Weather watch

I'm pleased to report that Smoke On The Water, the Forest boat party on October 22, is fully booked.

To be honest, I was sceptical we would get anywhere near capacity (200).

One, it's seven years since we last organised a boat party (Smoke On The Water ran annually from 2011 to 2017) and most of our guests during that period have moved on and are no longer working in parliament, or Westminster generally.

Two, Smoke On The Water was a summer boat party, held in June or July, and even then we couldn't guarantee good weather so it was always a bit nerve-wracking.

We had some lovely evenings, with the sun setting behind the London skyline and guests enjoying the open rear deck, but there was one year when it was pretty miserable, weather-wise, although people still seemed to enjoy themselves.

Nevertheless, I put any doubts to one side because, with the Tobacco and Vapes Bill about to be reintroduced to parliament by the new Labour government, it was now or never for a Westminster-based event where we could air our grievances.

As it happens, and despite the recent poor weather, the forecast for Tuesday (in London at least) is pretty good, although I'll believe it when I see it.

(I've been keeping tabs on it for the past week and every day the forecast has changed, which is why I generally ignore them.)

Anyway, I'll keep you posted. Fingers crossed it doesn't rain on the night and we get a full house.

General Sir Mike Jackson, 1944-2024

Sorry to hear that General Sir Mike Jackson, former head of the British Army, has died aged 80.

In June 2012 Sir Mike was the principal guest speaker at the very first Forest Freedom Dinner at Boisdale of Canary Wharf.

I wrote about the event here, commenting that, ‘None of us was quite sure what Sir Mike would say’.

This was because we booked him through a speaker agency and although I briefed him on the nature of the event I wasn’t sure he fully understood what Forest was or what we stood for:

In the event he suggested that the world would be a better place if people were allowed to take responsibility for their own actions. Civil servants (a pet hate) and senior politicians are guilty of micro-managing our lives and we are the poorer for it.

That aside, I remember it being a funny speech, delivered with enormous charm.

Amusingly, one of the guests was a journalist from the Scotsman who managed to turn an off-the-cuff remark into a minor diplomatic incident:

The former commander of Britain’s armed forces, General Sir Mike Jackson, has caused controversy after he referred to Scotland as “north Britain” in a speech in London.

Sir Mike was the lead speaker at the Freedom Dinner organised by the tobacco industry (sic) to oppose attempts to bring in plain packaging.

In an aside on the diplomatic benefits of whisky, the general referred to it as the drink which comes from “as I insist on calling it, north Britain”.

Needless to say this didn’t go down well with the SNP whose Westminster leader Angus Robertson told the paper:

“Describing Scotland as north Britain went out of fashion a long time ago, even for Unionists. I doubt that the anti-independence campaign will be pleased by their latest supporter and his derogatory intervention.”

Either way, our speaker was good value and although it was probably just another after dinner gig for him he seemed to enjoy himself.

For a full appreciation of his life see General Sir Mike Jackson obituary, high-profile British army head (The Times), and General Sir Mike Jackson, former head of British Army, dies aged 80 (Independent).

According to the latter:

During the Kosovo War, he famously refused an order from American General Wesley Clark to block the runways of Pristina Airport and isolate the Russian contingent that was positioned there. He reportedly told General Clark: “I’m not going to start the Third World War for you”.

The incident earned Sir Mike the nickname “Macho Jacko” in British tabloid newspapers.

Above: General Sir Mike Jackson GCB, CBE, DSO addressing the Forest Freedom Dinner at Boisdale of Canary Wharf in 2012

Elephants and dinosaurs

Back in July I was interviewed by Tobacco Reporter’s George Gay.

George and I have been bumping into one another for more than 15 years, often at the annual Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum (GTNF), or some Forest event.

The peg for the interview was Forest’s 45th anniversary, but since it coincides with the UK government’s plan to stop future generations of adults from legally buying tobacco it wasn’t something I wanted to celebrate.

I did however address the elephant in the room - the fact that, after 45 years, Forest might be considered a bit of a dinosaur, defending the right to smoke tobacco when there are ‘better’ (ie less risky) nicotine products available.

There’s a link to the article below but here’s a taste:

Simon Clark readily admits that some people, even some people operating within the tobacco/nicotine industry, see the Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco (Forest), of which he is the director, as something of a dinosaur. Indeed, he feels it is part of his job to counter this idea by letting it be known that Forest is fighting for timeless principles—those of freedom of choice and personal responsibility.

