The cost of outdoor smoking bans

Here it is, the new Manifesto Club report on outdoor smoking bans.

Smoked Out: The Hyper-Regulation of Smokers in Public Places is well timed because Brighton Council has just closed a public consultation on extending the smoking ban to outdoor areas, and as we went to print Swansea Council announced an almost identical survey.

Using Freedom of Information the Manifesto Club has unearthed some interesting information.

For example, Glasgow hospitals spent almost £400,000 in one year on 17 'no-smoking' officers to patrol hospital grounds.

Blackpool Council spent £275,000 on no-smoking signs in parks and play areas. Some of these signs were removed after they were branded 'monstrous' by residents.

Seventeen authorities have erected a total of 1570 'no smoking' signs in play areas plus 486 outside schools at a total cost of over £340,000.

Here's an edited version of the press release:

A new Manifesto Club report Smoked Out argues that outdoor smoking bans are driven by officials in councils and public health bodies, rather than responding to health risks or public demand.

The report - published on Wednesday 21 October - shows how outdoor bans are often introduced by officials seeking to 'improve the image' of a town or institution, or to 'comply with official guidance'.

The report includes new FOI data showing the time and resources spent on enforcing bans, often in the face of public opposition.

The report notes that outdoor smoking bans are often justified as a way to 'denormalise smoking' and to limit children's exposure to 'smoking behaviours'.

The report also highlights cases where signs wrongly suggest that smoking outdoors will affect the health of children. One sign outside a London hospital showed an image of a baby and read, 'please do not smoke here - my little lungs are nearby', though the area was well away from hospital doors.

Smoked Out criticises current moves by Scottish and Welsh governments to enforce hospital smoking bans with on-the-spot fines. 'It's hard to see how these punishments can be enforced with any reasonableness or humanity. Will patients be fined? Will their worried relatives be escorted from the site?'

I've written a short preface for the report, reprinted below:

The ban on smoking in all enclosed public places, introduced in Scotland in 2006 and the rest of the UK in 2007, was justified – or so we were told – because it would improve the health of bar workers who were routinely exposed to other people’s tobacco smoke.

Never mind the lack of hard evidence that ‘passive’ smoking was a genuine and serious health risk, or that many proprietors had gone to great lengths to improve air quality, or that according to the Office for National Statistics only a minority of adults supported a comprehensive ban, anti-tobacco campaigners were determined to stub out the practice of smoking in Britain’s pubs and clubs.

Less than a decade later those same campaigners, aided and abetted by a handful of local councillors, now want to ban smoking in the open air where there is no evidence of any risk to other people’s health and the worst that can be said is that some people don’t like the smell or (shock horror) the sight of someone smoking.

Desperate to restrict people’s liberties even further (and mindful perhaps that they need another campaign to justify their existence), anti-smoking campaigners now want to prohibit smoking in parks, on beaches, in squares and in hospital grounds.

There is no justification for banning smoking in outdoor public spaces and I’m delighted the Manifesto Club has joined forces with Forest to campaign against proposals to extend the smoking ban to outdoor areas.

Tobacco is a legal product. Adults must be allowed to smoke in outdoor public places without harassment or worse. They must of course show consideration for others but there should be no place for zealotry in public health. Tolerance, common sense and good manners (on both sides) must prevail.

To download and read Smoked Out visit the Manifesto Club website or click here.

To promote the report we're hosting a small event in London tonight. Drinks will be followed by a short discussion featuring report author Dolan Cummings; Josie Appleton, director of the Manifesto Club; Alex Wild, TaxPayers Alliance; Rob Lyons, Action on Consumer Choice; and me.

Venue is the Institute of Economic Affairs (2 Lord North Street, Westminster) and I can vouch for the beer and wine because I chose them myself. If you're in London today do join us.

Update: Excellent article by the Manifesto Club's Josie Appleton on Spiked - Smoked out of the public square.

Out of sight, out of mind

It's customary, at this time of year, to pay homage to the Battle of Ideas.

It's a magnificently organised event, a wonderful networking opportunity, and for many participants it has that priceless feel good factor.

Why, then, did I feel so deflated on Sunday?

Perhaps it was because an important smoking-related issue was sidelined, added to the programme as an afterthought (ie not included in the main brochure), given a lunchtime slot (when everyone was, er, having lunch), and allocated an alcove that was not so much off piste as 'out of sight, out of mind'.

How ironic, I thought, as I counted the handful of people who bothered to attend 'Hot off the press: outdoor smoking bans', that even at an event like this the war on tobacco has been marginalised to the outermost fringe.

It's not the first time either. I did a similar session in the same space two or three years ago.

Curiously, on the one occasion I was invited to speak as part of the main programme I was asked to talk about food not tobacco.

And the time we were asked to support a wrap party we were invited to do so as The Free Society not Forest.

