In defence of smokers
Monday, July 4, 2011 at 9:00 Feature article in today's Independent:
It includes quotes by me, Joe Jackson and another Forest supporter, Oscar-winning screenwriter Sir Ronald Harwood who took part in our recent Voices of Freedom debate, 'Civil liberties: up in smoke'.
Do have a read.
Update: I really don't understand some of the complaints about this article. I was more than happy to be interviewed by Nick Duerden and I have no problem with the published article.
I may disagree with some aspects of it but if we only talk to journalists who share our views or give us exactly what we want, opportunities to reach a wider audience will be few and far between.
Nick could have stitched us up and portrayed the tobacco or "pro-smoking" lobby as a bunch of wild-eyed eccentrics. (Believe me, there were one or two who fitted that description at the House of Commons last week.)
He didn't. He took the trouble to interview no fewer than three champions of smokers' rights. He listened and he reported what we had to say. He described me (the director of Forest) as "an entirely reasonable and seemingly sane man". In my line of business that's probably the nicest thing he could have said.
He threw in some other stuff too, some of it personal and some of it contentious (from our perspective), but that's the nature of an essay like this. What matters is the bigger picture.
Frankly, I think we've come out of this feature extremely well. As I write there are 412 comments on the Independent website, the majority (I haven't read them all) supportive of smokers.
In the current anti-smoking climate, I call that a result.
Reader Comments (9)
Good heavens, a piece in the paper that is sympathetic, whatever next and we for a change get the token response from ASH.
Readers maybe interested in this research I came across at the weekend, "Britain's secret smokers." About 3 million or 7.5% of the adult population smoke occasionally, but deny it. If you include the 28% of the population that smoke cigarettes, pipes, cigars and take snuff then over 1 in 3 of us or 35.5% of the population imbibe.
http://daveatherton.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/britains-secret-smokers/
Indeed Dave - however, I didn't much like the less than human way we are described in the first few pars so it rather turned me off from reading the rest of it. Where do these people get off being so damn rude!
Nick Duerden of the Independent, says the pro-cigarette lobby's argument, that we should all be allowed our 'vices', is strangely compelling.
I have always taken the word 'compelling' to mean 'tending to persuade by forcefulness of argument'. The problem here is that Nick Duerden then goes onto say that that the pre-smoking lobby, (I won't use the word cigarette as he does, as smoking also involves cigars and pipes) have no valid argument! He quotes Ash's Martin Dockrell, who says that accepting that smoking can be a major cause of cot death, and then to deny, ignore and never accept the evidence on passive smoking, is some sort of cognitive dissonance.
But where, did either Martin Dockrell or Nick Duerden collect this 'evidence' from? I certainly do not recall reading such 'evidence' on any pro-smoking site, and I have certainly never heard any smoker make such claims either.
Martin Dockrell states 'the science is there', and Nick Duerden follows him up with 'It is'.
Is it? Then why haven't ASH or any of the other bodies concerned with trying to put this point across, ever shown any 'real' scientific evidence? Are we really supposed to believe every word, no matter how lacking in scientific proof, because a doctor or a lobbying body says it?
A year ago, people such as The Royal College of Physicians, were telling us not to let our children get too much sun, as they would end up with cancer. Last week, these same people tell us that our children need at least 4 hours of unprotected sun ever day in order to protect their bones and provide them with vitamin D.
They got it wrong! So what, it is no big deal getting something wrong. The big deal is when people like these cannot ever admit that they get things wrong!
"The Royal College of Physicians also reminds us that 80,000 people die from smoking-related causes every year, which is more than the next five avoidable causes of death – alcohol, obesity, HIV, drug use and road traffic accidents – combined".
Again, where is their proof for these figures? If they really existed, surely they would publish them, publish how many people were actually treated, how many were questioned, how many actually died from illnesses that were proven without a doubt to be linked to smoking, or worse still, passive smoking? For it is 'passive smoking' that the smoking ban is supposed to be about. Doubt me? Then look it up yourself, right from the outset, it was the harm 'passive smoking' supposedly does to others.
