Why PHE's pro-vaping crusade is the enemy of choice

I've heard it all now.

According to the Telegraph (and most other national newspapers):

Hospitals have been told to start selling e-cigarettes and letting patients vape indoors - and even in bed - under controversial new health advice.

Let me be clear. I've no problem with vaping being allowed in hospitals or anywhere else (I welcome it), but does anyone else feel ever so slightly queasy witnessing this evangelical crusade by a body that, let us not forget, is well known for its high-handed interventions in people's lives, whether it be smoking, eating or drinking.

PHE also want e-cigarettes to be 'given out by GPs on prescription, to encourage wider takeup'. The idea that the taxpayer should pay for smokers to quit (or switch from one nicotine device to another) has always struck me as a pretty poor use of public money.

As Chris Snowdon wrote in 2015, 'If you can afford to smoke then you can afford to vape'.

But there's another issue here.

What we are seeing is a public body trying to take ownership of a product that, until now, has succeeded without government intervention.

This is PHE’s manifesto:

Smokers – anyone who has struggled to quit should try switching to an e-cigarette and get professional help. The greatest quit success is among those who combine using an e-cigarette with support from a local stop smoking service.

Local stop smoking services and healthcare professionals – should provide behavioural support to those smokers wanting to quit with the help of an e-cigarette. A new training course on e-cigarettes for healthcare professionals by the National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training is now live.

MHRA – continue their work in regulating and licensing e-cigarette products and support manufacturers to expedite the licensing of e-cigarettes as medicinal quit aids. PHE believes there is compelling evidence that e-cigarettes be made available to NHS patients.

NHS Trusts – to become truly smokefree Trusts should ensure: e-cigarettes, alongside nicotine replacement therapies are available for sale in hospital shops; vaping policies support smokers to quit and stay smokefree; smoking shelters be removed; and frontline staff take every opportunity to encourage and support patients to quit.

The issue I have with this approach is that e-cigarettes will eventually be seen as little more than a smoking cessation aid alongside patches and gum.

Worse, PHE's pro-vaping crusade ignores one vital element – choice.

If you smoke and don't want to quit PHE wants to make your life even more uncomfortable by removing outdoor smoking shelters and banning smoking on all NHS sites.

Some people will no doubt applaud unconditionally PHE's support for e-cigarettes. Personally I think it comes at a price – and that price is tolerance and choice.

Anyway, here's Forest's response:

"We welcome PHE's support for e-cigarettes but further attempts to remove smoking shelters or ban smoking on NHS sites will be fiercely resisted.

"E-cigarettes are great for some smokers who want to quit but you can't force smokers to switch if they don't want to. The key issue is choice.

"Regardless of the health risks, many people smoke because they enjoy it. Give them the choice of vaping but denying smokers the comfort of a cigarette when they may be at their most vulnerable is inhumane.

"Vaping is a consumer driven success story. The problem with PHE's approach is that e-cigarettes could become just another smoking cessation aid alongside other nicotine replacement therapies.

"If that happens they will almost certainly lose their appeal to independent-minded smokers who don't want the state dictating their behaviour."

Btw, having been critical of Philip Morris in my previous post (PMI's 2030 vision), I was pleased to read comments by David O'Reilly, group scientific director at British American Tobacco, in yesterday's Daily Mail:

In my experience, having listened to him at several conferences, no-one is as committed to harm reduction as David O'Reilly (nor as enthusiastic about next generation products including e-cigarettes).

Note however the use of the phrase 'extending consumer choice', in sharp contrast to PMI's clear declaration of war on smoking.

I'm delighted too to read the unambiguous comment that "Smokers do not see themselves as patients" (or victims, come to that).

The contrast with tobacco control, including Public Health England, could not be clearer. As far as PHE is concerned smokers are patients and part of their treatment is to be offered e-cigarettes alongside other nicotine replacement therapies.

As for 'extending consumer choice', forget it. PHE wants to bludgeon smokers into submission, removing outdoor shelters and prohibiting smoking wherever they can.

In the meantime you may be allowed, at their discretion and under their rules, to vape indoors.

In those circumstances some smokers may indeed elect to switch but I imagine many more will feel resentful that tobacco control has, once again, dictated how you live your life.

According to reports, the number of people vaping in the UK has flatlined at just under three million. I'm not suggesting this is the only reason, but could the fact that e-cigarettes are increasingly being adopted as a tool of the tobacco control industry have something to do with that?