Not only are these principles timeless, in fact; they are universal in the sense that they apply to all consumer products, not only tobacco in its smoked form, as the name of the organization suggests. For the past 45 years, while not promoting the consumption or use of any product, Forest has defended the rights of adult consumers, properly informed, to enjoy, without being harassed by excessive regulation, any product that may be sold legally in the UK.

But what is of course most impressive is that Forest, almost uniquely, has been willing to stand up publicly for the rights of cigarette smokers, who, though still amounting to more than six million people, have been treated like outcasts by much of polite society - like people of the wrong class, people considered to be without agency, without the mental capacity to make the “right” choices for themselves.

And, regrettably, it is not only the public health community that has tried to “denormalize” cigarette smokers in this way. In recent years, so too have large swathes of the tobacco/nicotine industry - those who would sell cigarette smokers alternative lower-risk nicotine products, some of them while still selling cigarettes. Many of these companies and organizations have acquiesced in the face of claims that smoking is a “problem” that must be solved rather than a legal activity that provides enjoyment, in various ways, to those who indulge in it.

‘Unfinished Business’ was originally published online in August but it has now been published in the October issue of Tobacco Reporter which is available in print and in a neat digital format on the TR website.

See also: ’Rebel With A Cause’ (Tobacco Reporter, 2017)

Bad luck or broken Britain?

Three months ago I was interviewed for the trade magazine Tobacco Reporter.

I don’t travel into London very often these days but George Gay, TR’s European editor, made it easy for me by offering to meet at the British Library, which is a short walk from King’s Cross where my train comes in.

I spent three hours with George before walking back to the station to catch the train back to Cambridgeshire.

I should have been home by six but it was closer to nine because when the train got to Potters Bar, just north of London, everyone had to get off because a signalling failure meant that no trains on that line could go any further.

It was late afternoon and the train was full so you can imagine how many people were milling around wondering what to do.

I joined the queue at the taxi office, just outside the station, and after a 40-minute wait I booked a car to take me home (75 miles).

Taxis were at a premium so I had to wait another 45 minutes for my driver to arrive, and it was a further hour before I finally got home.

Which brings me to today.

I had arranged to meet someone for lunch but travelling to London this morning the inbound train stopped at Arlesey in Bedfordshire.

It was a scheduled stop but we were told there was a fire at Stevenage and trains were being held until there was further information.

Fifteen minutes later the driver advised us to make alternative travel plans, and 20 minutes after that we were told that no trains would be travelling in either direction for at least two hours.

Problem #1 - Arlesey station is quite small and even the ticket office was closed. Taxi rank? If there was one, I couldn’t see it.

With no taxis in sight I eventually booked one by phone, and a text confirmed it was on its way.

What I didn’t notice - until the taxi failed to appear - was that the text message included a link to an app so I could pay the fare in advance, and if I didn’t pay it upfront they wouldn’t send the car.

Problem #2 - the internet connection outside the station was lousy and it wouldn’t let me connect me to the app so I couldn’t pay the fare in advance.

So I rang the taxi firm, twice, but only after the second call did they agree to send a car without advance payment. (I think they could hear the desperation in my voice.)

Eventually, an hour after I got off the train, a taxi arrived and I was driven home.

But that wasn’t the end of it because - for reasons known only to the driver and his sat nav - instead of driving up the A1 (the most direct route home), we took a detour cross-country through villages I have never heard of.

And, yes, I did query it with the driver but you don’t like to make too much of a fuss because it ruins the atmosphere and when you’re stuck in a car with a stranger for an hour that can be a bit uncomfortable.

Anyway, is this just bad luck or is Britain really broken, as some people believe?

Faux liberals to the left, faux liberals to the right

I was invited recently to comment on a University College London (UCL) study that found that increasing the cost of tobacco products in England is proving to be an important ‘motive’ in cutting out smoking for good.

Quelle surprise.

My response features in the print edition of the latest issue of Tobacco Journal International:

Simon Clark, director of the UK smokers’ rights group Forest, agreed that the increased cost of tobacco was one of main reasons for smokers quitting, but said it was only part of the story.

“Raising the tax on tobacco to exorbitant levels may force some smokers to quit, but it also breeds resentment because smokers feel they are being unjustly punished for their habit. It also discriminates against those on low wages, or elderly smokers living on a small pension.

