Say No To Nanny

Smokefree Ideology


Nicotine Wars

 

40 Years of Hurt

Prejudice and Prohibition

Road To Ruin?

Search This Site
The Pleasure of Smoking

Forest Polling Report

Outdoor Smoking Bans

Share This Page
Powered by Squarespace
Tuesday
Apr032018

VApril partner declares "war" on tobacco

As last Friday's post made clear, I wish VApril, the new pro-vaping campaign, well.

Fronted by Dr Christian Jessen – who seems refreshingly open and willing to engage with the tobacco companies ("what a good thing that the tobacco industry is supporting harm reduction") – the VApril campaign does seem to be primarily about choice and education.

From today, for example, smokers who want to quit are being encouraged to take the 3-step VApril Challenge:

1. Drop into a Vaping Masterclass (in cities across the UK)
2. Receive your free 6-page VApril guide
3. Be social (post thoughts, pics, videos on social media)

Who could possibly object to that? It's entirely voluntary, it offers practical help and advice to smokers who want to quit, and unlike Stoptober (the publicly-funded Public Health England campaign), the promotion of VApril has been largely free of the usual anti-smoking rhetoric.

This morning however one campaign partner adopted a more belligerent tone. Vapourized, the 'UK's largest e-cigarette and vaping retailer with over 100 stores nationwide', tweeted:

Declaring war? I thought the vaping industry had moved on from that type of tub-thumping nonsense.

Let's be clear, if you're fighting a 'war on smoking' you're also declaring 'war' on the millions of adults who enjoy smoking and don't want to quit.

As for being 'tobacco-free', does that include every tobacco product including reduced risk heated tobacco devices?

I wonder what the manufacturers of iQOS and Glo (who are also supporting VApril) think about that?

Anyway, the actions of one rogue partner won't stop me supporting VApril. But targeting thousands of potential customers with that sort of bellicose language is no way to win friends and influence people.

See also: Dr Christian Jessen is no VApril fool.

Saturday
Mar312018

A sorry silence on snus

Snus is taking a bit of a hammering. It began on Thursday with the publication of a Daily Mail 'investigation':

'THE DRUG THAT IS SWAMPING FOOTBALL', the headline screamed.

Sportsmail's investigation reveals use of banned stimulant 'snus' prevalent in the sport ... with some players using drug during matches

Since then almost every tabloid, and even the BBC, has piled in:

What is snus? Chewing tobacco adored by England star Jamie Vardy does far worse than just cause cancer (The Sun)

What is snus? Previously used by Jamie Vardy and banned amid cancer links, the stimulant flooding the Premier League (Mirror)

Premier League footie stars 'using banned TOBACCO during matches', investigation claims (Daily Star)

The story has even gone global.

America's leading anti-tobacco campaigner Stanton Glantz told the Sun:

Linked to several cancers, snus is unequivocally a bad thing. Tobacco firms promote it as “safer” than smoking, but whether you jump from the tenth storey of a building or the 20th, the effect is the same. Studies show kids who see their favourite sportsmen using tobacco are more likely to go on to use it too. And tobacco products like snus or e-cigarettes are gateway drugs to cigarettes. So these sportsmen are harming a lot more people than just themselves.

Cancer Research UK also commented:

"Snus use has been linked to pancreatic and oesophageal cancer."

Absent from any of these reports was a response from the pro-snus camp – you know, the people who are always telling us that 'snus saves lives'.

It's not easy, I know, getting your voice heard in these circumstances. You should at least try however and it's now almost 40 hours since the Mail published its 'investigation', plenty of time for pro-snus advocates to issue a statement (or statements) in response.

Instead ... silence.

Snus is rarely in the news in the UK where oral tobacco has been banned for 28 years and the overwhelming majority of people are, if not unaware of its existence, ignorant of its harm reduction role in Sweden.

The Mail 'investigation', and the subsequent media coverage, was – and still is – a great opportunity for advocates to smash perceptions of this unfairly maligned product.

