Say No To Nanny

Smokefree Ideology


Nicotine Wars

 

40 Years of Hurt

Prejudice and Prohibition

Road To Ruin?

Search This Site
The Pleasure of Smoking

Forest Polling Report

Outdoor Smoking Bans

Share This Page
Powered by Squarespace
Wednesday
Jul222015

Beach smoking ban and "tyranny of the majority"

Still in Dublin where I'm interviewing candidates to work for Forest Eireann as our media and public affairs manager.

Meanwhile, back home, Brighton and Hove City Council's health and wellbeing board (sic) yesterday voted to hold a public consultation on a plan to ban smoking on the beach and other outdoor public areas.

The BBC has a report here (with a quote by Forest) – Brighton seeks views on beach smoking ban.

Prior to the vote my colleague Rob Lyons (Action on Consumer Choice) was on ITV's Good Morning Britain (on the sofa, no less).

Other outspoken opponents of the proposed ban were Chris Snowdon (on Sky News) and The Freedom Association's Andrew Allison on Five Live Breakfast.

I did a couple of local radio interviews (BBC Sussex and BBC Northampton).

On BBC Sussex I was up against Amanda Sandford of ASH. On BBC Radio Northampton I went head-to-head with John Britton, professor of epidemiology, director of the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies at Nottingham University, and a member of the ASH Board of Trustees.

As ever, Britton wasted no time raising the issue of Forest's funding. I hit back, saying he benefitted from taxpayers' money.

Only then did we address the issue of smoking on the beach but, given the final word, he chose to make another crack about me being paid to sell cigarettes (I paraphrase).

Needless to say Amanda (ASH) and John Britton were in favour of banning smoking on Brighton beach.

Clive Bates, former director of ASH and now a leading e-cig campaigner, is a big fan of Britton (A blunt challenge to some common arguments against e-cigarettes).

I wonder what Clive thinks about the proposal to ban smoking on Brighton beach. I suspect he's not against the idea. Perhaps he'd like to tell us, if he has time.

(As you can tell, my patience with these tobacco control campaigners turned e-cig advocates is wearing thin. Under the surface they're still control freaks.)

Update: Today's Times reports that 'One of Britain’s most popular beaches could become a smoke-free area in the latest curb on outdoor smoking'.

The Guardian has what I think is a fair and balanced article - Is Britain ready for outdoor smoking bans?. Includes a quote from me plus some interesting responses from some smokers in Millennium Square, Bristol.

Monday
Jul202015

Bad day to be out of the country

Timing, they say, is everything.

Mine couldn't have been worse because just as I was boarding a Ryanair flight to Dublin this morning a small storm was brewing.

A report in the Daily Mail - Brighton could become first to outlaw lighting up - but campaigners brand move 'attack on personal freedom' - included this quote from me:

"Smokers should smoke responsibly, with consideration for others around them, but extending the smoking ban to open spaces is unnecessary and unjust.

"These persistent attacks on people's lifestyle, and the unfounded scaremongering about the risk to others, must stop."

The story wasn't new – several papers and the BBC News website ran it last week – but the Mail report gave it additional momentum.

The paper also had a short leading article on the subject.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, by the time I landed in Ireland there were several messages on voicemail requesting interviews.

Several were for television news programmes but I couldn't do them because I wasn't in the UK.

The Press Association wanted a quote and although I missed their initial deadline because I was still in the air they later issued a second report – Plans for smoke-free Brighton beach 'unjust' – based on our response:

Dick Puddlecote has already commented on ASH's reaction and his searing post (Beach bullshit) is worth reading because it highlights, not for the first time, the complete lack of empathy Deborah Arnott and her colleagues have for smokers.

Worse, they seem to hold many smokers in complete contempt. How else can you explain their support for an extension of the smoking ban to parks and beaches?

Anyway, I may be in Ireland but others aren't and tomorrow my colleague Rob Lyons (Action on Consumer Choice) will be on ITV's Good Morning Britain. (Set your alarm for 6.20 and 7.20.)

After that Rob is giving interviews to ITV Lunchtime News and Channel 5 News.

I'm on BBC Radio Sussex around 7.30 and someone else (I don't know who) is on Five Live at 7.45.

Monday
Jul202015

Paris: ministerial meeting on tobacco control

I'm in Dublin and chasing my tail so haven't got time to comment on this but it's worth posting so you can read it.

Today in Paris the health ministers from ten countries – with the UK's Jane Ellison to the fore – met to discuss ways to achieve their aspiration of a "tobacco free society".

