What do smokers want?
Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 11:20 I'm taking part in a discussion next week on the subject 'What do consumers want?'
Looking at the panel my suspicion is the session will lean heavily towards harm reduction and e-cigarettes.
But how important is harm reduction to committed smokers? And are e-cigarettes really the answer to every smoker's prayer?
On these occasions I like to remind delegates there are millions of people who still enjoy smoking and don't want to switch to e-cigarettes or any other nicotine device, despite the potential health benefits.
I'd be interested to hear your views on this and other consumer-related issues – choice, for example. (What do you think of the forthcoming ban on menthol cigarettes?)
What could the tobacco companies be doing to help smokers?
What role does government have to play?
Or do you just want to be left alone?
All comments welcome.
Reader Comments (21)
I think largely, smokers want what any libertarian wants, to be left alone without interference from puritanical busybodies who would dictate life choices on the basis of flimsy science.
I am an ex smoking vaper, but the treatment of smokers is nothing short of draconian state bullying, and will eventually lead to wider harm as further nutcases jump on the extortion leading to ban and assault on civil liberties bandwagon.
I'm a bit old school in that I believe the government has no place in smoking restriction and that all previous restrictions should be removed.
Any owner of any property from pubs to supermarkets to busses and trains can put a no smoking sign at the entrance if they so wish and I would happily honor it.
"What do you think of the forthcoming ban on menthol cigarettes?"
Campaigners don't go straight for the endgame, they chip away over time. The menthol ban is nothing more than another chip.
"What could the tobacco companies be doing to help smokers?"
Grow a pair and fight. Refuse silly restrictions and speak out against junk science. They have the money to do it.
The pub industry made the same mistake of rolling over when the smoking ban came in.
"What role does government have to play?"
None at all. At all.
"Or do you just want to be left alone?"
Yes
But how important is harm reduction to committed smokers?
For me, not at all, I have changed to organically grown and additive free and that's enough.
Tobacco is a complex plant and nicotine is the bit that least interests me, so vaping is out.
I always wanted to be a 'social smoker'. My mates used to be able to only smoke when they wanted to, usually on a Friday night in the pub.
I was a smoker who couldn't just have a cigarette when I really wanted to enjoy one. I smoked habitually. I really enjoyed 4 or 5 a day, but smoked over 40 a day.
In 2009 I started using e-cigs. These devices helped ME become the 'social smoker' I always wanted to be. I habitually use the e-cig, BUT I now enjoy every cigarette I light up.
Unfortunately, I cannot enjoy my cigarettes in the Pubs like I used to do, I cannot browse the (legal) products that I enjoy in a Tobacconist or even a Supermarket. The products I enjoy now have grotesque images on the packets and I'm made to feel like a second class citizen for choosing to smoke cigarettes.
I am not an addict (to tobacco) and I just want to enjoy a perfectly legal product in comfort - just like I'd like to have an occasional coffee, a pint or a burger.
If something is deemed bad for me, what is the problem? I make my decision and stand by my choice. The e-cigs that I habitually use may be seen as 'bad' as well - so what?
As a consumer, I'd like Government to inform me of how my lifestyle choices may affect my longevity, but I also want them to respect my choice to ignore them.
Consumers want a safe and satisfying cigarette. The type that was in the process of production 2 to 3 decades ago that the antis made sure they put a stop to.
The antis are responsible for the so-called deaths in relation to smoking for those who have swallowed the junk science.
Harm reduction should be available but sommeliers should be left to make their own choice without coercion. Smoking bans should be amended to provide indoor smoking at pubs and nightclubs. Outdoor restrictions should be removed. Both smoking and non-smoking options should be provided.
But how important is harm reduction to committed smokers?
