Mann alive

Public Health England may have axed its New Year quit smoking campaign but January is still a fertile period for anti-smoking activists.

On Monday I was invited by BBC East Midlands Today to respond to the enforcement of a comprehensive smoking ban on the grounds of all Lincolnshire hospitals.

I recorded a short interview from which they extracted the usual 20 second soundbite for the local evening news.

I was also on BBC Radio Cambridgeshire where I was interviewed by presenter Chris Mann. Subject: 'Can England really be cigarette free in just ten years’ time?'.

A forthright Glaswegian, Chris and I have enjoyed some quite heated 'discussions' in the past but usually over the phone, which puts the caller at a disadvantage.

This time I offered to go in to the studio for what I understood would be a short interview to kick start the programme. Instead I was asked to stay for the best part of an hour.

I wasn't however allowed to engage with the consultant in public health at Cambridgeshire County Council because she (allegedly) declined to share a platform with me.

I was also kept apart from Vicky Salt of ASH, although I don't think anything can be read into that because Vicky and I have gone head-to-head several times in the past without falling out.

Anyway, even after I corrected him, Mann insisted on describing Forest as 'pro-smoking' rather than 'pro-choice'.

He also persisted with the fiction that I am a spokesman for the tobacco industry. The irony is that the more he had a pop at the companies the more determined I became to stand up for them.

Anyway, here's an abbreviated transcript, minus the callers, the other guests ... and the music!

Chris Mann, presenter, BBC Radio Cambridgeshire:

First up my guest Simon Clark joins me this morning in the studio from the Cambridgeshire based pro-smoking pressure group Forest financed by the tobacco companies.

Simon Clark, director, Forest:

Indeed, but we’re pro-choice not pro-smoking.

Chris Mann:

But that means, in this case, pro-smoking. Presumably you want people to carry on buying and smoking cigarettes?

Simon Clark:

No, not at all because I don’t sell cigarettes. I simply want to defend those people who choose to smoke. It’s an adult activity, it’s a legal product, and people should be allowed to do it if they want to.

Chris Mann:

It is an odd thing, isn’t it, that people know it’s doing them a lot of harm. We spend so much of our lives trying to live longer and protect ourselves and avoid danger and here is this thing, this very popular thing, that people do knowing that it’s going to potentially kill them.

Simon Clark:

Yes, but we do lots of things in life that can be potentially harmful. I mean, you look at extreme sports, people who drink too much, people like me who are overweight because we eat the wrong type of food. The reason a lot of people do it is because they get pleasure from doing it, and one of the things in the smoking debate that people have forgotten about, because we never hear about it any more, is the fact that many people smoke because they enjoy it, they get pleasure from it, and they put pleasure ahead of the potential health risks.

Chris Mann:

Are you a smoker?

Simon Clark:

No, I’ve never smoked properly. I had the odd cigarette when I was 16, 17, but I was surrounded by smokers at university and in my younger life and it never bothered me at all.

Chris Mann:

So what do you say to somebody who’s smoking? Do you say, ‘Here’s another one, go on, carry on killing yourself’, or do you try and dissuade them?

Simon Clark:

Absolutely never try to dissuade them. Why should I? It’s their life and if people to choose to smoke or eat the wrong type of food or drink, that’s a matter for them. I would never tell another human being how to live their life.

Chris Mann:

This idea of smoking being gone by 2030. You welcome that?

Simon Clark:

No, because the only way that could happen would be the introduction of such severe rules and regulations around smoking that they would be forcing people to quit, not letting people quit of their own accord. I’ve no problem at all if people choose to stop smoking, that’s a matter for them, but they shouldn’t be forced to give up a legal product by the government.

Chris Mann:

So here’s a product which is carcinogenic, which causes lung disease … and can harm other people through secondary smoking, and you don’t want to see it ended. That’s odd, isn’t it?

Simon Clark:

Not at all because I think in a free society we have to allow people to do things that might not always be good for them. I would strongly argue the point about passive smoking because we’ve been told this lie over many many years that smokers are killing people around them and there’s very little evidence to prove that, so while I don’t dispute for one second the serious health risks associated with primary smoking, I think accusing smokers of killing people around them is quite wrong and is a form of emotional blackmail designed to force people to quit. But this target of getting people to quit smoking by 2030, actually the target is getting the smoking rate down to five per cent. That means that two million people will still be smoking in 2030. That’s a substantial minority of people.

