Anything to declare?

I'm sure you don't need me to tell you but Friday was the closing date for yet another public consultation on tobacco and electronic cigarettes.

Before you think, "How did I miss that?", it was an Irish Government consultation concerning "legislation in relation to the sale of tobacco products and non-medicinal nicotine delivery systems (NMNDS)", including e-cigarettes.

The issues of interest to Forest were:

• Licences for retailers of tobacco and NMNDS
• Prohibition of tobacco and NMNDS vending machines
• Prohibition of temporary or mobile units selling tobacco products
• Prohibition of the sale of tobacco products and NMNDS by persons under 18 years of age
• Prohibition of the sale of tobacco products and NMNDS to persons under 18 years of age
• Prohibition of the sale of tobacco products at events/locations primarily intended for persons under 18 years of age

The consultation is the next step towards a so-called "tobacco-free Ireland". Whether that Utopian paradise will permit e-cigarettes and other NMNDS remains to be seen.

In line with current practise the online consultation form insisted that participants declare any connection with or funding from the tobacco industry.

I've no problem with that. I'm all for transparency but there has to be a level playing field.

For example, just as we have to declare whether Forest has ever received money from the tobacco industry, tobacco control activists and NGOs should declare whether they've ever received funding from the pharmaceutical industry or "any party having a commercial or other interest in the sale of nicotine delivery products or other smoking cessation aids".

After all, given last week's comments by GSK chief executive Andrey Witty (GlaxoSmithKline boss admits rise of e-cigarettes is a threat but rules out entering the market), electronic cigarettes are obviously having an impact on pharmaceutical companies so they have a clear vested interest in how NMNDS are regulated.

I will be interested therefore to see how tobacco controllers respond to some of the questions in the consultation. If for example they support significant restrictions on the sale of NMSDS journalists and politicians should start asking questions because tighter restrictions will undoubtedly benefit Big Pharma.

If there is no link between Big Pharma and anti-smoking campaigners in Ireland I will happily publicise the fact on this blog. But it's not unreasonable to ask the question, is it?

New Orleans: "I witnessed vapers throwing smokers under the bus"

I'll be fascinated to read Juliette Tworsey's account of last week's public debate that considered a comprehensive smoking ban in New Orleans.

Musician, ex-smoker and vaper (heated tobacco rather than e-cigarettes), she's been on our radar for a while (see Introducing … Firebug, 2010).

Now living in New Orleans (via Chicago and Los Angeles), Juliette is perfectly placed to comment on a proposal that has divided opinion in what Joe Jackson describes as a "free and fun city".

Urging people to sign a petition against further legislation, Joe wrote:

The antismoking Nazis are making a big push for a total smoking ban in New Orleans. It would apply not only to bars and clubs (there's already a ban in restaurants) but to outside areas too.

As you would expect in such a free and fun city, there's a lot of opposition, but every little bit helps, and politicians do take notice of petitions, if only 'behind the scenes'. So please sign and pass it on!

Sadly it seems the "antismoking Nazis" have the support of some vapers because on Thursday, on the Friends of Forest Facebook page, Juliette commented:

Last night at a town hall meeting in the New Orleans City Council chambers I witnessed vapers throwing smokers (and tobacco users like me) under the bus, only to witness the anti-everything crowd throw us all under the bus. It was very frustrating.

I should add that Juliette is firmly on the side of unity when it comes to smokers and vapers, as indeed am I, and the last thing she would want to do is take sides.

Unfortunately her appeal to "Anyone who may be interested in coming to New Orleans for a holiday that would like to be able to smoke or vape anywhere within the city while here please sign this petition" appears to have fallen on deaf ears within the vaping community whose attitude (publicly at least) is best summed up by this article:

Caught up in the smoking ban, the New Orleans 'vaping' community wants to clear the air (www.nola.com)

PS. Frank Davis wrote a nice piece about Juliette on his blog in 2010 - see Jred at Riff’s Bar.

Since then she's given up smoking but not her support for smokers or smokers' rights.

She'll probably kill me for saying so, but if only there were more ex-smokers and vapers like Juliette Tworsey …

Update: My last post on vaping advocates was not universally popular it seems!

