Be good role models to the young (said the Baseball League to the Senators)

Well, they asked for it really.

Shisha feels weight of smoking ban

A shisha bar in Finsbury Park, north London, that permitted smoking in contravention of the law, has been shut down owing £6,000 in fines and costs.

An impassioned article about the fate of shisha bars following the ban was published by the BBC in July 2007. As usual in such cases consultation appears to have been minimal. An official guide describes how shisha bars and cafés are included in the smoking ban provisions that were enacted in 2007. 


The Edgeware Road Association, which produced the video below, hoped to gain exemption from the smoking ban on the grounds that it threatened local cultural expression. This bid has not been successful to date. 



People do attend shisha bars to smoke shisha. A hookah pipe is not something you take to work with you and shisha-smoking is far more context specific than tobacco smoking.  (It's also very pleasant – I tried it recently.) The context is social situations in public lounges and cafés where people enter knowing what's likely to happen – not unlike licensed premises, cafés and restaurants as we knew them before 2006. 


I've no idea whether shisha bars still hope for an exemption. Much as I sympathise with their situation and much as I accept that many people would find shisha smoke altogether more wholesome than tobacco smoke, it is not only shisha culture that's had a coach and horses driven through it by smoking ban legislation. All social venues have been affected, whether used for shisha or ordinary tobacco, many have been adversely affected and many destroyed. This is not a cause for special pleading, for saying 'their poison is worse than ours', it's a cause for working together and realising that no legislation that has the effect of closing down social venues can possibly be in the interests of public health.


Even it insists 'smoking poses a serious threat to non-smokers', depriving millions of people of their preferred social venues and businesses shows only contempt for other people's livelihoods and preferences. 


The smoking of shisha pipes is under threat the world over, because the WHO has declared shisha smoking to be a passive smoking risk. Its home is the Middle East. Any resistance to suppressing shisha smoking lounges must unite not only with local efforts against smoking bans but also international efforts against prohibition.
...
One scholar who has taken on the challenge has been Kamal Chaouachi, a Tunisian-born medical anthropologist. In his words:

In these conditions, the challenge was not less than becoming the unofficial "spokeperson" of the hundreds of millions of voice-less (wo)men in the street, particularly in Asia and Africa where hookahs have been around for centuries. These persons – who often cannot read English or challenge the materials published in biomedical journals – have often felt powerless after being hurt by the pseudo-scientific and technical language of world "waterpipe" experts suddenly interested in their daily life.

Dr Chaouachi attended and addressed the Second World Conference Against Prohibition organised by TICAP in 2010. I am not yet well acquainted with his work but dipping in has been informative. He insists, in common with many of us, that anti-smoking is an ideology:

"Throughout history, whenever an ideology is given a political machine, it becomes a vehicle for cruelty and destruction. Ideologies do not recognize individuals, gray areas, self-criticism or anything outside their narrow boundaries. For in service of the ultimate truth, all means and sacrifices are justified. Corporate interest, on the other hand, is a driving force in many conflicts and wars as well as global health and environmental problems. We see political ideologies or aggressive economic interests—or worse, both—at the heart of every current human or natural conflict. Our world today, alas, is shaped by greed and politics."

Emphasis in the original. (He quotes the words above from of a US funded anti-smoker – a man who is fighting against shisha, and has no sense of how aptly he describes the worst excesses of his own movement.)
---
This can't help the place in Finsbury Park. It is unfortunate for them that they broke the law – but without effective opposition, not hard to see how such things happen. Authorities here are powerful, and nothing stops them attacking people whose dislike of the law leads them to defy it.

Illicit tobacco: Two stories, UK and London, Ontario

On the UK side, resources for intercepting illicit substances at the ports (a reserved issue handled by the UK Borders Agency) are not being deployed effectively: a combination of cuts and political pressure mean that borders agency staff are concentrating on illegal immigration control at the expense of illicit substances. Of course there are tobacco seizures by other enforcement agencies, i.e. trading standards officers and police: this one, for example. (But of course far more of it gets through the sieve that is the UKBA.)

In Ontario, Canada, the story is even more absurd. Tobacconists, the first people in the money chain to be hit by illegal imports of tobacco, have been ordered to remove educational posters warning their customers of the presence of illegal tobacco in the community and its harmful effects. The logic of the Middlesex–London Health Unit runs thus:

“They are promoting tobacco use. They are promoting a product. In essence the materials really say, ‘Don’t buy illegal tobacco, we here happen to have legal tobacco for sale’,” said Linda Stobo, program manager for tobacco control with MLHU.

Of course that's exactly what the posters say. How could I possibly think otherwise?

Incredibly the report adds: 'No charges have been laid at any London store because of the posters.' Charges laid! The report gives the indignant President of the Ontario Convenience Stores Association a fair hearing and notes the distress of some of the traders who have been forced to remove their posters.

I'm not a gambler, but I wouldn't bet on illicit tobacco going out of fashion any time soon.

Australians won't pay tobacco levy

The World Health Organisation has proposed a tobacco levy known as the Solidarity Tobacco Campaign to be added by wealthier countries to support tobacco control efforts in developing countries.

This is the latest of a number of ideas, which have included levies raised on currency transactions and airline seats, in order to raise funds for tobacco control.

Article 26 of the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control provides for these fund-raising efforts.