Harm reduction would be nice, but not if it came at the expense of the enjoyment of the experience of smoking, and certainly not if it was hijacked by dyed-in-the-wool antis as yet another lever towards their holy ideal of forcing everyone to quit, i.e. coercing people who didn’t want to use “safer cigarettes” into using them. I actually believe that the health "harms" of smoking has been blown out of all proportion to the actual harm it might or might not cause, so the main usefulness of a "safer cigarette" would be to put something of an obstacle in the way of all those "smoking kills sixty-zillion people a year" type claims. Because a "safer cigarette," presumably, wouldn't kill sixty-zillion people a year because it would be - err - safer.
Are e-cigarettes really the answer to every smoker's prayer?
No. I, for one, can’t use them. They make me cough and splutter and render me, literally, breathless in a way that cigarettes have never done, even when I was a very “new” smoker. Ironically (bearing in mind all the hoo-hah about the “terrible smell of smoke”), I also can’t stand the smell of them, either. Sickly-sweet and yucky. But that’s just me. I also know quite a few vapers who privately admit that they’d love to go back to smoking real cigarettes and that they vape now mainly because they believe all the health-hype and thus believe that e-cigs are “healthier” than real ones, and feel they are a slightly nicer option than the alternative of giving up altogether. For sure, they work excellently for some people, and good luck to them. But they certainly aren’t for everyone.
What do you think of the forthcoming ban on menthol cigarettes?
Petty, vindictive and, as Bucko points out, it’s just more of the same-old same-old. It’s also largely pointless because a polo mint slipped into a pack of cigarettes overnight actually gives them rather a nice, light, menthol taste – nicer, in fact, than the manufactured menthol brands! Better be careful now – they’ll be banning polo mints next!
What could the tobacco companies be doing to help smokers?
God – where to start with this one? Primarily what they could do is devote rather more of their not-insubstantial funds towards fighting attacks and accusations against both themselves and their customers than they do at present. With the advent of the Internet there’s so many avenues they could use to counter the hysterical, over-exaggerated and often downright false claims made by all corners of the anti-smoking movement. They could certainly "push the boundaries" more than they do at present. But what do they do? Well, they fund Forest, which is good, but I daresay that whatever funds they direct to Forest represents a drop in the ocean in terms of their overall wealth – and simply isn’t in the same league as the amount of money pumped into the anti-smoking movement by their oppo’s, the Big Pharma companies. I know that one company started a rather limp-wristed internet campaign (Have Your Say, in Oz), but their heart clearly wasn’t really in it and I don't even know if it's still going. They should take a leaf out of their enemy – the anti-smoking movement’s – book and put a lot more time, effort and hard cash into pointing out the flaws in Tobacco Control’s “facts,” activities and methodologies both old and new – there are so many to choose from that they'd be spoilt for choice. They could also start a “fighting fund” to help individual smokers (or companies, like pubs) to take court action for damages caused by the smoking ban (or other smoking restrictions). They should also stop squabbling amongst themselves and seeing each other as “competitors” as they did in the "good old days" – as if all the old rules of private enterprise still exist in their world (because they don’t, not now) - and pool their joint resources towards their common foes.
That’s just for starters. The actual possibilities are almost as endless as the number and variety of smoker-persecutions dreamed up by the antis. To paraphrase the advert, in this case: “The only limit is …. [their enemy’s] imagination.”
What role does government have to play?
The only role which the Government should play (in any situation, not just smoking) is to ensure that any policies they approve are based on genuine, high-quality, rigorous, impartial research (not made-up surveys by highly partisan pressure groups or vested interests, or spurious "claims" made by individual nutjobs) and that any legislation they pass is fair to everyone, takes the needs and wishes of all parties into consideration and doesn’t unfairly favour one group of people over another. Sadly, the role that the Government has chosen to play is in almost direct opposition to all of these principles.
