'Are you a smoker?' cruise line asks prospective employee

Fourteen years ago Forest highlighted a disturbing trend.

Smokers are being blatantly undermined at work and often denied positions for which they are well qualified, according to a new report.

Information published yesterday by Forest, a pressure group for smokers' rights, claims job advertisements with a strong anti-smoking slant are becoming the norm ...

The Forest report highlights what it calls blatant discrimination in a document entitled Smoking: The New Apartheid. The unfair treatment mentioned includes blanket bans on smoking, forcing smokers to accept reduced pay or longer working hours and sacking workers allegedly caught having a cigarette at work.

A study of more than 300 job advertisements also revealed a new trend of discrimination clearly designed to harm smokers' employment prospects, in extreme cases even stating that only non-smokers should apply.

Full report: Job hopes go up in smoke Forest says discrimination in the job market amounts to a new form of apartheid (The Herald, November 8, 1999).

Thankfully, having identified and publicised the problem we appeared to have nipped it in the bud which made stories such as this – Worker gets the sack for smoking at home – all the more shocking.

Yesterday, however, we were contacted by someone whose wife applied for a job on board a cruise ship.

As I understand it, she had worked on cruise ships before, hence her surprise when the application form invited her to state whether she was a smoker.

Well, she ticked the box marked 'yes' and you can guess the rest. She didn't get the job and the reason given was that the ship has just introduced a no-smoking policy.

As her husband said, a great many smokers are perfectly capable of adhering to no-smoking policies if necessary, but his wife wasn't given the opportunity.

The cruise line made an assumption based on an honest answer to the question 'Are you a smoker?' and discriminated accordingly.

Oddly enough, this was my response to the Worker gets the sack for smoking at home story:

Simon Clark, of the smokers' rights pressure group Forest, said: "If smokers are willing to accept a company's non-smoking policy, it is absolutely disgraceful that they should be denied employment."

More interesting perhaps is the response from ASH whose director in 2001 was a certain Clive Bates.

According to Clive, who is currently an outspoken advocate of e-cigarettes:

"One might consider it a bit extreme, but if it's their policy not to employ smokers, then that's their choice."

Perhaps, but I wonder what Clive's reaction would be if the same thing happened to an e-cigarette user today. Would he say:

"One might consider it a bit extreme, but if it's their policy not to employ vapers, then that's their choice."

People should be employed on their ability to do the job, not on whether they smoke, vape or drink a bottle of wine every night.

Stephen Williams: ASH to the rescue!

Well, that's embarrassing.

Poor old Stephen Williams MP has been getting such a battering on Liberal Democrat Voice - where he wrote an article about plain packaging - he's had to call in the cavalry.

Riding to his rescue are his buddies Phil Rimmer and Deborah Arnott, business manager and CEO of ASH respectively.

If you'd like to reply to their comments click here.

Update: Stephen himself has now added a comment to his own article "thanking everyone" for their comments.

Laughably he seeks to "remind you of the huge lobbying campaign that the tobacco industry has mounted to defeat this proposal [plain packaging]".

Needless to say he doesn't mention the far bigger lobbying campaign carried out by the tobacco control industry, much of which was funded by the state (information that had to be dug out of them through a series of FOI requests).

Unable to win the argument by producing evidence that plain packaging will actually stop teenagers smoking, Williams resorts to more traditional smear tactics:

Lastly, those who cite responses to the government’s consultation will I’m sure be aware that it’s widely known that there is evidence that the tobacco industry basically tried to ‘stuff the ballot box’ ...

Stuff the ballot box? I suppose he's referring to this: Forest, the Department of Health and a Freedom of Information request.

He omits (of course) to mention this example of skulduggery: FOI reveals arrogance of ASH.

But then he would, wouldn't he?

Message to our elected representatives – stop taking away our freedoms

As I reported last week, the vote by MEPs on the Tobacco Products Directive has been postponed by a month. The vote will now take place in Strasbourg on October 8.

Consequently the battle to convince MEPs to reject the more extreme proposals – bans on menthol cigarettes and smaller pouches of roll-your-own tobacco, even larger health warnings etc – continues.

Last week Forest placed an advertisement (right), with a link to the No Thank EU campaign website, on the Guido Fawkes blog.

We also placed an animated banner ad on a number of other political blogs including The Spectator and Conservative Home which read 'PROHIBITION? NO THANK EU!'