What frustrates me is that far too many harm reduction activists are happy to attend tobacco control conferences, rub shoulders with public health lobbyists, talk repeatedly about 'saving a billion lives' etc, but when it comes to tackling media firestorms like this they go AWOL.

Had I known the #SnusSavesLives lobby was going to adopt a vow of silence I would have issued a statement myself (on behalf of Forest). However, as we tweeted this morning:

It could be this story will run its course over the weekend. The damage however may take rather longer to repair, especially if football clubs start to ban the use of snus by their players.

Nevertheless, if I was a snus advocate I know what I'd be doing this weekend. I'd be on the phone to national newspapers offering to write an article that defends not only snus but nicotine in general.

After all, when even its detractors admit that nicotine improves 'alertness, concentration, strength and power' it's amazing that employers don't make its consumption compulsory!

Update: Good news! The New Nicotine Alliance has (finally) issued a response to the Mail's 'investigation'. You can read it here.

Sarah Jakes, chairman of the NNA, tweets to say they've "had this in hand since we first saw the story yesterday lunchtime. Response written this morning, signed off and sent to journos at lunchtime, then published on website."

So, nothing to do with this post or the tweet below which I posted at 10:43 this morning. Happy to clear that up.

Friday
Mar302018

Doctor Christian is no VApril fool

VApril, the new pro-vaping campaign, was launched yesterday.

It's early days but the signs are it won't be the four-week festival of anti-smoking rhetoric some may have feared.

Indeed, what I like about the VApril website is that it focuses on the positive (the potential health benefits of vaping) instead of the negative (the often hysterical arguments against smoking).

Yesterday I watched interviews with Dr Christian Jessen and Mark Pawsey MP, chairman of All Party Parliamentary Group for E-Cigarettes, and I have to say it was a far cry from the stern, humourless propaganda one associates with tobacco control campaigns.

At one point, speaking on the Daily Politics in the aftermath of a long, Brexit-driven interview with Nigel Farage, Dr Christian (as everyone seems to call him) good-naturedly invited the former Ukip leader to take up the ‘VApril challenge’.

Presenter of the BAFTA award winning Embarrassing Bodies, Dr Christian is VApril's poster boy. Getting him on board is a major coup for a campaign run by the UK Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA) whose members include BAT, JTI, PMI and Fontem Ventures (owned by Imperial Brands).

Compare Dr Christian with the comedians and 'celebrities' that have been hired – at the public's expense – to promote anti-smoking events like Stoptober.

Why anyone would care what Al Murray, Bill Bailey, Rhod Gilbert or Shappi Khorsandi have to say about smoking I can't imagine. What a waste of money (£195,000, reportedly).

Even worse was the year they enlisted ex-footballer Chris Kamara, former Atomic Kitten Natasha Hamilton and serial quitter Phil Tufnell.

Most important, I've seen Dr Christian tweet about vaping many times and he strikes me as someone who is genuinely interested in the issue.

At the same time he doesn’t seem judgemental about smoking. He believes there are healthier habits and smokers would benefit from quitting, but I’ve never seen him deliver an unneccesarily derogatory comment about smoking, or smokers.

He's also comfortable with the fact that the VApril campaign is organised by a body whose members include the world's leading tobacco companies. As he himself tweeted:

In short, an inspired choice by the UKVIA (or the Westminster-based PR company hired to work on the campaign).

It's worth noting too that VApril is entirely self-funding with not a penny of public money asked for or spent on the campaign.

In contrast, Stoptober has cost the taxpayer millions of pounds since it was launched by Public Health England in 2012.

As we know, because I've written about it several times, including here and here, the fall in the number of smokers registering to take part in the Stoptober 'challenge' has been so dramatic that PHE no longer records the figure, preferring to spend public money on a whim and a prayer with little or no evidence that the taxpayer is getting value for money.

Like vaping, VApril is a harm reduction initiative driven not by government, the public sector or taxpayer-funded lobbyists, but by business and the free market.

That probably explains why the tobacco control industry is ignoring the new campaign but it doesn't explain why public health minister Steve Brine has also adopted a monk-like vow of silence. I mean, how pathetic is that?