PMI’s 2030 vision

Philip Morris is in the news again.

It's 14 months since chief executive Andre Calantzopoulos told the Today programme (BBC Radio 4) that PMI could stop making conventional cigarettes.

The announcement made headlines around the world.

In June last year the company's UK and Ireland MD Peter Nixon told the same programme, "We are absolutely serious – one day we want to stop selling cigarettes."

In October PMI attracted more attention by announcing it was going to support a new initiative, the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, by giving it $1 billion over twelve years.

Four weeks ago the company placed advertisements in UK newspapers that declared, 'Our New Year's Resolution. We're trying to give up cigarettes'.

At the same time PMI launched a shiny new website, Smoke-Free Future. Visit it for yourself but here's a taste:

Cigarette smoking causes serious disease and is addictive. Without question, the best decision any smoker can make is to quit smoking. And many people do. In the UK, the number of smokers has halved over the last 20 years.

Many people quit without professional help. Others quit with the support of family, counselling services or cessation aids.

Under 'More information on the benefits of quitting' the site adds, 'Whatever the method, what matters most is quitting.'

Behind all this activity is iQOS, PMI's new heated tobacco device. Launched in Japan, where it has proved immensely popular with many smokers, iQOS is now available in more than 25 countries including the UK but not America (which I'll come to in a minute).

But first I must stress how much I support the concept of heated tobacco. Two years ago I wrote:

The reason I'm interested in heat-not-burn products is because, wearing my Forest hat, anything that offers a safer method of consuming tobacco ought to interest smokers, especially if it mimics the act of smoking and still involves tobacco.

Of course there are enormous hurdles for emerging tobacco products to overcome, including opposition from politicians, public health campaigners and even some vapers whose reluctance to embrace HNB alongside e-cigarettes is rather sad.

Even if the benefits aren't as significant as using e-cigs I welcome the additional choice they could provide. The fact that HNB devices are genuine tobacco products, unlike e-cigarettes, counts in their favour.

Since then research conducted by the Centre for Substance Use Research has confirmed that while a substantial number of committed smokers have tried vaping, e-cigarettes often fall short when it comes to customer satisfaction.

That's why I was rooting for PMI when the company gave evidence last week to a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel in America.

The outcome was mixed - FDA panel gives qualified support to claims for ‘safer’ smoking device - but my guess is that the FDA will grant PMI’s application to sell iQOS in America. In the absence of any further evidence, however, I imagine officials will adopt the precautionary principle and prohibit claims about reduced risk.

So, yes, I applaud the development of products like iQOS, but what saddens me is the way PMI has jumped on the anti-smoking bandwagon with its other initiatives. I understand the strategy but it doesn't make it right. You can advocate harm reduction without undermining and abandoning those who enjoy smoking and don't want to quit.

Anyway I've been aching for an opportunity to respond directly to PMI and an unexpected source – the Daily Star Online – finally gave me the chance when Forest was asked last week to react to comments by a PMI executive reported here:

The END of smoking: Tobacco firm to STOP selling Marlboro and B&H cigarettes in the UK.

Ignore the assertive yet inaccurate headline. (Marlboro is a PMI brand, B&H isn't, and while the company may aspire to stop selling cigarettes, there's no guarantee it will.) The article however is quite informative.

According to Mark MacGregor, PMI’s director of corporate affairs for the UK and Ireland, “2030 feels like a realistic timeframe” to stop selling cigarettes in the UK because Britain could be completely 'smoke-free' by then.

Forest's response, published in full, read:

“We welcome the new generation of harm reduction products but it's delusional to think that everyone will have stopped smoking by 2030.

"Millions of people smoke not because they're addicted but because they enjoy it. That fundamental fact isn't going to change over the next twelve years.

"The key to this is choice. Give consumers a choice of combustible and non-combustible products and as the technology improves an increasing number will choose the less harmful option.

"But if adults choose to smoke in full knowledge of the health risks that decision must be respected. No-one should be forced to quit because of excessive regulations, punitive taxation or prohibition.

"If Philip Morris want to stop selling cigarettes that's up to them but people will still smoke, and if combustible products can't be purchased through legitimate retailers the black market will supply them."

Funnily enough, Mark MacGregor and I go back a long way. We first met over 35 years ago when a mutual friend, Brian Monteith, introduced us.

Brian and Mark were leading members of the Federation of Conservative Students and I edited a student newspaper called Campus.

Later, all three of us worked for a PR company founded by Michael (now Lord) Forsyth, but not at the same time.

