Zero fines for smoking in cars carrying children

The BBC is reporting that the police have issued zero fines and just six warnings since smoking was banned in cars carrying children.

The information follows an FOI request to 44 police forces, 39 of which replied.

BBC Breakfast invited Forest to respond with a statement and this is what I gave them:

"This is entirely predictable so we're not in the least bit surprised.

"The police have far better things to do than pull over drivers on suspicion they may be smoking with a child in the car.

"It would take x-ray vision or remarkable intuition to tell if there was a small child in the back of a moving car.

"The overwhelming majority of smokers know it's inconsiderate to smoke in a car carrying children so finding someone who does is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

"This is probably one of the most futile and irrelevant laws ever introduced. The Government did it to denormalise smoking but parents who smoke don't need politicians telling them how to behave.

"Laws that are unnecessary or impossible to enforce are not just pointless. They risk bringing the police into disrepute because, through no fault of their own, the police inevitably appear hapless and ineffectual."

I didn't expect them to use more than a sentence or two and I was right. However the single line they used - "This is one of the most futile and irrelevant laws ever introduced" - needed some context.

Instead the programme interviewed two people - a doctor and a police representative. According to the latter an oversight when drafting the legislation had resulted in the police being unable to issue penalty notices. Instead, cases have to be forwarded to the local authority.

PS. The Department of Health is putting a brave face on the stats and is insisting that the priority all along has been to “change behaviour”.

I'll be discussing the subject later on Five Live.

Smoking in cars with children: police 'cannot' enforce ban (BBC News).

Update: Labour MP Alex Cunningham was one of the architects of the ban (if not the architect). He's just tweeted this.

Early slot on @BBCTees to talk about the fact the law against smoking in cars with children can't yet be enforced. Very disappointing.

— Alex Cunningham (@ACunninghamMP) March 15, 2016

Scotland's smoking ban ten years on

In two weeks public health activists will 'celebrate' the tenth anniversary of the smoking ban in Scotland.

In advance of the anniversary one of the Scottish papers is running a report tomorrow. It may not be online so watch this space and I'll post what I can.

Next week I'm recording an interview in London for one of the Scottish news programmes. I had the opportunity of doing it in Aberdeen where I went to university but it seemed a long way to go for what will probably be a 20 second soundbite.

In the meantime here's an article I wrote for the BBC News website in March 2006:

Forest opposed legislation to ban smoking in all indoor public places and although we have lost this particular battle we will continue to fight the ban and fight for choice.

Tobacco is a legal product and as long as smokers do not seriously inconvenience non-smokers it is quite wrong for politicians and anti-smoking lobbyists to target them in such a brutal fashion.

For example, what on earth is wrong with companies providing a designated smoking room for employees? Or a private members' club choosing to allow people to smoke on their premises?

Time will tell what impact the ban will have in Scotland, but Ireland is probably a good guide. The vast majority of people are law-abiding so don't expect mass disobedience.

There will, however, be considerable grumbling about a law that treats adults like children, denies freedom of choice to millions, and has to be enforced by tobacco control officers who actively encourage members of the public to grass on their fellow citizens.

Since campaigners will almost certainly demand further action against smokers - bans on smoking in parks, cars and beaches, for example - such grumbling won't go away.

It will intensify as people realise the extent to which politicians are dictating our daily lives.

Pubs and restaurants that can provide a comfortable, well-heated outdoor area for smokers and their friends will probably survive, and some may thrive. Others won't be so lucky.

The Vintners Federation of Ireland estimate that many pubs lost 15-25% of their business and several hundred had to close. The effect on some rural communities could be enormous.

Like many anti-smoking initiatives, the ban could actually be counter-productive. According to a recent, fascinating report by Jerome Adda and Francesca Cornaglia of University College London and the Institute of Fiscal Studies: "Smoking bans have on average no effects on non-smokers.

"Bans in recreational public places can ... perversely increase their exposure by displacing smokers to private places where they contaminate non-smokers, and in particular young children."

