Clive Bates: the liberal argument for electronic cigarettes

Ten days ago Clive Bates, former director of ASH, posted a comment on this blog.

It was on a thread dated February 17 so it's unlikely you will have seen it.

The post was entitled Wanted: a consumer champion for e-cigarettes who is not anti-smoking. In it I wrote:

As a champion of consumer choice Forest is happy to support and defend the use of e-cigarettes (and other smokeless tobacco products).

My concern is that, media wise, a vacuum is developing that may be filled by e-cigarette spokesmen who are profoundly anti-smoking and no more tolerant of tobacco than ASH or the BMA.

That is why I view with caution the plaudits that have been showered on Clive Bates, the former director of ASH who has been remarkably vocal on the subject of e-cigarettes.

Not just a voice either. Putting words into action, Bates wrote to the Press Complaints Commission complaining about a laughable report headlined E-cigarette ‘can cause more harm than smoking’, experts say. (Significantly the article is no longer available online.)

I commend him for that but don't be fooled. Most public health campaigners who advocate the use of e-cigarettes regard them as a medicinal alternative to cigarettes and they will continue to bully and belittle smokers until they give up.

In response Clive has written:

Simon, you can accuse me of many things (and have) but you can't argue that I think of e-cigs as medicines. See my briefing: Are e-cigarettes medicines?.

And said the following in a letter to a government planning to ban them:

The ethics of a ban. There is a liberal argument that goes like this: if people want to sell them, people want to buy them, they are much less risky than cigarettes and they comply with norms of consumer protection – like being acceptably safe, working as intended (ie not faulty), and as-described – then what is the ethical basis for a ban on e-cigarettes?

Nicotine is a widely-used legal recreational drug that in itself is almost harmless, so why obstruct a much less dangerous way to take it with huge regulatory burdens that do not apply to cigarettes? When the state denies a smoker a product that could save their life, the state becomes complicit in the mortal consequences that follow from that decision.

There are no precedents in other areas of consumer protection or health policy and no ethical basis for banning a much safer alternative to the dominant high-risk tobacco-based nicotine products.

Thanks, that's pretty clear.

As an aside, I would add that I have always had a soft spot for Clive, even when he was director of ASH.

By all accounts some of his predecessors were humourless zealots driven by an ideological hatred of Big Tobacco and anyone who dared to challenge the new anti-smoking orthodoxy.

Many of today's tobacco control campaigners are cut from the same cloth. Sometimes their prohibitionist zeal is combined with an ego the size of an elephant and the result is a Doctor Who style monster with no redeeming features.

Clive was never like that. Unlike many people in public health he's had a varied career outside that cosseted industry. He's not obsessed to the point of lunacy by smoking or anything else.

Most important, he has a sense of humour.

Back in the day Forest produced a quarterly magazine called Free Choice. I introduced a tongue-in-cheek feature called 'What's My Vice?' and invited Clive to contribute.

To my surprise he accepted the challenge although his choice – Belgian beer – seemed a bit tame.

Today, after numerous trips to Brussels (with the occasional detour to Bruges and Antwerp), I understand the attraction and the potentially addictive nature of the product!

If I can find a copy of the article I'll publish it here.

Cheers!

Health minister who is wary of "big bossy governments" supports plain packaging and the smoking ban

We got an interesting insight into the mind of ambitious public health minister (and ex-smoker) Anna Soubry yesterday.

Speaking to John Humphrys on BBC Radio 4's Today programme she acknowledged the problem of "big bossy governments".

Almost in the same breath, however, she described the smoking ban as "one of the real triumphs of the last government – I’ll give them full credit for doing that".

She also declared her support for standardised (not plain) packaging ("It’s very colourful, very intricate") saying, "I’ve seen the evidence. I’ve seen the consultation. I’ve been personally persuaded of it."

Good for her. One teeny weeny problem.

Soubry wasn't speaking as a constituency MP. She was on the programme as a member of the government.

Other government ministers and officials, including the prime minister himself, have declared as recently as this week that no decision has been made on plain packaging.