"Increasing the cost of tobacco also fuels illicit trade by driving an increasing number of smokers to the black market where the principal beneficiaries are criminal gangs who will sell illicit tobacco to anyone, including children.”

He added: “While cost is a factor in reducing smoking rates, governments should not be coercing people to quit by increasing the price of tobacco to punitive levels.

“A better, and fairer, approach is to continue to educate people about the health risks of smoking, and encourage existing smokers to switch to reduced risk products such as e-cigarettes.”

Funnily enough, this last point could have come straight from the mouth of the director of the centre right think tank I mentioned in a previous post.

The difference between us is that, while I support vaping as an alternative to smoking, and agree that government should, within reason, encourage smokers to switch to vaping, I don’t think it should be “the priority for public health” to reduce smoking rates from the current 12 per cent to zero, as he suggested the other day.

I draw the line too at smokers being urged repeatedly to switch to vaping until they succumb to pressure to conform.

If, having been informed about the potential health benefits of switching to vaping, adults still choose to smoke, that’s their choice and everyone - whether it be government, public health campaigners, vaping advocates, or free marketeers - must respect it.

While I recognise that vaping offers a ‘safer’ alternative to smoking, I also recognise that many people enjoy smoking and don’t want to quit - and nor should they, if they don’t want to.

That, to me, is the difference between genuine liberals and the faux liberals who won't be happy until every last smoker has switched to vaping or quit.

I suspect that many are supporters of libertarian paternalism, if that term is still in vogue.

Aside from being an oxymoron, the issue with libertarian paternalism is the underlying threat that, if people don't change their behaviour voluntarily through 'nudging', the state will step in and legislate anyway, so it simply delays the inevitable.

That may not be what supporters of libertarian paternalism want, but it's the undoubted consequence of what some of us see as appeasement.

Increasing the tax on tobacco is arguably a form of libertarian paternalism because one of its aims is to nudge smokers to quit, without actually banning the product.

In practise however it fuels illicit trade and discriminates against the less well-off, so it's actually a regressive policy – the very opposite of the progressive policies advocates of libertarian paternalism probably have in mind.

Before libertarian paternalism there was a different name for it - social engineering. Many on the centre right were opposed to social engineering but, rebadged as libertarian paternalism, many embraced it.

Anyway, we don't seem to hear so much about libertarian paternalism, or nudging, these days. Instead, politicians – urged on by public health campaigners – have decided to save time and commit to prohibition (creeping or otherwise), because that's the endgame.

Meanwhile faux liberals on left and right wring their hands and assure us that banning smoking is not something they support, whilst doing absolutely nothing to stop it.

I could, I suppose, name and shame some of them but the list gets longer every day and I've got better things to do. Another time, perhaps.

Joe Jackson, Max Champion, and The Chap

I’m going to see Joe Jackson tonight.

Joe is playing at the Cambridge Corn Exchange, a Grade II listed building that was originally opened in 1875.

As corn trading declined, it’s been used for all manner of events, including motor shows, concerts, and exhibitions, not to mention boxing, wrestling, and roller skating.

David Bowie is said to have played there in 1966, followed by The Who (1969), Johnny Cash (1988), Take That (1992), Oasis (1994), Adele (2008), and many, many more.

Joining that list is Joe Jackson who, as I wrote here, recently celebrated his 70th birthday.

Joe’s current tour, which began in the US before transferring to Europe (Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and now the UK), features a solo set followed by a performance of songs by the ‘forgotten music hall genius Max Champion’ that feature on Joe’s latest album, ‘What A Racket!’.

The latter will be performed by a nine-piece band so I’m looking forward to it.

I’m also curious to experience the Corn Exchange because, while I’ve walked past it many, many times, I’ve never been inside.

Details of the remaining shows in the current tour can be found here.

Joe also features in the current edition of The Chap magazine where he talks about fashion, music, cocktails, and smoking.

If you’re not familiar with The Chap it’s a humorous lifestyle magazine that was launched 25 years ago and has been edited ever since by the impressively named Gustav Temple.

In 2001 Forest joined forces with The Chap and together we hosted a party on a moored vessel on the Thames Embankment close to Blackfriars Bridge.

Writing about it later, I commented:

When I first saw the boat, in daylight, I was unimpressed. It was big, with a large outside area, but it looked and felt like a rusty old hulk. Gustav, however, loved it. To him it was a blank canvas and he saw its potential.

