| Revision as of 20:06, 2 September 2014 editJohn Snow II (talk | contribs)1,081 edits →Should mention the flipside too← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:31, 18 November 2014 edit undoMihaister (talk | contribs)579 edits →'Should mention the 'flipside'?: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| ::These comments may have missed the point. Tobacco control is indeed a branch of public health activity which faces opposition, and it is certainly appropriate that this should be represented. But time and again, the majority of that opposition proves to stem either from ignorance, or the hidden hand of the tobacco industry. Genuine libertarians are able to see that there's no bogeyman to fear. If any contributors can show concrete evidence for the sweeping claims made above, let's hear it. Until then, the inappropriate 'POV' tags are coming off the article. ] (]) 20:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC) | ::These comments may have missed the point. Tobacco control is indeed a branch of public health activity which faces opposition, and it is certainly appropriate that this should be represented. But time and again, the majority of that opposition proves to stem either from ignorance, or the hidden hand of the tobacco industry. Genuine libertarians are able to see that there's no bogeyman to fear. If any contributors can show concrete evidence for the sweeping claims made above, let's hear it. Until then, the inappropriate 'POV' tags are coming off the article. ] (]) 20:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::The irrational position of tobacco control activists against ] is based on misrepresentaions of evidence and alarmist claims aimed to disguise opinion as if it were evidence according to a group of European public health experts lead by ] of King's College London.<ref name=McNeill2014>{{cite journal|last1=McNeill|first1=Ann|last2=Etter|first2=JF|title=A critique of a WHO-commissioned report and associated article on electronic cigarettes|journal=Addiction|volume=online|doi=10.1111/add.12730|url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12730/abstract|accessdate=15 September 2014|quote="The World Health Organisation (WHO) recently commissioned a report reviewing evidence on electronic cigarettes and making policy recommendations. We identify important errors in the description and interpretation of the studies reviewed, and find many of its key conclusions misleading"}}</ref> Clive Bates, former director of ], also stated that misguided regulatory action based on unsubstantiated concerns and "scare stories" emanating from the anti-tobacco lobby "effectively protects cigarette sales and causes more disease and death".<ref name=CBates2014>{{cite journal|last1=Bates|first1=Clive|title=Stop demonising a potentially useful product for smokers|journal=The Pharmaceutical Journal|date=10 September 2014|volume=online|url=http://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/opinion/stop-demonising-a-potentially-useful-product-for-smokers/20066415.article|accessdate=25 September 2014|quote=Evidence conflicts with the view that electronic cigarettes are undermining tobacco control or ‘renormalising’ smoking, and they may be contributing to a reduction in smoking prevalence through increased success at quitting smoking.}}</ref> | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
Revision as of 20:31, 18 November 2014
 | Health and fitness Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Contributions from other knowledgeable Wikipedians very welcome- thanks. Hypocaustic (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
'Should mention the 'flipside'?
The article gives the impression, that tobacco control is widely accepted by the people and its only opponent is the tobacco industry. This would be a clear overstatement. Many libertarians all over the world are in fierce opposition to tobacco control.
The article gives the impression, that tobacco control is concerned about reducing smoking prevelance and free of vested interests. However, tobacco control also advocates agaist Swedish Snus and e-cigarettes (e.g. the German Cancer Research Institute - a WHO collaborator). In doing so tobacco control may actually slow down the ongoing reduction in smoking prevalence. In any case this topic is disussed passionately among snusers and e-cigarette users and deserves being mentioned here.
The article gives the impression, that only the tobacco industry publishes biased studies (junk science) and tobacco control does not. There is no doubt that many lost faith in tobacco control due to publications which were percieved as biased or following a political agenda, including ex ASH director Clive Bates . This fact should not be concealed. ~~dtz~~
- I tend to agree. At minimum, many people have come to find anti-tobacco campaigns extremely overbearing, shrill, and in increasingly bad taste. As the number of smokers decreases, the frantic tone of the campaigns gets raised. I generally don't think it's a good idea for any government to portray any subgroup of its citizens as weak-willed slackers whose vices cost you money, and put you at risk of contracting the leprosies they carry if you get close enough to smell 'em. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- These comments may have missed the point. Tobacco control is indeed a branch of public health activity which faces opposition, and it is certainly appropriate that this should be represented. But time and again, the majority of that opposition proves to stem either from ignorance, or the hidden hand of the tobacco industry. Genuine libertarians are able to see that there's no bogeyman to fear. If any contributors can show concrete evidence for the sweeping claims made above, let's hear it. Until then, the inappropriate 'POV' tags are coming off the article. John Snow II (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- The irrational position of tobacco control activists against tobacco harm reduction is based on misrepresentaions of evidence and alarmist claims aimed to disguise opinion as if it were evidence according to a group of European public health experts lead by Ann McNeill of King's College London. Clive Bates, former director of ASH UK, also stated that misguided regulatory action based on unsubstantiated concerns and "scare stories" emanating from the anti-tobacco lobby "effectively protects cigarette sales and causes more disease and death".
References
- http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.de/
- https://www.dkfz.de/de/tabakkontrolle/download/Publikationen/AdWfP/AdWfdP_Snus_de.pdf
- http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2053
- McNeill, Ann; Etter, JF. "A critique of a WHO-commissioned report and associated article on electronic cigarettes". Addiction. online. doi:10.1111/add.12730. Retrieved 15 September 2014.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) recently commissioned a report reviewing evidence on electronic cigarettes and making policy recommendations. We identify important errors in the description and interpretation of the studies reviewed, and find many of its key conclusions misleading
- Bates, Clive (10 September 2014). "Stop demonising a potentially useful product for smokers". The Pharmaceutical Journal. online. Retrieved 25 September 2014.
Evidence conflicts with the view that electronic cigarettes are undermining tobacco control or 'renormalising' smoking, and they may be contributing to a reduction in smoking prevalence through increased success at quitting smoking.