If this sounds a bit curmudgeonly, even ungrateful, I should add that I have never wavered in my support for this impressive annual event. The year I spoke I even discharged myself from hospital to be there! (See That was the weekend that was.)

So at risk of alienating certain people, I think I'm justified in being a bit disappointed that smoking prohibition and the important issues it raises about government intervention and personal liberty has not been given the prominence it deserves.

Outdoor smoking bans – the battle begins

Pleased to announce the publication of a new report next week.

Smoked Out: The Hyper-Regulation of Smokers in Outdoor Public Places has been researched and written by the Manifesto Club with Forest's support.

It comes out on Wednesday October 21 and to mark the occasion we're hosting a launch event at the Institute of Economic Affairs.

You are invited therefore to join us from 6.30pm for drinks followed by a handful of short speeches and a Q&A session from 7.15pm.

We'll be done and dusted – and in the pub – by 8.30.

To download the invitation click here. RSVP events@forestonline.org.

Outdoor smoking bans are also on the agenda on Sunday at the annual Battle of Ideas (Barbican, London).

Josie Appleton, director of the Manifesto Club, and I will be joined by Barry Curtis who is campaigning against proposals to ban smoking in and around mental health facilities.

For full details of this lunchtime discussion see Hot off the press: outdoor smoking bans (Battle of Ideas).

Brighton's smoke free consultation report put back two months

According to Brighton and Hove News:

Brighton beach smoking ban report delayed after flood of consultation responses.

The report includes a quote from Forest's submission to the consultation.

Forest slams outdoor smoking bans

Further to my previous post, here's an edited version of the press release that accompanied Forest's response to the Brighton consolation.

BRIGHTON – Campaigners have slammed proposals to extend the smoking ban to outdoor areas including beaches, parks and historic squares.

Responding to the Brighton and Hove Council consultation on smoke free areas, the smokers' group Forest said it was strongly opposed to prohibiting smoking outside.

There is no evidence, said the group, that smoking outside is a health risk to anyone other than the smoker and the inconvenience to non-smokers is minimal.

'Despite this some campaigners are determined to ban smoking in the open air. Why? What possible benefit will it have for non-smokers apart from encouraging a handful of zealous anti-smokers to feel even more smug and sanctimonious than they already do?'

The indoor smoking ban, the group added, had put many pubs out of business.

'Imagine the impact if pubs, clubs and bars (and even cafes and restaurants) were now denied the opportunity to offer their customers a smoking area outside. At a time when many small businesses are just recovering from a long-term recession, this is exactly the type of unnecessary regulation they don’t need.'

Simon Clark, director of Forest, said:

"Smokers don’t need to be told how to behave around other people. The overwhelming majority of smokers know it can be annoying to some non-smokers if they smoke in their immediate presence. Usually they’ll step a few feet away where they’re no trouble to anyone, not even the most ardent anti-smoker.

"Each and every day we make decisions about our behaviour. Smoking is generally a matter of civility. Most people are civil to one another and they don’t need legislation or even ‘voluntary bans’ dictating to the nth degree how they behave in public spaces."

Full press release here.

Click here for the full consultation response.

Response to Brighton consultation on smoke free areas

Phew.

I've just completed and submitted Forest's response to the Brighton and Hove Council consultation on smoke free areas.

Deadline is 11.59 tonight.

There's an online survey you can complete in a matter of minutes so I hope you remembered to do it.

We sent a reminder to Forest subscribers earlier today and quite a lot of people responded. Many thanks if you were one of them.

Forest's response took a little longer because I decided the online survey didn't allow us to say everything I thought should be said.

So I wrote a letter – an 11-page letter – and sent it to the contact name on the form.

I commented on a variety of issues including the 'The destruction of Bohemia':

Ten years ago one of Britain’s finest artists, David Hockney, attended a Forest fringe event at the Labour conference in Brighton. We invited him to speak against the government’s plan to ban smoking in enclosed public places.

“Pubs aren’t health clubs,” Hockney declared. And he was right. No-one goes to a pub to get healthier. Most people go to relax and unwind with their friends, enjoy a drink or three, eat a high calorie snack and, in some cases, have a smoke.

Smoking, said Hockney, was good for his mental health and unlike many of his contemporaries he wasn’t on prescription drugs for depression or worse. He enjoyed his day in Brighton. Wearing his artist’s hat he commented favourably on the light. He also spoke about Bohemia, suggesting that the proposed smoking ban would “destroy” Bohemia.

Ironically Brighton was once renowned for being Britain’s most bohemian city. Not everyone visits the city for the candyfloss and the ‘Kiss Me Quick’ hats. Many of us visit Brighton (or used to) because we enjoyed the feeling that here was a city that embraced a diverse range of lifestyles and didn’t judge people.

Today Hockney would probably ask, “Whatever happened to that bohemian environment?” Instead of a city run by a council committed to diversity with a liberal, live and let live outlook on life, some people seem determined to crack down on individualism in the name of public health.

