Are these tobacco stooges reporting from Moscow?

Were this a report from Western Europe, accusations would fly. According to this report, Moscovites have endured sweeping anti-tobacco measures, including the closure and actual demolition of properly registered small shops, and a general prohibition on smaller shops selling alcohol or tobacco. Kiosk owners have protested at the measures, which have been brought in far more quickly than the drip, drip process adopted here, with tobacco sponsorship, sales restrictions, a display ban and a smoking ban coming in all together.

As everywhere, big business wins out as smaller enterprises feel the brunt of these measures:

The laws also go against the agenda of supporting and protecting entrepreneurs recently announced by the government, which has appointed a federal ombudsman for the preservation of businessmen’s rights.

Neither the Moscow Department for the Protection of Businessmen nor Opora Rossii, an organization aimed at uniting and supporting small and medium-sized businesses, agreed to comment on the issue.

But what's this?

Tobacco companies agree with the store owners.

Shouldn't that be the other way around? Doesn't the tobacco industry always lead the agenda with the shops meekly following in its wake?

Source

No ... for whatever reason, this report is telling it like it is. The shops are at the coal face, with anti-tobacco and anti-alcohol measures directly affecting their enterprises, without evidence that any tangible health benefits will result. Well done, Moscow News.

Scottish Government excited by numbers attempting to quit smoking (success rate still 6 per cent)

The story is here. Numbers attempting to stop smoking in Scotland were up from 83,952 in 2010 to over 108,000 last year, but the twelve-month quit rate was down to 6 per cent, from 7 per cent in 2010. It is tempting to state that the Government regards this as good news since they value the use of NHS services (perhaps especially those involving the use of smoking cessation medication) more highly than people successfully succeeding in their goal of stopping smoking. Matheson declares: 'Last year a record 40,000 people were smoke-free after one month', without declaring how many were known to fall off the wagon over the next 48 weeks.

"We know that giving up can be tough but smokers are four times more likely to quit successfully with support from NHS stop smoking services." [Vicky Crichton, CRUK] 

Several years ago I spent some time collaborating with hypnotherapist Chris Holmes on this 'four times more likely to quit' nonsense. He lists his evidence here, and points out:

Notice how Amanda Sandford from Cash In On Smoking And Health (A.S.H.) tries to suggest that there is convincing evidence to the contrary. This is because A.S.H. is operating entirely to support drug company products in the smoking cessation field, that is all they do. They hammer on and on about “nicotine addiction” and got into legal trouble when they tried to rubbish success claims for the Allen Carr (non-drug) method. None of the drug company products have ever achieved the success rate that Allen Carr’s Easyway International Group proved in court (53%), and A.S.H. were forced to apologise and pay Easyway’s costs, YET THEY DO NOT ENDORSE THE EASYWAY METHOD – which proves they are not really a “public health charity” but a shop window for the drug companies posing as a public health charity. 

Perhaps the Scottish Government is trying to convince Anne Jones that they are not falling down in the tobacco control race, but when it doesn't really seem to care about anything but attempts to quit, at a public cost of over £40 millions, it's not surprising that it doesn't have better results.

How Big Lottery funds are allocated

Once more, h/tip to Dick Puddlecote for noticing this worthy lady on the Big Lottery board and its possible connection with a recent lottery grant to ASH Wales.

(This link helps.)

Scotland slips behind in the race to control tobacco (says ASH, Australia)

I almost feel sorry for Michael Matheson, but not quite. The story tells how a visiting speaker to Edinburgh University from ASH Australia this week will rebuke the Scottish Government for falling behind in the race to tobacco control. She perhaps does not realise that the Scottish Government does not have legislative competence to bring in plain packaging, which is reserved to Westminster. She accuses ministers of being afraid to stand up to tobacco companies, whose lawsuits have delayed the implementation of tobacco display and vending machine legislation. Matheson expostulates (reasonably enough) that he can't stop the tobacco companies challenging their legislation in court.

Another accusation bears a second look:

“Almost one in four people in Scotland smoke. The cost to Scotland in terms of lives lost, NHS bills, healthcare and other related costs is staggering,” [Anne Jones] said.

 One in four seems to be used quite frequently:

• One in four babies is born to a mother that smokes.
• One in four adults in Wales smokes.
• One in four smokers who started as teenagers die in middle age as a result of their habit.
• Smoking accounts for one in four cancer deaths.
• In 2004, the most recent year for which we have data, it was estimated that almost 13,500 deaths - nearly one in four of all deaths in Scotland - were attributed to smoking.

