Road To Ruin?

Search This Site
The Pleasure of Smoking

Forest Polling Report

Outdoor Smoking Bans

Plain Packaging

Share This Page
Powered by Squarespace

No Smoking Day - it's your call

There hasn't been this much excitement around No Smoking Day for years. We must thank Health Secretary Andrew Lansley for giving this tired old wreck the kiss of life.

As I write I am about to be interviewed by BBC Radio Cumbria followed by Radio Sussex, Radio Devon and Radio Cambridgeshire. My colleague Tom Miers from The Free Society is doing Radio Merseyside and I'm then due to appear on Radio Lincolnshire, Radio Sheffield and Radio Shropshire. We've also arranged for someone to appear on BBC Radio Wales between 9.15 and 10.00. I suspect there may be one or two more interviews before the day is out.

One that got away was Five Live Breakfast. I was contacted yesterday afternoon but they decided eventually to book a retailer plus our old friend Philip Davies MP to oppose someone from ASH.

(Yesterday, in response to a question from Davies who described the possible introduction of plain packaging as "nanny state politics of the worst kind", Lansley said that the forthcoming tobacco control plan would have a clear purpose – to reduce the "number of people smoking and as a consequence avoidable deaths and disease".)

Anyway we understand that the policy announcement will take place at 9.30 in the form of a Written Ministerial Statement. In the meantime, in the early hours of this morning, the BBC published this report - Plans to target sale of tobacco products to be unveiled - which provides a little more information. It sounds plausible but watch this space.

Update: I was told last night that tobacco control would be the subject of Your Call, the Five Live phone-in with Nicky Campbell (hence the title of this post). In fact, they are talking about religious bigotry surrounding Old Firm games in Glasgow so I have edited this post accordingly.


Smokers wanted

Tomorrow is No Smoking Day.

We occasionally receive requests from the media who want to speak to "ordinary" smokers who enjoy smoking, have no intention of giving up, and are prepared to say so.

Forest keeps a shortlist of people we put forward on such occasions. One of them is Jenty Burrill, a long-term supporter who invariably does a great job. Without ranting or raising her voice, Jenty comes across as sane, rational and utterly normal.

Presenters like her because she has a sense of humour and is honest about the potential health risks of smoking, and indeed her own health after many years of smoking. The last time she was interviewed - on BBC Radio Kent a couple of months ago - she charmed the presenter and it was a very entertaining few minutes.

If you would like to be considered please email with the following details: name, gender, age, town/region, telephone number.

A colleague will contact you in due course.


The One to watch

Phone call from the BBC to say that Gyles Brandreth – who I saw on stage three weeks ago – has filmed an item about smoking to be broadcast on The One Show on Wednesday (No Smoking Day).

Should we be concerned? Well, from what I remember when I interviewed him some years ago, Brandreth is a liberal in the true sense of the word. By that I mean he is largely tolerant of other people's idiosynchracies and doesn't favour excessive regulation.

Then again, if you read his diaries there is only one conclusion to be drawn about his attitude to smoking. He doesn't approve. I would be surprised and disappointed, though, if he endorsed the Government's latest tobacco control initiatives live on national television.


Government to announce plans for plain packaging

I have just been interviewed by LBC on the subject of plain packaging.

If you haven't read today's papers you may be unaware that the Coalition Government is (allegedly) planning to use No Smoking Day on Wednesday to announce the introduction of plain packaging on tobacco products.

There may also be an announcement about Labour's tobacco display ban, which was opposed by both the Tories and Lib Dems in opposition but is still on the agenda.

According to the Independent on Sunday:

The Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, has called several retail representative bodies, which are largely against the probable changes, to his office on Wednesday morning. They include the British Retail Consortium, the National Federation of Retail Newsagents and the Association of Convenience Stores, the last of which represents more than 33,500 local shops.

Later that day, Mr Lansley is expected to confirm plans to stop businesses displaying tobacco in a move that critics believe will backfire and glamourise the industry for youngsters, as cigarettes will be seen as more illicit.

On plain packaging the Telegraph reports that:

All brands of cigarettes would be stripped of logos and colour schemes, leaving health warnings as the most prominent feature on the packet.

I am still gathering my thoughts on this extraordinary if not entirely unexpected development, but I wanted to publish this post as quickly as possible so you can add your own comments about plain packaging, in particular.

