do they even appear to acknowledge it).

    No explanation is offered for the numbers for (pre-legislation) 2005/2006 which (superficially at least) appear comparable to the numbers in the first year after the legislation was passed.

    We’re all in favour of evidence-based policy. I am struggling to see how this is evidence. It simply seems to confirm that the numbers vary markedly from year to year, much as the blog entry says. I speak as a lifelong non-smoker.

  • Stephen Donnelly 22nd Jan '13 - 11:15pm

    Follow the link provided by Paul Mckeown to read the article for yourself.

    As the authors state “In the absence of a control group, we cannot confirm that the reduction in hospital admissions was solely due to the implementation of smoke-free legislation. …….This regression model cannot distinguish between the effect of the law and other external influences affecting asthma incidence and exacerbations. These may include the introduction of new therapies and other strategies to improve asthma management”.

    The hospital admissions data upon which it is based is (notoriously) subject to coding errors.

    This work may be a useful contribution to an academic debate, but it does not offer sufficient evidence for politicians to make far reaching claims. A classic case of ‘more research is required’.

  • John Leech states: “there’s new research showing a 12% drop in cases of childhood asthma in the year following the smoking ban in enclosed public spaces.”

    and goes on to make the classic lazy (I’ll assume he is not duplicitous) politician’s ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ error of attributing the drop in cases to the ban.

    As the scientists themselves say: “… we cannot confirm that the reduction in hospital admissions was solely due to the implementation of smoke-free legislation. …(we) cannot distinguish between the effect of the law and other external influences affecting asthma incidence and exacerbations.”. In other words “the ban may have had something to do with it, but we don’t know if it did or, if so, how much”

    None of which stops the PC brigade piling in and playing the “Doctorate” card in support of yet more illiberal proposals (plain packaging of tobacco products), the ‘evidence’ for which is tenuous, hypothetical and so lacking rigour as to be laughed out of sight were to be proposed in support of almost any measure other than tobacco control .

  • Angela Harbutt 25th Jan '13 - 4:00pm

    New article out relevant to the discussion. Worth reading. http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13287/

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?




Recent Comments

  • User AvatarBill le Breton 19th Apr - 5:56am
    Hi Peter. My starting date is December 81 which is 5 months before the invasion. During those 5 months the Con vote rose 50% ......
  • User AvatarPeter Chegwyn 19th Apr - 1:29am
    I think the Falklands War in 82 had something to do with that turn round Bill.
  • User AvatarDuncan Brack 18th Apr - 11:46pm
    David White - you are right about Beveridge (except that 1945 couldn't be called a khaki election - unlike 1900, for which the term is...
  • User Avatarmalc 18th Apr - 10:51pm
    Mark Valladares Sorry I shouldn't have said military bases, but we do - or may be did until recently, not sure after defence cuts -...
  • User AvatarBill le Breton 18th Apr - 10:24pm
    But what be the biggest shift for a Governing Party over a period of 13 months? Try December 81 to Jan 83. If potential turn...
  • User AvatarEd Wilson 18th Apr - 10:12pm
    Let's try again. "...power 4 million homes..." means onshore wind produces a number of kilowatt hours which, when divided by the notional power consumption of...