Best book in the world? Don't ask me!

Two months ago I received an invitation to take part in the Bookshop Barnie Xmas Bash at Foyles in London on December 17.

If you've never heard of a Bookshop Barnie click here.

The Xmas Bash is different to the usual format but no less terrifying. Instead of one author there are six contestants, each one arguing for 'The Best Book in the World'.

Participants are given two and a half minutes to present their case. After a brief Q&A three contestants are voted off. The remaining speakers are given a further minute before the audience votes for the winner.

Organiser Austin Williams did his very best to appeal to my ego:

Previous Xmas Barnie Balloon debaters have included Alain de Botton, Cosmo Landesman, Shiv Malik, Razia Iqbal, Zoe Williams, Tristram Hunt, James Delingpole, David Aaronovitch, Evan Davis and more.

I would be delighted if you would say yes – notwithstanding that you may regret it nearer the time – but it is an enjoyable event with a good reputation.

How could I decline? Well, I'm ashamed to say I did, but only after procrastinating for several weeks. Eventually, and with some regret, I replied as follows:

Dear Austin,

I was very flattered to be asked and I did give it some thought. Unfortunately the invitation freaked me out a little so I buried it under a long list of things to do.

Your comment "notwithstanding that you may regret it nearer the time" struck a chord because while I try not to turn down things that are out of my comfort zone, as the date approaches I invariably ask myself why on earth I agreed to do it.

I should add that arguing for 'Best Book in the World' filled me with dread because I read so little. Four years studying Eng Lit at university was such a chore it put me off books for 20 years. Even now I read relatively few books and I can't imagine many people who are less qualified to talk about 'The Best Book in the World'.

Anyway the event kicks off with drinks at 6.00pm and finishes at 7.30 leaving, in Austin's words, "plenty of time for yet more drinks".

I would have gone, if only to watch, but I'm otherwise engaged (in Ireland). Warmly recommended, though.

Plain packaging doesn't work! New evidence goes online

We've launched a short online ad campaign to promote the latest evidence about plain packaging.

You'll find the ad on the following blogs:

Archbishop Cranmer, Bishop Hill, ConservativeHome, Diplomat magazine, Talk Carswell, Guido Fawkes, Harry's Place, Labour Uncut, Labour List, Left Foot Forward, Liberal Democrat Voice, Liberal Vision, Mark Pack, Newsbiscuit, Pink News, Political Betting, Political Scrapbook, PublicNet, Standpoint Magazine, Tim Worstall, UK Polling Report.

Last time we advertised via MessageSpace Labour List asked for our ad to be removed.

I'm told the editor always kicks off about smoking-related ads so let's see how long it takes before we're banned – again!

Update: Didn't quite make it to lunch before Labour List pulled our ad.

Thankfully Left Foot Forward and Labour Uncut have a rather more liberal attitude towards free speech.

PS. Someone has just said to me, "Bloody stupid. It's as if they don't trust their readers to make up their own minds."

Ironically Labour List's Twitter profile states, "Democracy means government by discussion". But only when it suits them.

Memo to the Prime Minister from Down Under

Today is the second anniversary of the introduction of plain packaging in Australia.

So what's the verdict?

Plain packaging isn't working says Forest

Campaigners have urged the Government to abandon plans to introduce plain packaging of tobacco.

The smokers’ group Forest which runs the Hands Off Our Packs campaign says the UK must learn from Australia where standardised packaging was introduced on 1st December 2012.

New evidence, says Forest, suggests plain packaging will not reduce the number of teenagers who smoke.

Instead of declining since the introduction of plain packaging, youth smoking rates have gone up. According to the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare, youth smoking rates have increased by 36% in the period 2010-2013.

Plain packaging has had no impact on adults either. Monthly figures for the adult (18+) smoking rate are consistent with the long-term decline of smoking in Australia. Far from accelerating that decline, says Forest, the trend for the year 2013 shows a 1.8% annual increase. (Figures courtesy Roy Morgan Research, Australia's longest-established market research company with a strong reputation for reliability and accuracy.)

Plain packaging, says Forest, is also fuelling the black market. In Australia in 2012 illicit tobacco stood at 11.5% of tobacco consumption. By mid-2014 it reached an unprecedented 14.3% share of the market, an increase of nearly 25% (KPMG, Illicit tobacco in Australia, 2014 Half Year Report, October 2014).

Simon Clark, director of Forest, said: "Plain packaging hasn’t worked. Youth smoking rates in Australia have gone up since it was introduced and illicit trade has soared. If alarm bells aren’t ringing in Westminster they should be.

