What do smokers want?

I'm taking part in a discussion next week on the subject 'What do consumers want?'

Looking at the panel my suspicion is the session will lean heavily towards harm reduction and e-cigarettes.

But how important is harm reduction to committed smokers? And are e-cigarettes really the answer to every smoker's prayer?

On these occasions I like to remind delegates there are millions of people who still enjoy smoking and don't want to switch to e-cigarettes or any other nicotine device, despite the potential health benefits.

I'd be interested to hear your views on this and other consumer-related issues – choice, for example. (What do you think of the forthcoming ban on menthol cigarettes?)

What could the tobacco companies be doing to help smokers?

What role does government have to play?

Or do you just want to be left alone?

All comments welcome.

If this is a serious campaign I'm a doughnut

According to the Daily Mail (August 29), 'A wealthy fashion tycoon is attempting to sue cigarette firms for millions of pounds on behalf of smokers whose health has been damaged.'

I can't find any other mention of the campaign and I knew nothing about it until this morning when I saw a reference to it on Twitter where the Tobacco Victims Support Campaign has an account.

Since August 3, when @tobaccovictims went live, the campaign has tweeted 33 times and attracted 9,532 followers compared to Forest's rather modest 1,498 followers.

But wait, who are these people following Tobacco Victims?

As of this morning the most recent followers appear to be purveyors of gay porn. "Naked guys available today", "Webcams of hot men here", "Find the Best Gay Chat online", and so on.

A random search then found numerous followers who only have one follower and whose tweets can be counted in single figures (sometimes only one or two).

What's going on? If these 'people' were following Forest I'd assume we'd been hacked and we'd delete or block them immediately.

Meanwhile, who are Tobacco Victims following? Again, it appears to be a totally random list of people and 'things'.

For example, Q-Step Edinburgh, a "£19.5 million programme designed to promote a step-change in quantitative social science training."

Or Spite & Malice, "A film directed by Duncan Ward to be released in 2013."

Or The Kompass, "Your pass to all things Russian in the UK."

I've never seen anything like it. If this is a serious campaign I'm a doughnut.

As for Michael Potel, the Mail describes him as a multi-millionaire clothing magnate "who made millions with his firm British & Foreign Trading".

Google his name however and very little comes up. According to Company Check:

Michael Potel holds 0 appointments at 0 active companies, has resigned from 7 companies and held 6 appointments at 6 dissolved companies. Michael is not registered as holding any current appointments.

One of the dissolved companies appears to be the Britain & Foreign Trading Company which Potel resigned from as a director in 2004.

Another site, DueDil, reports:

Michael has held 13 directorships, 0 of which are currently active, and 13 are no longer active.

There's no mention of Potel or any individual on the TVSC. There's an email address but no postal address or telephone number.

The Facebook page is no more informative.

Despite this members of the public are invited to "Donate a sum of your own choice to help fight for the cause together!"

You're also invited to complete a survey that asks you for your name, date of birth and address, and the "address of the doctor who has diagnosed you with or is treating you for a smoking related illness"!!!

I'll be fascinated to see what this self-styled 'campaign' does next. But I won't be holding my breath.

Update: The BMJ also has the story here – Smokers in England and Wales launch campaign for class action against tobacco companies (September7).

I wonder if they've seen Tobacco Victims' Twitter followers?

US smoking rate falls to record low without display ban or plain packaging

Last week it was reported that the smoking rate in the United States is at an all-time low.

New data suggests that just 15.2 percent of American adults are currently using cigarettes on a regular basis.

No-one however has asked how that figure has been achieved.

For example, the rate in America is significantly lower than the UK and Ireland despite the fact that in the US:

• Full product display is allowed
• There are NO graphic health warnings
• Consumer promotion is allowed
• Tobacco taxation is lower

There must be other reasons why the smoking rate has fallen faster in America but it sure ain't gruesome images, hiding a legal product behind sliding doors or punitive taxation.

Meanwhile, what's been the impact of plain packaging in Australia? Tobacco control apologists say the decline in smoking rates in that country since the policy was introduced in December 2012 demonstrates the success of the policy.

