Why we need a coalition for choice
Monday, November 14, 2016 at 11:21 This isn't a new story. Nevertheless it's getting a fair bit of coverage today.
The Press Association has done some research and discovered that only one person has been fined for smoking in a car carrying a child since the law banning the practice was introduced last year.
This follows similar research by the BBC earlier in the year that revealed very much the same thing. The only difference is that a bit more time has elapsed.
The story has been reported by the Guardian, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, The Sun, ITV News and others.
I'm quoted in all these reports.
The issue is that prior to introducing the law the Government didn't commission any observational research that might have revealed the true extent of the 'problem'.
Instead they relied on the comments of 8-15 year-olds and concluded that hundreds of thousands of children were regularly exposed to tobacco smoke in cars.
Now ASH and the Department of Health are claiming that the law has helped change "attitude and behaviour".
No it hasn't. The overwhelming majority of smokers had already changed their behaviour voluntarily without the need for government intervention.
In fact, in my lifetime this is probably one of the most useless laws that has ever passed through Parliament because its impact has been minimal.
There is not a shred of evidence that legislation has made the slightest difference to the number of people smoking in cars with children. The number was small before it was introduced and it's small now.
Tobacco control doesn't see it that way, of course. For them, anything that denormalises smoking and demonises those horrible, selfish smokers is a good thing.
It's also a significant stepping stone to banning smoking in all private vehicles and, eventually, other private spaces.
This is what I meant yesterday when I talked about being "back at the coalface" after a week highlighting the World Health Organisation's tobacco control convention (COP7) in India.
Yesterday it was reported that smokers in Scotland face being fined for smoking outside hospitals. Today ASH is boasting that "by having legislation and penalties" for smoking in cars carrying children it has ensured a "high level of compliance".
No, this so-called "social law" was introduced to further the myth that smokers are indifferent to the sensitivities of others. They are selfish and anti-social, or so the narrative goes.
This is a relatively new phenomenon, by which I mean the past two decades. For years smokers were treated as victims of an evil tobacco industry.
They still are to some extent but with the likes of Forest arguing that many people enjoy smoking, tobacco control campaigners have found that argument quite difficult to sustain.
Hence the suggestion that smokers are "selfish", "anti-social" and, worse, "criminal".
Smokers are forced to put up with this every day, and it's getting worse. Despite that, most of what I read about COP7 last week focussed on the World Health Organisation's hostility to e-cigarettes.
Truth is, e-cigarettes are collateral damage in the war on tobacco and as long as the war continues on its current path even harm reduction products will be vulnerable.
In my view we need to create a genuine Coalition for Choice, a body that will give equal weight and support to consumers of all potentially harmful products (those that are legal anyway).
Complaining that vaping is under threat while remaining mute about the serial debasement of smoking (and smokers) is not only spineless, it's counter-productive.
Reader Comments (6)
Well said.
Very well said Simon. Many of us thoroughly enjoy tobacco and have no intention of giving up. ASH et al never appreciate that !
"For years smokers were treated as victims of an evil tobacco industry."
And, it must be said, victims of their own (perceived) ignorance and stupidity.
It was once assumed by tobacco controllers that everyone would quit cigarettes once they were apprised of the potential health risks.
When that didn't happen, it was "They must not have seen the warning label. Let's make it bigger."
When it still didn't happen, it was "These idiots obviously can't read. Let's switch to pictures of necrotic lungs and lip tumors."
When it STILL didn't happen, it was "The bright colors and flashy logos are obviously distracting the stupid smokers. Let's eliminate them."
Like Rudyard Kipling said : "If the natives don't understand, just shout louder."
They could of course actually speak to smokers in the language they understand which isn't paranoid scaremongering but common sense based on reason and not hysteria.
Excellent analysis Simon! The 'healthist' pressure groups are using draconian legislation to impose their prohibitionist morality.
ASH and their ilk are fabricating 'problems' like smoking in cars with children, smoking outdoors, etc. so they can incrementally force prohibition of tobacco.
If we let them succeed they will add vaping, soft drinks containing sugar and whatever else their cult deems unacceptable (likely alcohol since they really are the modern-day Temperance movement in disguise...
Manx figures won't appear in that police response, but I can confirm they're also zero, and that the local public health bods never responded to my press letter pointing out that a copycat law was introduced over here despite no evidence that the problem existed.
What next? On-the-spot fines for wart-charming or putting the evil eye on cattle without a licence perhaps?