The cost of obesity is more nanny state interventionism

Iain Dale never struck me as a gullible chap.

And yet, for an hour this evening, I listened as he repeatedly told his listeners on LBC that obesity is costing the UK £47 billion a year.

The figure, we were told, is almost as much as the cost of smoking (£57 billion).

This alarmist information was published today in a study that claimed "Obesity is a greater burden on the UK's economy than armed violence, war and terrorism".

To be fair to Iain, who is reasonably libertarian on lifestyle issues, he didn't hide his belief in personal responsibility, nor did he agree with callers who wanted the government to "do something" if only "for the children".

I would however like to have heard someone challenging the figures because estimates and calculations such as this have a habit of gaining currency through repetition.

A decade ago, for example, were were told that treating smoking-related diseases costs the NHS £1.5 billion a year. There was no evidence to support the claim. It was an estimate.

This guess later rose to £2.5 billion and it's been rising ever since.

In response to the hard fact (based on Treasury figures) that tobacco raises £10-12 billion for the government every year, anti-smoking campaigners had to come up with a new estimate for the cost of smoking.

According to ASH:

The total cost to society (in England) is approximately £12.9 billion a year. This includes the cost to the NHS of treating diseases caused by smoking in England which is approximately £2 billion a year. Other costs include:

loss in productivity due to premature deaths (£3bn)
cost to businesses of smoking breaks (£5bn)
smoking-related sick days (£1bn)
social care costs of older smokers (£1.1bn)
costs of fires caused by smokers' materials (£391m)

See The Economics of Tobacco (ASH, 2014)

Note how the cost of treating smoking-related diseases (most of which are multifactorial) has become the more definitive "diseases caused by smoking". When did that happen?

As for those other figures, where is the hard evidence? In most cases it doesn't exist because the figures are based on estimates and calculations – just like the number of deaths said to be caused by smoking and passive smoking.

According to the McKinsey Global Institute, however, the economic cost of smoking is actually far higher – £57 billion a year in the UK alone!

What are we to make of that, and the alleged cost of obesity (£47 billion)? Do we meekly accept the figures are correct and act accordingly?

One caller to Iain Dale's LBC show complained about the number of takeaway food shops that had opened in her area.

Iain rightly pointed out that shops generally open and thrive where there's a demand but the implication of the call was clear: the government should step in and close them down, or prevent them opening in the first place.

According to the McKinsey report a series of 44 interventions could bring 20 per cent of overweight or obese people in UK back to normal weight within five to 10 years. They include:

Portion control in fast food packaged goods
Investing in parental education
Introducing healthy meals in schools and workplaces.
Changing the school curriculum to include more physical exercise
Encouraging more physical activities by introducing bicycle lanes

I'd love to see what the other 39 interventions are, not to mention the cost of all those bicycle lanes. The mind boggles.

Meanwhile, talking of bicycles, can I draw your attention to this hilarious tweet by the BBC's Jeremy Vine:

The moment I got stopped by police with a speed gun, checking cyclists today https://t.co/ytygaP4kY4

— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) November 20, 2014

Unbelievably, Vine was stopped by a policeman with a hand held radar gun for cycling at more than six miles per hour in a cycle lane in Hyde Park.

The lesson seems to be: take up cycling to keep fit and lose weight and risk falling foul of the law for peddling too quickly.

It's similar to vaping: quit smoking for a healthier alternative and risk a fine for vaping in a public place.

Like the McKinsey report, you couldn't make it up.

Update: Thankfully not everyone is as gullible as the mainstream media: Obese people cost us £47bn? The Adam Smith Institute rips that to shreds in one comment (London Loves Business).

Chris Snowdon has also commented here.

The canonisation of Clive Bates

"Clive Bates has just published another brilliant post. It's a pity smokers have no Clive Bates!" writes Vapingpoint Liz.

The gist of her post, published yesterday, is that Clive is expertly picking apart the junk science surrounding e-cigarettes and smokers need someone like that on their side too.

Says Liz:

I wish someone would question the dodgy science about second hand smoke too - in defence of smokers and the warped fracturing of society that THAT dodgy science has caused. The anti smoking ideology, and the massive worldwide industry it has now become, needs to be unpicked piece by piece on the basis of the faulty science it has promoted.

