An Englishman abroad

Did I mention I went to Geneva a couple of weeks ago?

It was my first visit. I'd previously driven past the city en route to Lausanne and Zurich but that was all.

Biggest disappointment? No snow. Not even a snowflake. It was colder in Cambridge when I got home.

On the plus side Switzerland is considerably more liberal than Britain when it comes to smoking. Two years ago, following a visit to Zurich, I wrote:

The Swiss attitude to smoking, in Zurich at least, seems pretty tolerant. At the railway station, for example, I spent a spare hour reading English newspapers and drinking coffee at an Italian caffe that had chairs and tables on the main (covered) concourse.

Every table had an ashtray and seated at the tables were smokers of every age group bar children. Meanwhile people drifted around or walked purposely across the concourse, some lighting up as they did so.

I also commented on this "magnificent" bar and smokers' lounge which is worth a visit should you find yourself in the city.

French-speaking Geneva is possibly the least liberal canton but everything's relative. For example, we stayed in a hotel where the offer of a smoking or non-smoking room was a standard part of the checking-in procedure, no different to being asked if you wanted a wake-up call or a newspaper.

There were two bars in the hotel, one called Le Fumoir and Cigar Lounge. Fumoirs (smoking rooms) are common in Switzerland. This one had comfortable leather armchairs and sofas and even though I was sitting three feet from one smoker and six feet from another I wasn't aware of even a whiff of smoke. (What's wrong with me?!)

If Switzerland and other European countries can allow this perfectly reasonable compromise I don't understand why Britain and Ireland can't.

Anyway, if you're not familiar with a city it helps to know someone who is so I was delighted to finally meet Mark Butcher.

Mark moved to Geneva in 1992. He's been an occasional commenter on this blog for several years and we've swapped the odd email.

Beyond that I knew very little about him apart from the fact that he works for an English-speaking radio station. Or, should I say, he owns it.

Wikipedia has the full story here. The concise version is that Mark's company Anglo Media bought World Radio Switzerland (WRS) in 2012 from the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation. Today it's a digital station that survives on advertising.

Monday to Friday Mark presents the breakfast programme. It's a combination of Radio 2 style music and chat. Global news is provided by BBC World Service; local news is written by Mark himself.

The rest of the schedule is a "mixture of live shows, locally contributed programmes and other BBC programmes".

If you want to know more I recommend this interview.

To listen to WRS click here.

To learn more about the Iqos heat stick (Mark is an avid user and spent most of the evening puffing on one), watch this space.

Carl Phillips – a welcome voice of sanity (and science) leaves CASAA

On Thursday Carl Phillips announced he had left his role with the US-based Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA).

I don't fully understand what has happened but I'd like to express my appreciation for the work Carl has done and I hope this isn't the end of the line because he still has an important contribution to make.

I don't know him well - we generally meet once a year at the Global Tobacco & Nicotine Forum (GTNF) - but having enjoyed several chats and being a reader of his blog (Anti-THR Lies and Related Topics) I believe he's one of the more objective advocates of tobacco harm reduction (THR). He's certainly one of the least subjective when it comes to smoking.

Carl is one of the few THR commentators who shares (I think) some of my contempt for the tobacco control activists who have leapt on the vaping bandwagon. ('Contempt' may be a bit strong but you get my drift.)

A keen advocate of ecigs and other harm reduction products, he's also a student of irony. He recognises, for example, how bizarre it is that people who spent years disseminating propaganda about smoking (secondhand smoke in particular) are among the first to complain about 'junk science' when it affects e-cigarettes.

If I've understood him correctly, Carl's endgame (like mine) is a world in which adults are allowed to make informed choices about a range of nicotine products.

Carl would like smokers to switch to less harmful products but he believes such choices should be based on genuine science and education, not propaganda and coercion.

If people make the 'wrong' choice it's a matter for them, not government or public health campaigners or vaping enthusiasts who have seen the light and become the worst kind of ex-smoker, puritannical and intolerant of others.

In short, Carl may be a THR campaigner but he's not 'anti tobacco' and he's certainly not 'anti smoker'. Nor is he A Billion Lives style evangelist or public health activist who believes vapers are the "new frontline smoking cessation advisors".

In the increasingly interdependent worlds of tobacco control and tobacco harm reduction this makes him (a) extremely unusual and (b) a potentially disruptive influence.

