Belgium shows the way forward

I was in Brussels on Monday.

I go there several times a year and I can report that everything was completely normal. The trains ran on time, a taxi took me to and from my hotel without mishap. The shops were doing a roaring trade in (what else?) Belgian chocolates, and it was business as usual.

Today, however, I read that Belgium hits world record for lack of government (EU Observer).

Radio Free Europe confirms that:

At midnight tonight, Belgium will claim the world record for the number of days it has been without an agreement on a government, overtaking the previous record holder, Iraq.

February 18 will mark 250 days since June's inconclusive national elections in which the diametrically opposed New Flemish Alliance and the Francophone Socialist Party won the most seats.

Imagine the United Kingdom without a government for a similar period. Actually, I can. In fact, I think that government, especially Big Government, is over-rated and we would be much better off without it.

The idea that without a proper government a developed Western country cannot go about its daily business is nonsense, and insulting to all law-abiding citizens.

Like the Belgians we would just get on with it, I'm sure.

So, like many people today, I shall drink a toast to Belgium, the country that doesn't have or, indeed, need a government.

PS. We broke off from our meeting on Monday so the smokers could have a cigarette break. We were on the fifth floor of a modern office block in the centre of Brussels. In Britain they would have had to find a balcony - if one existed - or get the lift to the ground floor and stand outside. (It was a cold, damp day and that wouldn't have been very pleasant.)

This was Belgium, though. Separated from the boardroom by an internal wall was a small smoking room. It was narrow - like a walk-in wardrobe - but there was a large window at one end so it felt light and airy. There were also several comfortable chairs, some light maple furniture, and three large ashtrays that almost begged you to light up.

I sat there with one person smoking and I wasn't conscious of any tobacco smoke. (Perhaps I'm unusually tolerant or unobservant.) The room could have accommodated four or five people quite easily and I really can't understand why private companies in Britain are not allowed to provide something similar.

Why government has to stick its nose in and ban such an innocuous but useful facility is incomprehensible to me. What a petty little country we have become. Sadly, if tobacco control has its way, even well-ventilated smoking rooms will be a thing of the past throughout Europe.

Push for outdoor smoking ban begins

Following New York's decision to ban smoking in parks and squares, Five News last night reported the result of a YouGov/Five News survey on the subject.

"Some countries are clamping down on lighting up in the open and our survey reveals that 43 per cent of people in the UK think the smoking ban should be extended to all outdoor public spaces."

The Government, said Five News, has no plans to follow suit yet but does say that breathing in other people's smoke increases your risk of getting lung cancer by 24 per cent. "And our survey did reveal some pretty strong feelings."

Member of the public:

"It's breathing it in, or the smell that gets on your clothes. If you've got children in a buggy ... it's straight in their face. I think it's really inconsiderate."

Interestingly, the Roy Castle Foundation appears to be against an outdoor smoking ban. Interviewed by Five News, youth project manager Lisa Gill said, "Our concern is that parents and carers who are maybe motivated to protect their children within their homes by smoking outside would then move back into the home and start smoking in front of their children."

The suggestion by Five News that "breathing in other people's smoke increases your risk of getting lung cancer by 24 per cent" does of course refer to exposure to other people's smoke in a confined space over many, many years. It has no relevance whatsoever to smoking outdoors.

In truth, the risk of non-smokers getting lung cancer is so small that an increased risk of 24 per cent is, in etymological terms, statistically insignificant. To be significant the "increased risk" would have to be in the region of 200-300 per cent. Perhaps someone should tell Five News.

PS. Five News did contact Forest for an interview. Unfortunately I was in Brussels and unavailable.

Update: The YouGov website reports that "51 per cent support the idea of banning smoking in outdoors public places, such as open parks, beaches and pedestrian squares". Report here (but not the actual survey or the questions asked).

Smokers are voters too

Good luck to John Mallon who is launching Forest Eireann's 'Smokers' Manifesto' in Cork this morning.

