Political crimes

It is good to learn that the appeal for Chris Carter has reached its target.

He has the support of the British Constitution Group among others.  This is not a group I have studied in detail (an introductory video is here, uploaded to Youtube in August 2011), but I understand it to be a group that favours national rather than supranational government, and would prefer us to be subject to UK laws rather than those of the EC, or the UN.

Personally I don't find the Union Jack a particularly appealing symbol (it was used heavily by the far right when I was growing up).  I also find the headline of the piece on Chris quite strong ('One law for smokers ... another for rapists and paedophiles'), to say nothing of the fact that it is linked to the Daily Mail.  (Oh dear – my prejudices are showing themselves.) And the introduction of the piece is almost hysterical:

'Rapists, paedophiles and kidnappers were among the serious criminals getting away with just a caution...1,405 offenders received a ticking off rather than facing the full force of the law in 2010 - including 22 rapists and 144 who had sex with girls under the legal age.'

One thousand, four hundred and five out of how many serious criminals are getting away with a caution? Does that represent a substantial proportion of perpetrators, or not? It looks more like an attempt to shock than a reasoned comparison, or even an attempt to inform the public.

That said, there is a clear point that somebody convicted for an essentially trivial offence (smoking in a town hall, for heaven's sake) with political ramifications is pursued doggedly, and no one points out that in this kind of case short sentences just don't work. It is suggested that a political  offence  is likely to attract a stronger reaction from the authorities than criminal behaviour that actually endangers public safety.

It goes on:

Firstly, the Smoking (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 was made on 14th November, 2006 by the Privy Council. Counsellors (sic) present included Sir Brian Leveson and Elish Angiolini. Secondly, the judges who blocked Chris Carter's submissions from reaching the Supreme Court have also been found to be Privy Counsellors. 

Of course people who make legislative orders should not participate in judging those who breach them.       Legislative process does matter, as does the separation of powers. It is completely wrong that anyone involved in the body that passed the smoking ban legislation in Ireland should be in a position to deny Chris Carter his right of appeal.

This document from the Council of the European Union discusses smoking ban enforcement:

43. When active enforcement begins, many jurisdictions recommend the use of high-profile prosecutions to enhance deterrence. By identifying prominent violators who have actively defied the law or who are well known in the community, by taking firm and swift action and by seeking maximum public awareness of these activities, authorities are able to demonstrate their resolve and the seriousness of the law. This increases voluntary compliance and reduces the resources needed for future monitoring and enforcement.

For 'firm and swift action', read draconian measures. Lighting up in a town hall is an offence only because it defies political dogma.

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.

Safe levels of secondary smoke found in smoker's home

An article misleadingly entitled 'Danger in every breath' claims that an Evening Times trainee editor was told that her smoking did not produce hazardous levels of smoke.

Admittedly one person smoking twice a day in the house produces far less smoke than a 20- or 40-a-day smoker. The current wisdom of the medical establishment is that there is no safe level of secondary smoke. But two cigarettes produce a level of smoke that is not lethal.

The early part of the article refers tests on smokers homes reading up to a concentration per cubic metre of '3000 micrograms – 120 times higher than safe levels' (defined as 25 micrograms per cubic metre, according to the Evening Times article: I am still looking for support on this from WHO). The specific reading for the editor's home featured in the second part of the article is not recorded, but the editor expresses her 'relief' that the air in her home was 'at a safe level'. We are not told how far below 25 micrograms per cubic metre the editor's house was measured at.

Not only was the editor's house measured below the 'safe level': we are also informed that there is a safe level: this admission occurs rarely but I have seen it before in this story, which reported that children in cars inhaled 'three times times the amount of smoke that would be considered safe to inhale over the course of a day'.

Environmental tobacco smoke is not listed in the 2005 document Workplace exposure limits (EH40). Other readers will be more familiar with some of the chemicals listed here than I am, but I did note that flour dust is recorded with a value of 30 mcg per cubic metre (long-term exposure limit) or 10 mcg per cubic metre (short-term exposure limit).

It seems curious in the light of so much publicity and pressure for legislation surrounding secondary smoke that smoke is not listed in the WEL document (which was updated in 2011). The word 'smoking' is used only once, as a 'complicating factor' in considering workplace exposure. (Nicotine is listed with a lower limit of 0.5 mcg/m³ , far lower than the limit given for smoke.) The words 'smoke' and 'tobacco' don't appear.