Simon Clark is getting on my tits: http://t.co/ZRI4UIYGLi

— The Random Vaper (@TheRandomVaper) January 12, 2015

Son tries to teach me the error of my ways

It might be fun to have a kid that I could kick around
a little me to fill up with my thoughts
A little me or he or she to fill up with my dreams
a way of saying life is not a loss

I'd keep the tyke away from school and tutor him myself
keep him from the poison of the crowd
But then again pristine isolation might not be the best idea
it's not good trying to immortalise yourself

It might be fun to have a kid that I could kick around
create in my own image like a god
I'd raise my own pallbearers to carry me to my grave
and keep me company when I'm a wizened toothless clod

Lyrics: Beginning of a Great Adventure, Lou Reed (1989)

The problem with having children is that they grow up, leave home, and no longer hang on or even agree with your every word.

Further to my Charlie Hebdo post I received a slightly terse email from my son, 20.

Felt slightly disappointed in your blog post about Charlie Hebdo. You said that free speech has its limits and then said that you wouldn't ban offensive cartoons etc. But that's the whole point. In saying you think free speech has limits you are saying that you accept in principle that some things shouldn't be allowed to be printed.

There's a huge difference between self-censoring and censoring and state censoring or self-censoring as a result of fear of violent reprisal. Anyway, I don't like the word self-censor because the whole point of censoring is that you are trying to stop the very idea reaching people. Therefore, you can't self-censor something you have already thought - because by virtue of having thought it you haven't been censored, by yourself or by anybody else.

Yes, maybe we wouldn't go out of our way to offend someone at a dinner party. But with the case of Charlie Hebdo they were satirising a religion which was founded by a man who had a Muslim girl killed for criticising him and personally beheaded over 200 Jews. It is also a religion which claims to be the only Truth. It claims to be the end point for civilisation and morality. In addition to this, many of its followers would seek to impose their beliefs on the rest of the world. They do not care that I find this offensive. So, to be blunt, I don't care if I offend them, deliberately or otherwise.

And let's not forget that most of these cartoons are fairly clear, to me anyway, to be either mocking the religion itself or the extremist followers of that religion. If I saw a cartoon which depicted a member of the EDL (holding an English flag etc) would I be offended? After all, I am white and English. I could claim that this makes out all white, English men to be barbaric. But obviously it doesn't and obviously I'm not offended. Islam is an ideology, like any other, and therefore means I or anyone else can be deliberately offensive to those who hold that ideology. It doesn't matter if it's a very deeply held ideology, it is still a man made ideology which you have chosen to adhere to.

Maybe this will change your mind and merit an update entitled 'Son helps me see the error of my ways'.

Meanwhile Chris Snowdon has tweeted a link to this post, Charlie Hebdo Reaction: Part 2, Know Your Enemy.

It's a bit long-winded for my taste but worth reading if you have time.

Update on Sunday, January 18, 2015 at 12:28 by Simon Clark

Talking of Charlie Hebdo …

"Without freedom, peace is a jail" pic.twitter.com/HVX9iueilD

— Georgie Keate (@georgiekeate) January 16, 2015

.@georgiekeate OMG, he's smoking a cigarette. You can't show that!

— Forest (@Forest_Smoking) January 16, 2015

The mystery of Andy Burnham's missing letter

Further to this morning's announcement by Andy Burnham that Labour will introduce plain packaging "immediately" ...

I was reminded of a letter written by Burnham, when he was Secretary of State for Health, to fellow Labour MP Tessa Jowell. Dated November 9, 2009, it read:

Dear Tessa,

Thank you for your letter of 12 October enclosing an example of correspondence you have received from a number of your constituents about tobacco legislation ...

The Government is committed to protecting children from the harms of smoking and to supporting people who smoke, to quit. We intend to publish a new comprehensive strategy for tobacco control before the end of this year, following our Consultation on the future of tobacco control, which received almost 100,000 responses …

The tobacco consultation also raised the question of having plain packaging on tobacco products. There is some evidence to suggest that packaging may increase brand awareness among young people, and may mislead people about the relative safety of different tobacco products. However, as yet, no studies have shown that introducing plain packaging of tobacco would cut the number of young people smoking or enable people who want to quit, to do so.

Given the impact that plain packaging will have on intellectual property rights, we would need strong and convincing evidence showing the health benefits of this policy before it would be acceptable at international level.

Of course the existence of Burnham's letter is nothing new. We've known about it for a long time and Guido linked to it in July 2013.

What's interesting is the fact that the page on Tessa Jowell’s website where the letter was previously available online has miraculously disappeared (to save Burnham's blushes perhaps?).

