To:
letters@independent.co.uk |
|||
Professor
Richard Doll,
one of the
epidemiologists
who discovered
the link
between
smoking and
lung cancer,
died recently
aged 92. So
struck was he
by the
strength of
the evidence
he had found
that he gave
up smoking
himself even
before
publishing his
first report
in 1950. That
was 55
years ago!
Why
did it take so
long for the
results of his
(and other)
studies to be
accepted and
much longer
still for the
necessary
consequences
to be draw
from them and
acted upon? By
exposing the
dangers of
smoking,
Professor
Doll's work is
credited with
saving
millions of
lives, yet if
there had not
been so much
(and such
well-financed)
resistance to
his findings,
and
governments
had not
dragged their
feet for so
long, millions
more lives
might have
been saved. Despite
Prof. Doll’s
findings,
billions of
dollars
continued to
be spent year
after year,
not
discouraging,
as any sane
and rational
person might
have thought,
but actively
encouraging
people to
smoke. I
remember first
becoming
properly aware
of the
statistics in
the 1990’s
for Germany,
where I lived
at the time
(more than 40
years after
Prof. Doll’s
initial report
was
published).
My response
was one of
disbelief:
90,000
Germans, a
conservative
government
estimate
informed me,
died every
year as a
consequence of
smoking; yet
100’s of
millions of
dollars were
still being
spent by the
tobacco
industry on
advertising;
there were
bill boards
advertising
and vending
machines
dispensing
cigarettes on
virtually
every street
corner; the
checkouts of every
supermarket
displayed and
advertised
cigarettes.
How, at the
same time,
could they be
killing 90,000
people a year?
Surely there
had to be some
mistake? I
went in search
of an
explanation,
which slowly
dawned on me:
people
everywhere are
virtually
blind to the
“insanities
of normality
“,
especially
when they have
a vested
interest in
them. This is an important insight, but one that by its very nature, is difficult to convey to others. Initially I had grave doubts myself: surely it must be me who was mistaken? It is a possibility that I cannot rule out completely and which still causes me to have doubts from time to time. Because
of this
blindness and
unwillingness
to face up to
the dangers of
cigarette
smoking,
millions of
lives have
been lost -
sacrificed,
not to an evil
dictator's
insane ideas
of racial
purity, but to
the primacy of
powerful
economic and
financial
interests. Yet
many more
lives are at
stake in
future - not
just from
cigarette
smoking, but
from other,
even more
dangerous
behaviours,
which as a
society we
refuse to face
up to, and are
thus
persisting in. A
simplified,
but
nevertheless
fairly
accurate,
explanation
for
society’s
blindness and
failure to
respond
rationally to
the
“insanities
of normality
“ is that in
a sense it is
addicted to
them. By the
time the
dangers
associated
with cigarette
smoking were
recognised, it
was already a
"normal"
part of life,
upon which
many people
depended in a
variety of
ways. Most who
smoked were
psychologically
and/or
physically
dependent,
i.e. addicted,
to their
habit. The
tobacco
industry
depended on it
as a source of
income, as
too, to a
greater or
lesser extent,
did the media
and
advertising
industries,
who were also
in a uniquely
powerful
position to
influence
public
awareness and opinion. The
tobacco
industry also
had the
financial
clout to
employ clever
but unscrupulous
(or ignorant) scientists and
lawyers to
help fight
their corner,
rationalising
the
irrational,
defending the
indefensible,
and justifying
the
unjustifiable.
Then there
were those who
depended on or
simply enjoyed
sponsorship or
donations by
the tobacco
industry.
Government
ministers and
MP's were
lobbied and
rewarded (not
to say bribed)
for helping to
obstruct the
necessary
legislation.
It would be
interesting to
know the role
played by
well-known
newspapers and
magazines: how
long they
delayed before
deciding (or
being forced)
to put their
readers'
health and
life
expectancy
before
advertising
revenue? But
there is no
time now for
accusations,
even if they
are justified.
It is far more
important that
we now face up
to what
happened - and why. A
few million
premature
deaths a year
through
smoking, as
terrible as it
is, is far
from being our
biggest
problem.
Non-smokers,
at least, can
live with
that. What we
cannot live
with (because
ultimately it
threatens to
kill us all)
is our
fundamentally
non-sustainable,
growth-dependent
economy and
the grossly
materialistic
lifestyles it
engenders.
This is our
biggest,
effectively
our only
problem. Only
we are not
facing up to
it - for
reasons very
similar to, if
not identical
with, those
which kept us
from facing up
to the dangers
of smoking for
so long. Daily Telegraph, 30 July 05: "Ferrari drives through loophole to continue tobacco advertising"
|
|||
|