Posts tagged as:

England

More smoking ban miracles, more bad reporting

by Jacob Grier on September 14, 2009

Reports are once again lighting up with a new study about smoking bans triggering a sudden drop in heart attack rates. Here’s Sunday Times reporter Jonathan Leake:

The ban on public smoking has caused a fall in heart attack rates of about 10%, a study has found.

Researchers commissioned by the Department of Health have found a far sharper fall than they had expected in the number of heart attacks in England in the year after the ban was imposed in July 2007.

In Scotland, where the ban was introduced a year earlier, heart attack rates have fallen by about 14% because of the ban, separate research has shown. Similar results are expected in Wales where a third study is still under way. [...]

“We always knew a public smoking ban would bring rapid health benefits, but we have been amazed by just how big and how rapid they are,” said John Britton, director of the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies at Nottingham University.

I’d love to dig into this study and find out how they got these numbers. The problem? As Michael Siegel explains, there is no study:

It turns out that there is no “study” to behold. The “study” appears to merely be a work in progress that has not yet been published or even submitted for publication, yet its results and conclusion were widely disseminated through the media. In other words, this is yet another example of what I call “science by press release.”

It appears that the conclusions of the study have been released to the media, but that the actual research itself is not being made publicly available. The study itself is not available, from what I can tell, on the University of Bath web site or the web site of the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies.

Therefore, it is impossible to judge whether the conclusions of the study are valid or not. And if the conclusions turn out to be unwarranted, then it will be too late to reverse them. The media have already disseminated the conclusion widely. Any correction given down the road would have little effect.

How these figures were calculated is therefore anybody’s guess. Christopher Snowdon suggests a few options based on previous manipulations in smoking ban studies and notes that the publicly available data from the NHS don’t support the conclusion:

We know that the heart attack rate fell by between 2 and 4% before the ban and by between 2 and 4% after the ban (see the HES website). To date, we only have the data for the first 9 months following the smoking ban, but that it is enough to go on. After all, if smoking bans immediately save lives, the first 9 months is where we would see the biggest drop.

Snowdon also notes his surprise at seeing the Scottish statistics reported in the Times since the paper previously considered the study one of the “worst junk stats of 2007:”

“Smoking ban cut heart attacks in Scotland by 17 per cent”, researchers and politicians trumpeted to the world in September through press releases, a conference and interviews, all faithfully reported. It was the ban what done it, they said… until six weeks later when official data halved the drop — to 8 per cent — against a trend immediately before the ban of a 5 or 6 per cent drop, and a fall a few years ago of 11. All of which makes it hard to be sure what, if any, effect the ban really had. The researchers went strangely silent.

Leake quotes numerous experts who favor the unpublished study and not a single critic despite the thrashing that so many similar studies have taken. This is the sort of lazy journalism we’ve seen repeatedly in the field of tobacco regulation, where researchers can make any outlandish claim against smoking without fear of skepticism from gullible reporters. I don’t expect intellectual integrity from anti-tobacco activists, but we should demand better from the press.

Update 9/15/09: Now even ASH has backed away from this claim, saying “We have heard that the figures reported in the Sunday Times yesterday (and now circulating elsewhere) are not based on any research conducted to date.”

Previously:
More lazy tobacco reporting
Lazy reporting and the Pueblo ban study

Permalink - Share/Save - Comments (6)

Big Brother is watching you drink

by Jacob Grier on February 11, 2009

Utah is considering getting rid of its comically archaic “private club” rule that requires patrons to become members of a bar before they can drink. Unfortunately, their proposed alternative is a little creepy:

[...] everyone entering a club, whether they’re 21 or 101, would have to swipe their identification to verify it is genuine. The patron’s name, address, driver license number and date of birth would be logged into the [government] database, along with the time and place they were drinking.

And from London, a story from a pub owner forced to install CCTV cameras outside his business:

I have recently agreed to take on a pub in a residential part of Islington. Under normal circumstances this would have simply involved the existing licence holder signing over the premises’ licence to me. Unfortunately they had gone insolvent and disappeared so I applied for a new licence, which requires the approval of a number of organisations, including the police. I was stunned to find the police were prepared to approve, ie not fight, our licence on condition that we installed CCTV capturing the head and shoulders of everyone coming into the pub, to be made available to them upon request. There was no way that they could have imposed this on the previous licence holder.

