You're welcome

I was scheduled to talk to BBC Radio Oxford this morning about e-cigarettes.

In particular they wanted me to discuss the question, "Should vaping be allowed in bars and restaurants?"

Naturally I was going to say yes but after I flagged it on Twitter one vaper who follows me replied:

"Thanks Simon but we shouldn't have to depend on forest. Can't the BBC find vaping advocates?"

I dare say they could although in my experience the vaping community has still to get its act together, media wise, and spokesmen are frequently unavailable ("I'm on a train" is a lament I've heard several times) or avoidably unobtainable ("Please leave a message ..." etc).

Also, what does he mean by "vaping advocates"? The tobacco control industry is full of them - ASH, Public Health England, Cancer Research, and so on.

Many of these bodies have spent years stigmatising smokers and exaggerating the risks of smoking ('passive' smoking in particular).

Is that what vapers want to hear - a lecture about smoking followed by the grudging admission that e-cigarettes are a useful smoking cessation tool that can help eradicate people's addiction to smoking en route to giving up nicotine completely?

Someone also needs to point out that proprietors should have the right to devise their own policies on vaping (as indeed they should on smoking) but can you imagine any of those bodies doing that? I can't.

Their entire mission is to dictate what people can and can't do in so-called 'public' places, regardless of the wishes of the proprietor, staff or regular customers.

Actually I'm not sure any of these "vaping advocates" support the use of e-cigarettes in enclosed 'public' places.

The Royal Society of Public Health, which advocates a ban on smoking outside pubs in order to force smokers to switch to e-cigarettes, clearly want nicotine 'addicts' outside, vaping instead of smoking. Outdoor vaping bans will come later.

Meanwhile I've heard other vaping advocates (ex-smokers usually) argue that it would be criminal to force vapers outside with the smokers where they would be exposed to 'secondhand' smoke, not to mention the alluring smell of tobacco.

With friends like that etc.

So if it's a choice between that type of vaping advocate and a group that believes in choice per se I will do everything I can to make sure that Forest is the voice of future generations of consumers, regardless of whether they smoke or vape.

In fact, when it comes to defending vaping in 'public' places - including pubs, clubs, beaches, parks and other spaces, indoors and out - I don't think anyone has Forest's track record, and we have the cuttings, broadcasts and parliamentary submissions to prove it.

It's also worth pointing out that Forest is a perfectly legitimate commentator on vapers' rights because an increasing number of our supporters smoke and vape.

Or, to put it another way, Forest is the voice of the dual user.

We're also the only consumer body that has consistently fought for choice on tobacco and emerging products such as e-cigarettes.

That, I think, gives us a certain credibility.

You're welcome.

PS. My BBC Radio Oxford interview has been postponed until tomorrow.

A Billion Lives: Aaron Biebert and the mystery of the missing suitcase

It would take a heart of stone not to sympathise with Aaron Biebert.

Having shuttled relentlessly around the globe promoting his pro-vaping documentary A Billion Lives, the tireless director has landed in Paris for yet another premiere.

Unfortunately his suitcase - and his beloved tuxedo - failed to arrive with him. Worse, the culprits appear to be British Airways which, as a proud Brit, makes me feel personally responsible.

Biebert's army of supporters are naturally enraged that such a thing could happen and Twitter is abuzz with hints of recrimination against the bungling airline.

I jest, of course. Truth is, I have huge admiration for Biebert's tenacious efforts to promote his film to the wider world. If anyone deserved a medal for persistence it's him.

Since the world premiere in New Zealand in May, A Billion Lives has been shown in Poland (at the Global Forum on Nicotine), Australia and America.

In Biebert's home city of Milwaukee a remarkable 1400 people attended the official North American premiere.

Next stop after Paris is South Africa and there's talk of all-important screenings in Hollywood and New York.

I assume Biebert is driven by a combination of things - including a perfectly reasonable desire to make a name for himself and recoup his costs - but I don't doubt his commitment to the topic of his documentary.

That however could be a weakness because it seems to have become something of a crusade for him. Sometimes it helps to be a little more detached.

Also, much as I admire what Biebert has achieved, I can't endorse A Billion Lives because I still haven't seen it and I've yet to read what I would call a proper independent review from a genuinely impartial source.

Comments I have read - from people I expected to be rather more positive - were surprisingly lukewarm.

