Such an interesting dance being performed up in the Scottish State Health Board! A regular Highland jiggery-pokery.

The Scottish State Health Board is in charge of the State Mental Hospital at Carstairs. They have the responsibility of caring for a large number of people who are considered ‘a danger to the public’ by virtue of their poor mental health. Back in 2011 they were building a spanking new hospital to house these poor souls. It was to be their ‘home’ in social work parlance – for many years, life for some of them.

Naturally they were keen to ensure that this new ‘home’ was as, er, homely as possible – many of their charges were to be forced to live in this manner through no fault of their own. So the first thing they did was enlist the views of the patients – and the staff, and carers, who outnumbered the patients – as to what it should be like.

86% of the patients, 84% of the carers and 54% of the staff said ‘no smoking in the building’.

The powers that be were very proud of the way in which 84% of people knew their own mind, despite their poor mental health, and were keen to ensure that their wishes were respected – in this new ‘home’ you would only be able to smoke in the spacious garden. Just like your own home really, n’est ce pas?

The only problem was, the 14% of patients who did smoke and wished to continue to smoke, in their own home as it were, were not all the sort of people that one could cheerfully unlock the door for and usher out into the grounds unaccompanied. Every time one of them wanted a cigarette – which could be up to 3 times an hour for some of them, a member of staff would have to stop what they were doing, unlock the dangerous possessions cabinet, extract their cigarettes and lighter, sign them out of the building,  and go for a walk in the grounds with JC or Napoleon or whoever. Notorious inmates have included Thomas McCulloch who was detained at the State Hospital in 1970 after trying to kill two hotel workers because he claimed they didn’t put enough butter on his roll. In 1976, McCulloch and fellow Carstairs inmate Robert Mone – who shot dead a woman teacher – infamously broke out of the high security institution. The pair, who had become lovers, butchered a male nurse, a fellow patient and a policeman who had six children during their bloodbath escape, before being recaptured.

Going for a walk every 20 minutes with such company was all becoming a bit of a fag…

So the staff decided that unlike the 86% of patients whose views and personal preferences they had been so proud of upholding, the 14% were vulnerable patients who couldn’t possibly know their own mind and whose views had to be ignored in favour of their ‘best interests’. Nothing to do with the convenience of the staff, you understand, just the patients ‘best interests’.

Which was the point at which Charles McCann finally lost his cool. Charles suffers from Schizophrenia, and is considered to be such a danger to the public that he has been forced to call Carstairs ‘home’ for the past 18 years and is likely to remain there for the foreseeable future.   He liked to smoke an occasional cigarette – now he was to be banned from doing so. Ever.

He took the Scottish State Health Board to court and challenged the legitimacy of their decision that he could never smoke again.

“B-b-but 86% of our patients know their own mind and we are upholding their choices” they cried – “and so do the other 14%, uphold theirs too” said the Judge!

Oh, the Judge made the usual placatory noises about “I’m not saying there is a human right right to smoke” – but he still ruled that the hospital’s ‘blanket ban’ on smoking was unlawful.

Lord Stewart said if McCann was of sound mind or his condition was such he could be treated in the community he would be able to smoke at home and in other places. If he were a prisoner he could smoke in jail.

The judge said: “I infer that the smoke-free policy has been imposed on mental health detainees and not on penal detainees simply because the latter are in a better position to defend their smoking habit whereas the former are not.”

He said: “I have no difficulty with the idea the petitioner has been deprived of one of his few pleasures, that he dwells on his inability to smoke and feels frustrated and aggrieved and so on. 

Unfortunately, he then went on to spoil his judgment by ruling that he couldn’t have the £3,000 compensation he had asked for – on the grounds that he had saved at least £8,000 whilst being deprived of his ability to consume cigarettes.

I look forward to the first ‘wrongful arrest’ claim that is denied compensation on the grounds of all the money they have saved whilst deprived of their liberty…

John Gray September 2, 2013 at 16:10

Jonathan Mason September 2, 2013 at 15:06 “The same goes for these issues
regarding smoking in public places. If someone points out some perspectives
that you have never thought of, you have an easy answer–they must be
crazy.”

No, I don’t think they must be crazy, but in many cases neurotic due to the
excessive influence of propaganda culminating in a disproportionate response
to a stimulus. As it happens, there aren’t many perspectives that I haven’t
thought of having been involved in anti-prohibition issues for over ten years.
If you read my previous post properly you would see that I said I didn’t think
that there will be anyone commenting on this thread who doesn’t think that
decent compromises need to be reached to accommodate people’s different
tastes. However, in the case of outdoor and other smoking bans they are
excessive in relation to the issue and spurred on by the false science that
ETS in the amounts we are used to experiencing it is dangerous when,
subsequent to chemical comparisons, it can’t be. Moreover, nothing should be
banned solely on the grounds that some people don’t like something or find it
objectionable because if one acts in such manner then, given the petty nature
that some people can demonstrate we would be banning countless numbers of
items in our environment and needlessly.

As for easy ways to devise policy, it does not speak well of anyone in
charge of a mental institution to implement policies which easily penalise or
persecute the most vulnerable and some mental hospitals of my experience have
inner enclosed areas to permit smoking without the smokers having to wander
unaccompanied in grounds. There is usually a solution if one’s mind is put to
it but what I get from you is nothing more than an attempt to justify your own
prejudices. Moreover, the essence of your argument is that managers of parks
or other public facilities should take an easy route to solve a pretty
non-existent outdoor problem. But hey, any excuse will do for a bit of smoker
persecution!

Penultimately, with regard to your mucus problem in swimming pools, it is
well established that chlorine is an irritant for such problems. I remembered
something about it reading your posts and because as a child I frequently
suffered with sinus irritation in swimming pools. Consequently, I Googled a
couple of easy links although there are many more. Here they are:

http://www.neilmed.com/neilmedblog/2011/07/swimming-sinus-pain/
http://www.natlallergy.com/article.asp?ai=146

Lastly, with regard to implementing anti-smoker policies in public places
when it comes to pubs, for instance, then it should be up to the landlord to
decide. Contrary to the name “public house,” pubs are in fact private
businesses and the landlord should be able to conduct his business with a
relation to the market and his own preferences. As for those who say: “but why
should I have to put up with other people’s smoke?,” the answer is simple
enough and it is another question, which is: “that’s fine, but do you go
everywhere?” The usual response to this is: “of course, not, nobody does!”
Whereupon my response is: “then why does EVERYWHERE have to accommodate YOUR
tastes?” Moreover, given the disastrous impact that smoking bans have had on
pubs and clubs that’s pretty apposite.

I’m sorry, Jonathan, but your general attitude seems pretty clear and that
is that you wish to go along with finding ways to stop people smoking in any
circumstances and against their will because it suits your prejudice and if
you are so determined to find facile excuses as to why very vulnerable, often
self-medicating people shouldn’t smoke in mental hospitals, then you shouldn’t
be managing one.

Jonathan Mason
September 2, 2013 at 15:06

In your case, Jonathan, you seem to be ultra, ultra sensitive, although
I also contend that a large portion of your condition is psychosomatic and the
result of years of anti-smoking brainwashing. I must say that I also find your
habit of sampling the taste of swimming pool water to compare its flavour with
and without the addition of perfume to be eccentric to say the least, and that
admission on your behalf may be why there is such a silence on this thread in
response to your last post.

No, anyone who swims laps for exercise daily or very frequently, as I have
done since about 1982 becomes very knowledgeable about the taste of water,
whether sea water or pool water as it can tell you a great deal about the
state of health of the pool. If you are swimming front crawl it is inevitable
that some water will flow into the cheek on the lower side of the mouth during
the inspiration phase, which will then be expelled underwater in the
expiration phase. Actually you cannot avoid tasting the water.

See illustration: http://www2.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Swimming+Olympic+Team+Trials+Day+8+0Eim5do-EGvl.jpg

See? Just because something is outside your experience, your first instinct
is to think that someone who describes it without giving a full explanation in
kindergarten language must be eccentric.

The same goes for these issues regarding smoking in public places. If
someone points out some perspectives that you have never thought of, you have
an easy answer–they must be crazy. But the truth is that people have different
views precisely because they have different experiences. I don’t have
experience of managing parks, but I do have experience in managing mental
hospitals and prisons, and I can see that some of the same issues would
inevitably arise, for example management of litter or risk of fires–never mind
second hand smoke. I can therefore easily see that banning smoking altogether
in those places immediately solves a number of administrative problems and
issues of legal liability for the park managers.

Add to these perhaps the desirability of not exposing children on outings
from local authority schools to adults or adolescents modeling smoking
behaviour, and you have another point, although probably one that you would
not wish to agree with.

Give me some examples of how YOU have implemented smoking policies in a
public place to the satisfaction of both smokers and smoked and how you
achieved this. That would be worth reading.

John Gray September 2, 2013 at 11:37

Jonathan Mason September 1, 2013 at 13:43: “I don’t see why this debate is
so personal.”

The debate has become so personal, Jonathan, because people’s personal
liberties are being trampled on and, in the tobacco case, because it’s also a
legal product. In addition, I fail to see why everywhere should be rendered
“smokefree” to suit what is fundamentally a bigoted and obsessive drive to
stop people smoking AGAINST their will. Moreover, the issue of environmental
tobacco smoke (ETS) is not only contentious it’s blatantly deceptive. It is
impossible for ETS, in the quantities in which we normally experience it, to
be deadly poisonous as is claimed by tobacco control and undertaking any
comparative chemical studies with other combusted emissions (wood smoke,
barbecues, for example) quickly demonstrates this. Or, to put matters another
way, if one bans smoking on the grounds that the smoke is dangerous, then one
will have to ban all sorts of other smoke emissions too – unless, of course,
one is happy with inconsistency and double standards.

On top of all this prohibition mentality, there is the outright hypocrisy
of government and the whole tobacco control movement. The biggest profiteer
from, and stakeholder in, tobacco is government. Work it out. At least 85%
(UK) of the price of a packet of cigarettes is tax which means that everyone
else – sales outlets, transporters and the tobacco industry all share between
them only 15%. Moreover, the government also gains substantially from the
corporation tax then levied on the profits of the tobacco companies, sales
outlets etc, plus the National Insurance and Income Tax levied on all the jobs
that tobacco generates. Lastly, the tobacco control industry is also heavily
dependent on government monies to keep it going and hence, takes money from
the biggest profiteer from tobacco, namely, government.

I am afraid, Jonathan, that we now live in a world where health concerns
and safety issues have become obsessive and if you are content to see large
numbers of items banned on the grounds that they have an element of possible
danger or, to suit the demands of every crank and anti-pleasure puritan or, to
flatter the egos of mediocre band-wagon jumping politicians, then I can tell
you that many people are not. Where smoking tobacco is concerned, I don’t
think that there will be anyone commenting on this thread who doesn’t think
that decent compromises need to be reached to accommodate people’s different
tastes, however, we have gone way beyond decent compromise and into a world
where the prevalent mentality is to force the populace to conform to public
health agendas whether they want to or not. Subsequently, some of the most
vulnerable and defenceless people in our society – the mentally ill in
hospitals, the elderly in homes etc – are some of the first to be victimised
and oppressed. This is totally shameful!

In your case, Jonathan, you seem to be ultra, ultra sensitive, although I
also contend that a large portion of your condition is psychosomatic and the
result of years of anti-smoking brainwashing. I must say that I also find your
habit of sampling the taste of swimming pool water to compare its flavour with
and without the addition of perfume to be eccentric to say the least, and that
admission on your behalf may be why there is such a silence on this thread in
response to your last post.

Examples of perfume bans and you will discover many more if you simply
Google “perfume bans.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10818242
http://shine.yahoo.com/beauty/perfume-ban-hampshire-state-explains-why-193100759.html

Another potty ban on pyjamas (just as a matter of additional
interest):
http://shine.yahoo.com/fashion/ban-wearing-pajamas-public-proposed-really-171100961.html

John Gray September 1, 2013 at 10:47

Jonathan Mason August 28, 2013 at 17:06
“There is an old saying that
your freedom to swing your fist ends at the beginning of my nose!”

Yes, and a damn silly one it is too. On the basis of this nonsense it’s
hardly surprising that in certain locations in America perfume and aftershave
are banned in the workplace. If we followed the dictum put forward by Mason,
then there are myriads of factors that should be banned on the basis that they
upset someone’s nose. For example, besides perfumes and aftershaves, other
people’s food smells, body odours or even the smell of flowers in someone’s
garden. Believe it or not, there are those who detest the smells of lavender
and blueberries. And then, let’s not forget someone’s vehicle emissions which
are, in fact, very smelly and far, far more toxic than anything emitted by a
cigarette.