The reason I am personally grateful to him is that by speaking out (sometimes obliquely – he's more diplomatic than I am!) Carl indirectly encouraged me to comment too because no-one likes to feel they are entirely isolated in a public debate.

So when I read that Carl agrees with me I am quietly comforted because I respect his views (even when we disagree). I appreciate too his courage in speaking out because I know for a fact that some THR advocates are being silenced or intimidated by tobacco control and their craven response sickens me.

The truth is, many of the leading advocates of e-cigarettes are at the forefront of the war on tobacco. For years they misled people about the health risks of passive smoking and to this day they exaggerate the risks of smoking which are considerable but not on the scale their persistent propaganda would have us believe.

Carl recognised much of this and I hope it's not a factor in his departure from CASAA. Likewise his principled refusal to become a mindless cheerleader for e-cigarettes at the expense of consumer choice.

Whatever the reasons I wish him well. We need more not fewer people like Carl Phillips so I hope his voice will continue to be heard.

I'll just add this. I can't think of anyone I'd rather trust to write a genuinely impartial review of the forthcoming documentary A Billion Lives.

That's how highly I value his opinion. No more than 1,000 words, though, Carl. I don't have the attention span for some of your longer posts!

Update: Carl has added a comment – worth reading.

Oxford blues (another debate lost)

We lost last night's debate (see previous post) but only by two votes with one abstention.

Given the name of the society, Tainted Goods, I feared a rout. Instead I was told, "Everyone thought your arguments were compelling."

Not compelling enough to win, I hear you cry, but I've experienced worse results in student debates.

Oddly enough I think it helped that out of six speakers I was the only one who was not a 'competitive debater'.

They're a strange breed. Think University Challenge but more manic. It's not enough to know your stuff. For some it's also a performance.

Competitive debaters will propose or oppose almost any motion regardless of their own opinion which can be disconcerting if you're on the receiving end.

Many years ago I lost a debate at the English Speaking Union in London. I was partnered by the late Lord Harris who was chairman of Forest and an experienced public speaker.

Our opponents were a team of young world champion debaters. They were brilliant and we were thrashed. The motion in favour of smoking bans was passed by a large majority.

Afterwards, in the bar, they added insult to injury by revealing they were both smokers and were strongly against the measure!

Sometimes however competitive debaters can be a little bit too clever and the issue gets lost amid the florid language and theatrical delivery.

Last night one of my team gave a fast and often funny speech but for the most part I've no idea what he was talking about. I don't think the audience did either.

In contrast our opponents stuck to a well-argued brief that was perhaps a little too earnest.

Predictably they focussed on the behaviour of the tobacco industry half a century ago. Individuals who work for tobacco companies were dismissed as "cynical" and it was implied that tobacco companies can do whatever they want when they are in fact one of the most heavily regulated industries in the world.

No matter. I enjoyed my evening in Oxford. Unlike ASH (who chose not to take part) Forest doesn't run from public debate.

In fact this was the second time in less than a year that ASH has rejected an invitation to take part in a debate with Forest at Oxford. (See Has the tobacco industry been no platformed?)

Says it all, really.

Tainted love

I'm speaking in a debate at Oxford University tonight.

Organised by a student society called Tainted Goods, the proposition is "This House believes that the tobacco industry is responsible for its consumers' habits."

I'm told that ASH were invited to take part but declined. Instead the motion will be proposed by three students.

Ellie, Louis and Will were all members of the 2014 England Debating Team that won the World Schools Debating Championships in Thailand that year. All of them have been actively involved in Oxford debating and have represented the university at national and international tournaments, including the World and the European Universities Debating Championships.

The opposition is me and another student. Something tells me this will not end well.

PS. It could have been worse. I could have been no platformed.

James Reilly: the people have spoken

Don't ask me to analyse the election results in Ireland.

As things stand it could be weeks before a new government is confirmed.

I'm sure the country will cope just fine (a few years ago Belgium 'survived' for 18 months without a government) but there are some interesting stories to report.

One is the fact that James Reilly, the former health minister who turned the war on tobacco into a personal crusade, could be about to lose his seat.

It's not been confirmed yet so the prosecco is on ice until it is but I'm sure Forest won't be the only ones celebrating.

