Talk:Tobacco control

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Health and fitness Low‑importance 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.

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

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

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)