I've been struck, in particular, by the lack of promotion the film has received among UK vapers (and vaping advocates), many of whom saw the documentary in Warsaw in June but have hardly mentioned it.

The apathy is remarkable. Ditto the absence of a UK premiere which is incomprehensible given that the UK is probably the most pro-vaping country in the world at present.

It could perhaps be argued that because of that there's less reason to show it here but I don't buy that and I'd love to know why A Billion Lives has not yet had a UK screening.

I've written about this before and if I was Aaron Biebert I'd be less than impressed. That said, I don't know all the facts. On the face of it however it appears to be an epic fail on the part of vaping advocacy groups in Britain.

Another thing. I understand Biebert has been criticised by some vapers for not releasing A Billion Lives on YouTube so everyone can see it, free of charge.

That is extremely unfair and unreasonable. Campaign wise - as we saw in the UK with Brexit: The Movie which went straight to YouTube following a high profile West End premiere - there are genuine arguments in favour of doing just that.

However Brexit: The Movie was, to a considerable extent, crowdfunded. I don't know how A Billion Lives was funded (it would be interesting to know) but if we assume third party financial support was minimal it suggests Biebert's company has taken the principal financial hit.

The director has to earn a living - and pay his staff and other expenses - so he must be allowed to explore every commercial angle (cinema release, Netflix, DVD or whatever) before giving away his work for free (and there should be absolutely no compulsion for him to do that).

Also, given the impending referendum, Brexit: The Movie director Martin Durkin had no time to lose. For the film to have any impact it had to be seen by as many people as possible within a matter of days rather than weeks or months.

Posted on YouTube within 24 hours of its West End premiere, the film was soon viewed by over a million people. It currently has almost 2.5 million views.

Once Aaron Biebert has exhausted every other avenue YouTube is probably the way to go, but give him time.

That said, I'm not convinced that Brexit: The Movie was watched by many Remainers or changed many people's minds. What it did do very well was create a feelgood buzz and confirm the opinions of those who were already intent on voting Leave.

The premiere alone - media reports showed a long queue of people standing outside the cinema in Leicester Square - was invaluable publicity for the Leave campaign.

A Billion Lives has a different purpose, I think. Yes, it's a rallying point for vapers but its primary aim is to open people's eyes and change minds in territories where vaping is under serious threat.

(I realise this undermines my argument about a UK premiere but I nevertheless find that omission astonishing.)

In short, my reservations about A Billion Lives haven't changed since I first expressed them in November last year and they won't change until I actually see the film (when they will probably be confirmed!).

Nevertheless, as I've commented before, I do wish Aaron Biebert well. In particular I hope he gets his luggage back, including that damned tux, before the Paris premiere tonight.

Update: Good news! The tux turned up!

Dose is the poison – guest post by Pat Nurse

Occasionally I'm happy to publish a guest post, with this important qualification: the views expressed are not necessarily mine! The aim of such posts is to stimulate discussion on sometimes taboo subjects – in this instance the argument that, contrary to popular belief, there is a 'safe' level of smoking. Personally I'm of the opinion that smoking is like Russian roulette. There's no doubt in my mind that smoking does pose a risk to the health of the smoker – exacerbated if you're a heavy smoker – yet millions of people smoke for decades without coming to significant harm. Why some smokers develop serious illnesses and others don't could be down to the amount they smoke (common sense suggests the more you smoke the greater the risk) but I don't think the evidence is conclusive. Like Russian roulette there appears to be an element of luck involved, including genetics. Other factors that may reduce smoking-related health risks include diet, regular exercise and generally keeping fit but there's no guarantee that even these factors will dramatically reduce the risks. I'm no expert – I merely defend people's right to make informed choices – but the 'safe level' issue ought to be discussed more widely because it's scandalous that smokers are given just two options by public health – quit or die – when real life experience suggests it's far more complex than that. Comments welcome.

DOSE IS THE POISON by Pat Nurse

The 'no safe level' of smoking claim is as hysterical as claiming there is no safe level of many other of life’s pleasures in this health obsessed century. Cars are sucking the air out of our bodies, a glass of wine is a killer, sitting down is lethal and, of course, if smoking kills (full stop) it follows there must be no safe level of vaping either.

Most people accept the simple truth that anything in moderation is not going to harm you while anything done to excess may lead to a destructive end. I believe there is a safe level of smoking and, like most things, it probably depends on how much you consume, your overall lifestyle and your genetic make up.