Or do you just want to be left alone
If you’d have asked me that question 10 years ago, my answer would have been “yes.” But, eight years into the ban – still negatively affected by it on a daily basis; still smarting from the complete and utter one-sidedness of it; still disappointed by the cavalier, nonchalant way in which many of my non-smoking so-called “friends” have stood by on the sidelines and barely lifted an eyebrow, let alone a voice of support, as the braying hordes of anti-smokers’ have rumbled on with their demands for yet more bans, yet more restrictions, yet more humiliation, yet more getting-their-own-way; and increasingly incandescent with rage that virtually no-one in any position of authority has ever had the guts to simply say: “No! Enough already. No more,” in the face of the never-ending spoilt-child-like tantrums and demands from what are effectively playground bullies in grown-up bodies, my answer is now a resounding “no.” I don’t want to be left alone – I want now to be listened to, to have my grievances addressed and for those responsible for making the last eight years of my life significantly less pleasant than they could have been, brought to book and hurled into oblivion. But all the time we are burdened with the spineless, sycophantic, but at the same time arrogant, politicians we have now, held in thrall as they are by Tobacco Control in all its forms, I doubt if it’ll happen. So, maybe, in the absence of a major upheaval in our political situation/political make-up, being left alone is about the best that we can hope for in the foreseeable future ...
I don't want to vape. I want to smoke and I want the choice of product I smoke. I want to be left alone. I do not want vapers, non smokers nor anti-smokers speaking up for me and telling me what I should be encouraged to do.
I want the tobacco companies to open regional or local customer care branches and compete head to head with the bullies and thugs in the anti-smoker industry across the country and challenge their lies, misinformation and propaganda.
I want tobacco companies to fund legal action to sue the Govt for theft of our consumer rights and hate campaigning. I want Debs Arnott and her cronies prosecuted for hate crime.
However they do it, I want tobacco companies to stand up for themselves and their consumers.
I want progressive technology, such as state of the art ventilation, and technology to continue to create the safe natural tobacco cigarette. I do not want any more anti-social and regressive bans.
What smokers want doesn't matter. The Govt has made clear it does not want smokers in its future and ministers have been tasked to do anything to eradicate them.
With that in mind, I want my four decades of product tax back so that money stolen from me over a lifetime in false pretences that it will used for my healthcare, can really be used for my healthcare when I'm older and need it but likely to be discriminated against and refused any treatment because I am a smoker who will never quit.
When I get that money back, I will help the Govt with its wet dream to get rid of people who smoke by leaving the country for one in the EU that isn't quite so vile towards legitimate consumers as this one.
What politicians fail to understand is that because of their bans,tobacco control and use of tax on dictatorial health quangos, I don't support any political party whatever else they decide on and at any time. Political parties are permanently dead to me whomever leads them. I couldn't care less.
The government should always advise on harm reduction and not be bullied into avoiding doing this because of tiny minority of smokers that don't want to hear the truth.
The massive success of E-cigs is proof smokers want help to quit and are avoiding harm and welcome the advice on harm reduction.
Smokers are left alone......health advice is just that and restrictions on smoking is protection for non smokers.
You have no need to remind delegates that there are millions who enjoy smoking just like you don't need to remind them night follows day.
Tobacco companies should work with the government on spreading the message smoking kills because even though the message is worldwide and concrete about such dangers its government led help only and can lead to suspicion the tobacco companies don't agree which leads to denial.
I hope you will stand by your "all comments welcome"
Rickie
Thanks for your comments, Rickie.
1. I agree that governments should advise on harm reduction and the risks of smoking. Unfortunately, while there are clearly serious risks associated with smoking, there's a difference between evidence-based research and propaganda. The 'Quit or die' message, for example, is hugely inaccurate and little more than scaremongering.
2. I embrace and welcome e-cigarettes but let's not get carried away. "Massive success"? The single largest group of vapers are dual users who vape when they can't smoke. They haven't given up smoking, partly because they don't want to. E-cigs are a great invention and the technology will get better and better, if excessive regulations don't strangle the life out of them, but they've got a long way to go before they satisfy the many millions of smokers who still prefer combustibles.
