Smoking ban adverts to be investigated

Morning Advertiser ^ | 4/12/07 | Iain O'Neil

[ZGuy]

The Advertising Standards Authority is to ask for proof to substantiate claims made by the Department of Health about the dangers of passive smoking.

The watchdog will act after receiving 26 complaints about the 'Invisible Killer’ TV ads which featured cigarette smoke blowing around a wedding party and into the mouths and noses of non-smokers.

The complainants said the ad was scaremongering, would cause undue fear to non-smokers and challenged whether there is a proven link between second-hand smoke and a raised risk of contracting specific diseases.

Donna Mitchell from the ASA told morningadvertiser.co.uk: ”We will be investigating and publishing a report in due course.

“We will ask the advertising agency or the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre – which cleared the ad for use on television – to explain its rationale for clearing the ad.

“The responses will go to our ASA Council for consideration.”

Mitchell said a lot of the complaints had been about the dangers of passive smoking.

She said: “We would expect them (the respondents) to provide evidence to support their claims.”

[ZGuy]

Too bad this is in the U.K. only. The similar U.S. ads are pathetic, but I'm sure will never be called to task.

[concerned about politics]

According to Rush, who got a copy of the World Health Organization report on second hand smoke, there hasn't been one person harmed by second hand smoke anywhere (at the time, they had been searching for the elusive "victim" for 7 years). According to the report, second hand smoke did help asma patients, though.
The report wasn't widely publicized because the results were politically incorrect. The press refused to report on it. It was just quietly buried and conveniently forgotten.

[CSM]

Puff ping.

[concerned about politics]

Often, those who are blatantly outspoken about the dangers of second hand smoke from tobacco are the same people who support the politically correct second hand smoke from marijuana.

[Gabz]

Nanny State Ping.........

It would be great if something like this could be done in the US, but it seems that the so-called media watchdog groups, and even th regulatory agencies, are on the bandwagon and blithely let the anti-smoker lies pass for truth.

[justiceseeker93]

... there hasn't been one person harmed by second hand smoke anywhere ...

... second hand smoke did help some asthma patients ...

Even though I'm not a "ban smoking everywhere Nazi," I can't buy either of those statements.

Second hand smoke could precipitate asthmatic attacks in asthmatics sensitive to it. So those asthmatics should avoid exposure, and smokers around them should likewise be sensitive to their needs, especially parents of children with asthma. Kind of like people with diabetes avoiding sugar-concentrated foods, and parents of children with diabetes being responsible and knowledgeable about their needs.

[Gabz]

At eh time of it's release, the WHO study was the largest one ever done on SHS. All of the findings showed there was no significant increase of risk from passive smoke exposure.

FORCES International has a huge archive of information in regard to WHO and it's war are tobacco smokers. It can be found here.

[concerned about politics]

Second hand smoke could precipitate asthmatic attacks in asthmatics sensitive to it. So those asthmatics should avoid exposure, and smokers around them should likewise be sensitive to their needs, especially parents of children with asthma.

Along those lines, strong perfume can do the same thing. Out law perfume.

[brityank]

According to the report, second hand smoke did help asma patients, though.

Anyone else notice the marked increase in childhood asthma since the start of smoking restrictions, or am I mistaken?

[SheLion]

American Cancer Society catches the Surgeon General in an outright lie...

July 1, 2006

The Surgeon General showed up very regal looking to provide a press release rehashing the tired old argument that secondhand smoke is deadly and must be banned. And with his next statement:

Separate "no smoking" sections DO NOT protect you from secondhand smoke. Neither does filtering the air or opening a window.

It seemed a feable attempt to pre-empt any action short of a total smoking ban.....as if to confirm that pro-smoking ban activists' credibility in the public is failing miserably.

Well I am sorry to report that the American Cancer Society conducted air quality testing at several smoking venues which prove the Sugeon General flat out wrong.

 

 

Take a look at the above table, do you see the 20 reading? It represents a restaurant with an enclosed (separate) smoking area. And the 20 is actually 20 nanograms, a nanogram is 10 (-9).

So......let me put a number to that nanogram for you: 0.000000020 of a gram/cubic meter was the secondhand smoke concentration for the restaurant with the enclosed smoking area. Which is 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA regulations for the secondhand smoke measured airborne component. Thus the American Cancer Society destroys the Surgeon General's and RWJF (Nicoderm) funded James Repace argument that seperation and ventilation don't work.

The Surgeon General can stomp his feet, and scream at the top of his lungs...like a little Napoleon "....because I said so....." all he wants. But it doesn't change the facts........and the facts show he is telling a bold faced lie to the American public.
Read

[SheLion]

Smoking wasn't even listed in this report.

Cold air and exercise trigger asthma

• 70% of patients claimed both cold air and exercise as a key trigger for an asthma attack
• 21% claimed attacks could be triggered by allergies to peanuts
• 14% of patients found aspirin to be a common trigger
• 10% of females declared their asthma episodes were related to their menstrual cycle
• 55% said laughter could cause an attack.

  The findings were unveiled at a British Thoracic Society meeting.

[Old Professer]

Why not ban noise and strobe lights because of epileptics?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Publius6961]

Too bad this is in the U.K. only. The similar U.S. ads are pathetic, but I'm sure will never be called to task.

I wouldn't be so pessimistic.
The ads here in California are just as hyperbolic and fraudulent.
I wonder if there is any way, legally, to force the U.N World Health Organization to release the most massive, longest and most thorough study of second hand smoke, the basis for the laws sprouting like weeds worldwide.

Discussion of that study, as opposed to the fraudulent compilations of the carefully-selected data from hundreds of other studies used as the basis for legislation.

A careful review of all the data in any competent court will prove that the "studies" being used are simply a compilation of a very few incompetent reports repeated endlessly.

[Publius6961]

Thank you for your unsupported opinion.

A modest suggestion: Would you not learn something from the UN WHO report which was suppressed? It was compiled by experts in the medical field, immunologists, researchers and other scientific experts in their field.

Why should anecdotal evidence and neuroses drive laws?

Just a suggestion.

[Joe 6-pack]

There was a house fire here in Louisiana, which killed, IIRC, 4 people. The fire department concluded that the fire had been caused by cigarette.

For statistical purposes, the antismokers included the 4 deaths as smoking related.

[cgbg]

In the building where I work there is major construction interior underway (renovation) with dust and fumes everywhere throughout the building and in the ventilation system. Meanwhile the idiot owner dosen't even want smokers anywhere near the building.

This is the kind of wackiness we are dealing with today.

It probably is safer to leave the buiilding to go out and have a smoke than to sit in your cubicle and inhale the construction fumes!

[mysterio]

Dear Overeaters,

You're next in line.

Sincerely,

Smokers

[Malacoda]

Oh, every darn time I see one of those “The Truth” or “InfectTruth” ads, I just want to scream — and I am not even a smoker. They’re just annoying beyond belief.

[justiceseeker93]

Why not ban noise and strobe lights because of epileptics?

I don't support government-enforced bans in general, and noise and strobe lights do not, to the best of my medical knowledge, precipitate epileptic seizures.

You must have misinterpreted what I posted: As a general principle, I'm advocating placing responsibility on the individual (or his parents, if a child) to avoid second hand smoke if he wishes to do so, not advocating the use of the power of the nanny state to protect him. I'm also advocating for the right of a private property owner to install any kind of smoking or no smoking policy he wishes in the premises that he owns.