Prague must wait, I have an article to write

Damn. I was supposed to fly to Prague this week for Tabexpo 2011. I was looking forward to it too. I've never been to Prague.

I couldn't go yesterday, obviously, which meant that I missed the keynote speech by John O'Sullivan, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher. I also missed last night's welcome dinner.

I was still hoping to catch a 7.00am flight from Heathrow this morning or, failing that, a late afternoon flight.

Instead I've been doing more interviews about smoking in cars as well as writing an article for the Huffington Post which I have almost finished. Towards the end I ask the question 'Why is the BMA calling for a comprehensive ban on smoking in cars?'. I then speculate as follows:

My view, for what it’s worth, is that it’s tactical. The BMA’s declaration coincides with the second reading of Labour MP Alex Cunningham’s Private Members’ Bill which calls for a ban on smoking in private vehicles when children are present. It’s listed to be debated on Friday 25 November.

The BMA has possibly worked out that by calling for more extreme action, the coalition government may see a ban on smoking in cars with children as a reasonable compromise.

I may be right because, unknown to me (I have only just read it), the Huffington Post this morning published a piece by Dame Helena Shovelton, chief executive of the British Lung Foundation, entitled Calls for a Ban on Smoking in Cars Are Welcome, but Action on Children Is Needed Now. (I assume that my article is intended to be a companion piece.)

As we know (and I respect them for it), the tobacco control industry is very well coordinated. Alex Cunningham, the BMA and the BLF are not working in splendid isolation. They will be working together, I'm sure, and privately they will all be singing from the same hymnsheet. First, a ban on smoking in cars with children, then a ban on smoking in all private vehicles.

By calling for the latter now the BMA is trying to make a ban on smoking in cars with children appear more liberal. They will be delighted with that, believe me, because they know that, after that, a ban on smoking in all vehicles is only a matter of time.

The police will see to that, I'm sure, on the grounds that it is difficult to see whether there is a child in a moving vehicle without stopping it. Far easier, they will argue, if ALL vehicles are no-smoking.

Smoking in cars: those interviews in full

It's late and I'm tired.

Frankly, I've neither the time nor the inclination to analyse what went on today so I'll just list the interviews I did and the various locations. Make of it what you will.

First port of call was BBC Television Centre in west London. Here's the schedule I was given, beginning at 7.10 and finishing at 10.30:

BBC Radio Five Live Breakfast
BBC Radio Four Today programme
BBC Breakfast (BBC1)
BBC Radio Kent
BBC Radio Oxford
BBC Radio Scotland
BBC Radio Merseyside
BBC Radio Five Live Phone-in
BBC Radio Hereford and Worcester
BBC Radio Wiltshire
BBC Radio Stoke
BBC Radio York
BBC Radio Manchester
BBC Radio Coventry and Warwickshire
BBC News Channel (above)

Next stop was Millbank Studios in Westminster where I was interviewed by:

Scottish Television
BBC Radio Two (Jeremy Vine Show)
BBC Radio Wales (phone-in)
Sky News (live interview)
Sky News (recorded interview)
ITV Lunchtime News

Then it was back to Television Centre to record an interview for the BBC's Six O'Clock News.

Finally I had to drive back into central London for an interview with the ITV Evening News and that was it.

Truth is, we couldn't meet every request for an interview because there were just too many. Thanks however to my Free Society colleague Tom Miers, we came pretty close. Tom did BBC Radio Lincolnshire, BBC Radio Cambridgeshire, BBC Radio Tees, BBC Radio Scotland and BBC Radio Wales.

See: Car smoking ban: Forest says evidence is 'flimsy' (BBC News Channel)
Listen: 'Smoking in cars is individual choice' (Today, BBC Radio 4)

Update: Car smoking ban (ITV Lunchtime News)

BMA wants smoking ban to include private vehicles

The worst kept secret in Britain will be 'revealed' at midnight tonight.