Ban smoking in outdoor public spaces and Brighton will destroy any lingering link it has to its proud bohemian tradition. Instead it will be seen as one of the most puritanical cities in the UK, a model for nanny statists the length and breadth of the country. Is that how councillors want Brighton to be seen?

I also included a more personal comment:

Although I write as the director of a group that represents adults who choose to smoke, I am a lifelong non-smoker. Prior to the introduction of the ban on smoking in enclosed public places most middle-aged people like myself had experienced the occasional smoky pub or café.

People older than me may also have experienced a smoky auditorium, train compartment and so on. Smoky pubs were increasingly rare, however, even before the smoking ban was introduced as a large number had already invested in excellent air filtration systems that successfully removed many of the particles from environmental tobacco smoke.

Society has changed dramatically in the last 30 years, not always for the better, but I genuinely cannot remember the last time I was seriously inconvenienced by exposure to someone else’s tobacco smoke in a park, on a beach, in the street, outside a hospital etc. If it does happen it’s a very rare event so we implore the Council to put this in perspective.

Unless you live with a smoker you will rarely be exposed to tobacco smoke. On the very few occasions you are it’s likely to be for no more than a second or two. And on the equally rare occasions you wish to sit outside in a beer garden or enjoy a meal al fresco, remember this – non-smokers have a choice to sit inside where it’s warm and ‘smokefree’ (sic).

The person who wishes, quite legitimately, to have a cigarette with his beer, wine, coffee or meal, doesn’t have that choice. He (or she) HAS to sit outside. Now even that small liberty is under threat.

You can read the letter in full here if you want.

That BBC Breakfast interview

Here's my interview on BBC Breakfast yesterday.

It was in response to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health (run by ASH) calling for another substantial hike in tobacco tax (inflation plus five per cent).

See Tobacco tax increase urged by parliamentary group (BBC News).

Short interviews like this involve spur of the moment judgement calls so there were other points I could have made but didn't, but here are some quotes, including one for my vaping buddies:

"This would be economic madness. We know the impact of raising tax on tobacco and it drives people to the black market."

"The last Chancellor who introduced an inflation plus five per cent increase on tobacco was Gordon Brown and he had to jump off the so-called tobacco escalator because it wasn't working."

"Many people enjoy smoking and you mustn't use taxation as a form of social engineering to try and coerce people to give up."

"The most successful smoking cessation aid of recent years has been the electronic cigarette. That's driven by the free market. It's got nothing to do with government."

A soundbite from the interview was used later in this BBC News report:

APPG on smoking and tax

Up early this morning.

I was asked to appear on BBC Breakfast at 6.10am so I had to get up at 5.00 and drive to the BBC studio in Cambridge.

They softened the pill by explaining that the earlier I could appear the greater the chance of a soundbite being used in subsequent news bulletins.

The interview was in response to this story – Tobacco tax increase urged by parliamentary group (BBC News).

I described the demand for a increase of inflation plus five percent as "economic madness" and went on to point out that the only Chancellor who has ever introduced such an increase was Gordon Brown who jumped off that particular 'escalator' when he discovered the Treasury was losing £3 billion to the illicit market every year.

When I was asked what else the government could do to reduce smoking, if not raise taxes, I pointed out that the most successful smoking cessation of recent years has been electronic cigarettes, a free market invention and nothing to do with government.

The interview ended very quickly after that!

Anyway, here is Forest's full response:

Smokers' group urges government to ignore demands for tobacco tax increase

Campaigners say the Chancellor should reject calls by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health to increase tobacco taxes to fund a reduction in smoking prevalence.

Simon Clark, director of the smokers' group Forest, said: "Experience tells us that increasing tobacco taxation doesn't generate more revenue for government overall.

"Instead it fuels the black market by encouraging criminal gangs to smuggle huge quantities of illicit tobacco, including counterfeit cigarettes, into the UK.

"It also encourages many consumers to purchase their tobacco, quite legitimately, in other European countries where the price is substantially cheaper than it is here.

"Far from increasing revenue to invest in more smoking cessation projects, increasing tobacco taxes could cost the Treasury billions of pounds it can ill afford to lose.

"Legitimate retailers in the UK would also suffer from a loss of business that could prove extremely damaging for small convenience stores.

"We urge the Treasury to ignore these shrill, self-serving demands for more tax and more public money to coerce smokers to quit."

I should add that we've also been pointing out that the APPG on Smoking and Health is run by ASH, who also issued the news release calling for a large hike in tobacco tax.

They also want the Government to spend an additional £100 million per year on smoking prevention, an increase of 50 per cent on the current £200 million.

They couldn't be angling for an increase on the £200k per year they currently get from the taxpayer, could they?

ASH Scotland of course get £800k from the Scottish Government and goodness knows how much all those regional groups (Smokefree South West, Tobacco Free Futures, Fresh North East) hoover up.

I think we should be told.