Many unresolved issues remain: if every other substance under the sun, including those with exposure limits that are less than 1 microgram per cubic metre can be listed in a document called 'Workplace exposure limits', why not smoke? And (of course) why is smoke the only substance commonly described of having 'no safe level of exposure'?

Disgust of retired doctor with degradation heaped on smokers

The doctor uses the word 'horrified' rather than disgusted. He was clearly trained to believe that health care involves compassion as well as choice management.

I have looked in dismay at the degradation heaped on smokers in our hospitals in recent years. Forced to huddle under an outdoor lean-to roof for a drag on a desperately needed cigarette, often with intravenous drips in their arms and frequently wearing only pyjamas and a dressing gown on a cold, wet day, now even this solace is to be denied to them.

What more need one say?

Lepers in the dark ages received greater care and more love than our enlightened age allows to the poor, old, ill smoker.

Many anti-smokers cite the mortality and early death of friends and relatives from a smoking-related cause as the source of their hostility to smoking. This begs the question, why should it make them happier to put smokers – who share the same habit as their loved ones – to such discomfort. Would they have enjoyed putting their own beloved grandmother, uncle or neighbour outside in pyjamas on a drip? Would they have considered such an action beneficial to that person's health? If not, what makes it right that strangers should be treated in that way?

As far as the health service is concerned, condemning people who are infirm to smoking outdoors or denying them any opportunities to smoke on the hospital premises is breathtakingly callous. As the good doctor says, 'After all, even smokers are still our sisters and brothers.' 

And isn't it novel these days to recommend that people who are sick should be treated with 'care and love': 'Its deliberate deprivation [the smoking ban] ]is an act of wanton, indeed wicked cruelty at a time when he or she is most in need of cherishing and comforting.' 

A doctor with principles. 

Nicotine replacement has no proven benefit in quitting, say all the papers

Here is an example. And another, from north of the border.

Stories like this used to be commonplace. Sometimes, like this one, they were brought out to herald national no-smoking day. As ever their aim was to convince people that the best way to stop smoking was to rely on a nicotine crutch and under no circumstances to depend on your own will power.

Freedom 2 Choose (the UK group) has long campaigned for recognition that the claim 'four times more likely to quit with the NHS' was based on as much hot air as the claim that the Scottish smoking ban resulted in a 17 per cent drop in heart attacks (press release from 2009 can be read here). The Scottish group, Freedom to Choose group (Scotland) held its own demonstration at the 2010 (Glasgow) conference of the United Kingdom National Smoking Cessation Conference: the annual trade fair of smoking cessation professionals (the 2012 conference has yet to be announced).

The announcement that smoking cessation medications don't work any better than will power has had a muted reception from anti-smoking professionals. John Britton, of the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies, says it is 'not a surprising revelation' (is he about to resign, then?) He seems to feel that the availability of NRT gives people the necessary inspiration to quit, even though it doesn't actually make them any better at doing it. Deborah Arnott of Action on Smoking and Health seems to have her head in the sand:

Deborah Arnott, chief executive of the Action on Smoking and Health (Ash) charity said there was good evidence that the provision of medication and counselling to help smokers quit, as provided by the Stop Smoking Services in the UK, was effective and cost-effective. "Ash agrees, however, that it is essential that such support is provided as part of a comprehensive tobacco control strategy, which includes mass media campaigns to encourage smokers to quit."

Arguing along the same lines, research leader Gregory Connolly (Center for Global Tobacco Control, Harvard School of Public Health) adds:

"We have to think about, when we go into the real world, what are the other factors out there that are contributing to the relapse that the drug is not [addressing]," he said. "Clearly we know that social interventions such as price, clean indoor air policies and very strong public education campaigns do have a long-term effect and we can show that through population research." [emphasis added]

What do we know about clean air policies and strong public education campaigns? That they have led directly to stagnation in the long-term decline in smoking. The driver to smoking cessation is volition. Wanting to give up is key. Mass media campaigns don't help when their intent is to frighten people into quitting or otherwise ostracise or demoralise them.

