Tuesday
Feb082011
Departure lounge
Tuesday, February 8, 2011 at 7:12 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 ...
Reader Comments (13)
I was there last night, too! Weren't they great? And fab support bands, too. Thought it was a bit churlish of Ferry, though, to introduce and thank all the musicians and all the singers in his band - but to leave out the two lovely, hardworking dancing girls who were up on their podiums for most of the night bopping their little socks off! Very ungentlemanly, I thought!
ungentlemanly....Bryan?
He is the gentleman of pop.
I assume, Simon, that you will ovserve the effects of the ban while you are in Madrid and let us know what your impressions are.
May I just mention something which intreagues me. Considering that this blog is, in effect, the nearest thing that people who enjoy tobacco have to a connection with Big Tobacco, why is it that Big Tobacco never has anything to say? From every side, PETS (People who Enjoy Tobacco) are being condemned and accused of harming their children and grandchildren, and yet Big Tobacco has nothing to say. Why?
Today, four tobacco control zealots had a letter published in the DT. It is hard to understate the propaganised nature of the letter. Every other word is an emotional adjective - it might just as well be: 'my hair and clothes stink', for all the scientific content that it has.
Anyway, here is a letter that I wrote in response:
""8th Feb 2011
Dear Editor.
I am writing in response to a letter published today headed ‘Ban Cigarette Displays’.
It is hard to imagine a series of statements which are so preposterous.
First, ‘...tobacco is the cause of one in four deaths from cancer....’
In 2009, 491 000 people died in England and Wales. Of those, 23 000 died from lung, bronchus and trachea cancers at or over sixty five years old. 5 000 are in the age group 65 to 74, but there were 4 200 in the age group 85 plus! In total, only 1 400 people younger than sixty five died from the above cancers. There are twenty eight other cancers listed as the cause of death. All of them are age related, being numerically vastly beyond the age sixty five. The figures show without doubt that cancer is age related. Sometimes one reads that cancer caused by smoking is delayed. But the figures show that ALL cancers are delayed.
Secondly, ‘Banning cigarette displays is essential to help reduce.....young people.....drawn into this deadly addiction .....by the industry’. And ‘Removing displays would protect children....’
What is the age range of ‘young people’? May I suggest 12 to 18 (since 18 is the legal age for buying tobacco), and may I suggest the age range 1 to 11 for ‘children’? May I ask, how many children are even remotely interested in tobacco? And, since these children see grown ups actually smoking from time to time, of what relevance is hiding displays? Children are no more interested in tobacco than they are in tampons. And when did anyone, in the last twenty years, see cigarettes placed ‘...next to sweets....’?
As regards ‘young people’, we must be aware of the fact that there is a vast difference between 18 years olds and 12 years olds. You cannot lump that group together in relation to their decision making processes as regards how they amuse themselves. Such a thought is inane, but is an idea that this letter is promulgating.
‘.....the industry’. So it is the industry which puts tobacco next to sweets? It is the industry which deliberately makes its packaging attractive to children? What tosh! Even if that were true, ought not these people be calling for a ban on the whole industry NOW – or is that part of the plan for a later date?
Thirdly, ‘Since Ireland [introduced display ban]......reported healthier attitudes about smoking ......children are not condemned.....’.
Sir, I fear that you have been taken advantage of. The letter is blatant propaganda, using emotional words such as young people, children, deaths, cancer, deadly addiction, sends a message, killer drug, protect, out of sight and out of mind, condemned, and, the ultimate nasty word, smokers as tools. The intention of the display ban has little to do with young people and children – it is all about making the sale of tobacco unprofitable and costly for the retailer.
The reality is that the letter displays all the characteristics of just another indirect attack on The Smoking Community.
NB. I have no connection whatsoever with the Tobacco Industry. I am just a little old man who needs a little help from the TLC (The Tobacco Lovers Community).
Yours sincerely,"
Individually, we are trying our best to fight against the nazi type demonisation.
And yet, I read a report somewhere only a couple of days ago (I cannot now find it) that Imp Tobacco have paid millions of pounds to the Gov to help stop tobacco smuggling!
What is going on?
Junican: I agree wholeheartedly. As I have mentioned on this blog before, where are the tobacco comoanies when it comes down to standing up for their customers? They're all for protecting their brands - but ignore the customers. Its time they stumped up some of their cash to campaign for the rights of publicans to run their businesses as they see fit - and if that means allowing smoking on their premises - then so be it.
Excuse me chaps, very good posts about smoking and those who would take it away from us, but wasn't this thread supposed to be about me?