We beg to differ and writing on his blog today Chris Snowdon also disputes that argument:

The truth is that tobacco sales fall to record lows in most Western countries every three months because smoking has been going out of fashion for decades …

This downward trend went into reverse in Australia when plain packaging first came in and it only resumed when the government hiked up the price of cigarettes with a tax rise of 12.5% in December 2013 and another tax rise of 12.5% in September 2014.

Furthermore:

The fall in tobacco sales in Britain since Australia brought in plain packaging has been twice as steep as the fall seen in Australia.

Tobacco taxes have risen in Britain during that period, but not as much as they have in Australia. Advertising has been banned in both countries for donkey's years and 'health awareness' is surely similar.

The only significant difference between the two countries' approach to tobacco control is that Australia has effectively banned e-cigarettes and introduced plain packaging whereas the UK hasn't.

You can read the full post here: Plain packaging versus doing nothing (Velvet Glove Iron Fist).

Forest's responses to consultations on TPD2 and Public Health (Wales) Bill

As I wrote on Saturday, two government consultations closed last week.

The first was a Department of Health consultation on implementation of the EU's revised Tobacco Products Directive (aka TPD2).

Many of the questions were fairly technical. For example:

Are there any other pack shapes for cigarettes, Roll Your Own (RYO) and waterpipe tobacco on the market, other than pouches and squat cylindrical tins/tubs, where there may be technical difficulties in applying any of the new health warnings under Articles 9 and 10?'

I've no idea and I didn't bother finding out.

Instead Forest's submission focussed on the eight or nine questions that had direct relevance to consumers. One in particular stood out:

We are aware that tobacco products that benefit from transitional arrangements (menthol), or are exempt from the ban on characterising flavours, will no longer able to provide a reference to the flavour on the packet. We would be interested to receive views on the impact of this provision.

Here's our response:

Of all the measures in the TPD2, several of which are illiberal and unnecessarily restrictive in terms of consumer choice, this is possibly the most absurd. The ban on menthol cigarettes will deny millions of consumers throughout the EU a product they have consumed and enjoyed for years if not decades. Incredibly, in the interim period before the ban is introduced in 2020, menthol cigarettes will be available to the consumer but there will be no mention of the flavour on the packet!!

Petty, childish, ridiculous … none of these adjectives do justice to this extraordinary proposal. It beggars belief that anyone could come up with such a ludicrous idea but nothing surprises us about the tobacco control industry that stops at nothing to inconvenience ordinary law-abiding consumers, not to mention the retailers who sell this perfectly legitimate product. Without the word ‘menthol’ on the packet how on earth are consumers supposed to tell whether a packet contains menthol cigarettes? The aim, clearly, is to restrict consumers to their existing brand of cigarette, making it difficult if not impossible for them to choose a new or different brand during the transitional period (which they are perfectly entitled to do).

The impact of this measure will not only inconvenience consumers, it will also inconvenience and confuse a great many shop assistants unfamiliar with the names of different brands of menthol cigarettes. Asked by a customer, ‘What brands of menthol cigarettes do you sell?’, many shop assistants will be unable to answer. Instead of using their eyes to search the shelves (which should take no more than a few seconds), they will no doubt have to refer to a list before looking for the relevant brands that, in the UK, are already hidden behind shutters or doors.

Consumers have a right to be allowed to make an informed choice about the product they buy. After the introduction of standardised packaging in the UK consumers and shop assistants will be faced with identical packs with only the name identifying the brand the consumer wishes to buy. Removing any reference to the flavour will make it even harder for the consumer.

Given the tobacco display ban and the introduction of standardised packaging (which will remove all branding colours from the packet), do we really need yet another regulation that treats adult consumers as if they are infants? Is the Government really prepared to lower itself to that level? It’s bad enough that menthol cigarettes are to be outlawed (Forest is strongly opposed to the measure) but don’t, in the intervening period, remove the reference to the flavour on the packet.

Whatever the product, consumers have a right to expect any relevant information, including the flavour, to be included on the packet. Why should consumers of tobacco, a legal product, be treated any differently?

You can read our full response to the consultation on implementation of TPD2 here.

As for the consultation on the Public Health (Wales) Bill that closed on Friday, our response included a strong rebuttal of the proposal to ban the use of e-cigarettes in all enclosed public places.