Click here and you'll see what I mean.

Thankfully I have a copy of the two-page letter which you can download here.

Update: Guido has added his own link to Burnham's letter here. No idea who that "co-conspirator shrouded in smoke" is!

Plain packaging: the truth of the matter

Public health campaigners are looking a bit silly this morning.

On Wednesday a letter signed by representatives of ASH Scotland, British Heart Foundation Scotland, British Lung Foundation Scotland, British Medical Association Scotland, Cancer Research UK and others was published in the Scotsman:

We have to wonder what could possibly be causing the Westminster Government to drag its heels on a commitment to introduce plain, standardised packaging for tobacco products ...

Time is running out for regulations to be passed before Parliament dissolves before the May elections. To ensure sufficient time for the various parliamentary processes to be negotiated, ministers must be making preparations to vote on plain packs now. Yet still we wait for news.

In response the Scotsman has published two letters, one from me, the other from the Scottish Grocers Federation.

You can read them here: Woolly thinking (Scotsman).

Labour to launch war on consumer choice and parental responsibility

At 9.00am this morning Labour will launch a "new approach to public health".

What they really mean is "more (much more) of the same, extended into areas such as food and drink".

Speaking at the left wing think tank Demos shadow health secretary Andy Burnham will "pledge to take tougher action to protect children from commercial pressures and the harm caused by alcohol, sugar and smoke".

According to the party's press release, embargoed until one minute ago:

Labour's approach to public health is illustrated in a new food policy. Maximum limits will be set on levels of fat, salt and sugar in food marketed substantially to children. And to support the population as a whole, Labour will pursue improvements to food labelling to help people better understand what they are eating, including working at EU level to introduce traffic-light labelling of packaged food.

Action on public health is essential not only to improve health and wellbeing but to ensure the NHS remains sustainable for the long term. For example, figures show that unless firm action is taken to halt the rise in obesity and diabetes, the cost of diabetes to the NHS will rise from £10 billion to £17 billion a year by 2035.

Forget talk about "personal responsibility", it's clear Labour wants the state to play an even bigger role in how we raise our children. At the same time they intend to impose even more regulations on adults in a bid to force us to change our lifestyle.

Two words you can expect to hear again and again are "protect" and "children".

Parents are responsible for securing the health of their children and will be better supported to do so. Labour believes Government action is justified to protect children as they do not make all their own choices and to support parents trying to make the best decisions for their children.

Measures the party intends to introduce in government include:

– Placing the promotion of physical activity at the centre of public health policy with new, easily-understandable recommended levels of physical activity and a new national ambition. This will include a basic minimum that everyone who can should try to do, and a recommended level that we should aspire to get at least 50 per cent of people achieving by 2025;

– Targeted action on high-strength, low-cost alcohol which fuels binge drinking and does most harm to health, with a range of options on both price and bottle-size being explored;

– Standardised cigarette packaging to be introduced immediately to halt the industry's increasingly sophisticated methods of recruiting new, young smokers; and a goal that children born in 2015 will become the first 'smoke-free generation'.

In his speech this morning Burnham will say:

"Labour has traditionally led the way on public health and this new approach will chart a new course towards a healthy nation in the 21st Century.

"In a century of rising demand, helping people take more responsibility for their own health will be essential if we are to ensure the NHS remains affordable and sustainable for the future.

"As part of this, children will need better protection from the pressures of modern living and the harm caused by alcohol, sugar and smoke and Labour will not flinch from taking the action needed to provide it.

"David Cameron and his Government are too close to powerful vested interests to stand up for our children.

"This new positive approach will help give all children a healthy start and help adults to get the most out of life."

Luciana Berger MP, Labour's shadow minister for public health, will then add:

"We want every adult to be able to make informed, healthy choices that are right for them. Whether it is deciding to cycle to work, taking up a sport or quitting cigarettes, today we are setting a range of actions we will take to support people to achieve this.

"Alongside this, we are setting our clear intention to take robust action to protect children from harm where voluntary measures have failed including regulating to limit the amount of sugar, fat salt in food marketed substantially to children, introducing standardised packaging of tobacco that this Government has failed to achieve, and cracking down on the high-strength, low-cost alcohol products that fuel binge drinking and do most harm to health."

Ignoring the fact that today's generation is living longer and is generally healthier than any previous generation in history, what Burnham is announcing today is no less than a war on consumer choice and parental responsibility.

