B.M.A. Admit Error In Their "Facts"

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

withnail

Preferred Member
Oct 30, 2011
737
0
United Kingdom
The British Medical Association has had to admit today that the statistics they quoted when calling for a smoking ban in private vehicles were wrong. They had claimed that smoking in a car exposed the occupant to 23 time more concentrated toxins than a smoke filled bar. This claim was repeated in several News reports to back up their claim that smoking in cars should be banned on health grounds.
Today they admit that they made a mistake and now claim that the figure is closer to 11 times. This figure has also been challenged as far higher than is actually the case. The real worrying point is - the apology from the BMA has not been covered to anywhere near the degree that their false statement was. People watching the original report now believe that it has been proved that smoking in a car exposes the occupants to 23 times more toxins than a smoke filled bar. There have been no reports on the main stream News that I have seen that correct this figure.
If you live in the UK and want to register your opposition to the BMA proposal, please see the following thread
http://pipesmagazine.com/forums/topic/smoking-ban-in-cars-uk-a-step-too-far

 

nemrod

Senior Member
Apr 28, 2011
338
0
Sweden
I really don't see why it is even relevant - as long as it's not a bus/taxi/whatever driver that's smoking.

It's as usual though, exaggerated facts are spread like wildfire but the corrections rarely are.

 

bogie

Member
Dec 10, 2010
207
0
As I grow older and more aware of who I am, I have become to understand and pinpoint the main factor for all my arguments and fights over my entire life span.
The topic which now consumes me is "FREEWILL" I can't stand for my freewill to be infringed upon in any shape form or fashion.
On this same topic my enjoyment in life is to see and witness that freewill of others being put into practice. I no longer even care what it is they do. You may have a habit I don't agree with and would never participate in however, I am able to silently lend my support in your exercising of your freewill.
Here in america its said we have the right to pursue happiness. That happiness in its purest form is the freedom choose. No matter how ill informed one maybe, freewill should in my opinion be cherished and it hurts to see someone else's freewill being taken away from them.
I wish you guys over there all the luck and its sad to see someone else who thinks they know better, take away your freewill.

 

chopz

Senior Member
Oct 14, 2011
352
0
yesterday i got a call from some telemarketer who said he could save me 15% on my electric bill. i asked what their rates were and he kept saying 15% cheaper. i was like "what, you know what my bill for september was? how much did i pay?" shortly after i told him i don't like to be conned and hung up.
people who throw unqualified numbers around piss me off. they use them to sound authoritative, but to me it's a clear signal the person is bullshitting me. how many people are in the bar? how many cubic feet? how many are smoking? same questions for the car - i'm sure if 3 people in the car are smoking with all the windows closed the one person who doesn't smoke isn't going to have a good time. but outside of providing specifics this is just a tool used to manipulate the audience's minds.
i agree bogie, freewill is something to be preserved. but more important is free thought, and not nearly so easy to maintain. that said, i approve of regulation. it pisses me off when some soccer mom is cruising along in the fast lane on her cellphone; she endangers my future ability to provide for my family and that pisses me off big time. regulation should be to protect the rights of people to be infringed upon by others who feel they're only exercising their rights. but not for some to profit at the expense of others.

 

pipeinhand

Preferred Member
Sep 23, 2011
1,199
0
Virginia
This was no mistake, the spinners always know that whatever you say nowadays it will remain in the space, forever. It doesn't matter that there is a retraction. The 23 is out there, lurking, waiting and the fat Cheshire's that started it are humphing in theirs chairs right now. They win because the sheeple 80%'ers will not look at tobacco at what it is, and that there are different ways to enjoy it with different and varying degrees of harmful exposure. IMO, pipes are the least degree of harm, if you want. But nobody wants to hear that, all they hear is SMOKING?!
George Bush, was a master at, the this, no that, statements. WMD went to fighting for Freedom? Come on people!
OK, off my box now, but this kind of manipulation just sets my hairs up.
Bogie, I am with you there brother.

 

bogie

Member
Dec 10, 2010
207
0
I am in Arkansas. I lost my best friend because some idiot was texting while driving, and crossed the center lane and hit my friend head on. His name was Paul Davidson. now we have Pauls Law which prohibits such activities. I agree with this law just as much as those imparted to enforce drinking while driving.
As for the ONE in the car who doesn't smoke, he can choose NOT to be in the car. I even agree with no smoking in the car while a child is present. Some things are just common sense and when a person values true freewill, then he realizes he doesnt want to infringe on anyone else either.
Its when they want to make a law to stop you from doing something just because they think they know better. Such as the laws trying to get passed making it illegal to eat fatty foods. Yep, some foods are bad for you but by god if I want to eat it then im going to eat it of my own freewill. To ban smoking in your own damn vehicle is pure ignorance and bullying.
As for free thought, that is the easiest of things to maintain. Only YOU allow your free THINKING to be hindered, no law or person should ever be able to take away the way you think, if it does, then its your fault.