Article 26 of the WHO FCTC expressly relates to the generation of funds "for the development and strengthening of multisectoral comprehensive tobacco control programmes" of developing countries. Furthermore, a study developed by the WHO Secretariat in accordance with Article 26.5(c) of the treaty and submitted to the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the WHO FCTC in 2006 indicated that tobacco taxation is a sustainable, stable means to generate funds for tobacco control and other public health initiatives. The COP gave “full support to the prioritization of resource mobilization for tobacco control at the national and international levels”.

It is interesting that they call this fund a 'solidarity' fund. Solidarity implies voluntarism. It's also interesting that they regard tobacco taxation in developed countries as 'sustainable', but perhaps paradoxical to want health programmes to rely for their funding on tobacco sales. They get off with it because it supports their goal to make tobacco as expensive as they possibly can.

The World Health Organisation seems to focus quite a bit of attention to getting money out of countries – a variable voluntary contribution is levied on all countries, poor as well as rich, and some of them seem to be having trouble keeping up with payments. In fact its financial difficulties are long-standing, and it cites financial difficulties as an impediment to tobacco control in poorer countries.

The World Health Organisation tries to persuade governments to tax tobacco heavily to fight tobacco-related harm in their own countries. In addition it wishes to encourage a solidarity fund, for helping other countries:  

Concerning international assistance for health, for decades, a key principle underlying provision of such assistance has been solidarity, whereby richer countries assist developing countries ...

It is heartening to see that Australia has rejected this suggestion. In spite of a heavily anti-smoking policy stance, it has stated that it will not be implementing an additional levy: it announced a $700,000 donation following the conference last month on non-communicable diseases. Perhaps it has begun to notice the insatiable nature of global tobacco control efforts:  

... The spread of some diseases across countries also requires collective action based on solidarity to address global public health needs. To further support global solidarity and strengthen health‐development investments, Member States could decide to contribute a part of their tobacco taxe revenues for international purposes.

Oh aye! 

In acknowledging the precarious state of Framework Convention finances the Framework Convention Alliance says this: 

FCTC Parties must now face the reality that existing international funding systems have failed tobacco control. And the world is paying the price – NCDs have been ranked as one of the most serious threats to global stability.

Ranked by whom? The World Economic Foundation, based in Geneva. (Aren't fuel and resource shortages more likely to cause instability?) The referenced work is called Global Risk Factors 2011 and no url is provided. This report, on the other hand, is entitled Global Risks 2011. It's hair-raising (discussing cyber security, resource security and WMDs among other issues), but gives no more than a passing nod at non-communicable diseases. 

Good for Australia – now drop the plain packaging proposal and put life back into perspective.

Florence, the mosquito, and the tobacco industry smear

Ever since the First World Conference of TICAP (The International Coalition Against Prohibition) held in Brussels in 2009 I've wanted to know about Florence Berteletti Kemp – the woman whose complaints to the European Commissioner threatened to disrupt the Conference.

Any Dutch readers will appreciate that this video is really about Edith Schippers, the Health Minister of the Netherlands (or Minister for Tobacco, as her opponents would have it). My Dutch language skills enabled me to enjoy only Ms Berteletti's contribution, as it is in English.



Berteletti starts at 20.30 mins into the video: 'Well, if you're dying of malaria you're hardly going to invite a mosquito to resolve the issue at the policy table.' Anti-smokers have a thing about mosquitos. Sheila Duffy doesn't see the point in fighting them because they don't have expense accounts and are naturally less serious a threat to human health than the tobacco industry.

Florence won't have them at the policy table. I suppose this is because she doesn't believe in engaging with her opponents. Mosquitos however are now acknowledged as the carriers of malaria. If they were any good at talking, perhaps deals could be done at the policy table that might eradicate the malaria problem.

The health problems associated with smoking are a different matter as they are all multi-factorial in nature. Saying on the one hand that tobacco kills x-billion more than road accidents and wars and is best only speculation – rendered more inaccurate by a refusal to engage with the tobacco industry. Nobody is suggesting the tobacco companies write health policy without the participation of public health interests, but excluding them entirely as a matter of policy is equally unwise.

Since I don't know Dutch I missed most of the video, getting only the mosquito and Florence Berteletti's disappointment with the Dutch government for its failure to espouse tobacco control policies (33.25). A Dutch tobacco industry representative is interviewed in the video, but I don't know to what extent he has influenced Schippers. The Dutch licensees' campaign to overturn the smoking ban was not, of course, funded by tobacco companies. The 'fearless anti-tobacco warrior' Stanton Glantz took the trouble to interview Wiel Maessen, campaign organiser (and director of TICAP) in order to understand how the legal challenge to the smoking bans came about. Maessen stated that he had paid a large part of the costs, including all the advertising costs, personally.

Berteletti, in common with the likes of Stanton Glantz, has a mission to associate the interests of smoking ban opponents with the tobacco companies. She has invented a reason not to discuss malaria with mosquitos and extends this to exclude tobacco from the discussion of any health issue, in spite of blaming tobacco for all health issues.

For Berteletti, and anti-smoking policy-makers everywhere, nothing is negotiable.

The new elitism, surveillance and the harm principle

More from Stuart Waiton on the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Bill, this time writing for The Free Society. He describes how social attitudes to football fans among the chattering classes has changed:

Today we no longer have overt elitism. It is unlikely, for example, that the Times will talk about football as a ‘slum sport played in slum stadiums watched by slum people’ as they did in the 1980s. Like the modernisation of the stadiums, today’s elitism is new and shiny, and as with modern prejudices, they are not seen as such. Football fans are now racist, sectarian, homophobic and so on, and the new elite, trained in 1980s radicalism, uses the power of the state to enforce their political correctness.

