Greenock parks to go non-smoking

Over to the other Freedom2Choose for this one!

Introducing the NHS Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training. Your smoking cessation career starts here!

It's almost Pythonesque, the numbers of people who are being trained specifically to stop others from smoking with (or without) the use of drugs.

As mentioned at the beginning of the year the UK National Smoking Cessation Conference takes place in June, this year in London. I described in then as a trade conference, but it is even more serious than that. It's a training agency, aiming to train and give certification to people who want to develop competence in their role of smoking cessation advisers/practitioners.

Behind the UKNSCC however looms another organisation, National Centre for Smoking Cessation Training (NCSCT), created from a winning bid by a consortium led by University College London to provide an accreditation system for smoking cessation advisers. (Is this what Tony Blair meant all those years ago by 'Education, Education, Education'?)

The organisation does have an 'ethical policy', which shows its main players have 'interests which might have a bearing on the independence of their judgement in relation to their work for the NCSCT': namely that they have received hospitality from Pfizer (manufacturer of Champix), or the Department of Health.

Here is their quarterly report for April to June 2010, which includes the news that 'On the 27th May 2010 the NCSCT was officially informed that it is now an ISO 9001 certified organisation (certificate number: FS 559421)'. Well, that's also reassuring. As is the long list of links.

Transatlantic allies offer full accreditation for smoking cessation-related activities across the pond (supported by Pfizer). Isn't it nice that we'll soon have as many words for smoking cessation as the eskimos have for snow?

Book here for the conference in London. You'll probably get a refund from your employer, and maybe something for accommodation (it's only London after all!)

One rule for them ...

'Gentleman’s agreement' polices leaders’ smoking. Most citizens don't have the option of making gentlemen's agreements. Agreements, negotiation. Discussing how it will be.

They/we are simply told how it will be. No negotiation, no participation. No flexibility.

Just leave the room if you want a cigarette and you won't even be thanked for it because you're just following orders. And you will be punished if you offend the law.

I don't know a huge amount about the law, but I understood that everyone was meant to be equal before the law. If it affronts the dignity of rulers to be subject to a law, then it affronts everyone's dignity, and the law should be reconsidered.

Scottish Labour endorses smoking ban

Scottish Labour Health Spokesperson Jackie Baillie celebrates five years of the smoking ban. A beautifully balanced piece from the STV, closely resembling Scottish Labour's announcement of the smoking ban's fifth anniversary.

Freedom to Choose (Scotland) asked Scottish Labour back in December 2010 to explain its current position regarding smoking bans in psychiatric units. Ms Baillie clearly hasn't found it easy (in spite of regular promises) to provide a proper response.

BBC Scotland interview: fifth anniversary of smoking ban

Worth hearing, available till Friday.

Discussion of whether the ban should be amended by the provision of smoking rooms.

Hats off to Lynn Adams, publican who points out that smokers are part of society and should not be denied their place.

Duffy celebrates smoking ban in Scotland

The fifth anniversary of the smoking ban in Scotland falls tomorrow. ASH Scotland celebrates, even if 'she' has to rely on Jill Pell's accounts of drops in heart attack admissions and childhood asthma. Sheila Duffy looks forward to more of the same after the Scottish elections in order to protect children from second hand smoke exposure in the home. As usual, no comments are allowed on the ASH Scotland blog, but you can of course comment here and on Taking Liberties, linked below. 

More on the campaign undertaken by Forest and the Scottish Licensed Trade Association here. Much of Europe allows limited smoking in bars, and their campaign is to bring Scotland into line with this. (I would love to see the line-up of Scottish parliamentarians that would act on this, but I won't hold my breath.)  

A bridge too far: sense on smoking from Nurses for Reform

More like this please.

Extracts:

Away from all the government’s blather concerning enterprise, freedom and personal responsibility, the illiberal jack-boots of the do-gooders are again on the march. But this time the unintended consequences of their actions could well turn out to be demonstrably counterproductive. Indeed, once instituted, these measures will be a bridge too far for even the most ardent enemies of freedom. My guess is they will end up ushering in a world of more smoking via criminality and a vast sea of cheaper, untaxed and illicit tobacco. [...]