Now, decades later, our paths have crossed again. It really is a small world.

Forest condemned by Cambridge Students’ Union Ethical Affairs Officer!

This should be fun.

Next month I’ve been invited to address members of the Cambridge University Conservative Association (CUCA) on the subject of Forest and the nanny state.

Venue is a whisky and cigar shop founded in 1874 so it should be a good evening but others are less enthused. In fact, the Students’ Union Ethical Affairs Officer (!) has released a poorly written statement denouncing the event:

"Whilst there is nothing we can do to prevent this association between CUCA and Forest, we are surprised to hear of its existence. The arguments for tobacco control are coherent, powerful and backed up intensely by research, encouraging CUSU to be in support of it. For the environmental, social and moral good of the society our students live in, we condemn Forest's work, making us thoroughly disappointed by this event.”

The student newspaper Varsity asked me to respond to that and some questions of their own including 'What are the motivations behind the meeting with Cambridge students?' and 'What message would you like members of CUCA to take away with them from the event?'

I responded with this statement:

"Forest neither promotes nor encourages smoking. We support freedom of choice and personal responsibility, which is quite different.

"Tobacco is a legal product enjoyed by millions of adults. The health risks are well-known and we support all reasonable measures designed to discourage children from smoking.

"Once you're 18 however you are an adult and old enough to make informed choices about all sorts of things, including smoking and drinking.

"The idea that students should join a moral crusade against smoking is a chilling reminder of the evangelical temperance movement of the early 20th century. Do we really want to go back to that?

"I was delighted to accept CUCA's invitation to talk about Forest's work, not least because it sounds like an enjoyable evening. Smoking and the nanny state are issues that divide opinion so I'm looking forward to a lively discussion.

"Forest is non-party political so if the Labour Club or Liberal Association want to invite us to address them too they only have to ask!

"Our message to members of CUCA and other political groups is simple. Health is important but so too are pleasure, freedom of choice and personal responsibility. Respect other people's choices, even if you don't agree with them.

"Most important, join Forest in our fight against the intolerant, narrow-minded puritans who want to stifle debate on this and other lifestyle issues. You're at Cambridge, for God's sake. Listen to all sides of the argument and make up your own minds."

See CUCA set to host tobacco-funded lobbyists (Varsity).

Update: CUCA has added this statement to their Facebook page:

CUCA’s event with Forest is not about promoting smoking or calling for a change to tobacco laws. Indeed, some of our committee members are actually in favour of proactive tobacco regulations. Rather, it is about faciliating the exchange of ideas and allowing our members the opportunity to engage productively with differing viewpoints and come to their own conclusions. If CUSU’s implication was that we should not host Forest, then we do not hesitate to say that this is counter to our tradition of open debate.

Well said.

The 'one cigarette' mantra

‘Just one cigarette a day carries greater risk of heart disease and stroke than expected, warn experts.’

This is one of many similar headlines in print and online today.

The findings are based on an analysis of 141 studies by researchers at the UCL Cancer Institute at University College London and they follow an unrelated analysis of 215,000 people by researchers at Queen Mary, University of London, that found that 60.3 per cent had tried a cigarette and 68.9 per cent became addicted.

Or, to put that in tabloid terms: 'One puff of a cigarette is enough to get you hooked: Two-thirds of people who try tobacco for the first time become daily smokers'.

The 'one cigarette' mantra isn't new but it's increasingly commonplace. The idea however that a single cigarette is enough to turn you into a nicotine junkie is, in my view, nonsense.

The simple reason many people go from that first experimental cigarette and become daily smokers is because they enjoy it.

The same is true of many other things – including tea, coffee or, dare I say it, jam doughnuts. You try something, you like it, and it becomes a regular part of your life.

Many smokers may in time become addicted to nicotine (or smoking) but to blame it on that first cigarette is ridiculous.

As for the alarmist claim that 'People who smoked even one cigarette a day were still about 50 per cent more likely to develop heart disease and 30 per cent more likely to have a stroke than people who had never smoked', did the researchers take into account other factors such as diet, individual fitness and socio-economic conditions?

After all, neither heart disease nor stroke are exclusive to smokers but that rarely seems to be taken into account by researchers who are more than happy to point the finger of blame at smoking.

I haven't read the full analysis yet so I'd better not comment too much until I have. What I strongly question though is the relatively new idea that cutting down is no longer a serious option.