We are no longer physically caged into grounds, but our mouths are increasingly being clamped shut. Authoritarianism is growing in Scotland in particular, with more fans every week being locked up for singing songs or writing offensive words online. The latest case has seen one fan, Stephen Birrell, sentenced to eight months in prison for mouthing off on the Ban Neil Lennon Facebook page about ‘fenian scum’. 

Again it appears football fans are being used as guinea pigs for policing. In the 80s CCTV was developed as a ‘response’ to fans’ behaviour, and ID cards were proposed as a way to monitor this perceived mob. Today CCTV cameras are everywhere and ID cards for everybody are on the political agenda. Joining the extensive and growing use of cameras at grounds we now have listening equipment, because modern authoritarianism is less about controlling what we do than what we say – as Stephen Birrell and others are finding to their cost.

The presence of listening equipment on the grounds is certainly an interesting phenomenon, suggesting that perceived insults are more serious than actual violence. As Dr Waiton pointed out when giving evidence to the Justice Committee, perpetrators of violence can't excuse their actions by blaming chanting by the other side.

What may have started as a legitimate excuse for concern – people's abusive behaviour to one another  – becomes an excuse for excessive social control and ultimately legislation, whether at a football match or in the wider community. During the evidence session convenor Christine Grahame MSP suggests that football matches are the 'last port for sectarianism' in Scotland (39.05 mins). By contrast, Dr Waiton suggests (extract above) that the surveillance begins at football matches and extends to the wider community.  What the drafter of the offensive football bill and the Scottish Government see as necessary legislation to sort out verbally abusive footballers, Dr Waiton sees as a testing ground for wider society, and an abandonment of the harm principle, which he explains in the evidence session.

Dr Waiton also suggests that if this is indeed the 'last port' of Scottish sectarianism and there is limited evidence of real sectarian divisions in Scottish society, then the 'problem' is simply the way footballers behave to each other everywhere. The arguments between those who 'simply want to make things better for everyone', by banning expressions of sectarianism, smoking or whatever the mood of the moment suggests, and those who oppose puritanical cleaning up efforts will probably always be with us.  Personally I prefer policies that don't  make criminals out of people pursuing everyday activities.

A weekend away

Tourism with a difference: follow the story here!

A worthwhile and practical blog – visit here.

From Ireland: Haven't patients suffered enough?

This is an opinion piece that I am happy to share:

... there has to be a happy medium and what I saw on Monday was a classic example of some killjoy, self-righteous administrator or someone in middle management -- and God knows, the Irish health service is top-heavy with middle management -- coming up with the bright idea to make the entire premises a smoke-free zone.  

It sounds fine in theory but they have forgotten just one thing -- the patients they are meant to be caring for.  

And:

He admitted to me on one occasion that going for a smoke was the highlight of his day -- not for the hit of the tobacco but because for him and all the other long-term patients, going for a smoke was a social occasion, a chance to get out of the bed, get out of the ward and have a chat and a fag with some of the others and, to be honest, I could completely see where he was coming from. 

Because when my Da and his fellow incumbents met up for a smoke, they were no longer just patients with a numbered bracelet on their wrist, they were men again, individuals in their own right.

The Irish got it wrong again

First of all, as the Chief Medical Officer will confirm, the smoking rate is as high in Ireland as it was in 2004 when the smoking ban came in. All the years of losses to the hospitality trade have succeeded only in moving secondary smoke exposure to the domestic sphere – it's got to be happening somewhere!

Second, according to a report commissioned by the Irish Heart Foundation, the Irish Government has mistakenly frozen the duty on tobacco for the last two years in the belief that raising revenue would drive customers to the hands of illegal sellers. They claim as evidence a 9 per cent rise in tobacco revenue in 1995-2005 at a time when tax on tobacco rose by 11 per cent. It seems a bit odd that the Irish Heart Foundation should be complaining of lost earnings to the Treasury from tobacco revenue resulted from this ill-advised failure to raise duty, but they also claim that a rise in duty of one euro per 20 cigarettes would lead to 30,000 ceasing to smoke. The result: loads of extra money and huge savings in health costs and benefits.

So will the Irish compound their error by increasing the price of tobacco until it's about four times the level it is in, say, Hungary? Who knows?

The Irish Heart Foundation actually commissioned this study specifically to challenge the Irish Revenue Commissioners' conclusions that only smugglers would benefit from an increase in tobacco duty. How the report calculates the price elasticity of tobacco with the result that a jump in price will lead to 4 per cent of smokers giving up is beyond me. I am too stupid even to understand how or if they even attempt to take illegal tobacco sales into account.  Unemployment is approaching 15 per cent in Ireland and raising the taxation on what is already overpriced is in my view very likely to encourage people to economise by buying legitimately elsewhere without the Irish Exchequer making any gains, or to buy illegally.

Studies, by the way, are a weapon to be produced when countries rebel against tobacco control. Last year the Dutch lifted smoking bans on unstaffed bars (because there were no staff at risk of secondary smoke exposure). Last month, from an EU-funded tobacco control project, came this lengthy chastisement of the Dutch government for failing to implement the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, cutting smoking cessation funding, not using graphic images ... and here's the rub, shortening the lives of 145,000 over the next 30 years. The study in question uses a model to calculate the lives that would be saved by increasing taxation on tobacco and by funding smoking cessation services.