Anyway, that's a subject for another post. (We are monitoring their tweets and public comments and will report back.)

In the meantime, if the focus of the VApril campaign is genuinely on choice and education, then I'm happy to support it. I'll keep you posted.

Thursday
Mar292018

Unlucky strike

I was in Brussels this week.

Some people, influenced perhaps by the presence of the European Parliament, don’t like the place, but I don't mind it.

Forget the thousands of politicians, officials and lobbyists intervening unnecessarily in our lives. In truth they’re no worse than their counterparts in London, Edinburgh and Cardiff.

Focus instead on the cafes, bars and restaurants that spill out on to the pavements and squares. Al fresco drinking and dining is almost compulsory in the warmer months and that creates quite a relaxed atmosphere.

Most of my trips have been business related but a couple of years ago I chose to spend a long weekend in Brussels and I’d happily do it again.

Eurostar is a huge factor, of course, because it makes getting there so easy. In my case I get a train to Kings Cross, walk across the road to St Pancras, and after a short wait I’m on another train travelling at a reasonable speed towards the continent.

Compare this to the early days of Eurostar. Trains on the English side of the tunnel would run so slowly you could literally see into people’s houses as the train crawled through the suburbs and out through Kent.

Approaching the coast the train would finally speed up and hurtle through the tunnel, maintaining a similar pace as it raced through France and Belgium. The contrast was hilarious, and embarrassing.

Today any transport problems are more likely to occur in France or Belgium. This week, for example, there was a taxi strike in Brussels.

The first I knew about it was when I tried to book a car to take me to a meeting. Cool as you like (which suggested she had done this many times before), the hotel receptionist casually mentioned the strike, handed me a map and suggested I walk to the nearest Metro station, which she helpfully marked with a large cross.

I would have to travel two stops, she explained, then walk a further distance to my destination. It wasn’t a massive hardship but I could have done without the exercise.

Later I had to figure out how to get to the terminal to catch the return train to London. Thankfully, after a little pleading, a colleague offered me a lift in his car.

En route we passed several roadblocks where taxis had been parked across the road to try and stop or delay the traffic.

The police stood by and watched. Ironically we were guided through one roadblock not by a policeman but by a helpful taxi driver.

The odd thing was, most residents seemed unaware of the strike and no-one could tell me what the dispute was about.

I spoke to a Frenchman who told me this sort of thing happens all the time in France. He thought his government should adopt a hardline, Thatcher-style approach to striking workers.

The problem, he added, was that public opinion in France tends to be on the side of the strikers, whatever the dispute.

Anyway, the sun is shining, Easter is on its way and I'm home after two back-to-back trips abroad.

Enjoy the weekend!

Photo: Dan Donovan

Saturday
Mar242018

Smoking and walking, that GMB 'debate' in full

I was in Dublin this week so I had to turn down an invitation to appear on Good Morning Britain.

I was asked to take part in a debate about the proposal to ban smoking while walking in New York City.

The prospect of smokers having to stand still every time they smoked a cigarette would be funny if it wasn't so absurd.

Unfortunately, policies brewed in the madhouse of New York have a worrying habit of being picked up by politicians and campaigners in other jurisdictions.

Anyway, unable to appear on the programme, I suggested some like-minded people who I thought would oppose the idea.

One of them was Ella Whelan, assistant editor of Spiked and winner of a 'Voices of Freedom' award at last year's Forest Freedom Dinner.

Unknown to me Ella had been on GMB a few days earlier so she nominated her colleague Fraser Myers.

And that's how Fraser ended up sitting alongside Big Brother contestant Rebecca Jane, 'mum of two and an entrepreneur who thinks smoking is vile and should be banned entirely'.

To watch the 'debate' in full click on the video below. According to GMB it 'lit up a huge debate on our social channels'.

Saturday
Mar242018

Something to celebrate

Good news from Austria.

As you may have read, the country's MPs this week voted to repeal the public smoking ban that was due to come into force in May.