Simultaneously pitied, hated and left out in the cold smokers are the new minority that I believe all health workers should now be protective of. For when a terror starts to strike, it is not good enough to blindly stand by and obey politicians’ orders. While I choose not to be a smoker, I recognise it is time for good people to stand up on the side of common sense, proportionality and basic tolerance. Being a British libertarian who has always hated racism, homophobia and cruelty, I have a keen sense of when things are going too far and when in the name of the public or collective good, persecution is being unacceptably legitimized.

H/tip Pat Nurse

Commentaries on five years of the Scottish smoking ban

Writing in the Herald, Harry Reid sticks his neck out by claiming that smoke-filled pubs are a sad loss in Scottish society. He takes a tour round places that he frequented pre-ban, and concludes:

The old Scottish pub was, emphatically, no place for a binge night out. It may have been filled with smoke, but it was also filled with wisdom, bonhomie, respect and – dare I use that often misused phrase – a sense of community.

(Yes he is right: we had a 'big society' before the public health community tore it apart.)

The best bars, and there were plenty of them, encouraged social cohesion. That can hardly be said of supermarkets, whatever their usefulness. 

Lindsay Moss's rather predictable piece interviews four people, 'smoker', 'publican' (against the ban), and 'doctor' and 'quitter' (supporting the ban), after the inevitably self-congratulatory comments from public health officials, Sheila Duffy of ASH Scotland and former public health minister Shona Robison. I can only agree with the comment from the smoker:

"The fact I have to go outside to have a cigarette is an irritation, but it's nothing compared to the sense of depression that there is no 'public' in Britain in terms of a public that organises its own affairs without having experts setting the agenda. [emphasis added]

(Who are these people?)

 We see all the boxes ticked, but the piece reads more like an extended press release from the tobacco control movement (albeit including some dissenting voices). A quitter supports the ban and won't let her husband smoke inside, and a doctor can't speak highly enough of the ban. Revolutionary stuff, but what about interviewing a health worker or non-smoker who opposes the ban, or even mention the chief constable who recently linked the smoking ban to increased domestic violence? The only people invited to criticise the ban are Forest, a smoker and a publican (and they would criticise, wouldn't they?)

(I prefer this as a comment on the fifth anniversary of the smoking ban in Scotland: it doesn't discuss Scotland but covers similar ground.)

Just take their profits

You can tell just by reading it that the authors of the Tobacco Control Blog run by the British Medical Journal have a narrow focus on life. This month Luka Solmajer recommends ways to reduce the profitability of the tobacco industry worldwide. He recommends taxing the industry over 90 per cent of its profits, the proceeds to be invested in health care and social services in order to right the wrongs done by tobacco. (Social services?) And of course the beauty of mechanisms such as the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control is that such tactics can be employed globally.

What could happen if a country decided to do as specified above and really make tobacco unprofitable? There would be huge opposition from the industry, but then the companies would stop their activities and go elsewhere, where they will still be able reap the profits. But once other countries do the same, they will have nowhere left to go. Millions of people will live longer and healthier lives. [Emphasis added]

He also surmises:

I strongly believe this is the equivalent of making tobacco products illegal, without actually doing so. The only counterargument I can think of is the threat the toxic tobacco industry will make about the emergence of black markets and counterfeit cigarettes, but this is only a potential problem there are very effective measures to prevent it. And even if there would be a flourishing black market for cigarettes, it would never be as large and as a harmful as the present state.

Discussion invited: 'What do you think? Will governments be willing to adopt such a system? Will it lead to fewer smokers?'

I think Mr Solmajer is well off the mark thinking that a lid can easily be put on the demand for tobacco, especially if it is cheap and illegal, and especially in times of economic austerity. I also think a 90 per cent tax is far less likely to be applied in countries with a heavy reliance on export tobacco.