With Mason we have another Lilac Hamster. For anyone familiar with Scottish
discussion threads, Lilac Hamster would have an asthmatic episode of extreme
proportions if she even passed a smoker on the street. Oddly, Lilac did not
suffer ill result from inhaling traffic fumes.

These types of claims, when juxtaposed with vehicle emissions, just don’t
stand up when you consider that, in terms of ETS, once you remove the
exhalation of ordinary air and water, the biggest parts to those emissions
consist of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
By coincidence, the same substances are also the largest emitted by the
combustion of road fuels – except that in the case of the latter, the
difference in quantity massively outstrips anything ever emitted by a
cigarette.

A glib response by an antismoker to this type of statement is on the lines
of: “Yes, but no-one sucks an exhaust pipe!” The appropriate response to that,
of course, is: “You don’t have to chum. The difference in quantity between
those said chemicals emitted from cars more than makes up for not sucking an
exhaust pipe!”

There is some good stuff in Michael McFadden’s book “Dissecting
Antismokers’ Brains,” on the psychosomatic nature of many claims by asthmatics
that they are severely adversely affected by tobacco smoke. For example, many
tests were undertaken where asthmatics were placed in a room free of ETS and
their behaviour was normal. Then, they were informed that tobacco smoke was to
be introduced to the situation and within minutes many of them experienced
severe asthma attacks. The only problem for them, was that in fact, no tobacco
smoke was introduced at all but simply warmed air.

Many of Mason’s remarks reveal an neurotic person obsessed with the issue
of tobacco smoke to the point of mania. Some of you may recall the remarks of
Viscount Simon during the House of Lords on the then proposed smoking ban some
years ago. Simon, an asthmatic, said that if he was overtaken by another
driver who was smoking and he (Simon) had his window open he would have an
asthmatic attack. Only a complete fool would make such a remark or believe it.
See for instance: http://pro-choicesmokingdoctor.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=viscount+simon

Jonathan Mason
September 1, 2013 at 13:43

With Mason we have another Lilac Hamster. For anyone familiar with
Scottish discussion threads, Lilac Hamster would have an asthmatic episode
of extreme proportions if she even passed a smoker on the street. Oddly,
Lilac did not suffer ill result from inhaling traffic fumes.

Not the case with me. I have said it before, if I get the scent of
tobacco fumes, my upper respiratory tract starts to produce a lot of mucus
(phlegm). With minor exposure to smoke, it passes quickly, but with more
exposure the effects are more long lasting. For example I would try to avoid
changing planes at Atlanta airport, which had a smell of cigarettes in the
air everywhere, but if there was absolutely no choice I would probably go
there, and if I didn’t have a cough or cold at the time, I would probably be
back to normal mucus secretions within 24 hours.

However there is medical evidence that asthmatics (which I am not) can
have episodes of dyspnoea triggered by exposure to cigarette smoke.

Why do automobile fumes not have the same effect? I cannot tell you.
Certainly sometimes they can be annoying, especially on the main highway in
Puerto Plata in certain weather conditions with old trucks belching out
diesel smoke all over motorbike riders, but they don’t trigger a releases of
excess mucus for me.

On the basis of this nonsense it’s hardly surprising that in certain
locations in America perfume and aftershave are banned in the
workplace.
I was not aware of this, but it might make sense in
certain environments like operating theaters, or generally in hospitals and
clinics if it irritates patients or customers. It might simply be a matter
of the customer always being right. Can you give an example of where this is
in force and why?

Certainly perfumes CAN have a nuisance value. At the complex where I live
there is an outdoor shower that anyone who used the pool is supposed to use
before entering the pool, but people don’t always comply and sometimes they
bring a strong smell of perfume or cologne into the water which gives the
water a surprisingly unpleasant taste that may linger a while. Doesn’t make
me sick, but it is unpleasant, and that is one of the reasons why showering
is required before entering the pool.

I don’t see why this debate is so personal. Clearly those who wish to
smoke in public places will be somewhat motivated to argue their case in
favour of less restrictions on smoking, and those who wish to avoid the
smoke will want to take the other side. Hopefully when it comes to making
public policy, those who have the control will take into account arguments
from both sides and combine it with what is practical so as to cause the
least harm to either side.

Some_History
September 1, 2013 at 21:52

Jonathan, man are you a messed up mind! Here’s to some healing.

Jonathan
Mason September 1, 2013 at 23:01

So why are you replying to a reasoned argument with insults? If I
argued on your level, I would probably say that it is because exposure
to smoke turns people into arseholes, but I am too polite for that.

Some_History
August 31, 2013 at 14:08

On psychologically-mediated (psychogenic) physical
symptoms:
Environmental Somatization Syndrome
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7871128

Nordic Journal
Nord Med. 1994;109(4):121-5.
[Environmental
somatization syndrome. How to deal with the external milieu
syndrome?].
[Article in Swedish]
Nilsson CG, Göthe CJ, Molin
C.
SourceMed Rehabiliteringskliniken, Huddinge
Sjukhus.
Abstract
Somatization is a tendency to experience and
communicate psychogenic distress in the form of somatic symptoms and to seek
medical help for them. Patients suffering from environmental somatization
syndrome (ESS) consider their symptoms to be caused by exposure to chemical or
physical components of the external environment or by ergonomic stress at
work. ESS is distinguished by mental contagiousness and a tendency to cluster.
Sometimes it explodes in wide-spread epidemics that may be escalated by
mass-media campaigns. Extensive ESS epidemics have been connected to, i.a.,
arsenic, carbon monoxide (“generator gas poisoning”), mercury (“oral
galvanism”), carbon-free copy papers, electromagnetic fields (“electric
allergy”) and repetitive movements (“repetition strain injury”, RSI). The
typical patient directs the interest on the external environment, refuses
alternative explanations of his symptoms and abhors any suggestion of a
psychogenic etiology.
The community is often placed in difficult positions
by lobby groups calling for drastic measures to eliminate alleged
disease-inducing exposures. When hygienic evils occur simultaneously with an
ESS epidemic, it is essential to strictly differ the hygienic problems from
the ESS problems. If mismanaged, measures aimed at reducing hygienic
inconveniences may aggravate the complex of ESS problems.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8170802

Some_History
August 31, 2013 at 14:26

Psychogenic effects can also go by the term –
Idiopathic Environmental
Intolerance (formerly Multiple Chemical Sensitivity)

Even the rabid Australian antismoker, Simon Chapman, has acknowledged
that the promotion/protection of psychogenic effects regarding secondhand
smoke could undermine Tobacco Control:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598484/

Some_History
August 31, 2013 at 00:55

Here’s a brief history of the antismoking madness (Godber Blueprint) over
the last few decades.

The first demand for a smoking ban was in the late-1980s concerning
short-haul flights in the USA of less than 2 hours. At the time, the
antismokers were asked if this was a “slippery slope” – where would it end?
They ridiculed anyone suggesting such because this ban was ALL that they were
after.
Then they ONLY wanted smoking bans on all flights.
Then the
antismokers ONLY wanted nonsmoking sections in restaurants, bars, etc., and
ensuring that this was ALL they wanted.
Then the antismokers ONLY wanted
complete bans indoors. That was all they wanted. At the time, no-one was
complaining about having to “endure” wisps of smoke outdoors.

While they pursued indoor bans, the antismokers were happy for smokers to
be exiled to the outdoors. Having bulldozed their way into indoor bans, the
antismokers then went to work on the outdoors, now declaring that momentary
exposure to remnants of smoke in doorways or a whiff outdoors was a “hazard”,
more than poor, innocent nonsmokers should have to “endure”.
Then they ONLY
wanted bans within 10 feet of entrance ways.
Then they ONLY wanted bans
within 20 feet of entrance ways.
Then they ONLY wanted bans in entire
outdoor dining areas.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire university and
hospital campuses and parks and beaches.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for
apartment balconies.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire apartment
(including individual apartments) complexes.

On top of all of this, there are now instances, particularly in the USA,
where smokers are denied employment, denied housing (even the elderly), and
denied medical treatment. Smokers in the UK are denied fostering/adoption.
Involuntary mental patients are restrained physically or chemically (sedation)
or multi-day solitary confinement rather than allow them to have a cigarette –
even outside. In some countries there are also compounded extortionate
taxes.

At each point there was a crazed insistence that there was no more to come
while they were actually planning the next ban and the brainwashing required
to push it. The incessant claim was that they were not doing “social
engineering” (prohibition) when the current antismoking crusade has been so
from the outset, just like pretty well every previous antismoking crusade.
There has been incessant (pathological) lying and deception. Many
medically-aligned groups have been committed to antismoking – their smokefree
“utopia” – since the 1960s, and are also in the pay of Pharma companies
peddling their useless “nicotine replacement” products. They have prostituted
their medical authority and integrity to chase ideology (this is exactly what
occurred in the eugenics of early last century). All of it is working to a
tobacco-extermination plan run by the WHO (dominated by the American “model”)
and that most nations are now signed-up to (Framework Convention on Tobacco
Control).

Jonathan Mason
August 31, 2013 at 11:51

@Some_History

Keep digging. Australia is not far away. The simple fact is that
cigarette-wielding bullies have ruled the roost for decades, really ever
since Sir Walter Raleigh showed up at a garden party at Hampton Court with a
Hamlet cigar dangling from his lower lip and blew smoke into the face of HRH
Queen Elizabeth I. Raleigh, the state capital of North Carolina, where a
great deal of the toxic tobacco weed is grown, is named after him.

However in recent years the boot has been on the other foot and firmly
applied to the tail ends of smoking bullies who have been left fuming
against laws that make them keep their smoke to themselves, even when it is
coming out of their ears. The connection between smoking and bullying has
been established by statistically significant studies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17026640

You can huff and puff until you are blue in the face and require
nebulizer treatment, but you are just digging a deeper hole.

Mina Field
August 31, 2013 at 12:19

That is a small study of schoolgirls. It specifically states that there
were no differences in males. Schoolgirl smokers tend to be the ‘gang’
types, so the study was, to my mind, another unnecessary waste of
time.
Its you that is digging, and now scraping the barrel, Jonathan.
‘Smoking bullies’ FFS. Sorry, but you do seem a zealot. You’re approach
and style has been triumphalist throughout this discussion, from ‘game,
set and match’ to ‘the boot is on the other foot’. You’re not tolerant – a
while ago you pretended you didn’t mind others smoking away from
non-smokers, but clearly thats not the case – you actually see smokers as
‘the enemy’. Frankly, you are coming across as the sort of person who
would perhaps benefit from an occasional cigarette.

Jonathan
Mason August 31, 2013 at 12:56

No, I don’t mind people smoking away from others. It is only the
fanatics who want to ban smoking in outdoor parks and suchlike for
spurious reasons like discarded cigarette butts can injure, poison, or
kill birds, small animals, fish, or pets. Who the hell cares about
subordinate species?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2013/07/22/the-real-motivation-behind-park-and-beach-smoking-bans/

Mina
Field August 31, 2013 at 13:17

You’re not even making sense any more. Lets leave it. You’ve made
it clear what you are.

Some_History August 31, 2013 at 13:45

Birds and cigarette butts:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9723213/Birds-line-nests-with-cigarette-butts-to-repel-pests-scientists-claim.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3296193/A-quick-smoke-Its-good-for-the-wings.html

Jonathan
Mason August 31, 2013 at 15:01

Interesting about the rooks picking up lighted cigarette butts, but
surprising, perhaps, that throwing discarded cigarette butts on the
track not being regarded as a littering offense! Should passengers not
carry tins to collect cigarette butts, as mental patients often
do?

I think that is part of the issue with parks, too. On the face of
it smoking in a park or a riverside walk is unlikely to harm anyone
else, but from the point of view of park management, there may also be
a litter control issue.

Should people be fined on the spot by traffic wardens for
discarding cigarette butts on the ground in parks? Can you throw a
discarded cigarette butt in a lake or river, in a duckpond, in a
rowing or fishing lake, The Serpentine, or in a paddling or swimming
pool? If a person is allowed to throw a cigarette butt in a river,
then are they allowed to empty the ashtray from their car in a river,
or the ashtrays from a riverside restaurant, or feed them to swans?
Much simpler to ban smoking altogether and avoid the problems both of
park rules enforcement and litter management, thus killing two birds
with one stone and perhaps reducing the manpower need for park rangers
(or park keepers). Also it would be much easier to photograph or video
a person smoking than a person littering.

Of course parks can also provide smoking stations with sealed ash
trays that have traps to keep the discarded butts inside, but this
also requires some initial capital outlay, plus maintenance costs and
employees emptying the containers having to wear masks and protective
gloves to empty the damn things. Much easier to ban smoking
altogether.