Clive is a shrewd, sincere and intelligent campaigner. I have a lot of respect for him but I must point out – not for the first time – that the idolatry (#ImWithClive) that greets his every word is ironic because in my opinion he must take some share of the blame for the culture of intolerance that has swept the nation with regard to smoking and, by association, nicotine.

As director of ASH Clive was no stranger to fear mongering about passive smoking. Few of the allegations made much sense and during his time in charge the threat of second hand smoke was repeatedly debunked.

In April 2002, for example, following an exhaustive six-month investigation during which written and oral evidence was put forward by ASH, Cancer Research and Forest, among others, the Greater London Assembly Investigative Committee on Smoking in Public Places declined to recommend any further restrictions on smoking in public places.

According to Angie Bray, a joint author of the report:

The assembly spent six months investigating whether a smoking ban should be imposed in public places in London. After taking evidence from all sides, including health experts, it was decided that the evidence gathered did not justify a total smoking ban.

For Liz to suggest smokers need a Clive Bates ignores the fact that for several years there were people fighting the junk science on passive smoking. Sadly Clive wasn't one of them.

Those genuine freedom fighters included Ralph Harris who was chairman of Forest from 1987 until his death in 2006; Gian Turci; and Joe Jackson.

In 2005 Ralph (aka Lord Harris of High Cross) wrote a booklet published by Forest called 'Smoking Out The Truth: A Challenge to the Chief Medical Officer'. It began:

Hardly a week is allowed to pass without some new scare story about the perils of 'passive smoking'. One of the latest, based on an experiment in an Italian garage, is that tobacco smoke is more lethal than car exhaust fumes. Another was that 'passive smoking' is even more dangerous that direct smoking ...

As a lifelong pipe man I have increasingly come to mistrust the dogmatic vehemence with which the stop smoking (SS) brigade recycle their denunciations of 'passive smoking'. Certainly, smoke may be irritating or even upsetting to sensitive bystanders, as are popcorn, perfume and garlic on crowded tube trains. But lethal?

Despite a barrage of media publicity most non-smokers in my experience remained unmoved by dire warnings that tobacco smoke – massively diluted in the atmosphere – could actually kill them. It is this common sense implausibility that has goaded the tight network of anti-smoking lobbyists – ever more shrilly – to demonise ETS and brandish mounting estimates of its death toll.

I also have in front of me a report commissioned and published in 2005 by Forest. Entitled 'Prejudice and Propaganda: The Truth About Passive Smoking', it was researched and written by Gian Turci who loved nothing more than debunking junk science.

'Prejudice and Propaganda' began with some questions and answers about environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). For example:

Q: Why is the passive smoking argument so important to non-smokers?

A: Before the anti-smoking movement created what Dr Ken Denson of the Thame Thrombosis and Haemostasis Research Foundation called "the myth of passive smoking" smokers were largely tolerated by non-smokers. The general attitude was "They're only harming themselves." Anti-smokers therefore decided to argue that smokers were harming others around them which of course makes smoking "socially unacceptable".

It's a clever tactic and it's working. By constantly giving the impression (without ever proving) that ETS is a serious cause of ill health among non-smokers the anti-smoking lobby has been able to increase people's intolerance of smoking and deprive smokers of the important argument of free choice. In short: the anti-smoking movement has found passive smoking to be such an effective propaganda tool that objective science cannot be allowed to get in the way.

Clive was of course an active member of that anti-smoking movement.

Gian Turci's report featured a systematic examination of the evidence on the effects of passive smoking. In particular it listed all the studies available to 2004 that looked at the risk of lung cancer from ETS.

Having demonstrated the weakness of the antis' argument, Gian concluded:

The risk of getting lung cancer from passive smoking is minute in comparison to the risk of getting breast cancer from wearing a bra or leukaemia from eating twelve or more hot dogs each month or, more seriously, prostate cancer from drinking red wine.

He added:

Where does it all end? Should we forbid, control and regulate everything?

Sadly Gian is no longer around to answer his own question but the desire to "forbid, control and regulate" e-cigarettes was clearly inspired by the war on tobacco.

Another person fighting the good fight a decade ago was Joe Jackson. Joe may be a musician but I would argue he was as knowledgeable about the risks of smoking and second hand smoke as Clive is about the risks of vaping and e-cigarettes.