"Standardised packaging would be a huge risk with no beneficial effect. We urge the Government to learn from Australia’s experience and abandon this ill-conceived and potentially costly measure."

Note: Official Australian Government figures from the National Drugs Strategy Household Survey show the number of 12-17 year olds smoking every day has increased from 2.5 out of 100 (2010) to 3.4 out of 100 (2013). Plain packaging was introduced on 1st December 2012.

Are you listening, Prime Minister?

PS. According to tobacco control plain packaging has been a "resounding success":

Cancer Research UK said the country’s experiment with unbranded packaging had led to falling smoking rates without creating an illegal black market.

Sarah Woolnough, the charity’s executive director of policy and information, said: "This is an anniversary worth celebrating. Australia took the lead on this issue and two years later they’re reaping the rewards.

"Smoking rates have fallen, more people than ever support standard packs and scare stories about flooding the market with cheap, illegal tobacco have failed to materialise. It’s been a resounding success in Australia and we’re confident the same can happen here.

"Research has shown that removing the colourful designs of tobacco packs reduces the appeal of smoking to children. This measure will help cut the number of people killed by smoking and we’re urging the UK government to take the next steps as soon as possible."

Needless to say one news agency saw fit to issue a report based on CRUK's comments without a single balancing fact or opinion - hence this report in the Yorkshire Post (Charity calls for plain cigarette packaging in UK ‘without delay’) and similar reports in the Irish Examiner, Herald and Metro.

Most media, including the Press Association, have ignored the story.

Memo to Save E-Cigs: spare us the moral crusade

The Save E-Cigs campaign has written to the Speaker John Bercow about the proposal to ban the use of e-cigarettes inside the Palace of Westminster.

Clive Bates, former director of ASH and now a leading advocate for e-cigarettes, has described the letter as "outstanding" and "a great template for anyone trying to bring reason to the vaping debate".

It's a good letter when it sticks to the facts, adding references for verification. For example:

We know from the latest statistics produced by the Office for National Statistics that e-cigarettes are used almost exclusively by current and former smokers. We know that e-cigarette used in public does not renormalise smoking [5]. We know that e-cigarettes are not a gateway into smoking [6]. We know that e-cigarette use in public does not lead to children using e-cigarettes [7].

What about this, though:

A major scientific study undertaken by Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos and Professor Riccardo Polosa concluded that the “effects of e-cigarette use on by standers are minimal compared with conventional cigarettes". A review of the available literature conducted last year by researchers at the Drexel University School of Public Health in Philadelphia concluded that “exposures of bystanders pose no apparent concern".

I'm sure the "effects of e-cigarette use on by-standers" are indeed minimal but so are the effects of "conventional cigarettes" in most situations. Given their concerns about the use of junk science to undermine the use of e-cigarettes, it's a bit rich for the e-cig movement to embrace the politics of secondhand smoke to advance their cause.

Equally unimpressive are comments that range from subjective to pure speculation. For example:

There is never a situation where it is better to smoke than to vape.

Never? What about people who enjoy smoking and don't like e-cigarettes? I think they should be the judge of whether it's better to smoke or vape.

Professor John Britton from the Royal College of Physicians has said: “If all the smokers in Britain stopped smoking cigarettes and started using e-cigarettes we would save five million deaths in people who are alive today."

Yeah, that must be true because one of the country's leading tobacco control campaigners says so, and they're always right, aren't they?!

We very much hope that you will continue to support your colleagues who have done the right thing by switching from smoking to vaping.

Done the right thing? This isn't about right and wrong. It's a matter of choice.

I may be reading too much into this but language matters and as soon as you introduce the concept of right and wrong it suggests a moral crusade.

Choosing to smoke is no less virtuous than vaping. The battle that has to be fought is freedom of choice versus excessive regulation, not vaping (good) versus smoking (bad).

Unless of course you want to be allied to the anti-smoking industry. Good luck with that!

This letter from @SaveEcigs is outstanding: a great template for anyone trying to bring reason to the vaping debate > http://t.co/Q44CHJKxtC

— Clive Bates (@Clive_Bates) November 26, 2014

Update on Friday, November 28, 2014 at 8:18 by Simon Clark

This post has been amended.

See Comments for a brief explanation.

ASA bans ad for 'smoking-friendly' app

I meant to write about this a couple of weeks ago ...

Anyway, further to yesterday's post about the Advertising Standards Authority and our two-year battle over a Department of Health ad that claimed that "just 15 cigarettes cause a mutation that can lead to cancerous tumours", it's worth noting another ASA adjudication on the subject of smoking.

