Broadcaster can't contain his "visceral hatred of anybody who smokes"

I grew up with Archie Macpherson.

He was a BBC Scotland football commentator – a good one at that – when I lived in Fife and later Aberdeen.

In 1987 he was the commentator when my team Dundee United beat Barcelona at the Nou Camp, winning a Uefa Cup quarter-final 3-1 on aggregate.

Macpherson's joy when United scored twice in the final minutes to win the tie is one of my favourite football moments.

How sad then that younger generations will only know him for what he calls a "visceral hatred of anybody who smokes".

Not just smoking, note, but "anybody who smokes". That's a hell of a lot of people – one million in Scotland alone.

I don't suppose he likes people who defend smokers either.

According to a report on STV last night Macpherson was diagnosed with kidney cancer in 2013 "as a direct result of breathing in other people's smoke".

I have sympathy for anyone suffering from cancer but these comments take anti-smoking propaganda to a new low.

According to Cancer Research UK, "Doctors and scientists don't know exactly what causes kidney cancer but some things do increase the risk."

One of those things, says CRUK, is smoking but other factors include high blood pressure and "faulty genes and inherited conditions". Passive smoking isn't mentioned although I suppose some would argue that smoking and passive smoking are the same thing. (It's not.)

Meanwhile here's another Macpherson quote, from 2013:

“There is no doubt that the smoking ban is the greatest piece of public legislation that’s been passed anywhere in the world.

“The ban on smoking in public places must go on and we must find some other ways, even in this era of human rights legislation and whatever, of terrorising smokers.”

How appropriate is that?

Yesterday STV News tweeted a short interview with Macpherson (see below).

Curiously they haven't tweeted or posted last night's news report that included a (very) brief soundbite from me concerning the public's support for separate smoking rooms.

I'll post it later when we've uploaded the clip on to YouTube.

WATCH: My Story: Archie Macpherson and the smoking ban anniversary https://t.co/mFZfUAdd8x

— STV News (@STVNews) March 23, 2016

Dates for your diary

Pleased to announce the following Forest events.

Smoke On The Water, our popular annual boat party, is on Wednesday June 29, a week later than usual to avoid a clash with the EU referendum the previous week. It also avoids competing with any Euro 2016 matches.

The fifth Freedom Dinner is on Tuesday July 12. Venue as ever is Boisdale of Canary Wharf (below). Our principal speaker will be announced next month with tickets available at a special discounted price until April 30. Watch this space.

My thoughts on Pembrokeshire County Council's response to VIP's open letter

The ban on smoking and vaping on Little Haven beach in Pembrokeshire provoked an exasperated letter from Vapers In Power to the council.

You can read it here.

Surprisingly, perhaps, the council replied. (Scroll down to the comments on the link above.)

VIP asked me for my reaction to their response but it ended up being longer than intended. I didn't want to impose the whole thing on readers of the VIP blog so I've posted it here instead:

First, credit to Pembrokeshire County Council for responding to VIP’s open letter. Many local authorities would have ignored it. However …

"Surveys have shown that the majority of people welcome such an approach of a smoke-free beach."

I assume the council is refering to a 2015 poll by YouGov (ASH's preferred pollster) but they don't say. If you make that sort of claim you should at least quote your source/s because other surveys have reached a very different conclusion.

In December 2015, for example, Brighton and Hove City Council dropped proposals to ban smoking on the city’s beaches “after a huge public response” to a well-publicised public consultation. According to one local paper (the Brighton & Hove News), “Just one in five supported a smoking ban in parks, historic gardens and beaches, with a strong majority strongly disagreeing. Even amongst non-smokers, there was no majority support for a ban.”

Last week a poll by Populus for Forest in Scotland found a majority in favour of allowing smoking on beaches. The result was very similar to a UK-wide survey conducted by Populus in June last year. But even if the results had gone the other way, should the tyranny of the majority influence public policy when there is no evidence of harm to others?

"It is hoped that such initiatives ... will become the norm."

So that's the goal, is it? Not content with banning smoking on one small beach in Pembrokeshire, the council wants this initiative to extend to most – perhaps all – beaches regardless of the fact that for long periods of the day, week, month or year most beaches are largely deserted with not a child in sight.

