Anti-smoker discrimination should concern vaping lobbyists too

Incredibly, one small company’s ‘extra holidays for non-smokers’ initiative is still being discussed, ten days after it was first reported in a local newspaper.

This morning I was interviewed by BBC Radio Lancashire. (It was the lead item after the 7.00am news.)

On Friday afternoon, between 4.30 and 6.00pm, I did eleven interviews, back-to-back, for a succession of other local radio stations. (I didn’t beat my record, which is 18 interviews in two hours, but it was a long 90 minutes!)

At least Forest’s voice is being heard. The full list of interviews we have done on the subject in the past seven days reads:

Sky News, Talk Radio, BBC Points West (BBC1), BBC Radio 2 (Jeremy Vine), BBC Radio Essex, BBC Radio Ulster, BBC Radio Cornwall, BBC Radio Hereford & Worcester, BBC Radio Leeds , BBC Radio Stoke, BBC Radio Kent, BBC Radio Shropshire, BBC Radio Lincolnshire, BBC Radio Sussex, BBC Radio Somerset, BBC Radio Cumbria, BBC Radio Jersey and the aforesaid Radio Lancashire.

Hopefully the story will now be put to bed because I’ve nothing more to add beyond what I’ve already said and written.

What did strike me though is that when it comes to speaking out against this type of discrimination only Forest seems willing to step forward.

The same is true of hospital smoking bans. Or the prohibition of smoking during working hours.

The reality is that most so-called libertarians have largely given up defending smokers.

Vaping advocates were also silent on the issue of non-smokers being given four days’ additional holiday to ‘compensate’ them for smokers allegedly taking extra smoking breaks.

That didn’t surprise me at all but it’s worth noting that, to the best of my knowledge, the policy introduced by the Swindon-based recruitment agency targets smokers and vapers.

If you have quit smoking and switched to vaping you still have to go outside for a ‘vaping break’ and that will count against you when it comes to additional holidays.

Only by quitting smoking and vaping will you qualify for the promised perk.

We should be fighting such policies together but whenever smokers are targeted for ‘special’ attention the vaping lobby, normally so vocal, is as quiet as a mouse.

When will vapers, and vaping advocates, wake up to the fact that in the eyes of many people, including employers, vaping is no better than smoking?

For many employers it’s just another form of nicotine addiction.

Failure to address anti-smoker discrimination will surely hasten the day when vapers are treated exactly the same.

In fact, as this latest intervention shows, it’s happening already and the vaping lobby is doing nothing to help us fight it.

PS. I am reminded of this post from November 2018 - Council bans smoking AND vaping during working hours.

Noting that ‘the silence on this story from vaping advocacy groups has been deafening’, I wrote:

My message to vaping advocates is this: be careful what you wish for. When you remain silent (as most of you invariably do) and do nothing to oppose the extension of anti-smoking policies, you actively invite similar policies on vaping ...

Forest will continue to speak out against vaping bans because it’s the right thing to do. Sadly self interest is what defines most ex-smoking vapers today and I have long since given up expecting their support when smokers are attacked and vilified and smoking bans are extended to all working hours (and even non-working hours if you're in uniform) and outdoor public places.

Nothing, it seems, has changed.

The wit and the wisdom of Laurence Fox

At risk of appearing to jump on the bandwagon, I’d like to add my voice to those applauding the comments of actor Laurence Fox on Question Time on Thursday.

To be honest, I rarely watch the programme any more. I gave up watching it regularly a long time ago, and I say that as someone who used to view it religiously and was in the audience several times back in the day when it was chaired by the late great Robin Day.

Today I’ll watch it only if someone I’ve met or have a specific interest in is on the panel. This week two guests met those criteria.

Madeline Grant worked for the IEA before joining the Telegraph. A former smoker, she took part in a balloon debate organised by Forest at the Tory party conference in 2018 and was a guest at our 40th anniversary dinner last year.

I’ve never met Fox (although I did spot him when I was in the departure lounge at Corfu Airport last October!) but his smoking has been well-documented – and noted by Forest – for at least a decade.

In 2010 I defended him and his ex-wife Billie Piper when they were accused of putting their young son’s health at risk by allegedly blowing smoke in his face in a pub garden.

It was nonsense, of course. Aside from the fact that they were outside, in the open air, the photos - taken from afar - gave the misleading impression Piper was smoking much closer to the child than she actually was.

Nevertheless it didn’t stop those pious zealots at ASH from piling in. Director of research Martin Dockrell, who now champions tobacco control from his pulpit at Public Health England, commented:

‘There are two good reasons not to smoke in front of children.

'First, especially in enclosed areas second-hand smoke seriously damages a child's health and even risks causing a cot death.