As some of you know, Imperial Tobacco is responsible for an initiative called Smoke Spots. There's a website and a mobile app that allow smokers to find "smoking-friendly places near you".

Primarily this means pubs and bars that have outdoor smoking areas but Smoke Spots doesn't milk the issue.

Quite often, in fact, Smoke Spots will recommend a specific venue and I can't for the life of me see why it should have special appeal for smokers because there's no mention of a smoking area.

Likewise I've never seen a picture of anyone smoking on the Smoke Spots website. (God forbid!)

Visitors have to take it on trust there's a half decent smoking area in the vicinity but there are times when a Smoke Spots email arrives and I feel like shouting, "That looks lovely but where's the smoking area?!"

Needless to say, anti-smoking campaigners don't like Smoke Spots. It's not enough for smoking to be banned in every pub and club in the country. Tobacco controllers also want to deny smokers the most basic information that might help them find a comfortable place to light up outside their own home.

In July the Guardian reported, Health campaigners blast "Smoke Spots" site.

I don't know the outcome of that complaint but a similar complaint was sent to the Advertising Standards Authority which responded as follows:

ASA restricts smoking app ad (Insider Media)

The implication of the ASA's ruling is that by identifying 'smoking-friendly places near you' Smoke Spots is acting as a gateway to smoking. (Where have I heard that before?)

Do they have any evidence that non-smokers have been encouraged to take up smoking as a result of the ad or app in question?

Smoke Spots provides legitimate information for consumers of a legal product, advising them where they can light up in relative comfort without inconveniencing non-smokers.

But instead of telling Cancer Research and other complainants where to go, the ASA fudged the issue. It upheld just one of the six issues it investigated but that was enough for the ads to be banned:

The ASA concluded that the ads must not appear again in their current form and that Smoke Spots must ensure future campaigns do not "condone or encourage an unsafe practice".

See also: Imperial Tobacco ads for smoking app banned by ASA (Marketing)

PS. I first wrote about Smoke Spots in January. With unerring prescience the post was entitled Smoke Spots: enjoy it while you can.

I urge you to visit the site and make it a success. Oh, and spread the word!

The Independent Reviewer of ASA Adjudications is sorry but ...

I'm loathe to return to the subject because it bores me as much as it must bore you.

Nevertheless I thought you should know the final outcome of the complaint we took to the Advertising Standards Authority concerning a Department of Health advertisement first broadcast on television in December 2012.

The matter has been dragging on for almost two years but here's a brief resume:

Smokers will be told that just 15 cigarettes cause a mutation that can lead to cancerous tumours in a return to hard-hitting health campaigns, the Department of Health announced today.

Government launches £2.7m campaign on "hidden dangers" of smoking (Taking Liberties, December 28, 2012)

Our complaint was based on two counts: misleading information and lack of substantiation.

The ASA executive conducted a frustratingly long but ultimately thorough investigation during which no fewer than three recommendations were drafted upholding our complaint.

The DH challenged the first two but having given government officials every opportunity to defend the ad the executive drafted a third and final recommendation that still upheld our complaint. This was then forwarded to the ASA Council for ratification.

What happened next was extraordinary but hardly unexpected. Ignoring the recommendation of its own staff, the Council sided with the DH and rejected our complaint!

Our only option was to ask Sir Hayden Phillips, the Independent Reviewer of ASA Adjudications, to look at the Council's decision.

Our request was hand delivered to his office on August 4. A few days later we received an acknowledgement and a fairly long-winded explanation of his role.

I didn't hold out much hope and I was right. Having reviewed the case Sir Hayden is "not persuaded on this occasion that the [ASA] Council has made substantially flawed decisions within the proper limits of its own responsibilities".

In somewhat plainer English, he wrote:

The Council is not bound to follow recommendations from the executive or, indeed, I have to say, from an expert who has been appointed. The central issue I have to consider is therefore not one of process but of whether the rationale for the Council’s ruling is reasonable and defensible.

Furthermore:

As I said in my letter to you of 7 August it is not my role to substitute my judgement for that of the Council but to understand their reasons for reaching the judgement which they have and to consider whether a complainant has presented persuasive reasons that a ruling is unreasonable or unfair.

I am not persuaded that is the case. The Council followed their expert’s advice on the science but not his view on interpretation; which they are fully entitled to do if their view is a defensible one and not perverse or irrational. It seems to me to be neither of those.

Case A13-218177 is therefore closed and there is nothing more we can do. Nor would I want to, frankly. The process was a joke from start to finish.

