Selling cigarettes to "the ladies"

Slick video.

I am told that it was funded by an ASH-affiliated 'charity'. Click on the YouTube logo (bottom right) if you wish to comment.

CutFilms and T4 presenter Will Best are also responsible for this video. Sample:

Hey there, fellow talented, charming, awesome people. This delightful little mini-film is about smoking and how, well, if you've got a brain you probably want to avoid it because, I'm being honest, it's pretty bad s**t.

Patronising doesn't even begin to describe it.

Only one word to describe Stephen Williams MP – pathetic

You've got to laugh.

When Stephen Williams, Lib Dem MP and chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health, sat down to write about the new Plain Packs Protect campaign on Monday, he must have thought he was on pretty safe ground.

After all, he had just come from a tobacco control conference on his home patch (Bristol) where he would have been surrounded by anti-smoking campaigners. Voices querying their grand plan to rid the world of smokers would have been non-existent.

You see, tobacco control activists live in a bubble. They don't invite opponents to their shindigs, they refuse to share a platform with "pro-smokers", and contrary views are actively discouraged.

So what happened next may have surprised the MP for Bristol West. He provoked a response, most of it hostile. In fact, as I write there are 148 comments on this particular thread. (Previous posts in January attracted 2, 9 and 15 comments. In December the most comments he got was 31.)

I estimate that 99 per cent of the comments are opposed to his vision of a smokefree world. So what does he do? He falls backs on the age-old fallacy that anyone who disagrees with the anti-smoking industry must be in the pay (or a stooge) of Big Tobacco.

Pathetic.

PS. The reaction to Williams' post reminds me of the response to a piece by another Bristol MP, Labour's Kerry McCarthy, in 2008. See Kerry McCarthy replies.

Update on Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 16:28 by Simon Clark

One hundred and ninety-three (193) comments on Stephen Williams' blog.

You might also like to read this post, Plain garbage, by one of my favourite bloggers.

Stony Stratford: council rejects amended outdoor smoking ban

The BBC is reporting that 'A proposal to ban smoking in parts of a Buckinghamshire town has been rejected by the town council.

See: Stony Stratford council throws out smoking ban proposal.

See also: Follow your head (and your heart) to Stony Stratford,
The day the people spoke

Coloured packs are a threat to kids, says Lib Dem MP

Get ready for an all out assault on cigarette packs.

Earlier today Stephen Williams, Liberal Democrat MP for Bristol West and chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health, helped launch "Europe’s first major campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of glitzy tobacco packaging to children".

Writing on his blog, Williams (a close confidante of ASH's Deborah Arnott) declared:

The primary aim of the campaign to introduce plain packs of cigarettes will be to protect children and young people from the subtle marketing techniques of the brand owners ...

Plain packs would be the same size, same colour, same font for the product name and nothing else other than the health warning. The Silent Salesman would not just be mute, he’d look very dull and lonely.

Funny isn't it, that when campaigners demanded a ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship in the Nineties, no-one thought to mention the humble cigarette pack.

There's a simple reason for that. Packaging is not advertising in the accepted sense of the word. Like many other forms of packaging, cigarette packs are designed so that consumers can distinguish between one brand and another and make their choice accordingly.

There is not a shred of evidence that 'plain' packaging will deter teenagers from smoking which is why anti-tobacco campaigners like Williams want to go even further and introduce not 'plain' packs but grotesque packs featuring larger graphic warnings, most of them disproportionate to the actual risk.

If Williams and his ilk get their way every pack will be be a uniform colour – not white or black but a colour that, they say, appeals least to smokers. (If they use Australia as a role model it will be drab green.)

Click here to read Williams' blog. You may wish to comment.

H/T Dave Atherton

See also: The hypocrisy of ASH, Stephen Williams and Peter Hain

Imagine David Cameron launching No Smoking Week

Think yourselves lucky that we only have No Smoking Day.

