Great speech but actions are louder than words

I was going to go to the E-Cigarette Summit in London on Friday but something cropped up and I didn't.

Instead I followed the nine-hour event online. This gave me a flavour of the main presentations without the aggravation of an additional four-hour round trip or listening to people I’ve heard many times before.

I've previously criticised the E-Cig Summit for becoming just another public health conference with consumers being marginalised or, worse, patronised and given the smallest possible roles.

I wasn't alone in voicing those concerns but this year the criticism appears to have been heeded. For the first time, I think, a consumer representative was given the opportunity to give an actual speech.

That said, when I saw that Sarah Jakes of the New Nicotine Alliance had been given the late afternoon slot when many delegates would have been struggling to stay awake (I speak from experience) it seemed yet another case of the consumer being relegated to the fag end of an event in which they should be playing a leading role.

Credit then to Jakes for grabbing the opportunity and giving a speech that, if Twitter is to be believed, did more than wake delegates from their afternoon slumber. It threatened to light a blue touchpaper under public health.

To put this in perspective, I've not seen eye-to-eye with the NNA on a number of issues, notably their reluctance to acknowledge that many smokers don't want to quit and their silence on smoking bans and other anti-tobacco initiatives.

I've been unimpressed too that some members of the NNA have apparently succumbed to pressure from the public health industry to distance themselves from Forest. That struck me as a bit cowardly.

On this occasion though I can't fault most of what Jakes said and I admired the passion and directness with which she spoke. I particularly welcomed the unambiguous declaration that:

We are all ex-smokers and let me make this clear, we are resentful of the way that smokers are treated. We naturally rail against coercive methods of forcing smokers to quit, and detest the stigmatisation of smokers that always goes hand in hand with those methods.

Having spent a significant amount of time promoting The Pleasure of Smoking: The Views of Confirmed Smokers, a report that includes valuable sections on smokers' attitudes to addiction and why more smokers won't switch to vaping, I also applaud her demand that public health campaigners engage with smokers as well as vapers:

Talk to vapers. Listen to and learn from their experiences. Get a better understanding of what motivates people to smoke and to vape (here's a hint: it’s not all, or evenly mostly, about addiction). Talk to smokers and find out what the barriers are to switching, and work out how to help them overcome them, if that’s what they want to do.

If Jakes' speech is the catalyst for a more open and honest discussion about smoking, nicotine, harm reduction and smoking cessation that involves all parties – smokers, vapers, public health campaigners, Big Tobacco, the independent vaping industry and government – I will welcome it even more.

Unfortunately the cynic in me suggests this won't happen. Why? Well, there are still far too many people in government, public health and even the independent vaping industry who are reluctant to engage with every stakeholder.

Hatred of the tobacco industry is one reason.

Another is a misguided commitment to Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control that anti-smoking activists insist prohibits engagement with the tobacco industry when it does nothing of the sort.

A third reason is a stubborn refusal to acknowledge that many adults enjoy smoking, know the risks and still don't want to quit. (There's nothing as off-message as hearing that so it's best to exclude the heretics from the conversation.)

I sincerely hope Sarah Jakes' speech makes a difference but I'll only believe it when I see the tobacco companies and what Sarah calls "pro-smoker groups" like Forest invited to share a platform with vaping advocates, public health professionals and the independent vaping industry at similar events and forums including, dare I say it, next year's E-Cigarette Summits in Washington and London.

In the meantime the New Nicotine Alliance could take the lead and invite all interested parties to a roundtable discussion or seminar. As good as the speech was, actions speak louder than words so let's engage.

Full speech: Sarah Jakes' keynote speech at the E-Cig Summit 2017 (NNA).

By the way it's interesting to note who 'liked' or retweeted links to Jakes' speech on Twitter and who didn't.

I haven't made a comprehensive list but if you have time it's quite illuminating.

For example, even though they were at the event (CEO Deborah Arnott was a speaker), ASH noticeably failed to endorse Jakes' speech with a 'like' or retweet.

Even more reason, in my view, to read it!


Noone the loon (her word not mine)

Final word (probably) on last week's Golden Nanny Awards in Dublin.