'The second reason is that the more a child sees adults around them smoking the more likely they are to try smoking themselves as they get older.

'In fact only one in five adults smokes but children often overestimate this and the more they do, the more they are likely to smoke themselves.'

Since then most reports and interviews with Fox seemed to feature some reference to smoking, hence my interest. In 2015, for example, he told the Telegraph:

“I thought I’d wean myself off by smoking roll-ups. Then someone suggested liquorice Rizla papers and Golden Virginia tobacco, and I realised not only did I not want to quit, but I’d found the perfect cigarettes.”

Paradoxically, when asked by the Guardian last month what his most ‘unappealing habit’ was, he replied, “Smoking.”

A day or two later I stumbled upon his Twitter account.

Following him on social media felt like joining an elite but fun club but the truth is I was late to the party. His anti-woke views had been reported and commented upon for some time. I just hadn’t noticed.

Anyway, when I saw he was appearing on Question Time I made a mental note not to miss it. And I’m glad I did because there were some great moments, most of them courtesy of Fox whose contributions were, as many people have said, a “breath of fresh air”.

They were also a model of brevity. The last Question Time guest I can recall giving such pithy answers to questions was the ASI’s Madsen Pirie who would speak for no more than 15 or 20 seconds, leaving everyone else looking ridiculously long-winded. It probably explains why Madsen hasn’t appeared on the programme for the best part of two decades.

Anyway, it must be said that while Fox has grabbed all the headlines - and rightly so - Madeline Grant played a blinder too.

Unconsciously, perhaps, they were the perfect tag team, Grant’s more analytical responses complementing Fox’s blunt and increasingly acerbic tone. It was amusing too to see a picture of them enjoying an after show drink with a smiling Fiona Bruce. Naturally, that wound up the conspiracy theorists even more.

(As an aside, government minister Helen Whately owes Fox a huge debt of gratitude. Without him her cringeworthy performance would be the talk of Westminster. A penny for Boris Johnson’s thoughts. The forthcoming cabinet reshuffle may tell us more.)

Anyway, since Thursday night Fox’s followers on Twitter have shot up from 60k to (at the time of writing) 116k which leaves me with mixed feelings. On one hand it’s good that his not unreasonable views have found a receptive audience.

On the other hand it’s like following a band that enjoys a cult following and then has a big hit, attracting lots of fair-weather fans. The secret is out and our semi-private passion will never be the same again.

Actor @LozzaFox jokes about the hypocrisy of many celebrities, who create a “huge carbon footprint” by taking flights. #bbcqt pic.twitter.com/6xqZyfsdfW

— BBC Question Time (@bbcquestiontime) January 16, 2020

Questions that need answers (today!)

Today is the closing date for a consultation on smoking outside hospital buildings in Scotland.

A law making it an offence to smoke within no smoking areas on hospital grounds is already in place in Scotland so this merely concerns the regulations.

Nevertheless I do hope you will make your views known. As one Forest supporter commented last night:

I noted some 'trick questions' that required you to agree with the basic proposal before replying. I complained about this in my response.

Let's see if it does any good. Frankly, I doubt it. The Scottish regime in Edinburgh is appalling. But thanks to Forest for drawing this latest Scottish example of nanny state, inhumanity and over-reach to our attention.

Further details here.

Click here to go direct to the online consultation. It should only take a few minutes to complete.

PS. Moments after we sent out an ‘Action Alert’ email to subscribers yesterday a notice went up on the consultation website saying it was ‘closed for maintenance’.

I’m pleased to say it’s now up and running again.

If that’s the BBC’s idea of balance, I give up

The smoking breaks ‘story’ rumbles on.

This morning, eight days after the Swindon Advertiser reported that Don Bryden, MD of KCJ Training and Employment Solutions, had decided to give non-smoking staff an extra four days’ holiday a year to ‘compensate’ them for colleagues taking too many smoking breaks, the subject was featured on BBC Breakfast (above).

In the interim the story had gone national, then international. As I wrote here and here, I have given interviews to Jeremy Vine (Radio 2), Channel 5 News and several local radio stations.

In general however the policy has been reported with few if any opposing comments so I was pleased when a BBC Breakfast producer rang Forest yesterday to ask if we could put forward a spokesman to go head-to-head with MD Don Bryden.

“Yes,” I said, “I’d be happy to do it.” I even offered to travel to Salford, where the programme is broadcast, a six-hour round trip.

Thanks, they said, but no thanks. “We heard you on Jeremy Vine and even the callers were men. It was very male centric. We want a female voice.”

I protested, mildly, but suggested a couple of women, neither of whom proved to be available.

