Sunday
Jul142013
Scotland: huge question mark over going it alone
Sunday, July 14, 2013 at 9:30 The Scotsman yesterday reported:
Scotland committed to plain cigarette pack plan
Invited to comment I gave this short quote:
“There must be a huge question mark over Scotland going it alone on plain packaging. I can’t imagine how it could possibly work in isolation from the rest of the United Kingdom.”
I'm discussing the issue on BBC Radio Scotland tomorrow at 9.40 or thereabouts.
Reader Comments (39)
Also from the BBC. Sore losers?
"Shadow cabinet office minister Jon Trickett has written to David Cameron to ask about his election strategist's influence on tobacco policy.
He asked whether Lynton Crosby was involved in the government's decision to delay plans to introduce plain cigarette packaging in England".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23301478
It will also be a laugh if they try to introduce minimum alcohol pricing while England doesn't.
Many thought that the ban on smoking in public places would never come about, yet it did and has been an overwhelming success. Plain packaging will happen, have no doubt about that.
These extremists in the anti-smoker industry have absolutely no concept of public opinion. They simply can't grasp that the public - the actual people who live, work and vote here - matter too and should have a say in laws that effect them and their families. England is leading the way in common sense, fairness, and doing the right thing. Let's hope it continues.
This is a refreshing move. Govt listened to ordinary people and told the quangos to get lost. Ideologues in Tobacco Control really don't know what's best for everyone else and actually they're not the experts either. They are the bigots, hysteric and phobics and people are starting to see through them and the pantomime Dame cry of "Big Bad Eviiiiiiil Tobacco did it."
Well done Angela, Simon, Amul, and everyone else who did their bit to show the Govt that Enough's Enough!
Now to do battle with vapers to save e-cigs from being stolen from small business to be handed over to Big corporate Pharma, and to back the right of those who like menthols and a slimmer cigarette to be allowed to continue to enjoy them. Britain should be courageous and say no to the EU on this harmful Tobacco Products Directive like five other countries have done.
"Many thought that the ban on smoking in public places would never come about, yet it did and has been an overwhelming success. Plain packaging will happen, have no doubt about that."
In what way was the smoking ban in indoor non-residential buildings and secure mental hospitals a success. The smoking rate has stayed at 21% since 2007, 11,000 pubs have shut and the social lives of millions have been ruined?
It's certainly been a roaring success in terms of closing pubs, clubs and bingo halls. But, as Jonathan says, it has stalled the previous long-term trend of a decline in smoking prevalence. The smoking rate has even gone up in Ireland!
"...social lives of millions have been ruined..." That's what the smokerphobics mean by "success". It was never about health but social exclusion by the pious and superior and it was scam admitted by ASH which bragged about the "confidence trick" it had pulled on Govt to get it.
That battle isn't over yet either. The majority of ordinary people want choice and will fight for it.
@ Pat Nurse.
There is a phrase to describe the Zealots - PRIMITIVE FASCISTS.
They are fascists because they grabbed power to persecute and punish people who enjoy tobacco, and they are primitive because they use voodoo propaganda.
When I say that they have grabbed actual power, I mean it. Politicians themselves are not sufficiently knowledgeable about public health statistics and therefore rely upon the academics and such. Thus, they have little option but to do what they are told. I suspect that the decision not to implement PP and minimum pricing is more political (afraid of UKIP) than about public health policy.
Hmmm, have the restrictions on smoking in Scotland been successful or not? Yes, yes, yes!
- 70% of Scots support the legislation (http://www.clearingtheairscotland.com/research/opinion-survey.html)
- The smoking rate has fallen from 26.7% in 2005 (the year before our laws came into force) to 23.3% in 2011 (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/08/5277/10)
- Non-smokers’ exposure to second-hand smoke in their own or someone else’s home has fallen from 25% in 2003 to 14% in 2011 (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0040/00402599.pdf)
And note, this is all based on properly conducted research, not propaganda by any lobby group.
@Trollo Tommasi
"And note, this is all based on properly conducted research, not propaganda by any lobby group."