I realise tobacco control has targets to meet but to reject such a well-established path to abstinence (reducing consumption before eventually giving up) seems rather presumptuous.

Not only does it highlight their increasing impatience to reduce smoking rates, it demonstrates a desire to control people's behaviour to the nth degree. Even if your ultimate goal is to quit, cutting down isn't good enough. You have to stop smoking NOW!

Anyway, here is Forest's response to the new orthodoxy:

“Quitting smoking can be hard and for many people cutting down is often the first step. 

"Discouraging it as an option could be counter-productive because smokers who want to stop may be dissuaded from even trying."

To this we added:

“What researchers consistently fail to understand is why many people smoke.

"Millions smoke not because they are addicted but because they enjoy it. For some it's one of their few remaining pleasures, for others it's a comfort.

"Health considerations are obviously a factor in whether or not people smoke but there are other factors, including pleasure, that determine people's choices and no amount of scaremongering about the risks of even a single cigarette a day will change that."

The Scotsman has our full response here and you'll find the odd sentence elsewhere (on the BBC News website, for example).

Michael Peel RIP

Sad news. Forest has lost a good friend and supporter.

I didn't know Michael Peel very well but he was undoubtedly quite a character.

A confirmed and unapologetic smoker, he first got in touch with us in 2013. (I believe he had lived abroad for several years.)

The following year he put his name down for Smoke On The Water but couldn't attend because he was "confined to a hospital bed" in what he called the "gulag at Addenbrooke's" in Cambridge. The cause, he said, was "something heart related".

A few months later he had recovered enough to join us at Boisdale for our 35th anniversary party. We had a brief chat and after the event he wrote:

Dear Forest and everyone involved in last night’s party,

I would like to thank you all for a simply excellent event at Boisdale last night. I thoroughly enjoyed myself. Being somewhat infirm these days, I’m afraid I clambered upstairs and found a comfy seat [on the smoking terrace] and remained there. Nonetheless, the atmosphere was very vibrant.

I met several very amusing people and thought the entire Boisdale team was first-rate, especially the waiting staff upstairs who looked after me very well. Thank you all very much and I hope I will be able to attend and support other Forest events in the future as well as any campaigning for our freedoms.

Sadly ill health intervened again and he had to bow out of several more events. Last year he responded to another invitation by writing:

I wish I could make it but I am just out of hospital after 105 days and recovery is very slow. Trying to learn to walk again - painfully.

The prognosis, he added, wasn't very good.

Just been told unequivocally to stop smoking. As yet I've not made up my mind but, I think, I may have to as otherwise I might lose my right foot. However smoking is my one remaining true pleasure.

When I remarked (not insensitively, I hope) that his situation reminded me of the late Jeffrey Bernard, the Spectator's infamous Low Life columnist, Michael surprised me with the revelation that:

I became very good friends with Jeff. He was the first person I ever met in Soho, when I was just 16, in the then Yorkminster, now the French House. In 1968.

I was at school and simply got so pissed off one day that I rang for a taxi to go from Sussex up to London. I was lucky enough to have a taxi account. I demanded to go this place I'd heard of called Soho.

We saw two pubs up Dean Street from Shaftesbury Avenue. Fortunately, we stopped outside the second, as the first was then the rent-boys' pub.

I went in the door nearest Shaftesbury Avenue (a no-no in those days as that part of the pub was essentially a club), ordered a drink, and then Jeff started chatting to me.

At first I thought he was gay and trying to pick me up. He then offered to buy me a drink. I remember saying that I was a school boy and couldn't afford to buy him one back - I may come by taxi but only had about £3 and needed to get back on the milk train.

His response, that many people find hard to believe as he was renowned for being so mean, was to say: "This is Soho, when you have money you buy drinks and when you don't, other people buy you drinks."

I lived by that creed for many years, buying endless booze for young artists, etc, until I lost all my money and went from a net worth of £13 million to £97.13 in a day.

Later that same day, a Soho chum asked me how I was and I responded: "Shit, as I've just lost all my money." That was the last drink I bought in Soho for next four days I was in London.

And there was more:

Another lovely story, typical of Jeff's acerbic wit, was once when he was short of dosh, he worked behind the bar of Gerry's Club (aka the Den of Equity). A famous actress came down the stairs to the little landing that was 4 feet above the rest of the room but open to it, and started lording it over everyone in the room as to how she'd won this huge part in some play or film or other.

