Schmoozing with Stanton Glantz

There was a brief yet interesting exchange of views on Twitter at the weekend.

From SRNT2018 (aka the annual meeting of the Society For Research On Nicotine and Tobacco) in Baltimore, Greg Conley, president of the American Vaping Association, tweeted:

Had a good talk with @ProfGlantz tonight. pic.twitter.com/1cKPb7M45u

— Gregory Conley (@GregTHR) February 24, 2018

Prof Glantz is of course Stanton Glantz, American's leading tobacco control activist. Much has been written about Glantz, including recent claims that he 'sexually harassed a former researcher and stole credit for her work', allegations he 'categorically denies'.

I won't elaborate on that story (you can read it for yourself) because I happen to believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty, however much I may disagree with them personally and professionally.

Nevertheless there are plenty of other reasons why I'd decline to be photographed with Glantz, the pair of us grinning like Cheshire cats.

If it was the result of an entirely spontaneous encounter over which he had very little control I could just about understand it. But Greg seems to have been on a mission.

Earlier, for example, he tweeted:

For my 31st birthday (which is today), I'd like to have a drink or shot with my favorite foe, @ProfGlantz. I have five hours to make this happen.

— Gregory Conley (@GregTHR) February 22, 2018

Between times he posted another picture (below) in which he stands next to Glantz who seemed unaware of his presence.

Overall it gave the impression that Greg was ever-so-slightly obsessed with meeting his “favorite foe”.

When I saw these tweets I kept quiet because I thought it was (a) none of my business and (b) I didn't want to fall out with Greg, who I like.

In any case I didn't have to say anything because Carl Phillips, former scientific director of the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA), posted his reaction via a series of tweets that Greg started to answer before signing off to drive home.

It got me thinking, though. What, if any, are the limits when it comes to ‘engaging’ with tobacco control zealots like Glantz?

To be clear, and to avoid accusations of hypocrisy, I have never knowingly blanked or ignored a professional 'foe'. I have always believed one should be civil – even friendly – with opponents, not least because, in some instances, it winds them up royally!

On other occasions it's because I genuinely like or respect them.

I draw the line however at schmoozing in such an overt fashion with someone I genuinely hold in contempt because, to me, that is hypocritical.

Engaging with opponents is generally a good thing (and Greg later tweeted that he “learned a few things that may be useful in the future”), but appearances matter and this seemed a bit too chummy for my taste.

To be fair, Greg wouldn’t be the first to succumb to the curse of the casual encounter but I'm surprised he made so much of it.

Then again, I've attended a good few tobacco control conferences myself and I've noticed an increasing tendency for vaping advocates to actively seek the company/approval of even the most zealous anti-smoking activists in the optimistic belief it might unlock the door to a vape-friendly future.

Another observation is that the same advocates studiously avoid criticising any anti-smoking campaigner they categorise as pro-vaping.

This is particularly noticeable on Twitter. At the weekend, for example, Derek Yach’s Foundation for a Smoke-Free World recycled some WHO propaganda about secondhand smoke killing 890,000 people each year and hardly anyone batted an eyelid.

Even people who, a few years ago, would have reacted with disbelief if not laughter to this nonsense, remained silent.

The reason is pretty clear. In harm reduction circles Yach is the closest thing there is to a ‘celebrity’ and in some people's eyes that puts him – and his Foundation – on a pedestal and beyond criticism.

It's also human nature for people to be slightly subservient to those they consider a 'big beast'. Even if they don't agree with them they are gratified and even flattered by their company or attention.

That, at least, is my assessment of the psychology behind all this. But perhaps I'm reading too much into it. What do you think?

Someone snapped this photo while I was looking at a poster. #SRNT2018 pic.twitter.com/704L2wkjZs

— Gregory Conley (@GregTHR) February 24, 2018

Picture this

Digging through some old files at the weekend I found a bunch of Forest-related photographs circa 1999-2002.

This is my favourite. It was taken on board a Eurostar train heading for Paris on No Smoking Day 1999. We were escaping the UK for what was then the unofficial European capital of smoking.

I wasn't on the train because I stayed in London to handle media calls but the photo features two former colleagues – Juliette Torres (standing/smoking) and, seated on the left of the picture, Jenny Starkey, who left Forest the following year to work for Theresa May (and still does!).

Juliette appears in several photos, including the one below that was taken at our old office in Palace Street, Victoria, where smoking was not just allowed, it was almost compulsory.

Other pictures in the collection were taken at Forest events at the Groucho Club in Soho, Little Havana (a nightclub off Leicester Square), Simpson’s-in-the-Strand and Antony Worrall Thompson's restaurant in Notting Hill.

Another supporter, the late great Auberon Waugh also features. He's pictured below at a Forest-sponsored soiree at the Academy Club (which he founded) in Soho.