In Canada they have National Non-Smoking Week. It began in 1977 and this year's event was launched yesterday with a statement by prime minister Stephen Harper:

“Every year smoking adversely impacts the health of millions of Canadians – including those affected by second-hand smoke – heightening their risk of cancer, heart disease, emphysema and a number of other conditions. It also costs our healthcare system – and therefore taxpayers – a substantial amount of money.

“However, through initiatives such as National Non-Smoking Week, stronger labelling and distribution regulations, a Canada-wide toll-free quitline number and information website, and efforts to combat contraband tobacco, our Government is helping to reduce the smoking rate across the country – especially among youth.

“Despite this positive trend, we recognize that the number of people smoking in our country is still too high, which is why we are continuing our efforts in 2012 to help bring it down further.

“I encourage all Canadians who smoke to make a resolution to quit the habit both for themselves and for their loved ones.”

Interestingly, one of the goals of National Non-Smoking Week is not to encourage but to "prevent people who do not smoke from beginning to smoke and becoming addicted to tobacco".

Campaigners also want to "promote the right of individuals to breathe air unpolluted by tobacco smoke; denormalize the tobacco industry, tobacco industry marketing practices, tobacco products, and tobacco use; and assist in the attainment of a smoke-free society in Canada".

Passing comments: Daily Mail, winter tyres, BBC, Ryanair

Beautiful frosty morning in rural Cambridgeshire. Perhaps, having paid an arm and a leg for winter tyres (on the advice of the Telegraph Motoring section) I will get some return on my investment. Or are winter tyres just a clever marketing trick? I'll let you know.

Consternation in the village shop yesterday where copies of the Daily Mail were in short supply. "I know it's bigoted," I heard one woman say, "but we do like it." Thankfully additional copies were found in a corner and a small riot was averted.

If Scotland votes for independence would Great Britain still exist as a legal entity and, if not, what are the implications for the British Broadcasting Corporation, amongst others? Just asking.

I have previously expressed admiration for Ryanair as a business model. This week however they blotted their copybook. What happened was this: as a priority boarder I was one of the first people to board the plane to Cork. As usual, I strode purposefully down the aisle to claim my preferred seat, 16C. It's one of 12 seats next to the emergency exits in the middle of the plane, which means there is additional legroom.

All 12 seats were empty but the stewardess wouldn't let me sit in any of them. "They're reserved," she confided. Now this didn't come as a total surprise because I know Ryanair have been offering reserved seating on some routes for several months. Nevertheless, when I booked my ticket the previous night there was no mention of reserved seating. I explained this to the stewardess who was busy telling other passengers that the seats were reserved. "I know," she said, and rolled her eyes. "It's a new policy on this route." Later, with all 12 seats still empty and the plane about to take off, she tapped me on the shoulder. "Write to the company," she implored.

Curiously, exactly the same thing happened on the return flight. Rows 16 and 17 were 'reserved' yet unused so the 12 most comfortable seats on the plane were effectively out of bounds. WTF!!

PS. The comment about the Mail made me laugh but as a reader for over 40 years I do NOT accept that the paper is "bigoted" – well, no more than the Guardian, the Independent or the BBC. Why do conservatives (with a small 'c') allow the 'liberal' elite to dictate how we see ourselves?

Ireland: more pockets of resistance

Did I mention I was in Cork this week?

Following an earlier trip to Ireland I described the smoking 'area' at a pub in Kilkenny and asked whether it was the best smoking room in the world (taking into account the small matter of Ireland's hugely illiberal anti-smoking laws).

This week we visited a bar in Cork where smokers are similarly well looked after.

It had an outdoor smoking area running the length of the building. This had benches, chairs and tables, plus plants, heaters and ashtrays. Better still it had solid walls on either side of the 'lane' and was covered from one end to the other so customers were well protected from the elements. At one point I even took off my overcoat. (This is January, remember.)