Mina
Field August 31, 2013 at 16:11

@ Jonathan Mason 15.51 31.8.13

Easier just to have neurotic zealots face firing squads. The world
turned nicely on its own before the likes of you were born.

Some_History
August 31, 2013 at 00:52

The current antismoking crusade, very much in the eugenics tradition, is
much like previous crusades. It is a moralizing, social-engineering,
eradication/prohibition crusade decided upon in the 1970s by a small,
self-installed clique of [medically-oriented] fanatics operating under the
auspices of the World Health Organization and sponsored by the American Cancer
Society (see the Godber Blueprint http://www.rampant-antismoking.com/ ). This little, unelected
group, using much the same inflammatory rhetoric of its fanatical
predecessors, decided for everyone that tobacco-use should be eradicated from
the world. These fanatics were speaking of secondhand smoke “danger” years
before the first study on SHS, together with advocating indoor and OUTDOOR
smoking bans: Secondhand smoke “danger” is a concoction to advance the
social-engineering agenda, i.e., inflammatory propaganda. The zealots were
also speaking of extortionate taxes as a coercive measure long before
estimates of “health costs”.

The zealots’ goal this time is not to ban the sale of tobacco but to ban
smoking in essentially all the places that people smoke (combined with
extortionate taxes). Up until recently the social-engineering intent has been
masqueraded as protecting nonsmokers from secondhand smoke “danger”. But even
this fraud can no longer be hidden in that bans are now being instituted for
large outdoor areas such as parks, beaches, campuses where there is no
demonstrable “health” issue for nonsmokers. This dangerous mix of the
medically-aligned attempting social engineering is a throwback to a century
ago. We seem to have learned nothing of value from very painful lessons of
only the recent past.

Some_History
August 31, 2013 at 00:51

For anyone interested:
It’s America that’s popularized antismoking
insanity – again, and which other countries are following suit. The problem
with Americans is that they are clueless to even their own recent history.
They have a terrible history with this sort of “health”
fanaticism/zealotry/extremism or “clean living” hysteria.

Antismoking is not new. It has a long, sordid, 400+ year history, much of
it predating even the semblance of a scientific basis or the more recent
concoction of secondhand smoke “danger”. Antismoking crusades typically run on
inflammatory propaganda, i.e., lies, in order to get law-makers to institute
bans. Statistics and causal attribution galore are conjured. The current
antismoking rhetoric has all been heard before. All it produces is irrational
fear and hatred, discord, enmity, animosity, social division, oppression, and
bigotry. One of the two major antismoking (and anti-alcohol, dietary
prescriptions/proscriptions, physical exercise) crusades early last century
was in America. [The other crusade was in WWII Germany and the two crusades
were intimately connected by physician-led eugenics]. The USA has been down
this twisted, divisive path before. Consider the following. The bulk of claims
made about smoking/tobacco were erroneous, baseless, but highly inflammatory.
Unfortunately, the propaganda did its destructive job in the short term,
producing mass hysteria or a bigotry bandwagon. When supported by the State,
zealots seriously mess with people’s minds on a mass scale.
http://www.americanheritage.com/content/thank-you-not-smoking
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2352989/pdf/bmj00571-0040.pdf

Some insight into the connection between American eugenics – California in
particular – and German eugenics.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=index.gifc/a/2003/11/09/ING9C2QSKB1.DTL

Some_History
August 31, 2013 at 00:54

Another useful book is “Cigarette Wars: The ‘Triumph’ of the Little White
Slaver” (1998) by Cassandra Tate. The comments program here has a problem
with the link. But you can google the following combination – “the endless
war on tobacco” “seattletimes” – which should bring up a summary article of
the book at the Seattle Times.

Some_History
August 31, 2013 at 00:50

For anyone interested:
It’s America that’s popularized antismoking
insanity – again, and which other countries are following suit. The problem
with Americans is that they are clueless to even their own recent history.
They have a terrible history with this sort of “health”
fanaticism/zealotry/extremism or “clean living” hysteria.

Antismoking is not new. It has a long, sordid, 400+ year history, much of
it predating even the semblance of a scientific basis or the more recent
concoction of secondhand smoke “danger”. Antismoking crusades typically run on
inflammatory propaganda, i.e., lies, in order to get law-makers to institute
bans. Statistics and causal attribution galore are conjured. The current
antismoking rhetoric has all been heard before. All it produces is irrational
fear and hatred, discord, enmity, animosity, social division, oppression, and
bigotry. One of the two major antismoking (and anti-alcohol, dietary
prescriptions/proscriptions, physical exercise) crusades early last century
was in America. [The other crusade was in WWII Germany and the two crusades
were intimately connected by physician-led eugenics]. The USA has been down
this twisted, divisive path before. Consider the following. The bulk of claims
made about smoking/tobacco were erroneous, baseless, but highly inflammatory.
Unfortunately, the propaganda did its destructive job in the short term,
producing mass hysteria or a bigotry bandwagon. When supported by the State,
zealots seriously mess with people’s minds on a mass scale.
http://www.americanheritage.com/content/thank-you-not-smoking
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19981129&slug=2786034

Some_History
August 31, 2013 at 00:48

People like JM are neurotic and most probably bigoted. The “magical mist”
of tobacco smoke has become a projection point for troubled minds. Those like
JM may indeed have physical reactions but they are psychogenic –
psychologically mediated.

We encounter smells, aromas, and scents (and other sensory modalities) all
day long. For example, I go to a pizza shop. On first sitting down, I notice
particular aromas – a “foreground” sensory phenomenon. Within 3-4 minutes my
sensory system will typically accommodate the aromas into a “background”. When
I first enter a room, I notice the ticking of a clock. Within a few minutes
it’s accommodated into the background. I’ll probably notice the clock again as
it makes [new] cranking sounds signaling a chime on the hour. So, we notice
new sensations which are then quickly accommodated to a background.

In the case of misocapnists/capnophobics, the smell of tobacco smoke has
become associated – in their own minds – with “danger” or superiority. It
becomes a point of fixation. They don’t allow the accommodation to occur. This
has nothing to do with the smoke but the psycho-emotional baggage that they
bring to the perception of smoke.

Just watch a capnophobic’s reaction to tobacco smoke. It’s as if they’re
being exposed to, say, sarin gas. The reaction is entirely disproportionate,
inordinate. Capnophobics are not reacting to smoke. They are reacting to
something quite terrifying in their minds (that they don’t want to look at)
projected onto smoke.

Examine, too, the exaggerated language of the misocapnist/capnophobics.
Wisps of smoke, even outdoors, are described as a “cloud”, or a “wall”, or a
“tunnel” of smoke that is more than “normal” people like the neurotics should
have to endure.

It should dawn that there is something mentally astray with people when
they will happily sit next to an indoor open fire place, or sit at a table
with lit candles, or stand next to a BBQ, or sit in a kitchen with cooking
smoke. Yet, let someone light up a cigarette and they immediately deteriorate
into histrionics and “symptoms”.

Unfortunately, the current antismoking crusade has been advanced by
promoting this dysfunction in the gullible. In the current antismoking fervor,
the neurotics depict themselves as “normal” and demand accommodation,
typically through laws. There are those – like members of a deranged cult –
that believe that they, being “superior” people, should never be subjected
even to the remotest whiff of tobacco smoke. And, so, the neurosis turns to a
bigotry bandwagon.

Some_History
August 31, 2013 at 00:13

From Bayer & Stuber
“…..In the last half century the cigarette has
been transformed. The fragrant has become foul. . . . An emblem of attraction
has become repulsive. A mark of sociability has become deviant. A public
behavior is now virtually private. Not only has the meaning of the cigarette
been transformed but even more the meaning of the smoker [who] has become a
pariah . . . the object of scorn and hostility.”
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2005.071886

This change from fragrant to foul has not come from the smoke which has
remained a constant. The shift is an entirely psychological one.
Unfortunately, the way the shift is manufactured is through negative
conditioning. The constant play on fear and hatred through inflammatory
propaganda warps perception. Ambient tobacco smoke was essentially a
background phenomenon. Now exposure to tobacco smoke (SHS) has been
fraudulently manufactured into something on a par with a bio-weapon like, say,
sarin gas. There are now quite a few who screech that they “can’t stand” the
“stench” of smoke, or the smoke is “overwhelming”; there are now those, hand
cupped over mouth, that attempt to avoid even a whiff of dilute remnants of
smoke – even outdoors. There are those that claim that, arriving from a night
out, they had to put all of their clothes in the washing machine and scrape
the “smoke” off their skin in the shower. There are even those that claim they
are “allergic” to tobacco smoke. Yet there are no allergens (proteins) in
tobacco smoke to be allergic to.

And it didn’t stop with just the smoke. Cigarette butts – heretofore
unheard of – suddenly became a “monumental problem” too, requiring drastic
action. These are all recent phenomena born of toxic propaganda; it is an
expanding hysteria. It says nothing about the physical properties/propensities
of tobacco smoke. These people are demonstrating that they have been
successfully conditioned (brainwashed) into aversion. They are now suffering
mental dysfunction such as anxiety disorder, hypochondria, or somatization.
Typical symptoms of anxiety disorder are heart palpitations, chest tightness,
shortness of breath, headache, dizziness, etc. These capnophobics
(smokephobics) are no different to those irrationally attempting to avoid
cracks in the pavement lest their mental world come crashing down.
Questionable social engineering requires putting many into mental disorder to
advance the ideological/financial agenda. It is the
fanatics/zealots/extremists and their toxic mentality and propaganda that have
long been in need of urgent scrutiny.

Able August 30, 2013 at 13:31

But only if the particulates, residue, etc.. come from burning one
particular type of leaf? (Remember other than nicotine – higher in that
avacado you happily eat – the smoke is essentially identical to that from wood
fires, barbecues, cars, etc.)

Well, consider the simple numbers of people who have smoked over the years.
The uncounted number of cigarettes, cigars and pipes pouring out clouds of
toxic smoke, particulates and tar – for centuries. Where has it all gone? It’s
still there, lurking unseen. The next time you walk down the street consider
that the very pavement you walk on is caked with smoking residue. Every
door-handle you touch, even every surface of your car, home and even clothes
are simply saturated with residue.

24% of the UKs 63,705,000 population – that’s 15,289,200 smokers, the
average habit is 20 per day so that’s 305,784,000 cigarettes just here – per
day!

Every breath you take will include a portion of the masses of smoke – but
it’s only if you see it or suspect/guess/fear it’s from a cigarette you get a
reaction?

OK – good luck with that kind of thinking.

Jonathan Mason
August 30, 2013 at 11:58

This is interesting too. Apparently a lot of people have bought second hand
books from Amazon, internet, etc. that smell badly of tobacco and they discuss
various methods of removing the odour to make the books readable again.

http://www.thriftyfun.com/tf000592.tip.html

Able August 30, 2013 at 08:40

Pizza box? The entire thesis on ‘third hand smoke’ presupposes that
particulate smoke ‘settles’ on objects which can then later be
‘re-distributed’ into the atmosphere to affect a person in the area. Imagine
just how tiny the amounts would be! Junk, biased, mercenary science at its
best!

Jonathan Mason
August 30, 2013 at 11:26

I don’t know from first hand whether “third hand smoke” causes illness or
not, but a pizza box is something that has a very short useful life, whereas
toxic tarry residue from smoking may settle on furniture and other surfaces
over a period of time if they are not regularly cleaned. That is why walls
and ceilings of rooms or the roof of a car or vehicle where people regularly
smoke eventually turn brown. It seems reasonable to me that this toxic
residue might be harmful to young children, and pets, as they tend to give
everything a lick or put their hands in their mouths or eyes, or at least
might be harmful to individuals who are particularly sensitive or allergic.

As I have said before, surely it is better to always be safe than sorry.
Would you really expose your own young child to second or third hand smoke
confident in the belief that you are doing the right thing for them? And if
your child grew up with ADHD, or asthma, or frequent bronchial infections,
could you ever be 100% confident that exposure to smoke in the home had not
contributed in some way or exacerbated the condition?

I have not studied the amount of smoke put out by a single cigarette, as
you have, but the odour of a single burning cigarette can be easily detected
by the human nose outdoors from at least 30 yards, probably more if the wind
is favorable. It is my belief that detecting the smell of burning tobacco,
for example if my upstairs neighbour is smoking on his patio, is the result
of unseen particles making contacts with sensors in my nose and respiratory
tract, not a psychosomatic phenomenon, because one can first detect the
smell and then verify that there is a source of smoke, which is the reverse
of the process of persons having allergic reactions triggered by anxiety on
seeing something that they think is smoke.