A statement has just been released. Click here – First ministerial meeting on plain tobacco packaging.

Sunday
Jul192015

Juliette Tworsey: "I'm still a smoker in my mind and in my heart"

A welcome guest at The Freedom Dinner on July 7 was Juliette Tworsey, pictured above with a rather glassy-eyed Chris Snowdon.

Born in Chicago, Juliette moved to New Orleans via Los Angeles with her partner Jules Shapiro. Together they play in a band called Firebug.

I invited them largely because of Juliette's principled stand against the smoking ban in New Orleans.

Sticking her head above the parapet when many others wouldn't, she spoke out at two hearings earlier this year. (I posted about it here: A sad day for freedom of choice.)

I was particularly impressed by the fact that she defended smoking despite having quit cigarettes two years ago in favour of tobacco vaporisers. (I wrote about that too: "I witnessed vapers throwing smokers under the bus".)

It takes a principled person to defend without reward something you no longer do, or have never done.

This was Juliette's first visit to the UK for several years and earlier this week she posted some observations on her blog.

They include comments about The Freedom Dinner, graphic health warnings (on smokeless tobacco products) and the absurd consequences of the UK's tobacco display ban.

If you want to know how others see us it's definitely worth a read. See Freedom calls in London.

If you have 15 minutes to spare you can also hear a rough edit of an interview I did with Juliette and Jules prior to The Freedom Dinner. It includes Juliette's heartfelt comment that, "I'm still a smoker in my mind and in my heart." Click here for more.

Firebug's new album, Homeostasis, will be released shortly. In the meantime here's a video featuring the impressive song 'Wine, Water & Bread'.

Saturday
Jul182015

Singin' in the Rain at Kilworth House

Well, that was a bit special.

On Friday night I went to Kilworth House in Leicestershire where they've built a charming open air theatre in the grounds of what was once the home for the High Sheriff of Leicestershire and is now a beautiful country house hotel.

I say 'open air'. The audience is completely under cover, as is the stage, but it's open to the elements so if it did rain or blow a gale you'd know about it.

On Friday the only water was on the stage and the only people who got wet were the performers and the first row of the audience as the dancers splashed around in man-made puddles.

The show was Singin' In The Rain and although I'm not a huge fan of Fifties musicials it was very enjoyable. According to The Stage:

The show never flags. It’s got glitz, glamour, high-speed tapping, big company numbers, a flamboyant orchestra and always something to catch the eye. 

That's a fair reflection of the show. The cast was excellent and the four lead actors were especially good.

Singin' In The Rain finishes tonight but there's an eclectic programme of events running through to early September.

If you've never been to Kilworth House it's worth a visit.

Wednesday
Jul152015

Extending smoking ban to include parks and beaches unwarranted and illiberal

Do local councils really have nothing better to do?

According to Brighton and Hove News, 'Brighton and Hove could become one of the first places in the UK to ban smoking in its parks and on its beaches.'

Here's our response:

The smokers' group Forest has urged Brighton and Hove City Council to reject calls to extend smoke free zones to include beaches and parks.

Responding to news that the Council may hold a consultation on the issue, Simon Clark, director of Forest, said:

"Extending the smoking ban to parks and beaches is an unwarranted attack on people's personal freedom.

"There's no evidence that smoking in the open air is a risk to the health of anyone other than the smoker.

"Nor is there evidence that the sight of a stranger lighting up encourages children to smoke.

"Tobacco is legal product. Smokers pay over £10 billion annually in tobacco taxation, a sum that far exceeds the alleged cost of treating smoking-related diseases. This persistent attack on their habit must stop.

"Smokers should smoke responsibly, with consideration for others around them, but extending the smoking ban, even on a voluntary basis, to outdoor spaces is petty and illiberal."

The proposal for a consultation will go to committee later this month.

Update: The Brighton Argus has the story plus a very short quote from me here – Potential smoking ban for Brighton and Hove beaches and parks.

Ditto the Telegraph – Seaside resort proposes banning smoking on beaches – which uses the same quote.

Tuesday
Jul142015

From zero to heroes? The uncomfortable truth about some e-cig advocates

I've resisted writing about this subject for several months but the temptation finally proved too great.

Two things pushed me over the edge.

First, discussing e-cigarettes, someone said to me, "ASH is a more credible advocate than Forest."

His point was, if an anti-smoking group is prepared to defend and even advocate the use of e-cigs that has to be good, right?

Forest, on the other hand, will forever be associated with tobacco and all its ills.

I understand the argument but I'm not sure I agree with it. Does a proud and consistent commitment to freedom of choice, personal responsibility and fact-based evidence count for nothing these days?