The manifesto urges politicians to:

• respect the rights of adults who have made an informed choice to smoke tobacco in full knowledge of the health risks associated with this legal product

• acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of smokers are ordinary, decent, law-abiding adults whose habit does not affect their ability to make a positive contribution to Irish society

• relax the smoking ban so that pubs and bars can provide smoking rooms that allow adults to smoke in greater comfort without bothering non-smokers

• cut tobacco duty to tackle smuggling and reduce the temptation to buy tobacco abroad

• recognise the major financial contribution made by consumers who buy tobacco from legitimate retailers in Ireland

• review the use of public money to fund groups and quangos dedicated to persecuting adult smokers

• engage with the consumer so that one million smokers no longer feel ignored and disenfranchised from the political process

• treat one million voters [the number of adult smokers in Ireland] with the respect they deserve

The manifesto is being published in advance of the Irish election on Friday February 25.

My Spanish adventure

I think I'd like to move to Spain.

This week was only my second visit but the weather alone was enough to give it serious thought. Bright sunshine, clear blue sky, crisp, clean air and a mild temperature. Perfect.

The first time I went to Spain, eleven years ago, I attended a smokers' rights conference in Seville. Those four days did more than anything to convince me that working for Forest had a purpose, contrary to what some people might think.

I met people from right across Europe - Denmark, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Italy, Greece and Spain itself. Most of them smoked but they didn't make a big deal of it. It was as natural to them as breathing.

They were smokers' rights activists but, more important, they were ordinary, considerate people who knew the health risks and couldn't understand why they were being lectured and marginalised for having a perfectly legal habit. They were prepared to take a stand but they didn't rant. They were thoughtful and charming.

I liked them very much and I have harboured an ambition ever since to organise a similar event in London, if only to demonstrate the "normality" of smokers and their habit which doesn't, I'm sorry to say, come across on some online forums where many activists sound as shrill, obsessive and intolerant as the opposition.

Anyway, on Tuesday I flew to Madrid where I was met at the airport by Alvaro Garrido who runs Club Fumadores por la Tolerancia, the Spanish equivalent of Forest. Alvaro also organised the conference in Seville. We have kept in touch and I was delighted to see him again after all these years.

After I checked in to my hotel Alvaro introduced me to his colleague Javier Blanco. We had lunch at Casa Lucio, a traditional tasca in old Madrid, and afterwards they took me on a tour of the city - on foot and, later, by car.

The smoking ban, they told me, is generally being observed in Spain and there is little or no opposition to the new law among mainstream politicians. If I understood correctly, bar owners are waiting to judge the effect of the ban before taking any further steps. By then, of course, it will be too late for some.

Some bar owners, it was suggested, will draw a curtain or usher someone they know into a separate room to allow them to smoke indoors, but customers fear getting the owner into trouble. Sound familiar?

Interestingly, the law in Spain exempts private smokers' clubs. In truth there are only a handful of clubs in Madrid and not a lot more nationwide. They can't sell food and drink and they can't make a profit so don't expect smokers' clubs to pop up all over Spain any time soon.

Anyway, it was a very productive - and enjoyable - couple of days and I am meeting Alvaro again in Brussels tomorrow. We are working on a joint project but I won't tempt fate by saying what it is. Not yet anyway.

See also: Meet the Spaniards fighting to stub out authoritarianism (spiked), and Prohibido prohibir – Ban the bans (euobserver.com)

PS. At my hotel in Madrid I ordered an "All-Spanish" breakfast. According to the menu this consists of churros (water and flour batter sticks, deep fried in oil), torrija (milk soaked bread dipped in egg), mini-tortilla (potato omelette), cured ham on tomato, rubbed toast, slices of butifarra sausage, fruit salad, orange juice, jam, honey and butter.

It was delivered to my room at 7.00am and it won't surprise you to learn that I returned home a little heavier than when I left. (Thankfully, Ryanair didn't charge me for excess baggage but it's only a matter of time.)

Which reminds me, I don't think I saw anyone in Madrid who could be described as overweight, and none who might be called obese. Not one. How is this? If you know the secret please let me know!

Departure lounge

There will be little if any blogging for the next two days.

I am currently at Stansted waiting for an early morning flight to Madrid.

Saw Roxy Music at the O2 in London last night. Had to leave early to catch a train home but enjoyed the evening.

Got three hours' sleep before I had to get up and drive to the airport. Definitely in need of some strong coffee ...

Climb in a car, march off to war, but don't smoke in a bar

I was reminded this morning of the song Joe Jackson wrote in protest at the introduction of the smoking ban in New York City in 2003.