If we believe that smoker Jean Calmert, who lived to the age of 120 and stayed healthy and active her whole life, smoked two cigarettes a day for 94 years then that has to be a safe level of smoking for her. Maybe even 30 cigarettes a day is a safe level for some people or smoking home grown tobacco without all those government approved chemicals.

If you take the hysteria out of the issue, and the politics, then common sense would dictate that those of us born in the mid 20th century who are now living to a very old age have either smoked or been around smokers for a significant part our lives, so it would seem there is a safe level of smoking (or exposure to smoking) but it doesn't fit the political agenda to find out or, God forbid, tell smokers what that 'safe level' is.

Today the apocalyptic health warnings have become so grotesque and abusive that the central message that smoking can kill or harm is being lost. The bigger the warnings the more they are ignored. Meanwhile, as non-quitters have stopped listening to these alleged experts' exaggerated forecasts of doom and gloom, they are not being honestly informed or educated on how much is safe to smoke.

Abstain

Like the drinker who wakes up with a whacking hangover knowing the amount they drank the evening before was far too much, or the fatties who know they ate more than they should have, so smokers know the effect heavy smoking has on their own bodies and when they should cut down or abstain.

I knew when I returned from my recent trip to Rotterdam which came at the end of our road trip across France, Italy, Sardinia, Belgium and the Netherlands. In want of a coffee and a smoke inside on a rainy day I ventured into a 'coffee' shop. One week and several spliffs later my chest felt like a furnace. I definitely needed to reduce my tobacco smoking and use aids to help with harm reduction. After a few days the rawness in my chest and the hacking cough was gone.

Weed has ten times the tar level of tobacco but there must be a 'safe level' of cannabis smoking or surely America’s government nannies in Colorado would not have decriminalised it and raked in huge revenues as a result. After all, when it comes to smoke, American lawmakers - like others in alleged 'civilised' Western countries - are hysterical about it and whether you smoke marijuana or tobacco smoke is still smoke with all those nasty particles in it that can send normally reasonable and rational people into a frenzy of irrational fear.

In the same way that some vapers turn their noses up at tobacco smoke, and claim their product saves lives, so do stoners who talk up marijuana’s alleged beneficial qualities and believe the only harmful thing about dope smoking is the tobacco. In Rotterdam I could have a joint with tobacco in it, if I wanted to smoke it outside, but I was told most people prefer their weed raw “without the harmful chemicals of tobacco included". I chuckled at that.

With good ventilation and a bouncer on the door checking people's age, the Dutch coffee shops were an example of how smokers could be accommodated in their own pubs, clubs and meeting places without the need for a blanket indoor ban, which would also get them off the streets and out of the path of those who equate a wisp of smoke with the mustard gas dropped on children in Syria. In fact, if you ask those children the true meaning of 'poison', tobacco smoke wouldn’t even be on the scale.

Reduce

When I want to reduce my smoking I knit to keep my hands busy. I often use two filters - tar filters and carbon filters - and I smoke differently. I inhale less and not as deep. A cigarette holder in addition to those two filters really does make an extra difference.

When I was young I would not have been seen dead with one but those old ladies from the 1920s and 30s knew what they were doing. Not only does it filter away even more tar it prevents stains on the fingers. They come in many shapes and sizes and can be transparent so you can see the tar that isn’t going into your body.

Of course vaping can't be ignored as a harm reduction tool but for those who smoke for the smoke not the nicotine it's unsatisfactory. Heat not burn products are emerging and there were all sorts on sale in the Rotterdam coffee shop including an Enjoint. These things can also be used to burn tobacco.

Meanwhile there's a lack of honest information given to smokers by public health bodies who have abandoned any thought of harm reduction for those who want to smoke in favour of bullying us out of existence to appease those who either hate or fear smoking.

It's high time then that governments considered harm reduction for smokers who don't want to quit. Propaganda and fearmongering to promote an ideological quit smoking agenda are not acceptable to those of us who have smoked for more years than these younger so-called tobacco control 'researchers' have been breathing.

Eat, drink, smoke, vape

Pleased to announce the date and venue of Forest's fringe event at the Conservative party conference next month.

Eat, Drink, Smoke, Vape takes place at Nuvo, Birmingham's premier cocktail bar, on Monday October 3 from 21:00-23:00.

The aim of the event is to highlight the pledge given by new PM Theresa May on the steps of Downing Street when she declared, "We will do everything we can to give you more control over your lives."