Contrast that with the woeful record of ASH and many other tobacco control groups.

Yes, I welcome the fact that some public health campaigners are embracing e-cigs. I'm happy too that the tobacco control industry is increasingly split on the issue and some now see their colleagues (or former colleagues) in a new light.

Suddenly though we're supposed to forget that the same public health campaigners who currently defend e-cigarettes are often the same people who for years fought tobacco using the same dodgy research and twisted rhetoric they now accuse others of in relation to vaping.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

The smoking ban, let us never forget, was introduced in Britain on the back of the absurd and unfounded claim that 11,000 non-smokers were dying every year from 'passive' smoking.

There was never a hint of hard evidence to support this extremely damaging allegation. Of the four or five cases that went to court, no employee ever convinced a judge they were victims of environmental tobacco smoke.

When the definitive Enstrom Kabat study was published in 2003 (verdict: the link between ETS and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed, although a small effect cannot be ruled out), anti-smoking lobbyists like ASH pounced on the researchers who were vilified horribly for their dedicated, diligent work.

More recently it was suggested by ASH and others that smoking costs society £13 billion a year. I think that's the figure. It hardly matters. It bears little or no relation to reality but it's important to anti-smoking campaigners because it exceeds the £10 billion that smokers pay the Treasury each year in tobacco taxation and it allows anti-tobacco groups to argue that smokers are a net cost to society when the opposite is true.

Someone should write a book on the subject of smoking and manufactured evidence but in the absence of a definitive account I recommend Joe Jackson's illuminating essay Truth, Lies and the Nanny State (2007).

Clive Bates, the former director of ASH who is now a leading advocate of e-cigarettes, was at the forefront of the war on tobacco in Britain for several years. Having encouraged what I believe were unwarranted fears about passive smoking, Clive is now a hero of the vaping community thanks to his eloquent and powerful advocacy of electronic cigarettes which is driven, I believe, by the experience of his brother, a former smoker who used e-cigs to quit.

Professor Linda Bauld, another prominent anti-tobacco campaigner, was the author of an astonishingly blinkered review of the impact of the smoking ban. Her highly selective report was brilliantly critiqued in The Bauld Truth which should have won a Plain English Campaign award. Despite that, Linda is also a darling of the e-cig movement which has embraced her as one of their own.

The most recent anti-smoking campaigner to be put on a pedestal is Deborah Arnott, the current CEO of ASH. Arnott has made it her mission to reduce smokers to a rump – five per cent – of the population within 20 years. As we know, the only way that can be achieved is by denormalising the current 20 per cent, pricing tobacco out of many people's reach, and restricting areas where smokers can light up to a handful of public or private spaces.

She too became a favourite of the e-cig brigade following this recent outburst:

"There are people in the public health community who are obsessed by e-cigarettes. This idea that it renormalizes smoking is absolute bullshit. There is no evidence so far that it is a gateway into smoking for young people."

Overnight a woman who looks like she swallowed a wasp while sucking on a lemon (even when she's happy) went from zero to hero. You've got to laugh but there's a serious point to all this.

Few if any of these public health campaigners turned e-cig advocates believe in choice. Some have a genuine commitment to harm reduction which I respect. What I don't respect is their determination, by whatever means, to stop people smoking.

Their philosophy is that people must be 'encouraged', one way or another, to quit. In their world few people smoke because they want to and most want to quit so society must 'help' them. E-cigarettes are tolerated not as a pleasure in their own right but as a means to an end – the end of smoking.

The likes of ASH criticise, quite rightly, some of the more dubious studies about e-cigarettes, pointing out the flaws in methodology, sample size etc etc.

Likewise they are happy to go to war when the results of a fairly innocuous study will be twisted out of all recognition in an attempt to scaremonger the public about the alleged risks of vaping.

But it never seems to occur to them that many smoking-related studies suffer from exactly the same issues. Or if it does they're keeping very quiet about it.

I suspect one or two know but they're reluctant to address this inconvenient truth. Here for example is a recent exchange between Clive Bates and nisakiman (an occasional commenter here) on Clive's blog, The Counterfactual:

I don’t know why you express surprise or exasperation at the refusal of the medical profession to admit to the facts [about e-cigarettes], Clive. This isn’t about health, it’s about ideology, and has been since the ‘Godber Blueprint’ took shape.

After all, you yourself took part in leading the charge regarding the completely unsubstantiated myth of ‘Second-Hand Smoke’, which has had a devastating effect on the lives of millions of decent people and the businesses which catered to them. Hundreds of thousands lost their jobs and businesses in UK alone, and for absolutely no health gain.