Best of all is this:

• Within the UK, historically, smoking rates have been higher in Scotland than England and Wales, but in 2004, the prevalence was similar in all three countries, at about one in four adults. 

It would show quite clearly that the impact of tobacco control policies in Scotland has barely changed the picture in smoking prevalence in Scotland over the last few years – if there were evidence that the smoking rate was based on anything more reliable than a figure plucked out of the air.

Matheson should not be distressed by this hurtful display of one-upmanship from the Australian branch of ASH. Tobacco control laws are nothing to be proud of, especially when characterised by absurd races to be ahead of other countries.

Scottish Grocers' Federation attacks ASH Scotland on transparency

A letter in the press comments critically on ASH Scotland's opinion piece on transparency. John Drummond of the Scottish Grocers' Federation points out that there is openness around the relations of grocers with all their suppliers, and believes (reasonably) that grocers have a place in national public health activities.

As chief executive of SGF, I am well aware of my obligations to declare our members legally and responsibly sell tobacco products and that we have links with some tobacco companies in the same way as we do with producers of milk, bread or confectionery. 

I do not, however, share the view of Ms Duffy that this, therefore, precludes SGF or retailers from playing a role in determining public health policies. A point, I would suggest, with which the Scottish Government would agree given our close working relationship through its Alcohol Industry Partnership and the SGF Healthy Living Programme, to support public health objectives and promote wellbeing.

It has also been ASH's faith that shops are capable only of representing the interests of tobacco companies, when in fact they have their own interests to defend as low-margin operations in a huge and aggressive market. Even if they wanted to put tobacco interests before their own (a most unlikely scenario) it would not necessarily benefit them to do so. Action on Health's shamelessly aggressive list of people whose views simply cannot be taken seriously in relation to plain packaging betray a lack of respect for participative democracy. You simply cannot exclude people from public debate on the assumption that their links with tobacco will dictate everything they contribute.

Drummond points out that 'retailers do not have the luxury of organisations like Ms Duffy’s to derive most of their income from public purse', and concludes:

In summary, a desire for transparency should cut both ways. Just as SGF has to declare its interests Ms Duffy’s organisation – paid for by government to tell it what it wants to hear – should be open to the same scrutiny.

The more the tobacco company stooge list circulates, the more people's awareness will grow that a publicly funded organisation wants to limit the voice of ordinary people on public health issues, just because their lives might have a tangential, or even tenuous link at some level with Big Tobacco.

And don't forget: there is a slippery slope: see interview:

Patients hide in the bushes in pyjamas to evade smoking ban

Hard to know what to say about this story.

It's happening at a Galway hospital, and probably at others. Local HSE area manager John Hennessy does not seem unhappy with pyjama-clad patients hiding in the bushes.

However [apart from exemptions for long-stay patients], Mr Hennessy said there would continue to be "an unapologetic implementation of the smoking ban in relation to visitors and short-stay patients". 

Source: some of the 150-acre site, Merlin Park Hospital, Galway.
Yes, 150 acres, and people have to smoke hiding in the bushes.

More on the blatantly one-sided plain packaging consultation

Over the last two days, even more reasons to feel this whole consultation arrangement falls far short of a transparent and all-inclusive consultation.

1. The study commissioned as an 'independent academic review' is not only authored entirely by tobacco control professionals, but as DP points out, it relies on a collection of studies that are not only specifically tobacco control studies and funded as such but nearly half of them are authored by the authors of the so-called independent review.

2. (h/tip Xopher, from his own consultation response)

Previous consultations have been criticised as quoted below :

 “The Government has been accused of fixing the outcome of public consultations on health policy after it emerged that reviews were flooded with block votes from groups funded entirely by the taxpayer.”  

“…….. said the disclosures summed up Labour's "cavalier" approach to consulting the public.” 

…… said: "It will come as no surprise to us if the Department of Health has funded organisations that provide the responses to consultations that the Government is looking for.” 

"The public are understandably cynical about the way Labour consults the public - it's time we had a Government that treats the public and their views with the respect they deserve." 

Can we be assured that this consultation will be impartial and free of the above criticism? I hope so since these are the words of Andrew Lansley MP who in his current Government role has a full oversight of Health Department activity and as an elected Member of Parliament is duty bound to uphold democracy in this Country. 