'The Smoking Issue' was published (but not commissioned) by Forest in 2004. An updated version, Smoke, Lies and the Nanny State, appeared in 2007.

Joe prefers the revised version. I like the original best. It was succinct, brilliantly written and made a powerful case. It began:

A couple of years ago I considered giving up my own moderate enjoyment of tobacco because of the constant barrage of horrific statistics. But anti-smoking propaganda in the USA (I was living mostly in New York) seemed so overblown, so hysterical, that I became sceptical.

So instead of giving up smoking, I started doing research. At first my mind was pretty open; I half expected to find that smoking was even worse than I thought and I decided that, since I wasn't a hardcore nicotine junkie, I could live without it.

Instead I've been astonished, again and again, by how flimsy much of the anti-smoking evidence really is. By now I'm absolutely convinced that the dangers of smoking (and 'secondhand smoke' in particular) are being greatly exaggerated for a number of reasons, many of which have less to do with health than with politics, money and fashion.

Copies of all three publications were delivered to MPs and the then Health Secretary John Reid. I know Reid shared our scepticism about the effects of passive smoking because Ralph Harris and I were in a private meeting with him when his chief advisor also questioned the evidence and Reid nodded his head in agreement.

Prior to writing 'The Smoking Issue' Joe had written articles for the New York Times and Daily Telegraph that attracted huge attention. He appeared on the Today programme and was invited to share a platform with John Reid at the 2004 Labour conference in Brighton, so you could say he was "a Clive Bates for smokers".

Unfortunately we were fighting opponents who were more than happy to use junk science to further their goal of a smoke free society. Social media such as Facebook and Twitter didn't exist so it was also very difficult to develop a groundswell of support among smokers or the general public who were largely apathetic.

More recently of course Chris Snowdon has done a great job highlighting the junk science that surrounds smoking and vaping. I'm thinking specifically of the smoking ban/heart attack "miracle" but I could list many more examples.

The great thing about Chris is that he exposes junk science wherever he finds it; he's not selective.

For avoidance of doubt I'm not questionng Clive's sincerity or his commitment to harm reduction, which is a perfectly honourable cause. I appreciate too that unlike many tobacco control campaigners he's not driven by a visceral hatred of the tobacco industry.

My point, quite simply, is this: Clive's canonisation by the vaping community ignores two important issues:

One, he helped create today's nicotine-intolerant society. Two, he supported questionable science when it suited him but when it doesn't he cries "foul".

Today he's doing a valuable job for vapers and it would be wrong not to acknowledge that or offer the vaping community our full support.

It's a pity though that our support for vapers isn't reciprocated by the likes of Clive Bates who rails against excessive regulation for smokeless tobacco yet supports both the smoking ban and plain packaging (for which there is still no evidence that it will reduce smoking rates).

I don't expect the level of support we happily offer vapers, merely a recognition that millions of adults choose to smoke tobacco knowing the health risks and they don't deserve to be bullied or stigmatised into quitting.

Is that too much to ask?

See also: Where is the empathy for smokers who don't want to quit?.

I also recommend this interview with Joe Jackson in the Telegraph in 2008 that refers to 'Smoke, Lies and the Nanny State' which the interviewer describes as "thoroughly researched and passionately argued".

A Clive Bates for smokers? We had one. Sadly most people weren't listening.

Star gazing

The Spectator Cigar Smoker of the Year Dinner took place at Boisdale of Canary Wharf on Sunday night.

It was a pain to get to – engineering works meant part of the Jubilee line was shut – but neither that nor the rain deterred 200 people from turning up.

Founded by Boisdale it was the second such event and lessons had been learned from last year's somewhat chaotic evening that culminated in Simon Le Bon winning the trophy and making a less than audible 'speech'.

This year we were promised "a triple A-list celebrity as a guest of honour" and the organisers delivered. Not just one but two: Arnold Schwarzenegger and Kelsey Grammer.

Grammer took his runners-up award with good grace. (Any other year he would have been a shoe-in for the main prize.) He genuinely seemed pleased to be there. "I'm so thrilled by the company this evening … I have met the most lovely women."

A mature lady at my table confessed she had thrown her arms around him and given him a big hug as he returned from the toilet. It's a tough life but he wears it well.

As a devoted fan of Frazier I was delighted merely to be in the same room as the great man.