 

withnail

Preferred Member
Oct 30, 2011
737
0
United Kingdom
Thank you for your posts and expression of support. Although the current battle is here in the UK, I do think it is an issue that all smokers should be concerned about. Once one country adopts such a policy, it becomes that little bit easier for supporters of smoking bans to argue their case in other countries.

 

withnail

Preferred Member
Oct 30, 2011
737
0
United Kingdom
One quick note - I know it is easy to slip off topic when the discussion involves the government. I really do appreciate the comments that have been left, but this forum isn't the place for a wider political debate.
It's comforting to know that we Brits have some support from our brother and sister pipe smokers in America and beyond. One of the amazing things about the internet is it allows people who would never have other wise crossed paths to get to know and learn from each other. Long may it continue!!!! :)

 

pipeinhand

Preferred Member
Sep 23, 2011
1,199
0
Virginia
OK, but this is a tobacco political thread and I think appropriate to discuss here. Tobacco legislation matters to us smokers, Yes?

 

gecko13

Preferred Member
Feb 2, 2011
897
0
Goodyear,AZ
@chopz. You know 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population. The answer to everything is of course 42.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Answer_to_the_Ultimate_Question_of_Life.2C_the_Universe.2C_and_Everything_.2842.29
:rofl:

 

pstlpkr

Preferred Member
Dec 14, 2009
9,739
0
Birmingham, AL
Chopz, 98.3645% of all statistics quoted are pulled out of thin air. :D
I thought that 97.4756%.... :|
One must filter statistics with reason and an understanding of who is making the claims and why they would desire to make those claims. The BMA would hardly make public facts that would be contrary to their charter, but rather would inflate their claims with the foreknowledge that they would be challenged, and that a retraction/modification would hardly garner the attention the initial claim would realize. Therefore; the initial statement would be taken as fact by an unthinking public. Since the attention span of the public is so short, when coupled with the anti-smoking hysteria promoted by the BMA, they can afford to reduce the initial claim by more than half and that still exaggerated number will be seen as reasonable by those still paying attention and therefore move into the realm of the actionable.

Those that intend to express expertise on a given subject matter that will increase their influence, must use technical language that will obscure the intention of the statement so that those reading it will have to re-read and re-re-read the statement to insure that what the reader understands the meaning to be conveyed is actually the information that the statement is conveying and is actually the information intended to be conveyed by those intending to express their expertise thereby increasing their influence through the use of technical language. Any retraction, clarification, or restatement of just such a statement is likely to be largely ignored by those that have to restate the information conveyed by hose that intend to express expertise on a given subject matter to the public, thereby insuring the original statement is largely accepted by those that the initial statement was intended to influence.

I think. :D

 

cortezattic

Preferred Member
Nov 19, 2009
14,409
191
Chicago, IL
withnail has captured the essence of the problem

The real worrying point is - the apology from the BMA has not been covered to anywhere near the degree that their false statement was.
The ongoing oppression and media thought control has made me paranoid.

Now, I wouldn't doubt that the release/retraction of an erroneous stat was a tactical ploy.

 

withnail

Preferred Member
Oct 30, 2011
737
0
United Kingdom
There is also the old trick of taking a statement out of context and then quoting it - For example Lawrence wrote that
"...hose that intend to express expertise on a given subject.."
It might seem from the above that he is talking about "working girls of ill-repute"! :-D
I shall be keeping a close eye on any further BMA statements and their slippery ways!

 

cortezattic

Preferred Member
Nov 19, 2009
14,409
191
Chicago, IL
Those that intend to express expertise on a given subject matter that will increase their influence, must use technical language that will obscure the intention of the statement so that those reading it will have to re-read and re-re-read the statement to insure that what the reader understands the meaning to be conveyed is actually the information that the statement is conveying and is actually the information intended to be conveyed by those intending to express their expertise thereby increasing their influence through the use of technical language.
You can say that again! :rofl:

 

pstlpkr

Preferred Member
Dec 14, 2009
9,739
0
Birmingham, AL
You can say that again! :rofl:
I'm not sure that I can say that again....

But, I trust I made my point about insuring that those who intend to express expertise on a given subject matter that will increase their influence, must use technical language that will obscure the intention of the statement so that those reading it.... Oh never mind. :D
Just don't believe everything you hear from those reputed to be experts. Because; they may have ulterior motives.

And, those ulterior motives may not be revealed until (and only after) the revision of an earlier statement has been made. So, the obfuscation first, then the revision made not so loud as the first... Thus perpetuating a myth, with plausible deniability, because they have corrected their misstatements even if the revision are only more correct than the first, and in themselves not entirely accurate.