Tobacco control renews demand for levy to fund stop smoking services

Two weeks ago Cancer Research UK complained that local authorities were cutting budgets for stop smoking services.

According to George Butterworth, CRUK’s tobacco policy manager:

“These services are under threat from a lack of sustainable funding. The Government must establish a sustainable funding model for local tobacco control and stop smoking services before they are eroded further ...

“We believe the tobacco industry should pay for the damage their products cause. A levy on the tobacco industry should be used to provide sustainable funding for Stop Smoking Services and mass media campaigns to help people quit.”

See Stop Smoking Services at threat as funding comes under pressure (CRUK).

Now, six weeks before the Budget in March, CRUK has launched a campaign and petition calling on the tobacco industry to "cough up" (sic).

Cancer Research UK is today (Tuesday) calling on the Government to make the tobacco industry pay for the damage it causes and help reduce the number of people killed by its deadly product.

Earlier this month a report published by Cancer Research UK revealed that cuts to public health funding mean local Stop Smoking Services are being closed down.

In response, the charity is launching a new “Cough Up” campaign, and wants the public to support a simple solution to the problem – making the tobacco industry pay for public health services and mass media quit campaigns to help save thousands of lives.

Alison Cox, Cancer Research UK’s director of cancer prevention, said: “For too long the tobacco industry has had an easy ride, making money without having to spend a single pound on the damage its products cause. It continues to profit from selling a highly addictive and lethal product that causes illness and death.

"Tobacco companies make billions of pounds every year, so we’d like to see them using their profits to keep Stop Smoking Services open and fund advertising campaigns to help people quit. At a time when health budgets are stretched, this is a simple solution to a lethal problem. We urge the Government to make the industry cough up.”

Earlier this evening (following a late tip-off) Forest issued this response:

The smokers' group Forest has urged the government to reject calls to make tobacco companies "cough up" to help reduce the number of smokers in the UK.

Cancer Research UK wants the tobacco industry to fund public health services and mass media quit campaigns.

According to CRUK, by charging the industry around 1p per cigarette sold in the UK, an extra £500m could be raised and spent directly on tobacco control.

Simon Clark, director of Forest, said: “A tobacco levy would almost certainly be passed on to the consumer.

"Enough's enough. Smokers already contribute £10 billion a year in tobacco tax. That far outweighs the alleged cost of treating smoking-related diseases. Why should they pay more?

“Another increase in price would hit the elderly, the low paid and others who can least afford it. It would also hurt convenience stores because it would fuel illicit trade.”

He added: "Nothing has changed since the Chancellor rejected a tobacco levy last year. This is just another attempt to recycle a tired idea that has very little support."

For those who don't remember, here's a reminder of what happened last year – Tobacco levy, ASH and Forest's response and ASH's demand for tobacco levy goes up in smoke.

Like the European Commission the unelected tobacco control industry doesn't take 'No' for an answer, hence they're back (with reinforcements).

If Osborne withstands the persistent pounding on the door of No 11 I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Sugar tax, tobacco levy, minimum pricing of alcohol … Strap yourselves in, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

What's in a name?

"It's not about health, it's about control."

I can't remember the first time I used that phrase – a long, long time ago, as Don McLean would say – but our opponents were listening, it seems.

A few years ago the Scottish Parliament's Cross Party Group on Tobacco Control changed its name to the CPG on Tobacco and Health.

If you're wondering why they bothered, papers recently released shed some light on the matter. In particular, a note submitted to the CPG on Tobacco Control AGM, dated October 30, 2012, reads:

Remit and Format of the Cross Party Group

We would like to suggest that we review the name of the Group – "CPG on Tobacco Control" – on the basis that while "tobacco control" is the familiar and accepted term for those working in the field, it might not be well understood by others who may even shy away from the word "control". We would like to suggest changing the name of the Group to "CPG on Tobacco and Health", which sounds positive, links to wider health interests and might encourage even more MSPs to engage with the Group.

Similarly the purpose of the Group is currently "To take forward an effective tobacco control agenda in Scotland" and we would like to suggest that "To benefit publish health through building political dialogue and collaboration to tackle the harm caused by tobacco use in Scotland" is again more positive and may be more appealing to other Members.

By the time the group met again, on May 2, 2013, the changes had been made and all mention of "control" had been removed.

Of course, you and I know that changing or deleting a word makes no difference to what drives public health activists to campaign for smoking bans, plain packaging, punitive taxation etc etc.

The motivation remains the same. The rest is spin, designed to make them look less authoritarian (and puritanical) than they really are.