Calculations like these make the practice of threading a camel through the eye of a needle look like a fruitful and meaningful exercise.

Rangers fan jailed for being offensive on Facebook

Before the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Bill has even been passed into law, a Rangers fan has been given an eight-month sentence for offensive communications on Facebook.

The most extreme thing he appears to have said is: "Hope they (Celtic fans) all die. Simple. Catholic scumbags ha ha." 


This is an imprisonable offence? Blogger Dick Puddlecote  has for some time now been collecting offensive comments about smokers, by way of evidence of social hatred whipped up as a result of governments' treatment of smokers. I can add one more from last week: 

I honestly belive (sic) that these despicable odious creatures with their fags n cans of ale, who come to sponge off the proper folk of Blackpool; produce more fatherless kids at the expense of the taxpayer need a readjustment of attitude and edification of personal their (sic) ethics through the teutonic application of ZYKLON B. Problem solved, for EVER.

This is closer to inciting murder than Birrell's wish to see Celtic fans die. The writer has suggested a weapon, not simply expressed a wish. Should we ask why Sir Hubert Obadiah Finkleton is free while Stephen Birrell languishes in jail?

We're not asking for people who say stupid things to be jailed. Although the two insults arise from different places (the animosity expressed by Finkleton wouldn't have been fashionable six years ago, whereas bad feelings between rival football fans seem to be part of the national heritage), they are both  verbal abuse. Anyone taking the life of a murder or a Celtic fan would have to take full responsibility and would not be able to hide behind the fact that someone else said they wanted the victim dead.

Before the Act is even law, they imprison somebody for saying something. This will get worse: please sign the petition against the Bill and pass it around everyone who can get more signatures.


PRESS RELEASE FROM DR STUART WAITON

Thought Crime: Is Scotland becoming the most authoritarian country in Europe?

Following the 8 months imprisonment of Stephen Birrell for making anti-Celtic comments online, Dr Stuart Waiton of Take a Liberty ( Scotland ) has demanded a review of existing legislation and called on all football fans to protest against this draconian measure.

Birrell’s lawyer Iain McLennan noted that Birrell knew his comments were offensive but was finding it hard to understand the severity of his actions. He’s not the only one.

This ruling makes a mockery of the law; the judge even noted that no specific threats to individuals were made. In essence this was a football guy mouthing off online – that’s it!

As Waiton argues

This is a political imprisonment – carried out on the back of the government’s relentless campaign against football fans. In essence Birrell has been locked up for a thought crime, for mouthing off and saying bigoted things. Are we going to arrest everyone who has said bigoted things online? Perhaps all racist or sectarian jokes online should be tracked down. After all, using the Sheriff’s arguments, these things are ‘offensive’, the imprisonment would ‘send out a message’ and for many, these jokes and comments are ‘not acceptable in a modern Scotland’.

Tragically Scotland is looking more like a pre-enlightenment fiefdom than a modern tolerant nation that has the moral capacity to deal with different viewpoints. This imprisonment is not only authoritarian but illustrates the weakness of the Scottish elites who appear to feel the need to imprison those whose ideas they dislike.

For anybody serious about challenging the criminalisation of football fans this case is important and the imprisonment must be opposed.

Stuart Waiton can be contacted on 07866 998154 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            07866 998154      end_of_the_skype_highlighting

http://takealiberty.blogspot.com/  

Sectarianism Bill

All football enthusiasts are encouraged to sign this petition from the Celtic Supporters' Association against the Offensive Behaviour at Football Bill:

Text of thePetition

The Celtic Supporters Association; along with the other major supporters groups; The Affiliation of Registered Celtic Supporters Clubs; The Green Brigade, The Association of Irish Celtic Supporters Clubs; The Celtic Trust; and The North American Federation of Celtic Supporters Clubs.

Totally oppose the proposed new legislation for tackling offensive behaviour at football matches in Scotland. We believe that ordinary Celtic Supporters will be criminalised by this legislation for doing what we have done for over 120 years.  

Every Celtic fan can play their part in opposing the new legislation by signing the online petition. In the coming weeks there will be more organised protests against the new Bill. Please sign the petition; and play your own part in stopping this draconian Bill.  

A new campaign group, Fans Against Criminalisation, has been formed by Celtic fans to campaign against the first part of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Bill.  

Following the so-called ‘Shame Game’ last March, the police and the Scottish Government called Celtic and Rangers to a summit to discuss a  range of societal problems they claimed football was responsible for. Since then, the ills of society have been laid at football’s door and football fans have been blamed for everything from sectarianism to drink-fuelled domestic abuse. The government and a hitherto compliant Scottish media have portrayed the Offensive Behaviour at Football Bill as ‘anti-sectarian’ legislation.  

The reality is, however, very different from the political rhetoric.  

There is very little criminality at football matches – indeed, there has been no serious disorder in a Scottish stadium for over thirty years. The very small number of offences committed inside Scottish football grounds is a symptom of the nation’s wider problems with alcohol and bigotry, rather than a cause.   

The Offensive Behaviour at Football Bill does not tackle any of the nation’s problems. As a range of bodies from the Law Society to Nil By Mouth argue, there are existing laws that ably tackle sectarianism and other hate crimes. Instead, the proposed new legislation criminalises football fans for being football fans. The new law applies only to us and leaves football fans all over the country liable for arrest and imprisonment. Justice Minister Roseanna Cunningham suggests fans may be arrested for anything from making the sign of the cross to singing a national anthem. A whole range of acts routinely carried out by fans at football matches could be considered ‘offensive’. Any fan arrested under this new legislation will likely be subject to the nightmare of a football banning order and numerous court appearances before their case is even heard. Those convicted can be sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment. 

