Say No To Nanny

Smokefree Ideology


Nicotine Wars

 

40 Years of Hurt

Prejudice and Prohibition

Road To Ruin?

Search This Site
The Pleasure of Smoking

Forest Polling Report

Outdoor Smoking Bans

Share This Page
Powered by Squarespace

Entries by Simon Clark (3045)

Saturday
Mar082014

The burning question: why did you start smoking?

Our new website Plain Packs Plain Stupid features a video, 'The Burning Question', that has interviews with smokers in Dublin.

Asked 'Why did you start smoking?', replies included:

“I started smoking when I was a teenager, probably because everyone else was doing it so I did it too to be cool, I suppose.”

“I started smoking because I was really young, had nothing to do, and all my friends were doing it.”

“I started smoking when I was 15 ... My sister smoked. There was no real reason why I did, I just wanted to try.”

“I started smoking at 28. I started because of a relationship, a girl. I’d just split up ..."

“I started smoking at 21. I was the social smoker relying on friends to provide the occasional cigarette. That became uncomfortable so I started buying my own packs.”

“I started smoking when I was about 17, way back in the late Sixties. It was a sort of daring thing to do in those days.”

“I started smoking … when I was 27 or 28. It was something different to do.”

“I started smoking when I started secondary school ... All my friends were smoking and I kind of felt I needed to fit in more.”

To share or embed The Burning Issue video on your own blog or website, click here.

Friday
Mar072014

Plain packs, plain stupid

I'm pleased to announce the launch of a new campaign website.

Here's an edited version of the press release for Plain Packs Plain Stupid.

Campaigners launch new website to fight plain packaging of tobacco

The smokers' group Forest Eireann has launched a new website to fight plans to introduce plain packaging of tobacco in Ireland.

The site, which has a sludge brown background to highlight the dull packaging proposed by Health Minister James Reilly, lists some of the consumer arguments against standardised packs.

It also features a campaign video, 'The Burning Issue', that features interviews with smokers in Dublin.

John Mallon, spokesman for Forest Eireann, said:

"The proposed legislation is not fit for purpose. Advocates say plain packaging will deter children from smoking.

"People start smoking for many reasons, often peer pressure, but packaging isn't one of them.

"I don't know any smoker who began because they were attracted by the packet. It's nonsense.

"Plain packaging is gesture politics. It won't stop children smoking but it might encourage an illicit market in branded or counterfeit packs.

"We urge the government to abandon this reckless experiment that could do far more harm than good."

Full press release here.

Click on this link to visit the Plain Packs Plain Stupid website.

Wednesday
Mar052014

Does this study threaten smoking in the home?

BBC News reports:

Passive smoking 'damages children's arteries'

Odd, isn't it, that the harm occurred when both parents smoked. So it's alright if only one parent smokes?

I was asked to comment and I did:

"We must avoid scaremongering because damage to arteries could be caused by a number of factors including poor diet and other forms of air pollution.

"While it's sensible and considerate not to smoke around children in a small confined space it's far too easy to point the finger at smokers when the issue is extremely complicated."

It's fairly obvious what's going on. This the first (latest?) move towards a de facto ban on smoking in the home.

In response someone has tweeted:

BBC News - Passive smoking 'damages children's arteries'. Simon Clark @Forest_Smoking is a despicable man.

Charming.

Wednesday
Mar052014

Morning after the night before

Feeling a bit groggy this morning.

Not sure if it was the port (very nice), the cheap plonk (not so nice) or the pints in the pub that followed last night's debate at University College London.

All I know is I got home just past midnight after falling asleep on the train and very nearly missing my station.

To recap: Chris Snowdon and I been invited to take part in a debate about smoking in cars with children.

The motion supported a ban but our hosts, UCL Conservative Society, had struggled to find anyone to propose it.

ASH, Cancer Research, the British Lung Foundation and Conservative MP Bob Blackman had been asked and they all said no.

Nevertheless they managed to find six speakers, three on either side. Chris and I were joined by Kevin, from UCL. Our opponents were also students.

In my experience this is not always a good thing because undergraduates are often much funnier than 'professional' tobacco control advocates and this tends to go down much better with a student audience, many of whom they already know.