Ignoring the sections on body piercings and public toilets (!) we concluded our submission with these comments:

E-cigarettes are market-led devices that have the potential to revolutionise public health if the product is not strangled in its infancy by hyper-regulation and unnecessary restrictions. Based on existing evidence there is no reason to believe that e-cigarettes are a serious risk to the health of the consumer or that vaping is a gateway to smoking tobacco.

Politicians must overcome their unwarranted fear of nicotine (which can be addictive but is no more harmful than caffeine) and embrace the potential that electronic cigarettes have to become a game-changing harm reduction product that could eventually wean millions of smokers off cigarettes. To achieve that requires a leap of imagination and the ability to reject unnecessarily restrictive legislation.

At the same time, attempts to force smokers to quit combustible cigarettes could be counter-productive with many consumers ‘reaching for their fags in defiance’. Forest supports education not coercion. In a free society adults must have the freedom to make an informed choice and as long as tobacco remains a legal product consumers should neither be vilified for their habit nor forced to quit.

Click here for our full submission.

Scooting for success

When I was in Ireland last week I was introduced to the E-Skoot.

It's an electric skooter and it was a hoot.

I wasn't on the open road – just an underground car park – which was probably just as well because it took a little getting used to and I didn't have long to practice.

Travelling in a straight line was easy, turning corners less so. (You have to lean over as if you're skiing.)

The person who insisted I try it was Terence Cosgrave who's on a mission to sell the device to the media and sceptical punters like me:

The E-Skoot, a battery-powered scooter, can reach a speed of 25km per hour on its own power and has a range of 35km. It also recharges fully in two hours by plugging it into an ordinary house socket.

It can travel as slow as walking pace in congested areas with decent stability, and then can pick up speed quickly when congestion clears.

See A skoot around town (Irish Independent).

The device folds up 'and is light enough to be carried on buses and trams'. It felt quite heavy to me but that was part of its appeal. The weight gave it substance. It looked and felt like a well-built piece of kit.

Like the Segway, which Lembit Opik has been championing for several years, the E-Skoot will have to overcome the issue of whether it can be used on the road, in cycle lanes or on pedestrian footpaths.

Ultimately I suspect the weather will prove more of an obstacle – in this part of the world, at least.

Nevertheless, as a recreational device I'd give it top marks. It may not be the future of personalised transport but I'd buy one – if only for the pleasure of overtaking red-faced joggers on my way home from Greggs.

Going through the motions?

Commenting on yesterday's post Pat Nurse suggests that responding to government consultations is futile.

A response from Forest … is likely to be ignored because it doesn't agree with the Govt agenda and we do know that modern consultation is a scam. Gotta go through the motions though, I suppose.

I share Pat's cynicism, up to a point, which is one reason I hate writing responses to consultations, but I disagree that it's a complete waste of time.

This past month is a good example.

At the beginning of August Forest responded to a consultation on the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc. and Care) (Scotland) Bill.

In our submission we were fiercely critical of plans to make it an offence to smoke in hospital grounds; we also argued against the use of excessive regulations to restrict the sale and promotion of e-cigarettes.

As a result of that I was invited to attend a meeting to discuss the Bill with the Scottish Parliament's Health and Sport Committee.

At that hearing on Tuesday one MSP made an impassioned plea for the Scottish Government to allow smoking zones within hospital grounds. Others made it clear they weren't convinced a complete ban was right or enforceable.

Given the opportunity to engage with a parliamentary committee I repeated Forest's opposition to a ban on smoking in hospital grounds and my comment that it was "inhumane, petty and vindictive" made headlines in several newspapers in Scotland. It also lead the local evening news on BBC1.

Today, as I mentioned earlier, Scotland on Sunday has reported the result of a survey – not any old survey but a Scottish Parliament survey – that found that almost two-thirds of Scots oppose "nanny state" plans to impose a smoking ban in hospital grounds.

Would all that have happened without Forest's intervention? I don't know.

But consider this. On Tuesday I was the only one of the four witnesses who spoke out against a ban on smoking in hospital grounds.

Linda Bauld (Cancer Research UK) supported a ban but said defining non-smoking areas was "complex".