Schwarzenegger also exuded star quality as he told guests, "As a body builder and as a movie star I’ve won a lot of awards, but this is the most ... recent."

He mocked the "crazy" smoking restrictions in California that prompted him to build a "smoking tent" in a courtyard outside the Governor's office.

Pity he didn't amend or reverse the legislation whilst he was in office, but that's another issue.

The presentation of the awards followed a champagne reception on the covered smoking terrace and dinner in the restaurant where we've hosted the Forest Freedom Dinner since 2012.

On arrival we were given a humidor bag containing a "New World selection" of five cigars plus lighter and cutter.

Grasping my bag in one hand and a glass of champagne in the other I went in search of a familiar face, without much success.

Truth is, the Cigar Smoker of the Year is very different to the type of event Forest puts on. Tickets cost £250 for a start but guests can well afford them. (I was on a freebie, before you ask.)

The first person I talked to was a young merchant banker. I then had a long chat with an older woman who worked in the City before 'retiring' to buy and run a London pub.

After selling it for a substantial profit she moved to the Algarve where she set up and ran a very successful fish 'n' chip shop!

Unfortunately evenings like this expose the chasm that exists between different types of smoker.

Speaking to guests several expressed a love of cigars but a disconcerting disdain for cigarettes. Even Boisdale, an oasis for all smokers, calls its smoking area the 'Cigar Terrace'.

To be fair I've never heard Ranald Macdonald, MD of Boisdale and a long-time supporter of Forest, rate cigarette smokers any less deserving of our support than cigar smokers.

The same goes for Jemma Freeman, MD of cigar importers Hunters & Frankau, but snobbery is rife in the cigar world where people are happy to suck up to ruthless dictators in countries like Cuba, for example, but are less willing to align themselves with the humble cigarette smoker.

Thankfully Sunday night's MC Tom Parker Bowles drew no such distinction when he referred to the principles of libertarianism "in an age where government is threatening to become bigger, more bossy and more interfering, where a person’s right to smoke in a car can become a crime, for God’s sake."

Finally the value of having a high profile celebrity at an event like this was never more obvious. The Independent, Mail Online, City AM and London Evening Standard all covered it, while the Mail featured extensive photos of the evening's two stars.

See also: Arnold Schwarzenegger wins Spectator Cigar Smoker of the Year Award (Spectator)

Tobacco control's secret society

The November issue of Tobacco Reporter has an interesting feature about last month's COP6.

No surprise that Moscow was the venue for an event whose full title was the Soviet-sounding 'Sixth session of the Conference of the Parties to the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control'.

Nor should anyone be surprised by what happened next:

Immediately following the opening remarks, the public was forced to leave the public gallery and prevented from observing discussions throughout the entire event.

On day two, the global health organisation banned all media, including those who received credentials from the FCTC. COP6 delegates then voted to raise cigarette tax rates, which the FCTC initially recommended to be set at 70 per cent, but chose to instead let the parties decide increases individually.

By the end of the week, the organisation had also recommended that all party members end all duty-free and tax-free sales of tobacco products, tax smokeless products at rates equal to combustible cigarettes and ban all types of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) or e-cigarettes.

Click here to access the full article. It starts on page 16.

PS. Tobacco Reporter publisher Elise Rasmussen features on this video, filmed at Forest's 35th anniversary party at Boisdale last week.

Forest's 35th anniversary party video

As promised, here's the video of our party at Boisdale last week.

Filmed by Dan Donovan it features soundbites from artist Anita Chowdry, Brian Binley (one of six MPs at the event) plus musicians Bob Loveday and Joe Jackson.

It also features snippets from our speakers: Brian Monteith (editor, The Free Society), Ranald Macdonald (MD of Boisdale) and Elise Rasmussen (publisher, Tobacco Reporter).

Click here or on the image above.

Update: We need more organisations like Forest, writes Brian Monteith (The Free Society)

Nicotine: it's a lifelong expensive addiction, says Deborah

The second E-Cigarette Summit is taking place in London today.

Last year I went as an observer and wrote about it here: The E-Cigarette Summit (2013) – another view.

This time I'm following it on Twitter in the 'comfort' of my office.

I'm told there are more speakers this year but a striking number are the same as before and I'm not sure I want to listen to them yet again or watch ASH CEO Deborah Arnott bewitch some of the more credulous vapers into thinking she's their friend.