You forgot to put the "[/sarcasm] ".at the end of your post. I know, I know, it's a little thing but without it readers might think you actually meant that sentence about it not being propaganda seriously! Trust me, there are some very slow witted people out there who would honestly think that anything Cleaning The Air puts out is fact and based on serious science simply because their web site says so.
Thank you Blocked Dwarf for so ably illustrating 3 of the main ways that pro-smokers argue their case:
1. Name-calling and personal insult. Always the last resort of those who have lost the argument.
2. Empty accusations. You throw around this accusation that Clearing the Air Scotland supposedly isn’t to be trusted. Supporting evidence? None. Actual reasons why the survey figure I gave might be inaccurate? None again.
3. Simply ducking uncomfortable truths. I presented 3 distinct figures. You totally ignored two of them! You don’t know how to respond to these figures, so you try to pretend I didn’t make them. Unfortunately for you, the figures are real.
Cut the faux outrage Tommasi. TBD never called you any names, nor was anyone personally insulted. In any event I have seen plenty of occasions where you have, yourself, resorted to precisely these tactics when you are grandstanding for a few of your little friends and helpers.
With regard to your "properly conducted research, not propaganda by any lobby group" - well what is the purpose of "Clearing the Air Scotland" if not to serve as a propaganda arm of the Wee Pretendy Parliament?
But "the figures are real" you say? Well yes, taken literally they are numbers on a page, and so are real in that context. But do they prove your argument? No, not really.
"70% of Scots support the legislation" you say. I think the letters "ed" are missing after the word "support", given that this is a finding in an opinion survey that was conducted in October 2006. If you are going to use the present tense, please, at least, respect our intelligence and provide us with today's percentage support.
Oh, and if you want to repeat your claim of "properly conducted research", then please do actually quote proper research. Opinion surveys conducted on behalf of (and paid for by) a state propaganda outfit doesn't really cut it any more. There have been too many such "70% support" results from biased surveys commissioned by the likes of Ash etc. to convince any but the true believers.
Oh but thats what you are, isn't it?
As for the fall in smoking rates - look at the trend over the 13 years shown in your link. Note the sharp decline since your smoking ban? No? Is that, perhaps, because the smoking ban hasn't made any difference to an ongoing steady decline? I think it is, you know.
Of course no-one could accuse the saintly Tommasi of cherry-picking his comparison time period could they? I would, however, question why you choose to crow about the decine in smoking rates from from 26.7% in 2005, when it could easily be argued that the start point could be the 25.4% in 2006, or, at best, somewhere between the two. But a 3.3% fall sounds much better than a 2.1% fall doesn't it? You do realise that sound-bites are propaganda, don't you?
I could, of course, point to the 4% fall in the equivalent prior period from 1999 to 2005 as evidence that the rate of decline has - er - declined, but I will just say that your argument isn't enhanced by the Scottish Household Survey link.
As for "Non-smokers’ exposure to second-hand smoke in their own or someone else’s home has fallen from 25% in 2003 to 14% in 2011" - well so what? Apart from the fact that this (like all of your "real figures") is based on dubious self-reporting, what the devil has this got to do with a ban on smoking in public places? Pray tell us just how this is supposed to be an indication of the "success" of said ban?
I also have cause to question the validity of the Scottish Health Survey in its entirety, when I read this (regarding smoking prevalence) "The two percentage point drop in the prevalence between 2010 and 2011 represented a statistically significant decline". Now, apart from the ludicrous, gratuitous claim for statistical significance, I wonder why they are referring to a two percent decline from 2010 to 2011, when the Scottish Household Survey (your second link) shows a decline of just 0.9% over that exact period. Are these not both "real figures"? Or is one just b*llsh*t? Or, indeed, are both? Please tell us, Tommasi, oh great fount of wisdom; source of all "real figures" - your audience awaits!
The backstory to all of your conjecture (and the wishful thinking of the Scottish Government) is that you completely failed to address the question being discussed here - which was about the "success" of the ban on smoking in public places. Given that the whole premise for passing such draconian legislation was the desire (purely altruistic of course!!) to protect the health of hospitality workers from the incredibly toxic effects of tobacco smoke, then none of your claimed measures of success is the least bit relevant.