Writing in today's Sunday Independent Liam Collins (aka Zozimus) comments:

Although not a smoker, Zozimus would have enjoyed last week’s dinner organised by Forest Ireland (‘voice and friend of the smoker’) at which guest of honour Senator Catherine Noone was presented with the award of Ireland’s ‘Nanny-in-chief 2017’ by Keith Redmond, co-founder of the Hibernia Forum.

“In a country with so many politicians with a nanny state instinct Senator Noone has gone above and beyond the rest, raising eyebrows even among her nanny state colleagues,” he said. “She not only supports headline-grabbing policies like minimum price of alcohol, the booze burka and plain packaging of alcohol, but bans on fast-food outlets, price promotions for chocolate biscuits and even icecream vans.”

Admirably, Senator Noone had the good grace, not to mention humour, to turn up and accept the award from the assembled “libertarians, contrarians and barbarians”.

Other winners at the ‘Farewell to Freedom’ dinner in Suesey Street in Dublin were Fine Gael TD Marcella Corcoran Kennedy, inventor of the ill-fated ‘Beer Curtains’, and Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe, for his sugar tax.

Senator James Reilly got a well-deserved ‘lifetime achievement award’ for trying to cure us all of the joys of life. Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver, got the international award for his “puritanical” campaign against obesity.

Yesterday's Irish Times also had a piece about the event. Columnist Miriam Lord wrote:

The organisers of an awards ceremony held by a smokers’ rights group to “honour” people for their services to the nanny state were very surprised when one of the winners turned up in person on Monday night to collect her gong.

They were also absolutely delighted, in a sad kind of way, because they don’t usually get much attention.

Forest, an English-based pressure group funded by the tobacco industry, usually hosts the awards dinner in London but decided to relocate to Dublin this year because of the zealous approach taken by Irish politicians in trying to restrict what people can eat, drink and smoke.

The event, in Suesey Street restaurant on Leeson Street, began with a drinks reception on a smoking terrace, followed by a three-course dinner “with delicious wines and after-dinner entertainment” followed by speeches and the announcement of the Golden Nanny Award winners. (No shortage of money where this group is concerned.)

Guest speakers at the 'Farewell to Freedom Dinner' included Keith Redmond, cofounder of the Hibernia Forum think-tank - “a free market advocacy forum”, and Irish Independent columnist Ian O’Doherty.

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar headed the shortlist, along with the likes of Minister for Health Simon Harris, former minister of state for health Marcella Corcoran Kennedy and Paschal Donohoe. Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin, who introduced the smoking ban, and Senator James Reilly, who supported plain packaging of tobacco, were both nominated for a lifetime achievement award.

Senator Catherine Noone, nominated for her involvement in a number of health-awareness campaigns, won overall Nanny of the Year. She did a Halle Berry on it – Berry famously made an appearance at the Golden Raspberry Awards to accept the prize for worst actress for her role in the atrocious 2004 movie Catwoman – turning up to accept her honour and deliver a speech.

“As to some of the specific nannying I’ve promoted in the last year: the sugar tax, the sunbeds and the alcohol bill, I see neither mitching cider-swigging youths, wrinkled over-ripe bronzed oompa loompas nor energy drinking obese diabetics in the audience, so obviously you’re all enlightened,” she told her audience.

“Libertarians, contrarians, barbarians: I’m honoured to accept this award. You’re great sports! And I’m a loon, obviously ... ”

OK, Lord was a bit snooty (unlike the rather wonderful Catherine Noone) but if you add her piece to the full page report in the Irish Daily Star and another report in The Times (Ireland edition) I don't think we've done too badly.

That said (and I'm not talking about awards), the overall winner has to be Noone herself. Other politicians take note.

Now for a similar event in Scotland ...

Catherine Noone with Keith Redmond, co-founder of the Hibernia Forum


Claire Fox targets public health in “rollicking speech”

It's been a busy week.

Unfortunately there was a clash of events and I couldn't attend both the Golden Nanny Awards in Dublin and the latest Forest event in Brussels.

I therefore missed what Politico Europe described as a "rollicking speech" by Claire Fox, director of the Institute of Ideas, founder of the Battle of Ideas, a regular panelist on Radio 4's Moral Maze and author of I Find That Offensive!.

According to Politico, Claire delivered an "excoriation of public health devotees". Defending "the adult joys of smoking against the nanny state", she finished her talk with the provocative claim that "Anyone who has ever told you they're addicted to smoking is lying."