In our view that should include lifestyle issues such as eating, drinking, smoking and vaping.

Nuvo is a short walk from the International Conference Centre. It's outside the secure zone so you don't need a conference pass to attend.

There will be cocktails and canapés, plus guest speakers. Vaping is allowed inside and there's a seated smoking area with heaters directly outside.

If you'd like to attend RSVP events@forestonline.org.

An inconvenient truth – many smokers actually enjoy smoking!

I've spent half my working life arguing that many smokers enjoy smoking.

Increasingly I've been made to feel a bit of a Luddite, even at tobacco conferences where all the talk is about harm reduction and non-combustible products like e-cigarettes.

A typical speech on behalf of Forest to a tobacco industry audience would conclude:

Embrace developing trends and products but don’t forget your core customers, millions of whom enjoy smoking and have no wish to quit. They, and we, need your support.

I've repeated the same message ("millions of people enjoy smoking") countless times on television and radio.

Needless to say I'm often interrupted by presenters and tobacco control campaigners who refuse to accept the bleedin' obvious.

As far as they're concerned all smokers are "addicts" and most wish they'd never started.

Today therefore I feel slightly vindicated.

Published on the Nicotine Science and Policy website, The Enjoyment of Smoking begins:

When it comes to policies aimed at reducing the harm of smoking there is a truth that daren’t be spoken, namely that many smokers actually enjoy smoking. In the current climate of tobacco control policies aiming for a tobacco free world, the realization that many people want to continue to engage in a behaviour that they know to be harmful is hard to acknowledge.

Author Neil McKeganey then continues:

In research looking at the reasons why smokers are not interested in trying an e-cigarette, despite knowing that these devices are much less harmful than combusted tobacco, one of the most powerful reasons cited was the fact that the person actually enjoyed smoking. Hard as it might be to acknowledge that many smokers actually enjoy smoking that realization may explain why more than a third of smokers in Great Britain have not even tried an e-cigarette, despite their being a substantially less harmful than smoking, and nearly seven in ten of those that have tried e-cigarettes do not go on to use the devices long term (ONS 2015)

To put this in perspective, Professor Neil McKeganey is director of the Centre for Substance Use Research, formerly the Centre for Drug Misuse Research.

You may remember the name. In December last year Neil's colleague Dr Christopher Russell invited friends and supporters of Forest to complete an online survey, Smoking and Electronic Cigarettes.

I believe several hundred people responded but, like all surveys, the questions didn't please everyone. Some thought they were biased in favour of e-cigarettes and there were several comments to that effect on the Friends of Forest Facebook page.

I was rather more relaxed because, having met Christopher and Neil at various conferences around the world, I know their abilities and the esteem in which their work is held.

I know too from a conversation I had with Neil that the 'enjoyment of smoking' issue is based on genuine responses from a significant number of smokers.

Apart from the bold statement that "many smokers actually enjoy smoking" his article includes a further radical thought:

It is not only the public health doctors that may be discomforted by the recognition that many smokers enjoy smoking. Ironically the tobacco industry itself may struggle with that realization. The biggest hitters in the tobacco industry have come out in favour of electronic nicotine delivery systems. Within a new fangled world of tobacco heating systems and e-cigarettes, lighting up a combustible stick of leaf tobacco can seem frankly out of date.

The tobacco companies that are investing heavily in the new technology have wisely (as far as their shareholders are concerned) refused to identify a date when they will have moved out of the smoked tobacco business. Their hesitancy in that regard may be justified given that so many of their current customers are saying they actually enjoy smoking.

'The Enjoyment of Smoking' is essential reading therefore not just for tobacco control campaigners but for all tobacco stakeholders.

Having banged this drum for many years it's a relief to know that a well-regarded researcher has, quite independently, come to the same conclusion as me.

Prof McKeganey is right too when he says the harm reduction battle will only be won when a product is developed "that is not only associated with lower harm than smoked cigarettes but is just as appealing and just as pleasurable to smokers."

Don't get me wrong. E-cigarettes are a superb invention but they don't appeal to every smoker – not by a long shot – for one very good reason.

Even with the well known health risks there are millions of people who still find smoking far more enjoyable. It's as simple as that.

The Enjoyment of Smoking by Neil McKegney (NSP).

Has the vaping community lost its way?

I've just read an interesting interview with David Goerlitz.