Even Pembrokeshire Council admits that smoking in the open air poses no risk to other people's health. Most parents are also sensible enough to know that the infrequent sight of strangers smoking on a beach (or anywhere else) is unlikely to encourage their children to smoke as well. Even if a child were to notice, he or she would probably be too busy doing something else to give it a second thought.

"This entire thrust is about the holistic safeguarding of children."

What mumbo-jumbo is this? There are things children need to be protected from. A whiff of tobacco smoke or the sight of someone smoking a cigarette are not among them. I grew up in Scotland where, in the Seventies, the same thing was said about alcohol. It was, and is, the sort of language you expect to hear from puritannical temperance societies not local authorities.

In the UK youth smoking rates are currently at their lowest recorded level ever so it’s hardly a major problem. In this area at least the council has no business acting as de facto parents to other people’s children. If I don’t want my children seeing another adult smoke tobacco, drink alcohol or eat ‘junk’ food for fear they might be influenced to do the same, that’s my decision not the council’s. It's certainly not the council's job to make that decision for me.

Another Populus survey of over 2,000 UK residents carried out earlier this month found that only 14 per cent of the public believe that tackling smoking is a very important priority for local government. Asked to rate priorities for local government, respondents rated tackling crime and anti-social behaviour as the highest priority.

Other issues that were rated more important than tackling smoking included investing in road and pavements, improving job prospects, investing in street cleanliness, and improving facilities for young people. In a list of ten priorities for local government, ‘tackling smoking’ came second last.

But what really exposes the mind-boggling crassness of this 'public health' measure is the fact that Pembrokeshire Council has also banned the use on the beach of e-cigarettes, a product used almost exclusively by smokers or ex-smokers, often in a bid to quit smoking or avoid relapsing.

Citing a tendentious Californian report when Public Health England has quite recently published its own much more positive verdict on e-cigarettes is a classic case of cherry-picking evidence to suit a particular agenda.

It emphasises too what Forest told the media earlier this month. This is not about health, it's about control.

It’s also worth emphasising that Pembrokeshire Council has no powers to enforce this voluntary 'ban'. So my advice to smokers and vapers is – use your common sense, smoke/vape with consideration for those around you but otherwise ignore this self-righteous instruction that says far more about the people behind it than the perfectly legitimate behaviour that inspired it.

Nevertheless, spare a thought for our friends at Pembrokeshire County Council. Not only did the Public Health (Wales) Bill fall at the final hurdle last week (albeit in rather farcical circumstances), denying the council the power needed to enforce the ban, but there's no immediate prospect of the UK government introducing such powers either.

My source? Hansard.

Responding yesterday to a written question from Plaid Cymru MP Jonathan Edwards who asked the Secretary of State for Health “what representations he [sic] has received from local authorities in England on prohibiting smoking on beaches”, Health Secretary Jane Ellison replied:

“The Department has received no representations from local authorities on prohibiting smoking on beaches. The Government has no current plans to extend smokefree legislation to open public areas.”

Some of you will jump on the phrase “no current plans” and you'd be right to be sceptical. For the moment however Pembrokeshire County Council appears to be armed with nothing more than a wagging finger and a disapproving look to enforce its paternalistic intentions.

May they enjoy their 15 minutes of fame. The rest of us will get on with our lives, prioritising issues that really matter. If only local councillors would do the same.

Scotland: majority of adults support smoking rooms in pubs and clubs

The IDS row dominates the Sunday papers, even in Scotland.

Nevertheless the Scottish Mail on Sunday has found space to report – under the headline 'Smoke ban backlash' – the result of a poll commissioned by Forest last week.

Conducted by Populus, the survey of 1,011 adults living in Scotland found that over half (54 per cent) think pubs and private members’ clubs, including working men’s clubs, should be allowed to provide a well-ventilated designated smoking room to accommodate smokers.

Only two fifths (40 per cent) were opposed to the idea.

Women (54 per cent) were equally as likely as men (55 per cent) to think pubs and clubs should be allowed to provide a smoking room.