But what we also know – thanks to this little titbit – is that public health campaigners are very sensitive about their portrayal and they don't want people using the 'c' word to describe their activities.

Not sure I can control myself, to be honest.

Another fine mess

I've just done an interview for BBC Coventry & Warwickshire. The story was this:

Local residents have failed in their bid to get smoking banned in their road which borders a local hospital.

Since smoking was banned in the grounds of the hospital up to 30 people allegedly gather at any one time to light up.

According to reports most are nurses and ancillary workers.

Three hundred residents signed a petition in favour of banning smoking in their street but the council has rightly rejected the idea, arguing it would be impossible to enforce.

As it happens I have some sympathy for residents because I wouldn't fancy that many people gathering near my house, some in the middle of the night.

But prohibition isn't the answer because even if you could enforce it all that does is divert the 'problem' elsewhere.

The solution is screamingly obvious to me (but I'm not a highly paid hospital administrator).

Patients, staff and visitors must be allowed to smoke on hospital grounds, if not everywhere then at least in designated smoking areas.

It's not rocket science but the war on tobacco seems to have dulled people's ability to make the simplest decisions.

No wonder the NHS is in such a mess.

"Disgraceful, desperate, dishonest"

Credit to Dick Puddlecote for a genuine old-fashioned scoop.

You can read all about it on Dick's blog here.

It should make uncomfortable reading for Chief Medical Officer Dame Sally Davies and Martin McKee, professor of European Public Health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, but a lot of people in public health are shameless.

Either that or they operate in such a bubble that they steam on, disregarding the opinions of everyone else, even their peers. They ignore the evidence and contend that anything they don't agree with or doesn't suit their agenda must be false or, worse, a conspiracy.

It would be nice to think the exposure of some remarkable correspondence between McKee and Dame Sally would attract the attention of the mainstream media but I fear it's destined to remain online, poured over and commented upon by obsessives like me but ignored by those in higher office.

Nevertheless I tip my hat to DP and his fellow 'jewel robbers'. The immediate reaction has been impressive. Let's hope others take note too.

Update: Did Martin McKee lie in the BMJ? (Dick Puddlecote).

Dick's Stuff: PHE Hypnotised By Big Tobacco, Claims McKee In Private Emails To The CMO https://t.co/0CqAMm2J3w

— Dick Puddlecote (@Dick_Puddlecote) January 19, 2016

Thanks for this - to reiterate the tobacco industry had no input to our analysis and this claim by McKee is a lie https://t.co/lo6uk5qUza

— David Nutt (@ProfDavidNutt) January 19, 2016

Disgraceful, desperate, dishonest and negligent of McKee! The ecig-gate is becoming truly ridiculous! @ProfDavidNutt https://t.co/3hYMcG8AB8

— Dr Christian Jessen (@DoctorChristian) January 20, 2016

Why Mr Galliano's Circus is the best book in the world (others may disagree)

I enjoyed last night's Bookshop Barnie Balloon Debate far more than I thought I would.

I had previously turned down the opportunity to champion the 'Best Book in the World' on the grounds that I wasn't qualified for the task, having read relatively few books since I fled Aberdeen University in 1980 with a fortuitous 2:2 in English Lit.

Austin Williams, who organises this congenial annual event, is a persistent fellow so when he invited me to take part in this year's debate I felt it would be churlish to refuse. The question was, what book to nominate?

I gave the matter some thought and eventually settled on Mr Galliano's Circus by Enid Blyton. My competitors chose The Babylonian Talmud, Philip Roth's American Pastoral, Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre, Ludwig von Mises' Human Action, Jane Austen's Emma, and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

And so to last night.

I arrived at the new Foyles bookshop in London's Charing Cross Road and made my way to the fifth floor where there is large cafe that leads to a glass-fronted auditorium on the sixth floor.

The first surprise was bumping into my old friend Eamonn Butler, director of the Adam Smith Institute, in the lift.

Eamonn told me he had been a participant a few years previously when he had proposed Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. The winner that year was The Times' columnist David Aaronovitch who advocated Giovanni Boccaccio's The Decameron. (No, I've never heard of it either.)

Thankfully Eamonn wasn't the only friendly face. There was Austin himself, Rob Lyons, Shirley Dent and several more I recognised but didn't have a chance to speak to.

I began to relax. (The wine helped too.)

Anyway, to cut a long story short, seven people were scheduled to speak but two didn't turn up. Those that did were given two and half minutes to 'sell' our books to the audience. (It was a pretty full house.)