It sounds posh but the Academy Club was actually a small, dingy room (with a tiny bar) at the top of a rickety flight of stairs in a Dickensian building in Lexington Street, next door to the Literary Review, which Waugh edited.

We had some grand nights that sadly came to an end when Waugh died.

Funnily enough, one of the people I met at the Academy Club was Claire Fox, director of the Academy of Ideas (no relation). Claire went on to become an enormous friend of Forest and can seen (in the red jumper) in the group photo we took following a 'smoker-friendly fry-up' at Simpson's-in-the-Strand on No Smoking Day 2000.

Anyway, there are many more photographs than the ones published here. I'm tempted to do something with them, if only to mark Forest's 40th anniversary in 2019.

Make intolerance of smoking history

Further to yesterday's post, I urge every reader to complete the survey that seeks to 'make smoking history' in Manchester.

Granted, it's targeted at local residents ('Greater Manchester. It’s our home, our history and our future. So we’ve all got a stake in making things right. Right?') but that shouldn't deter others from submitting their views too.

After all, those behind the campaign make no bones about the fact that 'Greater Manchester is leading the way by involving all of its people in a massive conversation to make smoking history for our next generation of children.'

In other words, if this campaign results in more smoke free areas in Manchester, expect more cities and conurbations to follow suit.

Moreover, I don't see why visitors shouldn't express an opinion too.

I completed the survey this morning and the first thing to note is that entering a postcode outside Greater Manchester does not block submissions, although non-resident submissions will no doubt be singled out for comment in the final analysis.

It doesn't take long so please take a couple of minutes to respond. Respondents are asked to agree/disagree etc with a handful of questions including the following:

I want smoking to be made history in Greater Manchester

Extending smoke-free public places is a good idea

Films, television programmes, computer games, music videos and other media without 18 age rating or pre-watershed, should not show people smoking on screen

Businesses in Manchester should have a valid licence to sell tobacco

These questions raise so many issues I don't know where to start so I'll limit myself to one.

Inviting response to 'smoking on screen' raises the interesting prospect of the council imposing a unilateral ban on smoking on film or TV sets in Manchester, adopting similar regulations to those in Scotland and Wales where the practise is prohibited.

Whether that's possible I don't know but I sense the hand of Deborah Arnott, CEO of ASH, behind this and the licensing question. It may not be feasible for Manchester to go it alone but by putting these issues up for debate it helps set the national agenda.

Respondents to the survey are also invited to submit 'additional feedback'. I wrote:

I strongly oppose this campaign which is designed to reduce the number of smokers by further denormalising a legal product enjoyed by millions or ordinary people who pay a huge sum in tax (tobacco duty & VAT) that far outweighs the cost of treating smoking-related diseases on the NHS.

It is no business of local authorities (or the Mayor of Greater Manchester) if adults choose to smoke. Stop wasting public money that could be better sent tackling crime, housing and transport (to name a few).

Interestingly there seems to be an assumption that most respondents will support the campaign because the survey concludes by saying:

If you would like to take a bigger role in this initiative and stand up and be counted as someone who genuinely wants to help create a positive change, then we’d invite you to become an advocate.

Sign up below and we can begin to make a lasting impact on the future of Greater Manchester and the health of 2.8 million people who live here.

I'm not sure when the closing date is so please submit your response now. Click here.

And if you live in Greater Manchester do please get in touch.

WATCH: Andy Burnham wants smoke-free Manchester in TEN years (Granada Reports).

Update: I shall be discussing this on BBC Radio Manchester in the morning.

Notes from the smoking lounge

That was a rare treat.

Last night - following in the footsteps of Jacob Rees Mogg who spoke to members of the Cambridge University Conservative Association on Thursday night - I addressed a rather more intimate gathering of CUCA members.

It was billed as ‘Cigars and Whisky with Forest’ and I’d been asked to give a short informal talk about our work.

The invitation wasn’t universally welcomed and two weeks ago the Student Union’s Ethical Affairs Officer issued a statement denouncing “this association between CUCA and Forest”.

“While there is nothing we can do to prevent this association between CUCA and Forest,” he sniffed, “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.”

One reason they couldn’t do anything about it was the inspired choice of venue - Robert Graham Whisky and Cigar Emporium.

Outside it was a wet and miserable night but in the comforting embrace of Robert Graham’s smoking lounge it was warm and extremely snug.

Cigar shops, I need hardly remind you, were given an exemption from the smoking ban as long as consumption is for sampling purposes only.

Last night guests were each given a complimentary cigar together with a selection of whiskies.

I spoke for 15 minutes, then answered a few questions. Afterwards we continued chatting for the best part of an hour before the manager closed the shop’s doors and we were ushered out into the cold, dark street.