As Celtic fans, we have even more reason to be fearful about the Bill, given Justice Committee Chair Christine Graham’s view that the law should be seen as an ‘evening-up’ process, allowing the criminal law to capture Celtic fans as well as those of our city rivals.  

Rather than any serious policy debate, the Scottish Government has instead engaged in political grandstanding. Football fans have barely been considered or their views consulted as Alex Salmond tries to accelerate the Bill onto the statute books.  

But fans will no longer remain silent on the issue and our voices must be heard. The Green Brigade’s recent protest at the Inverness match was given huge backing by the Celtic support and has been followed by similarly well-received protests at other grounds. It now also seems that other commentators and members of civil society are starting to see through the Scottish government’s rhetoric and realise that the Bill is a poorly crafted piece of legislation that is both unnecessary and undesirable.  

Fans Against Criminalisation will not allow the ills of Scottish society to be laid at the door of football fans, or football fans to be treated as second-class citizens, subject to a ludicrous law that applies only to us. We will not stand idly by as fan culture and football fans are criminalised. Over the coming weeks and months we will be mounting a campaign against the Offensive Behaviour at Football Bill.

Please sign and share. (There is another petition on this issue here)

Pell and asthma again

Pellbuster-in-chief Chris Snowdon compares Professor Jill Pell's asthma claims with official figures on asthma hospital admissions in children since the Scottish smoking ban.

You can hear Jill Pell in Edinburgh at the Scottish Smoking Cessation Conference 2011 – free of charge (unless you fail to show after registering). The programme is here.

One of Chris's readers suggests sending the link to the New England Journal of Medicine (publisher of both Jill Pell's asthma study last year and her notorious heart attack study in 2008), to Professor Pell and to BBC Radio 4's More or Less programme. I've done all three this evening.

Blackpool revokes partial outdoor smoking ban

Good news on this revocation in Blackpool – town hall chiefs listened to publicans and accepted that the partial ban they imposed caused arguments and was not enforceable.

So far the recently imposed ban at the Solaris Centre is still in place. A motion in the Localism Bill that would have allowed councils the power to ban smoking outdoors has been dropped – leaving the Solaris ban without much of a legal basis.

Fifteen-minute lecture on rethinking alcohol policy

Worth a listen: anthropologist Kate Fox (no relation to Liam) proposes that people's reactions to alcohol are socially conditioned far more than people believe. Her conclusion is that government health warnings encourage people to cut down their drinking in order to reduce anti-social behaviour, even though people have been shown in tests over the last thirty years or so to respond to social cues and beliefs about how alcohol affects behaviour, as much as to alcohol itself. The government sends out the worst possible message: that drinking alters behaviour to the extent that people (especially the young) believe themselves not to be responsible for the things they do after a few beers. This is an interesting cross cultural examination of different attitudes to alcohol experienced in various cultures, and anyone with an interest in drinking should hear what Kate Fox has to say.

Bad news day for Australian government

The Australian government failed to bring the plain packaging through the Australian Senate (upper house) when the Conservative opposition forced the vote to be postponed. This throws into question the  Government's timetable for implementing the legislation. The vote will now take place in November.

There is, as frequently happens in the world of tobacco control, a sense of shock: how could the opposition 'play into the hands of the tobacco companies': we have international obligations:

Australia says the new laws reflect its obligations under the World Health Organization's 2005 framework against tobacco, which urges states to consider plain packaging laws. 

Voices like this seek to exclude the tobacco industry from national debate, and marginalise people in society who don't subscribe to the WHO's wild guesses about how many people die from tobacco consumption and their ideas about what to do about this.

Concern about the plain packaging is not limited to the Australian opposition. Indeed it is international, reflected both by the US Chamber of Commerce and tobacco growers:

The laws have angered tobacco producers who have threatened a High Court challenge, while the governments of Nicaragua and Ukraine said the new measures breached international trade rules and would be challenged in the World Trade Organization.

Tobacco companies are also threatening legal action against the legislation. Yesterday Sheila Duffy of ASH Scotland expressed her eagerness to see this legislation enacted. She will be sadly disappointed by today's non-result in Australia – but she was over-optimistic in believing that today's vote would  'see the end of a bitter and protracted struggle in Australian politics'.  Not only the tobacco companies will resist this policy fad of tobacco control.

Duffy in print

Sheila Duffy has excelled herself today by producing a leader column in the Scotsman entitled 'Restricting tobacco industry will improve health' (this was not published online), and another in the Herald: 'Health levy will bring huge benefits to public health and the economy'.

Does tobacco control have some special status for our national media that ASH Scotland's opinion gets placed next to the editorials at the centre of the Scotsman?

In her column, Duffy applauds the Australian effort to bring in plain packaging and makes her support for this legislation very clear. She refers to the recent UN summit on non-communicable diseases and the 'fundamental conflict between the tobacco industry and public health. She promotes plain packaging as a global strategy endorsed by the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control – an undemocratic measure that seeks to over-ride national democratic processes.