So, please go away, conduct some "proper research", and come back and tell us precisely how many lives have been saved (we'll be kind and accept delayed deaths as opposed to immortality - but they must be proven) both among hospitality workers and in the public at large each year since the smoking ban.
I'll be happy to act as a Peer Reviewer for your reseach, but I must warn you that any reference to any 'study' by Jill Pell will be marked down on the basis of 'failure to live in the real world'.
Over to you, Tommasi - or are you going to "duck uncomfortable truths"?
You usually do.
Isn't it odd that pro-smoking types always say that the research that shows that tobacco use is dangerous is mere propaganda?
"Trust me" says The Blocked Dwarf. Er - no, I'd rather look at the facts on sites like the Scottish Government's "Clearing the Air" although of course the little known "Cleaning the Air" may well publish the nonsense that Mr Dwarf asserts is rife. Rollo is right - yes, yes, yes, get used to it!
Absolutely Andrew. And BrianB is at the same game as Blocked Dwarf.
He’s trying to throw mud at opinion surveys commissioned by the Scottish Government. Based on nothing other than empty accusations that somehow they supposedly must be biased.
He’s trying to question the 70% support figure, simply because the survey came from late 2006. Note how he’s not offering any conflicting evidence; no properly conducted, robust, independently run survey which would contradict these findings and show Scotland’s smoking laws to be unpopular.
Then he tries pathetic attempts to make it appear that the drop in smoking rates in Scotland since 2005 is less than it has been. Actually, I mentioned this to prove wrong Curmudgeon’s claim earlier that the smoking laws have “stalled the previous long-term trend of a decline in smoking prevalence.” Given the Scottish smoking laws came into force less than 3 months into 2006, 2005 is absolutely the right benchmark year to use. And no amount of dancing on the head of a pin about small differences in separately conducted surveys about the pace of the decline in the smoking rate can hide the fact that the smoking rate continues to decline.
And he’s also questioning the relevance of results about exposure to passive smoking in homes. It’s actually a really important finding, as it shows there is a cultural shift, in which many smokers (who are thankfully more considerate than it appears those who patrol this board are) are careful about where and when they smoke. And it also blows a hole in the water of claims that the smoking ban would result in people smoking more at home instead.
So BrianB, have the health effects of the smoking laws for bar workers been good or bad? I say good - http://oem.bmj.com/content/66/5/339. If you want to challenge that, then show me proper evidence that bar workers' health has got worse.
And while you're at it, provide proper evidence which counters and neutralises all of the points I've made. If you can, that is......
@ Mr McNair (and Mr Tomassi).
Could you please explain why it was that, given the perfect opportunity in the McTear versus Imperial Tobacco Case (which only ended in 2005), Tobacco Control failed totally (much to the chagrin of the Judge in the Case, Lord Nimmo Smith) to bring evidence that smoking causes lung cancer? Given the apparent (according to tobacco control) massive amount of such evidence, why was tobacco control terrified of bringing it to the court?
Remind me not to go to Scotland for my holidays. That's the way to win over these health freaks. Boycott !!!
I wonder what the health financially, physically and mentally is like of those smokers forced out of work and onto the dole since their pubs, cafes, restaurants, closed thanks to the paranoia and selfishness of the anti-smoker industry which wanted it all its own way and sod everyone else. And they lied to get and admitted it was all "a confidence trick".
The bottom line is that the blanket ban was enforced (In England) by a minister paid £3,000 per day as a Big Pharma taxi for hire at the time of the ban. It was all about money and ideology and never about health.
But then to force it through they did need their useful phobic idiots to believe the spin - a bit like the 45 minute claim was used to ensure war in the Middle East when there was no threat from Saddam to the UK.
Govt lies and when ideology is packed behind it's spin - as with the clean air rubbish - it uses tax payer's money to do it. In a time of recession lying with public money is something we can't afford.