And as for the social costs, they have been horrendous. A wedge has been driven into the heart of communities; bigotry and discrimination are officially sanctioned and hatred and contempt are encouraged; children are being used as political tools to divide families and ever more restrictive and illiberal laws are being passed.

We are now told that the greatest health problem the elderly face is loneliness – a direct consequence of driving out of business the majority of social venues like bingo halls, working men’s clubs, pubs etc etc where the elderly would go to socialise. And all to further the warped ideological agenda of a small coterie of zealots.

I shudder to think what damage this falsehood of the ‘dangers’ of SHS has done to the economy worldwide, with the bans and restrictions that have been enacted as a result of the FCTC’s rulings. And you were part of it, Clive, so spare us the crocodile tears for the trials and tribulations that e-cigs are suffering at the hands of Tobacco Control now. You helped create this monster, this poisonous ideology. Now you must learn to live with it.

In response Clive wrote:

Hi – grumpy rejoinders always welcome here! But sadly I’ve no time to spend on arguing about these issues – though I’m sympathetic to some of what you say. I’d rather focus on what little I can do in the limited time I have – in my case that means promoting low-risk alternatives to smoking as an option for smokers, or what some call 'tobacco harm reduction' as a public health strategy.

"Public health" is not one thing and never has been. There are many different perspectives in the people who work in this area and they change over time – sometimes in response to evidence.

So Clive is "sympathetic" but has "no time to spend on arguing about these issues". How wonderfully convenient!

Truth is, any sympathy Clive might have is worthless because he fully supports the comprehensive smoking ban and, I am sure, every single piece of anti-smoking legislation that has been introduced over the past 15 years.

The same, with nobs on, applies to every anti-smoking lobbyist turned e-cig advocate – Linda Bauld, Professor Robert West ... Lovely people, some of them, but every single one shares responsibility for the intolerant anti-tobacco environment that has been manufactured in this country.

Yes, manufactured. There was no strong public demand for a comprehensive smoking ban. Even now a majority of adults would happily allow designated smoking rooms in pubs and private members' clubs.

Inevitably, because so few non-smokers are now exposed to tobacco smoke in public or in private, the issue for many is no longer about health, it's about smell. Incredibly smokers must be driven even further into the shadows because in today's sanitised world some people can't tolerate even the briefest exposure to the smell of tobacco smoke.

Alternatively we're told that the mere sight of a stranger smoking in a public park could encourage a toddler or teenager to take up smoking. It could, I suppose, but where's the evidence that it does?

Significantly I have yet to hear a single anti-tobacco crusader turned e-cig advocate argue against a ban on smoking in outdoor public areas despite the fact that vaping is equally vulnerable to further restrictions on 'smoking' in public.

It suggests to me that the greater goal is still to stop people smoking and if vapers get caught in the crossfire so be it.

The final straw – which prompted me to revise and publish this post – was an article by smoking cessation worker Louise Ross.

What does 'ecig-friendly' really mean? asked Ross who proudly describes herself as "anti-tobacco" on her Twitter profile. Writing on Clive Bates' blog, she explained:

For me, it is welcoming people who want to stop smoking, and who might want to use an ecig to do that. They may have lots of questions, and we shouldn’t pretend to know anything that we really don’t, so being ecig-friendly can mean admitting your limits and signposting people to other sources of information, like vaping groups, sympathetic retailers who want to help, or the New Nicotine Alliance, a charity that educates and advocates for vapers.

It’s also being prepared to seek help ourselves, and educating ourselves, with a sense of diligent enquiry, about issues that are at times incredibly complex and confusing, but being prepared to put some work in and remain open-minded.

It means having the courage to take some risks, to stand up for the rights of people to be heard and to have their experiences accepted as valid, despite the crushing weight of disapproval from a hostile sector of ‘experts’.

It means developing a team of people who chat to vapers in social settings, always keen to learn more about choices, flavours, health changes, problem-solving.

It means remembering that as stop smoking teams, we have heaps of experience helping people to stop smoking – we know how to make it more likely they will succeed, by changing routines, by building motivation, and by showing that we really care about the outcome. We’ve made this same journey with so many diverse people who aspire to no longer smoke, and we often know many more choices than people are aware of, such as different ways of using nicotine replacement therapy, which appears to work rather well with ecigs.

Recently I’ve thought of the advisor/service user relationship more like a coach with a sportsman or woman in training – the coach is there to help set goals, to improve performance, to urge on, to get the person back on track when they despair. Mostly though, a coach can see the desire for success in their trainee’s eyes, and they don’t deter them or send them away saying they can’t help them.