A word to the wise, however. A Facebook friend commented:

I was in Vienna at the weekend and everywhere I went has already implemented the ban. For smokers Vienna has lots of outdoor restaurants but, of course, they're only operational in clement weather and there was no sign of outdoor heaters as in England.

The only time I've visited Vienna was in 2011. I loved it, as I wrote here:

If you've never been to Vienna I strongly recommend it, if only for the legendary coffee houses. This time yesterday I was enjoying breakfast – or should I say frühstück – at Café Landtmann which is said to have been popular with Sigmund Freud, Marlene Dietrich, Burt Lancaster and Paul McCartney.

According to their website, "The Café Landtmann offers a big non-smoking area as well as large facilities for our guests who wish to smoke". We were sitting in what appeared to be the largest indoor area and as far I could tell there was an ashtray at every table allowing customers to eat, drink and smoke at the same time. A more civilised way to start the day I cannot imagine.

The bad news is that Vienna's oldest coffee house didn't wait for the smoking ban. Since my visit it made a unilateral decision to ban all smoking indoors:

Enjoy the atmosphere of a traditional Viennese café without being bothered by smoke! For the Café Landtmann is entirely a non-smoking café.

With respect, if it's entirely non-smoking it's not a traditional Viennese café.

Personally I blame tourists for this volte-face because I imagine the Café Landtmann changed its policy in order to appease foreign visitors, Americans in particular, who have forgotten what it's like to experience a whiff of smoke with their melange and strudel.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how things pan out over the next year or two. My guess is that tourist 'hotspots' will be largely non-smoking and if you want to find a cafe, bar or restaurant where you can smoke indoors you may have to explore beyond the traditional tourist haunts, which is no bad thing.

I'm certain too that the anti-smoking industry won't rest until the 'Ashtray of Europe' is cleansed and sanitised to their satisfaction.

But let's enjoy it while we can. A visit to Austria is certainly on my agenda this year and I hope it's on yours.

Meanwhile, let's sing the country's praises and encourage politicians in other countries to follow suit.

It's a long shot, I know, but momentum for change has to start somewhere. Why not here, and now?

Tuesday
Mar202018

Could do better

The Foundation for a Smoke-Free World has just published what I assume will become an annual survey.

Conducted by Kantar Public for the FSFW, it's called the State of Smoking Survey and it features a poll of 17,000 people (smokers, ex-smokers, non-smokers) in 13 countries including the UK.

Naturally the first section I looked at was 'State of Smoking in the UK'. According to the FSFW:

The adult smoking rate declined from 24 percent in 2005 to 18.3 percent in 2014, the latest available data.

Latest available data? According to the Guardian (June 2017):

In 2016, 15.8% of adults in the UK smoked, down from 17.2% in 2015, according to data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

I was aware of that stat and it took me ten seconds to confirm it. (Tip: if in doubt about smoking prevalence in the UK Google 'UK smoking rate'.)

And there's more. According to the FSFW:

In 2015, smoking in cars was banned in England and Wales.

No it wasn't. The legislation only covered smoking in cars carrying children, a big difference.

In 2012, point of sale displays were banned from stores.

Again, not quite right. It's true that in 2012 tobacco displays were prohibited but only in supermarkets and large stores. It was not until April 2015 that the ban was extended to cover all stores.

England banned smoking in all enclosed public places and workplaces in July 2007 (following Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales, which passed similar laws 18 months prior).

Close.

MPs in England passed a law banning smoking in all enclosed public places in February 2006. The law was then enforced from July 1, 2007. Scotland introduced a smoking ban in March 2016 (16 months before England) but the law was passed by MSPs in June 2005.

Meanwhile the ban in Wales was introduced on April 1, 2017 (three months before England) and in Northern Ireland the ban came into force on April 30, 2017 (two months ahead of England).

OK, I'm nitpicking but the detail could (and should) be clearer and more accurate. And that's just in the section I know something about.

I also find questions like this a bit annoying: 'To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Your smoking is harmful for your health.'

Surely a better, more nuanced and more accurate question would have been, 'To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Your smoking is potentially harmful for your health.'

