An alternative point of view
Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 11:25 Further to my previous post here's another interview I did this week, this time on BBC Radio Devon:
I'm publishing it in case some of you think I'm spending too much time talking about e-cigarettes!
Janet Kipling: We spoke earlier on to Simon Clark, who’s the director of Forest, and that’s the political pressure group which campaigns against tobacco control activity. Now have a listen to what he’s got to say.
Simon Clark: I think e-cigarettes have had some impact because the reason they’re popular with a lot of smokers who are looking to quit is that they mimic the act of smoking, unlike, for example, nicotine patches or gum and all the rest of it. We certainly embrace e-cigarettes because they provide the consumer with choice. I think where we draw a line is when government introduces legislation to ban things, for example the smoking ban, which, while we accept that there need to be areas which are smoke free, we think the smoking ban went way too far. Also since the smoking ban, in the last ten years we’ve had a ban on display of tobacco in shops, most recently we’ve got the introduction of plain packaging, which is all designed to denormalise the product, and by denormalising the product you also denormalise the consumer as well. So I think a lot of smokers feel that they’re being coerced, they’re being bullied. If somebody wants to quit, good luck to them, and I can totally understand why there are people who want to stop smoking, but there are millions of people in this country who continue to enjoy smoking and I just wish the authorities would acknowledge that, especially as tobacco’s a legal product and smokers pay £12bn a year in tobacco taxation alone.
Janet Kipling: Tobacco might be legal but we know it’s bad for you. It’s as simple as that, and people should be discouraged in any way at all, particularly by the government which has to pay the health service bills, doesn’t it?
Simon Clark: Well, I think there’s a lot of hypocrisy involved. The reality is that smokers more than pay their way in society. We’re told that smoking related diseases allegedly cost the NHS £2.7bn a year. That’s an estimate, but what we do know is that smokers contribute £12bn a year in tobacco duty and VAT, so no smoker should feel embarrassed or guilty about smoking on the grounds of cost. Again, I think it’s hypocritical. As long as tobacco remains legal then I think people should be allowed to smoke in peace. Of course government has a role to play educating people about the health risks of smoking. I can’t believe there’s a single adult in the United Kingdom who isn’t well aware of the health risks of smoking. And the reality is, because a lot of people get enjoyment from smoking, they decide that’s more important than the potential health risks.
Janet Kipling: Smoking has fallen to the lowest on record, that’s what we’re hearing now, so it would suggest that actually these measures are having an impact.
Simon Clark: Well, some measures are. Clearly if you introduce punitive taxation, which is what we currently have on tobacco, over 80% of the price of a packet of cigarettes is in tax. Now that’s punitive. It hits the elderly, it hits the low paid, it hits the unemployed, so it’s a very regressive tax, and the problem is it's also counterproductive, because while it does stop some people smoking, or it forces some people to cut down on their consumption, it also drives a lot of smokers towards the black market because the criminal gangs, they move in, and anybody knows that if you raise the price of something to extortionate levels the smugglers, the criminal gangs, will move in, and that’s what’s happening with tobacco. And, of course, criminal gangs don’t care who they sell to. They’re happy to sell to children. So you lose control of the market and actually it ends up being counterproductive. But, of course, if you coerce and you bully people to quit a product, if you make it increasingly difficult for them to consume that product in public places, whether it’s indoors or outdoors, of course some people are going to quit. I just think this should be all about education and if people know about the health risks of smoking we should continue with that education, just as we educate people about the risks of drinking too much alcohol, eating too many fatty foods and dairy products, but I don’t think we should coerce and force and bully people to quit.
Janet Kipling: That’s Simon Clark, the director of Forest, an alternative point of view. What do you think about that?
Reader Comments (2)
Excellent. At some point somewhere you must raise the issue of how many cancer drugs and badly needed health services that everyone needs are being cut but could be saved if only the millions paid to antismoker quangos and executives like debs Arnott were diverted into direct patient care.
Only today there is news breast cancer drugs that could help cure it are being denied on cost.
If debs really cares about people's health, maybe she could volunteer half her 160,000 salary to saving at least one life by funding the cancer drugs denied so that her industry can keep getting our money that we all know could be better spent
These people don't really care about health. They are in it for the money they can make and because they hate smokers.
Someone should remind Janet Kipling that the risks of tobacco have been extremely overstated and that much of the antismoking hysteria has been driven by outright lies (such as the falsified smoking ban health miracles), manipulated data and relentless propaganda--amounting to social engineering through coercion and tyranny. It's as simple as that!