Second-hand smoke (1)

I want to thank the Health Promotion Department's Charles Micallef for his reply. He is discriminating against us smokers and does not even notice it, because it has become so common. We smokers are a filthy society, he writes. He does not even know us. Filthy means disgustingly dirty, thoroughly unpleasant, vile. I feel he has offended smokers.

I ask readers to check the links below on the internet, before they give their opinion.

Mr Micallef claims that studies have discovered the deadly effect of second hand smoke (SHS). I do not know how many he read. To understand these studies you have to know a bit of epidemiology (science dealing with control of disease). A risk factor of 1.25 or 1.75 means there is an increased risk of 25 per cent and 75 per cent respectively. For the average reader this sounds huge. It also sounded worrying to me, till I learnt to interpret these numbers. For the epidemiologist (who conducted the study) it means he has not shown a significant or only a weak risk, which is what he wanted to prove. A good figure to prove his theory (because at the beginning it is a theory and not a fact, otherwise there is no need for a study) is a factor of 3.00 or more, which means a risk of 200 per cent or more. This would be a clear result.

The link http://193.78.190.200/smokersclub/studies.html shows studies which researched the effect of SHS. Of these only a few show a figure above 2.00 and a few show a figure below 1.00. If I had seen a clear result, I would have kept my mouth shut.

The WHO also did its own study. It released a statement in March 1998 that their study has been misinterpreted (http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html). The link to an article published in October 1998 about this study is http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jnci;90/19/1440 (download manual). Please note the discrepancy of the statement in No. 4 (due to small sample size, neither increased risk was statistically significant) and the statement in the article on page 6 at the bottom (An important aspect is its size). WHO not telling the truth here?

Smoking kills people - the smoker. Dr Richard Doll established more than 50 years ago that active smoking causes lung cancer.

This scientist also said in 2001: "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."

More information could shed more light. Which type of the five lung cancers was diagnosed? Were more risk factors present?

Possible causes for lung cancer in non-smokers are radon, asbestos (homes built in the 1960s or earlier have the potential to contain asbestos), gas/kerosene heaters in unventilated areas, air pollution from diesel exhaust (vehicles, power plants), tuberculosis, COPD, secondary cancer, genetics, and if Mr Micallef wishes, SHS or a combination of all above.

Smell is a personal matter. Some perfumes I like, some I don't. Probably Mr Micallef feels the same with cigarettes. But nobody is forced to go into a bar or restaurant.

He admits that the entertainment industry is suffering. It is unfair that the war on tobacco is fought on the backs of small businesses and the smokers.

The law creators sit at their desks with a safe, regular income and no risk involved. He points out that smoking rooms should alleviate this problem. But most of the bars cannot afford them or the premises layout does not allow them to be created.

Those who want to quit will get all the assistance. But it seems the anti-smoking lobby does not understand that there are smokers who do not want to quit.

To justify a law on the basis that other countries have enacted it, does not make it a good law.

In Germany the Jews were targeted by a lot of laws and other countries followed. In 1919 alcohol was prohibited in America and it created a violent period. It was repealed in 1933. I hope we do not have to wait that long.

Spain's licensed premises under 100 sq m can decide to allow smoking, so they did not follow suit. A proposal to ban smoking across France, including in bars, restaurants and workplaces, failed to win the support of ruling-party deputies in November last year. This news was not reported in Malta.