Repeatedly we have been told that ministers and civil servants still have an "open mind" on the subject.

But not the public health minister. Oh no. She's seen the evidence and "seen the consultation" (eh?) and supports the measure even though the DH has yet to publish its long overdue report on the consultation.

Has Soubry seen the report? If so why has it not been published so everyone can read it and decide for themselves whether it justifies the policy that she so openly supports.

Here's a transcript of the latter part of the interview which I understand was primarily about minimum pricing of alcohol:

Soubry: But John, you know as well as I do that these are often difficult decisions, and one of the things that’s really important in public health is that you don’t have big bossy governments seeming to crack down on people who actually don’t have the problem.

Humphrys: You did on smoking and it worked.

Soubry: Sorry?

Humphrys: You did on smoking and it worked.

Soubry: No, no, no, not everybody smokes. So when we took action to stop smoking in open places – one of the real triumphs of the last government – I’ll give them full credit for doing that; but ... that was affecting a minority of people because smokers are the minority. There is work to be done on smoking and that’s the next debate that we’ve got to have. We’ve had a consultation on what’s called “plain” – it’s not. It’s very colourful, very intricate but standardised packaging and there’s a real debate now to be had on whether or not we should introduce it like they have in Australia.

Humphrys: Are you in favour of that?

Soubry: I am.

Humphrys: So it’s going to happen.

Soubry: Oh no, it doesn’t mean to say it’s going to happen because we haven’t had the debate. We need now to have that debate. I’ve seen the evidence. I’ve seen the consultation. I’ve been personally persuaded of it but that doesn’t mean to say that all my colleagues in government, on both sides of the house, are persuaded and that’s the debate that we now have to have.

Odd, isn't it, that someone who is wary of "big bossy governments" should support a measure as extreme as plain (sorry, standardised) packaging.

Perhaps it's because, as Soubry says, smokers are a minority and minorities can be bossed around (or worse) without fear of a backlash.

How sad, in this day and age, to hear any politician - but especially one in government - use a group's minority status as an excuse to legislate them into extinction.

That's not bossy. That's bullying.

Meanwhile, whatever happened to collective responsibility? Either Soubry is a member of the government and accepts the official line that government still has an "open mind" on plain packaging, or she steps down and supports the measure from the backbenches.

One other point. Soubry believes the smoking ban has been a success ("one of the real triumphs of the last government") because it only affected smokers ("the minority").

Tell that to the non-smokers whose local pub closed (directly or indirectly) because of the smoking ban, or the bar worker who lost his job.

Tell the non-smoking members of Britain's working men's clubs, many of which also closed in the aftermath of the ban.

If it was such a "triumph" why doesn't the government review the impact of the ban (as the previous government promised it would). As part of that review they could ask people if they support an amendment that would allow separate, well-ventilated smoking rooms in pubs and clubs. Only then will we see how popular the existing legislation is.

I could go on but somehow I don't think the minister for public health is listening. Open mind? Don't make me laugh.

See also: Anna Soubry and the silent majority

Why smoking should not be banned on hospital grounds

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recently issued guidelines about banning smoking across hospital grounds.

Last week I was asked to comment in 350 words:

Excessive regulation has already forced the closure of all indoor smoking rooms. Further restrictions would send quite the wrong message about our ‘caring’ NHS.

There’s nothing caring about ordering people to walk several hundred yards before they can light up off campus. It could be dark, late at night, or raining. It will almost certainly be next to a busy main road. Why do that to anyone unnecessarily?

I don’t subscribe to the idea that non-smokers are at risk from people smoking outside. You may not like the smell but your level of exposure can be counted in seconds and any smoke is massively diluted in the open air.

I agree it may not look good if people are smoking outside the main entrance but this is one of many unintended consequences of the existing smoking ban. Unable to light up indoors in a separate, well-ventilated smoking room, smokers have to stand outside. Inevitably they choose to stand by entrances and doors where there may be some shelter from the elements.

The answer to this problem is not more restrictions, forcing smokers further away with threats of fines and other penalties. The solution is a well signposted smoking shelter where patients, visitors and staff can light up in some degree of comfort.

