Get ready for the Big Splash!

Yesterday was not just Ash Wednesday and the beginning of Lent.

In Ireland it was also No Smoking Day, or National No Smoking Day as they call it over there.

It was difficult to tell though because media coverage was limited to, at most, a few local newspapers and radio stations.

The only 'national' coverage I saw was via The Journal, an online only source of news but very one-sided on the subject of smoking.

According to The Journal, the 'big' National No Smoking Day initiative was the Health Service Executive's announcement that 'nicotine patches, gum and lozenges are now available for free'.

Watch those smoking rates plunge!

I shouldn't laugh because our own No Smoking Day isn't in much better health. Like its Irish cousin, the UK version has been on life support for years, as I've noted before.

Fortunately the cavalry has arrived because, after years of neglect, No Smoking Day – which once had an annual budget of £600,000 – has been added to ASH's bulging portfolio of interests.

The first notable change appeared two weeks ago when it was announced that:

No Smoking Day is 8th March but for the first time this year there will be a pre-launch period two weeks before NSD.

An 'Activation phase' was to be followed by a ‘Big Splash’ on No Smoking Day.

The new Activation phase – highlighting what campaigners claim is an increased risk of dementia for those who smoke – was launched yesterday with a news release, issued by ASH, that featured comments by the chief executive of Alzheimer’s Research UK, and a neuroscientist and dementia prevention expert based at Imperial College London.

It also featured a quote by ASH CEO Deborah Arnott who, it was confirmed, is 'helping to co-ordinate this year's No Smoking Day'.

I've not seen any media reports prompted by the pre-launch press release but if ASH can breathe new life into an event many of us had written off, good luck to them.

The budget must be tight though because the branding for No Smoking Day is still based on a design template that dates back several years and was borrowed, if I remember, from a local campaign launched in Leeds.

As for the promise of a ‘Big Splash’ on March 8, what can Deborah be planning? Watch this space.

The madness of Micheál Martin

Micheál Martin is livid.

Before I explain why, I should mention that the former Taoiseach and current Tánaiste (deputy head of government) was the minister who banned smoking in the workplace in Ireland in 2004.

That led directly to the smoking ban in Scotland, followed by England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

Today Martin is leader of Fianna Fáil and minister for foreign affairs in an unconventional power sharing arrangement that led to him being Taoiseach for two-and-a-half years from June 2020 before Fine Gael’s Leo Varadkar returned as head of Ireland’s coalition government in December last year.

With everything that’s going on, at home and abroad, you might think the deputy head of government and foreign affairs minister would have more important things on his mind, but speaking earlier this week Martin chose to vent on the subject of, er, vaping.

And he’s furious. According to the Irish Examiner:

Vaping is the tobacco industry "coming back at" governments for indoor smoking bans, Tánaiste Micheál Martin has claimed.

Mr Martin was the health minister from 2000 to 2004 during which time the smoking ban was implemented here despite tough opposition. 

On the latest episode of the Irish Examiner podcast Let Me Tell You, he discussed the difficulties in establishing the law some two decades ago and its legacy. 

He also said that vaping is "the revenge of the tobacco industry" and is something he is "very angry about".

Is he serious? At the very least it begs the question: how much does Micheál Martin actually know about the history of vaping and the tobacco industry’s involvement?

Truth is, the tobacco companies came late to the vaping party and they’ve been playing catch-up ever since.

The fact that they are now in a position where they might dominate the market in years to come is due to their global distribution networks and the millions (billions?) they are investing in the development of new, and safer, products.

Since we are talking about products that evidence suggests are significantly less risky than combustible tobacco, you might think that governments and politicians like Micheál Martin would welcome the direction the tobacco industry is taking.

I’m not suggesting Big Tobacco’s motives are 100 per cent altruistic but to suggest the industry is driven by “revenge” for the smoking ban is absurd.

In my experience the tobacco companies are driven not by “revenge” but pragmatism. Far from avenging lost battles like the smoking ban, they’re resolutely focussed on the present and the future, never the past.