Economic socialism is slowly being replaced by lifestyle socialism. It's been happening for years. The question is, what is David Cameron going to do about it? How the Tories respond will tell us an awful lot about the current Conservative party and whether we should vote for them in May.

Do they support further government intervention in our daily lives or will they side with the overwhelming majority of adults who are perfectly capable of making decisions for themselves and their children without the state breathing down their necks?

Don't hold your breath.

PS. Coming soon, the antidote to Labour's "action on public health", Action on Consumer Choice.

Update on Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 0:34 by Simon Clark

Media reports to date:

Labour targets Frosties and jelly babies in public health campaign (Telegraph); Labour pledges to protect children from 'harm caused by alcohol, sugar and smoke' (Independent); Labour pledges limits for unhealthy food marketed to children (Financial Times).

I think the Telegraph is having a bit of fun at Labour's expense with that headline. Then again, perhaps not.

Elsewhere Chris Snowdon has posted this on his blog: Labour officially declares war on 'alcohol, sugar and smoke'.

Je suis NOT Charlie

Saw an old friend from university at the weekend. He lives in Suffolk and invited me to the Ipswich-Derby match.

After the game the conversation turned to Charlie Hebdo. "You edited a satirical magazine," he said. "You must feel strongly about this."

My reply surprised him, I think.

Yes, I edited a Private Eye style student magazine and for years I maintained it was the best thing I'd done.

A few years ago however I came across some back issues and was genuinely embarrassed by some of the content.

Some of it was funny (if you knew the context) but some of it made me cringe. At worst it was quite nasty about certain individuals.

At the time we convinced ourselves everyone was fair game. Student politicians were our principal target but they weren't alone.

To this day I can't imagine why we lampooned the captain of the men's university hockey team whose only crime was to go out with a girl I fancied, but we did.

Eventually we were sued for defamation by one student and settled out of court. Although I still believe the plaintiff's solicitor exaggerated the impact we had on his client, I can see in hindsight that perhaps we did go a bit too far.

The second time we were threatened with legal action my co-editor responded in the same way the Muslim mayor of Rotterdam reacted to critics of Charlie Hebdo. He told the complainant, via his solicitor, to "fuck off" and we heard no more.

It taught me however to be more careful about what I write and I frequently self-censor this blog.

Comment moderation also allows me to edit or delete some of the more personal or vitriolic things that are posted about smokers or certain anti-smoking campaigners.

If they are gratuitously offensive I won't publish them. Simple.

In my opinion freedom – and freedom of speech – has its limits. Listen to the baying mob over the past week however and you'd be forgiven for thinking anything goes.

I know this puts me at odds with people I admire but there it is.

I am however with Ian O'Doherty, the Irish Independent columnist who yesterday tweeted:

Enough with the #je suis Charlie poseurs. If you won't even retweet the cartoons just stay out of the debate

See also: Unless you mean what you say, #Je Suis Charlie is another bandwagon to ride on (Irish Independent).

He's right. How many people using the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie or demanding that newspapers publish this week's Charlie Hebdo cover (and other cartoons) have retweeted those cartoons themselves?

The reasons I won't be retweeting or posting any Charlie Hebdo cartoons on this blog are:

One, to paraphrase Neil Rafferty, co-founder of The Daily Mash, I'm not that brave.

Two, there's a fine line between legitimate comment and being gratuitously offensive and from what I've seen some of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons cross the line.

I certainly wouldn't ban "offensive" comments (the definition of which is subjective) or cartoons but I do think a little self-censorship is not a bad thing. That's how the overwhelming majority of us get through life, isn't it?

Those who shout "tosser" (or worse) at anyone who calls for restraint in this delicate area don't appear to see the irony of what they're saying. We're entitled to our views too. It's called, wait for it, freedom of speech.

So no, je suis NOT Charlie, and I won't be buying a copy of this week's magazine.

Update: The latest Charlie Hebdo doesn't only mock Muhammad - it also mocks you (Brendan O'Neil).

#CharlieHebdo’s new edition has sold out in minutes – despite a massive 3 million print run: http://t.co/j2w1nj4CvO pic.twitter.com/CHViMhWcE3

— The Sun Newsdesk (@SunNewsdesk) January 14, 2015

Update on Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 7:05 by Simon Clark

The Telegraph reports:

A founding member of Charlie Hebdo says slain editor Stéphane Charbonnier "dragged" team to their deaths by "overdoing" provocative cartoons.