Two fifths (41 per cent) of women thought smoking rooms should not be allowed in pubs and clubs, compared to 38 per cent of men.

The poll was commissioned for Forest ahead of the tenth anniversary of the smoking ban in Scotland (Saturday March 26).

It's worth pointing out that this is not a rogue poll. The result is similar to a June 2015 Populus poll, also commissioned by Forest, that asked the same question of over 2,000 people throughout the UK.

More than half (57 per cent) thought pubs and private members’ clubs, including working men's clubs, should be allowed to provide a well-ventilated designated smoking room to accommodate smokers; 43 per cent said they should not be allowed to provide smoking rooms.

In December 2014 a ComRes poll for the Institute of Economic Affairs found that half (51 per cent) of Britons believed owners of pubs and private members clubs should be allowed to have a private room for people to smoke in if they want to, with 31 per cent disagreeing.

The results are clear and consistent. Almost a decade after the introduction of smoking bans across the UK, a majority of adults say designated smoking rooms should be allowed in pubs and clubs.

Convenience and competition are key for emerging products

More and more of my time is spent discussing and researching emerging tobacco products.

I credit two readers because it was Mark Butcher's enthusiasm for PMI's iQOS device and Juliette Tworsey's similar passion for Ploom, another heat-not-burn product (now owned by JTI), that encouraged me to delve a little deeper.

PMI has a useful guide to iQOS here. The first generation heat stick (Platform 1) isn't on sale in Britain (as far as I know) but Mark is convinced it would be popular with smokers here.

Like a lot of e-cigarettes it looks a bit clunky to me but I'm not the target market. What's interesting is that the Platform 2 device (described by PMI as being at "an earlier stage of development than Platform 1") looks just like a cigarette.

My gut feeling – based on no research whatsoever – is that if hundreds of millions of smokers worldwide are to switch to vaping (e-cigarettes or HNB products) the device has to be as simple to use as a combustible cigarette.

I base this on the observation that the main reason cigarettes were so popular in the 20th century was convenience.

Compare cigarettes to pipe-smoking. The late Lord Harris, chairman of Forest for 20 years until his death in 2006, was an enthusiastic pipe smoker. Then, in his early Eighties, he suddenly gave up.

I won't go into the circumstances (it was nothing to do with health) but the principal reason was the amount of paraphernalia he had to carry around – his pipe (or pipes), tobacco pouch, pipe cleaners, lighter and so on.

Throughout the 20th century I suspect many pipe smokers quit for the same reason, with many switching to cigarettes.

Like a pipe, cigars generally take far longer to smoke than a cigarette so, leaving aside the cost, cigarettes were more convenient than cigars as well.

My guess is the majority of smokers will only switch to vaping if the device matches the convenience of cigarettes and offers a similar tobacco-related experience.

Second generation e-cigs are the pipes of the 21st century; vape shops are like specialist tobacconists. The niche will hopefully survive TPD and other insane regulations but it will never be mass market.

Truth is, a significant majority of smokers aren't attracted by the initial generations of e-cigarettes. The future, I believe, lies elsewhere. Will that be HNB? It's too early to say.

The reason I'm interested in HNB products is because, wearing my Forest hat, anything that offers a safer method of consuming tobacco ought to interest smokers, especially if it mimics the act of smoking and still involves tobacco.

I was encouraged therefore when it was reported that BAT is also entering the HNB market although I'm equally intrigued that a fourth company, Imperial Brands (formerly Imperial Tobacco), is said to be shunning "heating products".

From a consumer and media standpoint it creates a compelling narrative and it will be interesting to see what the future holds. BAT, for example, is also developing a hybrid product "that combines e-cigarette technology with fresh tobacco".

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

Personally I like the fact that at least three tobacco companies are developing a new generation of tobacco products that could, perhaps, offer similar harm reduction benefits as e-cigarettes.

Even if the benefits aren't as significant as using e-cigs I welcome the additional choice they could provide.

The fact that HNB devices are genuine tobacco products, unlike e-cigarettes, counts in their favour. (Forest, after all, is an acronym for Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco.)

