ASH: how to ban smoking in the home

ASH has just admitted what we've known all along.

This publicly-funded "charity" wants to outlaw smoking in the home.

Until now, to the best of my knowledge, ASH has always denied that they want to encourage such a drastic step. Then again they used to deny that they wanted to prohibit smoking in every pub in the country.

Now, however, they have finally come clean and issued a briefing paper entitled Smoke drift in the home and workplace.

It asks questions such as:

• How widespread is the problem of smoke drift?
• How does tobacco smoke get into the home?
• Can smoke drift be measured?

and then suggests 'What residents can do'. Advice includes:

If there is still a smell of smoke after you have blocked up all the cracks and holes and if you are certain that the source of the smoke is from a neighbouring property, the next step is to
contact the neighbour whom you believe is responsible.

Be clear about what you want to achieve, that is, to stop their tobacco smoke entering your home and consider what compromises you might be willing to make. For example, the neighbour may be willing to limit the time or place where s/he smokes to minimise smoke penetrating your home.

If you are troubled by smoke coming from a property that is rented, you should contact the landlord or managing agent and ask to see a copy of the tenancy agreement to determine if any “nuisance clause” prohibits activities that interfere with the comfort of other people living in the locality.

It is important to keep a record of all incidents of smoke seepage and any action taken to try to counter the problem. This should include any health effects and any medical consultations connected with this matter as this will add weight to your case in negotiations with the landlord and/or any subsequent legal representative.

Download the full briefing here.

Government to "consult" on packaging

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley has today confirmed that the Government will publish a "consultation on the packaging on tobacco products in spring 2012".

The written ministerial statement is not unexpected. In fact, we've been anticipating an announcement for some time.

ASH has responded as follows:

The Government has announced today that the public consultation on tobacco packaging that was due to take place by the end of this year has been put back to Spring 2012. Although the delay is disappointing, ASH is pleased that the Department of Health is working hard to ensure that the consultation will be a success and that the consultation will be UK wide.

Putting tobacco products in plain packaging is essential because once tobacco is out of sight in shops tobacco packs will be the last remaining promotional tool for the tobacco industry. Also there is good evidence that plain, standardised packs are:

– less attractive, particularly to young people;
– make the health warnings stand out more; and
– reduce the ability of the packaging to mislead consumers about the harms of smoking.

Deborah Arnott, Chief Executive of ASH said: “Although it’s disappointing that the end of year deadline has been missed we’re pleased that the Government is taking seriously its commitment on plain packaging.

"We urge the Government to ensure that the UK remains on track to be the first country in Europe to put tobacco in plain packs by launching the consultation no later than Spring 2012, followed by legislation for implementation by the end of this Parliament.”

Just how much of a "public" consultation this will be remains to be seen. Previous consultations on tobacco controls have barely registered with the general public. See How "public" consultations work (December 11, 2008).

This time, hopefully, things will be different (but we'll need your help).

Meanwhile we can look forward to this new website, an initiative (we believe) of the Smokefree Action Coalition.

Can't wait.

Another fine mess: Tony Blair and the London Olympics

Interesting discussion over lunch yesterday.

A colleague told me about a conversation he had with a friend who works for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.

Apparently, there was no great enthusiasm within the department for Britain to host the 2012 Olympics. Indeed, some people hoped that Paris would win the nomination and save us a large fortune.

London, it was argued privately, would still benefit because lots of Olympic visitors would stay here and travel to Paris on Eurostar. France would bear the cost of the whole thing and Britain would be sitting pretty.

However there was one minister who really wanted the Olympics to come to London and it wasn't Tessa Jowell, former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, now shadow minister for the Olympics. It was the prime minister, Tony Blair.

Allegedly there was even an attempt to nobble Blair's visit to Tokyo where the IOC was meeting to decide the nomination. Sadly the plot was foiled and the PM (with a little help from Seb Coe, David Beckham and others) triumphed.

Cue long faces at DCMS.

Now, I am told, officials privately laugh at the idea that the Olympics will come in on budget. For example, the current figure (£9 billion) doesn't cover the cost of security which could add a further £2-3 billion.

Money well spent, I'm sure you'll agree.

Meanwhile our erstwhile prime minister, the man who really, really wanted a London Olympics, is nowhere to be seen.

Not for the first time, Tony Blair has left someone else to pay for the mess.

Extreme moderation

I have introduced, temporarily I hope, comment moderation.

It hasn't gone down too well with one unwelcome guest who writes:

Oh by the way Simon crippling your blog by comment moderation means I will wait until your blog slowly dies and you remove it. Too much hard work for you - suits me. Merry Xmas.

I think this blog will survive. Oh, and Happy Christmas to you too!

PS. The Internet really brings out the best in people, doesn't it?