As it happens the Islington Labour party headquarters is on the same street as the pub and, being a member, I contacted the MP Emily Thornberry to see if she really thinks she needs her photo taken when she pops in for a pint - needless to say I have not heard from her. I also spoke with a friend who is the licensing officer for another borough. Not only did he tell me that there was nothing I could do to overturn this, he also strongly advised me not to blot my copybook with the police by even questioning the request; I would not want them against me in the future, he said.

Calling two examples a trend would be lazy reporting. But given the unique restrictions that are placed on the alcohol industry, we could easily see more governments using regulation as a tool for collecting private information. This is something to keep an eye on.

[Hat tip to Hit and Run for the first link.]

Previously:
Utah, future home of the Vieux Carré

Permalink - Share/Save - Comments (0)

Smoke less, smoke better

by Jacob Grier on January 22, 2009

Contrary to previous news, official reports in England claim that the smoking ban and public health campaigns have reduced the proportion of smokers in society — from 22% to 21%! I haven’t seen the full report, but I’m not even sure that’s within the margin of error. The report also finds that smoking has actually increased among teenage boys, suggesting that the anti-smoking campaigns might have perversely made smoking cigarettes appear cooler than before. Congratulations England.

Here’s the really interesting stat:

Just 1 per cent of men now smoke pipes compared with 12 per cent in 1974, while the proportion who smoke cigars has fallen from 34 per cent to 2 per cent over the same period.

This might seem like a good thing, but since many of these people are probably substituting cigarettes it’s actually something to be concerned about. Smoking pipes and cigars is safer than smoking cigarettes because the smoke isn’t inhaled into sensitive lung tissue. The fact that they take so much longer to enjoy means that they’re consumed less frequently. The inconvenience makes it unlikely that users will develop nicotine dependency since they can’t regulate their intake throughout the day. Craving a cigar is more like craving a good steak than like craving a cup of coffee in the morning; it’s wonderful to enjoy every once in a while, but it’s not addicting.

The trend against cigars and pipes has gone on for a long time, but smoking bans exacerbate it. Cigarette smokers can step outside in nearly any weather and light up for two or three minutes. But if it’s too cold, too hot, too windy, too wet, or too anything, pipe and cigar smokers are out of luck. I’ve smoked a cigar outside in Virginia’s December and believe me, it’s no fun. Unless these smokers happen to be near one of the few, if any, cigar bars their jurisdictions still allow to exist, their hobby is hard to pursue. It’s easy to see why they’d turn to cigarettes.

Tobacco is never going to go away entirely. Governments have imposed death sentences for smoking and taxes far higher than they do now and still smoking endures. What’s changed is the way people do it. As citizens lash out against the bans, lawmakers should consider accommodating the older, safer forms of tobacco usage. A society in which people smoke less and smoke better has its advantages.

Permalink - Share/Save - Comments (2)

Bans across the pond

by Jacob Grier on January 6, 2009

With several smoking bans just going into effect in the US and debates over proposed bans going on throughout the country, it’s worth revisiting the question of how they impact businesses. (You didn’t really think I was finished with ban posts for the week, did you?) The US has fared decently well thanks to growth in the hospitality industry obscuring the losses in bars that have suffered; whether that will continue in the down economy remains to be seen. The Financial Times‘ Matthew Engel notes that pubs have been hit much harder in the UK and Ireland:

In Britain, where smoking in enclosed public places became totally illegal in 2007, beer sales are down by 10 per cent; analysts attribute half of that to the smoking law. Pubs are now closing at a record rate of 36 a week.

The publicans I talk to (and they have plenty of time to chat these days) have many complaints but the loss of the smokers is top of their list. Some are on the pavement, but most stay at home. Pool tables stand empty; darts leagues wither.

This may not be so noticeable in the cities. The pubs that are closing are mainly small and often rural, precisely the places that are crucial to their communities and that tourist boards witter on about. Big city drinking barns survive; gastropubs may thrive. The inns of Olde England face extinction, killed by the well-meaning.