Yes, the British Medical Association wants to ban smoking in all cars, not just those with children present.

I am currently on my way home from Television Centre in west London where I recorded an interview for BBC News (standing in the car park, naturally).

Earlier today Forest was also invited to give quotes to BBC News Online and ITV Daybreak.

Tomorrow morning I shall be back at Television Centre for interviews with Five Live Breakfast (7.10), the Today programme (7.30) and BBC Breakfast (8.10). Well, that's the plan.

Alarm set for 4.00am. Watch this space.

Woman could go to jail after dropping cigarette

A 48-year-old woman is willing to go to jail rather than pay a fine for dropping a cigarette outside her home.

She's an "eco-criminal", apparently, and eco-criminals will not be tolerated.

The BBC has the story here.

I have just given the following quote to a national newspaper:

"We don't condone littering but the penalty does seem excessive and disproportionate to the crime.

"A verbal warning should have been sufficient but smokers are easy targets these days.

"They can't smoke in pubs and clubs, they're told not to smoke in cars or in the home if children are present, but as soon as they step outside they're criminalised for inadvertently dropping a cigarette.

"A little bit of common sense wouldn't go amiss."

Update: £465 fine for dropping cigarette on doorstep (Daily Express)

Toot, toot, it's Edwin Poots

Northern Ireland's health minister has threatened to ban smoking in all vehicles.

Edwin Poots, a member of the Democratic Unionist Party who sounds like a character from a Charles Dickens' novel (The Pickwick Papers comes to mind), said yesterday that he would consider banning smoking in all cars and not just those with children as passengers.

The BBC has the story here: Edwin Poots launches car smoking ban consultation. It includes a short response from me on behalf of Forest:

"We don't condone people smoking in cars with children present. It's inconsiderate, certainly, but the evidence doesn't support the argument that smoking in cars is a serious health risk to children. Legislation is a gross over-reaction. What next, a ban on smoking in the home?"

I was also asked to write a few worde for today's Belfast Telegraph. Link to follow.

Update on Tuesday, November 15, 2011 at 9:22 by Simon Clark

Paul Rowlandson, a lecturer at the University of Ulster in Londonderry and Forest's spokesman in Northern Ireland, writes:

This is the predictable consequence of devolution - power is devolved to interfering arrogant busybodies. The tyranny of the council and the local assembly is worse than the tyranny of Westminster.

We now have a tax on plastic bags, a levy on large stores (Sainsburys, Tesco, M&S etc) to subsidise small businesses in city centres where consumers choose not to shop (IKEA are now likely to close their only NI store as a result), and now this illiberal attack on smokers. Nobody ever lost votes by attacking smokers.

In the BBC report it says 'The DUP's Jim Wells also said statistics from the Ulster Cancer Foundation showed 300,000 children throughout the UK are being referred to a GP every year as a result of tobacco smoke inhalation.
He said 9,500 of these cases led to hospital visits.'

Is there any evidence for this? The RCP estimates that 300,000 children are referred to GPs for consultations for ailments which the RCP attributes to passive smoking, even though their own figures show a “progressive increase in relative incidence for lower respiratory infections, wheeze, asthma and meningitis with increasing socio-economic deprivation” (p110 of the RCP report).

Is the DoH about to score an own goal?

There have been precious few opportunities since the smoking ban to debate the alleged impact of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), aka passive smoking or second-hand smoke.

There are two reasons for this. One, the tobacco control movement refuses to debate the issue. As far as they are concerned, they have won the argument so why risk the spoils of victory by engaging further on the subject?

Two, the war on tobacco has moved on from ETS to tobacco display, vending machines and, now, plain packaging. Consequently many people consider a debate about passive smoking to be yesterday's news.

Inadvertently, however, the Department of Health may about to give us a platform to re-engage with politicians and journalists on the subject.