See Charlie Hebdo founder says slain editor 'dragged' team to their deaths.

The elephant in the room

A week ago I was admonished on Twitter for having a dig at vapers.

I protested my innocence, pointing out that I've done quite a lot to defend vaping and e-cigarettes including television and radio interviews and submissions to various consultations in which I have repeatedly called on government not to over-regulate or restrict the use of this apparently harmless product.

It's true though that not all vapers (or e-cig advocates) have my undying admiration so you'll forgive me if I occasionally use this blog to highlight areas of concern.

Yesterday, for example, a leading e-cig advocate and vaper wrote:

When we smoked we were willing to accept sin taxes and restrictions, because we knew that fundamentally they could be justified by evidence.

I accept that vaping is far less of a health risk than smoking, if indeed it's a risk at all. But where is the evidence that justifies a total ban on smoking in all indoor public places, for example?

Or a ban on the display of tobacco in shops?

Or a ban on vending machines?

Or a ban on smoking in private vehicles?

Or plain packaging of tobacco products?

The claim that 11,000 non-smokers died each year from secondhand smoke in pre-ban Britain was based on 'estimates' and 'calculations'. It had no basis in fact.

Reports that smoking bans reduce heart attacks are invariably shown to be false.

The slogan "quit or die" is clearly a lie. Smokers may be playing Russian roulette with their health but a great many live long and healthy lives.

Even the genuine risks of smoking (self-evident to most people for decades) have been exaggerated to the point where smokers largely ignore warnings about impotence, blindness, grotesquely rotten teeth and amputations because the number of smokers who experience those outcomes is, mercifully, very small.

What I find curious is this. While many vapers seem happy to believe what tobacco control tells them about the impact of smoking, when it comes to electronic cigarettes the public health industry is suddenly "lying".

Does it never occur to them that tobacco control could have been lying (or exaggerating the facts) about smoking too?

The problem is that in order to protect e-cigarettes some vapers have decided to unite with tobacco control campaigners under the harm reduction flag. Tactically there is some sense in this.

Unfortunately no tobacco control campaigner - even those who now accuse other public health campaigners of "lying" - will ever admit they exaggerated the health risks of smoking or the impact of passive smoking so the issue is brushed under the carpet and never mentioned.

It's the elephant in the room because if some public health campaigners are lying about e-cigarettes it's reasonable to suspect they lied or embellished the facts about tobacco too.

I wonder what Joe Jackson, who wrote a very well-argued essay challenging some of the arguments against smoking, thinks.

Like many of today's e-cig advocates Joe is a consumer who for several years did a huge amount of reading and research. Like them he never received a penny for his time.

Joe felt so strongly about the issue he wrote articles (New York Times, Daily Telegraph), gave interviews (including the Today programme), and accepted an invitation to speak alongside the then Secretary of State for Health John Reid.

That was ten years ago. Sadly, after years of being browbeaten and made to feel guilty about their habit, and with social media still in its infancy, smokers failed to rally to the cause.

A decade later advocates of e-cigarettes (many of them ex-smokers) happily accuse public health campaigners of "lying" about vaping yet appear to accept everything tobacco control says about smoking. It's a dichotomy that needs some explanation.

Update: Last week Joe urged people to sign a petition opposing a comprehensive smoking ban in the previously "fun" city of New Orleans. We posted his plea on the Forest Facebook page and a number of you responded.

The petition allows for comments and when I looked this morning I saw several familiar names. Joe himself wrote:

Like many others, I'm a frequent visitor to NOLA because it's one of the few places in the US where we're treated as adults; where there is a live and let live attitude; and people are not taken in by ridiculous hyped-up fear-mongering about 'secondhand smoke'. The choice should be up to bar and club owners. This ban would be a tragedy. If it passes I won't be coming to New Orleans any more. Simple as that.

See also: New Orleans City Council to host town hall meeting on smoking ban. The meeting takes on Wednesday so you should submit comments as soon as possible.

If passed the law will almost certainly embrace e-cigarettes. That's why vapers should join forces with smokers and fight these battles together.

Unfortunately, for reasons I understand but don't accept, some vapers are throwing smokers under the bus in the hope their own habit might be spared.

The bigger picture is the war on excessive regulation with New Orleans the latest battleground. Smoker or vaper, if you want to make your voice heard sign here.