To be honest, I don't remember much about the actual event apart from the fact that it was on a Saturday night and the boat was heaving with 200-300 people (many of them dressed in Chap-style clothes).

I do remember that Gustav and his colleagues did a magnificent job decorating the boat and at one point there was a "smoking competition" that involved five people, each one puffing on a cigarette using a cigarette holder.

The winner was the person who smoked their cigarette in the fastest time. It was silly yet hilarious to watch. (I don't think health and safety would allow it now.)

A single digital edition of The Chap featuring Joe Jackson can be purchased for £7.99 from pocketmags.com or you can subscribe to the magazine by visiting this page.

See also: Just dandy (Taking Liberties, June 2020)

Update: Joe Jackson review — this was one of the gigs of the year (The Times). I think they liked it.

Further update: No sooner had I posted this than I got an email from the Corn Exchange – tonight's show is cancelled due to illness!!!

Never underestimate the self-righteous conviction of the vaping evangelist

Further to yesterday’s post, I had a brief contretemps with Robert Colvile, director of the centre right Centre for Policy Studies.

Incensed is too strong a word for it, but I wasn't impressed with his suggestion that 'the public health priority should be getting the 12% of the population who still smoke to quit'.

I therefore reposted it on X, adding:

Seriously, @rcolvile? You sound like Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty (and that’s not a compliment)!

To which he responded:

I am a one-man hotbed of heretical opinions, apparently including 'smoking is bad for you'.

Nice try, Robert, but the issue (as I quickly pointed out) was not whether smoking is (potentially) bad for you but whether it should be ‘the public health priority’ to reduce smoking rates from 12 per cent to zero.

That’s what I and many other people object to because it ignores the fact that, while vaping may be far less harmful than smoking, many adults choose to smoke because they enjoy it, so why the hell should it be a public health priority to ‘encourage’ them all to quit?

Anyway, we had a brief exchange of views that ended as quickly as it began.

Interestingly, however, Robert's initial response (‘I am a one-man hotbed of heretical opinions, apparently including 'smoking is bad for you') drew an immediate and supportive comment from former Tory health minister Neil O'Brien MP, who tweeted:

Crazy madness, what next

How droll.

O’Brien is a former director of Policy Exchange, another centre right think tank, that under his leadership published a report entitled 'Cough Up: Balancing tobacco income and costs in society'.

Published in March 2010, it is summarised on the Policy Exchange website as follows:

Smoking is the single, largest preventable cause of serious ill health and kills tens of thousands of people in England every year. It is a popular myth that smoking is a net contributor to the economy – our research finds that every single cigarette smoked costs the country 6.5 pence. In order to balance income and costs, tobacco duty should be progressively increased until the full societal cost of smoking is met through taxation.

In particular, I love the certainly of the claim that ‘It is a popular myth that smoking is a net contributor to the economy’.

If you say so, but yet another centre right think tank - the Institute of Economic Affairs - disagrees. According to 'Smoking and the public purse' by Chris Snowdon and Mark Tovey (2017):

In the absence of smoking, the government would spend an extra £9.8 billion annually in pension, healthcare and other benefit payments (less taxes forgone). Duty paid on tobacco products is £9.5 billion a year. In total, the gross financial benefit to the government from smoking therefore amounts to £19.3 billion. Subtracting the £4.6 billion of costs (above) produces an overall net benefit of £14.7 billion per annum.

Either way, the cost benefits of smoking to society are clearly open to debate and there’s a strong argument that smoking does benefit the economy.

But back to X where Robert Colvile insisted that he was:

Not even calling for smoking to be banned (which I don't support). Just saying we should encourage smokers to switch to vaping if they possibly can, and do much more to educate them about the comparative risks. Hey ho.

Fair enough, but that's not what he said when he wrote 'the public health priority should be getting the 12% of the population who still smoke to quit'.

Frankly, the public health priority should be to inform consumers about the relative risks of smoking and vaping, then leave us alone to make our own choices.

Furthermore, public health campaigners and policy wonks like Robert Colvile should ask themselves the question, ‘Is this really a public health issue?’, because I don’t think it is.

Unless smoking is a significant risk to non-smokers, it's a private health issue.

Unfortunately some vaping advocates are on a mission, and they won’t be satisfied until every smoker has been ‘encouraged’ to switch to vapes.

It reminds me of the story about the little old lady being ‘helped’ to cross the road when she didn’t want to cross the road.

