Forest Unfiltered

 

 

 

 

 



40 Years of Hurt

Prejudice and Prohibition

Road To Ruin?

Search This Site
The Pleasure of Smoking

Forest Polling Report

Outdoor Smoking Bans

Plain Packaging

Share This Page
Powered by Squarespace
« Welcome to the Liberty League | Main | Scotland's smoking ban five years on »
Monday
Mar212011

Cancer Research: overzealous, overstaffed and over here

Cancer Research has responded to my article on Politics.co.uk last week with a piece of their own: Tobacco control plan is a victory for public health.

The extraordinary thing is, they needed TWO people to write it! Here's a taste:

Large, brightly lit shop displays of tobacco act like big adverts for cigarette brands and, placed next to the sweets and crisps in shops, make smoking seem like an invitingly normal, everyday activity rather than a deadly addiction ...

The tobacco control plan is a testament to the campaigning of a huge range of organisations that care about the nation's health and want to reduce the harm from smoking. Charities such as Cancer Research UK and the British Heart Foundation line up alongside medical bodies such as the BMA and royal colleges for physicians and GPs. We join together because we see the damage caused by smoking and the evidence for what works to cut smoking.

These motivations are in contrast to the tobacco industry whose interests are inherently opposed to the nation's health - their obligations to shareholders require them to maximise profits and sales of cigarettes. The industry's past record is such that the government limits its discussions with them to operational matters. They prefer to influence through front groups but in future anyone who lobbies the Department of Health on tobacco policy will have to declare their links to the industry.

Action on tobacco displays, a review of plain packaging, commitment to stop smoking services and a tough approach to the tobacco industry add up to a good start for the government. The crucial next step is to implement plain packaging and end the dangerously seductive branding of cigarettes.

To comment click here.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (11)

Shops do not keep cigarettes next to sweets. Supermarket have separate counters for cigarettes and corner shops keep their cigarettes behind the counter.

Monday, March 21, 2011 at 17:10 | Unregistered Commenterchas

'The industry's past record is such that the government limits its discussions with them to operational matters.'

By which I presume they mean the Industry did not and still will not, fully accept their arguments. Well, neither do I and a 'few' others.

'They prefer to influence through front groups but in future anyone who lobbies the Department of Health on tobacco policy will have to declare their links to the industry.'

I wonder if they consider that it applies to them? do they count themselves part of the 'industry'? Probably not. That'd be too much.

Monday, March 21, 2011 at 18:23 | Unregistered CommenterFrank

Cancer Research UK must live in a parallel universe! How can the current cigarette packaging be described as " dangerously seductive", when covered in warnings of imminent death and nasty images. Not exactly a marketeer's dream branding for a legal product.

The UK is renowned for its innovative packaging and branding industry and, yes, their designs are aimed at convincing consumer's to buy the product or service. But, at the end of the day, it is the consumer who has the final say or choice.

Monday, March 21, 2011 at 18:27 | Unregistered CommenterBill C

"make smoking seem like an invitingly normal, everyday activity rather than a deadly addiction"

And that's the crux of the matter.

The whole point is that smoking is a normal, everyday activity, and is most certainly not a deadly addiction.

They speak as though theirs is the only reality, and any differing opinions are, by default, flawed.

What arrogance.

What total disregard for other's approach to life.

They really are despicable.

Monday, March 21, 2011 at 22:12 | Unregistered Commenternisakiman

Who is really driving this bit by bit madness?
It's like some long drawn out torture process. What the healthists really want HM Government to do is ban the sale of tobacco products along with anything else they deem to be unhealthy, I know I've sat and listened to enough of them but not one of them will actually call for an all out ban.

What is required is a sting to get someone well known like the Dreadful Arnott making precisely this case on tape but the chances of the 'on message' British media setting it up non existent.

Monday, March 21, 2011 at 22:20 | Unregistered CommenterBill

Every comment so far tanks into them; wonder how long before they're taken down.

They're practically salivating at the prospect of further 'denormalisation'. Vile, vile people.

Monday, March 21, 2011 at 22:22 | Unregistered CommenterJoyce

"What the healthists really want HM Government to do is ban the sale of tobacco ...."

Interestingly, Bill, this view is not confined to the 'professionals', either.

A couple of days ago, I was informed by an attractive 'Asian' lady that, if she-had-her-way, all tobacco would indeed be banned. Bad for health, you see.

She said this as she was handing me the change from the sixty Superkings I'd just purchased in her shop. A shop, incidentally, plentifully supplied with booze, chocolate, and junk food.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 13:58 | Unregistered CommenterMartin V

@Martin V - If she feels so damn strongly she might like to protect her integrity by considering a change of career! Rather like Bannatyne she prefers, however, not to let her principles get in the way of a buck.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 16:17 | Unregistered CommenterJoyce

Joyce -

Quite ! I might just try your suggestion out on her.

But since she's neither as ugly as Arnott nor as neurotic as Flint, she's already badly under-qualified. Worth a go, though.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 19:16 | Unregistered CommenterMartin V

re the missing posts: reminds me that there was a facebook page about bringing back smoking in pubs that had about 800,000 members. That went missing too. The page that it was in a race with, to reach a million members, on the pro-ban side is still there. Funny that.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 10:53 | Unregistered CommenterMark Butcher

You should demand that the comments be put back. Have you even asked?

Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 14:15 | Unregistered CommenterJon

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>