In addition we placed a four-page cover wrap (below) on The House magazine which is sent to every MP, peer and MEP.

If I say so myself, it looks brilliant!

If you support the No Thank EU campaign but have not yet signed up please do it now.

The site allows you to send a letter direct to your elected representatives in Westminster and Brussels.

It's quick and easy and should take no more than a minute of your time. Click here.

Simon Chapman and Nicola Roxon on Five Live Breakfast

Apparently, Australia's number one anti-smoking campaigner Simon Chapman was on Five Live Breakfast this morning promoting plain packaging.

I caught his name on the car radio just before boarding the 6.30 train to London.

The programme also featured a report by the BBC's Sydney correspondent who told presenter Rachel Burden, "Early signs are plain packaging is having an effect".

I heard a brief comment from the former Australian health minister Nicola Roxon, under whose watch plain packaging was introduced, who trotted out the tired old research into people's reaction to plain packs that was carried out before their introduction.

In the short time I was listening the programme offered no further evidence - nor any balancing comment.

A moment later I was on the train and unable to listen further.

Did anyone hear the whole programme?

Update: Our old friend Stephen Williams MP writes, Stand up to Big Tobacco and help us win a vote in Parliament (Liberal Democrat Voice).

Liberal? Democratic? You decide. (Please comment.)

Notes from an island even smaller than Britain

I am currently in Dublin.

I'm sharing a city centre hotel with a large number of Swedes who came over for last night's World Cup qualifier against Ireland. (Sweden won 2-1.)

Watching the game on television I marvelled at RTE's lugubrious trio of pundits – John Giles, Eamonn Dunphy and Liam Brady – whose cheerless comments are a world away from the bland observations served up by their younger counterparts on Match Of The Day.

I met Dunphy once. We were guests on the Richard Littlejohn Show on Sky News the night before the smoking ban was introduced in Ireland.

The programme was broadcast live from the bar of the Shelbourne Hotel in Dublin. Dunphy, a smoker, was opposed to the ban.

I was interested to meet him because we had thought about asking him to be the figurehead for a campaign against the ban but I was told it wasn't a good idea.

Many saw him as a cantankerous curmudgeon, out of tune with Ireland's brave new world.

Last night, commenting on the football, Dunphy was as forthright and acerbic as ever. Although the grumpy old men routine is a bit tired (they've been doing it for years), I suspect it reflects the mood of the nation far more than it did ten years ago.

Perhaps it's not too late to ask ...

Great article on Spiked this week:

The fag-end of Irish politics. Worth reading.

Hardly a day goes by without another report of illicit cigarettes being smuggled into Ireland.

The loss of revenue to the Government is huge yet this week the Irish Cancer Society and the Irish Heart Foundation urged the Government to add 60 cents to the price of a packet of cigarettes.

They just don't get it, do they?

Arriving at Dublin Airport on Thursday I approached the immigration officer with my passport:

Me: Hello.
Immigration Officer: How yer doing?
Me: Fine.
Immigration Officer: Yer looking great.
Me: Oh, thanks! [Laughs]

I received an equally friendly greeting when I flew into San Francisco a few weeks ago.

Ditto when I arrived in Cuba in February, although it may have helped that we paid to be fast-tracked past a long line of less gruntled passengers.

Compare that to the 'welcome' you receive when entering (or re-entering) the UK.

Stony-faced border control officers rarely utter a word and I can't remember one ever cracking a smile.

They look at you only to check that your face is the same as the photo in your passport.

Frankly, it's embarrassing.

"Our last bright idea didn't work so you must try our next bright idea"

Chris Snowdon tweets:

Our last bright idea didn't work, say anti-smoking campaigners, so you must try our next bright idea.

He's referring to the latest study by researchers at Stirling University who conclude that warnings on the back of cigarette packs make them less visible and less effective.

Of course, this is merely the latest ruse to convince the Government to introduce plain packaging which, far from being plain, would feature graphic health warnings on the front as well as the back of the pack.

As for the European Commission's Tobacco Products Directive, there is a proposal for health warnings to cover up to 75 per cent of the pack.

The Daily Mail has a report on the Stirling study: Graphic warnings on the back of cigarette packets will not deter teenage smokers, study warns (Daily Mail).

It includes Forest's response:

"Everyone, including teenagers, knows there are health risks associated with smoking.

"Increasing the size of the warnings, or putting them on the front of the pack, will make no difference.