It has probably been passed down the generations for centuries, but it sums up the virtuous vaping advocate who thinks he (or she) knows best.

I’m sure they mean well, but when you combine that self-righteousness with the conviction of an evangelist, it becomes a problem.

Meanwhile another vaping advocate took me to task yesterday, arguing that I am wrong to refer to smoking as ‘potentially harmful’.

‘Everything,’ he noted, ‘is potentially harmful. This framing hugely downplays the extent of the risk involved in smoking. I would remove no-one’s right to smoke but I would foster better choices in nicotine consumption.’

It’s a fair point, but the issue is this. While I fully accept the serious health risks associated with smoking - which are indeed of a greater magnitude than many other activities - it is also the case that many smokers live long and healthy lives.

It is also a fact that most smoking-related illnesses are multifactorial, so pinning the blame on smoking is often the lazy option. (It’s also why so few death certificates give smoking as the cause of death.)

In my view, anyone who smokes is playing Russian roulette with their health, and common sense suggests the risks must be greater the more you smoke, but it’s still only ‘potentially harmful’.

Others would go further and say the risks are exaggerated, and I have some sympathy with that.

That said, as I’ve got older, several friends and contemporaries who smoke have suffered from smoking-related illnesses, so it would stupid to ignore that.

Overall, though, I’m not sure what my critic would have me do. ‘Smoking can be harmful’ or ‘potentially harmful’ is factually correct.

What more can I say without resorting to the same fear-mongering employed by many politicians and public health activists whose anti-smoking rhetoric often seems fuelled primarily by a visceral and ideological hatred of the tobacco industry.

As for fostering ‘better choices’, that’s very subjective. It may be better for someone’s physical health to switch from smoking to vaping, but some people (like David Hockney) smoke for their mental health.

But the truth of the matter is this. Many smokers who have tried vaping prefer smoking. They like the warmth, the taste and the smell of burning tobacco, not to mention the finite time it takes to smoke a cigarette.

Despite the health risks, they have concluded that smoking is the better choice for them. Given the risks it may be irrational to smoke, but that’s life. We’re all different and the choices we make are unique to us.

Some choices may be ‘better’ than others but never underestimate the self-righteous conviction of the vaping evangelist!

See also: The Pleasure of Smoking: The views of confirmed smokers (Centre for Substance Use Research)

Finding neverland

Last week the Office for National Statistics published the results of their latest survey on smoking habits in UK.

If you remember, I enquired about the publication date (which varies considerably each year) a few weeks ago.

I got an instant reply - October 1 - and these are the main points:

• Around 6.0 million people aged 18 years and over (11.9%) smoked cigarettes in the UK in 2023; this is the lowest proportion of current smokers since records began in 2011, based on our estimates from the Annual Population Survey (APS).

• Those aged 25 to 34 years had the highest proportion of current smokers (14.0%) in the UK in 2023.

• Those aged 18 to 24 years have had the largest reduction in smoking prevalence (15.9 percentage points) between 2011 (25.7%) and 2023 (9.8%).

• Around 5.1 million adults aged 16 years and over (9.8%) currently use an e-cigarette daily or occasionally in Great Britain in 2023, based on the Opinions and Lifestyle Survey (OPN).

• E-cigarette use was highest among people aged 16 to 24 years in Great Britain, with 15.8% using e-cigarettes either daily or occasionally.

What I like about the ONS is that they stick to the data and there is no obvious attempt to spin the results.

Nor do they add their own partisan commentary, unlike a lot of ‘scientific’ studies whose researchers often conclude their reports by demanding further government action, in the manner of political activists.

The ONS, in contrast, does seem fairly impartial, so it may just be coincidence that the publication of the 2023 survey coincided with Hazel Cheeseman’s first day as the new chief executive of ASH.

It meant that her reign got off to a positive start and having presumably been tipped off in advance (if not by the ONS then a journalist), she was quoted in several reports:

“Today’s figures are further proof that the country is ready to be smokefree” although “there is still much to be done”.

Of course, no ASH press release would be complete without some hand-wringing and on this occasion it concerned the number of never smokers the ONS had identified as having taken up vaping.

According to Prof Nick Hopkinson, chairman of ASH:

“Vaping has helped millions of adults quit smoking and is much less harmful than smoking. However, it is not risk-free and high levels of use among young people and growing use among never smokers is a concern.