In the Herald she writes about the proposed health levy on major supermarkets, in reference to a previous article in which the Scottish Retail Consortium warned that the levy could fall on an increasing number of retailers with time. She huffs, 'well, they would say that, wouldn't they?' because they are 'keen to protect their members' interests'. Well – it takes one to know one.  This is the old story –  there is a dispute and both sides lobby. One does it out of sheer altruism and the other out of sheer self-interest. Sheila wants this levy because it is destined for 'preventive work': in more prosaic terms, to sustain the health promotion business.

The 'denormalisation' process is also at work here. Duffy echoes the words of Margaret Chan of the World Health Organisation who criticises the tobacco industry's efforts to gain support against plain packaging legislation, especially for the effrontery of employing lawsuits to challenge tobacco control legislation. God forbid that tobacco companies, having been marginalised from the policy-making process, should be allowed to make the public aware of their view of the situation.

Sheila clearly has a vested interest in the health levy. No doubt she will point to all the benefits of smokeless pubs such as a 17 per cent drop in heart attacks, a 13 per cent drop in childhood asthma admissions, better respiratory health in bar staff (based on a comparison of their health between February and June) and other fantasies. Her stock figures are 13,500 – the annual Scottish death rate from tobacco – and one in four, which is the proportion of Scots that are killed by tobacco. These figures are used in 2009,  but if we go back to 2005 we see very little change (in fact the rate for smoking-related deaths is only 13,000, but they have probably changed their method of counting). It rather looks as if the money spent on ASH Scotland has got very little result over the last six years.

Edit: Scotsman piece now online.

Professors Jill Pell and Linda Bauld to speak at smoking cessation event, Edinburgh

Might as well call it a trade fair, but it's a smoking cessation conference. Jill Pell and Linda Bauld are both tobacco control advocates, as is the Minister for Public Health Michael Matheson who is also addressing the conference.

More on Jill Pell and her groundbreaking research on asthma and heart attack admissions can be found here. Not for the first time, Pell's conclusions on the health impacts of the smoking ban have been found to clash with the evidence of somebody else's data.

Linda Bauld who this year left Bath University for Stirling, is best known for her contributions to the Evidence Review of the English smoking ban, and for speaking of harassment following the disagreement with Philip Morris.

Both academics, and the Health Minister, should be wary of involving themselves too closely with smoking cessation interests. This particular conference doesn't seem to be sponsored by Pfizer or similar, though. It's hard to know what exciting things will happen there, apart from talks by Pell, Bauld and Mr Matheson – perhaps not much as it's free to get in! (check here).

(If you can't make the conference you can still train as a stop smoking support worker. Academically accredited with Glasgow Caledonian University.)

Investment ethics

Kent County Council's recent investments in tobacco have upset Action on Smoking and Health. They have also upset an outfit called 'Fairpensions', an organisation campaigning for ethical investment that seeks to challenge the presumption that the primary responsibility of pension fund managers is to maximise financial returns.

Action on Smoking and Health and Fairpensions have issued a joint statement suggesting that a more thorough understanding of fiduciary duty would take into account ethical considerations affecting investment choices such as working conditions, overall cost to society. Fairpensions have also produced a discussion paper on the issue entitled Protecting our best interests: rediscovering fiduciary duty. A counter-argument can be found here.

What's rather funny about this is Martin Dockrell's contribution ...

“For public sector pensions the question of ethical investment is very fraught. We would argue put aside the issues of child labour, of killing half your customers, they’re selling an addictive and lethal product – put all that aside, it just doesn’t make long-term investment sense to wrap up your portfolio with a sector that is in terminal decline.”

It's not surprising seeing Dockrell issuing ethical guidance to pension fund buyers, but he also asserts his superior wisdom in assessing the long-term financial viability of tobacco funds. Not quite his line of expertise, you might think. He adds, "In 20 years the tobacco industry will be down the pan."


Had the habit of smoking been allowed to decline naturally Dockrell's insights into the future of tobacco might be more reliable. Tobacco control over the last several years, however, has been aggressive: not content with keeping the lid on illegal supplies and keeping tobacco out of the hands of children, it has severely restricted the social opportunities available to smokers and sought to discourage them by all available means. Its reach is global.

Tobacco control seeks to destroy the tobacco industry in the naive hope that this will somehow improve the human condition. It seems to forget that millions of people through history have resorted to drugs of all kinds to help them cope with extreme adversity, or to mask it. Getting rid of tobacco companies would not change this. It would remove a legal supplier of a mild drug, but wouldn't deal with the underlying demand for drugs, or improve the general human condition. Denied tobacco, people will turn to smoking other, perhaps even more dangerous concoctions, as found since the Isle of Man prison regime banned smoking:

Inspectors found that inmates were boiling up nicotine patches, soaking fruit peel or other substances in it and then rolling cigarettes from the resulting ‘tobacco’ in pages from dictionaries and Bibles held together with toothpaste.

This kind of thing takes us back in history to a time when unregulated and illegal suppliers were preferred to legal suppliers and standards of safety. Some people just can't seem to accept that demand for drugs and narcotics is a given.

Dockrell tells us that the tobacco industry will be down the pan in twenty years because that is the outcome his movement is looking to achieve. But who can say if the industry will go down quietly? He would be well advised to leave off commenting about future tobacco share values – he is far from being a disinterested party and there are people out there more qualified to read the signs objectively.

TB as a smoking-related disease

Says the BBC. Ahead of either the National Health Service or the Center for Disease Control, they report this tenuous link as fact. Links come from Chris Snowdon, who correctly points out that tuberculosis is associated with infection. Risk factors include certain medical conditions and proximity to a source of infection. The disease is contagious, but does not spread rapidly.