Something to declare? Every little helps

When I mentioned the Forest Christmas card a couple of weeks ago I could almost hear the snorts of derision.

Typical Forest, one anonymous critic seemed to be saying. You should be on the streets, leading the revolution, not pussy-footing around with seasonal greetings. Call yourselves activists!

Truth is, our job is to use every avenue of communication with politicians, broadcasters, journalists and potential supporters.

Believe me, I don't enjoy signing 600 cards (a bottle of Rioja and a plate of mince pies helps) but a well-designed card can be a valuable PR tool, especially if it features a message relevant to the campaign.

Take, for example, the image above. It was designed for Forest by Dan Donovan for illustrative purposes only, but if anyone would like to use it I'm sure we could come to some arrangement ...

Below: the official 2011 Forest Christmas card, also by Dan Donovan. It features contact details for both Forest and the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign plus the following message: 'On behalf of Britain's 12 million adult smokers we wish you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Please support our campaign for a more liberal, tolerant and courteous society that puts education ahead of legislation and defends those who choose to consume a legal product'.

The arguments against e-cigarettes

On Monday Vancouver City Council voted to ban the use of all tobacco products in city parks.

The ban extends to e-cigarettes and I've been trying to find out why. According to an article I have just read online, the principal arguments are:

1. E-cigarettes deliver nicotine to the smoker in a vapor form and nicotine is highly addictive
2. They are unregulated and have not been sufficiently tested for safety
3. Lack of regulation and quality control means the amount of nicotine in each drag of an e-cigarette is inconsistent
4. Tests by the US Food and Drug Administration show that e-cigarettes contain harmful chemicals such as diethylene glycol, a component of antifreeze that’s toxic to humans and is banned in food and drugs
5. There were also detectable levels of a known carcinogen called nitrosamine and other toxic chemicals that users could potentially inhale
6. Health experts have expressed concern that e-cigarettes are marketed toward young people since the devices come in pink, gold or blue with flavours such as chocolate and bubble gum and there is no health warning
7. Claims that e-cigarettes can help smokers quit are unsubstantiated
8. Even if they do help smokers to quit, e-cigarettes could entice young people to start smoking

See: Are e-cigarettes safe? (Medical Discovery News)

I have also heard it said that an e-cigarette can look, at a distance, like a real cigarette and this could alarm non-smokers who might think that they are in danger of being exposed (allegedly) to thousands of cancer-causing chemicals (aka "secondhand smoke") ...

Yes, it's official: e-cigarettes can scare you to death.

See also: The e-cigarette debate (Boston Globe) and Tobacco haters, kick your filthy habit (Spiked)

Edging closer to prohibition

AMs yesterday discussed the Welsh Assembly Government's new tobacco control action plan.

Proposals include a ban on smoking in playgrounds and hospital grounds, outlawing smoking on sports and school grounds, and a possible ban on smoking in cars carrying children.

On Monday, meanwhile, Vancouver City Council voted unanimously to ban not just smoking in city parks but all tobacco products including chewing tobacco and e-cigarettes.

“I’m excited and nervous right now, because I’ve wanted something like this for practically all my life,” Councilor Jeanne Harris said before casting her vote to ban tobacco.

“(Smoking) makes me gag just thinking about it. It is just something I can’t see us saying its OK to do. It’s not about rights or discrimination. It’s about health.”

See: Smoking ban for Welsh playgrounds and hospital grounds debated and Vancouver bans all tobacco products in city parks

Hot LIPs

A reader writes:

I have been reading your comments on your website and I am surprised to see that there is nothing mentioned about the so-called fire safe cigarette. People in the United States are travelling inter-state to where you can still buy ‘normal cigarettes’ because of the horrible taste of these new fire-safe cigarettes.

I recently bought some in Majorca and I honestly thought they were not genuine Lambert & Butler Gold. Now I have bought some in the UK but they taste just as bad. Interestingly though there is no mention on the packet that they are fire-safe.

I have asked numerous smokers what they thought about their cigarettes and everyone I talk to (just members of the public, like me) say they taste awful.

Does anyone want to comment on this? Lower Ignition Propensity (LIP) cigarettes were introduced to Europe last month. They are designed, as we know, to increase the chances of cigarettes self-extinguishing when left alone. It is argued that this will help reduce the number of accidental fires allegedly caused by unattended burning cigarettes.

My understanding is that the taste and flavour of a LIP cigarette should not be affected. I have also read that "under normal smoking conditions, (LIP) cigarettes should not self-extinguish" unless they are "at rest".

Retailers will continue to sell non-LIP compliant cigarettes until stocks run out so if you don't know whether it's LIP or non-LIP compliant I suggest you ask the retailer at the point of sale.

Feedback welcome.