Her talk, at a restaurant close to the European Parliament, attracted a full house including European Commission and European Parliament staff plus journalists, NGOs and trade associations.

The format of these events includes a free burger (and several beers) in a private extension that opens on to a dedicated smoking area. As you can see below, it's proving very popular.

The next 'Burning Issues' event takes place in Brussels on Thursday December 7 and features another great speaker – Sinclair Davidson, professor of institutional economics, finance and marketing at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia, senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, and academic fellow at the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance – who will discuss 'How to torture data to justify public policy’.

Given the proximity to Christmas there will also be free mulled wine. I definitely won't miss that – come and join us!


Charm offensive

Further to my previous post the Irish Daily Star published this report about Forest's Golden Nanny Awards:

A top politician has been named Ireland's "nanny in chief" for her zealous campaigns to save the nation from itself.

Fine Gael senator Catherine Noone received the tongue-in-cheek accolade at a ceremony on Monday.

It was to honour her committed campaign to highlight the dangers of cheap booze, cigarette packaging, fast food outlets, cut-price chocolates biscuits, mixed martial arts and even ice cream van jingles.

The 41-year-old turned up to accept the gong at a dinner organised by a smokers' rights group where she was the guest of honour.

The rest of the article was based largely on our press release, Senator wins 'nanny-in-chief' award.

Several people – here and on Facebook – have queried why Noone would want to accept such an accolade, even a tongue-in-cheek one. One described her as "arrogant" for even showing up.

I don't agree at all. Far from being arrogant or calculating her response to our invitation was refreshingly artless:

"Thanks for your email. Didn't know this was a thing. Where is it on? Is it black tie? I'll see what I can do. Think it'd be a bit of craic to be honest – I'm not afraid!"

The worst that can be said is that it was a shrewd move by an intelligent politician. By turning up and entering into the spirit of the occasion she charmed everyone, including some of her fiercest critics. By the end of the evening they were queuing up to have their photo taken with her.

At the Forest table there was a particularly amusing moment when she suddenly realised that the man she was talking to was one of her bêtes noires, journalist Ian O'Doherty.

"Oh, it's you!" she exclaimed. To the rest of us she wailed, "He hates me!"

That may have been the case before but it's not true now. A professional curmudgeon, O'Doherty subsequently began his own speech by proposing a toast to Noone for having the balls to turn up.

He wasn't alone. Similar comments were posted by others on Twitter and Facebook.

A smidgeon of charm goes a very long way and I'm amazed so few people in the public health industry use it to their advantage. The truth, I suspect, is that most public health campaigners are self-righteous bores who don't have an ounce of charm in their bodies.

There are exceptions, of course. Linda Bauld, of Stirling University and Cancer Research fame, is one of them and I must confess that having been met with a smile rather than a sullen scowl I do find it harder to be as critical of her as I once was. (And I know others who feel the same way.)

It's human nature, I suppose. You can still disagree but if you like someone it's more difficult to put the boot in, metaphorically speaking. Thankfully it's not a problem I have with most tobacco control activists, the majority of whom make little or no attempt to engage or be friendly on any level.

Catherine Noone understands this, I'm sure, but I don't think her appearance at the Golden Nanny Awards was driven by any ulterior motive. I think she genuinely thought it might be a bit of laugh and her subsequent tweets, including the one below, suggest a sense of humour that should be welcomed not used as stick to beat her with.

Meanwhile, what did Forest and the groups supporting the event get out of it? Rob Duffy (Students for Liberty) hit the nail on the head when he tweeted a picture of himself and Noone and wrote, 'Myself and the great sport @senatornoone at The Golden Nannies award ceremony last night. Let's build bridges!'

Belittling, insulting and attacking the opposition will get you only so far. More often than not the animosity it generates will entrench people's positions to the point of no return.

Long-term it's important to build bridges and engage. On Monday night the Golden Nanny Awards did precisely that.


Libertarians, contrarians, barbarians ... the Golden Nanny Awards 2017

Congratulations to Catherine Noone.

The deputy leader of the Seanad (the Upper House of the Irish Parliament) was awarded star prize at the inaugural Golden Nanny Awards in Dublin last night.

Better still, while other nominees failed to respond to our invitation to attend, Noone not only replied but turned up in person to collect her trophy (above).