That was followed by a short Q&A. Speakers were briefly interrogated by the audience and I had to answer a probing question about Enid Blyton's alleged racism. I responded by saying she was writing in a different age and there was nothing racist in Mr Galliano's Circus!

The audience then voted. They could vote for as many books/speakers as they wanted and the two with the fewest votes were then eliminated.

The three remaining speakers were then given a further minute to make their case.

The good news is I was one of the three. I survived the cut!

The bad news is that when the audience voted again I came third, albeit with a very respectable number of votes. (I had feared humiliation, so thank you!)

The other speakers tied, which has never happened before, apparently.

Eventually, following a tie-break, Jane Eyre, proposed by Pamela Bow, director of strategy at the Ministry of Justice, came second.

And the winner, by the narrowest of margins, was Rob Killick, CEO of ClerksWell, a digital consultancy, who advocated Philip Roth’s American Pastoral.

Anyway, thanks to Austin Williams for organising such an enjoyable event. At the end every speaker was presented with a book and an exclusive framed picture. (I can't tell you what mine is but I shall treasure it.)

Finally, if you're wondering why I proposed Mr Galliano's Circus here, roughly, is what I said:

Ladies and gentlemen, I present … Mr Galliano’s Circus, the best book in the world.

I have a theory that the best or most important book in the world is the one that first encourages or inspires us to read – and in my case that was Mr Galliano’s Circus by Enid Blyton. 

I was six years old and according to my mother I was struggling to read. I could identify flashcards but I was having difficulty reading a proper book. That all changed when I was given Mr Galliano's Circus.

Why did it appeal to me? First, I was introduced to an exciting new world. In brief: eight-year-old Jimmy Brown watches the circus roll through town; he makes friends with Lotta, a young circus girl who rides horses; that night the oddjob man runs off with the circus takings; Jimmy’s father, a carpenter, is invited to take his place; Jimmy proves to be good with animals so he and his mother are invited to join the circus too.

It’s a genuine page-turner, full of little incidents that drive the story forward as the circus travels from town to town.

There are some great characters, led by Mr Galliano with his moustache and top hat, and his “fat, good-tempered” wife. And of course there are lots of animals – dogs, horses, monkeys, a chimpanzee and an elephant.

Without wishing to sound like George Osborne, the book celebrates honest, hard-working people, and generosity of spirit. 

But Mr Galliano's Circus is also quite subversive. An ordinary family gives up their comfortable suburban life and joins the circus. Ultimately this is a book about freedom and escaping the rat race.

Most important it celebrates kindness to animals because – and this is a very important spoiler alert – ELEPHANTS NEVER FORGET.

Last but not least my favourite passage reads: 'The chimpanzee was dressed in red trousers, blue coat and straw hat, and it was smoking a cigarette! Jimmy stared in amazement. This was a wonderful sight!'

Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is entertainment. 

Enid Blyton's The Circus Collection featuring Mr Galliano's Circus, Hurrah For The Circus and Circus Days Again, is available in all good bookshops, £7.99.

Fighting like rats in a sack – tobacco control 'experts' in war of words

I love watching tobacco control 'experts' at odds with one another.

For years they were resolutely united and happy to spin any old rubbish if it helped 'make smoking history'.

The war on tobacco is still being fought but e-cigarettes have created a huge division within the tobacco control movement.

One side worries that e-cigarettes will 'renormalise' smoking and keep people addicted to nicotine; the other believes they are a game-changing stop smoking aid.

The latest contretemps concerns a report that reviewed 38 studies 'assessing the association between e-cigarette use and cigarette cessation among adult smokers'.

According to researchers at UC San Francisco, E-cigarettes, as used, aren’t helping smokers quit, study shows.

Co-author Stanton Glantz, America's most outspoken anti-tobacco campaigner, added:

“While there is no question that a puff on an e-cigarette is less dangerous than a puff on a conventional cigarette, the most dangerous thing about e-cigarettes is that they keep people smoking conventional cigarettes.”

Cue outrage from pro-vaping tobacco controllers. Former director of ASH Clive Bates wrote, Who will be duped by error-strewn ‘meta-analysis’ of e-cigarette studies?.

Linda Bauld, Robert West and others responded as follows: Expert reaction to meta-analysis looking at e-cigarette use and smoking cessation.

I'm inclined to agree with some of their comments but I'm also influenced by the fact that Glantz is such a one-eyed propagandist it's difficult to give credence to anything he says or writes.

The same could of course be said about some of his detractors in tobacco control and if the stench of hypocrisy hangs over this argument here's why.