The only effective starting point is wanting to quit. And being aware that some of the people and institutions who tell you how difficult it is want to make money, or prove their worth to society, by helping you.

Health and Safety Executive: smoke not listed as hazardous substance

Before Christmas I reposted Eddie Douthwaite's interview with local radio station Leith FM.

In this interview, Eddie discusses the claim that 'there is no safe level of secondary smoke' (07.49 minutes into the broadcast). He points out that the UK is failing to meet European standards on outdoor air quality while enforcing bans on smoking indoors. Specifically he refers to a document on the regulation of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, in which safe levels of all manner of toxic substances are referred to, and maximum standards of exposure are set. Yet the anti-smoking authorities persist in their doctrine that there is 'no safe level of secondary smoke'.

Eddie also asks why the legislation wasn't passed under the Health and Safety at Work Act. The Health and Safety Executive refers only briefly on its website to the issue of smoking at work, and its page on smoking at work refers to Action on Smoking and Health, ASH Scotland and other bodies external to HSE.

So does HSE really believe that passive smoking is a risk? If you go to the Homepage, the drop-down menu ('Choose a topic') includes everything under the sun ... but not tobacco smoke, or smoking. The list of industries featured does not include the hospitality industry, or the care industry, both of which include work sites that are exempt from the smoking ban under UK and/or Scottish law. Exemptions are on a limited scale, but realise that the list is all about regulating hazards at work including the regulation of hazardous substances. An ordinary person might conclude that smoke is a trivial issue compared with other substances that require to be regulated.

A government department that concludes that exposure to flour, water and cleaning agents requires caterers to be protected doesn't have much to say about secondary smoke. Engineering carries hazards that are listed in more detail and the protective kit includes breathing apparatus. It does not say of any substance that there is 'no safe level', although it does indicate the gravity of specific hazards. Several other occupational groups are discussed. 

We are now nearly six years into the Scottish ban and four-and-a-half years into the English and Welsh ones, and the United Kingdom's Health and Safety Executive does not appear to have an independent view on the subject. It also fails to mention any of the areas in which smoking is still carried out as a consequence of exemptions to the smoking ban as specific areas for concern. It does not recommend gloves or breathing equipment to counteract the effects of secondary smoke.

Is the HSE failing in its responsibilities? Or are the bodies that promote smoking bans overly assiduous in their efforts to persuade us that there is no safe level of secondary smoke, when such an outrageous claim has not been made about the most corrosive industrial toxins.

(I know what I think.)

                                      

   Click To Play

Eddie Douthwaite on Radio Leith FM

Probability does not exist, claims Cambridge professor

On BBC Radio 4's More or Less on 30 December 2011 Professor David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at Cambridge University announced, 'Probability does not exist' .

He defines probability in the programme as 'reasonable betting odds that we construct on the basis of our knowledge and understanding'. But he emphasises that we cannot use probability to tell us, for example,  an individual's risk of developing certain illnesses. Probability as we understand it depends on our knowledge of the situation: we can't rely on it without assuming that we have perfect knowledge.

This supports our view that so-called 'science' based on passive smoking is quite unscientific. If we can't tell a person his or her risk of heart disease, we cannot tell either how much it will be elevated by smoking, drinking, being exposed to smoke or whatever the current fad is. An individual's risk of all these things is also affected by their environmental exposure to risk factors for heart disease, their genetic make-up and other issues that cannot be calculated scientifically.

As far as I understand probability it's a mathematical concept, where the parameters for the different probabilities are known, as they are in the problems presented here. When you can't be sure about the parameters, the probability concept doesn't really work. This applies for much of what is said about smoking as Frank Davis discusses here, and the same applies to any single factor such as consumption of alcohol or junk food (even the definition of junk food is problematic). I once heard of a young woman who had all the symptoms of cervical cancer but was refused screening on the grounds that she was unlikely to have it on the grounds of her age. Here is a case where the low probability of breast cancer in men resulted in the denial of treatment to a man who had (100 per cent probability of) breast cancer.

Professor Spiegelhalter will take his ideas further at this event (evening/smart dress recommended).

Tory Health Minister criticised for dialogue with tobacco industry

Two Guardian reports feature Earl Howe's communications with Philip Morris concerning the tobacco display ban (report 1, report 2).