Chris Mann:

I’ve got to ask you, because some people might question the morality of what you’re doing. You’re paid to represent tobacco companies who make vast profits from selling tobacco to people. Does that seem right to you?

Simon Clark:

Well, first and foremost, I’m not paid to represent tobacco companies. Yes, we get donations from tobacco companies but we stand up for adults who choose to smoke and for what I call tolerant non-smokers like myself, people who believe that there should be a certain amount of freedom in life. Smoking shouldn’t be allowed without any rules and regulations. We don’t believe that people should be allowed to smoke whenever they like and wherever they like, but it is a legal product and we believe that the laws on smoking have gone far enough.

Chris Mann:

OK, thank you for being with us. Simon Clark is staying with us from the Cambridgeshire based pro-smoking pressure group Forest, as you heard there, arguing for smoking. We will hear the other side in just a moment or two.

----------

Chris Mann:

Listening to that is one of our other guests who’s been with us all morning, Simon Clark from the pro-smoking pressure group Forest. I mean, don’t you feel for someone like that who’s smoking a product that you support and can’t get off it and wants to get off it?

Simon Clark:

Sure, but I don’t think you can go round banning things or forcing other people to quit simply because some people find it a difficult habit to break, and it is a habit. Millions of people in this country have given up smoking over the last 30 or 40 years yet we’re often told it’s an impossible habit to break. Well, it’s not. It requires willpower but with willpower you can give it up. But we haven’t really talked about vaping this morning and the great thing about vaping … vaping is a completely different product to tobacco but it mimics the act of smoking and people get a lot of pleasure from vaping and again I come back to ...

Chris Mann:

Is it true that the same tobacco companies that pay you to support smoking also make those vaping devices?

Simon Clark:

Well, they’ve got involved in the market but, Chris, I must come back to ...

Chris Mann:

So the tobacco companies want us to replace the tobacco habit with the vaping habit?

Simon Clark:

Well, I think they are quite sensible. They realise that if you are to get more people to quit smoking you’ve got to come up with something that is equally and perhaps more pleasurable than smoking.

Chris Mann:

What about fresh air?

Simon Clark:

Well, the reality in life is that people like to do things with their hands ... [interrupted]

Chris Mann:

It’s a bit cynical that the tobacco companies are trying to wean us off, they say, [smoking] and be goody-goody, but in the background they’ve got this other product they want people to get hooked on.

Simon Clark:

To be fair, it’s a harm reduction product, Chris, so surely we should be congratulating the tobacco companies for ... [interrupted]

Chris Mann:

But do we know that, with some of the recent evidence coming out of America and cases in Britain? Do we know that vaping is 100 per cent safe?

Simon Clark:

Well, I don’t think anything is 100 per cent safe but Public Health England believe that vaping is 95 per cent less harmful than smoking and the cases that have happened in America have had nothing to do with regulated e-cigarettes. They have been to do with black market cannabis e-cigarettes.

……….

Chris Mann:

Listening to you there is Simon Clark from this Cambridgeshire based pro-smoking pressure group Forest. Again, Simon, that’s terrible to listen to, isn’t it? I mean, somebody who wants to give up, who knows it’s doing him harm and he can’t give up. Are you proud to represent a product like that?

Simon Clark:

I’m proud to represent freedom of choice. You keep saying, Chris, that I represent a product or the companies and I don’t. I’m very proud to stand up in a free society for freedom of choice. It’s an extraordinarily important factor and it’s behind a lot of the freedoms that we all enjoy. People have a choice to smoke, they have a choice not to smoke, and many people make choices and they use willpower. Of course, it’s a very difficult habit for some people to break. Many other people have broken the habit quite easily. What I’m against is government taxing people to the roof, forcing a lot of people further into poverty by putting up taxes to 90%. It really is quite disgraceful. Also, denormalising not just the product but trying to denormalise smokers themselves. That’s completely wrong.

----------

Chris Mann:

It is true that your organisation is funded by the tobacco companies, is it not?

Simon Clark:

It is. We’ve never made any secret of it. It’s on our website, we’ve never hidden it, and I don’t apologise for it because as a consumer group we need to get our funding from somewhere and clearly the manufacturers are the obvious place to go, and I would congratulate the manufacturers for getting involved in harm reduction products like e-cigarettes because that clearly is the future, so let’s congratulate them rather than constantly hammering them.

Chris Mann:

Simon Clark there, from the Cambridgeshire-based pro-smoking pressure group Forest.

PS. To be clear, I rather liked Mann. I have no problem with presenters acting as devil's advocate when interviewing someone. In fact, I quite like it.