My personal view is that competition drives technology and innovation. As long as governments don't over-regulate any of these products (and others still to be invented) the long-term winner ought to be the consumer.

History of course shows that the best products don't always come out on top. Betamax famously lost the videotape format war to the inferior VHS. Likewise the 8-track cartridge lost out to the compact cassette, and so on.

I suspect something similar may happen with rival nicotine delivery systems. Commercially the most successful product won't necessarily be the best or most technologically advanced.

Quality matters, up to a point, but what matters most to consumers is cost and convenience.

In terms of risk, common sense suggests that HNB products will sit somewhere between combustibles and e-cigarettes but we won't know for some time.

The continuing appeal of combustibles for millions of smokers suggests they will balance the health risks of a product against other factors - pleasure, for example.

For that reason, even if they are not as 'safe' as e-cigarettes, HNB products may prove more attractive to smokers in the long run.

What HNB devices will provide, if regulations allow it, is even greater choice for smokers who want to cut down or quit or use a smokeless product when they're working or socialising in enclosed public spaces.

In Geneva, with the exception of fumoirs, smoking is banned in bars and restaurants. When I met him a few weeks ago, however, Mark Butcher was able to use his iQOS heat stick all evening without comment or complaint.

The biggest threat to HNB and other emerging products will probably be those whose ideological aversion to the tobacco industry and tobacco in general has defined an entire generation of public health campaigners.

The real breakthrough will come when governments stop hiding behind Article 53 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and engage openly with the industry in a full and frank discussion about all tobacco products - including HR and combustibles.

Their current refusal to do so suggests governments are more interested in political gamesmanship than public health.

That's the real scandal the media consistently overlooks.

Good news for vapers and opponents of excessive regulations

Good news from Cardiff.

The Public Health (Wales) Bill which was going to severely restrict the use of e-cigarettes in enclosed public places has been rejected by AMs.

The circumstances were slightly farcical, in keeping with all devolved assemblies, because it involved Plaid Cymru AMs taking offence at something a Labour minister said in jest.

The result was that instead of being split on the issue Plaid Cymru AMs joined the Conservatives and Lib Dems in opposing the measure and the Bill was defeated by 27 votes to 26.

On a day when George Osborne announced plans for a sugar levy and the price of cigarettes edged towards £10 a pack, it was good to end the day on a happier note.

Last night, via the Press Association, the Telegraph and Mail both quoted Forest as follows:

"Vapers are almost exclusively smokers who wish to cut down or quit or are looking for an alternative nicotine delivery system in places where smoking is banned

"Given the a lack of evidence that the use of electronic cigarettes is harmful to users and bystanders, it would be hugely counter-productive to discourage the use of e-cigarettes in public places."

This morning we were also quoted by ITV News:

The proposals to severely restrict the use of e-cigarettes in public places were hopelessly misguided and irrational.

The proposed measures were based not on evidence of harm but on an irrational fear of nicotine.

See Parties, campaigners and traders react to failed e-cig ban (ITV News).

For our full response go to Forest welcomes defeat of Public Health (Wales) Bill.

Oh, and here are the arguments we made in our submission to last year's consultation - Forest response to consultation on Public Health (Wales) Bill.

Finally, I look forward to hearing what ASH Wales and Cancer Research have to say on the defeat of the Bill.

So far these alleged supporters of e-cigarettes have been completely mute. I wonder why that is?

Update: ASH Wales has now issued a response. Significantly it describes the Bill's defeat as "disappointing".

They note the loss of "robust tobacco control measures" including a national register of retailers for tobacco products.

The Bill, they point out, would also have "restricted" smoking in school grounds, public playgrounds and hospital grounds.

The e-cigarette issue is mentioned but almost as an afterthought - and through gritted teeth.

Advocates of e-cigarettes? Only as a tobacco control measure.

Budget 2016: Tobacco duty up – again

So the Chancellor has announced that tobacco duty will go up – again.

No surprise there. The tobacco escalator is something Osborne committed himself to for the whole of this parliament.