SHS does not kill. It is not sarin gas. It can irritate the sensitive so therefore there should be SOME restrictions as we had before but that doesn't give a minority of hypochondriac bigots the right to have it all their own way.
Balance and choice is right and fair and that is the progressive way forward. It looks like we might now have a grown up Govt that recognises that rather than the hysterical immature knee jerkers in Labour who will find backing the Nanny/Bully State will lose them votes. It did lose them the election in 2010. After all if Labour's ban was such a resounding success the adoring public would have voted them back in with a landslide.
A lot of pubs have closed in the last few years and that's a pity for those who worked in them. How many failed due to the smoking ban? Well, we'll never know that because the pub business was in decline well before anybody thought of pollution control measures in public places. A good example is in my own town. There were four pubs left in the town centre, one quite nice place where you could eat and another three that were a bit dingy. JD Wetherspoon opened in a disused Co-Op building and within a few months the three dingy pubs went bust. Nothing to do with smoking but everything to do with a pleasant environment, cheap beer and good value food. JDW's is very busy and they have to comply with tobacco control laws just like anybody else. The dingy pubs deserved to fail and some of their staff at working in JDW although I notice not the ones with horrible tattoos and face furniture. Tobacco control legislation is here to stay and no future government will repeal it because they know voters like it, just like benefits being capped from today. The display ban has been a big success here and plain packaging is coming in Scotland. England & Wales will no doubt follow just as they did before.
In the Spring of 2006, the obviously competent Oxford epidemiologist Sir Richard Peto – a leading intellect of the campaign against ETS - was called to testify to the UK House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, which was inquiring about government policy on the management of risk, including the claimed risks of ETS.
Asked to quantify the hazards of ETS, and confronted with his own reputation, Sir Richard replied: “I am sorry, I know that is what you would like to be given, but the point is that these risks are small and difficult to measure directly….I am sorry not to be more helpful; you want numbers and I could give you numbers…, but what does one make of them?…These hazards cannot be directly measured.” He declined any quantification of ETS risks, with the clear implication that quantification is impossible.
Violation of research integrity is reprehensible enough at the hands of individual researchers. It becomes much more reprehensible when perpetrated by public authorities for whatever reason, where not only science and truth are violated, but the sacred trust of a democratic government is irreparably breached.
John,
the reported risk fom shift work for heart disease is greater than that claimed for passive smoking and much easier to measure becuase you only need to measure time worked out of normal week day hours. Ideally you would need to measure exposure to the quantity of smoke in passive smoking studies as well as time of exposure but this is very difficult.
But Still no blanket ban on shift work in Scotland.
One would think that a Scottish shift workers right to health trumps changing the colour of a cigarette packet all day long but then the tobacco control industry does not care about health of shift workers.
Hmm, isn't it interesting that somebody who lends succour to the stooges of Big Tobacco is described as "the obviously competent Oxford epidemiologist" whilst the legion of other researchers who say the opposite are held to be charlatans.
Tommasi
True to type you do just what I pointed out - grandstanding for your little ally McNair, whilst resorting to ad-hominem attacks.
For someone who spends rather too long on fora such as this, nitpicking and trying to gain an "Aha got you" moment by seeking out some miniscule error in another's logic, whilst always trying to twist and turn the discussion to suit yourself, you aren't half sensitive to the same tactic being employed against you.
You are a very shallow little man, and none of your 'clever' little rhetorical devices will work with me sunshine. I have a teenage daughter, so I am well used to your style of argument.
There is no onus on me to prove anything to you, least of all that "bar workers' health has got worse" (see what I mean about childish rhetoric?). It is you that produced those links to try and win an argument. You failed matey, since all of my criticisms are totally valid and your response has been to wriggle and squirm, and try and pretend otherwise.
Tommasi, you are nothing but a caricature.
It’s good to see Rollo “The Mass Debater” Tommasi doing the rounds again, spreading goodwill amongst the heathen. I used to read long swathes of blather that the Mass Debater would leave in comments sections. This was at a time when indoor smoking bans were first introduced. “All you have to do is go outside, guys”, the Mass Debater would squeal. “What’s the problem? So it’s a little cold”.