If you think I am unique, note the comments here by a selection of people
personally unknown to me at this link. Although their discussion is
unfocussed, there are some common themes:

https://healthunlocked.com/blf/questions/452626/smell-of-smoke

Able August 30, 2013 at 08:36

JM

I’m not attacking/minimising your reaction but simply asking you to
consider some facts. A single (average) cigarette has been found (by
anti-tobacco ‘researchers’) to produce 300-800 ml of smoke (side +
mainstream). It contains a substantial number of chemicals, most in such
minute proportions as to be irrelevant in this context. The largest (by volume
and weight) are by far carbon particulates and water vapour. The largest
‘potentially harmful’ substance is carbon monoxide which the NZ Health
Authority measured at (mainstream 13609 μg/cigarette, sidestream 42651
μg/cigarette) 56060 μg/cigarette (your body naturally produces an amount, much
smaller, as part of its metabolism)

Assuming you are, as you say, in the middle of the pool (35′x75′ = 10m x
22m), the nearest a person could be would be 5m. Assuming only a slight breeze
blowing directly towards you, no dispersion beyond (an arbitrary and
completely unrealistic) 1 m, that would equate to a volume of 5000 litres.
Assuming ‘every’ part of the smoke causes a reaction in you (carbon? water
vapour?) that equates to 160 ppm. As a comparison the average city has a rate
of 100-200 ppm of CO (alone) due to exhaust fumes, a wood fire has 5000 ppm –
and this is the largest by far constituent, and a tasteless, odourless gas at
that. The rest of the constituents are measured in even more minuscule
amounts.

Yet instantly someone lights up you get a reaction?

As a nurse I have cared for people who react as you do. I have on a number
of occasions witnessed ‘attacks’ when a person sees the ‘smoke’ from a fellow
patients nebuliser (sterile water +/- salbutamol). It is a ‘real’ reaction –
once requiring ITU admission and a period of ventilation! That does not
exclude the fact that the reaction was triggered by a psychological
‘expectation’. They had had a reaction to smoke before, witnessing what they
took as smoke elicited a stress reaction, endorphins and catecholamines
flooded their system and …. bingo, the reaction they expected occurs.

Jonathan Mason
August 29, 2013 at 20:41

Look at JMs comments about being unable to breath whilst swimming when
someone walks (assuming a normal sized domestic pool) no closer than 3 metres
from him in the open air, because of some amazing ability of tobacco smoke
particles to congregate and then directly launch themselves across the
distance to plonk directly in front of the swimming JM (the concentration of a
single cigarettes smoke in an open, well ventilated area, at > 3m will be
effectively undetectable).

I wish I could meet with you and we could do a controlled experiment. My
point remains that if I can detect the presence of a person smoking without
seeing them, it must be a physical phenomenon. I am just offering the theory
that smoke may descend over cooler water as a hypothesis. Would you not agree
that hot air rises and cooler air sinks?

A rational response? An intelligent, articulate adult believes that?
Higher concentrations will be found on the pizza box delivered to him by a
non-smoking employee who works for a non-smoking pizza business owner who once
had a lady who smoked walk near him! (I hope he doesn’t sue the pizza boy
because I said that).

I don’t see why the pizza box would retain smoke residue at all, even if it
was exposed to smoke, for example in a car. Cardboard does not absorb smells
very well. That is completely different from having clouds of cigarette smoke
in the air falling on you. I used to swim in a 35 x 75 foot pool and could
easily detect cigarette smoke if the person was at the poolside and I was in
the center of the pool. The pool I now use is smaller. Of course it would
depend on the smoker being upwind of the pool, although in calm conditions
smoke can swirl around unpredictably.

How do smoke detectors work? Is it a psychological effect? How is it
possible to smell something burning in an oven from at least 30 feet away and
no visible smoke?

Jabba the Cat August 29, 2013 at 21:27

“How do smoke detectors work?”

http://www.hantsfire.gov.uk/kidzone/learn/howitworks/smokealarm.htm

Robert Newton
August 29, 2013 at 18:52

Re. The point about compensation being denied due to money saved whilst
incarcerated:- I seem to remember that some or all of the wrongly imprisoned
men who had been convicted of the murder of Carl Bridgewater had their
compensation reduced to account for the rental value of their accommodation at
H.M.P. I thought that was a bit keen.

carol42 August 29, 2013 at 18:27

Whatever happened to live and let live? there was plenty of room for
compromise but the TC crowd wouldn’t accept it. No smoking or non smoking
premises which would have suited everyone. I have two friends who have stage 4
lung cancer, neither ever smoked or was even around smoke and both diagnosed
very late. I am the same age as Christine Keeler and have smoked as long and
my skin is fine, I think the picture was greatly exaggerated and I doubt she
looks that bad in reality. The only person I know who died from COPD was also
a non smoker, also asthma was virtually unheard of when I was a child, now it
seems to be everywhere. None of this proves anything of course but, according
to all these stats should we all be dead? I enjoy smoking and have no wish to
stop and all the nagging just makes me sick. By all means discourage kids but
leave adults alone to make their own choices. I am amused that some States are
legalising smoking one leave, pot while trying to get rid of another tobacco.
I also think the pharmaceutical companies, who fund all this junk science to
protect their useless smoking cessation products, have killed far more people
than smoking ever did.

Able August 29, 2013 at 20:00

What indeed! I believe the term ‘New Puritans’ is used to describe them –
those who irrationally fear that someone somewhere may be enjoying
themselves. Personally I describe them as fascists – health outcomes has
nothing to do with their demands, it’s money and power that motivates them.
Although ‘zealots’ also fits with the strident calls for more and more
legislation, imprisonment and even death threats made against smokers who
refuse to adhere to ‘the faith’ (on record, look it up).

Look at JMs comments about being unable to breath whilst swimming when
someone walks (assuming a normal sized domestic pool) no closer than 3
metres from him in the open air, because of some amazing ability of tobacco
smoke particles to congregate and then directly launch themselves across the
distance to plonk directly in front of the swimming JM (the concentration of
a single cigarettes smoke in an open, well ventilated area, at > 3m will
be effectively undetectable). A rational response? An intelligent,
articulate adult believes that? Higher concentrations will be found on the
pizza box delivered to him by a non-smoking employee who works for a
non-smoking pizza business owner who once had a lady who smoked walk near
him! (I hope he doesn’t sue the pizza boy because I said that)

Then there’s the earlier comment regarding the mythological (yet
amazingly easily provable fact of crime reductions in areas of higher CCW
permits), all funded by ‘big weapon’. The fact that arrayed against them is
an assortment of industry, media, politicians and pundits whose combined
wealth, clout and media access dwarfs anything firearms manufacturers have
seems – apparently irrelevant. Similarly, compared to the entire health
budgets of countries, not to mention the self-seeking and mercenary ‘big
pharma’, the media, all those tax-funded NGOs, Tax-funded ‘charities’,
endless and uncountable numbers of cessation advisors (not counting the
uninformed, but very indoctrinated teachers etc.) – well ‘big tobacco’ looks
decidedly pee-wee.

Astute point on the deaths too. Have a look at Champix – the side-effects
and ‘known’ deaths related to that drug are staggering. And they’re still
forcing it, at tax-payers expense, on any smoker they can – after all
‘they’re only smokers, they were going to die anyway/deserve it’.

Jabba the Cat August 29, 2013 at 16:54

…and there I was, following OH’s tweet this morning, keenly anticipating
depth on the McCann £1M lotto bid in a Portuguese court…

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/334979/Madeleine-McCann-detective-faces-court

Able August 29, 2013 at 13:42

Mina

That should have been Cinnamon ‘or’ Banoffee Pie – smoking cinnamon
Banoffee pie would just be … weird(er)?

Mina Field
August 29, 2013 at 18:16

@Able

Maybe you should experiment with a blend of the two! I tend to blend a
little caramel into my vanilla, and sometimes a hint of custard. Sounds like
you have a ‘stealth’ device, which is what I ought to get really. I’m a
Provari user, and have to carefully choose my moments! Just think, Carstairs
might have saved a fortune in legal fees if they’d done the sensible thing
and got some e cigs.

Able August 29, 2013 at 20:05

Ah, no as they’re in the process of getting those banned too (cutting
into pharmas budget too much) – apparently just looking like a cigarette
can cause instant death to non-smokers at thirty paces!

I have a collection. I mostly use an E-go but a few Mods – I really
want the attachment that makes them look like a pipe, all I’ll need then
is the deerstalker.

Able August 29, 2013 at 13:40

Mina

I’m a cinnamon, Banoffee pie man, and when I want to pretend to be macho
it’s 7 Wolves tobacco. I even have one of those e-cigs that resembles a Zippo
lighter – the looks of panic when I appear to not only be smoking, but
sniffing lighter fluid at the same time is a delight to behold.

Able August 29, 2013 at 13:35

JM – firstly apologies are in order, I did not wish to imply disrespect for
you, but, perhaps unfairly, used you as an example.

Certainly emphysema is important, but also relatively rare. The significant
point being whilst it is assumed, and portrayed, as a ‘purely’ smoking caused
condition, there are a substantial number of other causes.

I personally, even when a smoker, would not ‘impose’ my smoking on anyone,
certainly not in a setting such as a restaurant I’d sit in a separate
‘smoking’ area. The fact that a ‘burning leaf’ produces smoke which irritates,
yet burning leaves, branches, miscellaneous wood or gasoline, diesel. charcoal
do not raises a question does it not? Chemical content, particulate size,
amount, etc. all would either be identical or greater with the bonfire, would
they not? So ‘only’ the addition of a minuscule concentration of a chemical
well known to be nothing more than a mild stimulant (less than caffeine, and
only 1 mg per an entire cigarette, how much in a whiff of smoke?) or … there
is some other cause, possibly including conditioning or psychological
input.

As to your question related to asthma, let me pose a question back. Smoking
has existed for centuries. It was fashionable and almost expected up until a
few short decades ago. A ‘majority’ of adults smoked. Yet there has been a
steady decline in the first world so that now only a minority (< 24% UK)
now smoke. Concurrent with this steady, but drastic overall, decline was a
steady, but drastic, increase in asthma (and other auto-immune conditions)
diagnosis,. Why and how could that be if smoking is the prima fascia, or even
a major, cause? (A claim of ‘better’ diagnosis could be claimed, but, even
though predictably the area isn’t much researched, the facts of severe
attacks, warranting ITU admissions, which reflects overall incidence,
contradicts that assertion).

Even if it is hogwash, yes I’d, in your place, avoid smoke, but the issue
is not ‘your’ choice and action but what you ‘demand’ (and require legislation
and the threat of force – here not only against the smokers, but those who
would allow them to smoke in ‘their’ premises) for those who choose
differently, no?

A thought. Why, if the case against smoking is so cut-and-dried would the
anti campaigners use blatantly false and manipulated data? Remember that
frightening black-lung picture plastered over almost every cigarette packet?
Well, that was from a non-smoking miner, who died of pneumoconiosis. Smokers
lungs are regularly used for transplant. Make you think?

Also, there is some emerging evidence that countries with low lung cancer
and asthma incidence also have low diesel use – coincidence? Maybe, but nobody
is looking because – smoking did it!

Jonathan Mason
August 29, 2013 at 13:48

Certainly emphysema is important, but also relatively rare. The
significant point being whilst it is assumed, and portrayed, as a ‘purely’
smoking caused condition, there are a substantial number of other
causes.

COPD, of which emphysema is a component, is a quite common cause of
disability and death. It is universally accepted that smoking is a major
cause.

As a health professional, you will easily recognize at a glance that this
woman is a victim of heavy and prolonged smoking. If you discovered that she
was a lifelong nonsmoker, you would be incredibly surprised, no?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2401524/Former-model-Christine-Keeler-71-unrecognisable-50-years-Profumo-affair.html

Able August 29, 2013 at 15:37

JM

Quite a common? The WHO figures (last openly available 2008) states
that in the US (pop 311 million) an estimated 2,547,800 deaths occurred.
An ‘calculated’ 130,800 were ‘associated’ with COPD (all categories). In
comparison? Infectious and parasitic diseases (HIV, TB, STDs, etc.) –
154100; Respiratory infections – 57900; Malignant neoplasms – 570100;
Cardiovascular diseases – 872400; Unintentional and Intentional injuries –
188100.

Like I said, relatively rare, and even the US Emphysema Council
states:

“While tobacco use is the number one factor in the development and
progression of COPD, exposure to air pollutants in the home and workplace,
genetic factors, and respiratory infections can also play a role in the
disease.”