Guaranteeing funding for health care from tobacco industry profits (even supposing the tobacco companies could not fight such a tax rate in the courts) also creates reliance on the tobacco market for these funds, which is not in the interests of tobacco control. Tobacco companies may not be allowed to sponsor sports clubs directly, but what will be the difference if it is known that their profits fund healthcare and social services? Your doctor might start recommending Camels again! It is already known that the governments can't afford to lose the tobacco industry, but surely the answer is not to direct all its profits into essential services. A loss in market strength would then damage the services.

Another problem with this idea is that is highly prejudicial. Tobacco may be injurious to health but is it really more injurious than countless other commodities (junk food, alcohol, armaments, prescription drugs to name a few). Singling out tobacco does not say that tobacco is more dangerous than these other products: it merely speaks to the strength of the lobbying groups campaigning on tobacco. Can we imagine a world where no one was allowed to profit from the sale of armaments or oil? No, because these commodities are far too important to the stability of governments. Prescription drugs? What if no one were allowed to profit from the production and sale of medicines? Would health care improve? What of banking profits?

Companies dealing in commodities like oil, armaments and even drugs cannot be pushed into giving up their profits, even though their profitability can work against the common weal. Can tobacco companies? And if tobacco companies were forced out of business, where would those evildoers who are employed by tobacco companies put their skills to use? And would people stop smoking regulated tobacco when tobacco companies go out of business?

I think Mr Solmajer should apply himself to a different problem.

New professor annoys publicans

A professor of socio-management newly appointed by Stirling University has annoyed some publicans by stating that the smoking ban has had no clear adverse effect on the hospitality industry. The measured tones of Mark Daniels at the Publican describe this conclusion as 'rude', while the Pub Curmudgeon does a bit of digging on the new professor showing a clear career interest in smoking restrictions. (This includes vice chairmanship of  Cancer Research UK's Tobacco Advisory Group: you need to be on message if you want any money for your research from them.)

Professor Bauld is clearly on the up in tobacco control. Apart from praising the smoking ban and hiding its deleterious effects on the nation's social economy, she has produced this magnificent document. It sets out by describing the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. On page 7 she tells the world that it needs a 100% smoke-free environment, that it must reject any form of air filtration or ventilation, that guidance will be provided on punishing those who infringe no-smoking laws and that implementing the FCTC's requirements is not resource dependent. Any country can do it, no matter how poor. Tell that to the Japanese.

Welcome to Scotland, Linda. I'm glad that your talents are becoming more widely recognized.

Drinks industry bites back

Says the Scotsman: Drinks giant Diageo has cut its ties with Scotland's most prominent alcohol awareness charity over controversial moves by the campaigning group to link the impact of alcohol to that of smoking.

The quarrel started here, when it emerged that alcohol trade groups were to be excluded from the Scottish Tobacco and Alcohol Policy Summit, to be held in Edinburgh on Tuesday.

Being linked with tobacco upsets these drink magnates. This is because they have failed to recognise that the business of 'public health' is not an argument about health but about political control. Even if it were true that there are absolutely no health benefits to smoking under any circumstances, this is irrelevant. The issue is that a publicly funded lobbying group, ASH Scotland, can present a case for leaving others in the community out of the policy discussion. Diageo has been content with this as long as they were invited to participate, but a new boy has moved on to the block in the shape of ASH Scotland. Diageo is outraged at being excluded from the activities of an organisation that it has recently supported generously, but is not quite ready to realise that degrees of damage to health really isn't the issue. 

The issue is: Everyone in the community should demand full participation in any publicly funded policy summit, because in the end we all contribute to the cost of these events, and the people that run them are our servants and not our masters or managers.

Chris Snowdon has more.    

Electioneering starts but public increasingly interested in anti-smoking money trail

The Scottish general elections will take place this May. Scottish Liberal Democrats chose the occasion of No Smoking day to address the nation. How can they fail to win enormous numbers of seats with a message like this? All available resources must be used to help people stop smoking? Is this really a national priority? It's nice to know that Mr Finnie took his role on the Health & Sport Committee so much to heart though.