Also, I’ve never met a tobacco company exec who isn’t pleased that the company they work for is investing in reduced risk products because developing RRPs, and offering smokers less harmful alternatives to combustible tobacco, is genuinely considered the right and proper thing to do.

It’s worth adding that many of the executives who were around when laws to enforce workplace smoking bans were introduced in Ireland and the UK are no longer working in the industry, so the idea that “revenge” would be a motivating factor for their successors is also laughable.

Perhaps Martin is still aggrieved that the companies had the temerity to oppose his smoking ban 20 years ago, but transferring that grievance to the issue of youth vaping - which has very little to do with Big Tobacco - seems a bit silly.

This isn’t the first time Martin has commented on vaping, youth vaping in particular, but it’s the first time I’ve heard him suggest that it represents "the revenge of the tobacco industry".

If he sat down and spoke to the companies he might realise what a crazy accusation that is. There's no chance of that happening though because it's easier to create a straw man than have a helpful discussion with a key stakeholder.

Meanwhile, is it any wonder that the Irish Government's ambition of a 'tobacco free' Ireland by 2025 is not only in tatters but provokes more titters than Frankie Howard?

My advice? Give up this quixotic ambition because, as Shakespeare might say, that way madness lies.

See also - Irish Examiner view: A ban gone up in smoke.

Another own goal by the UK's 'leading vape store'?

Interesting to see VPZ in the news again.

VPZ is the UK's 'leading e-cigarette and vape store' and last year the company launched a lamentable campaign that urged the Scottish Government to 'Ban smoking for good'.

Sadly the short-lived initiative, which I wrote about here and here, quickly ran out of steam.

Aside from a brief flurry of media reports featuring campaign ambassador, former England footballer Neil 'Razor' Ruddock, a petition subsequently posted on the Scottish Government website by VPZ director Doug Mutter attracted a paltry 103 signatures.

As I noted a few months later:

The Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee agreed to close the petition under Rule 15.7 of Standing Orders on the basis that the Scottish Government is not currently considering an outright ban on smoking in favour of vaping.

Yesterday it was reported that VPZ has suffered another blow. According to the Scottish Sun:

An advert for a Scots vaping firm which said it could help people quit smoking or give them their money back has been banned ...

In a written ruling, the ASA [Advertising Standards Authority] said: "Claims that e-cigarettes were capable of helping users to quit smoking cigarettes or reduce the amount that they smoked were considered medicinal claims for the purposes of the [Advertising] Code."

As it happens – having endured a long and frustrating experience with the ASA that ultimately didn't go our way either (albeit Forest was the complainant) – I have some sympathy with VPZ because I'm struggling to spot any medicinal claims that justify the ASA's decision.

I can't say I'm surprised though that the ASA has sided with ASH Scotland, the single complainant.

What did surprise me was the revelation – during an excoriating nine-minute report on Channel 4 News last night – that VPZ has received 25 million pounds worth of loans from Philip Morris.

Then again, Philip Morris wants the UK government to ban the sale of cigarettes in England by 2030 so I guess the two companies are perfectly aligned.

I wonder, though, what other members of the vaping community think of the VPZ/ASA verdict. Another unnecessary own goal, perhaps?

See: Advertising watchdog rebukes firm over claims its 'vape clinic' could help people quit smoking (Channel 4 News)

Brief encounter – Nicola Sturgeon

So. Farewell, then, Nicola Sturgeon.

The first minister of Scotland is to stand down as soon as the Scottish National Party elects a new leader. And didn’t she just milk the announcement? Watching it live I thought she’d never stop.

Her statement went on for the best part of 25 minutes (Liz Truss took 60 seconds!) and by the time she was replying - at length, obviously - to a fourth question from the assembled journalists I’d had enough and turned off the TV.

Not only does she love the sound of her own voice but as the ASI’s Eamonn Butler tweeted, ‘On a quick count, Nicola Sturgeon's statement today uses the word “me” 21 times and “I” 85 times.’

I’ll leave others better informed than me to comment on her legacy but having spent a considerable chunk of my life in Scotland (17 years), being married to a Scot (for almost 31 years), and still being a regular visitor to Scotland (I should have been in St Andrews this week but that’s another story), you will appreciate my interest.