A study has just come out linking mortality from tuberculosis and projecting 'extra' deaths in future years with increasing smoking rates in affected areas. Tobacco control appears to be the solution once again:

Tobacco smoking could substantially increase tuberculosis cases and deaths worldwide in coming years, undermining progress towards tuberculosis mortality targets. Aggressive tobacco control could avert millions of deaths from tuberculosis.

Astonishingly a spokesman for the British Lung Foundation commented thus:

"Concerted international efforts are now under way to try and turn the tide of TB, but this important research shows that all these efforts may be undermined by the tobacco industry's continuing aggressive promotion of smoking in many parts of the world."

Do these people never give up? As if it weren't enough trying to divert all health resources to the supposed scourge of tobacco, the global health crusade now attempts to give the impression that communicable disease control is also best managed by 'aggressive' action against tobacco companies. Is all disease control from now on to address lifestyle issues at the expense of all else?

(In certain indoor settings of course there are technological solutions available to prevent the spread of contagious disease, including TB. Although these systems have been in use in health care in the UK for many years, they are unlikely to satisfy anti-tobacco crusaders in the health service – these people deny that the air-cleaning systems could deal effectively with tobacco smoke, so how can they be expected to deal with mycobacterium tuberculosis?)

Social responsibility/business levy splits retail trade in Scotland

This is just a small observation that those people who will not attract the proposed business levy in Scotland – which is to be levied on 'large' supermarkets selling alcohol and tobacco – seem think it's a good idea. The Scottish Grocers' Federation has supported the levy. Such supporters feel it offers relief to small traders from the competitive pressures of their big brothers in the marketplace – as this piece from January on a proposed 'supermarket tax' seems to suggest.

But the point of the public health levy is to penalise retail shops that sell tobacco and alcohol, rather than to level the playing field between large and small retailers:

"Given the reason for this is to tackle alcohol and tobacco, I think it's short-sighted and naive to suggest that that threshold which has been proposed, in the region of £300,000 of rateable value, that it won't be lowered in due course to smaller retailers."

So says David Lonsdale of the CBI. If he is wrong and the Government is simply trying to level the playing field, then the proposal has been presented dishonestly.

The Scottish Retail Consortium has responded to the announcement of this levy with dismay. In its submission to the Scottish Government to the draft budget it presents some sound arguments criticising the levy, including the arbitrary nature of its imposition on a small part of the retail sector, poor consultation, no sign of the levy in the SNP's election manifesto, lack of consultation and the size of the financial burden. The submission makes good points about lack of accountability, transparency and communication.

I hold no candle for the likes of Tesco and Asda, and in general wouldn't shop with them. But to say I'm uneasy about the levy is putting it mildly – not only about the general approach to raising the revenue but the vagueness about how the money will be spent. As the SRC points out, major supermarkets have been contributing to public health efforts:

Supermarkets take the responsible retailing of alcohol, tobacco and  all other lines extremely seriously.  They have led industry in working in close partnership with Government towards achieving this aim and in supporting associated health objectives.  They contribute substantial sums towards the funding of DrinkAware, pioneered the prevention of under-age sales through the Challenge 25 initiative and have led the way on clear alcohol labelling.  Over many years they have led industry in their nutritional initiatives and their commitment to help consumers to make healthier and balanced choices in the food they buy.  As recently as July, the SRC and major retailers announced, to wide acclaim, a major new commitment to support greater consumption of fruit and vegetables ...  

As they say, an appeaser is someone who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last. Not sure quite why those words came to mind!

Schuman trial on home smoking: Repace debates

I got my version of this from Frank Davis who raises his hat to CAGE Canada for the story.

The trial concerns some ultra-sensitive plaintiff who has brought in a private prosecution against a smoker, in a case that will test home smoking bans. The trial has seen some dramatic moments ...

This link describes the case, and a discussion follows in which chief witness for the plaintiff wades right in. Not any old witness – this is James Repace. The debate is worth following just to see how he manages (not quite unnoticed) to evade questions and fail to cite evidence when asked to.

I don't quite understand how he gets away with participating given that the proceedings are not yet over – glad he did though.

Unions support smokers (sometimes!)

There are varying accounts of this initiative to force smokers employed in the Belgian civil service to clock out for smoking breaks. The Telegraph's report (the first one I read) said that it's a matter of maintaining a good image for the Council – it's unsightly to have smokers associated with the council, sets a bad example to the community, or whatever. (Clearly this image problem has been brought about by the smoking ban itself.) Other reports focus on the time lost while going for a smoke – the employers declare smoking the equivalent of going shopping, but most people would state that it takes little more time than going to get some coffee or to the toilet.

Both versions agree that unions disagree with this move, and have already spoken to the French press, insisting that smokers are as productive as non-smokers and they view the new requirement to clock out for smoking breaks as discriminatory.

So you can count on your union to back you up? Not in this country, it would seem, if unions at Breckland Council, Norfolk, are anything to go by. The requirement to clock out for smoking breaks was supported by 'council management, unions and workers'.

Changes of this nature to the substance of people's working conditions should be resisted by unions – that is surely what unions are for – to reject unilateral changes by managers. Not a lot said about unions supporting workers (who smoke) on this issue – I did find this opinion piece, though. While acknowledging some union strengths it also attacks the unions' failure to defend smokers in decisive terms – well done.

