Rapid Responses to:

NEWS: Roger Dobson Reid wrong about comfort of smoking, research shows BMJ 2007; 334: 555 [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

The health secretary was very wrong.

Rachid Berair   (17 March 2007)

Pleasure of smoking - the evidence.

Susan E Martin   (19 March 2007)

Smoking is a pleasure for some

Angus Bancroft   (21 March 2007)

This article should be withdrawn

Adrian H Sie   (27 April 2007)

Cause and Effect

Joan McClusky   (28 April 2007)

The health secretary was very wrong. 17 March 2007
Rachid Berair, Senior House Officer, Gastroenterology Countess of Chester Hospital, Chester, CH2 1UL, UK Send response to journal: Re: The health secretary was very wrong.	It is refreshing that finally a politician comments were proven wrong by scientific research. This new study published in (Public Health ,2007 Mar 2) shows very clearly that there is no evidence to support Mr. Reid’s claims that smoking is associated with increased levels of pleasure. In fact, the results suggested the opposite: that smoking is associated with less pleasure and poorer quality of life. I think that the only good outcome of the health secretary’s comments is that it encouraged this team of scientists and doctors to perform this study and clearly demonstrate the negative association between smoking and measured pleasure. References: 1/ Was John Reid right? Smoking, class, and pleasure: A population- based cohort study in England. I. Lang et al. (Public Health 2007 Mar 2, doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2007.01.005) 2/ Reid wrong about comfort of smoking, research shows. Roger Dobson. BMJ 2007;334:555 (17 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.39153.351042.DB Competing interests: None declared
Pleasure of smoking - the evidence. 19 March 2007
Susan E Martin, Salaried GP Oldham ol3 5ah Send response to journal: Re: Pleasure of smoking - the evidence.	Dear Sir, That evidence based medicine has become the lynch pin of modern medical practice is both right and true. However, I have major issues with its application and specifically with the interpretation of the evidence itself. This brief article reporting research into the happiness of smokers is a case in point. It is suggested that the new research disproves John Reid’s views that, for some people, smoking is the only pleasure they have. I have been unable to access the full text of the paper, but the reported results surely support Mr. Reid’s stated view: if people who smoke experience less general pleasure than those who don’t, then it is reasonable to conclude that they may continue to smoke because it is one of the few specific pleasures they do actually have. Otherwise they are masochists who continue to deliberately increase their own misery. Yours truly, Competing interests: None declared
Smoking is a pleasure for some 21 March 2007
Angus Bancroft, Lecturer University of Edinburgh Send response to journal: Re: Smoking is a pleasure for some	Reid did not mean that smoking in some way contributed to general population wellbeing, rather that in conditions of severe deprivation people have few reliable sources of satisfaction, of which smoking is often one. Qualitative research with women living in poverty who smoke finds that they frequently talk in terms of smoking being their only reliable pleasure in life (Bancroft 2003; Graham, 1993). Bancroft, A; Wiltshire, S; Amos, A and Parry, O (2003) “It’s like an addiction first thing … afterwards it’s like a habit: daily smoking behaviour among people living in areas of deprivation.” Social Science & Medicine, 56, 6, 1261-1267. Graham, H (1993) When Life's a Drag: Women, Smoking and Disadvantage, London: HMSO. Competing interests: None declared
This article should be withdrawn 27 April 2007
Adrian H Sie, Specialist Registrar in Paediatrics Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Yorkhill, Glasgow G3 8SJ Send response to journal: Re: This article should be withdrawn	The title of this news article is wholly incorrect, as pointed out above. The research shows that smokers have, on the whole, lower levels of pleasure. It did not even attempt to assess whether in the course of a smoker's day, smoking a cigarette was one of the more pleasing moments - which was what John Reid suggested. He did not suggest that smokers had a better quality of life than non-smokers. I feel the article does nothing to contribute to an important debate on quality of life and smoking; instead it makes an unsupported assertion, so should be withdrawn. Competing interests: None declared
Cause and Effect 28 April 2007
Joan McClusky, medical writer New York, NY 10003 Send response to journal: Re: Cause and Effect	Since when did an association prove cause and effect? Apparently the authors have decided that the association between poor quality of life and heavy smoking proves heavy smoking proves lowers quality of life. How about the other way around? The worse the life, the more you smoke, because----smoking is pleasurable. Did anyone ask the smokers whether they liked to smoke, and whether it gave them pleasure? Competing interests: None declared