Call for tougher smoking warnings (From The Bolton News)

WEBSITE - BETA

Welcome to our new-look website Find out more »

Your Bolton

Send us your news tips, photos and videos. Text BONEWS and your message to 80360 or for more ways to contact us click» here »

News RSS Feed

Call for tougher smoking warnings

1:18pm Thursday 8th May 2008

comment Comments (23) Have your say »

By Staff Reporter »

A EURO MP is calling for tougher warnings on cigarette packets in a bid to encourage more people to stub it out.

Radcliffe-based MEP Gary Titley claims the current warnings encouraging people to quit are not being updated fast enough.

He is now calling for the Government and the European Commission to highlight the link between smoking and blindness.

Mr Titley said: "There is evidence that if these warnings are not kept fresh, they lose their effectiveness.

"Not only is a smoker's risk of developing age-related macular degeneration up to four times as high as a non-smoker but, for the first time ever, a link has been found to passive smoking. Passive smokers almost double their risk of sight loss."

The MEP has already written to Health Secretary Alan Johnson about the work of the Eyes and Tobacco Study Group, based at the Royal Bolton Hospital and led by consultant ophthalmic surgeon, Simon Kelly.

Print article » Email to a friend »

Your Say Yourtheboltonnews

chas, suffolk says...
1:19pm Thu 8 May 08

The EXACT causes of both dry and wet AMD are not completely understood. However, genetics, diet, cigarette smoking, bright sunlight, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension are considered to be POSSIBLE risk factors for AMD.

So where is the PROOF?

Report this post »

chas, suffolk says...
1:26pm Thu 8 May 08

Perhaps too may Labour MEPs and MPs are smoking and cannot see what they are doing to this country.

Report this post »

player #1, Half the world away says...
2:38pm Thu 8 May 08

Not only is a smoker's risk of developing age-related macular degeneration up to four times as high as a non-smoker

He actually says it is the risk that is greater chas, so what you say is actually backing up their claim. the only difference is that this report gives figures as to how that risk factor rises for smokers.

What might have been a useful comparative tool would have been statistics around the risk factors of other things, like you stated, hypertension, sunlight etc.

Report this post »

apple, says...
4:16pm Thu 8 May 08

Will the mep not realise that the nanny state attitude is one of the reasons the voting public are turning against his party. All this rubbish on passive smoking when there is no conclusive evidence to date. I and anyone could do research and come to thre conclusion however, proof is required and i would ask the MEP to provide it before making statements to put him in the public eye. Easy targets next you can have a go at drinkers and blame the drink and not the individuals who cause problems and they would do so drink or not. Then it will be green issues as if Britain would make a difference to europe let alone the world another way of milking the tax payers. It all boils down to the nanny state gone mad with it MPS and MEPS.

Report this post »

VM User, Bolton says...
6:31pm Thu 8 May 08

I wonder how many he'd had to dumb his brains before thinking that one up??

No doubt this idiot will say NOTHING about the problems with alcohol so prices can be put sky high (Which actually needs doing)

Report this post »

chas, suffolk says...
6:39pm Thu 8 May 08

VM User
Drinking can affect our eyesight. Too much and we cannot see clearly and hence the saying blind drunk.

Report this post »

Le Roi, says...
7:24pm Thu 8 May 08

Give it up then.

Report this post »

RagReader, Horwich says...
8:12pm Thu 8 May 08

Good to see Chas has finally joined the anti-smoking lobby.

Report this post »

chas, suffolk says...
8:38pm Thu 8 May 08

Ragreader
I am at present watching Sherlock Holmes and cannot see how you come to that conclusion.

Report this post »

gm, lancs says...
11:33pm Thu 8 May 08

most cigarette packets say smoking can kill, how much tougher of a warning does gary titley want.

Report this post »

RagReader, Horwich says...
12:26am Fri 9 May 08

chas wrote:
Ragreader I am at present watching Sherlock Holmes and cannot see how you come to that conclusion.

Player #1 pointed it out.
Elementary.

Report this post »

chas, suffolk says...
8:30am Fri 9 May 08

Ragreader
My comment was a quote from a AMD site. Again I say, where is the proof?