Adda and Cornaglia also found that "smoking bans increase the exposure of poorer individuals, while it decreases the exposure of richer individuals, leading to wider health disparities".

Common sense tells you that while a smoking ban may force (or encourage) some people to quit, the overwhelming majority of smokers will continue to light up.

Unable to smoke in a well-ventilated bar or restaurant (or a separate, designated smoking room), they will light up outside buildings, in the street and, very likely, at home.

Far from giving up, many smokers will reach for their fags in defiance. It's called human nature. Welcome to the real world.

See Fighting for the choice to smoke (BBC News).

The article was part of a wider discussion (Smoking ban debate in Scotland) that included contributions from Labour health minister Andy Kerr, consultant physician Dr Kenneth Anderson, Paul Waterson (Scottish Licensed Trade Association) and Maureen Moore (ASH Scotland).

I'm tempted to do a 'Where are they now?' post. Another time, perhaps.

Jon Gaunt condemns "health Nazis". Again.

Many of you will be familiar with Jon Gaunt.

He's the radio presenter and columnist who was sacked by TalkSport for calling a London councillor a "health Nazi" after Redbridge council announced plans to ban smokers from fostering children.

That was in 2008.

The following year Jon set up SunTalk Radio in a basement studio at News International's Wapping HQ. I thought it was rather good. Sadly it didn't last.

Last year, following a brief stint on Fubar Radio that ended unhappily, Jon launched Talk2MeRadio which is available via app and podcast.

Yesterday I was invited to talk about the 'voluntary' ban on smoking and vaping on Little Haven beach in Pembrokeshire.

Demonstrating he has lost none of his rebellious streak, Jon was quick to condemn the "health Nazis" who have introduced the measure.

For that alone it's worth listening to. Click here. The interviews starts around 33:20.

Better still is listening to Jon promote Delish, an Indian food company. Magnificent. To catch that tune in around 32:20.

Health and Safety Nazis strike again as Welsh beach bans smokers. Mar 11 Pod 1 https://t.co/44BHnkBlik via @audioBoom

— Jon gaunt (@jongaunt) March 12, 2016

When is smoking socially unacceptable?

In case you missed it, yesterday was No Smoking Day.

At risk of sounding like a stuck record, NSD ain't what it used to be.

When I first joined Forest we spent weeks preparing for it, sending out media packs to journalists and broadcasters. (In those days everything had to be photocopied, stuffed in envelopes and posted – that's how long ago it was!)

Almost every national newspaper had something about the event.

The regional press lapped it up too with local businesseses more than happy to jump on the anti-smoking bandwagon for a little publicity. (Ban smoking at work? In 2001 that was a guaranteed headline in the Witheringham Hall Gazette.)

In London members of the House of Lords' pipe and cigar club (or whatever it was called) would gather outside the Palace of Westminster for a group photograph and the resulting picture would invariably make the next day's papers – sometimes on the front page.

I was warned that NSD was the busiest day of the year for Forest and for a couple of years it was. I encouraged my colleages to organise a media-friendly PR stunt – a "smoker-friendly fry-up" at Simpsons-in-the-Strand, a day trip to Paris ("the European capital of smoking") – anything to quell the tide of anti-smoking propoaganda.

I might be wrong but NSD was, I think, an organisation in its own right. I'm not sure what the structure is now but it was taken over by the British Heart Foundation a few years ago and it limps on, still generating some media interest but it's no longer a national 'event'.

How could it be with Public Health England pumping gallons of public money into Stoptober, including hundreds of thousands of pounds in fees for celebrity endorsements?

Anyway, to cut a long story short, one of the questions I was asked during an interview yesterday was, "Is smoking socially unacceptable?"

Naturally my answer was "No" but I qualified it by saying it depends on the circumstances.

After thinking about it further here are some examples of when I think smoking is socially acceptable, and when it's not.

It's highly subjective and your thoughts may be very different but I'll ask (and answer) the question anyway.