What's the difference between being in Opposition and being in Government? Quite a lot, it would seem.

Of course Action and Smoking on Health (and now ASH Scotland) both know that there are reasons the public cannot be trusted with fully open consultations. Action on Smoking and Health recently published its tobacco company stooge list, which included the CBI, major trade unions and everything in between. Sheila Duffy today publishes an opinion piece in the Scotsman, explaining why Scottish ministers should fully implement Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

Article 5.3 of the FCTC recognises the “irreconcilable conflict” between public health and tobacco industry interests and requires governments to engage with the industry only so far as is absolutely necessary to organise effective regulation. 

If Scottish ministers were fully to implement Article 5.3 that would mean agreeing to transparency in all contacts with the industry. 

It would involve a policy of disinvestment of public money from tobacco shares. It should require a special declaration of any tobacco interests from any individuals and organisations engaged in public health policy discussions.

In the real world where the rest of us live, the world is full of interests that can endanger health if left unchecked. It is not only bad products but corrupt practices that contribute to poor public health outcomes. For example from the US (just to illustrate) an executive from Monsanto has undue power in the FDA. This is of no concern to the Sheila Duffys of this world because they are still in the nursery where food is good for you and tobacco is bad for you.

Sheila also has a go at defending the current consultation process but does not begin to address the issues. One suspects that she does not really understand them.

Over the last month a joint UK and Scottish Government consultation on requiring tobacco to be sold in plain packaging has been met with industry-funded opposition, scaremongering stories and misleading information.

There is nothing misleading in what Dick Puddlecote, the Hands off our Packs Campaign, I or anyone has said in pointing out that the Department of Health wants to listen only to tobacco control and they attempt to make a virtue of this one-sidedness by invoking article 5.3 of the FCTC.

Arizona lung conditions, secondary smoke exposure and guesswork

A study from the University of Arizona relates parental smoking with respiratory conditions carried over into adulthood.

Source

Using data from the 1970s to the 1990s the studies purport to show that parental smoking makes the crucial difference between getting ill and not getting ill. Or something like that. As if there were no other factors to be considered.

Local air quality information is here. It's a recognized issue, and note that the issue of smoking is not even mentioned in this local guidance. The critical thing is:

Sometimes the amount of ozone or particulate pollution can violate federal standards.

Sometimes. Pollutant levels vary, from day to day and from region to region. It is therefore impossible to draw conclusions about the impact of passive smoking exposure. You can establish that one or two parents smoke, but can you then factor in whether visiting friends and relatives smoke, for how many hours a day, how big the house is, or how well ventilated? What were they smoking? All these variables for a single 'pollutant'. Then we get to the outdoor pollutants. Where did the children live? How exposed were they to the pollutants and for how long? How bad was the pollution? No one can make accurate generalisations over such things.

US drug agency admits death rates from licensed drugs

This has been found on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website. 

Why Learn about Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR)?

Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, 2000

Lazarou J et al. JAMA 1998;279(15):1200–1205

Gurwitz JH et al. Am J Med 2000;109(2):87–94

• Over 2 MILLION serious ADRs yearly

• 100,000 DEATHS yearly

• ADRs 4th leading cause of death ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents and automobile deaths

• Ambulatory patients ADR rate—unknown

Nursing home patients ADR rate—350,000 yearly

Source: John Rappaport. Rappaport is very excited about this chance find on the FDA website. It shows awareness in the FDA that an untold number of deaths are caused by legally prescribed drugs.

What it doesn't point out 

• that the FDA is itself responsible for the licensing of these drugs;
• that the safety of these drugs is indicated by the publication of the results of clinical trials in medical journals. The trials are sponsored by drug manufacturers, who then write up the results and seek publication.

Publication bias plays a part. This is how it might work:

A final note: The august editors of medical journals have a game they can play. Suppose a drug company has just finished writing up the results of a clinical drug trial and has submitted the piece to a journal for publication. The editor knows the company carried out a half-dozen other such trials on the same drug…and they didn’t look good. The drug caused wild fluctuations in blood pressure and blood sugar. There were heart attacks. Strokes. But this ONE study, the one submitted for publication, looks very positive. The editor knows if he prints it and forgets about “ethics,” the drug company will order re-prints of the piece from him and distribute them to doctors all over the world, and to reporters, professors, government officials. The drug company will order and pay for so many re-prints, the medical journal can make $700,000 from publishing THAT ONE STUDY. Let’s see. In one hand, the editor sees: I won’t publish it=no money. In the other hand, he sees: I’ll publish it=$700,000. What to do?

