An article in today's Daily Mail states that 'Children with asthma are twice as likely to need hospital treatment during the month of September'.
It goes on to say hospital admissions for under-16s in England were 58% higher during that month last year and the previous September, according to data from the NHS Information Centre.
Yet why aren't smokers mentioned? We're repeatedly told that smokers cause asthmatic problems for children but there's no mention of them here.
Do smokers puff away more in September than any other month? I doubt it. Not with the cost of cigarettes.
Perhaps it's because smoking and passive smoking is nothing to do with asthma. Perhaps it's because smoking has been used as an excuse for billions of pounds to be directed to a section of society and yet, in the case of child asthma proper investigation hasn't been initiated.
Let me say here that smoking is a choice. Most smokers wouldn't smoke anywhere which caused problems for others. For my own experience they're a very accommodating section of society. Som people complain about the smell and it sticks to their clothes: it does and it's not pleasant even for smokers. Yet the other evening I attended a small meeting in a hotel where the smell of burned/stale fried food permeated the atmosphere far worse than cigarette, pipe or cigar smoke. Nobody complained and they meet there on a bi-monthly basis. When I asked at a tea break if anyone was aware of it I was told "yes of course, but it's a cheap venue".
Far too often smoking is deemed to be the 'habit of evil' yet, without the taxes from those who smoke, the NHS would probably grind to a halt. We'd still have the diseases which are presently related to smoking but we wouldn't have the finance to cope with them.
This fellow blogger and this one will be pleased to read a newspaper article which doesn't blame smokers - because they're not the problem. I'm pleased too. Time the anti-smoking lobbies encouraged researchers to look out of the box, but they won't of course; they're funded by government to protest against the smoking sector of society and therefore any in depth research into asthma is curtailed although these figures show it's desperately needed.
The quangos such as ASH would lose their jobs if more articles like this appeared in the MSM. More people would wonder if smokers were being punished for little or no reason. Bring it on!
Posts
16 comments:
I agree with you. I was an asthmatic as a child but my parents never smoked. In fact the only person that I knew who smoked was one of my uncles whom I saw about once a month.If anything was to be blamed other than nature, I would have placed the blame on car exhausts which are much cleaner now than 65 years or so ago! These days, I'm inclined to place the blame onto food additives as I still occasionally get an attack. Certainly, whilst smoking often made me cough, as far as I can remember, it never ever caused an asthma attack.
Thank you for your contribution English Pensioner. I'm a smoker as perhaps you realise, but I would no more think of putting anyone's health at risk (other than my own) than jump from the Forth Bridge for a swim.
Constant contact with chemicals and lack of fresh air are, I suspect, the causes of asthma and until these issues are addressed numbers will increase year on year.
Fortunately CH there have never been asthmatics is my close family, yet many of them smoked. I suspect, as you say, the reasons for the increase is nothing to do with smoking but chemicals in the atmosphere. And, as you say, the lack of fresh air children seem to get these days.
My dad died due to smoking ( woodbines destroyed his lungs) and my mum is struggling a bit with a constant cough due to smoking. Every visit I make to her house is usually traumatic with a serious bout of coughing. Luckily only one of my sisters smokes and her skin is sallow and wrinkled with a smokers mouth ( lines around the mouth pointing down to the centre).
Despite knowing her fate she can't stop smoking and is starting to slow down physically. Every family meal or outing is a struggle for her as she can't wait for the meal or trip to finish so that she can get her nicotine fix.
It's a cruel habit and I can't see any way out for addicts.
Christ hen, you're courting popularity with this post! You'll have all the pro-smoking lobby on shortly, talking pish!
"without the taxes from those who smoke, the NHS would probably grind to a halt."
Without the various illnesses caused by smoking, it might be substantially better off, though.
RM I'm certainly not saying smoking isn't bad for you. It is.
What I am saying is that every respiratory illness in children, and adults, is now blamed on smokers and non-smokers believe this. It's not true.
So you think all smokers talk rubbish DL? Naw, no more than non-smokers. ;)
Now therein lies the rub William. Some say the taxes flowing to the Treasury from smokers would be greatly missed.
But I'm not going to argue the point because I don't have accurate figures.
Of course the NHS would possibly spend the money on repairing the livers and kidneys of those who drink and the bones of those who jump from planes or climb mountains.
I'll stop smoking when the rest of the world gives up ingesting its daily diet of merde.
RA, you're showing off now! Just because you have linguistic abilities... ;)
I can assure you Rosa my merde comes and goes but has no vanity whatsoever.
I have no doubt about that whatsoever RA.
Whoops! Looks like I'm a bit late for all the merde here... ;>
Sub, excellent piece! Nice blog too: first visit here. I was led by a ref to the Davies video. :)
Your statement that, "I'm a smoker as perhaps you realise, but I would no more think of putting anyone's health at risk (other than my own) than jump from the Forth Bridge for a swim," is exactly the reason for the entire ETS campaign. Back in 1975 Sir George Godber headed a world conference on smoking and health where activists were basically told that to eliminate smoking it would first be necessary "to foster an atmosphere in which it would be perceived that active smokers harm those around them," particularly their families and young children.
Waving the children has always been one of the strongest propaganda cards a demagogue can wave and the Antismokers have waved it with a vengence. And it's not only worked against smokers but it has helped to create an enormous pool of nonsmokers who truly believe that they suffer immediate and severe physical effects from even the slightest wisps of smoke. It's a very sad thing overall, in many different ways.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Subrosa, you ask "What's missing from this article?" and I'd say, at a quick glance, that my comment from a week ago is. It may have just gotten swallowed by an internet burp so I'll repost it for your readers.
====
Whoops! Looks like I'm a bit late for all the merde here... ;>
Sub, excellent piece! Nice blog too: first visit here. I was led by a ref to the Davies video. :)
Your statement that, "I'm a smoker as perhaps you realise, but I would no more think of putting anyone's health at risk (other than my own) than jump from the Forth Bridge for a swim," is exactly the reason for the entire ETS campaign. Back in 1975 Sir George Godber headed a world conference on smoking and health where activists were basically told that to eliminate smoking it would first be necessary "to foster an atmosphere in which it would be perceived that active smokers harm those around them," particularly their families and young children.
Waving the children has always been one of the strongest propaganda cards a demagogue can wave and the Antismokers have waved it with a vengence. And it's not only worked against smokers but it has helped to create an enormous pool of nonsmokers who truly believe that they suffer immediate and severe physical effects from even the slightest wisps of smoke. It's a very sad thing overall, in many different ways.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Post a Comment