Also (and I've told this story before, so apologies), many years ago I had a brief and somewhat frosty encounter with the future FM. The date was January 30, 2002, and the Scottish Parliament's health and community care committee was meeting to consider the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Scotland) Bill.

In those days the nationalists were still in opposition and the Scottish Executive had yet to be rebranded (by the SNP) as the Scottish ‘Government’ following their landslide victory in 2007.

Sturgeon however was already making a name for herself. Not only was she a member of the health committee, she was the SNP's shadow minister for health and had introduced the Bill that was designed to ban tobacco advertising and sponsorship in Scotland ahead of the rest of the UK.

Other witnesses included Professor Gerard Hastings and his colleague Dr Lynn MacFadyen (Centre for Tobacco Control Research), Dr Sinead Jones (British Medical Association), and Malcolm Chisholm MSP (Minister for Health and Community Care).

As the only opponent of the Bill that morning I was an easy target for Sturgeon and other members of the committee. Here are some examples of our testy exchanges:

Nicola Sturgeon: You state in your submission that you receive donations from tobacco companies. Exactly what proportion of your funding comes from the tobacco industry?

Me: We have always been open about that. It's about 96 per cent.

Sturgeon: It is therefore reasonable to say that you are the mouthpiece of the tobacco industry and that it is hardly surprising that you argue against a ban on tobacco advertising?

Me: Funding has to come from somewhere to set up a smokers' rights group ... The only people who will fund us are the tobacco companies. I will give you an idea of our independence. We have just lost about a third of our funding because the company Gallaher Tobacco no longer funds us. All last year we carried out a big campaign against HM Customs and Excise because of its treatment of ordinary shoppers who go across the Channel to buy cheap booze and fags. Gallaher was disturbed by the campaign because it was trying to work closely with Customs and Excise for its own good reasons. Had we not been independent we would have done what we were told but I was prepared to lose a third of our funding because I believe in our independence. I sit here as someone who is independent. I am not here to represent the tobacco industry.

Sturgeon: Some people might find it a bit difficult to believe that the tobacco companies would continue to provide 96 per cent of your funding if they did not feel that you were promoting their message.

Me: It's important that an organisation such as Forest should take part in the debate. Most of our work is media-related. If it were not for Forest the smoking debate would be one-sided. Every debate has two sides. Forest is the only smokers' group that is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to speak to the media. It is important that in a democratic society both sides of the debate are put. It is important for the credibility of the Health and Community Committee that I am expressing a different point of view from that expressed by most witnesses.

Sturgeon: I agree whole-heartedly that both sides of the debates must be heard. In the interest of democracy, it is also important that the committee and the public know exactly what agenda a witness may or may not have.

Me: As you know, our submission mentions where our money comes from.

Sturgeon: You say in your submission that advertising is not directed at attracting new customers, but at encouraging existing smokers to switch brands. How do you expect people to believe that? Tobacco companies are losing 13,000 customers every year through tobacco-related deaths and yet you expect us to believe that tobacco companies are not trying to recoup that loss by encouraging new people to take up smoking. I refer you to a 1998 study that shows that much tobacco advertising is increasingly directed at areas of potential market growth, particularly at young people and those living in deprived communities.

Me: Those questions must be directed to the tobacco industry. I am not here to represent the tobacco industry. I am here to say that, as far as smokers are concerned, a ban on tobacco advertising is a restriction on their freedom to receive consumer information. We are particularly concerned at the attempt to ban advertising via the internet. The idea that people may not actively look up a tobacco company's site and get information that might help in their choice of purchase of a legal product is extraordinary. There is no way that websites are being thrust in people's faces.

Sturgeon: I have difficulty with the argument that you are not directing advertising at young people, and yet you are extremely concerned about website advertising, which most people would accept is …

Me: You keep saying "you" as if I am the tobacco industry. I am not the tobacco industry.