The Times (Ireland edition) has a report here – Senator wins award as head of Ireland’s ‘nanny state’.

'The Nannies' were part of a 'Farewell to Freedom' dinner hosted by Forest with the support of the Hibernia Forum think tank, Students for Liberty Ireland, Consumer Choice Centre and the Dublin Salon debating group.

It was first time we'd attempted anything like this in Ireland. The venue was important because we wanted to mimic the annual Freedom Dinner in London, albeit on a smaller scale.

A cosy smoking terrace was essential and there aren't many of those around. Suesey Street, the restaurant we hired, has one of the best smoking areas I've seen either side of the Irish Sea.

I won't go into detail but it's fabulous. Last night, despite the rain, it was warm, dry and perfect for a drinks reception prior to dinner.

Sixty guests had registered (56 turned up) so the restaurant was pretty full. Hibernia Forum brought 17 guests, Students for Liberty ten.

As well as Catherine Noone, the Forest table included The Times' reporter Catherine Sanz, Irish Independent columnist Ian O'Doherty and Forest Ireland's John Mallon.

Welcoming us to Suesey Street, general manager John Healy was an excellent host.

Apart from Noone it turned out his was the most familiar face in the room owing to his long-running role as maitre d’ on TV3’s The Restaurant in which "six celebrity chefs take on the critics".

I acted as MC and rather like the Oscars I ended up getting slightly confused. One envelope containing the nominees and winner of the Golden Nanny Lifetime Achievement Award went missing so we quietly dropped that award, although we still announced it in the press release.

Before the awards Keith Redmond, co-founder of Hibernia Forum, gave a short speech. He also presented Catherine Noone with her award and the funny thing was he had written a fairly scathing citation oblivious of the fact that she was going to be there in person. He only found out when he arrived.

The good news is, even though she was sitting only a few feet away, he didn't tone it down. She in turn responded admirably, beginning her acceptance speech with the words, "Libertarians, contrarians, barbarians, thank you."

She later tweeted, "Proud recipient of the Golden Nanny Award 2017 – proud moment."

The awards concluded with some pithy words (and gags) from Ian O'Doherty, columnist for the Irish Independent and the Irish Daily Star, and then it was back to the smoking terrace for another drink or two.

I left shortly after midnight and I wasn't the last to leave.

Thanks to the following for their help in making this event happen: Eamon Delaney and Keith Redmond (Hibernia Forum), Rob Duffy and Beatriz Giethner (Students for Liberty) and Justin Smyth (Dublin Salon).

Hats off too to Luca Bertolleti, European affairs manager at Consumer Choice Center, who flew in from Brussels and flew back on a 6.30am flight this morning.

And let's not forget law student Eimhear Macfarlane (national coordinator for Students for Liberty in Northern Ireland) who had to catch a late night coach to Belfast in order not to miss an early morning lecture.

Thanks to Eimhear, Luca and everyone else who supported the 'Farewell to Freedom' dinner. I hope they enjoyed it as much as I did.

See also Senator wins 'nanny-in-chief' award (Forest).


Tax and tobacco

The Autumn Budget is only two weeks away.

As you probably know the Chancellor has switched the Budget from spring to autumn. It means therefore that taxes on tobacco could rise twice this year.

A couple of weeks ago we published a short document that highlighted the way increases in tobacco duty discriminate unfairly against households on low incomes. (It's not rocket science but it still needs to be pointed out.)

This morning we published the results of a poll conducted last week on another Budget-inspired theme:

The survey, conducted by Populus for Forest, found that 76 per cent of adults think the current level of tax – over 80 per cent on an average packet of cigarettes in the UK – is either about right (44 per cent) or too high (32 per cent). Only 24 per cent (one in four) think it's too low.

A huge majority – 68 per cent – also said that buying illicit tobacco was an "understandable" response to the soaring cost of tobacco purchased legally. Only 22 per cent found it "not understandable".

Simon Clark, director of Forest, said: "Tobacco duty in the UK is exceptionally high compared to most other EU countries.

"Another tax hike will discriminate against the less well off and those who are just about managing.

"It will also encourage more smokers to buy tobacco on the black market because there isn't the stigma associated with other illicit transactions.

"We urge the Chancellor to give smokers a break, take public opinion into account and freeze tobacco duty at the current levels."