The ASA executive allowed the DH to challenge not one but two draft recommendations. When the executive upheld our complaint for a third time the ASA Council - chaired by former Labour minister Lord Smith - gave the DH a get-out-of-jail card by rejecting its recommendation!

The Council may be entitled to over-rule recommendations from the executive but despite Sir Hayden's best efforts to explain the process it still seems odd.

There is however some small consolation in the fact that Sir Hayden also wrote:

May I say that having examined all the papers on the ASA file I can totally understand why your review request is expressed as such a strong letter of protest at both the process and the eventual adjudication. You went through an 18 month investigation which increasingly frustrated you in its length and in which you received no less than three Draft Recommendations which all proposed to uphold your complaint.

I can therefore fully understand why you find it difficult to believe that the Council could take a different view from the Executive. But it did and I am afraid it was, in procedural terms, fully entitled to do so. There can be no flaw of process in that respect as draft recommendations are exactly what they say they are and rulings are entirely matters for the Council.

Re-reading his letter I note he also uses the word "sorry" three times:

I am sorry it has taken me so long to give you my substantive response ...

I am therefore sorry to say that I am not persuaded on this occasion …

And finally:

I realise that this decision will be a disappointment to you, especially given the length of the process and then its outcome, and for that I am sorry.

Yes, we get it – you're sorry, Sir Hayden! Fat lot of good that is.

See also these previous posts on the subject: Spot the difference: how the Advertising Standards Authority changed its tune (July 30), At last, the ASA verdict on Forest complaint about DH "mutation" ad (July 30), On the record: that Forest-ASA correspondence in full (July 31), Bad week for the Advertising Standards Authority and the Department of Health (August 3).

Next ... the ASA rules against Smoke Spots. Fancy that!

E-cig gateway claim "unfounded", first official figures reveal

BBC News is reporting that:

The concern electronic cigarettes are a gateway to smoking might be unfounded, the first official UK figures suggest.

See: E-cigarette 'lure' fears might be unfounded (BBC News)

Inevitably there's a rider:

Most of the figures from the ONS are for the year 2013, so it is possible that the picture is still changing.

Nevertheless the stats support those who say there's no evidence vaping leads to smoking.

In contrast those public health campaigners who have stoked up fears, warning of an apocalyptic future in which hundreds of thousands of non-smokers (including children) use e-cigarettes as a gateway to smoking – well, they're looking pretty stupid today.

The question though is this:

How many more "unfounded" claims will do the rounds before people finally recognise the truth about the anti-smoking industry?

Nothing tobacco control campaigners say should be taken seriously until it is throughly investigated with proper research and genuine statistics (not estimates and calculations).

As one or two people commented here last week, perhaps e-cigarettes will generate the cracks that will see the edifice of public health collapse in a heap, buried beneath its own hubris.

I'm not holding my breath though.

What matters more: freedom of choice or harm reduction?

I had an interesting meeting last week.

It was with someone who wanted to know more about our new campaign, Action on Consumer Choice.

He was particularly interested in our plans to defend e-cigarettes and vaping.

"But what?" he asked, "is your USP?"

It was a fair question. There are numerous groups and individuals – including tobacco control campaigners – already fighting on behalf of vapers so what makes our initiative different?

The clue is in the name.

"Freedom of choice," I replied.

That, I believe, is the difference between us and everyone else bar a handful of advocates like Dick Puddlecote and Chris Snowdon.

We believe in freedom of choice for all nicotine consumers. Can that be said of the majority of e-cig users? I'm not sure it can.

It certainly can't be said of the tobacco control campaigners who have become outspoken supporters of e-cigarettes.

With few exceptions they are driven by one thing and one thing only – harm reduction.

Nothing wrong with that. Harm reduction is a laudable, even admirable, goal.

But, and here's my point: in a free society freedom of choice is no less important.

You rarely hear that argument from advocates of e-cigarettes. All I hear are the words "harm reduction" repeated ad nauseum as if nothing else matters.

Of course we support harm reduction – it would be insane not to – but we also support an adult's right to make an informed choice to smoke tobacco, which is still a legal product.

After all, if harm reduction was the only goal think what it could mean for other potentially hazardous activities.

Average speed cameras would become the norm; drinkers would be restricted to one pint of beer a day; tackling would be eliminated from every form of rugby, and so on.

Sadly, in their understandable but holier-than-thou enthusiasm for a product that may or may not prolong their lives, a great many vapers have lost sight of the bigger picture.

So the answer to the headline 'What matters more: freedom of choice or harm reduction?' is … 'neither'. They are equally important.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is Forest's USP.