But no. It has to be black or white – harmful, not harmful.

Anyway, I'm not going to go through the survey line by line. You can read it for yourself here. (For a summary read the press release.)

To be fair, it's not without interest or merit but for a complete picture I suggest you read it alongside other equally valid research including this survey of confirmed smokers conducted by the Centre for Substance Use Research (and funded by Forest).

In the meantime here's an interesting comparison.

Like the CSUR survey the Kantar survey asks, 'Do you consider yourself addicted to smoking?' (see 'Self-perceived addiction to smoking').

In Japan as many as 91 per cent of respondents said 'Yes'. In the UK the figure was 79 per cent. In the CSUR survey of 'confirmed smokers' the figure was 55 per cent.

Crucially however the CSUR research found that, overwhelmingly, respondents didn't care if they were addicted because the pleasure of smoking (95 per cent said they smoked because they enjoyed it) over-rided any concern about addiction.

In contrast the Kantar/FSFW survey didn't give smokers the option of saying they enjoyed smoking. Instead they were simply invited to describe themselves as light, moderate, fairly heavy or heavy smokers.

They were also asked how often they currently smoked (daily, less than daily but at least once a week etc). And they were also asked about the situations in which they smoked (a few minutes after waking up, after a meal, with coffee or an alcoholic drink etc).

But unlike the CSUR survey respondents do not appear to have been asked why they smoked.

(There's a section called 'Motivation to smoke, quit or switch' but it seems to be all about quitting and awareness and use of new nicotine products such as e-cigarettes and heat-not-burn devices.)

By omitting this crucial question ('Why do you smoke?') and focussing instead on the question of addiction (self-perceived) the strong inference is that the overwhelming majority of smokers smoke only because they’re addicted.

This is important because it feeds the idea that smokers need help – or better choices – in order to quit (and quit they must).

In contrast there were no qualms about asking this heavily loaded question: 'Have you ever spent money on cigarettes that you knew would be better spent on household items like food?'

Look, I don't want to diss the FSFW or their survey completely (there's a lot here that is quite informative, albeit nothing that's surprising) but if you're going to complain that 'the majority of smokers are misinformed when it comes to nicotine and tobacco with 52.5% wrongly believing nicotine causes cancer', it might help if you didn't misinform people in other ways, like regurgitating WHO propaganda that says 890,000 people are killed every year by secondhand smoke.

PS: To be completely fair, the press release does say:

Smoking isn’t an isolated habit. Smokers consider it deeply integrated with their basic pleasures of life, such as eating, drinking, and socializing. Currently implemented cessation methods fail to take these into account, resulting in continued smoking.

I can't find any survey questions that relate to this so I can only assume that this detail came from the focus group research that ran alongside the survey.

Update: The State of Smoking Survey was launched yesterday at a press conference in, I think, America.

At the same time the FSFW launched a new promotional film, beautifully shot (I must say) by Aaron Biebert, the director behind A Billion Lives.

The production values are tremendous. Then again, with an annual budget of $83 million the FSFW can afford it.

However, before I become too reasonable (or sycophantic, echoing some of the tweets I've read), I must remind readers of the endgame (and Forest's response):

Friday
Mar162018

Impact of the smoking ban on consumers' behaviour

The March Forest e-newsletter was published this week.

It includes items on the new 'Make Smoking History in Greater Manchester' campaign (you can complete the survey here), plans to create smoke free zones in various towns and cities, plus the death of inventor Trevor Baylis.

In other words, everything you've already read here, with one exception.

Joanna Frost is a third year student at Northumbria University. She's currently carrying out small-scale project to investigate the impact of the 2007 smoking ban in England on the behaviour of smokers, non-smokers and ex-smokers. She told us:

"As part of this project I would like to collect primary data via a series of semi-structured interviews with individuals aged between 30 and 60-years-old."

For full information download the participation information sheet.

We like to help researchers, including students, with smoking-related projects so if you're interested in answering some questions please email joanna.frost@northumbria.ac.uk asap.

See Forest Newsletter - March 2018.