Sturgeon: We might disagree on that, but we will leave that argument to one side. Your written submission repeatedly states that tobacco advertising has a social purpose – it gives people information about different brands of cigarettes. How credible is that argument? When I see a tobacco billboard, the image is the only thing that strikes me. Usually, a picture portrays smoking as good and there is information about the content of the cigarettes in the small print at the bottom of the advertisement.

Me: Tobacco advertising has become more obscure over the years – that is one reason why losing advertising will not make a great difference to many smokers. I don't think that banning advertising will have any marked difference on overall consumption. If any government or group of politicians wishes to introduce a bill to ban anything, they must be clear about their aims and must be pretty certain that the effect will be marked, otherwise they will make a pointless political gesture.

Later, after I suggested that representatives of the advertising and tobacco industries should have been invited to give evidence to the committee ("Getting their view third hand seems a bit odd"), we crossed swords again:

Sturgeon: You have repeatedly said that you are not giving us the views of the tobacco industry, but you are now saying that it is important we hear your evidence so that we can get the views of the tobacco industry. [Note: I didn't say that at all!] It has to be one thing or the other. I am having difficulty with your argument that you are not here to promote the views of the tobacco industry.

Me: I think that is a bit of a cheap shot. A lot of the questions that have been put to me today should be put to representatives of the tobacco industry instead. It would make sense for you to hear directly from the tobacco and advertising industries. They could give you the replies that you seek – which I clearly cannot give you – face to face.

Looking back it wasn't my greatest moment, but I survived. Sturgeon, meanwhile, continued to ascend the Scottish political ladder.

In 2003 she was appointed shadow minister for justice. In 2004 she was elected deputy leader of the SNP and led the party in the Scottish Parliament until 2007 when party leader Alex Salmond was elected as an MSP whereupon she became deputy first minister following the SNP's landslide victory in the Scotland parliamentary election.

When Salmond resigned as first minister and party leader following the 2014 referendum, Sturgeon succeeded him in office. And like her predecessor and mentor, she too has failed to deliver independence despite it being her goal – and arguably her obsession – since the age of 16 (as she told us on more than one occasion this morning).

I think though that will pale into insignificance when the real failures of her time in office - in health and education especially - are properly reviewed and reported by journalists who will hopefully be less in thrall to her (and her successor) now that she is leaving office.

And don't get me started on the shocking state of Scotland's ferries which is doing untold damage to island communities.

What's not in doubt though is the extent to which her resignation appears to have been been influenced by that of New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern only a few weeks ago.

"I’m leaving," said Ardern, "because with such a privileged role comes responsibility – the responsibility to know when you are the right person to lead and also when you are not. I know what this job takes. And I know that I no longer have enough in the tank to do it justice. It’s that simple."

According to Sturgeon:

"Being First Minister of Scotland is in my – admittedly biased – opinion the best job in the world ... However, since my first moments in the job, I have believed that part of serving well would be to know – almost instinctively – when the time is right to make way for someone else.

"And when that time comes, to have the courage to do so – even if, to many across the country, and in my party, it might feel too soon. In my head and my heart I know that time is now ..."

Full statement here. Pass me an onion ... and cue violins.

Path to prohibition

Wars produce strange bedfellows but it makes me laugh that in the war on tobacco and nicotine anti-smoking campaigners are often embraced as allies by vaping advocates.

Take ASH. I understand why their (somewhat reluctant) endorsement of e-cigarettes as a less harmful alternative to combustible tobacco is welcomed by many vaping groups but, as I will never stop pointing out, everything ASH does is driven by the belief (which it shares, ironically, with Philip Morris) that the best thing any smoker can do is quit cigarettes and nicotine altogether.

I wasn’t surprised therefore when it was reported that ASH supports the introduction of an excise tax on disposal vapes that would almost double their cost. Plain packaging for e-cigarettes is also on the agenda, and has been for some time.

According to the Guardian on Saturday:

Vapes should be taxed and displayed in plain packaging behind the counter to reduce their popularity among children, health campaigners and councils have warned.

To tackle the rapidly growing popularity among children and young people, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) is calling on Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, to set out a £4 excise tax on single disposable vapes on top of the usual £4.99 price.