For those who don't know, Goerlitz is the former Winston Man who jumped ship in 1988 and became a spokesman for tobacco control before concluding that the anti-smoking industry was as bad as – and possibly worse than – the tobacco industry he had previously worked for.

There's little in this latest interview he hasn't said before but it's a story worth repeating. For me however what stood out were his comments about vaping:

"I think, in a lot of ways, the vaping community has lost its way. Maybe it’s got too big, too fast.

"Everybody’s thinking about the latest gear, the next generation of gear, and it’s becoming a subculture. That’s pretty off-putting for the ordinary smoker who just wants an alternative to cigarettes.

"You walk into a vape shop and it’s really obvious that it’s a different culture. I don’t have any problems with that, but how does it look if you’re not familiar with it?

"There are a few million vapers in the USA now, but there’s also over 40 million people who’re still smoking. They’re not looking for a new hobby, or a new culture to join. They just want an alternative to cigarettes."

I disagree with the suggestion that every smoker just wants "an alternative to cigarettes" (the arrogance of some pro-vaping advocates continues to amaze!) but the rest of his analysis is spot on, I think, and certainly worth debating.

I've said similar things myself, albeit not so eloquently:

Most if not all of the vaping representatives at e-cigarette conferences tend to be ex-smoking vapers which makes them unrepresentative of many vapers, the majority of whom are (I believe) still dual users.

They are also unrepresentative in other ways – notably the type of products they use. We very much hope there is a niche for every product for which there is some consumer demand. Long-term however we believe that if the e-cigarette market is to grow substantially and attract more smokers to switch, the two essential factors will be cost and convenience.

Based on anecdotal evidence we also believe there are some aspects of the current pro-vaping advocacy that are actually driving some smokers away from e-cigarettes.

Apart from the fact that many pro-vaping advocates are paid up members of the anti-smoking industry, it's the evangelism of the vaping community that grates on a lot of people.

"Thanks to vaping," someone will tweet triumphantly. "I've been smoke-free for six months!"

To which other vaping advocates will respond:

"Brilliant."

"Nice to hear."

"Very well done."

"Congratulations!"

"Six years next month for me."

It's like Weightwatchers or Alcoholics Anonymous.

If I ever succeed in losing weight shoot me before I tweet:

"Twelves months since I quit alcohol/sweets/fizzy drinks. Two stone lighter and no double chin. Thanks for your support, guys!"

Perhaps it's me but I don't want to be part of a community (however well-meaning) whose members have 'seen the light'.

Unfortunately some ex-smoking vapers are like missionaries determined to preach the gospel and convert unbelievers.

It's not enough that they've successfully quit smoking. They want everyone else to quit too and, boy, is that off-putting.

Btw, just as I have nothing against punks or goths, I've absolutely no problem with a sub-culture that promotes vaping. It's just not for me and the same is true I imagine for many smokers, even those who want to quit.

So spare us the crusading zeal. If vaping activists really want e-cigarettes to go mainstream, listen to David Goerlitz:

David Goerlitz - the Winston Man talks tobacco and vaping (Black Note).

Back to work, but first ....

I'm back, several pounds heavier following a seven-day cruise aboard Cunard's Queen Victoria.

If, like me, you have no interest in physical activity and enjoy eating, drinking and doing very little, it's inevitable you'll put on even more weight during a cruise.

Breakfast, lunch, afternoon tea and dinner are on a continuous loop. For the weak-willed there's no escape from the calories and the cholesterol.

This was our fifth cruise and our second on the Queen Victoria. We like it because it's not as big as many modern cruise ships, most of which are designed to attract families with hyperactive children (teenagers and toddlers), hence the climbing walls, ice rinks, outdoor cinemas and God knows what.

On the Queen Victoria children are relatively few in number. I also like the fact that Cunard's boats are still recognisably ships rather than Las Vegas style floating hotels.

I won't bore you with too many details. Suffice to say we joined the ship in Venice and thereafter visited Dubrovnik (Croatia), Saranda (Albania), Heraklion (Crete) and Santorini (Greece).

The famous walled city of Dubrovnik, which I first visited in 1972, was a bit of a disappointment – far too many tourists.

Cruise ships don't help because thousands of passengers descend on the city like a swarm of ants, arriving and departing within a few hours. People like me are therefore part of the problem.

In contrast a friend rented a villa overlooking Dubrovnik earlier this year and had a great time, enjoying superb views and picking his moment to wander around this historic city.

