Smokers: out in the cold or not going out?

The latest issue of The Publican's Morning Advertiser is out today and it features a four-page cover wrap promoting the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign.

There are two pages of advertorial. One features the story, 'Out in the cold: why smokers are turning their backs on the British pub'. The other is headlined, 'It's time to relax the smoking ban: Government should look to Europe say campaigners'.

There is also a short piece by Joe Jackson plus quotes from several readers of this blog: Pat Nurse, Nick Lowe, Tim Paton, Liz Barber and Jocelyn Erskine-Kellie.

Joe writes:

“We’re told everyone has ‘adapted’ to the ban, ‘got used to it’, ‘moved on’ etc, but this is meaningless when smokers have no choice in the matter. A total ban backed up by stiff penalties is difficult to oppose in any visible way so it was always going to be portrayed as a success as long as there weren’t riots in the streets.

“I no longer go to pubs except occasionally to eat a meal, see a band, or sit in a pub garden in nice weather. When in the UK I socialise at home or in friends’ homes. Sitting in a non-smoking pub I’m uncomfortable because I feel that, by patronising it, I am in effect supporting the ban.

"Yes, some pubs have made an effort but more certainly needs to be done.”

Inside the main body of the magazine there is a further feature about the smoking ban. It has comments from me, Martin Dockrell of ASH, Brigid Simmonds, chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association, and Tim Martin, chairman of Weatherspoons.

Worth a read. Click here to download pdf versions of both features.

PS. One of the advertorial articles features a picture of a bar in Holland where customers are allowed to smoke. Yesterday judges in the Netherlands ruled that Customers can continue to smoke in small bars.

How Total Politics sold its soul to tobacco control

Some years ago I founded and edited a short-lived magazine called The Politico for Politicos Bookshop in Westminster.

The owner of Politicos, Iain Dale, went on to become Britain's No 1 political blogger. He also launched 18 Doughty Street, Britain's first Internet-based TV station, and later founded Total Politics magazine and Biteback Publishing before becoming a highly-regarded broadcaster on LBC.

Iain is still the publisher of Total Politics, a "strictly non-partisan” political magazine, and a couple of weeks ago I saw that the current issue (May) features a six-page feature on plain packaging that is described as a 'Special Report in association with Cancer Research UK'.

Special report my arse. If I'm not mistaken this is an advertisement feature, pure and simple. I may not be Inspector Morse but the evidence is damning:

(1) Several times following the launch of the Hands Off Our Packs campaign in February someone from Total Politics contacted me to ask if we would advertise. I said "No" – well, not until the government consultation had been launched and even then I didn't think we would have the budget. No doubt they were engaging with the other side too and CRUK took the bait.

(2) There is not a single dissenting voice in the entire piece. Not one. It's just wall-to-wall propaganda including an interview with CRUK chief executive Dr Harpal Kumar, "the facts and figures behind the case for plain packaging", "an expert briefing for MPs" and a profile of Australia's health minister Nicola Roxon, "the first politician in the world to spearhead a successful plain packaging campaign".

The 'Special Report' even features a quote from a retailer who is in favour of plain packaging. Now that is special because retailers like that are pretty thin on the ground. Well done to CRUK for finding one!

I don't blame Total Politics for such shameless bias. I've worked for commercially driven magazines that would not have existed without advertising so I know the compromises that have to be made to keep the show on the road and the tensions that exist between the editorial and advertising departments - it's not pretty, believe me!

But I do think they should have made it very clear that the piece is an advertisement for the plain pack campaign and not in any sense an objective review of the facts. (Incredibly, a member of the editorial staff even has her byline on one of the articles, giving it a faux respectability.)

In contrast to this lack of transparency, let me demonstrate how Forest does advertorial. In this week's Morning Advertiser (aka The Publican's Morning Advertiser to give it its full title), the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign has a four-page cover wrap that includes two pages of advertorial. Each page is clearly marked 'Advertisement Feature'.

As part of the deal you will also find, in the main body of the magazine, a four-page feature that includes a range of comments for and against the smoking ban, five years on.

It does not say 'Advertisement Feature' above those pages because it's not. It was written by a freelance journalist who was commissioned by the editor and given the freedom to speak to whoever he liked.

The end result includes extended quotes not only from me but also leading pro-ban figures like Tim Martin, chief executive of Weatherspoons, and Martin Dockrell of ASH.

That's how we like it. As a former magazine editor, I believe it's far more interesting for the reader too.