Is it socially acceptable to smoke ...

At home – yes
In your own car – yes
On the beach – yes
In a public park – yes
In a pub or bar with the proprietor's consent – yes
Outside a pub or bar – yes
In the street – yes
In a hospital ward – no
In hospital grounds – yes
In a cinema – no
On public transport – no
In someone else's house without their permission – no

What strikes me about that list is that even I, a non-smoker but a staunt advocate of smokers' rights, now considers it socially unacceptable to smoke in the cinema or on public transport.

Twenty or thirty years ago I would almost certainly have said 'yes'. Sixty years ago, had I been an adult in the 1950s, I would probably have considered it acceptable to smoke in a hospital ward too.

The question therefore is how will my responses to the same questions change in the next 10-20 years?

After all there's a difference between my personal view of what is socially acceptable or unacceptable and what society at large considers to be acceptable or unacceptable.

Many people, for example, have a far higher tolerance for 'loud' music than I do so what I consider to be socially unacceptable may not shared by the wider public.

Anyway, allowing for all that I'd be interested to know where, in 2016, you consider it socially acceptable to smoke.

I'm not talking about where it's legal to smoke but where you feel most at ease and get the least tut-tutting or dirty looks from non-smokers.

For example, someone I know who lives in Geneva told me she is far less relaxed about smoking in London because she senses people's intolerance.

One passer-by, she told me, tut-tutted as she lit up. That, she said, would never happen in Switzerland (or many other European countries).

Yes, smoking in the street in Britain is legal but is it socially acceptable? I believe it still is – genuine anti-smoking fanatics are a very small minority of the population – but intolerance is growing, driven by propaganda about passive smoking and the alleged impact on children of seeing a complete stranger light up several yards away.

Ditto parks, beaches and other outdoor areas.

That's the battle that faces us in the next decade – keeping smoking socially acceptable in those public (and private) spaces where it has not yet been prohibited.

In the meantime here's that question again:

'When – in your opinion or experience – is smoking socially acceptable or unacceptable?'

Special pleading – ASH battles to save Smokefree South West

As expected tobacco control campaigners are doing everything they can to save Smokefree South West from the knackers' yard.

Last month it was reported that eleven local councils had chosen not to renew their contract with this tax-guzzling lobby group.

Tobacco control was never going to abandon their comrades without a fight. There's too much to lose. After all, once councils get a taste for pruning budgets (and pointless organisations like Smokefree South West), who knows where it will end?

Councillors in the North West might start to question the purpose of Tobacco Free Futures. In the North East they might ask questions about Fresh (formerly Smokefree North West).

If I was a councillor in those regions I'd certainly want to know what these groups do that isn't already covered by ASH, Cancer Research, the British Heart Foundation, the British Lung Foundation (organisers of No Smoking Day), Public Health England (organisers of Stoptober) and local smoking cessation services?

What is their USP? I'm damned if I know.

Anyway, in a document (Future funding of Smokefree South West) published this morning, the APPG on Smoking and Health (which is run by ASH) has come out fighting.

Or pleading.

Addressed to Sarah Wollaston, chair of the Health Select Committee, there's a tragic air of desperation as they urge Wollaston to help save this vainglorious body that claims to have saved thousands of lives since it was founded in 2008.

Basically this document represents one taxpayer funded group (ASH) lobbying to save another taxpayer funded group (Smokefree South West).

Naturally, in terms of funding, all roads lead in one direction – to the taxpayer. But if Smokefree South West is so necessary why can't it be supported the Royal College of Physicians or Cancer Research or the British Lung Foundation or even Big Pharma?

ASH and the APPG are almost certainly pushing on an open door with Wollaston. The Tory MP for Totnes in Devon is fiercely anti-smoking so I can't imagine it will be a hard sell to get her onside.

Nevertheless it will be interesting to see how she responds to special pleading on behalf of an organisation that exemplifies the phrase "government lobbying government".