Saranda was very different. In fact we were told it was the first time any Cunard ship had stopped there and the only reason we were there at all was because the company changed the itinerary a few weeks before we left to avoid a scheduled visit to Turkey.

Anyway we didn't spend much time in Saranda itself. Instead we boarded a small coach that took us to an archaeological site about an hour away.

En route our guide gave us a potted history of the country's post war history and explained that Albanians prefer not to pay tax so the state has very little money to spend on infrastructure.

That was painfully obvious. We were told that most Albanians can't get a loan so homes and other buildings have to be paid for in cash. The result is that a huge number of offices and apartments are unfinished.

They build and then occupy the ground floor but if there's no more money construction stops. Sometimes there's enough to erect the frame of the building – three or four floors – but not enough to do anything else so it sits there, empty and apparently derelict.

From our coach we saw hundreds of buildings like that.

The archeological site was interesting, if you like that sort of thing. The ancient buildings unearthed by the Italians in the decade before the Second World War had been built by the Venetians and the the Romans.

Apparently there are many more buildings still to be excavated but the process is incredibly slow because the Albanians don't have the money to dig any quicker.

Sadly, unlike Greece for example, the Albanians don't have the confidence to sell their own culture as a tourist attraction. Every shop and bar in Saranda seemed to have an English (or American) name or theme.

Understandably perhaps they are desperate to join the EU. As our guide said, Brexit has given them hope there might be a spare place at the table.

Arriving in Crete our noses were immediately put out of joint by the information that the buses that should have transferred us from port to city centre could go no further than the port gates because the local taxi union wouldn't allow it.

Instead we had to get off the coach and choose between walking (in the baking heat) or getting a taxi. Naturally every Brit chose to walk, our white legs and floppy hats signalling our nationality and defiance of that pesky union.

We spent less time in Heraklion partly because it was so hot and I wanted to get back to the comfort of our air-conditioned ship where we heard this from a neighbouring balcony. Angry husband to wife: "We may be in Crete but I'm not a cretin."

The most picturesque part of the cruise was probably Santorini, a Greek island in the southern part of the Aegean.

If I'm honest I'd never heard of it before, which shows how ignorant I am. The current rock formation was created by a huge volcanic eruption so the lagoon where the ship sat at anchor is in fact an enormous crater.

Unionised tender boats took us from ship to shore where a cable car whisked us to the top of a steep 1,000 foot cliff where a small town of whitewashed buildings overlooked the lagoon. This was Fira, the capital, and from a distance those buildings looked like snow on top of a mountain.

Coming down we chose to follow the original zig-zag path. In hindsight this was a mistake because it took us the best part of an hour. (The cable car took three or four minutes.)

We also found ourselves sharing the path with scores of donkeys, a relic of the pre-cable car era. The smell of stinking hot manure was pretty grotesque. I'd recommend Fira (in spring or autumn) but give those steps a miss.

Our final disembarkation was at Piraeus, a few miles south of Athens, where the picture above was taken.

The photo below was taken from deck 12 when the ship was at anchor in the lagoon at Santorini.

Miraculously for a cruise ship it was 11.00am and we were the only people on that particular deck. This meant we had our own personal waiter who scurried to and fro bringing us cold drinks, plates of melon and other refreshments. We didn't even have to ask.

And on that note, it's back to work.

The war on smoking is a war on individual freedom

In the Telegraph last Saturday Juliet Samuel addressed the decision to ban the use of the burkini - a head to foot swimming costume worn mostly by Muslim women - on the beaches of Cannes and another resort in France, Villeneuve-Loubet.

According to Samuel (and I couldn't agree more), "The real enemies of freedom are not the burkini-wearers but the politicians who want to ban them."

But let's address her initial point:

The women are smoking cigarettes ... Newly liberated from the rule of Isil, they’re expressing the most basic freedom a human can possess: control over their own bodies. These are the freedoms the West holds dear.

If only that were true. The West may not kill or torture people for smoking (not yet, anyway!) but the suggestion it's a freedom "the West holds dear" is no longer true, sadly.

I'm not suggesting governments should actively encourage habits that are potentially harmful but if it's legal the state's role in a free society is to educate then allow people to make our own informed choices without being punished for making choices the state doesn't approve of.

Instead, led by America, Australia, Canada, the UK and Ireland (spot the connection?), governments and local authorities in the West have spent the past two decades banning or severely restricting smoking in a variety of public places.