Jeff studiously ignored her. She went around the room making sure that everyone knew she'd won this big part and then started to make a grand exit from this little landing. At this point, Jeff piped up in his high squeaky voice: "Oh, she's off to learn her line."

Classic Jeff. A lot of people in Soho hated him but not me. It was like sitting at the feet of a master.

Michael also knew the American novelist, poet and literary critic John Updike:

In the USA I lived about half-a-mile from Updike and met him socially quite regularly. The first time was when I was invited by a mutual chum to play poker at his house.

I lived in a huge house that I rented sight unseen from a man I met in a bar. It had seven spare bedrooms and it’s own private beach at the bottom of the garden. It also had books in every room - including an entire shelf of limited editions by Updike. I thought to myself, if I'm going to meet him, I really ought to read something by him.

So in the middle of the night I went down to the drawing room to find a book. Lying across the top of the other books, as I say not just first editions but all personally inscribed by him with torn edges to the paper, was a thin dark purple book. I took it out and on the front of it was a pink triangle with the title: 'CUNTS by John Updike'.

Needless to say I took it upstairs and read it avidly - a 44-page eulogy to the female anatomy. I thought it was marvellous and so arranged to take it with me on my next European trip - on the promise that I'd take it back.

I took it wrapped up in bubble wrap and went to Jeff's flat - by this time he'd lost both his legs to diabetes - and gave it to him in front of his last muse. I made him swear not to have a drink anywhere near it - it was copy no 44 of 100.

Two weeks later, I returned to pick it up and asked him what he thought of it. "Bloody marvellous, I never realised Updike was that good." He became an avid fan.

Coincidentally, shortly after my return home, I saw John socially. I asked him if, now that he was so famous etc. didn't that work embarrass him a bit. "Not in the least," he said, "I am really proud of that piece. I wrote it for a student union."

He was tickled pink when I told him about Jeff Bernard loving it, as he then told me that he subscribed to the Spectator and the very first thing he read was Jeff's Low Life column.

When I suggested he should write a book, Michael dismissed the idea: "Memoirs should be written when one is dead. A sort of Soho creed."

In case you're wondering, I did ask him how he went from "circa £13m in net worth to £97 in one morning". He told me but added, "I'd rather this was kept reasonably confidential. It's history now and best left."

What I can reveal is what he described as his "biggest disappointment".

I clearly had to make massive changes to my lifestyle but, essentially, I don't regret it. The thing that hurt most was having to sell my wine cellar, which raised over £3m [to help repay private investors] despite the fact that I'd probably spent no more than £200k amassing my collection. I started in the early Seventies whilst at Cambridge - I used to buy '61 first growths for between £80-£120 per case!

Michael would post the occasional comment on the Friends of Forest Facebook page but it was only by following his personal page that you got a true sense of the man – including his sardonic wit and, distressingly, the acute and sometimes unbearable pain he experienced as his health deteriorated.

On December 23 he wrote:

Another sleepless night. I'm so exhausted that I am as weak as a kitten. What's really odd is that the pain is far worse in bed. Hence, since about 03:00 I've been sitting on my office chair that I occasionally nod off on.

Going to try to struggle through to Christmas Day and then, if necessary, go to A&E. It's clear that the painkillers I am on – Gabapentin, Co-codamol and Panadol – are not right for me. Oramorph does work but they only give me the smallest bottle - apparently I might become [a] junkie. Which is worse I ask myself? Having a heart attack induced by lack of sleep or withdrawal from a minor drug?

On Christmas Day, in a typically bullish (or ironic?) post, he commented:

Great. I'm in intensive care at West Middlesex Hospital.

Sadly, on January 9, his sister wrote:

To all of my little brother Michael's friends, I am so sorry to have to tell you this way but Michael died earlier today in West Middlesex Hospital. His pain, which he has had for so long, is over. Michael wasn't a religious person (as I am sure you all know) but I think he would like it if you had a drink and toast to him at The French House, his favourite watering hole in Soho.

What a nice idea. The French House is a short walk from our old office in Wardour Street so the next time I'm in Soho I will certainly drop by and do just that.

RIP, Michael.

Hypocrites!

It's Lung Cancer Awareness Month in Ireland.

Yesterday the Irish Cancer Society called for a 'better understanding of the needs of lung cancer patients, after a study revealed 20 per cent of people had less sympathy for those with lung cancer compared to other forms of cancer.'

Commenting on the findings the ICS added:

“No one should ever feel blamed for having cancer. Sadly, though, these new statistics would suggest that lung cancer patients are treated differently by the public, compared to people with other types of cancer.