In a more pragmatic, less censorious world the government would reduce tobacco duty to a fairer level but it's unrealistic to think the Chancellor will succumb to common sense, hence our call for a tax freeze.

See Tobacco tax: give smokers a break, says Forest.

Inevitably the tobacco control industry takes a very different view and is calling for further tax hikes, but what really sticks in the throat are the crocodile tears concerning their position on illegal tobacco.

Take Fresh (formerly Smokefree North East). According to their website:

Illegal tobacco has helped over half of underage smokers in the North East get hooked on smoking, a new survey released today suggests.

55% of children aged 14 and 15 who smoke say they buy illegal tobacco from sources like "tab houses" and shops - while 73% say they have been offered illegal tobacco.

The figures, from the 2017 North East Illegal Tobacco Survey, are released as Fresh launches the new 'Keep It Out' campaign aimed at helping the public to spot illegal tobacco, report it and to encourage smokers not to buy it.

How hypocritical is that? If it wasn't for punitive taxation on tobacco, a policy Fresh supports, there wouldn't be a thriving black market in tobacco and there would be far less risk of children getting their hands on cigarettes.

But the group isn't content an increase in tobacco duty alone:

Fresh is calling on the Government to introduce a licensing system for tobacco manufacturers and retailers to provide funding for improved enforcement and other measures to reduce smoking prevalence. The measure would be popular in the North East with 76% of adults strongly in favour of businesses needing a valid licence to sell tobacco.

Aside from the fact that the cost of a licensing system would almost certainly be passed on to the consumer (forcing more smokers further into poverty or towards the black market), what could Fresh possibly mean by "other measures"?

My guess is that "other measures" include more funding for parasitic groups like Fresh because that's the Kafkaesque world we live in.

More funding means more campaigns like 'Keep It Out' in which a tobacco control group 'helps' the public "to spot illegal tobacco, report it and encourage smokers not to buy it" while lobbing government to increase taxes that inevitably push consumers towards the black market.

Wilfully ignorant or in denial about the irony of their position, Fresh declares:

As well as helping children to start smoking, people supplying illegal tobacco are often involved in drugs or loan sharking. Buying it means supporting crime and can bring children into contact with criminals.

For crying out loud! Punitive taxation drives illicit trade. How hard is that to understand? If there's a single group that's supporting crime and bringing children into contact with criminals it's tobacco control campaigners and their counter-productive policy on tax.

See Illegal tobacco bought by more than half of teenage smokers (Fresh).


Farewell to Freedom Dinner fully booked

Delighted to report that Forest's Farewell to Freedom Dinner in Dublin on November 13 is fully booked.

Organised with the support of Hibernia Forum, a classical liberal think tank, Dublin Salon, Students for Liberty Ireland and Consumer Choice Centre, the evening features our first Golden Nanny Awards.

The Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, health minister Simon Harris, and former health promotion minister Marcella Corcoran Kennedy are all shortlisted for services to the nanny state.

ASH Ireland and Alcohol Action Ireland, a government-funded 'charity', have also been nominated.

A smaller version of our Freedom Dinner in London, the event will start with a drinks reception on a smoking terrace that has its own fireplace. This will be followed by a three-course dinner in the adjacent restaurant.

In addition to the awards guest speakers are Keith Redmond, forthright libertarian and co-founder of Hibernia Forum, and Ian O'Doherty, a famously outspoken columnist for the Irish Independent and Irish Daily Star.

Can’t wait!


Public Health England? They're having a laugh (at our expense)

Further to my previous post I've now read the long-awaited Stoptober 2016 campaign evaluation.

It didn't take long. If you exclude the cover, credits and contents, it amounts to just four pages.

God knows I appreciate brevity, but four pages?!!

Two of the four are devoted to 'Background', one and a half are described as an 'Overview', and there's a short three-paragraph 'Summary'.

And, er, that's it.

So what does the evaluation, which I first enquired about twelve months ago, tell us about Stoptober 2016? Very little, as it happens, apart from one startling admission:

Our modelling estimates that total incremental campaign driven quit attempts were 124,500 versus 385,000 in the previous year [2015] ...

In other words, the estimated number of smokers driven to attempt to quit as a result of Stoptober 2016 was a third of the number in 2015. And there is of course no evidence that they succeeded in quitting.

