Madam, - What exactly is Desmond Fennell smoking? Not one of the points he produces in defence of smoking (April 27th) is valid.
"No evidence has been produced that. . .disease and death decrease." Really? A quick search online produces some evidence: The New York Health Department recorded an 85 per cent drop in cotinine within 3 months of the ban there (cotinine is a carcinogenic by-product of nicotine). Source: www.nyc.gov. Here, while the ban is only about a year old, the Office of Tobacco Control has not been lax: it reported that preliminary results of tests carried out in 40 pubs around Dublin showed a dramatic improvement in air quality. The tests, published on March 29th and conducted by respiratory experts from St James's Hospital, also found a 45 per cent decrease in levels of harmful carbon monoxide among a sample group of non-smoking barmen.
Now, while these are not direct evidence of decreases in death rates, they're pretty good indicators - unless, like Mr Fennell, you believe that the "persecutors are broadcasting a supercilious lie". I don't know about anyone else, but personally, when many leading international scientific organisations, including the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the World Health Organisation have documented the dangers of second-hand smoke, I tend to believe them.
I further contest the ridiculous allegation that most people disbelieve the case against smoking: the most recent survey conducted by TNS/mrbi for the Office of Tobacco Control, in advance of the one-year anniversary of the law, shows extremely high levels of public support: 93 per cent think the law was a good idea, including 80 per cent of smokers; 96 per cent feel the law is successful, including 89 per cent of smokers; 98 per cent believe that workplaces are now healthier because of the smoke-free law, including 94 per cent of smokers. (The survey was conducted in March 2005 among a nationally representative sample of 1,000 people aged 15 years and older.)
As for Mr Fennell's other tests: are Americans healthier than Germans? I would imagine not - but this has far more to do with obesity, junk food and a couch potato culture than smoking. To suggest that any increase or decrease in gross death rates, without looking at underlying causes, is evidence one way or the other is facetious in the extreme.
European health and premature death rates are of course better now than 500 years ago. Are we not aware of the advances in medical science in the past five centuries, not to mention general living standards? Or would Mr Fennell seriously suggest that people in the developed world today enjoy freedom from smallpox, TB and plague entirely because of tobacco?
As for the craic allegedly being better around smokers, well, that's Mr Fennell's opinion, I suppose; but if he going to offer that as support for his argument then he can't really demand proof in return.
There are valid points to be made regarding civil liberties and the smoking ban, but Mr Fennell has failed to make any of them. - Yours, etc,
CATHAL MURPHY, Cullenswood Gardens, Ranelagh, Dublin 6.