So who did they book to ‘oppose’ the policy? Why, none other than Kuba Shand-Baptiste, a journalist whose column on the subject (I'd quit smoking too if it meant four extra days of holiday – or at least, I'd pretend to) was published on the Independent website yesterday.

To be fair, Kuba was quite a bubbly presence on the programme. She had a sense of humour and I can’t deny that she was rather fun. In contrast, I suspect I would have been quite grumpy and far more inclined to argue with Don Bryden who sat on the sofa enjoying every moment of his 15 minutes of fame.

But that’s the point. This was not a proper debate. In fact, far from defending smokers from the charge that they work fewer hours because of smoking breaks, Kuba’s basic position was not that the policy is unfair to smokers, but that smokers are “sneaky” and “cunning” and will find ways round it.

The actual policy, she said, is a “really positive move. As far as health policies go it’s a really good thing.” Smoking, she added, is a “stupid habit”, a “stupid addiction”.

If that’s the BBC’s idea of balance, I give up.

Outside broadcasts

To listen to my brief appearance on the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 yesterday, click on the image below.

Or here.

The item begins at 32:30 and includes an interview with Don Bryden, MD of the recruitment company that is offering non-smokers an additional four days’ holiday a year to ‘compensate’ them for the time smokers are allegedly away from their desks on fag breaks.

I understand the idea began as office banter so Bryden must be pinching himself at all the free publicity. In the interviews I have seen and heard he certainly seems to be enjoying the attention. Likewise his staff - even the smokers. They all seem to think it's a great wheeze.

The Jeremy Vine interview took place while I was en route to record another interview for Channel 5 News at the ITN studios in London. Appropriately, perhaps, they were both conducted with me standing outside, sheltering from the wind and rain.

For Radio 2 I had to speak to Vine on my mobile on the periphery of Kings Cross station. It took me a while to find somewhere where there wasn’t too much noise from train announcements or passing traffic.

When I eventually found a quiet corner and was about to go on air I found myself competing with a station cleaner and his trolley, a man conducting a loud conversation on his own phone, and a couple of smokers looking for somewhere to have a quick cigarette.

Having survived their unwelcome presence, I arrived early at ITN and was invited to make use of their splendid new cafe called Healthy & Happy. Ironically this was a theme Don Bryden kept pushing to justify his firm’s new policy.

When the time came to be interviewed however I was naturally dispatched outside where it was blowing a mini gale. At one point we had to stop filming while a huge lorry reversed behind us.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the exciting and glamorous world I inhabit.

Anyway, I shall be back in London today to do another interview on the subject, this time for Sky News. Fingers crossed, I'll be in a nice warm studio.

Update: For the Sky News interview I was indeed in a studio, albeit one that was no larger than a broom cupboard.

It was also so cold they apologised in advance!

Smoking breaks

I said last week that January brings out the worst in anti-smoking crusaders.

Another story that's doing the rounds concerns a Swindon-based company whose managing director (a smoker, natch) has decided to give non-smokers an extra four days' holiday each year to make up for the 'fact' that smokers spend less time working because of all those fag breaks.

The first report appeared in the Swindon Advertiser last Thursday.

Over the weekend it went national (Sun, Mirror, Daily Mail), then international.

The BBC picked it up yesterday (Swindon firm gives non-smokers extra holiday).

Last night I was on BBC Points West and this morning I was on BBC Suffolk. I then had to catch a train to London to record an interview for 5 News at ITN.

En route I also spoke to Jeremy Vine on Radio 2.

Don Bryden, MD of KCJ Training and Employment Solutions, must be pinching himself with all the free publicity but it's a bit depressing that a guaranteed way to attract media attention is to discriminate against a group of employees, most of whom probably work just as hard (and some more efficiently) than many of their non-smoking colleagues.

The presenter on Points West argued that it isn’t discrimination because smokers are not being punished, they are being incentivised to quit. Non-smokers meanwhile are simply being compensated for the 'fact' that smokers work fewer hours (allegedly).

I take the view that everyone is legally entitled to one 15-minute break in the morning and another in the afternoon. What they do during those breaks is up to them.

If smokers take additional breaks (Bryden estimated that some of his employees are taking three ten-minute smoking breaks every day) that suggests weak management.

It’s a fallacy moreover to claim that smokers do less work than non-smokers. I’m sure there are a handful of smokers who abuse their employers' trust and nip out more often than they should but do non-smokers never take additional coffee breaks, make personal phone calls, spend time on social media etc etc during working hours?

Although this appears to be a one-off PR stunt, the direction of travel is clear. First we create a two-tier workplace (smokers and non-smokers), then employers may choose not employ smokers at all.

Welcome to 2020.