If people object to the cost, consider this. Treating smoking-related diseases is estimated to cost the NHS £2.7 billion a year. In contrast smokers contribute over £10 billion annually through tobacco taxation.

Even in these difficult financial times a smoking shelter represents money well spent. After all, what’s the alternative? Enforcing an outdoor smoking ban means CCTV cameras, public address systems and tobacco control wardens ordering smokers to “Put that cigarette out!”.

Behind this policy is a degree of bullying that is unacceptable in a tolerant society. People are no longer educated about the health risks of smoking. Today they are patronised, insulted, and made to feel like lepers.

The public health industry is engaged in a campaign of creeping prohibition. Banning smoking in the open air, even on hospital grounds, is a step too far.

RIP, Maggie Thatcher

Final word, from me at least, on the subject of Mrs T.

Margaret Thatcher inspired a generation of young people to take an active interest in politics.

I was at university when she became prime minister. Student politics – the National Union of Students especially – was a haven for the militant hard left which controlled student unions up and down the country.

Like all other unions, the NUS was a closed shop. If you were an undergraduate you had no choice, you had to be a member. Your subscription was stolen from you long before it touched your pocket.

Mrs Thatcher gave hope to those who wanted to challenge the status quo. Where her predecessors dithered, Thatcher acted. She gave people the opportunity to take greater responsibility for their lives and not rely on the state from cradle to grave.

Her policies helped cure the “British disease” of shoddy workmanship, low productivity and archaic (sometimes corrupt) working practises.

In opposition and in government she encouraged us to stand up to bullies and dictators. She defeated General Galtieri and she dispatched Arthur Scargill.

She stood up to the IRA – who murdered two of her closest colleagues and tried to assassinate her – and those of us who were in Brighton for the 1984 Conservative party conference will never forget the extraordinary courage and leadership she showed after terrorists bombed the Grand Hotel.

She rejected unilateral nuclear disarmament and together with Ronald Reagan she forced the Soviet Union to abandon the arms race.

Twenty-three years after Mrs Thatcher left office her influence can still be felt in Parliament and throughout Britain.

She didn’t get everything right but there’s no shame in that.

Blessed with hindsight, historians will have the final say on her legacy. What they must never lose sight of is what Britain was like before Mrs T came to power.

I grew up in the Seventies and I remember all too well the three-day week (quite fun for a child), the millions of days lost to labour disputes (click on the graph below), a Labour chancellor forced to agree to the demands of the International Monetary Fund, and so on.

There is no question that Mrs Thatcher ‘saved’ Britain from further decline and abject humiliation. But you had to experience the Seventies to appreciate fully what she achieved in the Eighties.

I did and like millions of others I will never forget what Mrs T did for her country.

RIP, Maggie Thatcher. Your opponents took a hell of a beating.

See also: Margaret Thatcher and the free society, Thatcherism lives! and Rejoice! Hollywood bows to the Iron Lady (Taking Liberties)

Tributes to Mrs Thatcher

Like many people I shall be in London today paying my respects to Margaret Thatcher.

To mark her death, and in the spirit of Monty Python's Life of Brian ("What did the Romans ever do for us?"), I invited a few friends and acquaintances to comment on her achievements.

Among those who responded were Dr Madsen Pirie, president of the Adam Smith Institute, and Dr Julian Lewis, Conservative MP for New Forest East.

Julian, who played a major role in the defeat of CND in the Eighties, wrote:

She saved the Labour Party by forcing it to expel extremists and return to moderation – if it wanted ever to win another election.

She gave the unions back to their members, by making postal ballots for trade union elections compulsory.

She freed the Falklands and, indirectly, caused the downfall of dictatorship in Argentina – something that President Kirchner would do well to remember.

She secured the future of Britain’s Trident nuclear deterrent.

She insisted on the deployment of NATO cruise missiles, without which the hardliners’ grip on the Kremlin would undoubtedly have lasted longer.

She worked with Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev to secure the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987, which eliminated cruise missiles, the Pershing missiles and the Soviet SS-20s – paving the way for what happened two years later.

