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

Priceless

I've been easing myself gently back to work this week.

On Wednesday I drove my son to Heathrow to catch a flight to Nairobi.

Yesterday I drove my daughter to Gatwick to catch a fight to New Orleans (via Fort Lauderdale) where she is studying until May.

At the check-in desk the woman took one look at her e-ticket and pointed out that the flight is actually on Sunday.

Tomorrow therefore I will not only be returning to Gatwick (a 220-mile round trip), I will also miss the matinee performance of Dick Whittington at the London Palladium for which I had two precious (and non-exchangeable) tickets.

The good news is, my daughter is leaving us with a priceless 3D print of herself. Who wouldn't be a parent?

Milton – paradise regained?

I don't know how much truth there is in this, but it was reported yesterday that Theresa May could promote Anne Milton to Health Secretary.

If readers of this blog are experiencing a sinking feeling I don't blame you.

During her previous DH posting Milton not only introduced the tobacco display ban (a piece of Labour legislation the Tories had opposed when in Opposition), she also developed what appeared to be an unhealthily close relationship with ASH and other tobacco control lobbyists.

My post on the subject was headlined 'ASH's credibility goes up in smoke' but it could also have read 'Public health minister's credibility goes up in smoke'.

Milton's cosy relationship with ASH had been noted by this blog exactly twelve months earlier when I wrote:

The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Smoking and Health yesterday celebrated the 40th anniversary of ASH with a function at the House of Commons. Here are some of the 'highlights':

Guests welcomed by Lib Dem MP Stephen Williams, chairman of the APPG on Smoking and Health.

Williams, Labour MP Kevin Barron (former chairman of the Health Select Committee), and public health minister Anne Milton presented with awards by Cancer Research.

Milton said it was a pleasure to celebrate ASH’s "birthday party". She then presented Deborah Arnott, chief executive of ASH, with the World No Tobacco Day Award from the World Health Organisation.

Accepting the award, Debs thanked those who funded ASH.

Sir Richard Thompson, president of the Royal College of Physicians, which founded ASH in 1971, wished a "very happy birthday to our baby, now our grown up child" and called for a campaign to "get rid of cigarettes eventually".

Prof John Moxam, chairman of ASH, compared it to his own birthday, and spoke of an "ASH family across the world".

Sir Richard, he said, was was "the father of ASH" and the support of the Royal College of Physicians has been "absolutely wonderful".

He also paid tribute to Kevin Barron who he described as a "warrior for the cause", adding, "ASH just thinks you’re magic".

Ms Milton, he said, was "tremendous", and had "won over the hearts of everyone involved".

See 'I think I'm going to be sick' (Taking Liberties).

I'm not sure what Milton has done in the intervening years to deserve promotion to the Cabinet, but if she does return to the DH it could represent a 'Patricia Hewitt' moment.

Older readers will recall that when John Reid was Health Secretary the Labour government had no plans to introduce a comprehensive smoking ban.

Instead Reid wanted to compromise by allowing smoking in private members' clubs and pubs that didn't serve prepared food.

After the 2005 general election he was replaced as Secretary of State for Health by Patricia Hewitt who quickly changed tack and threw her weight behind a blanket ban.

Last year I was surprised how relieved – complacent, even – some people were after the Government announced its latest Tobacco Control Plan.

The fact that no new legislation was included in the plan may be a positive (time will tell) but I've been around long enough to know that the tobacco control industry never stops lobbying government to make that "next logical step".

Imagine how much easier it will be for ASH, Cancer Research et al to sell their ideas to a Secretary of State with whom they have previously enjoyed such a harmonious, mutually back-slapping relationship.

If I was Deborah Arnott, the prospect of my old friend returning to the DH as head honcho would be the best New Year gift I could imagine.

I might even crack another smile.

Below: Anne Milton, centre, with Deborah Arnott, CEO of ASH, in June 2011

The year in pictures

Another busy year comes to an end. It's difficult to summarise 2017 in a few words so I've chosen a few of my favourite pictures instead.

In February we hosted a one-off event, 'The Pleasure Zone', in London.

The evening featured a drinks reception, a short presentation by Dr Neil McKeganey, lead author of The Pleasure of Smoking: The Views of Confirmed Smokers, and a balloon debate on the subject, 'The most pleasurable nicotine product in the world'.

Contestants included Ranald Macdonald (cigar), Mark Littlewood (heated tobacco), Chris Snowdon (snus), Angela Harbutt (cigarette) and Judy Gibson (e-cigarette). The debate was won by Angela, naturally, but Judy (above) made the biggest impression!