An ecig-friendly stop smoking team will welcome anyone who wants to stop smoking, and they will work with them, listen to them, encourage them, and respect them. It’s the way of the future.

It's pretty clear, reading Ross' post, that 'e-cig friendly' and 'stop smoking' are one and the same thing whereas to me 'e-cig friendly' means being tolerant of those who want to vape, in the same way I'm tolerant of those who choose to smoke.

Sadly tolerance and choice have long since disappeared from the anti-smokers' vocabulary and if Clive, Linda and Louise have one thing in common it's this – they're all fully paid up members of the tobacco control industry.

As for standing up for the rights of people to be heard and to have their experiences accepted as valid, despite the crushing weight of disapproval from a hostile sector of 'experts', that's precisely what Forest has been doing for 36 years.

And at the forefront of that hostile sector of 'experts'? Why, tobacco control campaigners like Clive Bates, Linda Bauld and, er, Louise Ross!

Update: Smoke Free North East (Fresh) has just tweeted:

To which Clive has replied:

We need to see others like @FreshSmokeFree grasping the health opportunities of #vaping - so glad they speaking up.

 Hugs all round! x

Monday
Jul132015

To hell with the BMA, the spirit of Corona lives on

When I was a small boy, growing up in Maidenhead in the Sixties, fizzy drinks were a rare treat.

If we were thirsty we drank orange squash or Robinson's lemon barley water. Very occasionally my mother would buy a bottle of 'pop' from the Corona van that sold door-to-door.

The very name brings back incredibly vivid memories of my early childhood in Berkshire – playing in the nearby woods or on the green across the road from our house that was so typical of its era it even had a carport.

According to Wikipedia:

Corona was a brand of carbonated beverage available in the United Kingdom produced by Thomas & Evans Ltd. The firm was created by grocers William Thomas and William Evans when they saw a market for soft drinks caused by the growing influence of the temperance movement in South Wales.

The company's first factory was based in Porth, Rhondda, and eventually the company had 87 depots and factories. Corona was sold to The Beecham Group in the 1950s and subsequently to Britvic Soft Drinks, but stopped trading as a brand in the late 1990s.

For years Corona was as close as I came to Coca-Cola and other fizzy drinks. Now of course I drink Diet Coke and (Waitrose) lemonade as if it's tap water.

There are three reasons for this:

One, I like the taste.

Two, I can afford it.

Three, a friend of mine who spends half his life climbing the world's highest peaks (and is therefore very fit) drinks nothing else, apart from alcohol.

If it's good enough for him it's good enough for me.

I mention this because the British Medical Association now wants a 20 per cent tax on sugary drinks.

Ironic, isn't it, that a product first considered a more healthy option to liquor now finds itself under attack, especially in an era when drivers going to the pub are in desperate need of a non-alcoholic alternative.

Is there no end to the BMA's interfering nanny state agenda?

Thankfully, while the newspaper reports have been desperately one-sided, there are signs of opposition.

A sugar tax would hit the poor the hardest (IEA)
A sugar tax would send us down a slippery slope (TPA)

We've been doing our bit too. Rob Lyons, campaigns manager for Action on Consumer Choice, has been on BBC Five Live and BBC Radio Wales.

Here's his full response:

Tax on sugary drinks "regressive" and "illiberal" say campaigners

Campaigners say proposals for a 20 per cent tax on sugary drinks are "regressive" and "illiberal" and will have little impact on the nation's health.

The British Medical Association is calling for the measure "to subsidise the sale of fruit and vegetables and help tackle the increasing level of obesity and diet-related health problems in the UK".

Rob Lyons, campaigns manager for the consumer group Action on Consumer Choice, said:

"Sugar taxes, health warnings and other proposals to curb our sugar consumption will have little impact on people's health because sugary foods only make up a small proportion of our diet.

"The proposals are regressive because their impact is based entirely on consumption, not the means to pay, so they will have a disproportionate impact on those on lower incomes.

"They are also illiberal because government has no business dictating what or how much consumers should eat and drink.

"Once again taxation is being used as a form of social engineering. It's a blunt instrument designed to force rather than educate people to change their behaviour."

The full Action on Consumer Choice website will go live later this month.

In the meantime, the spirit of Corona lives on:

In 1950 the firm launched Tango, one of its more enduring line of drinks which would continue to be manufactured after Corona ceased as a company.

Below: Corona – Every Bubble's Passed It's Fizzical