“The government must get its Tobacco and Vapes Bill into law as soon as possible, to provide a tough regulatory framework to control the marketing and sale of e-cigarettes. We need to reinforce the role of vaping as a tool to stop smoking, not a lifestyle accessory.”

If it’s true that one million never smokers have started vaping in the UK, it puts the vaping industry in an awkward position because I’ve lost count of the number of times industry spokesmen have insisted that never smokers should never vape.

As I’ve said many, many times, what’s wrong with adults who have never been smokers taking up vaping?

If the product is as safe as they say it is (and based on current evidence I’ve no reason to question it), the only issue concerns addiction to nicotine - and nicotine, as we keep being told, is no more harmful than caffeine so, again, what’s the problem?

Instead, by repeatedly telling the world that only smokers and former smokers should vape, what message does that send out?

I’ll tell you. It tells you vapes are less harmful than cigarettes but not safe enough to risk non-smokers getting hooked on them.

It also sends the message that e-cigarettes are a smoking cessation tool (boring!), not an enjoyable recreational product in their own right.

So, having insisted (and established in people’s minds) that never smokers should never vape, how should the vaping industry react to the news that one million never smokers are now vaping?

Should they keep their heads down and say nothing, or should they join forces with government and the tobacco control industry whose position is the same - never smokers should never vape.

That might work in the short-term, but the problem is this. The long-term goal of ‘public health’ campaigners like ASH is very clear. All recreational use of nicotine is bad and must be discouraged and then eradicated.

By allying themselves with negative public health messaging on vapes now, the vaping industry is helping to sow the seeds for an all out assault on all future nicotine consumption.

Alternatively, if you take the Forest approach - that few things are without risk and as adults we should be allowed to enjoy ourselves and take recreational risks as long as they don’t harm others - you are at least arguing from a consistent ideological position.

Moreover, our position still holds regardless of whether evidence is eventually found that vaping is significantly more harmful than the current evidence suggests.

I know that many vaping advocates can’t or don’t want to contemplate this eventuality, but at that point at least we will be able to use same argument we have always used to defend smoking:

Educate people (adults and children) about the health risks of smoking and vaping, but thereafter leave adults (18+) to make their own decisions without excessive restrictions or social engineering.

But what if your only argument in favour of vaping is that it is 95 per cent less harmful than smoking, as Public Health England declared in 2015?

What if the evidence changes and the successors to PHE amend that estimate to 75 or 50 per cent less harmful than smoking?

Given the alleged harms attributed to smoking, even a reduced risk would represent a significant risk.

In short, having made the case for vaping on a single issue - health - what happens if and when that rug is pulled from under you?

At least we can fall back on those perennials - freedom of choice and personal responsibility. But what will vaping advocates do?

Incidentally, I couldn’t help notice how the usual suspects in some centre right think tanks celebrated the fact that smoking rates have continued to fall as more smokers switch to vaping.

Robert Colvile, for example, is director of the Centre for Policy Studies. Posting on X last week, he wrote:

The @ONS has published its latest stats on smoking. And it's good news! In 2023, smoking fell to the lowest level on record in every part of the UK.

As I've said before, the public health priority should be getting the 12% of the population who still smoke to quit, and demonising vaping absolutely doesn't help with that.

It's a bit out of date but the official review in 2015 concluded that vaping was 95% less harmful than smoking, but warned that huge numbers of smokers don't know that. So I think the thing to worry about overwhelmingly is the people who are still smoking.

Yes, a world where eg 100% of us are vaping is not a good one - it is still damaging to your health! But on any realistic scenario it's cutting smoking that matters.

‘The public health priority should be getting the 12% of the population who still smoke to quit.’ Seriously, Robert? You sound just like Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty (and that’s not a compliment)!

While I recognise that vaping is one of the two major reasons why smoking rates have fallen in the UK since 2011, some of our free market and centre right ‘friends’ conveniently ignore the other - the punitive rates of tax on tobacco that have forced many smokers to quit or switch to a cheaper source of nicotine (vapes).

Furthermore, smoking bans, while nothing like as effective as taxation as a form of social engineering, have clearly ‘encouraged’ many smokers to become dual users so they can consume nicotine in places where they are barred from smoking.

Unfortunately, many free market campaigners fail to acknowledge that part of the vaping success story has been achieved through punitive taxation (on tobacco) and smoking bans.

Or perhaps they are so blinded by hubris they just don’t care.

See: Adult smoking habits in the UK: 2023 (ONS)