The Local Government Association (LGA) is also requesting action, urging ministers to tighten regulation on the display and marketing of vaping products to match tobacco.

Where to start?

Like tobacco (and alcohol) it is already illegal to sell e-cigarettes to anyone under 18 so if there is a problem with vapes, disposable or otherwise, target the seller not the consumer. After all, the overwhelming majority of vapers are adults who have quit or are trying to quit smoking.

If you’re genuinely interested in people’s health - rather than scaremongering about children taking up a habit that has considerably fewer risks than smoking - why put unnecessary obstacles in the way? Be honest, some teenagers will always rebel. Surely it’s better they do so by vaping rather than smoking?

Moreover the majority of adult smokers are in lower socio-economic groups so almost doubling the price of disposable vapes is hardly going to encourage them to switch even if it’s still cheaper than buying tobacco from legitimate retailers. (Illicit sources are another matter.)

Yes, there are other, non-disposable, e-cigarettes available but, as I have argued for years, many smokers will only switch to vaping if the device is as simple to use as a cigarette. (See: Convenience and competition are key for emerging products, March 2016.)

And that, surely, is the point of disposable vapes? As well as being relatively cheap compared to tobacco and even non-disposable vapes, they are very simple to use.

To this I would add that there is still very little evidence that never smokers are taking up vaping or switching from vaping to smoking in significant numbers, so what's the problem?

The problem is anti-smoking groups like ASH calling for price hikes on a device that offers smokers an alternative to the far riskier combustible product they currently enjoy.

Worse, their counterparts in Scotland want to go further and ban disposable vapes, citing environmental issues. How long before campaigners in England do the same? And after that?

Regular readers will know that the path to prohibition - the eradication of all tobacco and nicotine products - is well mapped out yet many ‘pro-choice’ vaping advocacy groups seem wilfully blind to the very obvious direction of travel.

Sticking one’s head in the sand is rarely a good idea. But if they refuse to see what’s happening, more fool them.

Below: An image from a current Philip Morris campaign on social media.

Estimated cost of smoking hits peak absurdity

Thirteen months ago I noted that:

According to ASH the cost of smoking to society has risen to £17 billion a year, a scarcely believable increase of £5 billion since they last got their abacus out in 2018.

See: Partisan pressure group says smoking costs society £17bn a year.

Forest's reaction to what I described as 'ASH's tortured calculations' was summed up in two words - ‘absurd’ and ‘contrived’.

Incredibly, despite the Office for National Statistics reporting that smoking rates in the UK have fallen to their lowest level (13.3%) since records began, a new report commissioned by ASH now argues that:

The total cost of smoking to the UK economy in 2022 is estimated to be just over £173 billion.

This absurdly inflated figure is broken down as follows:

1. Productivity costs. These total just under £31 billion. The largest single component is reduced output due to expenditure on tobacco products compared to other goods and services, amounting to just under £14 billion. Reduced employment for smokers compared to non-smokers, and reduced earnings for working smokers compared to non-smokers, both account for between £7 billion and £8 billion of reduced productivity.

2. Service costs. These total just over £18.6 billion. The additional cost of informal care in the social sector is the largest single component of service costs at just over £9 billion, followed by the cost of additional unmet need for social care services at just over £5.7 billion, and the cost of smoking to the NHS at £2.2 billion.

3. Cost of early deaths from smoking. This is the largest single component of costs at just under £124 billion.

I've read the report and what stands out for me is the monotonous use of the words 'estimates', 'estimating' and 'estimated'.

It reminds me of something the late Lord Harris, chairman of Forest from 1987 to 2006, wrote almost 20 years ago in relation to the estimated risks of passive smoking:

If laymen dare to question any of these guesstimates and projections the sophisticated statisticians take refuge behind their computers which have been heavily programmed to incorporate a variety of elaborate assumptions and statistical techniques.

And since researchers have discovered that the bigger the reported risk the better the chance of attracting funding and getting their results published (known in the trade as ‘publication bias’), they have exerted much ingenuity, as we shall see, in what is known as ‘data dredging’ – that is, torturing the statistics until they confess!

