More thoughts on smoking and Thérèse Coffey, as told to BBC 3 Counties radio
Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 9:50 I was on BBC 3 Counties radio yesterday:
A 14-minute interview with me and Dr Peter Carter, former CEO of the Royal College of Nursing, kicked off a one-hour phone-in prompted by reports concerning the future of the Government’s tobacco control strategy.
To put this in perspective it’s worth noting how few interviews Forest has been asked to do on the subject. LBC (Tom Swarbrick), BBC 3 Counties and Talk TV (Vanessa Feltz) are the only ones to date.
The issue wasn’t reported on the BBC News website. Furthermore, despite some press interest and a leading article in The Times, there wasn’t a single question on the subject during PMQs yesterday so I would question whether this is a big issue either for parliament or the public.
(According to an article in the New Statesman ‘Thérèse Coffey doesn’t understand that most people are anti-smoking‘ but just because most people are non-smokers doesn’t mean that ‘most people are anti-smoking’. That’s a huge leap of faith. Where’s the evidence?)
So apart from The Times and the New Statesman the only people trying to make it an issue are the usual anti-smoking lobbyists whose anguished tweets suggest repressed fury that their smoke free goal may be under threat.
My guess is that they and their supporters at the Department of Health are worried by the lack of urgency and what we’ve seen this week is designed to put pressure on Coffey to publish a tobacco plan that reaffirms the smoke free 2030 target (and their futures!) even if there is little chance of it being met.
Anyway, here’s the BBC 3 Counties interview I did yesterday, lightly edited.
I should add that presenter Jonathan Vernon-Smith and I are old adversaries (on air) which I don’t mind at all.
He’s an ex-smoker I believe who comes across as being anti-smoking but he gives his guests ample time to speak without constant interruption and I quite enjoy our jousts.
He began, I think, by asking listeners whether the Government should stop people smoking or “butt out”.
(If you don’t want to read the transcript in full you might like to scroll to the end where I praise Thérèse Coffey. Thanks to JVS for giving me the opportunity!)
Jonathan Vernon-Smith: presenter
Let's get some reaction to begin with, from Simon Clark, who's the director of Forest, a smokers’ lobby group. Hello to you, Simon.
Simon Clark: director, Forest
Hello, Jonathan.
Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
Good morning. So, I presume you would be absolutely delighted if the government did butt out?
Simon Clark:
Yes. We’ve always said the government has a role to play educating people about the health risks of smoking but I certainly don't think the government should stop people smoking a legal product and if they want to stop people smoking completely … then let's have a debate about prohibition. But what we have seen in recent years, over the last 15 years since the smoking ban, since the display ban, since plain packaging and a whole raft of measures, [is] what I would call creeping prohibition and I don't think there has been a proper public debate about whether or not people do support prohibition because at the end of the day tobacco is a legal product. Clearly it carries very serious health risks, which people need to know about, but ultimately if you're an adult you should be allowed to smoke without excessive regulations, without excessive restrictions and without this constant harassment because any campaign should be based on education and consent, not forcing people to give up.
Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
Okay, let's take this back a step and let's break it down. Do you think it would be better if the six million people who smoke in this country stopped smoking?
Simon Clark:
No, I don't because if people were forced to give up that would suggest we are not living in a liberal free society …
Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
I didn't say about forcing. I said, would it be better if the six million people didn't smoke any more, they stopped smoking?
Simon Clark:
No, I'm not a smoker but I know a lot of smokers who get a great deal of pleasure from smoking, they enjoy smoking. Often it's a great comfort to them in periods of distress or they might be depressed or they might have had bad news. I mean, [there are] all sorts of reasons why people smoke. Sometimes …
Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
This sounds like the kind of messaging the tobacco industry has been peddling for years.
Simon Clark:
Well I don't care if you think that Jonathan. I happen to believe it. I am an individual …
Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
Well it’s true and you are paid for by the tobacco industry aren't you?