“Any sense of shame can hold someone back from seeking medical help, so it’s hugely important that we change our attitudes towards lung cancer.”

What hypocrites!

As John Mallon, spokesman for Forest Ireland, put it yesterday:

"For years politicians and public health bodies have sought to make smokers social outcasts so it's no surprise that some people have less sympathy for people with lung cancer.

"Smoking bans, plain packaging and punitive taxation are all designed to denormalise smoking and shame the consumer with the additional result that some smokers are reluctant to seek medical help.

"If the Irish Cancer Society really wants to help lung cancer patients and their families they need to cut down the anti-smoking rhetoric and stop stigmatising a perfectly legitimate habit."

John was quoted by both the Irish Times and the Irish Daily Mail but it staggers me that no-one else is prepared to make this point.

The hypocrisy of tobacco control campaigners is nothing new, of course. Take ASH and all those groups that lobby governments to increase tobacco duty to punitive levels while shedding crocodile tears for hard up smokers pushed closer to poverty by their habit.

Note too how anti-smoking activists love to play the addiction card, suggesting smokers are helpless victims of Big Tobacco yet happy to punish consumers whose 'addiction' makes it harder for them to quit.

That said I'm slightly heartened by the fact that only one-in-five people had less sympathy for those with lung cancer compared to other cancers.

After all, it suggests that four-in-five don't have less sympathy, and that's generally my experience.

Truth is, most people are far more tolerant of smokers than the tobacco control industry would have us believe.

Attitudes to smoking have changed but, by and large, it's not the general public that's trying to shame smokers to quit their 'dirty' habit.

The driving force is a relatively small group of zealots whose holier-than-thou approach to health is increasingly devoid of compassion or common humanity (hospital smoking bans being a case in point).

I don't doubt that the Irish Cancer Society does a lot of good work. I can't help thinking however that when calling for 'global action to reduce stigma around lung cancer' they should consider who the instigators of that stigma are.

Intolerance breeds contempt and unless the tobacco control industry understands the consequences of its crusade to denormalise smoking and discriminate against smokers, the stigma around lung cancer – not to mention smoking and smokers – will only get worse.

If the Irish Cancer Society can't see that they're deluding themselves and others.

Tobacco control and the Big Brother state

This is moderately interesting.

In March 2017, in collaboration with the Convention Secretariat of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the University of Bath’s Tobacco Control Research Group ran a successful tobacco industry monitoring course for delegates from low and middle income countries.

Building on this success, the Group is offering a week-long training course in June 2018 aimed at professionals from all over the world who wish to improve their skills in and knowledge of tobacco industry monitoring and research.

The course will examine in detail how to monitor and conduct research into the activities of tobacco companies and their allies, and how to synthesise and publish your research for use by key stakeholders, including policy makers and health advocates.

Early bird applications (before January 31) will be charged £1,250, after that it's £1,500. Food, accommodation and (I assume) travel cost extra so that's quite a lot of money for delegates from "low and middle income countries".

My guess (I could be wrong) is that UK taxpayers will ultimately pick up the tab because readers may recall that £15 million of OUR money has been given to the WHO to 'combat tobacco use in developing countries' including Cambodia, Colombia, Egypt, Nepal, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka and Zambia.

It seems logical to conclude that public money will also be spent subsidising or paying for overseas delegates to attend an anti-tobacco industry programme in the UK, possibly from the same pot.

The University of Bath's Tobacco Control Research Group is of course responsible for the execrable Tobacco Tactics website that I – and others – have written about several times over the years. (See, for example, 'Tobacco Tactics - what do you think of it so far?'.)

Tobacco Tactics was launched in 2012 and a few weeks later I was contacted by a research fellow at the University of Bath whose name I shall withhold. Instead I will give him the initials 'AB' (not his real initials):

Here's an edited version of our previously unpublished correspondence:

AB: I wonder if you might be able to help? I'm doing some work on the memberships of British based lobby groups and was wondering whether you might be able to provide me with the number of Forest members.

SC: Forest is not a membership organisation so we don't have members. We are a lobby group, pure and simple, and our focus is on representing the significant number of consumers who enjoy smoking tobacco and don't wish to give up, and those non-smokers who are tolerant of other people smoking. It is of course very difficult to put an exact figure to those groups so I won't even try! Out of interest, the University of Bath website mentions two presentations that you gave in Singapore in March ... I would be very interested to see them. Would you be able to send me copies?