Apparently the Government sees plain packaging as a chance to "lead the way" in the war on tobacco.

"Leading the way" is becoming a nauseating mantra from the tobacco control lobby. Ireland "led the way" with its smoking ban; Scotland "led the way" when MSPs voted for a display ban; and last week the Welsh Assembly "led the way" on something else. (I've forgotten what it was - a week is a long time in politics - but tobacco was at the heart of it.)

The problem with "leading the way" is that there is no evidence that the plan will actually work. In this instance I have yet to meet a smoker who will quit because his regular brand loses its logo and colour scheme.

Nor will it stop teenagers smoking because there is little evidence that young people are tempted to smoke because of the "glitzy" packaging. If anything it will make smoking appear more illicit and, potentially, more attractive.

Looking at the wider picture, smokers are clearly persona non grata when it comes to David Cameron's Big Society. You won't be receiving an invitation to join the PM's great big social experiment. If you consume tobacco you can expect to be marginalised, stigmatised and denormalised until you learn to behave in a state-approved manner.

I will almost certainly be doing more interviews on the subject over the next few days so I would welcome some feedback.


The trouble with Facebook

I wasn't planning to write about this until my attention was drawn to an article on the Daily Mail website.

I should declare an interest, having been one of the first people to be added to the self-styled Colonel Gaddafi Support Group nine days ago.

No, I wasn't impressed.

Having received notification, a series of increasingly inane comments appeared in my inbox. From the group's creator, for example:

I have told the Colonel that he must open a Twitter account and start tweeting to the Libyans and the rest of the world. I do hope he can bring himself to trust me and listen to my well-meant advice.

As soon as I could I posted a message asking to be removed from the group. "I want nothing to do with it," I wrote, and I wasn't alone.

Andrew Neil commented: "How do I get out of this absurd group? Why is it possible u can be made a member without permission?"

Journalist Bel Mooney added: "I have nothing whatsoever to do with this and object to my name being anywhere near that of a murdering tyrant."

Broadcaster Fi Glover wrote: "Take me out of this group and get out of my inbox. You are driving me mad you silly prat."

The Spectator's Rod Liddle was even more forthright: "Grow up or fuck off" he wrote.

Those who wanted to leave the group were mocked:

"Uh oh. Mary Ann Sieghart is mad at me for adding her without asking first."

"Lighten the mood, Simon. Have a cig on me!"

"There is only one way of escaping, but if you cannot find a way of leaving you are trapped here FOREVER! MWAHAHAHA."


If we didn't find it funny we were accused of having no "sensayumah" (yawn).

The fact that the group's creator is/was a member of the BNP might explain our failure to see the funny side, but the principle goes deeper than that. If I want to join a group - any group - I'll make that decision for myself, thank you very much. I don't need someone else doing it for me.

PS. This week we have been inviting people to join The Free Society subscribers' list - not adding their names without permission. There's a big difference. If you would like to register your support please click here, but only if you really, really want to.


Tom Miers joins The Free Society

I am delighted to welcome a new recruit to the Forest family.

Tom Miers is joining us to work as commissioning editor for The Free Society. He will speak at various events and act as spokesman for TFS on a range of issues, including tobacco.

Tom is an independent public policy consultant with experience of the City, politics, journalism and business. Last year his Policy Exchange report The Devolution Distraction: How Scotland's Constitutional Obsession Leads to Bad Government was reported by the BBC, Daily Telegraph and the Scotsman, among others.

Tom's latest book, Democracy and the Fall of the West, co-written with Craig Smith, is described as follows:

Democracy is killing the West. That is the stunning conclusion of this book that tears apart the consensus underpinning modern political assumptions.

Democracy is held to solve one of the oldest puzzles of human social life: how do we ensure that our rulers have a legitimate mandate and rule in the interests of the whole community? We are supposedly now guided by institutions whose democratic mandate ensures that they will govern in a benign manner in the interests of all.

Democracy and the Fall of the West challenges that assumption by drawing on an alternative theory about the nature of modern democracy and its impact on Western society. It argues that the secret of the West's success is not democracy, but liberalism.