You may recall for example that in 2012 SFSW launched a campaign, Plain Packs Protect, that supported standardised packaging. The campaign was inherently political and had one simple aim – to persuade the Coalition Government to introduce this highly contentious policy.

A few months later, following an FOI request, we discovered that:

Smokefree South West, a publicly-funded tobacco control group based in Bristol, has a current budget of £468,462 to promote the Plain Packs Protect campaign launched in January.

Hands Off Our Packs, the campaign that opposes plain packaging, has learnt that the budget includes: £100,398 for billboard advertisements; £127,685 for digital advertising; almost £100,000 for “community events”; and £141,000 for other social marketing initiatives.

See Public money used to lobby government on plain packaging (Hands Off Our Packs).

Unknown to us then, the additional value of Smokefree South West's contract with eleven local councils was over £1 million annually. And they want this racket to continue!

Here's our response to the news of their impending demise – Forest welcomes closure of anti-smoking group – to which I would merely add "Goodbye and good riddance."

To read 'Future Funding of Smokefree South West' in full click here. It's not long and it's worth a couple of minutes of your time.

Vapers, ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

So how's the relationship between tobacco control and the vaping community working out?

Not great if this morning's news is any guide.

Newspapers are reporting that Little Haven beach in Pembrokeshire is to become the first beach in Britain to trial no-smoking signs.

As you can imagine the news has been greeted with delight by tobacco control groups. According to ASH Wales:

"We fully welcome the smoke free beach pilot in Pembrokeshire to protect our young people from the harmful effects of tobacco."

First British smoke free beach unveiled (Telegraph).

Significantly the 'voluntary' ban includes the use of e-cigarettes and on that subject ASH is noticeably mute.

Another 'pro ecig' body supporting the initiative is Cancer Research UK.

To quote the great John Lydon, "Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"

Update: Only one group is quoted in today's press opposing the scheme - including the ban on vaping - and that group is, er, Forest.

Fancy that!

PS. I'm discussing this on BBC Radio Somerset after 9.00. Tune in!

Update: I also discussed it on BBC Radio Devon and this evening I was quoted by BBC Wales News.

Smokers' lobby group Forest accused the council of imposing a policy to "denormalise a legitimate habit".

Criticising the scheme, Simon Clark said: "There is no evidence that the sight of a complete stranger smoking encourages children to start smoking.

"The ban on the use of e-cigarettes demonstrates that this is not about health, it's about control."

Full report: Little Haven becomes UK's first smoke free beach (BBC News).

Are vapers in denial about tobacco control?

Yesterday Deborah Arnott let slip that ASH want to extend the ban on smoking in cars carrying children to all private vehicles.

As someone commented on my post, it didn't take them long, did it?

Today Arnott confirmed that the endgame is not smoke free but vape and nicotine free too.

Invited by The Sun to contribute to a feature on e-cigarettes (Are e-cigs creating a new generation of smokers?), she said:

Vapers who just use the devices to cut down on smoking rather than quit need to know that while they continue to smoke, the health risks remain.

To fully reap the health benefits, smokers need to switch completely from smoking to vaping. And ultimately, if they can, stop vaping too.

As I've said many times, tobacco control is currently divided between those who want smokers to go cold turkey and quit all nicotine devices, and those who advocate ecigs as a stepping stone to quitting.

Despite their very public disagreements the long-term goal of both groups is, I believe, the same – a nicotine free world. Recreational use? Don't make me laugh. That's anathema to them.

With a handful of honourable exceptions (some members of Vapers In Power come to mind), many vapers are in denial. Incredibly they seem to believe that anti-smoking activists are allies and anyone who criticises their new found friends or casts doubt on their motives is a disruptive influence.

For the past few days I've been trying to understand why Carl Phillips is no longer working for the US-based Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA).