Joe moved to America in the Eighties and lived in New York for 20 years. On his website he explains that "The song was written to send up Mayor Bloomberg and the New York smoking ban, but also to help those fighting to get the ban repealed and to prevent similar bans elsewhere. All proceeds from CD sales and downloads will go to activist groups Forces, NYC Clash, and Forest".

Listening to it today it sounds as fresh and topical as it did seven years ago, but you be the judge:

In 20-0-3
a man drank a whisky
and a martini
or three, maybe four
He climbed in his car
and roared off at eighty
and that night he checked out
along with three more

So they cleared up the mess
but they didn't ban cars
and they didn't ban whisky or gin

[CHORUS]
So do what you want, or do what they tell you
It's the land of the free but don't take it too far
You can do what you want
You can smash up your car
But in 20-0-3 you can't smoke in a bar

In 20-0-3
a man ate a burger
and then ate another or two
Every day
at last he keeled over
but no-one could lift him
And there's millions just like him
and millions to pay

So they issued more warnings
but they didn't ban eating
and they don't ban potatoes or grease

[CHORUS]
So do what you want, or do what they tell you
It's the land of the free but don't take it too far
You can do what you want
You can live just on lard
But in 20-0-3 you can't smoke in a bar

In 20-0-3
a man joined the army
and soon he got shipped out
to fight in Iraq
He was caught in a crossfire
and lost his right arm
But they didn't ban bullets
or missile attacks

He's on his way home now
and who wants to tell him
he can't have a smoke with his beer

[CHORUS]
So do what you want, or do what they tell you
It's the land of the free but don't take it too far
You can do what you want
You can march off to war
But in 20-0-3 you can't smoke in a bar

Click here to listen.

Smoking, censorship and New York City

New York is often lauded as one of the world's great cities.

Not in my book. I've only been there once but I'm in no hurry to go back. OK, I chose the worst possible time to go. NYC in July is uncomfortably hot - so hot, in fact, that the open air theatre in Central Park was closed because no-one wanted to sit outside, even after dusk.

But, stifling heat apart, nothing about the city grabbed me apart from Ellis Island and the remarkable story of American immigration. Ironically many were driven to America to escape social and economic repression in Europe. How, I wonder, would they view New York today?

Brendan O'Neil, editor of the online magazine Spiked, recently drew my attention to the second of a series of reports he wrote from NYC.

Entitled 'When smoking becomes freedom of expression', it highlights the fact that NYC theatre companies are now prohibited from featuring real cigarettes in their plays. If any character smokes they have to use the herbal variety, although producers can apply for a waiver.

Worth reading.

New York betrays the land of the free

You may have read that New York city council has voted to ban smoking in the city’s parks, beaches and public squares.

Supporters of the new measures say it will help improve the health of New Yorkers and prevent non-smokers from having to breathe other people's tobacco smoke. The Telegraph has the story here: New York bans smoking in parks, beaches and public squares.

John Mallon, spokesman for Forest Eireann, has been doing some interviews on the subject and we have just released his response:

“It’s nonsense to suggest that non-smokers are at risk from people smoking in the open air.

“Banning smoking in parks and squares has nothing to do with the health of non-smokers. It’s designed to force people to quit smoking whatever the consequences for civil liberties.

“It is completely unreasonable to ban smoking in all public places, indoors and out.

“Tobacco is a legal product and a huge proportion of what people spend on tobacco goes to the government. If the government wants our money we have to be allowed to smoke somewhere, and not just at home.

“We encourage people to smoke responsibly, but fining people if they light up outside is a step too far.

“Unfortunately anti-smoking zealots won’t be happy until smoking is outlawed completely. If that happens people will still smoke but in an uncontrolled environment and the main beneficiaries will be criminal gangs and the manufacturers of illicit cigarettes.”

I think they have a name for that. Oh yes, Prohibition.

I'll comment further when I get a moment.

See also: NYC bans smoking ... in parks (Big Brother Watch)

PS. Rob Lyons, deputy editor of Spiked, has just commented on my Facebook page:

This is a country where you can be arrested for not crossing the road in a state-approved place or for having a drink when you're 20 years old. Bloomberg seems to be just tidying up a few loose ends.