My only issue was the fact that he repeatedly referred to me as "pro-smoking" even after I tried to put him straight.

That apart, we got on quite well. Turns out he went to St Andrews University and was familiar with my old school – Madras College – which is also in the town.

Small world.

Good news! PHE abandons New Year anti-smoking campaign

Some good news to start the year.

If you were wondering what happened to the quit smoking campaign that traditionally launches between Christmas and New Year, it was reported last week that Public Health England had axed this year's campaign.

According to the Guardian, 'The move came after PHE’s marketing budget was cut by a fifth earlier this year, from about £35m to £28m.'

Not everyone was as pleased as we were:

“Slashing budgets for these campaigns is a foolhardy decision which not only lets down smokers who are looking to quit but will also result in further pressure on the NHS due to smoking-related illnesses,” warned British Lung Foundation’s (BLF) senior policy officer Rachael Hodges.

“Although smoking rates are declining, we must not be complacent. Mass media campaigns are vital in encouraging smokers to quit and stay smoke free.”

Vital? I'm not so sure. Mass media campaigns are persistently advocated by tobacco control lobbyists such as ASH but where is the evidence they actually work?

Forest spent several years trying to get Public Health England to publish figures demonstrating the 'success' of Stoptober (a mass media campaign launched in 2012) but all we got was evasion after evasion.

Stoptober limps on but I've seen nothing to suggest it plays a significant role in persuading smokers to stop.

PHE's new year campaign must have fared even worse because if there was evidence that it encouraged a significant number of smokers to quit, do you really think they would have abandoned it?

Truth is, the 'Health Harms' initiative fell victim to the same issue that ultimately scuppers most health campaigns – warning fatigue and outrageous hyperbole.

As it happens I wrote about this five years ago following the launch of PHE's 'Stop the rot' campaign in December 2014. (See 'Public health: rotten to the core'.)

Forest's response to the initiative was reported by BBC News and the Daily Mail, among others:

"Campaigns like this are an abuse of public money. Education has been replaced by shrill scaremongering that is often counter-productive because it's human nature to switch off when you're being nagged or shouted at on an almost daily basis."

Under the headline 'Anti-smoking adverts accused of 'scaremongering'' the Independent noted that Forest had branded the campaign “poisonous” and had accused PHE of making “exaggerated claims”:

Its chief executive, Simon Clark, said that “there can’t be a sane adult in the United Kingdom who isn’t well aware of the health risks of smoking” and urged Public Health England to “engage directly with consumers” rather than using shock tactics.

Two years ago, in response to another "hard-hitting" initiative, we said:

“It wouldn't be New Year without an anti-smoking campaign designed to scare smokers to quit. The new ad is a complete waste of public money. Smokers know there are serious health risks associated with smoking. They don’t need another alarmist TV ad to remind them.”

Continuing the tactic, PHE last year produced a slick two-minute video that began with a voiceover that said:

"Every cigarette you smoke causes tar to enter your body and spread poison throughout your bloodstream, poison that can cause heart disease, cancer and stroke."

I wrote about it here (The price of appeasing PHE’s anti-smoking propaganda), pointing out that it reminded me of a previous new year campaign that declared:

"When you smoke the chemicals you inhale cause mutations on your body and mutations are how cancer starts. Every 15 cigarettes you smoke will cause a mutation. If you could see the damage you would stop."

That claim led to Forest making a formal complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority. As I reminded readers:

The procedure was long and arduous (it took 18 months) but during that time the ASA upheld Forest's complaint THREE times before the ASA Council eventually overruled its own executive following repeated appeals by the Department of Health.

Anyway, here we are in 2020 and the good news is that PHE has scrapped its new year campaign. Anti-smoking activists may claim it's because of budget cuts but my guess is it just wasn't offering value for money.

Review of the year

Subscribers to the Forest newsletter have received a review of the year via email.

It includes one of my favourite moments - Antony Worrall Thompson’s succinct message to the anti-smoking lobby which he delivered at our 40th anniversary dinner in June.

It consists of two words. Watch it here. It still makes me laugh. The full newsletter is available here.

Looking ahead I expect 2020 to present Forest with plenty of new challenges - some more serious than others - but let’s not worry about that today.

Enjoy tonight and thanks for continuing to read this blog. I’ll be back in the new year.

Below: Mark Littlewood, director-general of the Institute of Economic Affairs, pictured with me after our In Conversation event at the IEA in May. Watch it here.