Yes, we asked to see the article in advance of publication but not to 'approve' it. In fact we didn't see it until after it had gone to press so we couldn't have changed anything even if we had wanted to.

Unlike tobacco control we welcome open debate and the publication of views we don't share doesn't bother us, even when we're paying for it! What we value, above everything, is a balanced discussion of the issues.

Sadly, CRUK and Total Politics have taken a different path. That's their choice but how well it reflects on the magazine I'll let you be the judge.

In the light of this week's absurd 'survey' on tobacco marketing CRUK has very little credibility left but I thought - had hoped - that Total Politics was better than that.

Smoke On The Water – register now!

Join me for Forest's annual boat party aboard The Elizabethan, a Mississippi-style paddle steamer.

This year's event takes place on Wednesday 20th June. This is a few weeks earlier than usual because we wanted it to take place before the fifth anniversary of the smoking ban in England.

As usual we begin with an hour-long drinks reception at Westminster Pier. After one or two speeches the boat will head down river towards Canary Wharf before returning, at 10.15, to Festival Pier.

As usual we'll be inviting MPs, political researchers and other members of the Westminster village so it's a good opportunity for you to share your views with opinion formers and, in some cases, decision makers (albeit in a very sociable environment).

Click here for full details. Registered guests only. RSVP now. It's FREE!!

Meanwhile, don't forget our other big event in June – The Freedom Dinner at Boisdale of Canary Wharf on Tuesday 26th June. Click here to book your ticket/s.

Smokers' panel survey (2010)

Over on Frank Davis's blog there is an interesting discussion about the social impact of smoking bans and which restrictions inconvenience smokers the most.

Frank's first post on the subject was prompted partly by my own request for comments about the ban. (Some of them will appear in this week's issue of The Publican's Morning Advertiser. I will post it online as soon as it is published on Thursday.)

Frank has now come up with a proposal for a social impact study and he needs volunteers to help him do the work. It's a major task. In the commercial world the project he has devised would cost many thousands of pounds.

I suggest Frank has a look at a poll conducted two years ago by Holden Pearmain for the Tobacco Manufacturers Association. HP used an online panel of 1000 adult (18+) smokers.

The results were not widely publicised but we found them interesting and very useful. Some of the answers may surprise you but they reflect the fact that people (even smokers) are rarely if ever unanimous in their opinions.

Anyway, for those with the patience to read the whole thing, here are the questions (and answers) from the May 2010 Smokers' Panel survey:

1. A few years ago, smoking was banned in indoor public places. Do you think the ban:

1. Is too strict and should be relaxed – 55.8
2. Is about right – 38.0
3. Should be widened to include some outdoor areas too – 5.6
4. Don’t know – 0.6

2. If you think the ban should be relaxed, would you like to see the ban lifted in:

1. Specially designated smoking rooms – 57.5
2. All pubs and bars – 33.0
3. Small pubs, bars – 4.3
4. Restaurants – 1.3
5. Members' clubs – 2.7
6. Don’t know – 1.3

3. If you think the ban should be widened, would you like to see smoking banned [tick as many as apply]:

1. Near the doors and windows of pubs and bars – 9.8
2. Near the doors and windows of restaurants – 12.4
3. Near the doors and windows of clubs – 8.0
4. Near the doors and windows of offices/other businesses – 9.8
5. In children's playgrounds – 18.2
6. Near children's playgrounds – 12.7
7. In cars where children present – 16.2
8. In any cars – 4.0
9. In private homes – 0.7
10. In parks or public beaches – 5.2
11. In the street – 3.2

4. Since the smoking ban, which of the following statements best reflects what you have noticed about the NUMBER of pubs in your area:

1. I have not noticed any pub closures since the ban – 21.2
2. I have noticed a few pub closures since the ban – 41.6
3. I have noticed many pub closures since the ban – 29.7
4. Don’t know – 7.6

5. Since the smoking ban, which of the following statements best reflects what you have noticed about the POPULARITY of pubs in your area:

1. I have noticed pubs to be busier since the ban – 3.0
2. I have noticed pubs seem to be quieter since the ban – 68.6
3. I have not noticed any change since the ban – 19.9
4. Don’t know – 8.5

6. Which of these statements reflects your opinion on the ban on smoking in pubs?

1. I agree with the ban on smoking in pubs – 36.5
2. I disagree with the ban on smoking in pubs – 58.0
3. Don’t know – 5.5