Simon Clark:
Indeed and we have never made any secret of that. I don't think it’s unreasonable that tobacco companies should support a consumer group. The reality is tobacco companies have actually moved on a hell of a long way since 30, 40 years ago and they are now supporting and manufacturing and distributing reduced risk products like e-cigarettes and heated tobacco. So you might want to throw accusations at the tobacco industry but actually they are part of the solution, if you like, not the problem.
Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
But there are much healthier alternatives to uplifting people’s mood than smoking.
Simon Clark:
Like what? Suggest something.
Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
Exercise.
Simon Clark:
Are you going to force people to take exercise?
Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
No, no-one is talking about forcing anyone to do anything. You suggested that in some way tobacco smoking is very beneficial to lifting people’s moods and to helping people through stressful situations. I am suggesting to you that in fact it will be far more responsible to suggest exercise to people than smoking a cigarette …
Simon Clark:
I am not suggesting …
Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
… that kills people.
Simon Clark:
I am not suggesting smoking for everybody. I am saying for some people it does lift their mood, it does help them through difficult situations. I don’t smoke but I drink. I drink more than the recommended number of units per week but so what? That’s my choice. It’s my life, it's not your life. If I choose to drink more than the recommended units of alcohol, if somebody chooses to smoke, that’s their choice. It’s their life and it’s not the government’s job to force them to give up.
Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
Okay. What about the people listening to this programme though, Simon, who have lost loved ones to lung cancer? What about the people listening to this programme who lost their grandparents too young to lung cancer because their grandparents grew up in a time when smoking was seen as being perfectly normal and a perfectly reasonable thing to do and subsequently they died much much younger than they ever needed to die because of their smoking habit. They may think, they may say to you, that actually it is responsible for a government when you know the facts to try and stop people taking up smoking in the first place. That’s a responsible thing to do.
Simon Clark:
No, the responsible thing to do is to educate people about the health risks of a legal product, so that as an adult they are allowed to make an informed decision and if they choose to smoke knowing full well what the health risks are, and nobody in this country can claim to be ignorant of the health risks and that goes for lung cancer and a whole range of other illnesses that you can potentially get from smoking, it's responsible [for] government in a free society to educate people. But we cannot have this constant harassment of smokers for doing nothing more than a legal activity.
Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
Okay stay there Simon if you would. Dr Peter Carter is an independent healthcare consultant from Hertfordshire, former CEO of the Royal College of Nursing. Hello to you, Peter.
Dr Peter Carter:
Good morning, Jonathan.
Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
Do you agree with Simon Clark from Forest that the government should butt out? It's down to individuals. This is a legal product. Give individuals the information, the facts, by all means but butt out of their lives. Stop trying to stop them doing this.
Dr Peter Carter:
I couldn't disagree with Simon more. I think the government should carry on with anti-smoking legislation. I think that there should be far more health education on smoking, particularly in schools, [the] number of young people that take up smoking, and when Simon says, look, people are going about their lawful activity, yes it's not illegal to smoke but the problem is the consequences are not readily known to the public. 78,000 people a year die of smoking-related diseases. Tens of thousands more actually live with long-term debilitating diseases and that costs the NHS over 2.5 billion pounds. So whilst people are pursuing their legal activity it’s not just affecting them, it's putting a huge impact on the NHS and the more that can be done to dissuade people from smoking the better. By the way if you smoke your life expectancy after the age of 40 reduces by an extra three months for every year and most smokers have ten years less life expectancy than the average member of the public. So it's not without its consequences.
Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
So ultimately, Simon, this is about trying to prevent the knock-on impact of smoking as well as protecting the individual's health.