Animal serenade

Welcome back. Hope you had an enjoyable Christmas.

Ours was going well until the dog became seriously constipated. I can’t blame it on the turkey because we didn’t give him any, but his discomfort over the past two days became increasingly obvious.

All attempts to examine his nether region were rebuffed so this morning I took him to the vet who recommended an enema under sedation.

A few minutes ago I got the call to go and pick him up. Let’s hope he’s suitably grateful.

The other excitement today was finding a tiny field mouse scurrying around the kitchen.

I managed to corner it and then entice it to take refuge in a glass tumbler where it stayed until we released it outside, a short walk from the house.

No animal was hurt and there was no need for a baseball bat.

Just sayin’.

Merry Christmas!

A very Merry Christmas to you all.

The Forest Christmas card this year features our resident photographer Dan Donovan in a photo taken by his daughter Fern.

Dan recently released an album, Mojo del Rancho, that was recorded at Rancho de la Luna, a famous recording studio in Joshua Tree, California.

A single, Sweet Gold, was issued last month. It features guest musicians Dave Catching, guitar (Eagles of Death Metal), Jonny Quinn, drums (Snow Patrol) and Mark Ringer, keyboard (Burning Codes).

The video, below, features cigars presented to Dan at Forest’s 40th anniversary dinner in July. Enjoy.

Small world

Apologies for the lack of posts this month.

I’ve been rather busy and although I intended commenting on the general election (among other things) time defeated me.

For the record, however, what a fabulous result! This was me (above), minutes after the announcement of the exit poll at 10.00pm.

I eventually went to bed shortly before 6.00am which was only 20 minutes after my 89-year-old mother who I subsequently discovered had also stayed up to welcome in Boris’ brave new “golden age”.

Anyway, I’ve just got back from a short visit to Scotland which ended on an unfortunate note when I inadvertently reversed into another car in a local car park.

Although my car doesn’t appear to have a scratch on it (the advantage of driving a much maligned SUV), insurers may be involved.

To be fair, the woman whose car I bumped in to took it very well. “Just one of those things,” she said before taking my details and wishing me a happy Christmas.

I drove to Scotland on Friday to deliver presents to my in-laws in Glasgow. From there my son and I travelled to Dundee to watch Dundee United beat Ayr 4-0. (Good result, poor match.)

Normally after a game at Tannadice we would drive the twelve miles or so to St Andrews for a curry.

On Saturday however I fancied a post match drink so instead of jumping in the car we got a taxi to Bombay Joe’s which, according to Trip Advisor, is Dundee’s number one Indian restaurant.

It’s actually in Broughty Ferry, a few miles from the city centre, and in the course of the 10-minute journey we discovered that our driver was a former professional footballer.

Now 59, his name (I looked it up later) is Gary Murray and he played for Montrose then Hibs in the early Eighties.

After we got him to talk about his career he mentioned that his son was a footballer too and had played for United.

“What’s his name?” I asked cautiously in case I had never heard of him.

“Simon Murray,” he replied.

Thankfully I knew all about Simon Murray. He played for United for two seasons before being transferred, like his father, to Hibs in 2017.

Although his spell at United coincided with two terrible seasons (including relegation and a play-off defeat that denied the club promotion), Simon Murray was popular with fans for two reasons.

One, although exceptionally raw, he gave his all and most fans will excuse almost anything if players are energetic and clearly trying their best.

The second reason was his back story. Simon Murray was a plumber who played junior football for several local clubs including Tayport and the wonderfully named Dundee Violet.

At the age of 21 he was offered a part-time contract with Arbroath. A year later he became a full-time professional when he was transferred to Dundee United where he had worked on the club’s boilers in his previous day job.

Two years later, with United still in the second tier, he moved to Hibs, the club his father had played for.

Unfortunately it didn’t work out at Hibs and in July 2018 - after a spell on loan at United’s rivals Dundee - he took the unusual step of moving to South Africa where he now plays for Bidvest Wits.

I knew all this but it was fascinating to hear it, and more, from the player’s father.

We also talked about Graeme Payne, one of my favourite former United players, who had featured in the Scotsman that same day. Murray, it transpired, had gone to the same school as Payne, now 63.

I asked him if he knew Dave Johnston, a full-back with Dundee and Montrose who I remember joining us for a kickabout in Wormit where I lived in the Seventies.

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, given his Montrose connection, Murray did know him. After his football career finished Johnson became an accountant, apparently.

Small world.