7. How did the smoking ban affect the way you used pubs?

1. I still go to the pub as before – 31.7
2. I still go to the pub, but less often than before – 29.1
3. I still go to the pub, but for a shorter time than before – 10.2
4. I no longer go to the pub – 24.5
5. Don’t know – 4.5

8. How has the ban on smoking in pubs affected the way you smoke at home?

1. It hasn't made any difference to my smoking at home – 75.7
2. I now smoke less at home than I did before the ban – 9.1
3. I now smoke more at home than I did before the ban – 13.0
4. Don’t know – 2.2

9. Has the smoking ban in pubs, bars and clubs led you to:

1. Only drink in the home – 11.9
2. Reduce the overall amount of alcohol that you consume – 5.5
3. Buy more alcohol from shops and off-licences – 21.1
4. Buy less alcohol from pubs, bars and clubs – 15.7
5. Increase the overall amount of alcohol that you consume – 1.8
6. No effect – 42.3
7. Don’t know – 1.6

10. Do you feel that the indoor smoking ban has:

1. Increased your sense of being part of the local community – 6.6
2. Decreased your sense of being part of the local community – 42.4
3. Had no effect – 46.6
4. Don’t know – 4.4

11. Would you be more or less likely to visit a pub, club, bar or restaurant if smoking were:

1. Permitted in a separate smoking room inside
1. More likely – 68.3
2. Less likely – 4.5
3. The same – 27.2

12. Would you be more or less likely to visit a pub, club, bar or restaurant if smoking were:

2. Permitted in a ventilated smoking area inside
1. More likely – 68.4
2. Less likely – 5.4
3. The same – 26.2

13a. Would the following changes affect how often you visit a pub?

1. A ban within five metres of any doorway or window:
1. Yes, I would go more often – 9.0
2. Yes, I would go less – 45.4
3. No, I would go the same – 32.3
4. Don’t know – 13.3

13b. Would the following changes affect how often you visit a pub?

2. A ban on smoking in part of the venue's outdoor area or garden
1. Yes, I would go more often – 7.7
2. Yes, I would go less – 52.3
3. No, I would go the same – 28.3
4. Don’t know – 11.6

13c. Would the following changes affect how often you visit a pub?

3. A ban on smoking in all of the venue's outdoor area or garden:
1. Yes, I would go more often – 5.6
2. Yes, I would go less – 62.9
3. No, I would go the same – 20.8
4. Don’t know – 10.8

It won't surprise you to know that in 2010 our old friends ASH and YouGov were spinning a rather different story. On June 27, 2010, the Observer reported that, according to findings based on five separate surveys carried out by YouGov between April 2007 and March 2010:

Half of all smokers now support the smoke-free law, and nearly one in four strongly supports it. Opposition among smokers appears to be ebbing away with only one smoker in six strongly opposing the ban.

In contrast the Holden Pearmain survey found that:

• Only 36 per cent of smokers support the smoking ban
• Over half of all smokers support designated smoking rooms in pubs and bars
• 58 per cent of smokers disagree with the ban on smoking in [all] pubs
• One in three smokers want the smoking ban lifted in all pubs and bars

The ASH/YouGov polls also found that:

... a substantial proportion of smokers want to see restrictions extended to children's play areas and smoking in cars. Just under half of smokers support a ban in play areas, while 61% support a ban in cars with children.

This is the angle the Observer led with – see: Smokers back extension of ban to play areas and cars carrying children.

However, as the results above show, the Holden Pearmain survey got a very different response. In May 2010, according to HP, fewer than one in five smokers supported a ban on smoking in children's playgrounds and only 16 per cent wanted smoking banned in cars with children.

Perhaps it's time to update the Holden Pearmain poll and find out what a representative and statistically significant sample of smokers really thinks before ASH/YouGov try to spin that message again themselves. The use of an independent third party to conduct the survey is pretty important too.

Snowdon: the real price of 'sin taxes'

Chris Snowdon has a new report out today.

The Wages of Sin Taxes: The True Cost of Taxing Alcohol, Tobacco and Other 'Vices' is published by the Adam Smith Institute.

It argues that so-called 'sin taxes' on cigarettes and alcohol are designed to boost revenue, not improve public health; minimum alcohol pricing will exacerbate poverty and entrench inequality without discouraging binge drinking; and most of the costs of drinking and smoking fall on individual consumers, not the public.