That was one of the things I took away from last year's event and from what I can tell she's at it again:

@Hifistud Playing to the gallery. Learned from last year when she took a relatively hard line then backtracked to try and win vaper friends

— Consumer Choice (@Action_Choice) November 13, 2014

One thing I do agree with Deborah is on this:

Deborah Arnott - ecig products available now aren't good enough for many smokers, makes quitting using them still quite hard. #eCigSummit

— Jon Fell (@JonFell73) November 13, 2014

In my non-expert opinion second generation e-cigs (including the ones that look like sonic screwdrivers) are unlikely ever to be more than a niche market.

If there is to be further growth in the e-cigarette market – far beyond where it is now – it will come (I think) from the next generation of cigalikes, or the ones after that, because Deborah is right – the current generation are simply not good enough for most smokers.

The question is, who has the money to research and develop an e-cigarette that satisfies millions of consumers? The answer, I humbly suggest, is Big Tobacco but the tobacco control industry is driven by an irrational hatred of the tobacco industry that is as counter-productive as it is absurd.

Also, if companies are to spend huge sums of money developing popular brands of e-cigarette, it makes no sense to impose disproportionate restrictions on how they are marketed. And yet, if you listened to Deborah this week, it seems that is exactly what ASH wants to do.

Here's the rub:

I understand that, speaking at the E-Cigarette Summit today, Deborah expressed her concern at any long-term use of nicotine, whatever the delivery system. In her eyes it's a lifelong expensive addiction (which may be true) but she doesn't get it, does she?

The point is it's none of her or anyone else's business how we spend our money and live our lives. Until she and her cronies in the public health industry understand that very simple fact they will never be a friend of the vaper because their goal is to wean everyone off a 'lifelong expensive addiction', whatever it takes.

Arnott - reiterates her personal thoughts on nicotine use. Life long expensive addiction. #ecigsummit

— Lorien Jollye (@CaeruleanSea) November 13, 2014

Anyway I'm not missing the E-Cigarette Summit, probably because I'm a bit weary of conferences. It's quite rare to attend one and not be bored to tears.

That said, the first E-Cigarette Summit was quite entertaining, partly because there was a good range of speakers with a variety of 'expert' opinion.

It's neither an industry nor a tobacco control event, which is refreshing. Nevertheless like all conferences it's easy to be institutionalised over coffee and biscuits and leave thinking an adversary is now a friend.

Last year, for example, I was beguiled during a break by Stirling University's Linda Bauld and I now defy anyone (Chris Snowdon, Dick Puddlecote) to say a word against her.

Best not to go at all.

Ironically, while the growth of the e-cigarette market is said by some to have stalled, e-cig or nicotine delivery conferences are thriving.

Earlier this year ASH Scotland 'co-ordinated' the Scottish Tobacco Control Alliance Electronic Cigarette Summit

In June 200 delegates attended the first Global Forum on Nicotine in Warsaw; later this month London hosts the Next Generation Nicotine Delivery conference; and next month the e-cigarette industry hosts E-Cig London.

I've no idea how much E-Cig London costs to attend (I imagine prices will be high) but the cost of attending the Next Generation Nicotine Delivery conference ranges from £600 to an eye-watering £1800. In comparison the E-Cigarette Summit (£350 + VAT) was a snip at the price.

Anyway, I look forward to reading reports of today's event. I'll link to one or two later. Let's hope it wasn't too much of a love in!

A tale of two events: "decent humans" versus "whey-faced drones"

Postscript to last week's Forest party.

Dick Puddlecote and the Random Vaper have written two very similar accounts which is hardly surprising because they arrived together, hot foot from another (very different) event.

I urge you to read both articles because they are equally illuminating:

From the ridiculous to the sublime (Random Vaper)
A funny thing happened on the way to Boisdales (Dick Puddlecote)

In his post DP records the breathtakingly arrogant assertion by "whey-faced drones" that public health campaigners are driven by "moral" rather than "financial" reward:

Apparently, anti-smoking NGOs do it all for the love and don't get paid a penny (splutter), while those working in the tobacco industry earn a fortune and "have no morals whatsoever". None of them.