Good old Mass Debater was informed that the current antismoking crusade was an “eradication of the places where people can smoke” crusade, a social-engineering crusade. First the indoor bans, then would come the outdoor bans. “Balderdash, conspiracy theory”, our excitable little friend, the Mass Debater, would exclaim.
Well, Mass, you’ve been shown up as a nincompoop who is really clueless – a wobbly, wobbly thinker enthusiastically riding the antismoking bigotry bandwagon, able to parrot the standard propaganda slogans ad nauseam. Whatever microscopic – and we’re talking really eansy weansy - bit of credibility you may have had disappeared - poof - when the social engineers started imposing outdoor bans. But, Rollo, you just keep Mass Debating away; it might at least keep your tiny mind entertained.
BTW Why the sudden appearance, Mass? Have your zealot buddies thrown a tantrum re: plain packaging being shelved? So they ordered you to go stir up the pot at that heathen, smoker-friendly site? Mass, you’re a demonstrable goon.
Andrew: “Many thought that the ban on smoking in public places would never come about, yet it did and has been an overwhelming success.”
Many in the antismoker industry can’t believe that smoking bans will be repealed. But they will be repealed, and, no doubt, be a resounding success and highly popular – particularly for sane people.
When considering the Mass Debater’s ranting and raving, the image that would best describe his mind-numbing yelping is as an “attack Chihuahua” for the antismoker industry, probably wearing a nice little coat emblazoned with high-visibility, glow-in-the-dark antismoking signs.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/08/5277/10 as above, I believe.
The graph claims from 99 -06 a drop from 30.7% to 25.4%. From 06 (ban year) to 11 (the last year stated) 25.4% to 23.3%. So in 7 years pre ban a drop of 5.3%. in 6 years since the ban a drop of 2.1%.
I suppose it depends how you measure 'success' but that comparison can hardly be called it.
"Hmm, isn't it interesting that somebody who lends succour to the stooges of Big Tobacco is described as "the obviously competent Oxford epidemiologist"
Oh dear, McNair. Do you ever think before writing? I think that describing Richard Peto as "somebody who lends succour to the stooges of Big Tobacco" is going to cause a wee bit of embarrassment even to your little pal Tommasi. It will certainly cause Ash to be a bit Ashen faced!
But you really do write a lot of tripe, don't you? It is easy just to state as facts things that you would like to be facts, but you would do well to check in with the real world at times.
One of your pieces of naked conjecture is worthy of question, though, and it is this:
"The display ban has been a big success here"
Please explain: By what objective criteria are you defining "big success"?
(hint: the answer can't be "because I say it is". OK?)
And let's not forget than any government figures on tobacco usage decline, usually based on sales figures, need to be tempered by the fact that people are acquiring their tobacco goods from other sources.
One of the most disconcerting is the sale counterfeit tobacco which has increased enormously over the last five years. I think that can be chalked up as a massive success to tobacco control (sic) in that on sink estates up and down the country, people are now buying products which are potentially much more dangerous than legal products.
And no. I don't need to provide "evidence" Tommasi and McNair, get of your arses and do your own homework...
In addition, there has been an increase in home growing - although, in comparative terms that still remains small.
Lastly, a large number of people undertake regular trips abroad to purchase their goods there.
So, at the end of the day, government propaganda on numbers reduction can be taken with a pinch of salt - nobody knows how many smokers there really are.
In 2011, Eurostats claimed the smoking rate in 'Britain' to be 28%. Sainsbury's Life Insurance claimed that a further 8% smoked but said they didn't. A total of 36% and, I believe, a lot more based on the number of non smokers trying to cadge a fag off me when I and the wife light up.
It's amazing what you can do with figures.
Please refresh my memory, Frank, but didn't Sainsbury's claim that there are 3 million secret smokers in Britain?
Couldn't say, Blad, but they quoted 8%. It was linked on D Atherton's site. I feel it a lot higher based on the cadgers. It happens about twice/week, probably think we're a soft touch 'cause the wife's there. I always ask and they mostly say 'non smoker', 'trying to give up. etc. all the usual b****cks.
