Bid for court hearing on smoking ban: Chris Carter appeal

Chris Carter has been fighting to bring the smoking ban before the courts for many years now. Last week he was denied a hearing before the Supreme Court. The story is here, and Pat Nurse has more.

Chris's case is complex and involved citing some powerful witnesses. The courts have denied him the opportunity to present it.

If you wish to assist him to minimise his impending gaol term, please go here. Fines and costs added up to £1,250. Cheques can be made payable to P & P Productions, and sent to P & P Productions at 37 Windley Road, Leicester LE2 6QX.

Stop press: the target has now been reached.

Liberal MP and Democratic Green Socialists discuss tobacco issues

Two discussion threads this week that have been longer than expected. Stephen Williams MP, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health at Westminster blogged about a recent local campaign in support of plain packaging by Smoke Free South West. Simon Chapman and Cecilia Farren both pop in to support Mr Williams.

And natural health campaigner Heidi Stevenson wrote a piece on Democratic Green Socialist (DGS) about corporations benefiting from the marginalisation of smokers, with a focus on pharmaceutical companies. The inclusion of this article in DGS astonished some of its readers, whose concept of a big bad company seems to exempt Big Pharma from inclusion (the idea that they want to make money out of the nicotine market is dismissed as a conspiracy theory).  It is even suggested that Heidi Stevenson's interest in natural medicine is responsible for this unprovoked attack on (poor little) pharmaceutical companies – and of course (even though Heidi won't allow smoking in her own home) the piece fails because it doesn't unequivocally condemn tobacco.

Happily there are some more thoughtful and educated comments from followers of DGS. Indeed critical comment about the smoking ban from the left is rare (The Third Estate is an honourable exception). The 'heavy hand of the state' evident in smoking legislation leads people to associate smoking legislation with the left, but I prefer to see the worst of both left and right in smoking bans. There are many people  across the political spectrum who see the smoking ban legislation as very socially divisive, and recognise that it leaves the poor disproportionately affected at all levels.

Here it is good to see objective investigation of the left in relation to tobacco control, with recommendations for a more tolerant approach to tobacco users (extract from discussion below):

It’s clear that a number of people on this thread have done their homework on this subject and many impressive points have been made in the course of the discussion. A telling comment though is surprise expressed that there may be views amongst the progressive left that are distinctly intolerant. My recollection is that the orthodox view on tobacco control came originally from the right of the labour movement. 

In general terms socialism needs to redefine itself as something different from the authoritarian regimes of the former soviet block. The DGS has done some pioneering work in this direction by saying that there is such a thing as human nature and that human minds are not blank slates that can be arbitrarily forced in one direction or another by social engineering. [...]

However at the end of the day some people may just choose to smoke in the same way that others use lighted candles, strong synthetic perfume or air fresheners. Rather than joining in with an authoritarian and oppressive strategy, non-smoking socialists would be better to be supportive to their smoking sisters and brothers. There is enough real scientific information to enable people to make choices but the money behind the project has pushed it beyond the bounds of reason.

We have seen since the recent elections at Westminster that this is a cross-party issue, with Coalition leaders continuing to push tobacco control  (the consensus across Scottish politics in favour of tobacco control supports this view). There are people on all sides of politics who adopt a paternalistic and authoritarian attitude to public health – but likewise, there are people on all sides who wish to see 'dignity and equality for all'.

Scottish Government's 2012 smoking campaign

You've read this story before, there is never a better time to stop smoking, and you are more likely to quit if you call the government stop smoking helpline.

Not even  recent mainstream reports of nicotine replacement as a failed treatment stops the Scottish Government in its tracks.

Also in the Evening Times, which also reports on the deferred tobacco display ban, which the Scottish Government now believes will be in place by 2015. It includes the provocative line:

The Scottish Government also needs to notify the European Union (EU) of the revised regulations – including one specifying how much of the area where cigarettes are stored can be seen when a sale is made.

Needs to notify the European Union? Are we really under that kind of obligation to the EU? 

Legal challenge to the display ban

You thought it had been dropped?

Deborah Arnott seems to have done:

Deborah Arnott, chief executive of Action on Smoking and Health, said: "What a wonderful Christmas present from the tobacco industry. This will bring festive cheer to all those working to prevent children and young people from taking up smoking."

Seems as if someone is already trying to rub Scotland off the map!

The ban on the display of tobacco products in large stores could be delayed for as long as three years due to legal wrangles with tobacco manufacturers, the Scottish Government has admitted.

Good that they didn't ruin Christmas for the ban champions in Scotland, anyway.

Ohio still fighting back: interview with Pam Parker, Josh Tolley Channel

An entertaining interview with Pam Parker of Opponents of Ohio Bans:



Pam Parker covers a range of angles on the smoking ban, including the vast resources that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation injects into smoking restrictions and the 'studies' that support them (issues also covered on the home page of the Opponents of Ohio Bans website (linked above). As a bar owner however her focus is on enforcement. Public opinion, she says, voted on a ban that would be enforced by health department officials, and their would be exemptions on bars with no employees. In practice, health department officials police only the bar owners, who are left to enforce the law themselves, and there are no exemptions. In Ohio no smokers have been prosecuted, only bar owners who have failed in their enforcement duties. There are anecdotal accounts of deliberate entrapment. To cap it all, health department investigators are sent in without personal protective equipment to counteract the effects of secondary smoke: there is no safe level of exposure!

While I believe that some clandestine bar smokers have been prosecuted in the UK, the power to enforce the smoking ban on proprietors and licensees has ensured the ban's survival. Whether or not health departments over here entrap bar owners by sending in covert operators to smoke illegally, making people legally responsible for policing others is very heavy-handed, especially when it's likely to hit unpaid enforcers in the pocket. Pam Parker's tactic is to invoice the health department for enforcement costs. She will use these invoices to back up any court decision that the health department rather than bar owners should enforce the ban.

There's a big difference between the smoking ban through the eyes of its designers and the smoking ban as experienced at the coal face by licensees. Let's hope for a follow-up interview in the very near future.