3. You imply that all smokers want help to quit. That's nonsense. Some smokers want to quit or cut down, millions don't. Many of those who would like to quit don't want the government forcing them to stop.
4. "Smokers are left alone"?!! You've got to be kidding. There are daily attacks on their habit and the tobacco control industry (working with government) is actively and openly working to "denormalise" smoking.
5. "Restrictions on smoking is protection for non-smokers." Bollocks. The smoking ban was never about the health of non-smokers. Good air filtration systems can remove most of the particles from environmental tobacco smoke but government wasn't interested in a technological solution to the issue of ETS. Separate smoking rooms would have solved the problem too but government wasn't interested in that either. Now the tobacco control industry wants to ban smoking in outdoor areas, even though there is no evidence that smoking in the open air is harmful to non-smokers. Explain that to me, please.
6. Believe me, I do need to remind delegates that millions of smokers enjoy smoking. The concept of pleasure in relation to smoking is almost taboo these days.
7. Have you looked at any tobacco companies' websites or listened totheir spokesmen recently? Every major tobacco company accepts there are serious health risks associated with smoking. In effect the tobacco industry does work with government to spread the message 'smoking kills' because it's on every packet! It's important to stress, though, that in terms of profits, governments are the senior partner in the business of selling tobacco. In Britain, after all, 86 per cent of the retail price of tobacco goes to the government.
I'm sorry, Rickie, but you seem to know very little about this issue.
Note: the theme of this thread is "What smokers want" so if anyone wants to respond to Rickie please do so in the context of the post. I don't want this getting personal – it won't help me with my panel discussion!
1.message should be the harsh truth as smoking is addictive, gentle nudges in the right direction is not the answer.
2. Dual users are the largest single group....I agree.
They haven't given up smoking because its very hard to , so vaping is always there to retry once again... all smokers
I have known want to quit .
3. Some smokers want to quit or cut down is a naive view only stated because of your position, ....whats the point of a smokers lobby if virtually everyone wants to stop smoking...I have never known any smokers including many that still do smoke that have not got "quit smoking" as a one day dream.
4. smokers are left alone.....if you smoked simon you would realise that you could have a fag at any time anywhere within feet of a smoking restriction, except flights etc....the attacks you mention is health advice and protection for non smokers...denormalise smoking is a worthwhile goal.
5. the smoking ban was absolutley about protecting non smokers, thats why decades of segregation in pubs and restuarants was put in place...second hand smoke gives me asthma, eye sting and clothes stink....it is about health of non smokers and those that smoke.
6. you say what you like to delegates but stating the bloody obvious will appear like you haven't much else to say.
7. In effect the tobacco industry got carried along kicking and screaming to spread the message about smoking including cigarette warnings.....in the real world tobacco company spokesman are never seen , never heard of and completely absent from the media.
I Know a lot about the issues Simon.... your views of ducking and diving looking for angles to complain about or put a slanted twist on is because you are paid to do that.
What the point of a smokers lobby if everyone watns to quit....the complete absence of any smoking lobbying for 8 years since the ban suggests to me your job is not needed and ignored...I don't blame you for devils advocating cos its your job.
Smokers aren't up in arms are they!...never have been and never will....stony stratford was the "big un"...all crammed in the snug at that pub.
What smokers really want? is not what you want to talk about.
Rickie
Heh! Good response, Simon, and essentially accurate.
I'm a bit hectic at the mo, but will hopefully have time to comment properly on this post within the next day or two.
Just tell them to stop the lies. I am a smoker and work 40 hours plus every week. The only time l've been in hospital or visited my doctor was to have my kids. My kids are healthy and extremely clever. They also boast 100% attendance.
I have a sporty sister who I love. She visits A&E at least 8 times a year. The propaganda stinks and reeks of untruths.
Say what you wish Simon, but the lucre for the pen-pushers means more than what is moral, correct and right.
There always has to be something to "legally" persecute in this country. Let them show their selves up.