Two weeks ago, in a written answer to a question about smoking, the Department of Health declared:

As set out in the Tobacco Control Plan for England, the Department [of Health] will launch a marketing campaign to remind smokers of the harms of second-hand smoke [my italics] and to encourage them to make their homes and cars smokefree. This campaign is in the early stages of development and is expected to launch in March 2012.

The tobacco marketing strategy, to be published shortly, will set out further details of how we will support efforts by local areas to encourage smokefree homes and cars ahead of the smokefree campaign. As with all Government communication and marketing campaigns, plans will be developed to evaluate its impact.

Now if that's not an invitation to discuss, debate and, yes, refute the alleged dangers of ETS I don't know what is.

PS. Another own goal? Increasing taxation doesn't encourage smokers to quit. Click on the link to comment.

Welcome to 'Smoking Allowed'

Imperial Tobacco has launched a new campaign to "support smokers".

Smoking Allowed, says the company, is a "long-term programme of projects and activities to support smokers when they are travelling, working and enjoying their leisure time".

These include "high-quality smoking pavilions ... at key points across the UK. The first opened at Bristol Airport last week providing heating, lighting, shelter, ventilation, hand-gel and litter solutions".

I'm sure there are some people who will argue that Imperial should be doing more to fight the smoking ban rather than tacitly accepting it with a campaign for better smoking shelters.

At risk of sounding like an apologist for the company, I see it rather differently.

To begin with, and to the best of my knowledge, Imperial remains strongly critical of the smoking ban and the 'evidence' that is used to justify it. In particular, you should read The Bauld Truth, a brilliant critique (by Imperial) of the report by Professor Linda Bauld for the Department of Health entitled The Impact of Smokefree Legislation in England: Evidence Review (March 2011).

The Bauld Truth was published in June 2011. I urge you to download it and send a copy to your MP and ask them to (a) respond to it and (b) take it up with the Department of Health.

In addition, I believe that the 'Smoking Allowed' campaign is important because it challenges the Orwellian 'denormalisation' of smoking. Comfortable smoking shelters or "pavilions" and signs that say 'Welcome to your smoking area' may not alter the harsh fact that smokers are forced to light up outside, but a campaign like this could help bring smokers back in from the cold in other ways, and that can only be a good thing.

Poppy power

I don't understand the fuss about Britain's national football teams having an embroidered poppy on their shirts.

Or, to put it another way, this must be the first time I have ever had sympathy for the world governing body Fifa.

If you haven't been following this manufactured debate, Fifa is opposed to the idea. Understandably, I think, they are worried that other countries will demand the right to add all sorts of insignia to their shirts as well.

Don't get me wrong. I am happy to wear a poppy. As a tribute to Britain's war dead it's probably the least we can do. On Sunday I even bought three poppies because one is never enough. The average lifespan of a poppy in my hands is 48 hours.

But I don't like the idea that I have to wear a poppy.

On Tuesday, for example, I was interviewed on television. By chance, I was wearing one of my poppies in the buttonhole of my suit.

The BBC, however, wasn't taking any chances. On a table next to the chair in the studio was a poppy with a pin. It was clearly intended to be worn by the interviewee and if you have watched any live programme in the past fortnight you will have noticed that almost everyone is wearing one.

As I say, I am proud to wear a poppy but I am concerned that the whole thing has become yet another form of political correctness and people are being bullied to conform.

PS. For once I am in agreement with an article on the Guardian website: It is not a travesty if England do not wear poppies for the Spain game.

In contrast, the most risible article this week by written by Henry Winter, the Daily Telegraph's football correspondent (England v Spain: let's play by Sepp Blatter's rules but still turn Wembley into a field of poppies).

It's the most bizarre article I have ever read. On the one hand Winter wants us to "ignore the John Bulls charging in blindly". On the other he wants the England football players to be encouraged to "express their admiration for the Armed Forces".

And if they don't?

I could go on but what's the point? There's only one word for Winter's tortured argument and that's 'poppycock'.