The fact that the web page shows clear FDA knowledge that its own drug safety regime fails disastrously has led Rappaport to speculate that FDA contains a rogue element who has posted it in the hope that it reaches the wider public.

The FDA knowingly exposes the US public to dangerous pharmaceutical preparations on a gargantuan scale.

This revelation should be considered in the light of the fact that the FDA also persecutes small farmers and dairy operations in the US ostensibly on safety grounds. Like health agencies everywhere, it maintains an unhealthy interest in the dangers of smoking, but should really clean up its own act before coming after tobacco companies.

F2C Scotland letter on minimum pricing, Edinburgh Evening News

Letter to Evening News from Michael Davidson, Freedom to Choose (Scotland)'s new chairman:

THE Scottish Government’s plan to bring in minimum pricing for alcohol will bring no benefits to society in general. 

There is no empirical evidence to suggest that it will make any difference to problem drinking – those who drink to a degree where they harm themselves, their families and society will continue to do so, just as they always have. 

Responsible drinkers among the poorest of society will suffer. The only beneficiaries of this government-imposed cartelism will be alcohol sellers and control-obsessed politicians.This is another prohibitionist move, following the smoking ban in pubs and other anti-tobacco measures, to wrest our autonomy from all of us. 

The job of politicians is to represent people, not to manage them.

Michael Davidson, Chairman, Freedom to Choose (Scotland), Edinburgh

The Guardian reports that minimum pricing was opposed by Scottish Labour, but following the SNP's decision to impose a 'health levy' on supermarkets (which will claw back the increased margins from alcohol sold in shops) they are likely to support it. The drinks industry believes that setting a minimum price for drink will be illegal in European law, even though most major parties now seem to be in favour.

Times are bad when European law seems the best hope we have of stopping this policy.

Lansley's Health Department ensures tobacco control rules the day on plain packaging

Thanks to Dick Puddlecote for this. You can access the evidence, a pdf of the Impact Assessment, from this post.

The Department of Health will appoint three panels of ten internationally-renowned experts in tobacco control for the provision of 'subjective judgments on the likely impact of standardised packaging'. The reason given for this is 'the lack of quantifiable evidence on the likely impact of standardised packaging, given that no country has yet introduced this measure'. Because of this there is a need get people to give their judgement on the issue.

In any sane mind, the absence of quantifiable evidence on the likely impact of a measure would be a good reason to exercise caution. Instead, the Department of Health has used this lack of evidence as an excuse to empower experts who all take exactly the same view of the issue as they do. Humble mortals cannot be trusted to reach a reasonable view in the absence of quantifiable evidence, but these experts can!  

It gets better. Discussing the qualifications of these individuals to be included, the document reads:

The latter two requirements suggested by Hora and van Winterfeldt (impartiality and lack of an economic or personal stake in potential findings) are considered impractical in this area, and so instead we will include a description of the participants’ employment and expertise for transparency.

Having a personal stake in the issue is no reason for excluding people from the panel. This is an outright admission that tobacco control personnel do have a stake in the issue. But if having a stake in the issue is now acceptable, where are the experts from actual tobacco companies? Or any of the long list of tobacco control stooges?

Well, one reason for their absence of course is that Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention of Tobacco Control says that these people's views have to be kept out of the process. Another is that suitability for inclusion seems to include a string of publications, as evidence of expertise. Publications are one of the chief products of the tobacco control industry: funding of this area seems to come from a bottomless wallet.

The Department of Health document uses the word 'transparency'. In plain view, they have shown us how clearly they have stacked the issue in favour of the policy they want, and have already spent thousands of pounds promoting.

Write to your MP about this. This is Monty Python territory. It's a reserved issue and will affect the whole of the UK. I have just written to my MP about the authorship of the so-called 'independent academic review' of evidence on the plain packaging issue. When he responds with a reply from Lansley I will take it further.

The Department of Health Consultation is here. Please respond in full. I can only agree with DP here:

... I still think it's important to respond to it in some way, preferably in detail. It doesn't take long and the more responses ignored, the more rigged the process is seen to be. They airbrushed out 25,000 from the tobacco display consultation, even after lying to parliament in the preparation. Our job is to keep being awkward and making them jump through ever more corrupt hoops.