In another neck of the political woods Big Brother Watch discusses 'The vested interests of the anti-smoking lobby', and speculates about the money trail that sustains the likes of Action on Smoking and Health and ASH Scotland. There is no doubt that there is an enormous conflation of interest between those who campaign to restrict smoking and those who stand to benefit from the sales of nicotine cessation medicines. Look no further than this website: those giving the presentations, the delegates, the sponsors (and check the archive pages from last year), all have a career interest in anti-smoking. We were outside the hotel in Glasgow as the delegates emerged last year, over 600, mostly publicly paid anti-smoking careerists, sporting a memento jute UKNSCC bag for their briefing papers and notes, and travelling from all four corners of the UK.

The money spent on this exercise is formidable, and let us remember that some of those who receive this public money think nothing of excluding ordinary members of the public like Mr Gilligan from public health policy discussions, simply because their path in life took them into a sales role instead of public health. It's a case of some being more equal than others.

The money trail does need to be more widely understood. At the bottom is a battle between drug companies and the general public. Drug companies seek a monopoly position and they compete against tobacco for the same customers. The state and the World Health Organisation help them out, even though their track record is compromised. Why is the state taking sides with pharmaceuticals against their own people, and why is the World Health Organisation doing exactly the same thing?

Why is everyone saying that the bastards running the tobacco companies are beyond comparison rent seeking and careless of public health, when disregard for public health goes with the territory of many big companies – and small ones – in all walks of life.

In the words of detective novelist Ian Rankin: 'We spend most of our time chasing something called "the underworld", but it's the overworld we should really be keeping an eye on.'

Scottish tobacco display ban deferred

In recognition of pending legal action the Scottish Government has announced a 6-month delay to the start of the  tobacco display ban, which was meant to be implemented in supermarkets from 1 October this year.  Small shops will have until 2015, giving them 'extra time to prepare', much to the annoyance of health groups.

The subject has provoked furore in the press down south, because the legislation was opposed by the current coalition leaders when in opposition. This leaves the clear conclusion that Health Department officials and/or the EU and WHO carries much more clout than voters.

Added to the mix down south is the new policy of mandatory plain packaging for tobacco, which the government declares it has an 'open mind' on. But this is less an issue than how liberal politicians who opposed an illiberal policy when in opposition came to support it once in power. The change has caused concern, for good reason.

The legal action by Imperial Tobacco that has delayed the tobacco display ban will be heard later in the year.

The freedom to exclude people with relevant experience

The Herald provides follow-up on yesterday's correspondence on the ASH Scotland/Alcohol Focus Scotland.

Mr Gilligan's long experience with alcohol sales counts for nothing with the new arbiters of public health policy. Naturally he is unhappy:

I find it deeply insulting to imply that because I earn my living selling alcohol I would not give a fair contribution to any debate on how to minimize alcohol abuse.

He goes on: 'In any change process it is vital to involve all the people affected.' And why not? Surely alcohol salespeople have an interest in helping people to avoid abusing alcohol.

Mr Gilligan points out: 'anyone earning an income from ASH Scotland or Alcohol Focus Scotland should be banned from the meeting as they have a commercial interest too'.

He has a point, although the two organisations can hardly be expected to exclude themselves. They would probably also deny a commercial interest as they operate within the voluntary sector, but it can't be denied that they have a policy interest in excluding people with commercial interests. (I've accused them of subscribing to the Big Society agenda, but they can't be accused of espousing the idea that 'We're all in this together'.)

Another correspondent Mr Macdonald asks, with touching simplicity,

Am I alone in seeing the irony of Freedom to Choose questioning why organisers have chosen not to invite the Wine and Spirits Trade Association to the Scottish Alcohol and Tobacco Policy Summit (Letters, March 7)?