AB: Yes, I can provide you with the slides. Before I send them to you, though, will you agree to accept them on a confidential basis (in the first instance at least?). I'd be interested to know your views on my analysis of tobacco companies' efforts to expand the conflict of tobacco control (which you should be able to divine from the slides). However, if there is to be a correspondence/exchange between us, can I ask that formal debate over our analysis is suspended until publication of the papers on which these slides are based? I'm quite happy to give you advance notice of their publication (assuming that they're accepted of course). More generally, I suspect there are considerable political differences between us on the issues of economic regulation, private taxation and the nature of (and how best to achieve) social justice, although we're probably much closer on the issue of state involvement in people's private lives. I'd ask you to approach the slides with this in mind.

SC: Yes, happy to agree to those conditions. When are you due to publish?

The following day the slides duly arrived:

AB: Some clarification of the fourth slide is probably necessary. I found some evidence of previous Forest directors being guided by the (perceived and real) threat of funding withdrawal, but not as much as might reasonably be expected considering the time period covered by industry documents. I suspect this is partly methodological (this is not likely to be something that will be written down and, of course, these are industry documents and not Forest documents).

The net graph towards the end which is designed to figuratively depict conflict expansion through established neoliberal think tanks and campaign organisations also requires some explanation. I've run two network analyses. One assumes (too conservatively on the basis of the historical evidence and the recent article in the FT) that the major tobacco manufacturers do not routinely fund any of the major neoliberal thinks tanks (such as the ASI and IEA) and the other assumes that they do (extrapolating from evidence in industry documents). Both analyses suggest that the industry has relatively "low centrality" (if you pardon the expression), hence I've developed the concept of Corporate Viral Political Activity to explain how industry finance produces (and expedites the propagation of) material in the public domain which broadly favours its interests without actively managing the process.

The papers (we have no publication date yet) contain a lot more data and, of course, analysis which is largely absent from the slides. Once again, I'd be genuinely interested to hear your views and whilst I can't supply you with electronic copies of the papers in advance of publication I'm quite happy to meet over a coffee in late summer and give you advance sight of hard copies.

SC: Always happy to visit Bath and I'm sometimes in the area anyway so, yes, happy to meet for a coffee and a chat sometime. On a slightly different subject, we are a bit goggle-eyed at the Tobacco Tactics website which is extraordinary! Our views may differ on this but I am genuinely amazed that any academic institution would lower itself to this level of inanity.

AB: Would be happy to meet up at some point. I'll drop you a note when/if the papers are accepted for publication ... You'll understand that collective responsibility means that I can't comment on the site.

You can download the slides here. The presentation ('supported by the National Cancer Institute', a US government agency) is entitled 'Smokers’ Rights Groups, Tobacco Industry Propaganda and Viral Political Activity'.

Interestingly, years before the Adam Smith Institute rebranded itself as 'neoliberal', it refers to the 'neoliberal political beliefs of Forest' and asks 'Has the “neoliberalisation” of Forest had any other significant effects?'

What really stands out however is the extent to which Forest (and anyone associated with us, directly or via our Free Society campaign, for example) had been subject to 'analysis'.

According to one slide, data had been kept on 'individuals’ links to Forest, organisational affiliations and interest in smoking related issues obtained through Google searches, searches of social networking sites (such as LinkedIn) and Companies House records.'

The same slide revealed that:

• individuals were included in the analysis if:
  – they were a member of Forest in the period specified (2001-2011);
  – a named contributor to the Free Society in the period specified (2001-2011) who has written in support of Forest’s messages on tobacco control;
  – a member, member of staff, fellow, board member, advisory board member, or trustee of a neo-liberal organisation (campaign group, think tank, party, network, or online magazine) affiliated to a Forest or Free Society campaign (such as Save Our Pubs and Clubs) or initiative (change) (such as the Liberty League network) who has also written in support of Forest’s messages on tobacco control;
  – a member, member of staff, board member, advisory board member or trustee of a neo-liberal organisation who counts an individual listed in c) as a member, who has also written in support of Forest’s messages on tobacco control.

Personally I'm fairly relaxed about all this surveillance (I consider it a compliment!) but it's worth noting that, according to the University of Bath, the Tobacco Control Research Group is funded by a number of organisations including 'Government bodies' (ie public money).

Yes, the Government is not only giving public money to 'charities' and other institutions that lobby government, taxpayers' money is also being given to bodies that monitor groups and individuals who oppose excessive regulations on tobacco and other products. How Big Brother is that?