For years public health campaigners have shamelessly exaggerated the effects of smoking – secondhand smoke in particular – spinning the results of research to justify further regulations on tobacco.

For example, the overwhelming majority of studies into the effects of passive smoking found no significant risk but that wasn't how it was presented to politicians, journalists and the general public.

When, in 2003, a study was published that concluded that the effects of secondhand smoke are very small, it was trashed by the anti-smoking community.

It didn't matter that it was largest study of its kind, or that the researchers, Enstrom and Kabat, were respected academics.

There have of course been studies purporting to show a substantial reduction in heart attacks following the introduction of smoking bans. On closer investigation, none of them hold water.

Glantz was responsible for several. But as Chris Snowdon pointed out yesterday on Twitter, with the exception of Michael Siegel no public health campaigner has ever queried the highly dubious 'heart attack miracle'.

It's clear that different standards are being applied to Glantz's work on smoking and vaping and that's inexcusable.

PS. If you've got time read Carl Phillips' latest post, Glantz responds to his (other) critics, helping make my point. It's long but worth the effort.

Read all about it

As someone who doesn't read a huge number of books, I am genuinely nervous about this event:

Dear All,

Thanks a million for agreeing to speak at the Bookshop Barnie New Year's Balloon Debate at Foyles on Tuesday January 19th.

This email is simply to keep you up to speed and remind you of the event details.

The format is this:

At 6.30 we take to the stage and sit in a line. I will give a long-winded introduction about you all, and remind the audience of your book choices.

Then, in turn, each of you have two and a half minutes to present your case for the Best Book in the World (basically, the one book that you believe should be saved in a fire, for instance). You should simply stand where you sit to present your argument (microphones will be provided).

I recommend that you pitch your choice to the audience in the way that the public will be best convinced: think of it as selling the book. It is a literary debate with a serious intent but of course it is light-hearted.

After you have all finished, we will accept the rollicking applause and take about 10 minutes of Q&A.

Then, sadly, four will be voted off ... and the remaining three contestant have a further ONE minute to deliver the killer punch.

Then we have a final vote and the winner is announced.

This year's contestants:

Jonathan Beckman, deputy director, 1843, on The Babylonian Talmud
Rob Killick, director, Clerkswell Ltd, on Philip Roth’s American Pastoral
Pamela Dow, director of Strategy, Ministry of Justice, on Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre
Patrik Schumacher, director, Zaha Hadid Architects, on Ludwig von Mises’ Human Action
Simon Clark, director, Forest, on Enid Blyton’s Mr Galliano’s Circus
Dr Gillian Dow, director, Chawton House Library, on Jane Austen’s Emma
Louis Savy, director, Sci-Fi London Festival, on Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein

Venue: The Auditorium, 6th Floor, Foyles Bookshop,
107 Charing Cross Road, London
Time: 6.00pm for a drink and a 6.30pm prompt start
Date: January 19th 2016

By all means, bring friends and family for moral support or simply to enjoy the debate.

Austin Williams
Bookshop Barnies

So there it is. Goodness knows why I agreed to take part.

What was I thinking?

Local Government Association questions value of stop smoking services

Breaking news.

Responding to the ASH report on budget cuts to stop smoking services (see previous post), the influential Local Government Association has issued a statement:

Cllr Izzi Seccombe, Local Government Association Community Wellbeing spokesperson, said:

“Since the advent of e-cigarettes and campaigns such as Stoptober, we have seen the number of users of smoking cessation services fall, while the population of smokers left is now more challenging to get to quit.

“This means councils are re-evaluating what they do on tobacco control and how to be more effective.

“Councils remain committed to helping smokers quit, however they face significant cuts to public health budgets this year, and spending large volumes of money on a service people are not using will fast undermine the cost-effectiveness of providing it.”

In plain English, the Local Government Association doesn't believe stop smoking services offer value for money because smokers who wish to quit are increasingly embracing free market solutions such as e-cigarettes.

If the LGA is querying the point of stop smoking services, how long before local authorities start asking questions about regional anti-smoking groups such as Smokefree South West, Tobacco Free Futures and Fresh?

What, exactly, do those groups do that anti-tobacco groups such as Cancer Research, the British Heart Foundation and the British Lung Foundation don't do already?

The British Lung Foundation runs No Smoking Day, Stoptober is backed by Cancer Research and the British Heart Foundation, so there must also be question marks about the role of ASH as a quit smoking organisation.

Apart from media and political lobbying (and a 'project' paid for by central government using public money), what is the USP that justifies ASH's existence and an annual income that currently includes £150k of public money?

I'm damned if I know.