Whilst the UK HSE estimates > 15% of COPD cases are ’caused’ by
industrial/workplace/home exposure to solvents/dust/gases/aerosols. Then
there’s that whilst approx. 2% of cases are ’caused’ by genetic factors
(α1-antitrypsin deficiency), it is unknown what percentage are exacerbated
by such.

Hmm? Christine Keeler? How about:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/8451727/Buster-Martin.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2258867/Ralph-Tarrant-Britains-oldest-man-reveals-secret-hitting-109-years-old-I-smoked-I-70-enjoy-drink.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/clara-cowell-quit-smoking-age-102_n_2718121.html

all life-long smokers, all fit and able well into old-age,. I believe
you’ll find most of the oldest in the UK were all smokers too.

Life is a lottery and assuming one,single factor makes so massive a
difference is naive. Risk is relative, will you stay in bed because the
death rate for unintentional accidents is so high? So smoking doubles your
risk of lung cancer (from ‘very’ approx. 1 in 100,000, to 2 in 100,000).
You make your choices. The issue remains that a quarter of the UK
population are denied that choice, painted as stupid, naive and even
malicious based on what? I’d suggest you view the actual research, avoid
the medical establishment sites since doctors are ‘educated’ that smoking
is the cause (and not one medical student I have ever met has ever read
any) and, much like ‘climate science, going off the reservation will
result in ‘bad things’ happening to their careers (not to mention their
finances when big pharma hears).

Able August 29, 2013 at 10:15

I’d say this was yet another case of tyranny of the majority but, as
already pointed out by Mina, it wasn’t the majority at all. 86% of patients
‘didn’t’ ask for a complete ban, the smallest minority did (most non-smokers
were happy with ‘restrictions’, smokers opinions count for naught of
course)

I have nothing to add to the discussion on legal/moral/ethical issues
raised, since ‘my betters’ have said it all. The thing I notice most is the
almost blanket acceptance, even by the erudite contributors here, of the
propaganda regarding the alleged medical effects of tobacco. If the actual
‘research’ (which sometimes stretches that definition) is read, as opposed to
the sound-bites and press release from ASH (funded by tax and pharma who of
course won’t be in the slightest biased) which the press seem to prefer,
you’ll notice some differences. Rates of cancer, life expectancy, etc.
(barring emphysema, and keeping an avian pet increase your risk more) in
smokers and non-smokers is almost identical. Statistical manipulation (if not
outright fraud) is used to show massive differences based often, like ‘five a
day’ or recommended alcohol intake, on guesstimates. Never smoked? get
admitted to hospital or have a house fire and a percentage of you ‘will’ be
recorded as ‘smoking related illness’ or ‘smoking related fire’. Why? Because
rather than measure ‘actual’ smoking related illness, assumptions were made
and the statistics are made to fit. (Let’s ignore the fact that smoking has
‘significant’ beneficial effects in reducing risks for conditions such as
Parkinsons, Alzheimers and IBS – read the literature, it’s usually hidden in
an appendix).

With all due respect, Jm is a typical anti-smoker. I don’t, and cannot,
know what ‘illness’ he has/claims when exposed to ‘tobacco smoke’ but wonder,
‘just’ tobacco smoke, not open fires, not exhaust fumes, not barbecues
(research showed that a half hour exposure to a barbecue, cooking your burger,
was the equivalent to inhaling the smoke from 240,000 cigarettes – barring
only nicotine. Claim nicotine allergy and I’d recommend you read what exactly
nicotine is a precursor for). The ‘expectation’ of a reaction has been shown
to elicit just such a reaction (think the case of the person having asthma
attacks because a ‘neighbour’ two floors down and two flats across was a
smoker in his block, who had the ‘miscreant’ evicted). If you’re told
continuously for years that smoking causes … then you’ll both get the reaction
and blame smoke hen something else causes it. Anti-smoking has become both a
religion and a disease.

Full disclosure, I’m a former nurse, and I used to smoke but haven’t for
some years. I ‘vape’ now, and watching the never ending array of antis
sniffing, avoiding me, and having ‘attacks’ from seeing/smelling/inhaling my …
water vapour is a constant source of entertainment.

Jonathan Mason
August 29, 2013 at 11:43

Rates of cancer, life expectancy, etc. (barring emphysema, and keeping
an avian pet increase your risk more) in smokers and non-smokers is almost
identical.

Emphysema is a very important and significant result of smoking,
surely.

With all due respect, Jm is a typical anti-smoker. I don’t, and
cannot, know what ‘illness’ he has/claims when exposed to ‘tobacco smoke’
but wonder, ‘just’ tobacco smoke, not open fires…

Cigarette smoke or smell of makes me produce a lot of phlegm, gag, cough,
and generally feel nauseous. Makes it impossible to eat a meal in a
restaurant. Bonfire smoke does not seem to have the same effect, but cigars
are even worse.

So you are saying that exposure to cigarette smokes has absolutely no
effect on asthmatics, for example, or on people with other pre-existing
respiratory diseases?

I have not done any research personally, but it seems to be well
documented and claimed by credible health authorities that children of
people who smoke are more likely to develop chest infections and other
illnesses. Viral chest infections in infancy increase the risk of developing
asthma in childhood, especially among infants who are sensitised to
allergens.

Even if you think it is all hogwash, isn’t it better to be safe than
sorry.

Jonathan
Mason August 29, 2013 at 13:38

Anyway, smoke free workplaces and public places are a definite
incentive for people to quit smoking, and I daresay that a significant
number of people who smoke would like to be able to quit for various
reasons, such as the opportunity cost of spending a lot of money on
smoking, having a better choice of sexual partners, etc.

Often all people need is a nudge. I mentioned in a post above that a
friend of mine, a university professor in his 50′s, had quit smoking over
the last year. I don’t think I had anything to do with it, except that I
would only meet with him outdoors on the patio, or in open restaurants,
but I suspect that subtle pressure from many other people in a variety of
ways made him decide to quit. So I am very happy for him.

In the USA the National Rifle Association (NRA) opposes any kind of
legislative restriction on gun ownership, presenting a variety of
arguments that convince a number of gullible people, especially gun owners
that gun ownership reduces crime, etc. However the truth is that the NRA
operates as an arm of the gun industry and its true purpose is to support
sales of guns and the profits that come from that market.

The smoking lobby in the UK is similar. While people in all honesty
believe they are arguing for personal freedoms, really they are just
supporting the profits of multinational corporations that sell tobacco
products, not to mention the tobacco farmers of Virginia and North
Carolina.

Of course you can poke holes in the scientific evidence for the damage
caused by second hand smoking, because as in most health issues the data
is extremely complicated. If a person with chronic bronchitis or asthma
catches a cold and after exposure to second hand smoke in a public place
they take a turn for the worse and develop full blown pneumonia and they
die, is that as a result of passive smoking? One can never prove anything,
but my view is that even if they only died a day earlier, or even an hour
earlier, as a result of the smoke exposure that irritated their lungs,
then it would be on my conscience if I was one of the smokers.

On the other hand, even though you may hear smokers saying they are
dying for a fag, it is hard to think of scenarios where smokers might die
for lack of a cigarette in a public place.

And why does the Conservative Party or UKIP not run on a platform of
rescinding restrictions on smoking in pubs, and public places, to test the
waters, so to speak?

Mina Field
August 29, 2013 at 13:00

@Able

Yes, this Carstairs business relied upon a document with ASH’s name on
it. And you’re right about ‘pharma’ – this ban extended to e cigs (another
vaper here, by the way, I am partial to Vanilla), so the poor blighters
don’t even have that as a safe, clean, non-smelly, alternative. They did,
however, get ‘nicotene quitting products’ from pharma !
I too find
attitudes like JM’s irksome. I can appreciate he and others like him having
a thorough dislike of the smell, etc. But this is solved by the compromise
of smokers going outside or to a designated area. If smokers do that I can’t
understand why the vehemence continues -it ought to be a case of ‘problem
solved ‘. I personally cannot bear to be in the same room as someone eating
crisps, or apples. As long as I’m not in the same room, however, I’m not
going to say there ought to be a clamp down on crisp eating.

Jonathan
Mason August 29, 2013 at 13:43

As long as I’m not in the same room, however, I’m not going to say
there ought to be a clamp down on crisp eating.

How does crisp-eating make you sick or exacerbate any existing medical
condition that you have?

Hardly anyone wants to ban smoking altogether. Just in public places or
where people are exposed to the smoke who are non-consenting, or as a
condition of employment.

Mina Field
August 29, 2013 at 18:07

@Jonathan Mason

The sound of crisp eating, as well as the scrunch, scrunch of the
packet, sends my adrenaline and nerves through the roof. I can’t think
straight and I can’t breathe steadily. Yes its all in my mind, and so is
your reaction to cigarette smells. You have now averred that ‘hardly
anyone wants to ban smoking from everywhere’, but whether you are
included in this reasonable set of people, you don’t actually say.
Certainly you have discussed this issue as though you don’t share such
reasonableness.
Able has already responded to, what is, in my
opinion, a bitchy reference to Christine Keeler. A 71 year old woman
caught in an unflattering photograph is not representative of anything.
Of course she doesn’t bear any resemblance to her 22 year old self, and
why should she? Trust me, I could go down the road right now and grab
photos of plenty of people 20 years younger than her that have never
smoked but look similarly rough.
Able has already addressed asthma
and emphysema. But I do recall that when I was young it was considered
that asthma was psychosomatic. For all I know it might be. I’ve only
known one person with emphysema, and he wasn’t a smoker. I do know loads
of people with cancer, and a few who already died from cancers. Only one
was a smoker, and hers was bowel cancer. All the rest have been notably
‘clean living’ – good diets, minimal, if any, alcohol. I’ll grant you
that smoking is now mostly prevalent in those tending towards low income
and generally unhealthy lifestyle, and I’d assert that it is the lack of
care overall that leads to earlier deaths, not the fact that they happen
to smoke. Finally (and apologies for the long post), I have for many
years often thought that some of the more neurotic people that I’ve
encountered, would probably be far more chilled if they’d only go and
have a fag!

Jonathan
Mason August 29, 2013 at 19:25

@Mina
Your reaction to crunchy sounds is not unknown, though
usually foods that are crunchy are considered to be therapeutic for
reducing anxiety, rather than causing it. However the physical anxiety
response that you experience is real and not under voluntary
control.

I am not sure that my reaction to cigarette smoke is exactly the
same. For example I swim laps daily, which requires controlling your
breathing so that you breathe in when your face is out of the water
and breathe out when your face is underwater. If someone comes close
to the pool and lights up a cigarette, I immediately find that my
breath catches or stops, putting me off my stroke or sometimes making
me swallow water, even though I have not yet seen that person or
identified who is smoking. There are no false positives. I would
imagine that the cause of this is irritation caused by invisible
particles discharged from the burning cigarette which probably falls
through the cooler air above the water and settles on top of the
water.

Of course I am only one person, but I suspect I am not unique and
that there are many people who are very sensitive to cigarette smoke.

I don’t see how asthma can really be psychosomatic when it occurs
so much in very young children who are preverbal and can be life
threatening to them.

I don’t think my reference to Keeler was bitchy. The pursed lips on
exertion make this a textbook illustration of what any health care
person would immediately recognize as a “pink puffer”, a common
condition of emphysema that is nearly always related to smoking. The
fact that she was once considered a beauty and claims to have been a
lover of Warren Beatty, among others, makes it all the more poignant.
Here is Jane Fonda at the same age: http://www.rankingfamosos.com/imagenes/famosos/20110314/jane-fonda-5.jpg

I do not want to ban smoking everywhere–only in public places where
people who have not consented cannot avoid being exposed to breathing
it.

Mina
Field August 29, 2013 at 20:47

@ Jonathan Mason

This is getting rather tedious. My reaction to the sound of crisp
and apple chomping is not something for which I require your inexpert
and untutored ‘diagnosis’. Suffice to say, I can’t abide the sound and
would sooner have my eyes poked out than suffer it. But hey ho, some
people are scared of tthe dark, scream at the sight of a wasp, or
loathe touching feet. We are all different. Your averred extreme
reaction to cigarette smoke is, well, extreme. God knows how you
survived working at Menston in the 1970s because I know for a fact
that everyone smoked all over the place there. Hell, we were smoking
in banks and all manner or commercial premises back then.
I don’t
make any claims as to knowing the cause of asthma. Just that a few,
always mollycoddled, children used to have it, and tended to grew out
of it. I has doctors and nurses in the family, and they were the ones
who assured me that it ‘wasn’t a real condition (in fact I’ve just
looked it up in a 1970s encyclopedia, and its described as an allergic
reaction’. So, as non smoking children get it in their non-smoking
households, if they are allergic to something, it certainly isn’t
cigarettes).
As for your remarks about CK, comparing her to the
rich and surgically maintained Jane Fonda – well, you really don’t
know much about women, I’m afraid. I’m nowhere near CK’s age but could
look just as bad in a photograph if I wanted (or rather, if the papers
wanted to get a horrible snap). CK was an ordinary, fairly pretty
young woman. Not beautiful, no fantastic bone structure. People grow
old and you need to get used to it because its happening to you.