Dockrell goes onto say that most people who smoke want help to stop. Where does he get that little gem from? I have never met a smoker who wants to stop; all the smokers I have met, want to smoke in a smoker-friendly atmosphere, and to be left alone by the anti-smoking bullies. As for bringing up the issue of 'smell' that is ridiculous. I love the smell of tobacco, and I hate the smell of chewing gum, but that is my prerogative.
Nick Duerden ends by saying 'Passive smoking, meanwhile, can cause asthma, cot death, heart attack. This is cold, hard, Royal College of Physicians-endorsed fact'
It simply is not true Mr Duerden, if it were, the evidence would be published, and that is why 'some smokers will ever accept it'.
P.S. I would like to suggest one thing to Simon, which is could you please organise an online poll, both on here and Facebook, asking smokers if they wish to stop smoking, and if they believe the 'facts' that are pushed at us on a regular basis? If we had such facts at our disposal, we would at least have something to hit back at the likes of ASH with - what do you think Simon?
Peter Thurgood: Those comments would stop the site! Have you tried to put them on?
Peter, I wouldn't organise an online poll here or on Facebook because it would be entirely self-selected so it would be worse than useless and would make us look ridiculous. It's an interesting subject, though. I will write a separate post about it when I get a moment.
"dogged blight... furtive air... indecently evident... mixture of pity and revulsion... average nicotine addict.. a smoke-free society is, for many of us, bliss.. Your habit will harm you – and us as well. Passive smoking, meanwhile, can cause asthma, cot death, heart attack. This is cold, hard, Royal College of Physicians-endorsed fact..."
This is "in defence of smokers"? Blimey, with defenders like this, who needs enemy action? While I appreciate that there might be a hint of irony in the picture the writer presents in his opening paragraphs, the major part of this piece of patronising guff could have been written by ASH's press office.
Crappy article, all the usual clichés; patronising too. But am I to suppose that this might be something Forest used to call "Writing Worth Reading". Nuff said!
I know that I have had quite a long say on this subject, but every time I pop back to see if there are any answers to my post, I seem to pick up a few more pointers from Nick Duerden's article. He opens by saying that "smokers are an increasingly rare breed these days, it's true, but you can spot them still, even now, a dogged blight on our otherwise Keep Britain Tidy streets".
I can't help but think that Nick Duerden must live in a different country to the rest of us. "our otherwise Keep Britain Tidy streets?" Mr Duerden seems to be saying that our streets are beautiful and clean from litter, apart from that caused by smokers, discarding their cigarette butts? I live in London, and I can substantiate the fact that our streets are literally covered in chewing gum, which is almost impossible to remove, and costs local councils a fortune, in just trying to remove it. Our streets are also littered with drink cans and take-away cartons. If anyone doubts me I will take photos to prove these facts - any takers?
Mr Duerden also speaks about 'nicotine addicts', that the average person regards them with a mixture of pity and revulsion. How nice to think that we are so highly thought of! He also never mentions the fact that many people who smoke, like myself, are no more 'nicotine addicts' than he is. I, and millions of other smokers, smoke for the simple reason we enjoy it, just as many drivers drive for the same reason. We do not accuse drivers of being revolting, and addicted to spreading deadly fumes out into the public's face, where they help contribute to the deaths of millions of children. As I said earlier, a few 'facts' from the anti-smoking lobby, wouldn't go amiss here? If you ask a scientist or a doctor, to explain to you the facts of life, they explain it with precision - they don't just say "well I am a doctor, and whatever I say must be believed"
There is a whole raft of very questionable 'facts' stated in Mr Duerden's article, I do hope he reads this board and maybe considers answering a few?
I suppose that the writer of the article has to be aware of the nature of his audience. The Independent is not exactly a pro-smoking journal, is it?
The best that I can say is that I detect a certain sympathy in it - amid the 'not worth the life of one child' cliches.