Carl's departure, which I wrote about here, didn't make sense until he issued this startling clue. Yesterday, writing on his blog, he commented:

In a bit of good news for readers, I realized that I have several posts that I have conceived or that are even mostly drafted that I had been suppressing when CASAA published this blog (either due to the legal problems that might arise from CASAA’s nonprofit status for discussing partisan politics, or because of CASAA’s aversion to disagreeing with anyone who is pro-ecig). I will be trickling those out, though not at the pace I kept up in the CASAA days.

CASAA’s aversion to disagreeing with anyone who is pro-ecig. That's quite a revelation. Except it isn't because the very same phenomenon exists in the UK.

The New Nicotine Alliance and other advocates of e-cigarettes appear to have a similar aversion.

If you are 'pro-ecig' it doesn't matter if you are 'anti-tobacco' (as one leading advocate proudly declares on her Twitter profile).

It doesn't matter if you support smoking bans, display bans, plain packaging, punitive taxation and all the rest.

So what if the anti-tobacco policies you support make life a little less tolerable for millions of smokers?

Endorsement of anti-smoking junk science? That's irrelevant too.

Everything is forgiven and forgotten if you're an advocate of ecigs. Even bloggers and commentators I respect have bought into this.

Evidence of this new 'alliance' can be seen on social media. There is now a cosy community in which vaping activists and tobacco control campaigners 'like' one others' tweets and engage in what can only be described as virtual group hugs long into the night.

It's the most hideous yet hilarious love-in and Carl Phillips didn't play the game. Instead he chose to occasionally highlight the hypocrisy of those who complain about junk science in relation to vaping yet ignore their own part in the promotion of dodgy dossiers on smoking.

On other occasions he publicly supported those of us who have questioned the long-term goals of the pro-ecig tobacco controllers, and I'm led to believe this caused some consternation within CASAA.

Well, I have news for them, and for all those vaping activists who have leapt into bed with tobacco control.

The endgame – as confirmed by the CEO of ASH – is not a smoke free world. The ultimate goal is to stop people vaping too.

Tobacco control – the destination is the same, the only difference is the route.

Update: Audrey Silk, founder of the smokers' rights group NYC Clash, has added a comment to my previous post about Carl. She wrote:

Carl has always stood behind the principles of the matter to lead him. If everyone got behind the principles rather than narrow self-interests we'd have a formidable army with the stronger case, rather than factions that unfathomably feel exaggerations and distortions (both camps) and sacrificial lambs (sorry, that's pretty much vapers alone) that at best leaves us all treading water in the throes of the antis' tsunami.

Addressing smokers who unaccountably saw Carl as one of the enemy because of his THR work, she added:

To my own camp I will point out that even before e-cigs came on the scene, Carl was exposing the secondhand smoke science, so I've been quite perplexed and disturbed by any hostilities directed at him - especially any accusations over his loyalties or ulterior motives. It has always been clear to me that his loyalty is to principle and his motives are to advance the issue facts guided by it. He has never deviated from that.

Audrey is another member of the awkward squad who puts principle before self interest. We should treasure them.

ASH want to ban smoking in ALL private vehicles, with or without children present

I was on BBC Three Counties Radio this morning.

I was invited to discuss a report in this morning's Telegraph – Car smoking ban farce as Met nets no prosecutions.

Also on the programme was Deborah Arnott. The CEO of ASH made it very clear that a ban on smoking in all private vehicles is the next target, just as we predicted.

Her argument focussed on the fact that because it's difficult if not impossible for the police to check whether a child is in the back of a moving car, the only solution is to ban smoking in all cars – even if the driver is on his own with no passengers.

She also threw in the suggestion that smoking while driving is as dangerous as driving while using a mobile phone.

To the best of my knowledge is there is no evidence of a single accident being caused by smoking while driving.

I can't say such an accident has never happened but the police don't keep a record of it which suggests it's not a serious issue. And if it was a problem it's inconceivable that insurance premiums for people who smoke while driving would not have soared in an effort to deter them.

Anyway, ASH never let facts get in the way of legislation so we'd better prepare ourselves for another costly and time-consuming battle.