Furor Teutonicus
August 29, 2013 at 07:52

“Smoking in ones home”.

Sore point here in Germany, at present.

A few people (QUITE a few!) are in the process of loosing their homes due
to their “smoking habits” (Landlords throwing them out) just because
neighbours could smell smoke in the hall way outside their flat, and
Brandenburg are considering a ban on “smoking on the balcony.”

And they are NOT “in care.”

This is not just a U.K, or U.S problem, it is rapidlly becoming world
wide.

Margaret Jervis
August 28, 2013 at 20:38

@JM I can’t speak for the Dominican Republic but you have my sympathies re
cigar smoke.

In Paris the best covered smoking joint is L’Etincelle in the Marais. Seems
to have mixed reviews with some disgruntled Americans taking legal action. http://www.yelp.co.uk/biz/caf%C3%A9-l-etincelle-paris-2 gives
a flavour of the more appreciative clientele (lost the link to the
disgruntlers – but worth checking out). It’s opposite the town hall in the
Marais – place Rue de Tibourg by Rue de Rivoli and has virtually all night
opening hours. Ambience in the outdoor area enjoyable and communicative. The
food is very good if you choose well. I had a wonderful poisson d’or and Le
Clezio , by chance , was there too. Though it may have been a case of mistaken
identity. This is central Paris, the outer suburbs may have cheer and
naughtiness of unknown dimensions – at a fraction of the price. For those who
may be confused and want to find out – check my contributions on poisson d’or
(goldfish, but not necessarily literally, and Le Clezio on Dr Death).
Elsewhere the Marais is now pitiably miserable, though the place next to the
Philosophes on Rue Vielle de Temple has good food and a good outdoors. Can’t
remember the name – something on the ceiling a little cul de sac leading to a
dead fountain, opposite Tresor, a rip off pickup joint. DO NOT GO TO THE
PHILOSOPHES UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES – this is a ghastly rip-off joint for faux
interlektuellen- mostly Americans, sadly. Smells of MacDonalds before their
reforms – but strangely owned by the same people as the oasis next door.
Paris!

JS August 28, 2013 at 15:48

“I look forward to the first ‘wrongful arrest’ claim that is denied
compensation on the grounds of all the money they have saved whilst deprived
of their liberty…”

I seem to remember some years ago a case where someone had been falsely
convicted and imprisoned. When it came to compensation the authorities tried
to deduct “rent” for their numerous years of prison accommodation. I remember
the fuss but can’t remember what came of it or any more details I’m
afraid.

Margaret Jervis
August 28, 2013 at 16:05

Well it’s virtually impossible to get any compensation now for being
falsely accused and imprisoned.

The Blocked Dwarf
August 28, 2013 at 14:56

The last time The Bestes Wife In The Whole Wide World was ‘sectioned’ I was
unsurprised to find that the secure ward had , in the meantime, shut the
indoor smoking room. Those patients who smoked, about 90% of them it appeared,
had to go outside onto the enclosed patio, which meant the ward’s patio doors
were, more or less, open 24/7 and no doubt doubled the winter heating
bill….and you have never really experienced ‘cold’ until you’ve survived a
winter in Norfolk (Siberia is for whimps).

The Bestes Wife In The World is a life long non-smoker so I left her
sitting in the freezing day room and went outside onto the patio to smoke..at
which point a Nurse informed me that it was F O R B I D D E N for me, as a
visitor, to smoke. ONLY the patients were allowed to smoke in the garden under
the ‘home’ ruling. Needless to say I paid her the same amount of attention I
pay any other jumped up little fASHist ie none-what-so-fucking-ever. After I
had smoked my cig , in the congenial but somewhat dribbly company of Norfolk’s
Criminally Insane (so no different to the rest of Norfolk I guess), I returned
to the day room and ‘lit’ up an E-Cig…just to make my point.

Margaret Jervis
August 28, 2013 at 15:38

@JM – there are numerous examples of poor decision-making by authorities
in relation to known serious offenders, often after they have had
‘treatment’. I really don’t see what this has to do with the issue under
discussion; ‘risk assessment’ is always a dodgy business but the absence of
determinable ‘risk’ should not be used to justify longterm detention without
more. But we know nothing of his extended history. Carstairs was effectively
his ‘home’ , and may have been a comfortable one, before he was deprived of
reasonable comforts.

Jonathan
Mason August 28, 2013 at 16:57

@Margaret (you have the same name as my daughter).

Which was the point at which Charles McCann finally lost his cool.
Charles suffers from Schizophrenia, and is considered to be such a danger
to the public that he has been forced to call Carstairs ‘home’ for the
past 18 years and is likely to remain there for the foreseeable future. He
liked to smoke an occasional cigarette – now he was to be banned from
doing so. Ever. [A. Raccoon].

Being forced to call Carstairs ‘home’ is not quite the same as it
actually being ‘home’, regardless of what the judge thinks. His argument
that prisoners have greater access to advocacy seems irrelevant (and quite
bizarre) to me, because if the government of Scotland irrevocably banned
smoking in jails and prisons (which surely is not impossible), then that
would apparently remove the mental hospital patients’ right to smoke
simply by knocking out the rickety legal underpinning.

Actually the whole account does seem muddled. If 14% wanted to allow
indoor smoking, why was that used as a reason to have smoking banned
completely indoors and outdoors on the campus. That makes no sense at all.
OK, it was for the convenience of staff, so as not to have to escort
patients outside (and be exposed to smoke) and presumably this would be
more cost effective on staff numbers, reduce overtime, etc., but at what
level was the decision to ban smoking altogether made? Surely it would
have to go to the very top.

As Anna has said, you would think that secure outdoor smoking areas
would have easily solved the problem of staff escorts. That is what we
used to have in Florida. Or indoor smoking chambers as in airports.

Margaret
Jervis August 28, 2013 at 17:17

Well I don’t know. But maybe to be ‘outdoors’ it would have had to
have open access – and that would have been a security issue. Smoking is
banned on all hospital premises in my local hospital – don’t know about
elsewhere. But all rail station platforms are excluded – even though
they are open air.

Jonathan
Mason August 28, 2013 at 17:34

I would have thought a door from the ward leading to an enclosed
patio/picnic area, with part of it protected from rain, floodlights,
and whatever security fencing or wall is deemed necessary. Razor wire
might be too drastic, but one could easily construct something like a
tennis court or swimming pool wire cage with an enclosed roof to
prevent unwanted elopements.

Where I live (Dominican Republic) there is no smoking at all in
hospitals of course, but they have a peculiar compromise for
restaurants and bars, nearly all of which are open air, or at least
fully roofed, but with one side or more open to the air, although this
could be a mesh fence like a tennis court. By this means smoking is
allowed in the restaurants, although not in fully-enclosed (i.e.
air-conditioned) restaurants. The end result is that it is
more-or-less OK if you can get upwind of any smokers, though cigars
tend to permeate everywhere. But you can always get a take-out meal if
the air is bad.

This works better in tropical climates. I understand that part of
the west coast of Scotland is hit by the Gulf Stream and palm trees
can be grown, but possibly it is a little more chilly in other
parts.

Mina Field
August 28, 2013 at 18:00

@Jonathan & Margaret.

Link here to the judgment. A long read, but all of your queries are
answered within. Basically, all sorts of jiggery pokery, mixing and
matching of bits from various legislative Acts, a ‘consultation’ that
never really was, a dumping of the whole mess onto the lawyers – who
themselves had no answer.

http://t.co/j0PvJAgeFk

Margaret
Jervis August 28, 2013 at 18:51

Thanks Mina. Scottish law judgments are abstruse at the best of
times but I’m sure it will set an important precedent. No more
questions Your Honour.

Jonathan
Mason August 28, 2013 at 18:54

@Mina

Thanks, that was a pretty interesting read, though I have not read
100% of the words. It is a pretty detailed and closely argued opinon
and Anna has done a pretty good job of pulling out the key points.

I think the most interesting statement is:

The context for the implementation of the comprehensive
smoke‑free policy at the State Hospital was the move from the old
hospital buildings to the new‑build hospital on the same site at
Carstairs. The new hospital had in fact been built without smoking
rooms. This had been the plan from possibly as early as 2005.

This rather matches what happened when the Florida sex offenders
were moved to a brand spanking new facility. Certainly the trend
worldwide is anything but smoker-friendly, but probably we are now in
the transitional decades.

The thing about riots in prisons if smoking is banned is a bit of
an old canard, possibly given legs by some prison staff who themselves
smoke and don’t want to see smoke free prisons. But the issue is not
entirely without weight. It certainly seems that the best way to
transition is when new facilities are built, thus needing several
years of advance planning, because inmates can be transitioned into
the new facility in small batches while the population is built up and
thus start to earn gain time and good conduct privileges that they
will be unwilling to surrender, and it also means that new inmates
will be transitioning into a functioning smoke free environment that
peers have already come to terms with.

Mina
Field August 28, 2013 at 19:26

18:54 @Jonathan Mason

Yes, it would take a long time to read it thoroughly, and digest
all the legislative and legal principles referred to in this case.
However, to address your point regarding a move to a total smoke-free
hospital – it looks as though they were at first moving towards this
in a measured and fairer way. There is mention of employing 2 full
time people to assist with ‘quitting’, and there were outdoor areas
and designated ‘smoking times’ for people to use them. Then it appears
to be the case that somebody thought, ‘to hell with this, we’ll just
pull the plug on a certain date’. Their real problem was, they appear
not to have bothered to consult any legislation until afterwards, when
they frantically tried to decide which powers or authority they’d
invoked. That, and trying to bullsh*t the patients and their
solicitors.

Mina Field
August 28, 2013 at 17:50

@Margaret Jervis

Thanks for dealing with the ‘campaign for his release’ quip. It saves
me the bother. I’d just add that the point is, and was, that the chap –
and many of his fellow residents, are not necessarily past or future
Hannibal Lecters.
I suspect that Jonathan Mason’s experience lies in
management and/or finance rather than any patient facing role. It would be
good if we were to see people posting here who do have recent or current
patient facing experience in this sort of environment, in England and
Wales, and also in Scotland, given that this is a Scottish case and the
subject of Scottish legislation.

Margaret
Jervis August 28, 2013 at 18:00

I expect they are all subject to pharma coshes.

Jonathan
Mason August 28, 2013 at 19:00

I suspect that Jonathan Mason’s experience lies in management
and/or finance rather than any patient facing role.

No, never anything to do with finance, but many years of experience
of “patient-facing” and management roles. I have often had to intercede
in disputes between patients and staff, and not necessarily on the side
of the staff. More like playing the role of referee in a soccer match
sometimes.

Just as a side note, it is interesting to me that when there are
discussions on NHS topics in journals such as The Guardian, one hears a
lot of condemnation of NHS managers, but hardly ever any contribution to
the discussion from the numerous NHS bureaucrats themselves. I wonder
why this is.

delcatto
August 29, 2013 at 14:53

“It would be good if we were to see people posting here who do have
recent or current patient facing experience in this sort of
environment…”

I have recent and extensive experience in this sort of environment as
a mental health nurse and I am pleased the judge found in the
gentleman’s favour. He may need the requirements of incarceration in a
high secure mental health facility in order to treat his illness and to
protect the public but to then deny him the choice of smoking is an
abuse of power. I see no problem with rooms set aside for smoking so
that individuals may smoke in comfort without being made to feel like
lepers. From experience the denial of cigarettes to patients on wards
does lead to an increase in aggression, both verbal and physical. Having
to ensure staffs accompany patients to the outside smoking areas
multiple times per day or as organised set times each hour is both
demeaning, a waste of resources and increases the risks of people
absconding (“open” adult acute admission wards).
From a social
perspective mental health patients, particularly people diagnosed with
schizophrenia, are already on the margins of society and to then deny
the simple pleasure of a fag with others in a comfortable room is yet
another layer of oppression.
“Not only are you mad, you are dangerous
and you are a filthy smoker” is the mindset of far too many
people.
For the record I am a non-smoker but I really do dislike the
authoritarian and puritan righteousness of the anti-smoker mob. There is
a “I know what’s best for you” arrogance surrounding smoking, foods,
alcohol, etc… It is interesting to see the collision of smoking and best
interests in this particular case and I am glad the application went the
right way. I am also an AMHP and Best Interests Assessor* and I see far
too much spurious use of “best interests” to justify a bullying attitude
from health and social services professionals.

