PDA

View Full Version : Iceland Considers Prescription-Only Cigarettes



C. Flower
04-07-2011, 07:00 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/04/iceland-considers-prescription-only-cigarettes

Iceland is discussing a plan to stop young people from taking up smoking. Cigarettes would be prescription only and would be cheaper under the scheme than they are now.

As there is no way that cigarettes would be licensed now, if they were a new product, does this not make every sense ? Should Ireland follow suit ?


"Under our plan, smokers who are given prescriptions will be diagnosed as addicts, and we don't think the government should tax addicts."

Gudnason said current cigarette pricing in Iceland did not take into account the huge costs imposed on society by smokers. "A packet currently costs around 1,000 krona [£5.50], but if you factor in the cost of sick leave, reduced productivity due to smoking breaks and premature retirement on health grounds, it should really be 3,000 krona," he said.

The tobacco proposal also says that nicotine should be classed as an addictive substance. "It's as hard to give up nicotine as heroin, not in terms of the side effects, but in terms of the cravings and how quickly one becomes addicted," said Gudnason.

"We also want the government to license cigarettes like a medicine, which would mean they would have to go through the same rigorous trials as any other drug. I doubt cigarettes would ever get on the market now that we know the side-effects – lung cancer, heart attacks, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease."

Gudnason said 300 out of the 1,500 deaths in Iceland each year were caused by one of those three conditions.

"That's 20% of all deaths. We think that our proposals could lead to a significant reduction in smoking-related deaths – perhaps down to just 100 annually."

The proposal also suggests that tobacco smoke should be treated as a carcinogenic substance, and that it should be restricted in a similar way to other known carcinogens, because of the known effects of passive smoking.

Gudnason did a study five months after Iceland introduced a smoking ban in restaurants and pubs in 2007 and found a 21% reduction in acute coronary syndrome (heart attacks and near heart attacks) among non-smoking men, compared to five months before the ban.

Captain Con O'Sullivan
04-07-2011, 07:13 PM
I notice Gudnason doesn't seem to have taken into account the amount of tax a cigarette smoker will pay over a 25-30 year period. So a one-sided calculation ...

and then this;


Gudnason did a study five months after Iceland introduced a smoking ban in restaurants and pubs in 2007 and found a 21% reduction in acute coronary syndrome (heart attacks and near heart attacks) among non-smoking men, compared to five months before the ban.

He's some scientist in fairness to be able to come up with a precise figure of a reduction of 21% in CHD among non-smoking men five months after a ban.

I'd say Mr Gudnason is full of ***** to be honest. This has to be the most lunatic health and medical press release I've seen since some chancer in Dublin announced a year after the smoking ban in Dublin that bar staff were now one fifth healthier.

No confounding factors. No attempt to have a control against which to measure health. Just an eerie statement of 'fact'.

It isn't medically possible to say someone is at a 21% reduced risk of CHD with an assumption of a five month change in second hand smoking atmosphere. How much ash have people been breathing from the volcano there?

http://rob.nu/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/facepalm12.jpg

Captain Con O'Sullivan
04-07-2011, 07:17 PM
A spokeswoman from the Icelandic ministry of welfare said on Monday that the proposal was "very serious" but had limited chances of success.

"Siv Fridleifsdottir is a very serious politician and this is a very serious proposal," said Anna Baldursdottir, political adviser to the minister of welfare, Gudbjartur Hannesson.

"Whether it not it eventually becomes law, I do not know. I seriously doubt it."

C. Flower
04-07-2011, 07:25 PM
A spokeswoman from the Icelandic ministry of welfare said on Monday that the proposal was "very serious" but had limited chances of success.

"Siv Fridleifsdottir is a very serious politician and this is a very serious proposal," said Anna Baldursdottir, political adviser to the minister of welfare, Gudbjartur Hannesson.

"Whether it not it eventually becomes law, I do not know. I seriously doubt it."

Wouldn't you like the cheap cigs, Captain ?

Captain Con O'Sullivan
04-07-2011, 07:30 PM
I just want the coterie of self appointed governors in the medical profession to catch a nasty disease and drop dead. Notice how the paternalistic attitude comes from the Nordic countries?

Sweden is the worst. The ones behind the Swedish alcohol monopoly are an unholy alliance of Lutherans and some very weird people like the Kettil Bruun Society who regard any consumption of alcohol at all as, and I quote, 'deviant behaviour'.

That is even one glass of wine.

There is a strain of medico which does not have the courage to stand for election but specialise in thumping on health ministry desks and asking politicians whether they want people to die

Its the messiah complex mixed up with Nordic fundamentalism and the idea that government knows best. Statism at its worst.

C. Flower
04-07-2011, 07:41 PM
If my doctor wanted to prescribe me a nice Cabernet Sauvignon I might not fight with her...

Fraxinus
04-07-2011, 07:43 PM
Are measures to combat young people taking up the habit not a good thing or should they just find out and get addicted for themselves? Or should the tobacco companies not be regulated more and prevented from including all the sh1te chemicals in the cancer sticks?

TotalMayhem
04-07-2011, 08:27 PM
Feckers don't pay their debt either...

Captain Con O'Sullivan
04-07-2011, 08:32 PM
I'll believe governments have the best interests of the health of their electorate when (a) they start banning cars from urban areas and (b) start closing down profitable businesses which are a cardiovascular risk to people in the surrounding area.

The World Health Organisations own Cancer Report published every two years gives a Risk Assessment for Cancers. Top of the list in the developing world is Genetic Susceptibility followed in second place by Urban Pollution and third is Lifestyle Factors. The third category contains such things as obesity plus smoking plus heavy drinking as a cancer risk.

Bear in mind that obesity, heavy drinking and smoking comes in the third category. Second hand or passive smoking doesn't even feature.

And yet the doctors won't pound on minister's desks to get cars banned from urban areas. They won't pound on minister's desks to get profitable yet polluting companies closed down. And they will not admit that the risks from second hand smoke are too small to measure and cannot be assessed separately from other lifestyle factors.

You simply cannot scientifically say that a cohort of people are 21% less likely to develop health problems within five months of a smoking ban without assessing all of the people in that cohort for all sorts of risks- have any gained weight? Lost weight? Started using cocaine or intravenuous drugs?

I'd like to see that Icelandic doctor's 'study' to check it- no way can you make such a statement of fact off anything like the information that doctor is attempting to lob over the publicity wall.

It is actually a disgracefully misleading story.