My own village local is thought likely to go under this year. It is hard to imagine, under current conditions, that more than a handful of traditional pubs – as opposed to thinly disguised restaurants – will be left in the English countryside 10 years hence…

I hardly ever smoked in pubs myself. Nor does anyone else now. They do not drink in them either. Brilliant.

I worry that the same will happen in Oregon, Iowa, Illinois, and other states with far-reaching bans. The urban bars will likely weather the change. The smaller rural and neighborhood bars I’m not so sure of.

As noted here before, Portland’s restaurants are in for a tough season. The end of 2008 was pretty terrible:

Observers can’t remember a worse year for Portland restaurants. In the first two months of 2008, seven restaurants closed, four as part of the implosion of the overextended N.W. Hayden Enterprises. The year ends with the fall of Lucier — the $4 million South Waterfront showcase — ringing in our ears. In between, more than 20 Portland restaurants shut their doors…

“I’ve heard some people say their business has dropped by as much as 40 percent in the last month or so,” says Bill Perry of the Oregon Restaurant Association. “Things weren’t too bad until October — sales were off just 4 percent or so over the year — but then, two or three weeks before the election, things just froze. I’ve never seen anything like this; if we want to avoid a big rut in January, people are going to have to begin spending again.”

Perry says January’s increase in the minimum wage from $7.95 to $8.40 per hour will be another blow, especially in tough times, when raising menu prices could further empty dining rooms. “They really won’t have much choice,” he says, “but to let people go or cut their hours.” [...]

Effects ripple through the community. Oregon lost 1,900 restaurant jobs in September and October, and suppliers are left with unpaid bills and dwindling orders.

[Links via Andrew Stuttaford and the excellent Oregon Economics blog, recently recommended by Maureen Ogle.]

Permalink - Share/Save - Comments (3)

We were never at war with Eurasia

by Jacob Grier on December 17, 2008

A new survey conducted for the British government claims that England’s smoking ban has failed to get people to quit smoking as backers hoped it would. The Daily Mail reports:

The ban on smoking in public has failed to increase the number of people quitting, a report revealed yesterday.

The proportion of men who smoke has actually risen since the ban in July last year while there was no change at all among women.

The figures, coming after years of declining smoking rates, are a massive blow to Labour’s public heath policy.

A survey of almost 7,000 across all age groups found on average there was no change in the number of cigarettes that smokers said they had.

But in men aged 16 to 34, the number rose, by one and a half cigarettes a day.

It had been hoped the ban would help reduce smoking rates among the poor in particular, but instead the number of cigarettes smoked by working class men has gone up.

The Health Survey for England, carried out by the NHS for ministers, has raised fears that smokers are simply lighting up at home rather than in pubs and restaurants - potentially putting children at risk.

The Department of Health’s response:

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: ‘Smokefree laws were introduced to protect employees and the public from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke.

‘The legislation was never intended to be a measure to reduce smoking prevalence.’

Fair enough, if it were true. From the same article, here’s then Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt right before the ban took effect:

‘This is an enormous step forward for public health. It is going to make it easier for people who want to give up smoking to do so. Over time it will save thousands of lives.’

And a BBC article from the same time:

The government predicts about 600,000 people will give up smoking as a result of the law change.

And Guardian coverage:

The Department of Health estimates that around 700,000 of England’s 10 million smokers will quit as a result of the ban - an average of 1,300 people in each MP’s constituency.

Here’s the Daily Mail again, reporting on a study from earlier this year when it looked like the ban truly was causing people quit:

Another study, by the Department of Health, will also highlight tomorrow the success of the smoking ban in encouraging people to quit the habit.

The report will show that a total of 234,060 people have stopped smoking with the help of the NHS Quit Smoking Service since the ban was brought in on July 1, 2007.

That is 22 per cent more people than in the previous 12 months.