It was busy when we arrived. When we left, well after midnight, the area was awash with people smoking and drinking. Even I, a lifelong non-smoker, succumbed to a cigarette or two. It seemed rude not to.

When we left most of the people around us were students or under 30 and smoking in that environment seemed as natural as, well, breathing.

Let's be clear, though. Smoker-friendly habitats in Ireland are an exception not the rule and the authorities will crack down whenever it suits them.

Shortly before Christmas, for example, we received a tip off that several bars in Dublin had been raided because their 'smoking rooms' were judged to be in breach of the law.

The raids weren't reported by the Irish media but further enquiries revealed that the bars in question are still open and at least one owner told the authorities to "feck off".

That's the spirit.

Scottish independence – waiting for a referendum won't help the nationalists

Just back from Ireland.

Travelling in the opposite direction were Nick Clegg and Alex Salmond who were attending this morning’s meeting of the British-Irish Council at Dublin Castle.

I imagine that Salmond would like it to be called the British-Irish-Scottish Council and in a few years he may get his wish.

Personally I can't wait for a referendum on Scottish independence – the sooner the better – but if Salmond wants it to coincide with the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, good luck to him. Who cares?

Actually, I think a two-and-a-half year wait will work against the nationalists. The arguments in favour of an independent Scotland are so few compared to the arguments in favour of a genuinely United Kingdom that the inherent weakness of the nationalists' case will become increasingly clear the longer the debate lasts.

That of course is one of the reasons why Salmond wants a fallback position so he can still claim victory, assuming he loses the vote on independence.

Hence, if the SNP Government in Holyrood has its way, the electorate will be asked two questions. The first will cover full independence. The second will offer an alternative – greater powers for the Scottish Parliament including full fiscal autonomy ('devolution max' or, in Irish terms, 'Home Rule') with the rest of the UK still expected to subsidise the cost of defending Scotland's borders or bailing the country out if its economy (or banking system) collapses.

Internationally Scotland would continue to enjoy the benefits of belonging to the United Kingdom – which include a seat at the top table of global politics – benefits it could only dream about as a 'independent' nation.

Sounds great, doesn't it? Scotland effectively separates from the rest of the UK but decides not to leave home or divorce. Legally we are still bound to our fragile, independent-minded partner and there is nothing we can do about it.

Thanks but no thanks.

Update on Friday, January 13, 2012 at 12:39 by Simon Clark

Food for thought.

An article in the Telegraph this week (An independent Scotland would struggle for AAA rating) prompted the following comment on Facebook:

"More Telegraph baloney. Many Scots would say we don't give a toss about AAA if we can be independent from London."

Typically this particular Scot (an old school friend from St Andrews) hasn't lived in Scotland for (I am guessing) 20 years. According to his Facebook entry he worked in America before moving to Adelaide, South Australia, where he still lives.

This morning he wrote: "I will stay in Australia. We have equally awful TV, but at least the weather is nice."

Doesn't sound like he'll be heading 'home' any time soon, does it? And nor will hundred of thousands of fellow ex-pats, independence or no. And yet, as far as I know, they will all be allowed to vote in a referendum that decides the future of a country they no longer choose to live in.

If Salmond has his way 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland will also be eligible to vote. (You can't buy alcohol or tobacco but you can decide the future of the 300-year-old United Kingdom.)

Fingers crossed, this is where Salmond may come unstuck. It's one thing to hold a referendum (with a mandate) at a time of your choosing, but to change the voting system (without a mandate) smacks of something else.

Accusing David Cameron of "interfering" is pretty rich too. Cameron is prime minister of the United Kingdom and whether Salmond likes it or not Scotland is still part of the UK.

For how much longer remains to be seen but imagine if Cameron showed no interest in Scotland's future. The nationalists would attack him for that as well.

I like Alex Salmond. He's a shrewd if increasingly smug politician. He's clever, but not as clever as he thinks he is. Time will tell.