Smoking in enclosed public places is now prohibited in several Western countries and there is a growing move towards outdoor smoking bans.

Smokers have been taxed to the hilt, far in excess of what it allegedly costs the state to treat smoking-related diseases.

In some countries the product has been hidden behind shutters and sliding doors while packs and pouches are emblazoned with gory health warnings designed to shock and repulse.

Simultaneously the public has been encouraged to regard smoking as a dirty or disgusting habit ("If you smoke, you stink" according to one publicly-funded campaign).

Does that sound like a freedom "the West holds dear"?

At the heart of these initiatives is a fundamental desire to denormalise a legal product and stigmatise the consumer. Worse, anti-smoking campaigns are often driven by a deliberate policy of hate and fear.

How has the public responded? Well, although relatively few people are actively anti-smoking (and most of them are employed by the state or third sector 'charities'), it's also true that the number of people and organisations committed to defending smokers is painfully small.

Long ago I wrote to Liberty, on behalf of Forest, inviting them to condemn discrimination against smokers. I received a polite brush-off, the gist of which was "in the overall scheme of things smokers' rights are simply not that important".

I wasn't surprised. Many people profess to be civil libertarians or socially liberal but only a handful speak up for smokers. Ditto economic liberals despite strong arguments for letting the market decide

I know this because Forest monitors all these groups across a range of platforms (including social media) and the number of self-proclaimed liberals who defend smoking and oppose anti-smoking legislation is depressingly small, believe me.

Likewise I've lost count of the number of ex-smoking vapers who protest they're not anti-smoking yet remain mute when smoking is under the cosh. When challenged they respond, "It's not our battle." Alternatively they recycle any anti-smoking nonsense that furthers their own cause.

Of course the careers of many pro-vaping advocates were built on the war on tobacco so their refusal to stand up for smokers is no surprise. As far as they're concerned smokers are collateral damage in the unrelenting march towards a brave new smoke free world.

(It makes me laugh when I see some of them lauded as heroes of the vaping movement. Every smoking ban that includes the use of e-cigarettes is directly attributable to the anti-smoking policies those very same people actively campaigned for and still endorse.)

For me defending smoking (and smokers) is the litmus test of a genuinely liberal mind. It scores points on so many levels I hardly know where to start.

The most important perhaps is that genuine liberals are prepared to defend activities they themselves don't engage in and may even disapprove of.

Defending smoking means challenging the current orthodoxy that the world would be a better place without it.

If you're a smoker it also means accepting personal responsibility for your decision to smoke and not using the 'victim' or addiction card.

For example, one of the things that annoys me most about some ex-smoking vapers is the claim, repeated ad nauseum, that restrictions on vaping or vaping products will "force" them back to smoking.

I heard it again this week in Australia where vapers were protesting against regulations banning the sale of e-cigarettes containing nicotine. It's an absurd policy but, for heaven's sake, if you don't want to smoke, don't smoke. No-one's forcing you light up. Get a grip.

Bleating that restrictions on e-cigarettes will "force" you back to smoking plays into the hands of those who want to portray smokers (and vapers) as pathetic, weak-willed addicts desperate for their next fix - unless government steps in to 'save' them.

A few years ago I was interviewed for a feature in the Independent, Is smoking still defensible?. Nick Duerden, a freelance journalist, gave us a decent hearing, I thought.

As well as Forest Nick wanted to speak to some of our supporters so I put him in touch with David Hockney, Joe Jackson and Ronald (now Sir Ronald) Harwood.

All three were quoted but I would have struggled to name many more with a similar public profile because when it comes to defending smoking most people don't want to know. Even smokers have been cowed into submission.

So I'll ask this. Who do you identify with - the women in Manjib, Syria, celebrating the freedom to smoke, or public health campaigners who want to deny you that freedom in the name of ... what, exactly?

I don't doubt that some people are addicted to smoking and want to quit. I'm equally convinced however that as an expression of individual freedom smoking is hard to beat.

I also think the world would be a poorer, less diverse place without smoking but, hey, I'm just a tobacco industry stooge with no mind of my own.

And on that bombshell I will leave you for a week or so.

Tonight I'm having dinner aboard the Queen Victoria in the port of Venice. At ten o'clock local time we'll set sail for Croatia with subsequent stops including Crete, Albania (a late replacement for Turkey!) and Greece.

Do post a comment or two while I'm away. Oh, and feel free to go off topic. The good news is, I won't be here to stop you!