Clearly he thinks Freedom to Choose (Scotland) stands for anybody doing whatever the hell they want at any time regardless of the implications. He thinks that small private bodies can legitimately gain charitable status by working to further government agendas, gain government confidence and hold national summit meetings that exclude some of the most experienced and knowledgeable players in the game. He thinks a body that calls itself Freedom to Choose (Scotland) should endorse ASH Scotland and Alcohol Focus Scotland's bid to marginalise people from the alcohol and tobacco industries (and exclude them from a national policy summit) as a triumph of freedom of choice. He finds it ironic that we even question this. I hope he is the only one.

Denormalisation of drinkers and the alcohol trade?

The battle continues: Under the heading 'Trade ban for the alcohol summit is for the good of the nation', Sheila Duffy (ASH Scotland) and Evelyn Gillan (Alcohol Focus Scotland) respond to criticisms that the Wine & Spirit Trade Association had been excluded from taking part in the Alcohol and Tobacco Health Policy Summit.

Published on the same page, from Eddie Douthwaite (Freedom to Choose (Scotland)), comes a letter challenging the Scottish Government that will take office following May's General Election. Will such a government willingly accept the conclusions from a summit that has excluded people with an informed input? What of delegates attending the summit? will they voice any disapproval that the trade has been sidelined? (or will they be so relieved to be 'in the club' that they will agree that it's in the nation's best interests to leave the industry out of the reckoning?)

Will parties generally adopt the idea that only public health personnel should contribute to public health policy? We have already learned from Richard Simpson MSP that Labour (if elected) will engage with the alcohol industry in accordance with WHO guidance. But Duffy and Gillan tell us that according to the World Health Organisation:  “interaction with the alcohol industry should be in the context of their role as producers, distributors and marketers of alcohol, not in terms of alcohol policy development or health promotion”. So perhaps Labour will gladly swallow the results of this summit.

Whatever Richard Simpson's views on alcohol, David Nutt outdoes him by miles. On the other hand Vivienne Nathanson of the BMA wants to denormalise alcohol by ensuring that it is not displayed next to food. But in this respect Scotland has the edge, as it already restricts the displays of alcohol in shops to a single aisle. (Says Gavin Partington of the WSTA: "Far from demonising alcohol, surely we should encourage people to drink with food," but no one listens because he is employed by the demon drink trade association.)

Five years after the smoking ban was introduced, life doesn't look much brighter for the licensed trade in Scotland. In October, they face the removal of tobacco vending machines and (what concerns them more) the introduction of a mandatory Challenge 25 policy, meaning that staff will feel their jobs are on the line if they don't ID anyone who doesn't 'look 25'. What does a 25-year-old look like? Someone of 24 can be approaching junior management levels and over in some jobs. They might have children at home up to four or five years old, and they might have completed a few tours of duty in the army. In terms of physical maturity they have as much in common with a 17-year-old as someone of six years old has with someone of 3. Whatever the purpose of Challenge 25 (especially as a condition of licensing), it is unlikely to present an obstacle to 14- to 17-year-olds who want to drink. The only thing it is likely to achieve is the alienation of customers. Challenge 21 should provide enough margin of error in most venues. Parliamentary deliberations in November 2010 did not question whether this policy would stop underage sales, but seemed to take it for granted that any deleterious effect on the licensed trade was no bad thing in the long run. The Scottish Licensed Trade Association Chief Executive rightly condemns this useless form of identification:

Waterson branded Challenge 25 a "joke" for pubs. "There's absolutely no reason for pubs to be running Challenge 25," he said.

I can't see a reason either.

There are too many factions here, however: the licensed trade can be picked apart by governments and by lobby groups (ASH Scotland and Alcohol Focus Scotland) with restrictive agendas and money to burn on divide and rule tactics. Everyone in the community should demand full participation in any publicly funded policy summit, because in the end we all contribute to the cost of these events, and the people that run them are our servants and not our masters or managers.