Sometimes they are simply better at debating. I still have the scars from my first debate as director of Forest.

Our late chairman, Lord Harris of High Cross, and I were invited to speak at the English Speaking Union in Mayfair on the subject of smoking in public places.

I was feeling rather pleased with myself - new job, a peer at my side, speaking at a rather swish London address - and our opponents were no more than a couple of spotty students.

It turned out they were a world champion debating team and our arguments in defence of smoking in public places were torn apart and we were comprehensively defeated. Our humiliation was compounded when our opponents later confided that they were both smokers and they actually agreed with us!

Since then I've taken part in several debates with students, most recently at Durham, but also at Birmingham, Leeds, Dublin (UCD) and even Oxford where Antony Worrall Thomson and I fought another losing battle in a debate about the smoking ban.

This was especially disappointing because six months earlier (this was in 2006) the Oxford Union had reversed its decision to ban smoking in the Union bar because so many students had decamped to the local pub (where they could smoke) the Union found itself losing money.

Sadly, on the night Antony and I were speaking most of our potential supporters must have been in the pub. They certainly weren't in the chamber.

It wasn't all bad, though. We were treated to a very nice dinner before the debate. We were also shown photographs of the many famous people, including presidents, prime ministers and A-list Hollywood stars, who have addressed the Oxford Union over the years.

I like to think that in some musky corner of the historic Union building, there's a picture of Antony and me, smiling nervously, as we await our fate.

But back to last night. I have tweeted that it was the most enjoyable student debate I have been involved in. And it was.

It was enjoyable not just because we won (by a landslide) but because there so were so many laughs. Convivial doesn't do it justice.

Whoever decided that alcohol should be freely available before and during the event is a genius. Port in a plastic cup? Perfect.

I even developed a fondness for our opponents who were struggling, it must be said, to throw off the shackles of their innate libertarianism.

The vote was a formality.

ASH, Cancer Research, British Lung Foundation, Bob Blackman – your side took a hell of a beating. So sorry you weren't there.

PS. Good to see Oliver Cooper, chairman of Conservative Future, and James Lawson, co-founder of the UK Liberty League, at last night's event.

Speaking to them and people like Louisa Townson, who chaired the debate and is president of UCL Conservatives, gives me hope for the future.

Naturally we'll be inviting them and other young libertarians to Smoke On The Water, the Forest boat party, in July.

I hope you'll join us.

Tuesday
Mar042014

Localism and a disturbing lack of transparency

A report by the Director of Public Health to the Public Health Committee of Nottingham County Council makes a number of dubious claims.

Under the 'The Economic Cost of Smoking for Nottinghamshire' (page 3) we are told:

Smoking costs billions of pounds each year. Using national data it is estimated [my emphasis] that the annual cost of smoking for Nottinghamshire is approximately £203.5m. This includes:

- The total cost of treating smokers on the NHS: £39.9m
- The loss in productivity from smoking breaks: £42.9m
- The loss in productivity from smoking related sick days: £37m
- The cost of cleaning up smoking materials litter: £5.1m
- The cost of smoking related house fires: 37.5m
- The loss in economic output from the deaths of smokers and passive smokers: £60.6m

I won't waste time fisking these figures (the loss in productivity from smoking breaks, the loss in economic output from the deaths of passive smokers???) but it's worth noting that the report fails to mention the money that smokers put into the economy, nationally and locally.

Apart from tobacco taxation, which raises over £9b annually - fact not estimate - where would some local shops be without smokers? Significantly worse off, in many cases, or closed.

The report is less than honest in other ways too. For example, it fails to mention the figures were supplied by ASH who got them from a report by the think tank Policy Exchange.

The report, Cough Up: Balancing Tobacco Income and Costs in Society, was hugely controversial when it was published in March 2010. Here's what I wrote at the time:

Policy Exchange: words fail me, too
Damning indictment of that Policy Exchange report

We also sent this message to Forest supporters.

And it wasn't just Forest criticising the report. Dick Puddlecote had this to say: That Policy Exchange nonsense.

Mark Littlewood, just three months in to his tenure as Director General of the IEA, also weighed in: ('Tobacco tax proposals should go up in smoke').

Writing on Conservative Home Matthew Sinclair of the TaxPayers Alliance also commented.