For those with short memories (or no interest in Irish politics), here are three previous posts I've written about this odious politician:

Why Irish health minister James Reilly should resign
James Reilly: All mouth and no trousers
James Reilly: the face of Big Government wants war with Big Tobacco

James Reilly topped the poll in four-seat Fingal in 2011. Now it's a five-seat but he's about to lose his seat to a SF candidate. #ge16

— Colette Browne (@colettebrowne) February 28, 2016

Fine Gael people in the count centre in Dublin Fingal believe James Reilly will lose his seat. https://t.co/o4O9py1aeW

— RTÉ News (@rtenews) February 28, 2016

No fan of SF, but losing the arrogant and self-serving James Reilly is one of the best stories of #GE16 #dubf https://t.co/nLPzvpdwqM

— Keith Mills (@KeithM) February 28, 2016

Have you read our manifesto, @DrJamesReilly? 1 in 5 voters smoke. https://t.co/6RG7NwKc8g #SmokersAreVoters #GE16 pic.twitter.com/sDIkfCSIRD

— Forest Eireann (@FEireann) February 17, 2016

Update on Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 15:41 by Simon Clark

James Reilly has lost his seat. It's been taken by Sinn Féin's Louise O'Reilly https://t.co/h39I6AEHF8 #ge16 pic.twitter.com/PJ8pCeV1zj

— TheJournal.ie (@thejournal_ie) February 28, 2016

Oh so quiet. Silence speaks volumes about plain packaging review

I'm genuinely surprised.

The Australian Government's long-awaited Post-Implementation Review of plain packaging was finally published yesterday (see previous post).

We expected significant media coverage but there's barely been a squeak despite some extravagant claims by tobacco control (Tobacco plain packaging a winner – saving lives).

Google 'plain packaging, Australia' as I did a moment ago and see what comes up.

I got Plain packaging works: report (Australian Journal of Pharmacy) and Federal Government’s cigarette plain packaging policy is helping the drop in smokers’ numbers (GeelongAdvertiser) and, er, that's it.

As I write the leading Australian newspapers have completely ignored it.

ASH tried to whip up interest the UK (Australian government report confirms standardised plain packaging works) but no-one has bitten, not even the Guardian or the BBC.

I'd like to think it's because journalists can see the review for what it is – a transparent exercise in spin with very little evidence to support its conclusions – but that hasn't stopped them running similar stories in the past.

I put it down to the fact that the Australian Government itself has taken a very low key approach and although the Department of Health was responsible for the review it was released quietly and without fanfare or even a press release that would have given journalists something 'official' to work with.

There could be two reasons for this.

One, as we anticipated, there is very little in the review to excite advocates of plain packaging so there's little by way of a 'story' (although, to repeat, that doesn't normally deter journalists, health correspondents in particular).

Two, plain packaging in Australia was a Labor initiative therefore the current Liberal government may be less inclined to 'celebrate' its alleged impact. (Or perhaps they too read the report and concluded, 'Nothing to see here, move along.'

In the UK that wouldn't stop the Department of Health because the DH seems to be a law unto itself, waging war on tobacco regardless of the party in power, but Australia may be different.

Anyway it's a bit of a mystery and although it's good news in the sense that silence speaks volumes about the content of the review, I feel a bit deflated. I was looking forward to a scrap (see Forest's response here)!

Another smoking ban miracle

Smoking bans have helped cut childhood smoking uptake by a fifth says a new study published today:

I haven't read the study (I've only seen the press release) but can this really be true? I was at Stansted waiting for a flight and only had 15 minutes to respond but this was my immediate reaction:

Simon Clark, director of the smokers' group Forest, said:

"While we welcome any reduction in teenage smoking rates, it's incongruous to suggest workplace smoking bans have had a significant impact.

"Smoking rates among children were in decline long before smoking was banned in pubs, clubs and offices.

"Teenagers are well educated about the health risks of smoking and this, more than anything, is the principal reason for the long-term decline in the number of children who smoke.

"Since the smoking ban was introduced we've had graphic health warnings, a tobacco display ban, a ban on cigarette vending machines and further increases in tobacco taxation.

"To suggest that smoking bans have been a major factor in cutting childhood smoking rates is an act of faith not a statement of fact.

"This research is yet another attempt to justify legislation that should be amended to allow designated smoking rooms in pubs, clubs and other adult-orientated venues."