Report this post »

player #1, Half the world away says...
10:04am Fri 9 May 08

chas wrote:
Ragreader My comment was a quote from a AMD site. Again I say, where is the proof?

the quote you used chas, actually backed up the article, in that you both said that smoking is a risk factor to blindness. The difference, as i pointed out earlier, is that the article gives the statistics of the risk factor, while your quote does not give the statistics for the other risk factors.

the proof is not definative, and no one has said it is, but it is the risk factors, the studies that you quote confirm this, that guide the legislation.

most cigarette packets say smoking can kill, how much tougher of a warning does gary titley want.

i think the idea is to refresh the messages, the design, wording etc, so that the message does not lose its impact upon smokers.

Report this post »

chas, suffolk says...
10:23am Fri 9 May 08

Player
Genes and diet were mentioned first because they are the biggest factors.
Those warnings have failed. The number of smokers had been decreasing for decades, until ASH and the Government got involved.

Report this post »

player #1, Half the world away says...
10:44am Fri 9 May 08

chas wrote:
Player Genes and diet were mentioned first because they are the biggest factors. Those warnings have failed. The number of smokers had been decreasing for decades, until ASH and the Government got involved.

so what are the figures for obesity and genetic theories? is it four times higher, more? the fact that you say it doesn't make it true chas. i don;t doubt that other things have attached risk factors for all sorts of issues, but without researched figures as to what the health risk is then we can't count them credible.

Report this post »

chas, suffolk says...
11:55am Fri 9 May 08

Player
As you say we need PROOF.
Notice the wording in the story

"Not only is a smoker's risk of developing age-related macular degeneration up to four times as high as a non-smoker

'Upto'. This is always used when they have no idea.

Report this post »

player #1, Half the world away says...
2:34pm Fri 9 May 08

chas wrote:
Player As you say we need PROOF. Notice the wording in the story
"Not only is a smoker's risk of developing age-related macular degeneration up to four times as high as a non-smoker
'Upto'. This is always used when they have no idea.

actually, no its used when the figure is fluctuating. upto would mean there were instances at the higher rate, and some instances at lower rates too.
As in - "chas has up to 3 brain cells working at any one time." doesn't mean all 3 work in sync, maybe only one or 2 are working. you get me now chas? you still haven't given any risk factor stats for the other factors you mentioned. (I don't mind if you use "up to" when delivering them)

Report this post »

chas, suffolk says...
2:56pm Fri 9 May 08

Player
You must learn to read. I said that what I quoted was from a AMD site, so ask them for the the risk factors.
I guess that your marks for reading at school, if you ever went to school, was maybe upto one out of 0ne hundred.

Report this post »

player #1, Half the world away says...
3:03pm Fri 9 May 08

chas wrote:
Player You must learn to read. I said that what I quoted was from a AMD site, so ask them for the the risk factors. I guess that your marks for reading at school, if you ever went to school, was maybe upto one out of 0ne hundred.

but the concept of quoting, chas, is that you are responsible for it, its validity and its appropriateness. i would say that any figures that are with the quote are surely going to be relevant to this article, so i would have thought you would have copied them in.

Ah... but to do that, and take ownership of your own opinions and statements would leave you open to being wrong, and we couldn't have that now could we.

Seriously, i think you are right, there are lots of other risk factors to a lot of the issues that smoking is blamed for. but quoting AMD without the stats is a pretty basic error, even for someone like me who can't read, and it doesn't promote your point of view at all, it just makes you look like a cretin. even the BN offered limited stats in their report, you offered nothing but C&P without stats, without direct source info and with a great amount of bias, generalisation and stereotyping.

please research if you must, but do it properly, don't just click the "i'm Feeling Lucky" button on google!

Report this post »

chas, suffolk says...
3:32pm Fri 9 May 08

Player
Try researching the meaning of 'upto'. Upto 100% of posters would agree that you are an idiot.

Report this post »

derby0543, bury says...
5:07pm Fri 9 May 08

Tut Tut Chas not often anyone gets under your skin now, Lord Andrew has decamped for pastures new.

Report this post »

chas, suffolk says...
5:20pm Fri 9 May 08

He couldn't have been put out to stud?

Report this post »

Phil Button, Basingstoke says...
11:01pm Mon 12 May 08

As usual,this is just a load of junk science presented in a hysterical way by biased media. It is no basis for any decision making process other that the anti-smoking lobby stinks. It is dishonest and amoral.

Report this post »

Your sayYourtheboltonnews

comment Add your comment

Register for a FREE The Bolton News account and you can have your say on today's news and sport by adding comments on articles we publish. The best comments may even get published in the paper.

Please register now or sign in below to continue.