The good news it isn't worse. ASH wanted an increase of five per cent above inflation for all tobacco including cigarettes and Cancer Research have been campaigning for a £500 million levy to be applied to the tobacco companies, a sum that would almost certainly have been passed on to the consumer, as Osborne himself said last year when he rejected the idea.

Instead we've got two per cent above inflation for cigarettes and an additional three per cent (five per cent in total) for hand rolling tobacco.

More surprising is the Chancellor's announcement of an "effective floor" on the price of cigarettes.

Anyway, here is Forest's response that you also read on our website here:

Campaigners have expressed disappointment that tobacco duty will continue to rise by two per cent above inflation.

Simon Clark, director of the smokers' group Forest which runs the Axe The Tobacco Escalator campaign, criticised both the increase and the Chancellor's announcement of an "effective floor" on the price of cigarettes:

"Increasing the cost of tobacco benefits no-one apart from the spivs and criminals who sell illicit tobacco on the black market.

"Punitive taxation penalises law-abiding consumers and hurts every taxpayer who has to pay to reduce the loss of revenue.

“In the last parliament tobacco duty increased by 40 per cent and the total tax on the cheapest cigarettes in the UK is now a staggering 88 per cent.

"The total shortfall in tobacco revenue since 2010 is £10.7 billion. A large chunk of that has disappeared into the pockets of criminal gangs.

"In 2014/15 alone the revenue the government lost to illicit trade was £2.1 billion with a further £500k being lost to legitimate cross-border shopping."

Forest was also critical of the Chancellor's announcement of an “effective floor” on the price of cigarettes. According to Forest director Simon Clark:

"A floor on the price of cigarettes will hurt the low paid and others who can least afford it. The Chancellor is trying to price the less well off out of the market but all it will do is drive them to the black market."

A national poll conducted last week found there is little public support for further increases in tobacco duty.

According to the Populus survey of more than 2,000 people, only 24 per cent of the public think tobacco duty is "too low". In contrast 38 per cent think it’s "too high" and 31 per cent think it’s "about right".

PS. The image above was commissioned for Forest's Axe The Escalator campaign. I rather like it.

Update on Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 17:21 by Simon Clark

I'm having a Natalie Bennett "brain fade" moment.

Figuring out the price increases on different types of tobacco is not as easy as you might think.

For example, is the two per cent above inflation increase on cigarettes based on the retail price index (RPI) that today stood at 1.7 per cent, or the consumer price index (CPI) that stands at one per cent?

Answer: it's the RPI.

And what about hand rolling tobacco? Initially I thought the Chancellor had increased the duty on that by three per cent above inflation.

Not at all. I'll let the FT explain:

Tobacco duty will rise by 2 per cent above inflation from 18:00 UK time today, while duty on hand-rolling tobacco will increase by 3 per cent above that rate – in other words 5 per cent above the RPI measure of inflation.

Finally, what's the "effective floor" that Osborne intends to introduce next year? Is it a form of minimum pricing for tobacco?

Er, not exactly. It's a reference to minimum excise tax which something else although the impact may be similar.

Anyway, here's my response to a query from a journalist a few minutes ago. In the absence of any government figures (there's been a cock-up, apparently, behind the scenes and the official figures have been delayed), it some time to work out:

A pack of 20 premium cigarettes will now cost approximately £9.61, an increase of 21p (from £9.40).

A 25g pouch of hand rolling tobacco will now cost approximately £9.93 (from £9.56), an increase of 37p.

Anyway I'm just grateful I'm not doing any interviews on the subject.

Btw, a 25g pouch of rolling tobacco will be banned under the EU's Tobacco Products Directive. Instead, consumers will have to buy a 50g pouch which will cost almost £20.

Thanks, EU.

Taxing the public's patience on tobacco control

On Monday, ahead of today's Budget, I revealed the result of a new Populus poll commissioned by Forest.

According to the survey of 2000 adults, 38 per cent think tobacco duty is "too high", 31 per cent think it's "about right", and only 24 per cent think it's "too low".

It remains to be seen whether the Chancellor will take public opinion into account but it's clear there is little support for the tobacco control policy of a further tax increase.