All in all, a very enjoyable evening. (My only disappointment was the lack of protestors.)

Thanks to CUCA for inviting me.

PS. Another guest last night was my old friend Madsen Pirie, president and co-founder of the Adam Smith Institute, who lives in Cambridge.

Well, it turns out Madsen has a cigar named after him - the Regius Lord Madsen.

He’s also the first person I know who owns a Tesla electric car. I only found out because we were talking about the launch of Tesla founder Elon Musk’s space rocket. (Space travel is another of Madsen’s interests.)

I think Madsen has the Model S but I’ll find out soon enough because he suggested we go for a spin sometime so I can experience what has been described as its “sport’s car performance”.

Not sure I want to die in an electric car, Madsen, but offer accepted.

The ugly face of tobacco control

According to ASH:

Tobacco companies are notorious for the damage they cause to the environment through deforestation, pollution, and littering. Wood fires are needed for the process of drying tobacco leaves, leading to the loss of one tree for every 300 cigarettes. Greenhouse gases are released into the air when cigarettes are smoked, and heavy metals and toxic chemicals end up in the water supply from littered cigarette butts.

To highlight these claims the taxpayer-funded lobby group has launched what it calls its 'Polluter Pays Spring Campaign':

This spring ASH is running a campaign to coincide with the annual shareholders meetings of three of the largest tobacco companies in the world: Imperial Tobacco, British American Tobacco, and Philip Morris International. In line with the 'Polluter Pays Principle' we’re calling on governments to make Big Tobacco pay for the damage it does. Help us share this message over the next few months. We must #MakeThemPay.

Truth it, it won't be Big Tobacco that pays for any additional levies that are imposed on tobacco companies. As ASH knows full well, the stakeholder that will ultimately pay is the consumer. (Cue crocodile tears from tobacco control campaigners bemoaning the fact that more smokers are being pushed into poverty.)

Anyway, the first of the three shareholders' meetings ASH is targeting took place yesterday in Bristol, home of Imperial Brands. The trade press and business media have had plenty to say on the subject, mostly along the lines of 'Imperial Brands says on track to meet forecasts' (Reuters), but I've seen no mention of ASH's 'Polluter Pays' campaign.

What I did spot, late last night, was a series of tweets from anti-smoking campaigner Cecilia Farren who attended the meeting. Two in particular stood out.

The first read:

Attended Imperial Brands AGM. Imps staff + board outnumbered the 27 shareholders inc 2 anti-smokers!

Now, how many times have we been told that tobacco control activists are anti-smoking not anti-smoker? (They're on your side, remember, helping you quit the evil, addictive weed.)

Well, in what I can only describe as a Freudian slip, Warren has openly admitted that she is "anti-smoker".

But the comment that really demonstrated the ugly face of tobacco control was the catty tweet about the CEO of Imperial Brands:

I was shocked by how much older and more stressed Imperial Brands CEO, Alison Cooper, looked today at the Imps AGM. Must be the guilt wearing her down.

Meow.

I can't say I'm surprised though. In December 2010 Farren appeared on the Today programme and accused the tobacco industry of conducting a "terror campaign".

In September 2007 she attempted to 'name and shame' me at a tobacco control conference in Edinburgh:

During the Q&A session in the main auditorium, Cecilia Farren, founder of GASP, a self-styled "smoke-free action website", got hold of the roving mike and asked that anyone associated with Big Tobacco should be invited to stand up for all to see. For some reason, she felt the need to name me personally, implying that I had somehow sneaked in to the conference and was lying low. In her words, "I have never known Simon Clark to be so quiet."

The paranoia of some anti-smoking campaigners never ceases to amaze. Needless to say I was more than happy to jump up and introduce myself to the 400 delegates (who were looking a bit bemused). I just wish they had asked me to address the conference from the stage!

I bumped into Cecilia later and thanked her for the "free publicity". She wasn't happy.

Three years later, after hearing her performance on the Today programme, I wrote:

She embarrassed fellow tobacco control campaigners that day and listening to her now I'm sure she's embarrassed a few more.

Leopards don't change their spots. Nor, it seems, does Cecilia Farren.

Attended Imperial Brands AGM. Imps staff + board outnumbered the 27 shareholders inc 2 anti-smokers! They asserted that Lao Tobacco has conformed to picture warnings since December 2017. I challenged this but they stuck to their line. #ActOnTobacco

— Cecilia Farren (@CeciliaFarren) February 7, 2018

I was shocked by how much older and more stressed Imperial Brands CEO, Alison Cooper, looked today at the Imps AGM. Must be the guilt wearing her down. #ActOnTobacco

— Cecilia Farren (@CeciliaFarren) February 7, 2018

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.