Bristol Royal Infirmary reintroduces shelters

Says the hospital spokesman:

We have come to the conclusion, as have a number of other hospitals, that although we cannot and do not support smoking in healthcare and the impact it has on public health, what we do need to do is respect people's privacy and dignity and provide somewhere if they really are going to smoke.

And even better, from the trust's chief executive:

UHBristol chief executive, Robert Woolley, said: 'We would rather conserve the dignity and the health of patients than the smokefree initiative.'

Someone had to disagree of course:

Regional director of public health and Smokefree South West spokesman, Gabriel Scally, said he felt the proposals for smoking shelters were bad news. He said: 'I would regard that as very disappointing. I would not see that as the way forward.

'The NHS and its premises should be completely smoke free.This is our health service and I don't believe that people should be damaging their health in this particular way with the help of the NHS. That's not what people pay their taxes for.'

But even Cecilia Farren of South West ASH recognises a 'terrible dilemma', and that the alternative is 'people standing about smoking outside hospitals'.  If that means somebody in ASH recognises that smokers' health and dignity must be protected in spite of their choices, then we might be making some progress.

ASH Scotland considers second-hand smoke in the home

Today saw ASH Scotland's conference entitled Smokefree Homes and Cars, at the Dundee Hilton. Its agenda speaks pretty much for itself (but more below). ASH Scotland's work on smokefree homes has been assisted by  a National Lottery grant of £500,000, awarded in 2009 which was more than half its government grant for 2009/2010 (most recent information on ASH Scotland's finances here).

Yesterday (the 2nd) ASH Scotland released a press release on the event, which referred only to the 'smokefree homes' element. Sheila Duffy summarises future requirements as follows:

• 'setting a national target for reducing second-hand smoke exposure in the home;
• ensure continued funding to develop and evaluate new smoke-free home programmes at local level;
• develop a robust monitoring and evaluation system to measure and compare effectiveness of the range of projects that are ongoing and share best practice;
• develop further training in second-hand smoke issues amongst health professionals and others who work with families;
• support partnership working to meet targets and pool resources; and consider implementing a public health campaign to raise the awareness of second-hand smoke in the home.'

None of these involves any change in smoking legislation, but intensive 'partnership working' with people who deliver services about smoking. And of course a funding commitment (they will need a renewal of this revenue stream) – but with lottery funding and occasional injections of cash from Cancer Research UK topping this up.

Ever wanted to know what the Big Society means? Forgive my cynicism, but it means just this: 'voluntary sector' groups can set a policy agenda, attract funding enough to pay nearly thirty salaries and organise and pay for policy implementation with limited parliamentary scrutiny. Within a few short years, our fear of secondary smoke has allowed us to abrogate responsibility for controlling the stuff, to the extent that we are now supposed to welcome 'experts' who wish to advise us about making our children and grandchildren and their friends ill from the effects of fourth hand smoke. No law is needed, we are just expected to do what the experts tell us is right. Our rights to privacy have been trumped by a perceived right to 'smokefree' air.

Just as ASH Scotland succeeded in creating smoke-free psychiatric services without resorting to changing the law, and not  unlike Honduras, where the police can be called for dealing with family smoking even though smoking is not itself a crime, government is bypassed and partnership working does the rest.

A top-down policy agenda (in the case of smoking, one that we know comes from the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control) is fulfilled, to all appearances, by 'the community' with popular support from the grassroots. I don't buy it: nothing suggests that the smoke-free agenda is anything but doctrinaire and intolerant scaremongering.

Row over ASH Scotland tobacco and alcohol summit

ASH Scotland, with two new allies Alcohol Focus Scotland and Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems, has announced a conference dubbed Scottish Tobacco and Alcohol Policy Summit.

Such a grandiose title leads to great expectations, and sure enough we will have a panel of experts and another of politicians, for all the world resembling an Any Questions media event, or even a hustings. So can we expect an inclusive meeting, where we all get to suggest how to overcome our national tobacco and alcohol issues?

Well – no. Only some of us get in, for a start.