Btw, you'd be amazed how many press releases I've written while waiting for a flight. I must be cursed because it seems to happen every time.

I arrive at the airport, pass through security, buy a magazine or two, order a coffee in the departure lounge and, hey presto, I'm asked to respond to some report or other.

When the call came this morning I only had a short time before the flight left so I had to abandon both my coffee and my triple cheese toasted sandwich.

I'll find out soon whether it was worth the effort.

Update: I've been been quoted by the Press Association, Daily Mail, STV and several local papers. The story didn't get as much coverage as I expected, to be honest.

My colleague Rob Lyons was on LBC this morning and he has just reminded me of something I had completely forgotten.

In 2007, shortly after the introduction of the smoking ban in England and Wales, the minimum age for the sale of tobacco was raised from 16 to 18.

No-one else (least of all the researchers at the University of Glasgow’s MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit and their colleagues at the Welsh Government and the University of Stirling) thought to mention it!

You can read more on this here – Teenage girls and smoking (Action on Consumer Choice).

ASH CEO on board of "repressive, dangerous and daft" press regulator

This is not 'news' but it is interesting and potentially disturbing.

If you followed the tortuous Leveson Inquiry you'll be aware that two press regulators have emerged to replace the old Press Complaints Commission.

One is the newspaper industry-backed Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), the other rejoices in the name of Impress (Independent Monitor for the Press).

A handful of newspapers and magazines including the Guardian and FT have refused to join either but the overwhelming majority have gone with Ipso despite criticism that self-regulation doesn't work.

Part of the appeal may be Ipso's refusal to sign up to a Royal Charter on the basis that this would amount to "government control of the press".

In contrast, Impress has no such qualms:

A would-be press regulator has confirmed it has the backing of a small number of local publishers in its bid to become the recognised watchdog for the industry.

Most of the regional and national press has recognised the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) as the industry regulator following the abolition of the old Press Complaints Commission.

However Ipso has made clear it has no intention of applying for recognition as a press regulator under the government’s Royal Charter, on the grounds that this would amount to state regulation of the press.

Now a rival regulator, Impress, has confirmed that it is seeking recognition under the Charter after winning the backing of a number of small publishing groups.

Its 13 members include a Scottish-based crowd-funded investigative website, The Ferret, hyperlocal online publishers such as the Caerphilly Observer, The Lincolnite, Your Harlow and Staffordshire-based A Little Bit of Stone,

According to its website, the new body is "blazing a trail for a fairer, better kind of press regulation":

Do you believe that a publisher regulated by Impress has breached our standards code? We are here to help.

We will award a trusted journalism mark to news publishers who meet our standards. We will give these publishers the freedom to report hard-hitting stories and the responsibility to behave fairly if complaints are made against them. We will have the power to decide on complaints which publishers cannot resolve.

Ominously however the one (former) tabloid journalist on the board resigned and withdrew her support eight months ago. According to Press Gazette:

Former Sun journalist Sue Evison said she is now backing the Independent Press Standards Organisation, the successor body to the Press Complaints Commission which most major newspaper and magazine publishers belong to.

So who is on the board of Impress? You can read the full list here but one name stands out:

Deborah Arnott, Chief Executive of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).

Yes, the CEO of a highly partisan political lobby group that actively seeks to stifle debate about smoking and health is now a self-styled press regulator. You couldn't make it up.

Naturally Impress is keen to emphasise Deborah's journalistic background:

As a producer and programme editor in current affairs and documentaries she developed and ran a wide range of programmes for ITV and Channel 4.

Truth is, she's far better known for her work with ASH for whom she has worked for 12-13 years. And she was hardly shy about her 'accomplishment' in delivering a highly contentious piece of legislation. In fact, she revelled in it.

If you want to know what kind of body Impress may turn out to be, I recommend you read Mick Hume, former editor of Spiked and author of two books about press freedom and freedom of speech - There is No Such Thing as a Free Press… And We Need One More Than Ever, and Trigger Warning: Is the Fear of Being Offensive Killing Free Speech?

Writing in December 2013, Hume had plenty to say.

I'll give the final word to former Guardian editor Peter Preston who wrote about Impress last year. Headlines can be misleading but this one is pretty clear:

Newspaper regulator Impress is repressive, dangerous - and daft