It was reported this week that 'increasing the cost of tobacco or setting a minimum price could be used as part of a campaign to drive down the number of smokers in Scotland.'
See Increased or minimum tobacco price 'could cut number of smokers' (BBC News).
The story appeared on Thursday and was reported widely in Scotland. In response Forest commented:
"This middle class war on smoking has to stop. It's patronising and deeply offensive.
"Tobacco is a legal product and if adults choose to smoke knowing the risks that choice must be respected.
"Making tobacco even more expensive would discriminate against those who are less well off. It will also fuel illicit trade by encouraging more smokers to buy tobacco illegally.
"Spending money on mass media campaigns or incentivising retailers not to sell tobacco would be gross misuse of public funds.
"Most smokers who want to quit do so without the need for stop smoking services or other state-sponsored initiatives. In recent years a significant number have switched to safer e-cigarettes without government intervention.
"Instead of threatening smokers with further tax increases and other restrictive practices, which only breeds resentment, the government should embrace e-cigarettes and other harm reduction products and remove unnecessary obstacles to their use and promotion."
Edited versions of these comments were reported by BBC News, The Times (Scotland), the Scotsman, Herald, Dundee Courier and Aberdeen Evening Express.
All these reports were based on a press release issued by NHS Health Scotland. Only one journalist appears to have read the "study of expert views" on which it was based, hence this headline in the Scottish Daily Mail, 'Now tobacco police want to swab your children to test for smoke'.
Responding to this proposal I told the Mail:
"Checking children’s exposure to second-hand smoke would be a gross invasion of privacy. What next? Could children be taken away from loving parents and into care just because their parents smoke?
"There’s no justification for banning smoking in parks. The inconvenience of being exposed to a whiff of smoke in a public park is minimal and poses no risk to anyone’s health apart from the smoker.
"If you are old enough to be considered an adult, you are old enough to decide if you want to smoke."
I'm sure there are readers who will have switched off at the mention of Scotland. What happens in Scotland matters however because evidence suggests that policies introduced in Scotland tend to be adopted by the rest of the UK.
The smoking ban is the obvious example and to this day I am convinced the Westminster parliament would not have voted for a comprehensive ban in 2006 had Scotland not led the way.
Most of the proposed measures are only ideas but next year the Scottish Government is due to publish a tobacco control strategy and they are currently considering proposals that will help achieve their target of making Scotland 'smoke free' (sic) by 2034.
The announcement in July of the UK Government's tobacco control plan was met with some relief by many people because, for once, there was no mention of further legislation.
I've warned people not to be complacent however because you can be sure the tobacco control industry will continue to lobby for further restrictions on smoking and the sale of tobacco.
The danger is that the Scottish Government will use the war on smoking as a convenient distraction from other, far more important issues including falling standards of education in Scotland.
That, in turn, will encourage the tobacco control industry in England which will use Scotland as a shining example of public health in action.
What is happening in Scotland is therefore of enormous relevance to the future of tobacco control in the rest of UK.
PS. After my appearance on Good Morning Britain on Thursday I later gave a short interview to Reporting Scotland (BBC1 Scotland).
On top of the Budget, it's been another busy week.