Sheila Duffy (ASH Scotland) supported a ban, said it was good for people's health, and quoted the result of a 2014 YouGov poll that suggested a large majority were in favour of the measure.

Andy Morrison (New Nicotine Alliance) declined to comment.

Had Forest not submitted a response to the consultation and had I not been at the meeting on Tuesday those headlines would have been very different.

It's too early to say whether we've influenced the final regulations – I suspect the Scottish Government will still want to make it an offence to smoke in hospital grounds – but we've helped keep the issue alive and we have, perhaps, helped change public opinion.

Let's not forget too that Forest's submission to the 2012 Government consultation on plain packaging included over 250,000 petition signatures against the policy.

In total there were approximately 700,000 petition responses to that consultation, over 450,000 against plain packaging.

Was it a coincidence that it took the Department of Health eleven months to publish a report on the 2012 plain packaging consultation (the normal time is three months) or that the Coalition Government chose (at that time) to kick the issue into touch?

I'd be very surprised if our petition, submission and campaign wasn't a factor.

So for all those reasons I would argue that one should never dismiss responding to a public consultation as "going through the motions".

Yes, it can be tiresome, frustrating and dispiriting and may often end in defeat.

Sometimes though it's worth the effort. This week was one of those moments.

My deadline day debt to Andy Murray

I hate, hate, hate writing responses to government consultations so I invariably postpone the dreaded deed until the last possible moment.

Two consultations closed this week, one on Thursday, the other on Friday.

What complicated matters was the amount of travelling I had to do – Stansted to Edinburgh, Edinburgh to Dublin, Dublin to Cork, Cork to Dublin and, finally, Dublin to Stansted.

I also had to appear before the Scottish Parliament's Health and Sport Committee and fulfil several appointments in Dublin and Cork that took up the best part of a day in total.

Anyway, one leg of my journey came to my rescue. On Thursday evening, hours before the deadline, I had two uninterrupted hours on board the Cork-Dublin train to write Forest's submission to the Department of Health consultation on the implementation of TPD2 (the EU's revised Tobacco Products Directive).

Truth is, I've always worked better to a deadline. It's stressful but it focuses the mind. Consequently, by the time we arrived in Dublin shortly before 9.00pm, most of it was written.

All I had to do was catch a taxi to my hotel, check-in, whip out my laptop, open the draft document, do a final edit, and email it to the DH. I had until midnight, or so I thought.

At 11.00 it was finished but before sending it to the DH I decided to pop down to the bar and proof read the final version with the aid of a pint of Guinness. (It wasn't very long, just five pages).

At 11.35 I returned to my room. I don't know why but a little voice inside my head told me to double-check the exact time the consultation closed.

Dear reader, when I looked (and I still don't know why I did) my heart skipped a beat. The deadline wasn't midnight, as you might expect, but 11.45.

Fingers trembling on the keyboard, I wasted no further time. The email to the DH was timed at 11:41. And, yes, I did get an automated response confirming all was well.

Ironically I have Andy Murray to thank because when I was in the bar he was in the process of recovering from two sets down in his US Open second round match against some Frenchman or other.

So while I re-read our submission I also kept an eye on the large TV screen and had Murray not won the match when he did – had there been an extra game or two – I would not have gone back to my room when I did and I'd have missed the deadline.

So, thanks, Andy. You did me a big, big favour.

I'll post our response to the DH consultation later. Ditto our response to the Welsh Assembly consultation on the Public Health (Wales) Bill that closed yesterday.

The good news is I sent the latter at 12:02 yesterday, at least five hours before the deadline. I wasn't going to make the same mistake again.

Linda, Sheila and me

Currently in Cork.

I'll have more to say later about a story that broke while I was on the train from Dublin.

Fortunately there was a good wifi connection so I was able to email a response without hiccup.

Mail Online has a report, including a quote from me, here:

The Guardian also has the story: Council staff face work-hours smoking ban.

In the meantime here's a clip from last night's Reporting Scotland.

It features me, Linda Bauld (Cancer Research) and Sheila Duffy (ASH Scotland) addressing the Scottish Parliament's Health and Sport Committee.