Below: Penalty to United as they beat Ayr 4-0 on Saturday

Air pollution and smoking - how ‘deadly’ figures can mislead

According to the British Heart Foundation, air pollution in worst hit areas in the UK is, on average, ‘as deadly’ as smoking over 150 cigarettes each year.

Based on the BHF ‘analysis’, air quality in North Kent offers an ‘increased risk of death equivalent to smoking more than 140 cigarettes a year’, while in parts of urban inner city London the analogy rises to almost 160 cigarettes a year.

I’ve no idea how they reached these figures but by conflating air quality with smoking, and using words such as ‘deadly’ and ‘increased risk of death’, the BHF has managed to achieve an impressive double whammy, simultaneously spreading fear about (a) air pollution and (b) smoking even a relatively small number of cigarettes.

What no-one seems to be asking is, how harmful is smoking 140-160 cigarettes a year? Is it really ‘deadly’? Yes, it may increase one’s risk of ill health, even premature death, but I’m willing to bet the increased risk is very small.

Let’s take the upper figure (160 cigarettes a year). That amounts to fewer than one cigarette every two days, or three cigarettes a week.

A generation of post war baby boomers smoked 20, 30 or even 40 cigarettes a day for years if not decades and, while I don’t dispute the serious health risks associated with that level of consumption, millions did not die as a result of their habit.

A 20-a-day smoker would have smoked 7,300 cigarettes a year and, even if you believe those who say smoking kills half of all long-term consumers, that still leaves millions for whom smoking was not a deadly habit.

Despite that we are led to believe that smoking a fraction of that number (two per cent) is also a ‘deadly’ risk. This in turn is equated to air pollution and the ‘increased risk of death’ of living in certain areas.

Prompted by the BHF’s spin on its own analysis, this week’s reports tell a different story, but common sense suggests that the risk of death from smoking fewer than three cigarettes a week must be tiny.

It follows, then, that the increased risk of death from living in even our most polluted areas must also be very small. That however isn’t an angle the media would be interested in.

The BHF knows this, hence the fearmongering - or lack of perspective - in their own report ( Air pollution in worst hit areas as deadly as smoking over 150 cigarettes each year).

Sadly this is par for the course these days and public health campaigners are masters at it. Pity the media chooses to play their game.

Should people like me receive ‘free’ prescriptions, even at 60?

Now I’m 60 I’m told I qualify for various perks.

I’ve no idea what they are (reduced rail fares, perhaps?) because I haven’t bothered to investigate, but this week I discovered one - free prescriptions on the NHS.

If you read about my current attack of gout you’ll know that my GP prescribed a strong anti-inflammatory drug.

When I went to collect it from the dispensary attached to the local surgery I assumed I would have to pay whatever the prescription charge is (£8?).

The last time I collected a prescription - a couple of years ago - I was told the cost had gone up.

“That’s fine,” I said.

A rueful smile crossed the pharmacist’s face. “Most people complain,” she replied.

“That’s ridiculous,” I said. “Cheap at the price.”

Anyway, here I am being given free prescriptions for the rest of my life.

“I feel a bit uncomfortable with this,” I told the pharmacist. “Are you sure I can’t pay?”

“No,” she said brusquely, “you can’t.”

We stared at each other for a second or two but resistance was futile. I knew when I was beaten.

Some people will say, ‘You’ve paid your taxes for 40 years, fill yer boots.’ Others might add, ‘If you feel so strongly pay more tax.’ (Is it possible to pay more tax than you legally owe?)

But that misses the point. Like most people I want to pay less not more tax and I would never pay more tax than I have to because I have zero confidence that the government will spend it wisely or cost-effectively.

Also, while it is true that I have paid taxes for 40 years, it is also the case that, while I am neither rich nor wealthy, as long as I continue to work I can comfortably afford prescription charges, public transport etc etc, so why on earth should the welfare state subsidise people like me when it is already creaking on its hinges?

I’m not ungrateful, I just think it’s madness. The welfare state should prioritise those most in need, not every Tom, Dick and Sally who enjoys a reasonable income.

Free prescription charges, in my view, should be restricted to children and students, the unemployed, the low paid and those who have retired. To that list add the long-term sick and those who need life-saving drugs.

The rest of us should cough up (no pun intended) for as long as we can afford to. Is that unreasonable?

Anyway, when I get a moment I’ll make a list of the alleged benefits of being 60.

As the pharmacist said, when she pointed out my age and said I didn’t have to pay for my prescription, “Everything has a silver lining.”