Fundamental re-think on smoking is needed
BMJ 2011; 343 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6810 (Published 25 October 2011) Cite this as: BMJ 2011;343:d6810
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
What else does Dr Jepson want to ban? Alcohol? Cars? Saturated fat?
Idleness?
The High Altar of Medicine needs to be resisted. We used to live in a
world where theological reasons were given for restricting people's
freedom. We are now in grave danger of developing medical ones for the
same purpose.
Something being unsavoury, unhealthy, unappealing and, yes,
potentially lethal, is not sufficient reason to outlaw it.
Freedom includes the freedom to make bad choices.
Competing interests: No competing interests
We are talking about legalizing marijuana as an important public
health measure. I find it unbelievable that someone might propose turning
tobaco into a forbidden drug.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re:A worrying attitude
The Misuse of Drugs Act outlaws a number of different substances
precisely because they are "unsavoury, unhealthy, unappealing and...
potentially lethal". Would Molloy suggest that those drugs covered by the
Act are declassified? And if not, what makes them different to tobacco or
alcohol?
Let's presume that restrictions on the manufacture, transport and
sale of drugs were imposed in order to benefit society in some way. Why,
then, are the two drugs causing the most morbidity and mortality - alcohol
and tobacco - not just legal but readily available.
My criticisms are not targeted towards the individual - who, after
all, is choosing to consume a legal substance - but with our skewed
attitude towards drugs in general. No-one knows if banning cigarettes
would reduce the prevalence of smoking but to give tobacco a special
position above other, undoubtedly safer, drugs just seems ridiculous.
Competing interests: No competing interests