Writing for The Free Society today, Tom asks: "Do we live in a free society? This question is becoming ever harder to answer." Defining the role of the state and the importance of individual liberty in a free society, he says:

For me, the keystone of our society is that individuals must be able to live their lives in a way that is immune from arbitrary intervention by the state. So long as we pursue our aims and seek happiness without harming others, we should be left in peace. Indeed, the role of the state is to protect that private sphere from outside intervention, not to join those seeking to break into it.

This – the liberty of the individual – is what sets Western society apart from the tyrannies of the past and the despots of the present. It is also the key to our success. From individual freedom stems secure property, market exchange, intellectual freedom, and hence material prosperity, artistic endeavour and the ability to order our lives in a way that best suits our characters, tastes and abilities.

These days there is an alarming trend for government to intervene in one important aspect of this – the decisions we make on our lifestyles. The Big State is becoming increasingly concerned that we don’t know what’s good for us, and is ever more willing to force us to follow its own version of the path to happiness.

The implications of this go way beyond whether people smoke or drink or eat too much. This is why The Free Society is such an important campaigning unit in the war of ideas. Over the next weeks and months we will explore not just the practical absurdities of government restrictions on lifestyle choices, but the wider consequences for society of such intervention.

Full article: Definition of a free society

To register your support for The Free Society and receive occasional e-bulletins please click here. Under Tom's management the website will be updated most days. We are also working on our 2011 series of events which will be announced shortly.


Breast cancer and passive smoking: evidence not conclusive, says BMJ

Passive smoking 'raises breast cancer risk' reports BBC News today.

Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke as a child or adult appears to increase a woman's risk of breast cancer, experts say.

The story, based on a study published by the BMJ (Association of active and passive smoking with risk of breast cancer among postmenopausal women) is reported worldwide with similar headlines:

Breast cancer risk rises with 2nd-hand smoke (CBC)
Smoking ups breast cancer risk in women (Times of India)
Cancer risk for postmenopausal smokers (Irish Health)
Women who smoke at ANY stage of their live 'are more likely to get breast cancer' (Daily Mail)

But wait, what's this? According to the British Medical Journal:

Postmenopausal women who smoke or used to smoke have an up to 16% higher risk of developing breast cancer than women who have never smoked, according to this prospective cohort study. It also suggests an association between passive smoking and increased risk of breast cancer. An accompanying editorial says that the study supports the hypothesis that smoking increases the risk of breast cancer, in particular when the habit starts early in life. But the data need to placed in the context of the overall evidence, some of which found no increase in risk. And the evidence on secondhand smoke is not conclusive.

Let me repeat that final sentence:

The data need to placed in the context of the overall evidence, some of which found no increase in risk. And the evidence on secondhand smoke is not conclusive.

So, not much of a story, then.

H/T Chris Snowdon who will address this study on his blog shortly.

Update: Passive smoking and breast cancer (Velvet Glove Iron Fist)


Ban smoking in cars, says BLF

Here's the "story" I promised you, courtesy of the British Lung Foundation:

Children from across the UK will visit parliament today to present a petition to the Government calling for an end to smoking in cars.

To coincide with today’s presentation, the BLF have released new research that reveals over half (51%) of eight to 15 years old have been in a car when someone has been smoking. The research also showed that eighty-six per cent of children across the UK want people to stop smoking when they are in the car.

The children will represent the new schools initiative from the British Lung Foundation which has been working across England to empower children and give them a voice to help change legislation.

Medical evidence shows that smoking near children can cause a range of respiratory illness, such as bronchitis and pneumonia and increases their risk of getting cancer as adults. Over 300,000 children in the UK present passive smoking related illnesses to their GP every year.

To highlight the huge health risks posed when children are exposed to cigarette smoke in cars, 25 campaign champions from across the UK, have travelled to London today to hand over the BLF petition which is signed by over 15,000 people.

The findings are particularly worrying given previous research showing that smoking just one cigarette in the car, even with the window open, creates a greater concentration of second-hand smoke than a whole evening's smoking in a pub or a bar.

I don't know about you, but I'm a bit uneasy about children "from across the UK" being used for a PR stunt like this, and I'm curious to know how they were recruited.

Although I am about to do a few local radio interviews on the subject, I can't find a single press report about the BLF's "new research". Instead, the media seems rather more interested in the claim that Passive smoking 'raises breast cancer risk' (BBC News).

Then again, Reuters reports that Being too fat raises risk of deadly breast cancer.