Herald, 2 March 2011, p. 2
(Click to enlarge)

In order to 'consider what progress has been made in alcohol control and tobacco control and explore what each sector might learn from the other', we must have no industry interference. Straight from Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which requires exclusion of 'industry' from health policy discussions, adopted by ASH Scotland and imitated by Alcohol Focus Scotland, in their statement in the Herald today (see final paragraph of cutting above).

The Whisky and Spirits Trade Association spokesman Gavin Partington understandably has difficulty in having his industry treated by Alcohol Focus Scotland in the same way as ASH Scotland treats the tobacco industry. While I have sympathy (it is not nice to be sidelined from vital discussions about your industry's future), he has perhaps failed to realise how little of the health industry's agenda is about health. But it's perhaps hard to realise this without being at the sharp end of official efforts to exclude you from industry policy discussions and denormalise the users of your product.

I'll say it again: policy is a matter of reconciling interests. Policy isn't satisfactory when participants, the most knowledgeable players, are left out. There is no legitimate interest in keeping people out of health policy, be they doctors or tobacco magnates. Above all, public discussion should be open.

Well done to the Herald, for reporting the only newsworthy fact about this policy summit that has hit the mainstream media so far. The Scotsman can go to the bottom of the class.  

Essex police in roadside smoking ban operation

An Essex campaign against smoking in commercial vehicles, outlawed under smoking ban legislation in England since July 2007, will involve the police.

Chris Kitchen, acting head of environmental services at Tendring District Council in Essex said: “Police together with council officers will be stopping business vehicles and public transport vehicles on the highway.

"We have noticed that people are smoking in commercial vehicles where in fact it's banned and we will be looking for evidence that people have been smoking."

The campaign aims to raise awareness but will also result in action both against drivers who smoke and their employers.

I'm not aware of the police being involved in smoking ban enforcement generally. Clearly their resources are being diverted from real crimes in order to focus on this operation. Their funding will be safe, then.

Honduras steps back, risking ire of Framework Convention Alliance

Last-minute changes to a Honduras tobacco law roused the anger of tobacco controllers: but it wasn't the law I hoped had been watered down.

This is a law, passed in Honduras a week ago, allows the public to call the police about people smoking in the home:

The law explicitly bans smoking in schools, gas stations, nightclubs, restaurants, bars, buses, taxis, stadiums and cultural centers but it doesn't clearly ban smoking at home.

A clause, however, expressly says relatives or visitors can summon police to deal with smokers at home: "Families or individuals may complain to law enforcement authorities when smokers expose them to secondhand smoke in private places and family homes."

Applying law enforcement measures to situations where no law is being broken? Anti-tobacco forces once more undermine the purpose of laws in what we used to call civilised society. Laws used to be 'for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools'. They were/are created by legislatures, by democratically elected representatives of the community. But it seems that now we can be coerced into a form of behaviour without any law being passed, because someone has the right to sanction our actions without the force of law.

The law itself is freakish enough ... or could be. The reporter says: 'The new measure bans smoking in most closed public or private spaces and orders smokers to stand at least six feet away from nonsmokers in any open space.'  Does it mean 'orders smokers to stand at least six feet away from nonsmokers' at any time, or only when smoking? This provision is extreme, especially in a country short of law enforcers and long on crime: it looks suspiciously like trying to hit soft targets.

Anyway, as I said, this wasn't  the legislation that was watered down to the annoyance of the Framework Convention Alliance. The provision that was changed reduced the coverage of tobacco packs with health warnings from 80 to 50 per cent. Shocking.

On Wednesday 23 February, just two days after the national tobacco control law went into effect, the Honduras Congress voted to approve an amendment to the law that reduces the required pictorial health warnings on tobacco packages from 80 per cent to 50 per cent. 

The new amendment also provides the tobacco industry three more months to meet the new warning label requirements.

Of course the Framework Convention Alliance is desperate to put things to rights:

We ask that President Porfirio Lobo Sosa veto the amendment to ensure that the health of Hondurans is protected.

Nice to see that crowd supporting the democratic process as usual.