"If you want to smoke you will smoke, regardless of the size or position of the warning.

"If governments want to reduce youth smoking rates they should crack down on shopkeepers who sell cigarettes to children and tackle illicit trade.

"They could also ban proxy purchasing and make it illegal to buy cigarettes if you are under 18.

"Instead, tobacco control campaigners are obsessed with headline-grabbing measures, like plain packaging, that merely highlight the failure of previous initiatives."

The Scotsman also has the story – Teenage smokers ignore cigarette warnings – and a quote by Sheila Duffy, chief executive of ASH Scotland:

“Studies have shown that introducing plain packaging means greater attention is paid to health warnings,” she said.

If I remember that's remarkably similar to what they said before graphic warnings were introduced on the back of cigarette packs.

And what a great idea that turned out to be.

Doh!

European Parliament "postpones vote on Tobacco Products Directive" (tbc)

Breaking news from Brussels courtesy DeHavilland.

The European Parliament today decided to postpone its orientation vote on the Tobacco Products Directive, originally scheduled to take place at the Plenary Session in Strasbourg on 10 September.

The decision, supported by the EPP, ALDE and ECR Groups – which together command a majority in the Parliament – has infuriated Rapporteur Linda McAvan (S&D, UK). She has claimed that the postponement was orchestrated at the behest of tobacco companies seeking more time to lobby MEPs.

Thank EU!

Update on Wednesday, September 4, 2013 at 16:50 by Simon Clark

Whoops! Let's hope DeHavilland haven't tweeted too soon.

From another source, a slightly different interpretation of events:

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats (ALDE) will support the centre right EPP request to postpone the TPD plenary vote from next week to October. However the final decision will be made tomorrow (Thursday) at a meeting of the political group leaders. The Socialist Group (along with the Commission) is fiercely opposing postponement. This means it could be overturned ...

You couldn't make it up.

Update: AIM Healthcare tweets:

RT@EU_COPD: #tobacco products directive vote due to take place next Tuesday in the European Parliament is postponed till October #TPD

I won't invest in smoker phobic rants. I'm out.

Last week I received notification of a "letter handover and photo call" that will take place outside the European Parliament in Brussels tomorrow.

Organised by the Save E-cigs Campaign, it's designed to persuade MEPs to drop plans to over-regulate e-cigarettes via the Tobacco Products Directive.

Tomorrow's press conference will feature a short film entitled 'Smoke without fire: the story of the electronic cigarette'.

We're also promised a "major announcement ... that will have a significant impact on the voting intentions of MEPs on September 10th".

As I've said many times, Forest is firmly in the e-cig camp because we support consumer choice.

Last night however I received another email about tomorrow's event and frankly I'm pretty disgusted.

Judge for yourself:

More than 7 Million Lives at Risk if MEPs Regulate E-Cigarettes Out of Existence

Brussels, Belgium – Over the next few days, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) face a stark choice; to once again support big tobacco, an industry that kills 700,000 people across the EU every year, or to support e-cigarettes, a market-based, consumer-led public health revolution that has the potential to save millions of lives. If MEPs choose the former, and vote for the medicinal regulation of e-cigarettes, they will be condemning Europe’s seven million e-cigarette users to a premature death [my emphasis].

As MEPs prepare to vote on this important issue, several thousand former cigarette smokers from across the EU, their friends, and their families have signed an open letter to MEPs that states, “E-cigarettes for us have been a revelation. Since our friends and family members made the switch to e-cigarettes, it is now a pleasure to be around them. They are healthier, happier people, and we do not have to suffer indirectly as a result of them smoking" [my emphasis] ...

Throughout the EU, e-cigarettes provide a viable alternative to smoking cigarettes. They have enabled millions of people to leave smoking behind, either on a full or part-time basis. But what is often forgotten in this debate are the friends and family of smokers, who also benefit when a smoker switches to e-cigarettes. They are no longer putting their own health at risk through passive smoking and most importantly, they no longer have to worry about their friend or family member dying prematurely [my emphasis].

Strong stuff.

It's fashionable at the moment to jump on board the e-cig bandwagon and embrace anyone who supports the product - even those who have spent years advocating further restrictions against smokers.

I have always been suspicious of zealots and evangelical converts of all persuasions and the e-cig movement seems to be full of them.

Good luck tomorrow but I won't be investing in Save E-cigs' smoker phobic rants. I'm out.