* I have taken early retirement and I am considering nursing only in
the future sans the AMHP / BIA shackles.

Jonathan
Mason August 29, 2013 at 16:36

You make some good points, but while I was snoozing in the sun in
the jacuzzi this morning, I remembered another factor that you did not
mention and which did not come up in the Scottish judgment either.

In mental hospitals and similar institutions cigarettes are often
used as a form of alternative currency, a local Bitcoin if you like.
For example at one hospital I worked at, extracurricular treats like
sex could be bought for a price of about 3 cigarettes (by patients I
should add, not staff.)

From a management point of view the problem was that “trading and
trafficking” was forbidden, but facilitated by this alternative
currency. Why? Let’s take an example:

Julie Smith is a young schizophrenic woman with a loving family.
For her birthday they buy her a nice Sony boombox for 50 pounds that
she can use to listen to her religious CD’s, Christmas carols and mp3s
that her family download for her. A week after her birthday the
battery on her boombox is dead and the recharging cable is lost. Not
unnaturally she then sells the useless boombox to a male patient in
exchange for a packet of cigarettes. The male patient then locates the
lost charger cord and sells the boombox on to another patient in
another building for 2 packets of cigarettes, a mark-up of 100%. The
second patient then trades the boombox to an employee, his smoke buddy
who regularly supplies him with contraband cigarettes, for four
packets of cigarettes and the boombox subsequently becomes the
property of the employee’s child as a perk of his or her parent’s
employment.

Now Julie Smith’s family discovers that she no longer has the
boombox in her possession and the shit hits the fan when they descend
on the hospital administrator’s office demanding that the boombox be
returned to its rightful owner. The hospital administrator commissions
an investigation which finds out what happened and makes
recommendations.

This is another reason why, in real life, hospital administrations
don’t like smoking on campus.

Some will say something like this could never happen at Carstairs,
Broadmoor, or Rampton, where the staff are all virtuous NHS career
service employees dedicated to the welfare of patients. Of course many
of them are, but it only needs a few bad apples.

Margaret Jervis
August 28, 2013 at 14:19

Aren’t there any anti-smokers out there willing to enter the debate? JM is
having to shoulder it all on his own. What is it about us Raccoonistas? I’m
sure not all of us smoke….though we may fume at the idiocy of the state and
others.

Anna
Raccoon August 28, 2013 at 14:31

Raccoonistas do tend towards the Libertarian outlook – and I know for a
fact that many of them don’t smoke!

Come on – someone support JM?

Margaret
Jervis August 28, 2013 at 14:40

Chris Tame ran FOREST and was not a smoker.

JuliaM August 28, 2013 at 16:59

I don’t smoke. But I can’t support JM because I really can’t see how
it’s any of his damn business what others do.

Jonathan
Mason August 28, 2013 at 17:06

There is an old saying that your freedom to swing your fist ends at
the beginning of my nose! The same applies if it is a case of smokers
subjecting others to their smoke. Let me make it quite clear that I
have absolutely no objection to anyone smoking themselves to death if
no one else is in range of the smoke or has agreed to be subjected to
the smoke (unless they are smoking in a non-smoking hotel room and I
am the next customer to get that room!)

Joe Public
August 28, 2013 at 22:23

One comment would be:

“I don’t object to people smoking, so long as they don’t exhale.

Mina Field August 28, 2013 at 12:49

@Jonathon Mason
Re, ‘home’. Thankfully the judge disagrees with you.

Jonathan Mason
August 28, 2013 at 13:37

Perhaps the judge also objects to forensic patients, a population of
murderers and rapists, having their rooms periodically searched for
dangerous objects without search warrants, since they are in their own
homes.

Mina Field
August 28, 2013 at 14:04

@Jonathan Mason

Bit of an uncharacteristically daft reply from you there. I mean, I’m
sure you have read the relevant legislation and are perfectly aware of the
exceptions concerning danger and risk. It sounds rather cold and lacking
in compassion to be so unwilling to allow these people a ‘home’, as you
are. They can’t leave the place at the end of the day, and go somewhere
else. The chap who brought this case has been detained for 18 years, and
he hasn’t axed anyone. His offending was so minor that it wouldn’t even
warrant a prison sentence. And as I posted earlier, the dubious ban
extended to any excursions he went on, and even to his family and their
home. To champion the cause of the Respondent in this case is to go a lot
further than is consistent with your own ‘don’t like the smell’ point of
view.

Jonathan
Mason August 28, 2013 at 15:06

Well, I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that in legal terms
there is a right to smoke in one’s home, except when it isn’t your home.
I will leave it to the legal experts here to explain why prisoners and
mental hospital patients in Florida are not allowed to smoke on the
grounds that it is there home, but in Scotland they are. Ultimately it
is all a matter of semantics regarding the definition of a “home”.

His offending was so minor that it wouldn’t even warrant a prison
sentence.

In that case the obvious answer would be to campaign for his release
as he is unjustly imprisoned.

G. Pierce Wood hospital in Florida (now closed) was sued in Federal
Court by the US Department of Justice on behalf of a paedophile called
Miller Frank Johnson, on the grounds that he was unjustly detained
without treatment for his condition.

As a result of the case he was discharged from the hospital and the
end result can be seen in the link on my next post.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/gpwcomp.php

Jonathan
Mason August 28, 2013 at 15:09

Miller Frank Johnson was ordered discharged by the Federal Court
and not very long afterwards was arrested for abducting a 6-year-old
boy.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1755&dat=19960101&id=tL4qAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ynwEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2656,463801

Anna
Raccoon August 28, 2013 at
14:09

Not all patients at Carstairs are criminals.
“Modern healthcare
accommodation for individuals with mental disorder who, because of their
dangerous, violent or criminal propensities, cannot be cared for in any
other setting.” Note the ‘or’ between dangerous, violent OR
criminal.
The facility also includes 12 beds for patients with
‘learning disabilities’.

Mina Field
August 28, 2013 at 14:14

@Anna Raccoon
Quite. And the petitioner in this case enjoys
unsupervised access to the grounds (the grounds being beyond the ‘hub’
area, which is the immediate outdoor garden, complete with its plastic
decking).

Anna
Raccoon August 28, 2013 at
14:32

Surely the answer to this problem would have been a well ventilated
‘sin-bin’ within the building?

charlotte
August 28, 2013 at 22:51

Surely the answer to this problem would have been a well ventilated
‘sin bin’ within the area.
Perhaps the model for the smoking
chamber at Glasgow airport could be used. With £8.000 he could afford
the admission price. Personally, I would get one installed as per en
suite to his room. I really wouldn’t want to piss the MF off. An
alternative could be a bit of chewing baccy or snuff though. Just a
thought.

Jonathan Mason
August 28, 2013 at 12:43

By the way, although there might be some attempts to create a homelike
atmosphere at Carstairs, a forensic hospital for the criminally insane cannot
be considered the same thing as a person’s home, even if that is where their
mail is sent.

Jonathan Mason
August 28, 2013 at 12:28

In Florida smoking is now completely banned in state prisons and mental
hospitals, and a good thing too.

Smoking is a major cause of fires in mental hospitals and cigarettes and
cigarette lighters are often used for self injury or for nefarious activities
such as converting toothbrushes into deadly weapons. (Carstairs is a prison
hospital for the criminally insane and I remember an incident some years back
where a senior nurse was killed there with an axe.) Smoking is also the cause
of damage to furniture, floors, bed linens, not to mention patient clothing.
Outdoor smoking is the cause of littering of cigarette packet materials and
cigarette butts. Smoking is a major source of false fire alarms.

Smoking damages the health, not to mention making people smell bad to be
close to other people. Life expectancy of smokers is reduced and mental
hospital smokers often inhale deeply, smoke cigarettes down to the last puff
to the extent of burning their fingers, and pick up cigarette butts off the
ground to make further roll-ups, which obviously have a very high tar
component. Providing health care for people with cigarette related illnesses
in institutions is an additional burden for the taxpayer.

No court anywhere has ever found that there is a human right to smoke, but
it is a frequent finding that employees have a right to a smoke-free work
environment. Game, set, and match.

Margaret Jervis
August 28, 2013 at 12:50

I was told by staff that a lot of the fires were caused by people smoking
under cover.

Jonathan
Mason August 28, 2013 at 14:51

Probably true, because even when people are allowed to smoke they try
to push the envelope and smoke outside the permitted times and zones, for
example in bed, in the toilet, etc.

Uncle Nick
August 28, 2013 at 13:11

Oh, and you were doing *so* well until the the third paragraph. Actual,
sensible reasons why smoking materials should be restricted (all of which
can be answered by the word “e-cigs”, however) and then the little control
freak inside you got out.

“We don’t likes them, they smells they does. Makes them go away, away. We
hates them. Yessss, we hates them…” is how you come across.

And it’s an interesting dichotomy that you consider people already
spending 100% of their lives in a hospital care enviroment might generate
“an additional burden for the taxpayer” in any way. Are you an advocate of
euthanasia for mental health patients to reduce their tax burden?

Jonathan
Mason August 28, 2013 at 13:34

“We don’t likes them, they smells they does. Makes them go away,
away. We hates them. Yessss, we hates them…” is how you come
across.

That is not what I said, but it is an objective fact that people who
smoke smell of cigarettes after smoking, and their skin, hair, and
clothing smells of tobacco. Would you not object if, say, your dentist or
hairdresser reeked of tobacco while performing dental work on you?

Uncle Nick
August 28, 2013 at 13:55

What sort of hell do you live in where your hairdresser performs
dental work on you?

Mina
Field August 28, 2013 at 14:10

Hhmm, there is a hairdressers near my work, where there is nearly
always one or the other of them outside the back door, having a fag.
Their business doesn’t seem to suffer. Its not everyone who smokes who
smells of it. I’m not quite sure why some do and some don’t, but its a
fact. You doubtless come into contact with many smokers every day,
without realising it. Could very easily be your doctor, or your
dentist’s receptionist.

Jonathan
Mason August 28, 2013 at 15:20

@Mina

I think it is worse if people have been smoking in cars.

I recently went to meet a friend, a heavy smoker, who I had not
seen or communicated with since last summer at his hotel room. I
knocked on the door and he opened it and I entered the room. I
immediately said to him “so you quit smoking” and he said “how the
hell did you know that?”. I just told him that I couldn’t smell
it.

JuliaM August 28, 2013 at 16:57

Or where you can’t choose your hairdresser and find one who doesn’t
smoke?

Budvar August 28, 2013 at 13:20

Johnny boy, I believe it was Oscar Wilde who said (and I paraphrase here)
“It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and prove
beyond doubt.

Let’s take apart your (paraphrasing once again) “Lighters should be
banned cos they’re used to make shivs and they damage funiture”.
OK,
let’s take this at face value and for arguments sake say you’re right. Will
it stop individuals from fashoning weapons or stop any further damage to
furniture? I fail to see how, it will stop someone wrapping soap in a
sock/towel, shivs from broken glass/chicken bones/pens/pencils/sharpened
sticks/or a chest of drawers broken into sharp splinters etc, or blunt
objects like tvs/radios/tables chairs/chests of drawers?

Also like you, I wonder how on earth people managed to make fire before
the invention of matches and lighters, I suppose they just had to wait
around for the off chance lightning would strike somewhere and they had some
form of dry tinder about their person.

I mean, it’s not like I could utilise the sun and a rudimentary lens like
my specs or a condom partially filled with water and a 2 week old copy of
the guardian that’d been left on the radiator is it?

Furor
Teutonicus August 31, 2013 at 05:50

XX In Florida smoking is now completely banned in state prisons and
mental hospitals, and a good thing too.XX

Fucking faschist wanker.

Mina Field August 28, 2013 at 10:16

Nice article. I did read the judgment though, and whilst I admit to
skim-reading because its pretty lengthy, I read the consultation results
differently – I gathered that the majority voted for the partial restrictions,
and only a minority were for the total ban. Also, the ban was worse than this
article describes – it extended to every outing and, even home visits enjoyed
by the detainees. In the case of the petitioner himself it required his family
to cease their own smoking an hour before the petitioner visited. Talk about
cruel and unusual!
Another little snippet was, that those imposing the ban
saw it as a ‘research opportunity’. Unsurprisingly the judge declared that
this made him uncomfortable.

Margaret Jervis
August 28, 2013 at 11:40

What is this irrational fear of smoking by others? Not even within
people’s ‘personal smokefree space’? And why have car exhaust fumes had such
an easy run? I have two slogans re anti – ASH – ashes to ashes and pro
INCENSE! – keeps away the health fascists.

