Talk:Tobacco control

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Contributions from other knowledgeable Wikipedians very welcome- thanks. Hypocaustic (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Toshalikatyal.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'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. ^[1]

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^[2]). 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.^[3] This fact should not be concealed. Drautzburg (talk)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[4] 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".^[5]

-- Mihaister (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@John Snow I made three claims and substatiated each of them with references. I did not go as far as saying tobacco control is bad for your health, which would indeed require more evidence. However, you make some unsubstantiated claims yourself, particularly that opposition to tobacco control is usually based on ignorance or the hidden hand of the tobacco industry. Such argumentation leads nowhere. It is as eerie as saying that any opposition to smoking tends to be based on ignorance or the hidden hand of the tobacco control industry.

The press releases of tobacco control are usualy printed in the media without any reflection, criticism or scrutiny. I don't want similar things to happen on wikipedia. Drautzburg (talk)

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.

Journal Section Confusion

The Journal section seems confusing and not sure what it is referring to? Perhaps can be expanded by adding more journal articles that are relevant to tobacco control.(Toshalikatyal (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

[1] ttp://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.de/

[2] ttps://www.dkfz.de/de/tabakkontrolle/download/Publikationen/AdWfP/AdWfdP_Snus_de.pdf

[3] ttp://www.clivebates.com/?p=2053

[McNeill2014-4] 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

[CBates2014-5] 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.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]