Communications between Howe and Gardant, a lobbying firm representing Philip Morris at Westminster, have been made public by a whistle blower at Philip Morris. They comprise a series of emails. Report 1 describes the situation like this:

It is only now that a Philip Morris whistleblower has leaked scores of the company's internal emails that the lengths to which lobbyists went to derail tobacco control measures have become apparent – nurturing a "grassroots" campaign that painted an apocalyptic picture of what would happen to newsagents if displays were banned. 

Howe, a Rugby-and-Oxford-educated peer who left a high-flying banking career to run his family farm and serve the Tories, shared these views. Along with many Conservatives, he agreed that the ban was "anti-business" and would damage the livelihoods of small shopkeepers. He also agreed with the tobacco industry's disputed claim that the ban would have no impact on reducing smoking among young people. Indeed, in one debate, he claimed that evidence from Canada and Iceland, where such bans already exist, was "at best speculative" – the key line advanced by the tobacco industry's army of lobbyists.

This is an ill-disguised attempt to divide the world in terms of evil tobacco companies with no regard for the rest of the world, and the rest of us who need protection from them.

1. Lobbyists were not 'derailing tobacco control measures', they were discussing the contents of a controversial bill. 2. I don't know quite what the Guardian refers to ('"grassroots"'), but I do know that a substantial number of people who are not lobbyists for the tobacco industry also fear for the impact on small shops once the ban is implemented in them – based on their experiences in pubs, where no economic damage was expected. 3. Howe's capitalist credentials (the report also points out that he is a hereditary peer) are only relevant insofar as they seek to persuade readers that only nastily rich people without a democratic mandate would consider opposing the tobacco display ban. 4. 'Along with many Conservatives': I'm not a Conservative, and I agree that the ban is very unhelpful to businesses. 5. The tobacco industry is not alone in disputing youth smoking figures in Iceland and Canada. More here. 6. Using a line advanced by tobacco industry lobbyists does not invalidate it, except in a world infected by the anti-democratic authoritarianism of the World Health Organisation's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (especially Article 5.3).

I hold no candle for Earl Howe and actually know very little about him beyond the banking and farming experience referred to in this article. But it seems to me that all he was doing was ensuring that the tobacco industry was able to contribute to the discussion of a bill that aimed to remove all its retail display space. Allowing an industry to participate in such a drastic bill seems eminently reasonable. From Report 2:

A spokesman for Howe said any suggestion that the government's health policies had been influenced by the tobacco industry was completely incorrect. "As an opposition spokesman, it was incumbent on Earl Howe to speak to all sides in the runup to debates on government plans to ban the display of tobacco products in shops," the spokesman said. "He met with anti-smoking groups as well as representatives of the tobacco industry. The job of any opposition spokesman is to challenge and scrutinise all proposals to ensure laws are as well drafted as possible."

Labour Shadow Health Minister Jamie Reed's response consists of more hyperbole:

"It is alarming that a health minister ever thought it appropriate to seek the help of the tobacco industry in sabotaging plans to reduce smoking-related diseases," Reed said. "Howe is the minister now tasked with forcing the government's reckless dismantling of our NHS through parliament in early 2012.

The link between a tobacco display ban and a certain decline in smoking-related diseases is tenuous indeed. The comment about dismantling the National Health Service has little relevance and is yet another attempt to link opposition to the tobacco display ban with reckless capitalism.  Reed goes on:

"Labour will be asking serious questions about his links to Philip Morris International and this further example of the close ties between Tory ministers and tobacco and junk food manufacturers."

Being shadow health minister I guess that puts attacking tobacco and junk food well within Lee's comfort zone these days, but let him not forget others, such as pharmaceutical companies and private healthcare interests, also keen to buy influence within government. Seeking influence within government is not an activity unique to tobacco interests.

If Earl Howe loses his job, this will be a shameful concession to FCTC, Article 5.3: as a nation state, our leaders should be entitled to hear submissions from all interested parties to legislation in its progress through Parliament. If as Deborah Arnott alleges his links with the tobacco industry were not properly declared this can be corrected. This is not a sacking offence, indeed it should not be an offence at all.

Happy New Year!