Jonathan
Mason August 28, 2013 at 12:41

The introduction of catalytic converters, lead-free petrol, and various
fuel economy measure, plus the move toward rechargeable electric vehicles
on which billions of dollars of research has been spent, such as the Chevy
Volt, Toyota Prius, and Tesla are all moves to reduce petrol fumes in the
lower atmosphere. However smoking is primarily a problem indoors.

I am personally pretty much opposed to smoking, but not out of fear,
but because the smell of cigarette or cigar smoke makes me ill, and I want
to be able to go about my business at work, or in public places like
shops, restaurants, and airports, government offices, shopping precincts,
etc. without being made sick.

I have no objection at all to people smoking as long as they do not
bring the smoke into contact with anyone who does not consent to it, for
example in hermetically sealed smoke rooms in airports that have negative
air pressure and conduits that discharge dirty air outdoors. I can’t say I
like sitting next to a person who has been smoking in an aircraft, but I
am prepared to hold my nose and tolerate it.

Miss Mildred
August 28, 2013 at 09:41

In the good old days folk smoked all over the films, television, when
snowstorm tele first started. Men worked at dangerous jobs with a ciggy stuck
to their lower lips. My grandad and dad and uncle spawned a library of photo
albums of cigarette cards( fetched a good price down the line) Then they call
a mental hospital a HOME, to make it seem more cosy to the smoking clientele,
who inhabit the place. Fail to forecast the problems around ‘going outside to
smoke’ Surely they could divise a place that is ‘outside’, but secure and
seperately set out, warm too, perhaps. Pubs manage this to a lesser degree.
Then those ubiquitous grasping lawyers are on it like a rash….Human Rights
clicks in again too, and a judge thrown in….WOW. A true story of our times.
Fiddlesticks to compensation.

Margaret Jervis
August 28, 2013 at 09:50

…and the war films where the dying man had a ciggie as an act of
compassion? And how we here (never in the US in my experience) used to pass
cigarettes around – rude not to offer. Yes they were cheaper then – but as a
proportion of disposable income suspect not.

Joe Public August 28, 2013 at 09:40

“…… he couldn’t have the £3,000 compensation he had asked for – on the
grounds that he had saved at least £8,000 whilst being deprived of his ability
to consume cigarettes.”

To which the response should be:

But increase my pocket-money allowance by £x, because by smoking, I’ll be
reducing my life expectancy by y-years, so saving the NHS £100,000* pa.
(*
or whatever)

Duncan
Disorderly August 28, 2013 at 10:21

What on earth will he do with the money anyway?

Budvar August 28, 2013 at 11:18

I was speaking to bloke in the pub a few weeks back, he was an
administrator at Broadmoor (now retired).
He told me that the inmates
not being “Prisoners” but “Patients” are entitled to Disability benefit,
which in some cases is quite a wedge.
The way it works (he relayed to
me) is they peruse the Argos catalogue and make a list of what they’d
like, and take it to him being the administrator.
I’m assuming that a
check was made that what they were ordering was infact a plasma screen TV,
a hifi and a microwave and not samurai swords, nun-chucks and kung fu
stars, and an order was placed to be delivered at a later date.

AndrewWS
August 28, 2013 at 16:53

I don’t think you can buy “samurai swords, nun-chucks and kung fu
stars” from Argos, at least I don’t recall them from the days when I
worked in one.

If such patients get all this money and don’t spend it, what happens
to their savings when they die? Being not of sound mind, they can’t make
a will, so I suppose they’re obliged to end their days intestate and
leave it all to the Exchequer.

Better to spend it at Argos, I’d say.

Jonathan
Mason August 28, 2013 at 17:01

It would pay for their burial plot, funeral, etc. and then if they
were intestate it would go to the next of kin. I think they can make a
will, though perhaps it has to be approved by a court or done via a
legal guardian, or something. Anna would know.

Anna
Raccoon August 28, 2013 at
17:13

Not at all, Andrew. The Court of Protection can make a statutory
will for anyone who doesn’t have the mental capacity to do so
themselves – but surprisingly, the ‘bar’ for having mental capacity to
either marry or make your own will is much, much, lower than the ‘bar’
to pay your own bills……
In other words, there are many subject to
the restrictions of a Court of Protection order who are still able to
make their own will.

SamB
August 29, 2013 at 13:02

My friend who is working on the film about the late rock manager
Kit Lambert who died whilst under the Court of Protection reports his
estate at his time of death was around £100K but he was being doled
out £100 a week to live on out of his own money as it was considered
ample. Apparently he spent the last 5 years of his life cadging drinks
and cigarettes from a variety of friends as the Court solicitor
wouldn’t advance him his own cash for such fripperies.

Margaret Jervis
August 28, 2013 at 09:26

Found this entertaining and prescient article by David Hockney written in
2007 – makes some very cogent points about the UK as it has become

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2007/may/15/art.smoking

Duncan Disorderly
August 28, 2013 at 09:16

I personally hate this attitude that mental health patients are to have
their rights and wishes respected at all times, but the minute this becomes a
problem – like with this incident – the patient doesn’t know their own mind,
and must be treated with force.

Much better to stop pretending, and admit that the mental health patients
are either truly capable or not capable of making their own decisions.

Anna
Raccoon August 28, 2013 at 09:19

“attitude that mental health patients are to have their rights and wishes
respected at all times, but the minute this becomes a problem – like with
this incident – the patient doesn’t know their own mind, and must be treated
with force.”

That was the aspect which tickled me too.

Jonathan
Mason August 28, 2013 at 14:42

Not really, because there are different levels of decision making. If a
person is a danger to themself or others and there is a good chance that
medication would reduce that danger, and a court or the necessary Mental
Health Tribunal approve it, then perhaps it is necessary. Usually when a
patient knows that every avenue has been explored, they ill agree to take
the medication without physical force being used to administer it, which
nobody really wants due to the risk of injury to patient, nurses, security
staff, incident reports, extra paperwork, etc.

On the other hand, there is absolutely no harm in taking into account
personal preferences of patients in matters of everyday life. For example,
when I worked in Bermuda, the staff who worked with the severely retarded
individuals insisted that they should be allowed to go to the shops and
choose their own clothing. My view was that it was ridiculous to allow a
patient to choose a long sleeve shirt (for a hot climate) that had buttons
all the way down that the patient could not do up or undo, and which would
probably soon be torn off, none of which the patient could understand, but
it would make sense for the staff to choose a range of items in the
correct size that would be manageable for the patient, comfortable,
reasonably priced, easy to launder, relatively durable, and then let the
patient make the choice of colour or style. If the patient wanted to wear
a green shirt every day of the week, that was fine and we could buy them 5
green shirts.

This is just an convenient example, but clearly there are different
levels of decision-making. Do you insist that patients bathe and change
into pajamas and nighties at night, or do you let them sleep in their day
clothes on top of the bed without bathing? Do you let the patients grow
their toenails long until they curl under their toes, or do you insist on
them being cut regularly. Opinions will differ on these matters according
to how liberal or libertarian you are.

Ted Treen
August 29, 2013 at 20:57

” If a person is a danger to themself or others and there is a good
chance that medication would reduce that danger, and a court or the
necessary Mental Health Tribunal approve it, then perhaps it is
necessary.”

Does that mean that as I – a rational responsible adult of some 63
summers – continue to indulge in a few hand rolled cigarettes each day,
I am obviously a danger to myself. There is evidence that certain
medications may assist me to stop smoking.

Are you suggesting that it is in order for me to be effectively
sectioned and forcibly treated to prevent my continuing to be a danger
to myself?
Of course you’re not (well, I hope you’re not). But how
does this differ other than in degree from your statement which I quote
above?
Who decides where the line is? Is there a line?
In my
experience most “lines” are a grey gradual merging of black & white,
but these arbitrary decisions by “professionals” often leave me with an
uncomfortable feeling of disquiet, and thoughts of “Quis
custodiet…”

Jonathan
Mason August 29, 2013 at 22:12

“Danger to self or others” in psychiatric terminology refers to a
person either being self injurious, for example cutting themselves or
attempting suicide, or that they might do physical injury to or kill
others. Usually there is some past form or history of mental illness.
Smoking a few cigarettes a day as the sole symptom would not get you
close to a psychiatric ward in the first place. There was a case in
England of a young man aged 13 who had a developmental disorder being
sectioned in England for overeating and becoming dangerously obese,
but I believe that was quashed on review.

He died when he was 25.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-455109/40-stone-man-dies-spending-months-armchair.html

Margaret Jervis
August 28, 2013 at 09:09

Once did some research on the NHS and smoking – this was in the 1990s –
discovered that schizophrenics tended to smoke like chimneys but hardly ever
died of lung cancer. Whether they had a protective gene in addition to
defective ones or simply a chance correlation I don’t know. I’m not sure
whether this – as with other smoking research which doesn’t say things like
nicotine traces in carpets can kill – was ever followed up. But a mental nurse
said to me at the time – after nurses but not yet patients had been banned
from smoking – that one of the best ways of establishing rapport with patients
was to share a cigarette and a cup of tea. My article was published in the
Nursing Times and I was never offered another commission there.

DtP August 28, 2013 at 09:45

I worked at the National Treatment Agency for just over a year checking
the value of drug treatment in one of the regions and other than concluding
drug treatment doesn’t work much – wander in with a nice little smack habit,
wander out with a bloody expensive crack habit as the guy next to you is
only there after being collared by the rozzers and chucked on a DTTO.
However, the amount of drug users whose main problem is mental health and
their drug use self medication would blow a lot of people’s socks off. That
junkie ain’t mad because he’s a junkie – he’s a junkie coz he’s mad as a box
of frogs. Taking ciggies away is just cruel and frackking twisted.

Jonathan Mason
August 28, 2013 at 11:56

Are you suggesting that staff should take up smoking to improve their job
performance?

Margaret
Jervis August 28, 2013 at 12:00

No. But they shouldn’t have to give up to worsen it.

Brentfordian August
29, 2013 at 09:13

Smoking staff:

The WHO survey into passive smoking (1997 I think and, at the time
the largest such survey – I’m wrting from memory here) concluded that
there was no provable causal link between passive smoking and lung
cancer. Case ‘not proven’. (Granted, later surveys have suggested there
is such a link.) However it did find that the children of smokers were
25% less likely to develop lung cancer in later life – yup, that’s “less
likely”.

From which we can conclude that if we wish to protect children from
the disease one of the best ways is to ensure that nursery workers,
infant teachers, in fact anyone working in child care, is a smoker, and
to encourage them to puff away all day – maybe a grant should be given
to cover their costs?

Don’t think it’ll happen though.

Margaret
Jervis August 29, 2013 at 10:41

There was prospective research by Eysenck in Denmark many years ago
that showed that more people died of fear of smoking than smoking.
Well they may not have died ‘of this’ but there was a correlation. The
people with the greatest longevity as I recall were smokers who did
not succumb to ‘health messages’. This research was mentioned in my
Nursing Times article in 1993-4 but its not on the net. FOREST may
have a copy and the original research article.

Mina Field
August 28, 2013 at 13:47

@Jonathan Mason
‘staff should take up smoking’. Some do. As some do
at Carstairs. Counsel for the Petitioner made the point, which the judge
agreed with, that they at least could leave at the end of their shift and
smoke wherever else they wanted to.

Where do you stand on the nazi like submission from the ‘banners’ that
watching the patients suffer the loss of their cigarettes would be ‘useful
research’?

Jonathan
Mason August 28, 2013 at 14:28

Where do you stand on the nazi like submission from the ‘banners’
that watching the patients suffer the loss of their cigarettes would be
‘useful research’?

I don’t have any particular opinion on that. I have been an
eyewitness to a large mental hospital going smoke free and also to the
same thing at the Florida sex offenders program (in effect a prison)
which went smoke free when it moved to a brand new building. In both
cases there were dire predictions of what might happen if the residents
were deprived of smokes. In both cases nothing significant happened. Why
should it? When people are hospitalized for physical illnesses they
cannot smoke and nothing happens.

I can’t see that any research is needed, but I suppose if you wanted
to test the hypothesis that smoking cigarettes reduces symptoms of
schizophrenia, you could collect before and after assessments like the
Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and the Positive and Negative
Syndrome Scale (PANSS) to obtain statistical inferences.

No, I don’t think mental hospitals should go smoke-free simply for
the purpose of researching this issue, but if you were going smoke free
anyway, it probably would not require much additional work to collect
the relevant data and analyze it. In fact I would think that a competent
management would want to do this anyway.