Says Chris:

"Campaigners for sin taxes and minimum pricing often claim that 'healthy citizens' are forced to bear the cost of other people’s lifestyles. In fact, the evidence shows that smokers take less from the communal pot than the average Briton and the money raised from alcohol duty comfortably pays for any burden drinking places on public services. If the aim of policy is to make individuals pay their way, the government should slash the beer tax and subsidise cigarettes.

"We are not seriously suggesting the government does this, but if politicians insist on increasing taxes on these products, they should admit that the purpose is to raise revenue. Essentially the government is forcing the people who are least likely to live to extreme old age to pay for the escalating costs of an ageing population.

"As we show in the report, amongst EU countries there is no relationship between alcohol prices and alcohol related harm, nor is there an association between cigarette prices and smoking rates. The only significant effects that sin taxes have are to make the poor poorer and black marketeers richer.”

In a week in which the Scottish Government has announced plans to introduce a minimum price per unit of alcohol, Chris's report could not be more topical.

For further information click here.

See also: The wages of sin taxes (Velvet Glove Iron Fist)

Pass the sickbag before I throw up

Is this the most nauseating story you have ever read?

Fionn O’Callaghan was sitting in the back seat of his family car one Saturday morning last January. Alongside Donnacha, his six-year-old brother, and Colm and Majella, his parents, O’Callaghan, 7, was going to an under-8 rugby match with the Wexford Ramblers. As the car travelled along a stretch of the motorway in Wicklow, something caught the young boy’s attention.

“I saw a woman smoking in her car and she had children sitting in the back and you could see it was very smoky in there,” he said. “I asked my parents if you were allowed to smoke when children are in the back, and they said you could. I really didn’t like it one bit.”

Colm O’Callaghan suggested his son take his concerns to politicians. Brendan Howlin, the Labour party minister and local TD, perhaps? Or why not write to Enda Kenny, the taoiseach?

"I thought nothing more of it until later that day when we arrived home from the rugby match and Fionn ran into his bedroom,” said Colm. “Half an hour later, he emerged with a letter for the taoiseach, asking him when he would make it the law to ban smoking in cars when children are present. He was determined to find out what was being done about it.”

Two days later a response came from the taoiseach’s office. Fionn’s concerns would be raised with James Reilly, the health minister, and Frances Fitzgerald, the minister for children. When he heard nothing more, Fionn decided to “doorstep” Reilly at an event in Wexford last month. His campaign caught on, and recently O’Callaghan became perhaps the youngest person ever to address the Seanad.

"He brought the house down, just as he did when he doorstepped James Reilly,” said John Crown, a cancer specialist and senator who had invited Fionn to speak. “The health minister suddenly found himself in front of a forceful seven-year-old asking him when he was going to ban smoking in cars.”

This story appears in the Irish edition of today's Sunday Times. The article also features a quote from John Mallon of Forest Eireann:

"Smokers have been characterised as filthy, smelly addicts and the government must shield our children from them,” said John Mallon, a spokesman for Forest Ireland, a version of the British organisation that is sponsored by the tobacco industry. “It wants to denormalise smoking by banning it, and there are those who have decided they simply don’t like the look of the smoker. I’m not a bad parent or a bad person because I smoke.”

Mallon argues smokers are aware of the dangers, and choose to smoke anyway. “Smoking in cars is about educating rather than legislating. Responsible people don’t light up a cigarette in a car with children present. And as for a ban in public places, how can you measure second-hand smoke in the outdoors?”

All good points, John, but factored against the word of seven-year-old Fionn O’Callaghan and what he thinks he saw in another car going at motorway speed, what chance do we have?

Stephen Williams, "the forces of darkness" and Chris Snowdon's vagina

If you were unable to attend the debate on plain packaging in Bristol on Thursday you could follow much of it on Twitter:

Ahead of the debate, Stephen Williams MP tweeted:

Another speaker, Dr Gabriel Scally, retired regional director of public health for the South West, also went on Twitter to say:

Later he tweeted:

After the debate he took to Twitter again:

Needless to say it wasn't quite like that. Anti-tobacco campaigners live in a parallel universe where truth plays second fiddle to rampant egos and unrelenting propaganda. Frankly, it's a bit embarrassing.

The reality is this. The event – Plain Packaging: Sensible Health Policy or Nanny State Nonsense – began as a debate but finished as a heated exchange of views between four equally combative speakers, although Williams appeared slightly uncomfortable as fingers were pointed and accusations started to fly!