Update: I'm on BBC Radio Essex at 5.30 followed by BBC Radio Ulster (5.45). I shall also be speaking to James Whale on TalkRadio at 8.30.

Tomorrow I'm on Sky News.

Minimum pricing for tobacco

I was on BBC Radio Scotland on Friday.

Presenter Stephen Jardine hosted a phone-in on the issue of smoking. In particular, they wanted me to talk about minimum pricing for tobacco.

If I recall the subject was first mentioned in Scotland in November 2017 when the BBC reported that:

Increasing the cost of tobacco or setting a minimum price could be used as part of a campaign to drive down the number of smokers in Scotland.

Invited to respond:

The smokers' campaign group Forest described the tobacco pricing plans as "patronising and deeply offensive".

Spokesman Simon Clark said: "This middle-class war on smoking has to stop.

"Tobacco is a legal product and if adults choose to smoke knowing the risks, that choice must be respected.

"Making tobacco even more expensive would discriminate against those who are less well-off. It will also fuel illicit trade by encouraging more smokers to buy tobacco illegally."

The issue raised its head again in June 2018 when The Times reported:

Ministers could set a minimum price for tobacco in an unprecedented move to discourage smoking in Scotland.

The idea (naturally) follows the introduction of minimum pricing for alcohol. The simplistic argument goes something like this:

Minimum unit pricing is already helping to reduce alcohol sales so why not do the same thing for tobacco?

I say 'simplistic' because it is not at all clear that minimum pricing has reduced alcohol sales in Scotland.

According to the BBC in June last year, 'Scottish alcohol sales drop as minimum price kicks in'.

Likewise the Guardian ('Scottish alcohol sales at lowest level in 25 years after price controls') while The Times announced that 'Minimum pricing policy for alcohol has sobering effect'.

The clear message was that minimum pricing was 'working'. However, as Chris Snowdon pointed out:

Alcohol sales [in Scotland] have fallen in nine of the last eleven years, including a 3.7% fall in 2011, a 4.2% fall in 2012, a 2.5% fall in 2013 and a 1.9% fall in 2016. There is nothing special or unusual about the 2.95% fall recorded in 2018.

Anyway, I'm not quite sure why the issue attracted the attention of Radio Scotland last week but after I had been on the Scottish Daily Mail asked me for a quote.

The story has yet to appear (I suspect it got dropped because of all the Harry/Meghan stuff) but this is what we gave them:

“Minimum pricing will discriminate against poorer smokers. Not only is this unfair, it will push some further into poverty.

“Those who can will buy their tobacco abroad or in England. Others may be driven to the unregulated black market.

“Either way, minimum pricing will hit not just smokers but every legitimate retailer in Scotland.”

I'm sure this issue will run and run. I'll keep you posted.

Sir Roger Scruton - a very singular man

I was sorry to read of the death of philosopher Sir Roger Scruton, aged 75.

Unusually Twitter was quite a nice place to be yesterday as friends, acquaintances and admirers paid homage to one of the nicest people you could wish to meet.

I’ve written about Scruton several times, including this post in April 2019 that followed an outrageous attempt by the New Statesman to sully his reputation by making him appear racist and anti-semitic.

Thanks to author and political commentator Douglas Murray (see The Scruton tapes: an anatomy of a modern hit job) those wrongs were righted, but without Murray’s efforts Scruton’s life could have ended in ignominy which would have been a personal tragedy.

Having met him on a couple of occasions - the first time in the Eighties when I was invited to his house for tea, the second time at a conference in 2012 - I can vouch for his charm and quiet charisma.

I must be honest, though. I’ve never read a single one of his books, unlike my son. He was always trying to find some long out of print volume and four years ago he interviewed Scruton for an article that was published here.

As it happens Scruton was once a paid consultant to Japan Tobacco which in 2002 got him into a different kind of bother:

Clive Bates, director of the ASH anti-smoking campaign, said last night: "Scruton likes to pass himself off as the leading intellectual of the right, but it seems he's just a grimy hack for the tobacco industry."

You’re wrong, Clive. (And that was the cheapest of cheap shots, btw.)

Far from being a ‘grimy hack for the tobacco industry’, Scruton was a man of enormous principle, a giant in comparison to many of the pygmies in politics and public health.

As Toby Young notes in the Mail today:

He wrote more than 50 books on a vast range of subjects and was knighted in 2016 for ‘services to philosophy, teaching and public education’.

Despite that he was ‘vilified by the liberal establishment for daring to challenge the fashionable nostrums of our age’.

Thankfully Scruton’s achievements will long outlive his critics and others who sought to eviscerate his reputation.

And for that we can be truly grateful.