Does Make Smoking History want to make vaping history too?
Friday, September 16, 2022 at 17:41 
You may not have noticed this survey or 'public consultation'.
It was launched on August 22 during the height of the holiday season. To my great annoyance I missed it too because I was abroad that week and I didn’t get any notifications.
In fact I was unaware of it until this morning when I was alerted by a member of the Forest Facebook group. Unfortunately the closing date was last Sunday, September 11, so the 'consultation' lasted all of three weeks and I believe it's too late now to submit a response.
Nevertheless it's still online so I had a look and several things stand out.
One question invites respondents to select (from a list of ten) which ONE 'is the best reason for implementing this plan [to make some communal outdoor public spaces smoke free]'. The options are:
- This is part of a global initiative to keep cities healthy
- This is just one of the steps we’re taking to help smokers quit, and keep children smoke-free
- Smoke hangs around, even in the open air, and that’s unfair to non-smokers, children and those who are vulnerable
- This is part of the broader clean air strategy
- We’re protecting future generations
- Some parts of Greater Manchester have higher smoking rates and it’s damaging those communities
- Making public spaces smoke-free means everyone can enjoy them
- Greater Manchester has a lower life expectancy than many other parts of the UK
- The majority of people in Greater Manchester (including smokers) support such a move
- We want to ensure we can all be proud of Greater Manchester’s public spaces
In my opinion none of those reasons justify bans on smoking in outdoor spaces but unless the respondent gives an answer it's impossible to proceed with the survey so you're forced to select a reason you don't actually agree with.
Similarly another question asks, 'From the following list, what do you believe are the biggest benefits of implementing the policy? Please rank your top 3 (top = most beneficial)'. The list reads:
- Every single person in Greater Manchester has something to gain from this initiative (healthier for smokers, healthier for everyone else)
- Kids won’t be set a bad example by seeing adults smoke
- It denormalises smoking
- It reduces litter
- Having smoke free outdoors spaces makes Greater Manchester healthier for us all
- It protects other people from second-hand smoke
- It keeps our amazing out door spaces clean and healthy
- It protects the environment and wildlife
- It makes Greater Manchester feel like a forward thinking region
- It cleans up the air
- It supports quitters to stay smoke-free
Note how the question assumes (wrongly) that these are all 'benefits'. I don't doubt that banning smoking in outdoor public spaces will further denormalise smoking but I don't agree that this is a benefit to society.
The question also assumes cause and effect when there has to be a considerable question mark over statements such as 'Having smoke free outdoors spaces makes Greater Manchester healthier for us all' and 'It cleans up the air'.
Worse, the question includes some very contentious statements – for example, 'It protects other people from second-hand smoke'. There is no evidence that smoking outside is a significant risk to other people, including children, so in what way will banning it protect other people?
Meanwhile how would someone who opposes outdoor smoking bans of any kind respond to this question:
As mentioned, as part of the Make Smoking History strategy, Greater Manchester is looking to make some communal outdoor public spaces smoke free.
On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is 'not at all' and 5 is 'very strongly', how much do you agree with [the statement]?
It's a good idea in principle, but some provision should be made for smokers
Superficially it seems a reasonable statement but when I thought about it further it seemed a bit ambiguous. For example, I don't think making outdoor public spaces ‘smoke free’ (ie banning smoking) is a good idea at all (in principle or in practise) but if I answer '5' (that is, I agree very strongly that some provision should be made for smokers) am I also endorsing the suggestion that banning smoking in outdoor public places is ‘a good idea in principle'?
Also, what do they mean by ‘some provision’? A small roped off area in a corner of a park? Actually, on reflection, I don’t agree there should be ‘some provision’ for smokers. If it’s outdoors people should be allowed to smoke in parks and gardens without restriction, albeit showing consideration for those around them.
But you see what I’m getting at. The question/statement is not all it seems.
Meanwhile, if you're a vaper (or a vaping advocate) I would be very concerned by the following questions.
On a scale of 1 to 5 were 1 is 'not at all' and 5 is 'very strongly', how much do you agree with these statements?