Forest EU was launched offically in Brussels on May 31, World No Tobacco Day.

The launch party was attended by over 100 guests at a venue a few hundred yards from the European Parliament. 

Since then we've hosted three more events in Brussels featuring Prof Neil McKeganey (Centre for Substance Use Research), Clare Fox (Institute of Ideas) and, most recently, Prof Sinclair Davidson (Institute of Public Affairs).

Each one has attracted a full house – not bad in such a hostile environment – so we must be doing something right.

Smoke on The Water, our annual boat party, has not always enjoyed the best weather but 2017 was a good year.

Approximately 200 guests attended this year's event, including parliamentary researchers and other members of the Westminster Village. The photo above was taken on the return leg from Canary Wharf to Festival Pier.

Photographer and musician Dan Donovan missed Smoke On The Water this year because he was in California fulfilling a dream.

This photo, taken at sunrise, is one of many superb pictures Dan took while he was recording tracks at the famous Rancho de la Luna studio in Joshua Tree, deep in the desert.

Ironically, a few weeks after he was there, our old friend Juliette Tworsey (another musician) moved to Joshua Tree with her partner Jules. The scenery looks incredible but I suspect it's a little hot for me.

This was arguably the most memorable image from the Forest Freedom Dinner at Boisdale of Canary Wharf.

Invited back by popular demand, speaker Rod Liddle (Spectator, Sunday Times, Sun) gave another tour de force, albeit one that was a little off message for some tastes!

The event, attended by 160 guests including peers, MPs and parliamentary researchers, also featured the presentation of four Voices of Freedom awards to Ella Whelan (Spiked), Elise Rasmussen (GTNF), Guillaume Perigois (Forest EU) and blogger Dick Puddlecote.

In August I embarked on an eight-day transatlantic cruise aboard Queen Mary 2.

We went with friends and subsequently spent four days in New York, including two nights in a hotel overlooking Ground Zero.

We were on the 52nd floor and while the view was undoubtedly spectacular I'm not great with heights so I wasn't unhappy to move to another hotel for our final two nights where our loft style room on the eleventh of 17 floors was far less intimidating.

A few weeks later I was back in New York for the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum.

But first I spent a weekend in Greenwich, Connecticut, with my old friend Gary Ling who had been invited a high school reunion.

We flew to New York, rented an SUV and drove to Greenwich, which is where this picture was taken shortly after our arrival.

Forest has been organising party conference events since 2005.

This year we hosted a reception at the Conservative conference in Manchester. Venue was the rooftop lounge and terrace at Great John Street Hotel which we also used in 2015.

Almost 200 guests attended the event including Clare Ambrosino (chairman, Parliament Street, above) and Nigel Evans MP who gave a barnstorming speech on a range of issues including (eventually!) smoking.

They said it couldn't be done but we did it.

In November Forest hosted a dinner for 60 guests in Dublin. It was called the Farewell to Freedom Dinner and it was supported by a several groups including the Hibernia Forum, an economic think tank, and Students for Liberty Ireland.

It also featured the launch of the Golden Nanny Awards. Unexpectedly one of our nominees (Senator Catherine Noone) collected her 'Nanny-in-Chief' award in person and thereby stole the show. Her 'achievement' was reported by The Times (Ireland), Irish Times, Irish Independent and Irish Daily Star.

Finally, I can't publish a review of the year (even in pictures) without adding that in 2017 Forest was mentioned over 2,000 times by the print, online and broadcast media.

We were quoted in a wide range of smoking-related reports and occasionally generated our own stories as a result of polls and other research.

We were quoted by, among others, The Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Mail, Sun, Mirror, Star and Independent.

As well as the usual news programmes (national and local) we were also invited appear on TV programmes such as The Big Questions (BBC1), Sunday Morning Live (BBC1) and Good Morning Britain (ITV).

It's for others to decide Forest's value in a rapidly-changing environment but I'll leave you with this comment by Taco Tuinstra, editor of the global trade magazine Tobacco Reporter, in the current edition:

At a time when even tobacco companies seem to be turning against cigarettes, few people are willing to speak up for smokers. Fortunately there are organisations, such as Forest in the UK, who continue to stand up on their behalf, even when it is increasingly unpopular to do so.

The example set by Forest is inspiring. So, as we move into 2018, let’s spare a thought for beleaguered smokers everywhere. Not only do they deserve respect as fellow citizens; they also continue to generate the bulk of our business.

To read the full editorial, plus an interview with me, 'Rebel With A Cause' (!), click here.