"Now the tobacco control industry wants to ban smoking in outdoor areas, even though there is no evidence that smoking in the open air is harmful to non-smokers." (Simon)
A small quibble, Simon - reference to evidence in this context suggests that evidence has only yet to be found but it is absolutely absurd that it could be.
"The complete absence of any smoking lobbying for 8 years since the ban suggests to me your job is not needed and ignored."
You obviously haven't been reading this blog, the Forest website or the newspapers for the last eight years! Sorry, Rickie, I have respect for some of our opponents and detractors but you appear to have little knowledge of the issues and you clearly haven't been following the very public debate about plain packaging, for example, smoking in cars, smoking in hospital grounds and other outdoor areas. If you had you would know how hard Forest has been lobbying and the strength of opposition there is to these measures.
I want the smoking ban to be amended, allowing smoking rooms for privately run businesses.The ban is an abuse of private property owners rights, the risks from second hand smoke being so small that they cannot be quantified. I don't think that MPs should have even been given a vote on this issue, for venues such as pubs and clubs where only adults need be admitted.
The junk science studies behind the ban have been exposed, and so its time the ban was changed.
The smoking ban continues to result in the closure of businesses and is ruining peoples social lives. I feel that the UK government is discriminating against me, by not allowing smoking inside any enclosed public space. I want the tobacco industry to stand up for its core consumers that are smokers for it and for the public to fight, until this unjustified law is overturned.
I want tobacco tax escalation to end, as it is causing thousands to live below the poverty line.
What do smokers want? It depends on the smoker. Some are as brainwashed about the grotesquely-hyped evils of smoking as nonsmokers (like the above Rickie, who, I guess, seriously believes that 'secondhand smoke' is a menace because (a) it's been repeated so many times and (b) it fits nicely with his personal prejudice). Such smokers might just want the antismoking brigade to lighten up a bit. And ultimately we probably ALL want to be left alone.
Other smokers, though, are blessed with more healthy skepticism or are better-informed, and I would say that what WE want is for the lies and the bullying to stop . . . but! . . . for that to happen, we need an advocate (or advocates) with some real power and money. We are like badly-organised foot-soldiers trying to fight against tanks. And of course we want an answer to the question: why does the tobacco industry not do more to fight antismoking lies and bullying?
The cynical (and quite possibly correct) answer is that (a) they have been battered by legislation and lawsuits to the point that there's not much they can do, and/or (b) they're still making money, and that's all they care about.
And yet . . . (a) it boggles the mind that such a demonstrable fraud as 'secondhand smoke' grinds on year after year without any serious challenge; and it makes no sense that tobacco companies don't find a way to fight it in court - surely, after all, it's a fraud that seriously undermines their business? And (b) even if the tobacco industry remains profitable, it is surely less so than it used to be; and the powerful anti-tobacco industry - on which there are few if any restraints - is relentlessly dedicated to the tobacco industry's destruction.
Are they just not thinking more than 6 months into the future? Are they suicidal? Stupid? What are we not being told? I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I always come back to: there's something not right here.
So what THIS smoker wants is firstly, some answers that make sense.
Simply, abolition or alteration of the smoking ban indoors in public, notably in pubs and clubs.
If that went, the rest of the anti smoking garbage would follow it as it is the lynch pin of all that has happened.
I want my money back. The government told all smokers that the tax on tobacco was to subsidise their health-care. What health-care? Bullying, lies and propaganda?
With second hand smoke risks proven so small that they cannot be quantified government has made the use of legal tobacco products, illegal indoors. It did this purely on the back of scientific studies the results of which have been exposed. There is no evidence proving that exposure to second hand smoke is harmful and therefore no reason to make the use of legal tobacco products illegal, anymore than that of any other legal product.
The Uk's total indoor smoking ban should be challenged through international courts as it breaches human rights laws. Isn't it time something was done about this? The tobacco industry should act now and defend its core consumers that are smokers or it will be the biggest loser in the end.