It was lively and a bit shouty with plain pack supporters very well represented in the audience. Scally will have you believe that "tobacco industry people" were "out in force" but I counted just five representatives of Imperial Tobacco and no-one else from the tobacco industry.

Imperial is based in Bristol and employs hundreds of people in the city. Five people is hardly "out in force". In contrast the tobacco control lobby had clearly rallied their own troops and there were many, many more of them in the audience, including Fiona Andrews, director of Smokefree South West.

We could have tweeted "Tobacco control industry out in force" but that would have been petty. Accurate, but petty.

That said, I thought Scally was the best speaker during the formal part of the debate. He came across as authoritative, if a bit dour. Williams had a less fanatical gleam in his eye (which I would normally applaud) but he was surprisngly weak on plain packaging. Far from making a "powerful case", as Scally tweeted during the debate, the chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health seemed to offer very few arguments to support his case.

Overall I think the outcome was a draw. (No vote was taken but unlike some people I'm trying to be objective.) In my view Scally gave the most focused speech, and delivered it with passion. Chris Snowdon and I had our best moments, I thought, during the Q&A session. We had them on the back foot several times and I put this down to the fact that we were able to challenge them directly. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that they found this a bit uncomfortable.

Chris, for example, challenged the idea that he or anyone else who challenges the tobacco control industry must be an apologist for Big Tobacco. He didn't get the apology he demanded but the point was made and, in my view, he won that particular argument.

I would have responded to the "stooge" slur as well but there were other points I wanted to make in the limited time we had. Instead I challenged Scally on the report that the South West smokefree campaign is the "victim" of "sabotage" inspired by - you guessed – the tobacco industry (see previous post).

Again, this seemed to make our opponents (Scally in particular) quite defensive. Afterwards he was anxious to tell me that he had never used the word "sabotage". I accepted this (it would have been rude not to) but someone used the word. After all, it was a direct quote used by the BBC in the headline of its report (Plain cigarette packet 'sabotage' claim). Scally was featured in the report so if the word "sabotage" didn't come from him, where did it come from?

One more thing. In the course of the debate Chris and I discovered that anti-smoking activists like Gabriel Scally find it really, really irritating to be labelled the "tobacco control industry". I'll remember that in future.

More significant, perhaps, was the confession – elicited by a member of the audience – that there is no end to this nanny state nonsense. After tobacco it will be something else. Scally, in particular, didn't deny it. This 'revelation' seemed to surprise some members of the audience and it marked the moment when I felt the tide begin to turn, ever so slightly, in our favour despite the very best efforts of the tobacco control cheerleaders in the audience.

Of course, you don't expect people to change their minds at events like this. People usually leave with the same opinions that they had at the beginning. Interestingly however one member of the audience told me afterwards that before the debate he was in favour of plain packaging but he was now against it because he found our opponents (Scally in particular) too aggressive.

Scally's attitude reminds me of Professor Simon Chapman, the Australian anti-tobacco campaigner. Like Chapman, this is a man with a powerful ego who seems to live in a bubble surrounded by like-minded activists. He therefore believes that people who disagree with him must be stooges of Big Tobacco or what Williams more humorously calls the "forces of darkness".

Fair play, incidentally, to Stephen Williams. He said he would debate with Forest if we could find an independent third party to host the event. We did and he stuck to his word. I may disagree with his views on tobacco control but I give him credit for that.

Before I forget I would like to thank Helen Skinner and Jennifer Salisbury-Jones who made the event possible. Helen founded the Freedom Society at Bristol University (Jennifer will keep it going after Helen graduates in the summer) and it was following a talk I gave to a handful of members in February that they approached the Debating Union and suggested a discussion about plain packaging.

The Debating Union, led by Will Moulding, ran with the idea but it was Helen who encouraged them to invite Stephen Williams.

I am also indebted to plain pack supporter Suzi Gage for a series of live tweets on the debate. Here's a taste of what she tweeted while Scally and I were speaking:

I particularly liked her correspondence with Dick Puddlecote on the subject of Forest paying for the pre-debate drinks:

Last but not least, can someone – Chris Snowdon, perhaps – tell me what the following tweet is about? Did I miss something?

Oh, and here's something else I missed:

That plain packs "sabotage" claim

Further to my previous post, the BBC has the story here.

Dick Puddlecote – who submitted several Freedom of Information requests about the use of public money to fund Plain Packs Protect – responds here.

As for last night's 'debate' with Stephen Williams MP, I'll post a brief report shortly.