I guess that the bottom line for all companies, particularly large ones, is – well – the bottom line. All the time they’re making money hand over fist – and for all the bans, restrictions, court orders and health campaigns they are still making money hand over fist – they don’t give a hoot for their customers. It’s the same with all of them. When drinking bans start to be imposed, does anyone honestly think that any of the big breweries will contribute to campaigns to protect happiness and enjoyment of their customers or to keep even more pubs and clubs from closing? Not in a million years. So long as people go on buying their beer – even if they’re only drinking it miserably at home in front of the TV, alone, they won’t be even slightly bothered. And if, like smoking bans, consumption of their product actually goes up, they’ll be even less bothered. Big corporations care no more for people as individuals than do the health zealots who forced the smoking ban on us.
Since the cat's away, and I haven't got much to say about Roxy Music anyway, I shall venture an addition to this reader-led topic.
I hear what you say about the bottom line, Misty, but how is it that the tobacco companies and hospitality industries don’t EVEN get together to produce a website showing smoker-friendly (i.e. you can smoke in some kind of comfort) holiday accommodation, hotels, pubs, restaurants, clubs etc etc?
Surely it’s in all their interests for us to know that we can use their facilities to smoke their products? Rather than, say, go abroad for our holidays and smoke local products? Which I feel bound to do, since I can't find any information anywhere on UK holidays where I can smoke?
I might be wrong but I always imagine that there are only a few tobacco companies so that even if you're buying 'local' tobacco, the parent company would be familiar.
I also think that tobacco companies know that smokers will want to smoke no matter how uncomfortable the circumstances and, as slong as their sales are healthy, they don't give a stuff about their customers - they don't need to.. I was struck when I spent a couple of months on placement at a well-known firm about twenty years ago. Firstly, my colleagues were anti-smokers who complained about my smoking in the office (!) and secondly, at that time European sales were falling and there were huge posters everywhere declaring with pride the brand's penetration of the third world market.. I know that some readers don't share my opinion that active smoking is risky and that some smokers become dependant but, given my opinion, I found that company's marketing strategy to be cynical and heartless.
Joyce - Tobacco companies are not our friends and neither are the anti-tobacco companies. That is the tragedy.
And you know the next thing will be plain packed alcohol. Those bottles and labels and coloured liquids are just tooooooo tempting - no shapely bottles or pretty colours (Blue Sapphire ) - no evoking the Old South (Soco... yum yum) - and certainly no nice presentation tins - so where too keep my biccys in future ??!!
... and who says there will be biccys in the future - brown bread, tofu and water. That's all we'll be allowed. The rest will be banned because someone will be offended by it - or hate the smell of it.
“ …. how is it that the tobacco companies and hospitality industries don’t EVEN get together to produce a website showing smoker-friendly (i.e. you can smoke in some kind of comfort) holiday accommodation, hotels, pubs, restaurants, clubs etc etc?”
I must admit I’ve often wondered that myself. I have a suspicion that part of the Master Settlement in the USA effectively “gagged” tobacco companies from saying or doing anything which might be seen as “promoting” their product, although I can’t for the life of me see how simply telling people which places have nice legal smoking areas and which have grotty ones (or none at all) could be seen as “promoting” smoking. It could simply be that they don’t give a damn about their customers, but you’d think that something like that would potentially increase their sales – maybe they’re scared that in and of itself that fact would be seen as “promoting” smoking. Even their own websites are chock-full of warnings about the hazards of smoking, for goodness’ sake!
I guess that the trouble with the hospitality industry doing any such thing – with or without help from the tobacco industry – is that all the major trade bodies which could potentially get something off the ground are themselves rabidly anti-smoking, as their constant exhortations for the famous “level playing field” indicates. The major brewery chains, too, are a generally anti-smoking lot, or at least they were until the ban started affecting their share prices. Having backed the wrong horse, they’re now too darned stubborn to admit it. Not to mention the fact that such a site might well mean an increase in trade for those of their opposition who put more of an effort into the comfort of the smoking community than they do.
There are, in fact, a few sites purporting to offer such advice, but in my experience their information is quite scanty, rarely updated, not always very clear and, sometimes, just plain downright wrong!
Misty P&O Ferries are the same
It's anti-smoker stance astounds me given that most passengers on that route are tobacco tourists.
I'd ask others who use P&O to complain about their anti-smoker policy rather than just putting up with it because we have no choice.
Unless we start complaining about the way these companies that depend on our custom treat us, then nothing will ever change.