And we mustn't forget James Delingpole who put into words what many of us were thinking: Is Policy Exchange the most loathsome think tank in Britain?.

Does any of this matter? Emphatically, yes.

Since the introduction of the Localism Act last year local authorities have been given substantial new powers to tackle public health.

Smokers are an easy target so it's no surprise to find documents like this in circulation. What is outrageous however is not just the dubious, one-sided nature of the statistics, it's the complete lack of transparency.

Councillors, media and the general public are clearly expected to accept these estimates and calculations without argument.

This morning on BBC Radio Nottingham a spokeswoman for the council (I didn't catch her name) described Policy Exchange an an "independent" think tank.

Perhaps she's unaware of the remarkably close relationship between ASH and Policy Exchange at the time the report came out. The author, Henry Featherstone, even attended the ASH AGM and sat alongside ASH CEO Deborah Arnott. How cosy.

See ASH and Policy Exchange - the plot thickens and Policy Exchange, ASH and YouGov.

Sadly there's another piece to this jigsaw I can't reveal. One day the full story must come out. And it won't make pretty reading.

Saturday
Mar012014

Fiddling while Rome burns

So the Russian parliament has voted to send troops into Ukraine.

Meanwhile, over in Ireland, it was reported that 'FG want cigarette sales banned in pubs'.

Forget what's happening in Eastern Europe. The war on tobacco is far more important. Obviously.

Friday
Feb282014

Plain Stupid: full website coming shortly

Just putting the finishing touches to our new campaign website.

Plain Packs Plain Stupid will be launched next week. Our target audience is in Ireland but we welcome support from further afield.

Friday
Feb282014

Joe Jackson and the common enemy

Further to yesterday's post (E-cigs, I'm not an expert but …) musician Joe Jackson has responded to one of the comments:

I agree with the last post - we SHOULD all unite in the common cause of fairness, a free market, and getting the 'Public Health' monster off our backs. Unfortunately too many people can't see the wood for the trees. I think it's INEVITABLE that vapers and the producers of e-cigs should try to define themselves AGAINST, rather than with, smoking and smokers.

If you are marketing e-cigs, why would you not take advantage of the enormous power of the antismoking industry and use it in your own favour? And if you vape rather than smoke, of course you're going to think it's because e-cigs are 'better' - healthier, less stinky, whatever. OK, not all vapers, but many. Imagine that for decades, we had been bombarded with negative propaganda and restrictions on drinking coffee; and many people had therefore given it up and now have orange juice with their breakfast instead. Do you really expect 'juicers' to stand up for 'coffeers'?

I'm allergic to dogs, but if someone tried to pass a total dog ban, I would oppose it, on principle. But how many people can see beyond the end of their own nose, and think that way? I'd have to say, not many, and that is one of the most depressing things I've learned from getting involved in the whole smoking issue. The pub industry, for instance, should have fought the smoking ban en masse, on principle - the principle of being able to run their pubs how they want - but all they cared about was whether their own business would suffer if there wasn't a 'level playing field'.

I don't think many smokers or vapers think they have a common cause. But we do have a common enemy, and the only hopeful thing I see in Public Health attacking vaping is that it makes their dishonesty and nastiness more and more obvious. I think we will at some point see a general (delayed) reaction against the excesses of the healthist nanny state, but we still have a way to go.

Joe makes a lot of points, many of which I agree with. In particular, I support his contention that smokers and vapers have a common enemy.

And not just smokers and vapers. People who enjoy alcohol, fatty food or dairy products, not to mention sugary drinks.

The common enemy are politicians and 'public health' campaigners who think they know what's best for us and will do anything in their power to dictate how ordinary, law-abiding adults live their lives.

A handful might revel in being "outlaws" but the overwhelming majority of people don't want to live like that. That's why a group like Forest exists to fight excessive legislation whenever and wherever it raises its head. We want to be part of society not outlawed from it.

The 'good' news is, we have a plan for a campaign that will fight our "common enemy" on a broader front. Hopefully it will unite not only smokers and vapers but everyone who feels their choices are being threatened by an increasingly intrusive nanny/bully state.

It's called Action on Consumer Choice.

Watch this space.