Anyway, I received the slides on June 7, 2012, and heard nothing more so I never met AB for coffee in Bath or anywhere else but I believe some of his work did appear in subsequent papers.

He no longer works at the University of Bath but he continues to be involved in health policy and, to the best of my knowledge, is still active within the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies (UKCTAS).

Who knows, perhaps he will give a presentation at the Tobacco Industry Monitoring and Research Skills course in June.

The week-long programme consists of 'presentations, case studies, discussion and group work' focussing on the following issues:

• who is Big Tobacco and how other industries have followed its tactics
• creating an industry monitoring model and identifying data sources
• investigative research techniques
• in-depth industry research
• potential difficulties of working in this area and how to work safely
• identifying stakeholders, information dissemination and securing impacts
• writing for a general audience using media wiki software

On completion of the course delegates will be able to:

• develop an industry monitoring model
• investigate industry third parties
• understand how to undertake effective industry research
• write for diverse audiences
• identify key stakeholders and effectively disseminate findings

And here's another interesting bit:

Although the focus is on tobacco, people with an interest in alcohol and food industries will find the course useful as the industries use similar tactics.

Inevitably the University of Bath will 'not accept any applications of people working for or funded by the tobacco industry', but what about the food and drink industries?

If I was in public affairs and had a client in either field I wouldn't think twice. Sign me up!

Is tobacco control running out of puff?

I was in Geneva yesterday when I noticed a series of tweets with the hashtag #NHSPledge.

On closer inspection they included live tweets from an event organised by ASH to promote the launch of a 'new' initiative – the NHS Smokefree Pledge.

Among those tweeting were our old 'friend' Dr Nick Hopkinson, David Munday (Unite in Health), Asthma UK, Breathe2025, Cancer Research, UK Faculty of Public Health, British Heart Foundation, British Lung Foundation, Fresh (Smoke Free North East) and public health minister Steve Brine MP whose Twitter banner features the CEO of ASH.

Brine was also the principal speaker and in a touching show of cross party support he was joined by the shadow minister for public health, Sharon Hodgson MP.

Other speakers included Duncan Selbie, CEO of Public Health England, and Bob Blackman MP, chairman of the APPG on Smoking and Health, so – fair play to ASH who organised it – it was a well executed event.

If the aim was to generate publicity however it was a monumental failure.

So far I can find only three reports of the launch – in the Northumberland Gazette, Northern Echo and Rochdale Online. Not a single national newspaper mentioned the event, nor did the BBC or ITV.

For the record, this was Forest's response which I sent out while waiting for my (delayed) flight home:

“The Smokefree Pledge is a pathetic distraction from far more important issues facing the NHS.

“Adults who don’t want to stop smoking should be left alone and allowed the comfort of a cigarette without excessive regulations dictating where they can light up.

“Targeting patients and visitors, some of whom may be in a vulnerable mental state, with further smoking bans is totally abhorrent.

“No adult should be forced to quit smoking but that’s the underlying aim of this initiative.”

A more important point perhaps is this: how lame is a 'pledge' to create a 'smokefree' (sic) NHS?

Experience tells us that prohibiting smoking on NHS sites is almost impossible unless NHS trusts are prepared to spend precious resources on wardens and other surveillance measures.

Furthermore the 'pledge' is not even a new initiative. By their own admission it's merely an update to the NHS Statement of Support for Tobacco Control launched in 2014. Compare the two and they are very similar.

Between September 2014 and April 2017 the NHS Statement of Support for Tobacco Control attracted just 46 signatories. Now it's been relaunched and rebranded.

On this evidence, far from advancing, tobacco control appears to be going round and round in ever decreasing circles. They’re so devoid of ideas they've resuscitated one that wasn't very successful the first time.

The launch of the snappily titled NHS Smokefree Pledge may have brought out the cream of the UK's tobacco control industry but beyond the orgy of mutual back-slapping on Twitter I can't imagine it will be any more successful than the NHS Statement of Support for Tobacco Control it replaces.

Still, they seem to have enjoyed themselves.

Delighted to speak at the signing of the #NHSPledge for smoke-free NHS today alongside APPG Chair @BobBlackman (and chuffed I got to quote one of my favourite bands, Editors, at the same time)! Answers on a tweet if you know which song that would be ... pic.twitter.com/XBvuZsqBZM

— Steve Brine MP (@BrineMinister) January 11, 2018