And for good measure, here’s one of the four reasons for implementing the ban listed on the Department of Health’s own website:

Smokefree law… helps people trying to give up smoking by providing supportive smokefree environments

The DoH is right to say that the main justification for smoking bans (to the extent that there is one) is to protect non-smokers; it’s a line spokesmen have used in the past as well. Yet from the beginning the department has consistently stressed that the ban would spur people to quit smoking and gladly took credit when it appeared that it did. If the new survey is accurate, DoH should own up to the failure.*

The interesting question is why smoking rates haven’t decreased and why they’re increasing among young men. I’m a bit skeptical of the finding, actually. At least in the first months following the ban, sales of cigarettes in England declined significantly. Even so, the survey appears reputable. It suggests that many people are choosing to just stay home and smoke. I have another theory.

In bars where smoking is allowed, I never smoke cigarettes. I don’t like them. My friends can smoke though, and we can still hang out together. Smoking bans change the dynamic. Now my friends have to step outside and I often find that the people I most want to talk to (i.e. the cool kids) are no longer in the bar. Or perhaps I’ll be chatting with a woman who suggests we step outside for a cigarette. Am I going to say no? Of course not, I go with her. And since it would be awkward to stand outside in the cold not smoking, the other person constantly aware that her habit is all that’s keeping me from warmth and drink, I’m going to light up as well.

For me this still adds up to less than 10 cigarettes a year and, at the risk of sounding Clintonian, I don’t inhale. But I can see how people who like cigarettes could end up smoking much more. As any smoker knows, smoking invites sociality, and bans have shifted the liveliest social space from a shared area inside the bar to an exclusive smokers’ club outside it. If young men really are smoking more than they were before, I suspect that this is one of the ban’s unintended consequences.

*A very trivial way out of this would be for DoH to claim that hundreds of thousands of smokers really did quit but that they’ve been unexpectedly replaced by a cohort of brand new smokers. I don’t think they’ll make that argument.

Permalink - Share/Save - Comments (6)

Enamour myself of my little motor car

by Jacob Grier on September 25, 2008

Oh, the indignity! I’ve taken my share of knocks for driving a Pontiac Aztek, but today is a new low. Readers of the Daily Telegraph have voted the Aztek the ugliest car of all time out of 300 nominees. The kicker? The Aztek was never even sold in Europe. As Edmunds puts it, “Even from well across the pond, Britons can see that the Pontiac Aztek is hideous.”

The car ranked well in consumer satisfaction values and has the highest humor value in its class. It’s moved me from Houston to DC to Nashville and back to DC, and soon from DC to Portland. It may look like a rhinoceros, but it’s a heck of a good car on the inside.

Previously:
A car that’ll make children cry

Permalink - Share/Save - Comments (0)

The expert at the lunch table

by Jacob Grier on September 19, 2008

A British psychology professor and magician has called for adding magic classes to the national education curriculum:

Pupils should be taught “mind reading” card tricks and how to rejoin the ends of a magic rope after it has been cut in two, it was claimed.

Richard Wiseman, professor of psychology at Hertfordshire University, introduced the lessons to two groups of 10 to 12-year-olds as part of a study.

He insisted the classes improved pupils’ social skills and confidence levels and is now calling on them to be introduced in all schools.

Prof Wiseman, who is also a skilled illusionist and member of the Magic Circle, said they were more effective then standard classes in personal, social, health and economic education (PSHE), which are designed to help children deal responsibly with life issues such as drugs and sex…

Fifty pupils at two schools were given hour-long “Magic School” sessions as well as their normal PSHE classes. They were then given standard psychological tests.

Confidence and self esteem scores measured before and after the lessons showed that magic had a significantly greater benefit than PSHE, said Prof Wiseman.

Actually, this doesn’t strike me as a bad idea, especially if it’s replacing limited amounts time that would otherwise be spent on PSHE activities that are likely fairly worthless on the margin. Lots of magicians first got into the art to improve their social skills and confidence. (Not me, of course. You know, other magicians.) My guess is spending time learning any practical skill, not just magic, would have similar results. Magic has the advantage though of offering some immediate payoffs in the form of simple, introductory tricks. I do wonder how much teachers need to know going in.

[Title reference here. Via iTricks.]

Permalink - Share/Save - Comments (1)