However, even the estimated figure is odd because I wasn't aware of any 'modelling' for Stoptober 2015. What we were told – by Public Health England in a press release issued on October 30, 2015 – is that 'over 215,000 smokers signed up to this year’s Stoptober'.

No mention there of 385,000 'campaign driven quit attempts' in 2015 so why include the figure in the 2016 evaluation?

More notable perhaps was the fact that in the press release that followed the conclusion of Stoptober 2015 Public Health England chose to ignore the fact that the number of smokers who signed up that year was 15 per cent lower than in 2014.

Few people would have been any the wiser had it not been for journalist Peter Russell who wrote an online report ('Fewer people joined Stoptober smoking challenge') that I linked to here.

Curiously, you may think, that article is no longer available on the website although Peter Russell continues to write for it.

Anyway, back to the Stoptober 2016 campaign evaluation. Confusingly:

Reported quit attempts were maintained at 2015 levels with 16% of all smokers reporting the key action of a Stoptober quit attempt.

Eh? One minute they're saying "campaign driven quit attempts were 124,500 [in 2016] versus 385,000 in the previous year", the next they're saying "reported quit attempts were maintained at 2015 levels". Which is it?

Leaving this aside, if there's a dominant theme in the report it's funding, or lack of. Frankly the four-page 'evaluation' is little more than a prolonged whinge about the budget and a plea for more money in 2017:

In 2016, competing priorities led to a significant budget reduction for Stoptober. Most notably, media spend was reduced from £3.1 million in 2015 to £390,000 in 2016 (an 87% reduction).

Given the lower budget, the strategic approach to delivering the campaign needed to evolve considerably.

Given the scale of the budget reduction in 2016, the Stoptober campaign performed well.

While the budget for PR declined by 20%, coverage remained very strong.

While the key campaign metrics (such as brand awareness and visibility) have been positive relative to the reduced budget, Stoptober was delivered at a smaller scale with lower absolute levels of visibility and awareness.

If future investment is maintained at 2016 levels the long-term health of the brand and participation can be expected to erode.

Hilariously it's no longer about the health of the nation. It's all about the 'health of the brand'!

In conclusion the evaluation declares:

Stoptober 2016 was successful in driving campaign cost efficiency, but this was done at the cost of reduced overall scale. Our modelling estimates that total incremental campaign driven quit attempts were 124,500 versus 385,000 in the previous year, but that three-year return on investment was £4.22 versus £3.42 in the previous year.

The campaign in 2016 has benefited greatly from four years of previous sustained investment. Without this it is likely that brand awareness and other key metrics in 2016 would have been lower.

The results suggest that Stoptober 2017 will start from a lower base of awareness, meaning that, without greater investment in 2017, Stoptober is likely to shrink further and more rapidly.

Incredibly this wafer-thin evaluation took a whole year to enter the public domain, and only after regular cajoling by Forest. Would they have published it without our persistence? I suspect not.

Clearly however there has been plenty of lobbying behind the scenes because, as we now know (thanks to another Forest FOI request), Stoptober 2017 was given a substantially increased budget with media spend rising from £390,000 in 2016 to £1.08 million in 2017.

Whether it was spent wisely and what the results were we'll have to wait and see. If the 2016 report is any guide, expect the Stoptober 2017 campaign evaluation to be published at the back end of October 2018.

But whether the media spend budget is £390,000 (2016), £1.08m (2017) or £3.1m (2015), it's taxpayers' money and I see very little in this report to justify the use of any public money on a glorified PR campaign whose 'success' seems to be judged less on actual quit smoking attempts and more on media profile.

As for Stoptober 2017 embracing e-cigarettes, am I the only person to be rather cynical about this belated move?

While it's true that Public Health England has been an advocate of e-cigarettes as a quit smoking tool for a couple of years now, I suspect the real reason Stoptober 2017 jumped on the vaping bandwagon is because it will allow the campaign to claim credit for the general reduction in smoking rates, especially if smoking cessation continues to be driven not by Stoptober support tools but by smokers switching to e-cigarettes (ie non-Stoptober support tools).

It certainly wouldn't be the first anti-smoking initiative to claim credit for quit smoking attempts that are largely unrelated to the campaign in question.

Anyway, I think I've dredged as much as I can from this. If I'm finding it boring I can't imagine what it's like for you. If you've read this far, well done!