No-one did more than Margaret Thatcher to bury the Far Left at home and defeat totalitarian Communism abroad.

The history of freedom is in her debt, as are we all.

Madsen, who advocated the privatization of nationalised industries well before Mrs Thatcher, wrote:

What did Margaret Thatcher ever do for us?

She tamed the unions who'd brought Britain to its knees and made them democratic and accountable.

She privatized the industries and utilities that were costly, outdated, and uneconomic.

She restored Britain's standing in the world by facing up to Argentine aggression.

She stood up to Communist dictatorship and helped win the Cold War.

She allowed ordinary people a stake in their country through council house sales and popular share issues.

She cut taxes and made enterprise worthwhile.

She turned a ruined country into an economic powerhouse and restored her people's faith in themselves and their future.

... Apart from that, nothing.

Others who sent a short tribute included David Nuttall MP; Jonathan Isaby, political director of the Taxpayers' Alliance; Todd Buchholz, former White House economic advisor; and former Telegraph leader writer Alex Singleton.

You can read their contributions - and one or two others - on The Free Society website. See What did Margaret Thatcher ever do for us?.

Forest's sister campaign also has this article: If there had been no Thatcher we would have had to invent one:

Mrs Thatcher wasn’t perfect, or even a libertarian, but at home and abroad she was a major force for freedom, argues Brian Monteith.

For a slightly different viewpoint, I also recommend The 80s, winter, Thatcher and me by Pat Nurse.

The Freedom Dinner - book your tickets

Tickets for The Freedom Dinner are available now.

We've created an online booking form for the event which takes place on Tuesday July 2. To book click here. Tickets are £90 each or £800 for a table of ten.

Further details, including names of guest speakers, will be announced later. In the meantime check out the video of last year's event.

Note: we are also hosting a FREE event (Smoke On The Water) on Tuesday June 18. To register for that email events@forestonline.org or telephone Forest HQ on 01223 370156.

Proud to be an Arab!

Got back from Glasgow late last night after a 12-hour round trip.

Comedy defending but a great game (click on the image above).

United had a 16-year-old in central defence and a 17-year-old in midfield.

Celtic, inevitably, were physically stronger.

Very proud, though, to support (in victory or defeat) the greatest club in Dundee!

Football crazy

Staying overnight in a hotel just outside Glasgow.

The last time we were here my brother-in-law was getting married. I was an usher and I wore a kilt, as you do. The hotel was the venue for the reception.

This time we needed somewhere to stay ahead of tomorrow's Scottish Cup semi-final between Dundee United and Celtic at Hampden Park, kick off 12.45.

We arrived by car at seven o'clock.

Receptionist: "Have you travelled far?"

Me: "Cambridgeshire."

Receptionist: "Any particular reason?"

Me: "We're going to the football tomorrow."

Receptionist: "Which team do you support?"

My wife: "My husband supports Dundee United."

Receptionist (very quietly): "Oh, they're staying here too."

Points a finger. "Look, there they are."

Update: I didn't speak to them but for an hour in the bar it was just me, my wife and the Dundee United coaching staff.

The latter includes former Scotland international Darren Jackson who famously got himself sent off after the 1991 Scottish Cup final when United lost 4-3 to Motherwell after extra time.

He wasn't alone. If I remember United had three players red carded after the match that day.

I was at that game. It was the sixth time in six attempts that United had lost a Scottish Cup final so you can forgive the players their frustration. (I know how they felt!)

We eventually won the Cup for the first time in 1994 and won it again in 2010. I was at both of those games too.

PS. I have just been told that Falkirk stayed here last night. In case you don't know (or don't care), they lost their semi-final today, throwing away a 3-0 half-time lead against Hibernian.

Final score: 4-3 Hibs.

I hope that's not an omen.

Update on Monday, April 15, 2013 at 0:54 by Simon Clark

United lost, 4-3, after extra time. Can you believe it?

Someone on the radio said the odds against both semi-finals finishing with the same score after 120 minutes were 4,400-1.