Naturally, this new 'analysis' was published ahead of next month's Budget so you won't be surprised by ASH's spin on it – Chancellor urged to make Big Tobacco pay for the massive burden it puts on public finances.

Chris Snowdon has written an excellent article – How much does smoking cost Britain? – that takes a more forensic scalpel to the issue. If I have one small quibble it’s when he writes:

The ‘societal cost’ figure of £173 billion is designed to make it look as if it is everybody’s business, but it is so obviously suspect that ASH haven’t been using it in their PR. Instead, they have focused on a claim from the same report that smoking imposes a net cost on taxpayers of £9.5 billion.

The £173 billion figure may not be front and centre but it’s there all right. You’ll find it in the news release promoting the report:

The analysis by Howard Reed of Landman Economics for ASH is based on the latest evidence on the costs of smoking to the UK economy, society and public finances. It shows that the burden smoking puts on the NHS (£2.2 billion) and social care (£1.3 billion) is only a small part of the £21 billion total cost to the public purse. The biggest burden, £17 billion, is due to reductions in taxes and increases in benefits as a result of the sickness, disability and premature death caused by smoking. Smoking doesn’t just harm public finances, it also damages the wider economy at a total cost of £173 billion in 2022.

From an estimate of £12 billion in 2018 to £173 billion in 2022. Who could possibly question that?

A tribute to Russell Lewis

I was in London yesterday to attend 'A tribute to Russell Lewis' who died, aged 95, last year.

As I explained here, Russell was a non-executive director of Forest for 30 years, which is how I came to know him.

Prior to that he was a leader writer for the Daily Telegraph, then the Daily Mail, but there was a lot I didn't know about him.

From 1970 to 1975, for example, he was director of the Conservative Political Centre. During that time he fell out with Conservative leader Ted Heath and fell in with Margaret Thatcher, writing the first biography of the future prime minister.

Back then he was a keen advocate of Britain's entry into the European Economic Community (EEC), as it was then called, before changing his mind as it evolved into something rather different.

Yesterday's tribute took place at the Carlton Club, 'founded in 1832 as the original home of the Conservative Party'.

Born in Caerphilly in South Wales but settled in England for his entire adult life, Russell was a member of the club for many years and one of the speakers yesterday was former Conservative Chancellor, the Rt Hon Lord Lamont of Lerwick.

There was also music and poetry (performed or recited by members of the Lewis family) followed by tea and sandwiches (and a glass of champagne).

'A tribute to Russell Lewis' was more intimate but it took me back to the memorial service at St John’s, Smith Square, for Lord Harris of High Cross, one of the founders of the Institute of Economic Affairs and chairman of Forest from 1987 until his death in 2006.

On that occasion Russell was one of many speakers paying tribute. Others included another former Chancellor, Lord Howe. Lord Tebbit and journalist Simon Heffer spoke too.

What Ralph Harris shared with Russell was not only a belief in free markets and individual freedom but an openness to new ideas plus a certain contrariness.

Lord Lamont spoke of Russell's "warmth" but he and Ralph also had a steely determination to win the battle of ideas.

Neither chose the easy political path so I was pleased that Lord Lamont mentioned Russell's role with Forest, noting that his old friend was a non-smoker.

An archive of Russell's many pamphlets, books and articles is being created online. It's not yet complete but you can visit it here.

See also: 'Russell Lewis, Conservative intellectual who wrote an early biography of Margaret Thatcher' (Telegraph)

Below: Russell with his son Dan at Forest's 40th anniversary dinner in 2019

Confusion reigns

Two more cases of mistaken identity.

On Friday I was invited to appear on TalkTV to discuss a report that Britain could be the only G7 country to go into recession this year.

On Sunday I got a call from a broadsheet journalist who wanted my response to the 4,000 word essay by Liz Truss in the Sunday Telegraph.

I quickly realised that the person they really wanted to speak to was Simon Clarke MP, the former levelling up minister.

It followed two previous incidents, described here, when I was again mistaken for my near namesake.

I wonder if anyone has ever called him expecting to speak to the director of the smokers’ lobby group Forest?