Simon Clark:
Well in terms of the cost of treating smoking-related diseases, Dr Carter is right as the estimated cost is 2.5 billion pounds a year, but against that you have got to remember that smokers contribute over ten billion pounds a year through tobacco taxation. Taxes on tobacco are at punitive levels, almost 90% of the cost of a pack of cigarettes goes to the government and that goes into the public purse and that helps pay for the NHS. So on purely financial grounds smokers more than pay their way in society and they're certainly not a burden in that respect. And when it comes to longevity, I mean it's a difficult one isn't it because we know a lot of people [who] haven't smoked [and are] living well into their 90s and have a pretty terrible time of it. This idea that we've got to live forever … I think we need to have a little bit of discussion about this because sometimes it’s nice to live the life you enjoy …
Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
Are you suggesting it's better for people to smoke and die younger?
Simon Clark:
I'm not suggesting that at all. What I'm actually suggesting is that we do things in our life that bring us pleasure. We take risks with all sorts of things. I mean there are a lot of extreme sports that people take risks with and they might end up getting seriously injured and maybe even killed and people make those decisions as they are go through their lives because they want to make the most of their life, they want to enjoy [it]. Now I completely accept that there are people who have taken up smoking [and] wished they had never done it, but there is nothing to stop people quitting. We are constantly told …
Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
But hang on a minute, hang on a minute. Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances out there. When people have become addicted to nicotine … I mean you are funded by the tobacco industries, I don't expect you to admit this, but of course the tobacco industry for a long time marketed their products as a way of trying to get people addicted to nicotine. It's very difficult just to come off nicotine. It's not as easy as just, well if you don't want to smoke anymore, just stop.
Simon Clark:
I think that's a complete cop-out Jonathan. I think it is difficult for some people to give up smoking because it becomes a habit they find difficult to break but there are millions upon millions of people who have stopped smoking. Many of them have quit overnight. They have simply gone cold turkey and they've stopped overnight. If you've got the willpower and you really want to give up smoking, maybe you had a health scare. I mean, that often focuses people's minds …
Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
What, a health scare caused by smoking?
Simon Clark:
Well again, people know the risks. Nobody in the last 50 years in this country can be ignorant of the fact that there are serious health risks associated with smoking. There are also health risks associated with being obese, with drinking alcohol to excess, but in a free society we are allowed to make those choices and again, I don't disagree with Dr Carter that there should be more health education. That’s absolutely fine. I'm simply drawing a distinction between education and consent and actually forcing people to stop smoking. If you want to force people to stop smoking then let's have a debate about prohibition and that will be something completely different.
Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
So Peter, if you ultimately want people to stop smoking, ban tobacco altogether?
Dr Peter Carter:
Well, more legislation, more health education and more awareness because I know … Look, Simon is doing his job but the public really do not understand the consequences. They think about cancer, which is right, but young people need to know that, for example, if you smoke you are more likely to get acne and it's a slower healing of skin blemishes and wounds. Smokers go grey earlier than non-smokers. So getting these messages out to people I think would be very very powerful and I think the government have an ethical and a moral responsibility to keep the pressure on and hopefully in some years to come smoking will be a thing of the past and whilst Simon makes the point about obesity and drinking, he is absolutely right on that but I was brought up to believe that two wrongs don't make a right. So just because some people drink alcohol in excess that doesn't in any way give smokers some kind of moral high ground to say [that] some people drink so I'm going to smoke. I think we should lessen our drinking, we should do something about obesity and we certainly should do a lot more about eradicating smoking.
Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
Can I just ask you, Simon? I mentioned in my introduction that the new health secretary, Therese Coffey, who herself is a smoker and I understand has accepted hospitality paid for by the tobacco industry in the past, she has voted in the Commons against an array of measures to restrict smoking including the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces. I presume you think she was right to vote against that?
Simon Clark:
Of course and even today, although it's not going to happen, we would like to see the ban amended to allow for separate designated smoking rooms in pubs and clubs.
Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
Okay. She also voted against the outlawing of smoking in cars containing children. Was she right to vote against that?
Simon Clark:
I think she was. We were against that legislation not because we would ever condone somebody lighting a cigarette in a car with a small child, but when that legislation was introduced hardly anybody was actually doing it and you can't legislate constantly. I mean, there comes a point where you have to leave it to parental judgement and most parents would never dream of lighting a cigarette in a car with a small child present. So we felt, for that reason, legislation was unnecessary.
Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
Do you feel you have an ally in Therese Coffey?
Simon Clark:
I don't know. I think what was refreshing about her comments is that you have mentioned all these things she has voted against. Well, if she is against further measures, further punitive measures, then that suggests that she's being remarkably consistent with her beliefs and I think that's something we should celebrate because we've seen so many politicians in the past who have done a 180 degree turn as soon as they get into power. As soon as they get into a senior or government role they go back on everything they have previously said or done. So I think we should actually celebrate that we have got a politician who appears to be sticking to her guns. Now, whether or not she will be able to do that moving forward … we don't know. But, no, I think her comments were remarkably refreshing and we should congratulate her, not condemn her.
Jonathan Vernon-Smith:
Okay. Thank you very much indeed both of you. Simon Clark is the director of Forest, a smokers’ lobby group that is funded by the tobacco industry, and Dr Peter Carter who is an independent healthcare consultant from Hertfordshire, former CEO of the Royal College of Nursing.
PS. Who knew that ‘Smokers go grey earlier than non-smokers’? You learn something new every day!
See also: In defence of Thérèse Coffey
Reader Comments (3)
I didn't know the grey thing either
At least the interviewer was impartial :-)
Smokers do not go grey earlier than non smokers and neither do they age quicker. That is all down to genes, and a whole host of other lifestyle factors including how much a person drinks and how much stress and worry a person bears in their lifetime.
Meanwhile, what is the point of the presenter trying to guilt trip smokers with the cancer and early death scaremongering? We now know that more non smokers than smokers get lung cancer because it is a human disease and many things can cause it including, perhaps, the car the presenter drives.
Why does it follow that non smokers live longer than smokers? What about those of us who have lost loved ones who never smoked or those who quit because of the false promise of longevity? My mum and dad both died at the age of 75 (once thought old and now deemed not old enough) and both quit 25 years earlier (PS, my dad never went grey. He claimed it was because he only ever washed his hair with water and didn't use any products on it).
My sister who never smoked died of a non smoking related illness far too young at 61. A chain smoking sister (who also had issues with prescription drugs) died later than that at 65. Dose makes poison in all things including the drugs that some doctors dish out like sweets.
It doesn't naturally follow that if you smoke you will die earlier. No one should be guilt tripped because they didn't live to be 90. The scaremongering around smoking must stop and be put into a proper perspective. Bullying people because they might die is abhorrent. None of us know what is around the corner. It is still true to say that a smoker could quit today and be killed in a road accident tomorrow.
Life is much too valuable to be measured only by how much a person smokes.
I would rather Teresa Coffey concentrate on things that matter - like investment in direct patient care, more doctors and nurses, good non judgemental health services when and where you need them, and more hospital beds, than just be like other health secretaries who thought that if they just banned smoking somewhere they didn't need to worry about sorting out the mess that is the NHS.
She should defund the lifestyle politics , lobbyists and propagandists, and pour those wasted billions back into direct healthcare. Lifestyle lobbyists are the burden on health services. They pay not one penny and save not one life but they take an awful lot of the billions that smokers put in and we don't pay so they can have cushy jobs, nice houses, or holidays twice a year. How much better it would be if those at the NHS coal face got that money instead?
I watched my father die from lung cancer. He had smoked heavily since his teens and given up about 15 years before he died in his mid 70s.
I still smoke. I know the risks. I don't think it's big or clever. But modern living and being a wage slave don't help - smoking helps me though, especially these days as just about everything is screwed up.
I despise the Nanny state and stubbornly refuse to give in to Government pressure. People being made to pay £10.00 minimum for a pack of inferior cigarettes really annoys, as does the ridiculously swingeing smoking ban.
In the words of Eddie Catflap "just let me smoke my fags in peace". It was only a couple of decades ago I could do just that.
JonT