He later repeats this comment by the Random Vaper, aka Sarah J:

The comparison between the two events I attended yesterday could not be more extreme. At the first there were the ideological rantings of those who think it their place to control how we all live, what risks we take, how we balance risk against pleasure, and who are conceited enough to believe that their own war on the tobacco industry trumps all other interests. At the second were people who were happy to enjoy life to the full, and just want to be left alone to do so. I know whose company I prefer.

Fellow blogger Tom Paine, who was also at the Forest party, adds this comment to DP's post:

You shame me by continuing to expose yourself to the secondary smugness of these authoritarians, while I have retired from the fray to dedicate myself to pleasure. Keep up the good work Mr P. It was a pleasure to see you and have a chat in a room full of decent humans.

So on the one hand we have "authoritarians", "ideological rantings" and "whey-faced drones". On the other we have "decent humans" and "I know whose company I prefer".

There's a theme developing here but I'll leave the final comment to Brian Monteith, one of three speakers at the Forest party.

As he was leaving Brian told our roving cameraman:

[Tonight] was all about freedom, choice and enjoying yourselves. And of course the people who like to stop us, those public health commissars, they have no sense of fun. This was all about a fun evening and we all chose to have fun. It was brilliant.

I'll post a short video of the event tomorrow. As well as Brian's contribution it includes comments by Joe Jackson, Ranald Macdonald (MD of Boisdale), and Conservative MP Brian Binley.

Vaping and television advertising

I was interviewed last night by Sky News about e-cigarettes and advertising.

A reporter rang me shortly after eight and arrived (with a cameraman) at my house at 12.50am. Seriously.

Everyone else, including the dog, was asleep and the 20 second soundbite took 15 minutes, including set up time.

I've been filmed outside my house and in my office but this was the first time a cameraman has come into my home.

Naturally I've fantasised about this moment. I'd be sitting in a large leather armchair, in front of an enormous mahogany desk in a beautiful study full of books and precious ornaments.

Of course I don't possess any of those things so I was filmed against a plain wall with a single table lamp behind one shoulder.

Anyway the purpose of the piece was to talk about e-cigs and advertising because tonight sees the first ever TV ad featuring someone actually vaping.

Judging by their public utterances the tobacco control lobby, led by ASH, has adopted the 'precautionary principle' – its default position – and is arguing that the VIP e-cig ad is far too "sexy" (ie attractive) and could entice non-smokers including children to vape or, worse, smoke.

I gave Sky my response and the report (and video) can be found under the monumentally misleading headline 'Smoking to be seen on British TV for the first time in 49 years'.

It includes my soundbite (and table lamp). This is the full response:

"There's no reason for e-cigarettes to be over-regulated because there's no evidence they are harmful and little evidence non-smokers are using them.

"Overwhelmingly e-cigs are used by smokers who want to cut down or quit or by smokers who want to use an alternative source of nicotine in places where smoking is banned.

"The idea that advertising e-cigarettes re-normalises smoking or encourages non-smokers to smoke tobacco is another example of anti-smoking paranoia.

"E-cigs are a nicotine delivery product. Nicotine is no more harmful than caffeine. E-cigarettes have the potential to wean millions of smokers off cigarettes but for that to happen they have to be marketed in a way that makes them attractive to smokers.

"Instead some public health campaigners want to suffocate the product with unnecessary rules and regulations. Thankfully, with regard to advertising, the government has adopted a more sensible attitude which we applaud."

I was also on BBC Radio Scotland this morning with Sheila Duffy, CEO of ASH Scotland. You can listen here at 2hrs 41mins in.

I might add that the consumers featured in the Sky News report do themselves no favours with the industrial amount of vapour they emit through nose, mouth and goodness knows where else.

Today's a good day for vaping but images like that don't help.

Update: The BBC has quite an informative report here – First e-cigarette 'vaping' advert to be shown on TV.

See also: Sex and the e-cigarette (BBC News Magazine)

Last but not least, listen to ASH CEO Deborah Arnott on the Today programme with Lorien Jollye of the New Nicotine Alliance.

I can only guess what Deborah will be thinking about the verdict of her predecessor, Clive Bates, posted on Twitter:

@CaeruleanSea well done! Clear points victory... Loved the toothpaste rejoinder.

— Clive Bates (@Clive_Bates) November 10, 2014

Click here – you'll find the discussion at 01:22:00.