Exposing the blindingly obvious

A very short comment, this, about why the Edinburgh Evening News feels the need to 'expose' the modern tendency of smokers to occupy hospital doorways and environs as smoking areas.

Words that are meant to apply to a thorough investigation are applied to the mere sighting of what is not even hidden:

Despite smoking around the region’s hospitals and health centres being officially banned, we revealed that the practice remained widespread at the Royal Infirmary, with patients, their visitors and even NHS staff lighting up in clearly designated non-smoking areas, causing carcinogenic smoke to waft back into wards.

We have no real need of press that describes the blatant non-observance of unenforceable laws as news, still less as an 'exposure', when stories are run about this issue on a regular basis all over the country. The only way to get people out of doorways is to provide somewhere more comfortable than a doorway, as many hospitals have learned (even if others keep trying to achieve the impossible).

When the BBC reports on the UK government's smoking cessation record, in what might as well have been lifted from a press release, Chris Snowdon steps forward with a more critical view, pointing out that the smoking cessation record is nowhere near the success it's claimed to be. Why can't the real newspapers do that kind of job?

Job losses and business closures worth it, says Evening News leader

In response to a story in Friday's Edinburgh Evening News that publicans in Scotland's capital had been warned about flouting the ban, its leader today declares: 'on the whole it's a price worth paying'. That is to say, business closures and job losses are an acceptable price of the smoking ban, which is bringing us 'signs of a cut in smoking and cancer rates'.

I don't much care for this piece: it is too early to speak of any unusual change in the cancer mortality rate, and apart from an explosion of interest in smoking cessation there is little to suggest any long-term success rate. As for its conclusion, they have to be kidding – do they really believe this:

Yes, many of the boozers which have closed will be long-lamented.

But those of us who mourn their passing will probably remember them more - for the simple reason that we'll live longer.

I won't bother to mention the impending increase in elderly dementia that faces us over the next few decades.

At least the Evening News is clear that smoking bans damage business, even if it does consider such damage 'a price worth paying'. Neither Action on Smoking and Health nor ASH Scotland has accepted this, both insisting that other factors are more important. Last year ASH Scotland rejected the results of a report commissioned by the Save our Pubs and Clubs Campaign that laid the blame for business closures largely on the smoking ban, blaming its conclusions on the fact that the report had been commissioned by the campaign.

The position of Action on Smoking on Health, as expounded in a press release marking the fourth anniversary of the smoking ban in England, has been covered in Chris Snowdon's blog (Direct from the ASH bunker) – and it also includes a link to a retaliation from Imperial Tobacco. (For good measure, you can also enjoy Amanda Sandford blogging in Left Foot Forward about the spin by tobacco companies.)

ASH Scotland's barmy tax calculations reported again

Today's Edinburgh Evening News sees this report, which doesn't appear online:

Smoking VAT row

The health benefits of a tobacco-free society would outweigh the VAT paid by cigarette firms, a city charity has said. 

Many argue that tax paid on tobacco is irreplaceable but ASH Scotland said smoking costs the country £1.1 billion, more than the VAT received. 

A few points here.

1, I think 'VAT paid by cigarette firms' should read 'duty'.
2, This story came out nearly two weeks ago, so why is it being slipped into the middle of the Edinburgh Evening News (and inaccurately too)?
3, Has ASH Scotland asked for a reprint? Do they really believe banning tobacco would save the country money? Or is it just the Evening News trying to fill up space?

Who are these people? Quite apart from the objections that have already been raised about these so-called calculations, there is a clear assumption that anyone who stops smoking will go on to adopt a healthier lifestyle, without developing any other habits that might cost the health service dear. People who give up smoking will take to wholesome diets and take lots of exercise (not that such choices are a guarantee of a wholesome, painless or inexpensive end), and they won't be tempted by any other kind of drug, or even excessive eating.

The original calculation by ASH Scotland (costs of smoking amount to £1.1 billion as against income of £940 million) is a shameless attempt to make the economic costs add up to more than the economic gains of smoking, based on speculation, flawed reasoning and guesswork.