" that there are 3 million secret smokers in Britain?"
Secret smokers? SECRET? Do they have a funny handshake and decoder rings??! ;p
They fly The Resistance Flag like us Blocked Dwarf ;)
It must be very tempting for the 3 million secret nicotine addicts to lie to their life insurance company about their tobacco habit since a smoker's premium is much higher than that for normal folk. But undeclared risk almost always means no payout if the Grim Reaper comes a-calling. The tobacco victim's family might be left homeless if there's no dosh to pay off the mortgage.
And how will you, Andrew, handle it when the Grim Reaper comes a’ calling? You do know, Andy, that he will come calling even for you, a sanctimonious, self-righteous, bigoted buffoon. That you believe you’re so far “above it all” won’t make a bit of difference. And the Reaper might even have more fun of it with such self-important miscreants.
No, Mr. McNair, Sainsbury's didn't say they lie on their applications. Who would do that? they'll lie to the likes of you, to stop your childish pestering and blithering and, being polite, hope you'll just go away. As, recently, the 'State' now represents you, they'll lie to the 'state'. And for your information, my Ins. as a smoker, is pence/week increase on non smoking premiums.
Another little snippet. According to HMRC, for 2010/11, tobacco raised £11.1 billion, £9 billion excise and £2.1 VAT. According to NHS, smoking related illness 'costs' @ £2.7 billion p.a. (and I'd love to see how many broken legs etc. they shoe horn into that!). On my simple Maths that's £8.4 billion excess. Next time you visit the medics, a simple nod of acknowledgement will suffice!
Your like should have lived in the 19th, Century. You could then have taken your evangelical zeal, your 'marxism today' dream, to the darker continents. You wouldn't have come back.
Oh, I see McNair's back.
Ok Andrew McNair, will you please now answer my question - I posed it directly to you, about 10 posts above.
By what objective criteria do you conclude that the tobacco display ban has been a "big success"?
Come on now, don't be shy, man up and answer the question. If success is "big", it must be very easy to demonstrate what consitutes "success", surely?
I hope you don't just run away, like your lily-liveried pal, Trollo Tommasi.
Yes, and while we're at it giving misanthrope McNair a well deserved kicking, his comments on pub closures are a pile of bull manure too.
It doesn't matter which country you study the effects of smoking bans, and whatever the price of alcohol, the drinking culture, or, whether we are talking pre-recession or during the recession, the impact on pubs, bars and clubs is always the same - they start going bust in droves. Caltec's figures in 2005 showed that since 1998 in California (the date of their ban) the hospitality industry there lost 100 billion dollars - a lot of money!
Moreover, if we come back to the UK, yes it's true that the pub trade had already lost outlets before the ban but on nothing like, and I'll emphasise that, NOTHING LIKE, the same scale, where the closures at their peak came to 52 a week. Even recently, we've still been looking at 22 - 26 a week.
Why was this achieved? Because our pub trade was supine and witless, unlike the Dutch and the Belgians, who clubbed together financially and fought back via the Kleine Horeca Ordoneimer movement. The result: revision of the ban in Holland and a stop to further regulations in Belgium. Now, both countries have morphed their Horeca organisations into HorecaClaim which has threatened their respective governments with being sued for loss of earnings and I know this has been taken very seriously by the Dutch government. (HorecaClaim - Google it McNair.)
McNair and his unscrupulous ilk either lie wantonly or they only believe their own mendacious propaganda. What's new?
Sorry Brian I've been away for a few days. The display ban has been a big success because it's reduced the exposure of tobacco branding to the public. In my local ASDA the baccy display was huge and provided a platform for all of the artfully designed packs that big Tobacco use to promote their products. Now it's a wall of green shutters that does nothing to promote tobacco. There's been no shortening of the queues of the halt and the lame to waste their benefit money but at least some of it is going back to the taxpayers who fund the dole. So it's good all round. No advertising on the fly and the underclass don't seem to mind. What's not to like?