Free speech and harm reduction sacrificed on the altar of petty doctrine

Say what you like about the Conservatives but at least they don’t cancel conference events when challenged by partisan lobby groups.

At the SNP conference in Aberdeen a fringe meeting was due to take place tomorrow on the subject ‘Embracing Alternatives to Smoking in Scotland’.

Supported by Japan Tobacco International, participants included a representative of JTI plus Daniel Pryor (Adam Smith Institute), the IEA’s Chris Snowdon, Luke McGarty (Scottish Grocers’ Federation) and two SNP MSPs.

However the event has now been ‘axed’ following a complaint by ASH Scotland, a lobby group funded almost exclusively with taxpayers’ money that probably wouldn’t exist if it had to rely on direct donations from the public or the private sector.

Why they weren’t told to bugger off I don’t know but just as in England, where ASH Scotland’s London counterparts have a close and in my view unhealthy relationship with government, tobacco control campaigners in Scotland enjoy similar influence with those in power.

Now we see one of the many outcomes. An event designed to highlight the potential benefits to consumers of reduced risk nicotine products has been cancelled, apparently at the behest of an anti-smoking pressure group that, you might think, would support a public debate on this issue.

But no. ASH Scotland, like so many tobacco control groups, is so driven by its hatred of the tobacco industry that it can’t see the bigger picture - a world in which current smokers have switched (voluntarily) from potentially harmful combustible products to equally enjoyable smokeless devices.

Who manufactures and profits from those devices ought to be irrelevant but many anti-smoking campaigners have been indoctrinated by history and won’t let it go.

But I think ASH Scotland’s opposition to the meeting in Aberdeen also comes down to something else - fear of losing control of the debate - because, make no mistake, this is all about control.

ASH Scotland has been the loudest anti-smoking voice in Scotland for decades but since vaping came along the group has seemed surprisingly out of touch, even Luddite, in its attitude to vaping.

Ten years ago in England ASH CEO Deborah Arnott appeared almost equally sceptical about e-cigarettes but I’m guessing she saw the way the wind was blowing and quickly adapted.

Within a year or two ASH (London) had embraced vaping - at least as a short-term quit smoking aid en route to giving up nicotine altogether - and today ASH itself is embraced as a go-to source of information on vaping. Quite an achievement.

Personally I find it a little hard to stomach but I can’t deny how successful it has been in terms of reinventing ASH for the 21st century and prolonging the group’s life for decades to come (by which time Deborah’s successors will no doubt be campaigning to reduce vaping rates and lobbying government to target a ‘vape-free’ England by 2070.)

In contrast, instead of welcoming a discussion about vaping and harm reduction, ASH Scotland chooses to maintain its influence by challenging the SNP to cancel a legitimate public debate on the spurious grounds that the meeting is in breach of WHO rules.

Or, as the Sunday Times Scotland put it:

Japan Tobacco International was scheduled to co-sponsor a fringe event tomorrow until Sheila Duffy, the charity’s chief executive, warned that the attendance of tobacco industry representatives would breach World Health Organisation rules that forbid elected representatives from meeting tobacco firms, their associates or vested interests to discuss health policy.

Sacrificing free speech and arguably harm reduction on the altar of petty doctrine is an interesting policy in a free society but nothing surprises me about the tobacco control industry, far less ASH Scotland.

PS. See also how Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control was used to block a requested meeting with Dr Javed Khan, author of the Khan review - Article 5.3, the DHSC and the ‘independent’ Khan review.

As I wrote in that post, Article 5.3 was never meant as a blanket ban on interaction with the tobacco industry or groups (such as Forest) that receive funding from tobacco companies.

If governments are serious about harm reduction they must reject the constant misrepresentation of Article 5.3 and get round the table with all interested parties including the tobacco companies and consumer groups funded (shock, horror) by Big Tobacco.

Comments

[Pat Nurse]

First they came for smokers and tobacco so what did vaping advocates expect? It's not about health so they would be best advised to stop making it about health. It isn't winning their movement any favours but is inviting more restrictions on smokers and if we get more, you can be sure vapers will too. Divided we fall. United we stand strong. Which is it to be? Time vaping groups stopped trying to impress fanatical public health and instead work to get smokers on side and just accept that some of us will never vape however hard it's pushed on us.