They include:
- If smoking is not allowed indoors vaping shouldn't be either
- Vaping will eventually be as big a problem for society as smoking is
- Vapers shouldn't be allowed to vape near non-vapers
- Vapers are more anti-social in their behaviour than smokers
- Vaping is probably just as bad for your health as smoking
- I see vaping as a bigger problem in society than smoking because there are more vapers than smokers
The last statement is of course factually incorrect and I find it hard to believe it was approved.
There are currently between six and seven million smokers in the UK and, according to the most recent figures, 4.3 million vapers (many of whom still smoke).
The reason I’d be concerned if I was a vaper or vaping advocate is that the survey was commissioned by Make Smoking History not Make Vaping History so why include all these questions and statements about vaping unless ... ?
To be fair there were a few questions where someone like me could make my views known, clearly and concisely.
If for example you are opposed to plans to extend the smoking ban to outdoor public areas the following questions offered options from 'strongly agree' to 'strongly disagree' via 'slightly agree', 'neither agree nor disagree' and 'slightly disagree':
To what extent do you agree with the following statement:
Extending smoke-free public spaces is a good idea [and]
I want smoking to be made history in Greater Manchester
Anyway, while I'm annoyed with myself for being unaware of the consultation and missing the closing date, I'm realistic about the outcome and what could have been achieved even if we had responded to it.
The reality is, Manchester is governed by arguably the most anti-smoking local authority in England although in saying that it faces stiff competition.
Manchester City Council was one of only six or seven local authorities to impose a complete ban on smoking in the new outdoor seating areas that popped up outside pubs and cafes after the first Covid lockdown.
The measure was introduced in defiance of former communities minister Robert Jenrick who was reported to have argued that a ban would be against the spirit of the Government's Business and Planning Bill that was introduced to help businesses recover from the first Covid lockdown.
A few years ago the same Council refused to let Forest use the Town Hall for an event because of our links with the tobacco industry.
Meanwhile the mayor of Greater Manchester is the same Andy Burnham who when Secretary of State for Health in the last Labour Government introduced the Health Bill that led to the tobacco display ban and the prohibition of cigarette vending machines.
More recently (February 2018) he urged Manchester to make smoking history, saying:
“There will come a time when people look back and say: why did smoking ever happen? I want to bring that date forward and have Greater Manchester at the forefront of the charge."
Finally, I have a question of my own for the Make Smoking History campaign that Burnham supports.
Why, as well as launching your three-week 'consultation' in August when many people would have been away, did your Twitter account mention the survey just once, on September 2 (below)?
Reader Comments (2)
It would make no difference if the smokerphobic bullies in Manchester had promoted the so called "consultation" 20 times a day for a year. They already knew what they wanted and any submission that did not agree with their world view of Metropolitan Gentrification would simply be ignored.
The only thing people will say in future, as they continue to smoke, is Manchester is a city of snobs who cannot abide to see anyone, particularly those from lower classes, in streets or town centres they claim belong solely to them, doing something that they personally find distasteful.
Shame on them.
As for vaping, well, what did vapers expect. They cannot keep screeching it's not about health and then make it all about health to try and win favours and exemptions from smoker bashing.
The movement chose the wrong side to stand with in hope of appeasement and when that crocodile comes for their product of choice on health grounds, after some years if ramping up the dangers to the general public, then they cannot say they were not warned.
Fight for freedom or give in to tyrants. It really is that simple.
What Pat said. It’s all part of Arnott’s much bragged-of “confidence trick.” They start and end with the pretence that everyone – everyone in huge city like Manchester, without exception – agrees with their proposed policy and that therefore it’s only the minor details that need “consulting” about. They simply brush under the carpet even the merest idea that there might be someone - anyone - out there who disagrees with the policy per se.
But then that’s been the anti-smoking industry’s modus operandi for the last 40-odd years; it’s just a shame that there are so many people who are already so brainwashed and terrified that they simply can’t read between the lines and spot what’s really going on - even with the red-flag signs, pointed out by yourself here, of an additional activity (vaping) being quietly slipped in at the end. It’s particularly amazing that, even after the PTB borrowed so many scare tactics from the anti-tobacco template and applied them to the whole country to ensure compliance during the pandemic, people still can’t see the psychological trickery that has been, and continues to be, perpetrated against them, purportedly, of course, “for their own good.”