Unions did, to their credit, resist an attempt by NHS Grampian to ban smoking on the premises of all its hospitals two years ago. This ill-fated policy was soundly and deservedly attacked on this blog also. Welcome though this is, it is also important that all union members who have paid their subs continue to receive support on all matters affecting their terms and conditions of employment.

Non-report on smoking cessation in Aberdeen

Under the heading 'No smoking targets on track', we are told that 'Over 20 thousand people have tried to quit smoking in the NHS Grampian area over the last year'.

They're not even bothered about success now, an attempt is all they're looking for.

In Dick Puddlecote's latest, he links to this, which discusses the use of NRT as a long-term strategy rather than one limited to 12 weeks.

I wonder how they'll express their targets in future ... more people using gum and patches? Yet more people attempting to give up smoking but let's not talk about whether they managed it beyond the first four weeks?

Don't forget to attend to DP's other link:

only a small amount of data is available concerning the safety of persistent NRT use. At the present time we therefore have no basis for declaring that the population of long-term users are under cover (we are only able to state that persistent use of NRT is undoubtedly safer than the continuation of smoking). Consequently, there is a need to conduct large-scale studies with the primary aim of monitoring for misuse of OTC NRT and assessing the possible physical and mental health risks of persistent NRT use.

Inappropriate influence at the Labour Conference?

The Telegraph reports that the Shadow Labour Secretary (and one of his team) took the huff because representatives of tobacco companies were invited to a business forum at the Labour Party Conference, and refused to turn up.

It's hard not to agree with the Labour Party leadership that the tobacco industry has received no favours from them. Politicians must take every precaution against being unduly influenced by corporations but the mere presence of industry representatives at conference events is no evidence of undue influence. The Shadow Health Secretary's gesture is petulant – it may reflect advice given in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control by attempting to marginalise any tobacco industry presence in policy circles, but we should not attempt to exclude interested parties completely from the policy-making process.

It seems that another MP appeared to go on the run from a tobacco-sponsored fringe meeting at the Labour Party Conference but her non-appearance turned out to result from a misunderstanding about the arrangements. She did, however, express disquiet about the TMA sponsorship of the event, which came to her notice late.

Anyone would think that the tobacco companies were the only monstrous manifestations of capitalism that were accountable only to their shareholders and cared nothing for the welfare of consumers or the environment. It's actually refreshing to see the New Statesman's partnership with the TMA for this fringe meeting, since their relationship with Pfizer (clearly a rival to tobacco manufacturers in the market for nicotine) is entrenched.

But who's idea was the fringe meeting? I've no idea – but it does look like the Labour Party needs support to be renewed from all sectors. Perhaps it went begging?

Shopkeepers warned to expect influx of underage smokers

Following the introduction of the vending machine ban in England yesterday, Betty McBride of the British Heart Foundation, which campaigned for the ban, urged shopkeepers to be on the lookout for underage smokers.

Is it just me? or is it really illogical to believe that 11 per cent of underage smokers rely on vending machines for their tobacco? If it's not true that a significant proportion of child smokers use vending machines, why have they told researchers that they do? Is it because it seems to them that the alternative is to shop a dealer who is breaking the law by supplying them or shopping an illegal dealer who also supplies additional drugs? Getting a name for grassing up illegal dealers isn't a good survival tactic.

The fact that children can obtain tobacco from machines in test purchases is very far from being evidence that most determined young smokers will turn to these expensive machines as a regular source of supply. The children will get tobacco from rogue traders or illegal sellers on the street.

I feel that the notion that hordes of teenagers will queue up in shops with faked ID just because there's no longer a tobacco vending machine in the Bull & Bush is far-fetched and reflects a level of official denial about the scale of unofficial/illegal sales of tobacco in Scotland.

North of the border restrictions are tightening too. Retailers of tobacco in Scotland are required to register, but as little as three days ago less than half the retailers had done so. On the alcohol side, 'buy one get one free' and similar offers are now illegal in shops – but since supermarkets have already simply lowered the unit price of wines and crates of beer it remains to be seen how quickly further restrictions will follow.

Vending machine bans live today

The BBC reports the beginning of the vending machine in England today. This measure is designed to protect 'under-age children' from the temptations of tobacco, by preventing them from buying a product that contains fewer cigarettes and is more expensive than tobacco from any other source.

There is no need to destroy an industry on the pretext of preventing children from accessing tobacco. Vending machine companies have been developing solutions to age verification problems. If, Michael Matheson then MSP (now Minister for Public Health) claimed  when the Bill was passed, there is no evidence proving that kids wouldn't find a way to use a radio-controlled machine activated upon age verification, there is likewise no guarantee that future generations of kids will even give vending machines a thought once they are no longer there.   If they want to smoke, they will find a way.

Westminster smoking ban petition: Forest appeal; Greek amendment

Over to Simon Clark for this. The petition (currently featured in the side bar of this blog) urges an amendment that would allow licensees to supply separate rooms for smoking in. Not ideal by any means (the implicit admission of secondary smoke as a recognised health hazard doesn't help matters) but even this proposal would knock more holes in the official dogma claiming that bans are really very unpopular with large sections of the population.

The Greek government knows this. They have decided to allow smoking in large clubs and casinos, but only if licensees pay tax of 200 euros per square metre of premises set aside for smoking. The minimum allowable size is 300 square metres, and smoking can occupy up to half. So venues can be expected to pay at least 30,000 euros. That's clearly meant to discourage, but it remains to be seen how it will work in practice since the smoking ban in Greece seems so badly enforced anyway.