Other poll findings:

• Only 18 per cent of the public believe that tackling smoking is a very important priority for the NHS. Smoking came second bottom out of a list of ten priorities.

• Asked to rate priorities for the NHS, respondents said investing in new doctors and nurses was the highest priority. Other issues that rated more important than tackling smoking included investing in new hospitals and infrastructure, addressing care for the elderly, addressing response times at Accident and Emergency, and addressing mental health services

• Only 14 per cent of the public believe that tackling smoking is a very important priority for local government. The issue also came second bottom in a list of ten priorities for local government.

• Asked to rate priorities for local government, respondents rated tackling crime and anti-social behaviour as the highest priority. Other issues that were rated more important than tackling smoking included investing in road and pavements, improving job prospects, investing in street cleanliness, and improving facilities for young people.

A result that particularly interested me was:

• 61 per cent of the public believe it is very important that the government commissions an independent review of the impact of forthcoming tobacco control measures, including the EU’s Tobacco Products Directive and standardised packaging, before proceeding with further measures to control the sale and consumption of tobacco.

For years Forest has been calling for an independent review of the impact of the smoking ban, taking into account the effect on all stakeholders. The last Labour government promised a review (of sorts) in 2010 but after it was elected the Coalition Government quietly dropped the idea.

Since then we've asked for an independent impact assessment report on the display ban, arguing that it's pointless pressing ahead with further tobacco control measures without understanding the impact, if any, of previous measures.

The public, it seems, agrees with us but that's not how tobacco control and its allies in government work. They're content to blunder on, regardless of the impact on consumers, small businesses etc.

Another question we were interested in finding out the answer to concerned the public's attitude to the funding of stop smoking services.

According to recent research, the numbers using stop smoking services in England and Wales has dropped by 51 per cent since 2010/11. The rise of e-cigarettes is presumably a significant factor in this and if the trend continues it makes very little sense for local government to fund services that relatively few people are using.

Despite this, tobacco control wants to increase the cost of tobacco again to fund smoking cessation services that fewer and fewer people are using. With e-cigarettes replacing more traditional and less successful quit smoking aids, why would you do that unless your real goal has less to do with public health and more to do with protecting your mates in the smoking cessation industry?

Anyway, informed that the numbers using stop smoking services have declined dramatically, 66 per cent of the public agreed there should a review of the way smoking cessation services are funded.

If that was to happen the days of the taxpayer funding smoking cessation services could be numbered.

Anyway, here's my foreword to Tobacco Control: Taxing the Public's Patience, which we also published on Monday:*

The tobacco control industry often claims it has the support of the public for whatever measure it wants government to adopt in the long-running war on tobacco.

A new national poll exposes this conceit. Conducted by Populus for Forest, it found that fewer than one in five adults (18 per cent) believe that tackling smoking is a very important priority for the National Health Service, while only 14 per cent consider it a very important priority for local government. In each category tackling smoking came ninth out of a list of ten priorities. This replicates a similar result from a June 2015 poll by Populus that found that tackling smoking was considered to be the lowest in a list of priorities for the NHS, behind even obesity and alcohol issues

Ignoring the punitive level of duty that smokers already pay on tobacco products, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) is lobbying the UK Government to increase the tobacco duty escalator from two per cent above inflation to five per cent above inflation. According to Populus however only 24 per cent of the public think the tax on tobacco is too low; 38 per cent think it’s too high, while 31 per cent think it’s about right.

One reason ASH wants the Government to raise more money from tobacco is to fund stop smoking services. New research however shows that the numbers using stop smoking services in England have plummeted by 51 per cent since 2010/11. Is it any wonder that 66 per cent of people polled want a review of the way stop smoking services are funded? It would be economic madness to pour even more money into services a declining number of people are using.

Forest has repeatedly urged the Government to assess the impact of tobacco control measures on ALL stakeholders, including consumers. It is significant then that Populus also found that 61 per cent of the public think it is very important that the Government commissions an independent review of the impact of forthcoming tobacco control measures before proceeding with further measures to control the sale and consumption of tobacco.

I hope that ministers, including the Chancellor, will read this briefing paper and take note.

See Tobacco Control: Taxing the Public's Patience.