BAT produces cheaper brand to compete with illegal tobacco in Australia

The story is here. British American Tobacco claims to have lost market share to unregulated tobacco since a 25 per cent tax rise two years ago. It has produced a budget pack of cigarettes in order to win back some of its customers. The pack sells at a small margin over the price of illegal tobacco.

The Health Minister claims not to be convinced that this is a matter of commercial survival, and accuses BAT of targeting children. As Health Minister she is sheltered from the commercial realities of competing in a market like tobacco, and 'targeting children' is an accusation that it is all too easy to make. I tend to feel that she lacks the qualification to comment. Her faith is that taxes help smokers to give up smoking, and by producing a cheaper brand BAT is simply failing to cooperate with her comforting fantasy.

Less anti-smoking advertising under the Coalition

House on fire? Or maybe someone's just burned the toast?
No, it's someone smoking at the door, facing outdoors. From Brand Republic

In this piece, Brand Republic speculates about the future of anti-smoking advertising in the current review and overhaul of government's central communications.

Anti-smoking ads were backed with a £26.7 million budget in 2008/09, which dropped to £14.6 million in 2009/10 and just £1.1 million in 2010/11.

I dread to think what they're spending these savings on, but a reduction in this particular budget is welcome news.

Tobacco company worker offers views to Frank Davis

This piece gives the insights of a single insider in a tobacco company, speaking from experience as a worker for several years.

(Another to be excluded from ASH's hit list, of course.)

Professional insight into plain packaging

Campaign against plain packaging Hands off our Packs reports opposition to the Plain Packs proposal from former head of the Patent Office Peter Lawrence, and from the chief of the British Brands Group.

But of course these are tobacco industry lackeys so no need to even read them! (actually, the Patents Office is not listed, but that's a forgiveable oversight, don't you think?)

Dutch smoking ban warded off in court

Dutch anti-smoking ban campaigners were successful yesterday in maintaining the advantage they have gained in exemptions to the smoking ban. This report says that not only is smoking in small bars legal, but smoking is largely carried out in larger bars too.

No doubt ban enthusiasts would say that this is because there is an exemption in small bars, and that only a comprehensive ban can be fully enforced. But the exemption was gained in the first place because of widespread and well organised opposition.

Sorry for Marc Willemsen, who wishes to turn the tide back in the antis' favour. (But not very sorry.)

Dave Goerlitz interviews in eleven episodes

I saw these yesterday for the first time. Dave Goerlitz is the former Winston Man. Here he talks to Chris Snowdon (2009) about how an opportunity to discourage smoking became a money-obsessed prohibition campaign, starting with the Master Settlement Agreement.

1/11 on joining tobacco control


2/11 on the corruption of tobacco control
3/11 where did the money go?
4/11 on smoking bans
5/11 on junk science
6/11 on prohibition
7/11 on personalities
8/11 on being asked to lie
9/11 at an anti-smoking event
10/11 coming full circle
11/11 final thoughts

More scribblings from the ASH Scotland CEO

Sheila is keeping well busy these days, and in the pages of the Caledonian Mercury continues her crusade against the tobacco companies. Scotland is pictured as the heroic small country fighting against the evil tobacco that causes most of the country's premature deaths. She champions the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, congratulating the Scottish government for distancing itself from the tobacco industry (much like its sister organisation has done, characterising everyone up to seven degrees of separation from tobacco companies as tobacco-smeared).

Tomorrow, she informs us, is the next court appearance for tobacco companies fighting the vending machine ban. Lies and trickery characterise these tobacco manufacturing demons who will not go gently into extinction when threatened by wee Eck and the mighty tobacco control arm of the Scottish government.

Enough. 'The tobacco industry is a public pariah,' she tells us, quoting Yougov. Has anyone done a survey about what percentage of the population believes tobacco control?

Yougov and Cancer Research team up to give a reliable study on adult attitudes to tobacco marketing, or not

The story is here.

Yougov's credentials are here, the board of trustees for Action on Smoking and Health – look for Peter Kellner, Yougov president.

Cancer Research shows its colours here. If you don't want to restrict tobacco use and/or regulations don't even bother asking them for funding. Their minds are made up.

Bulgarians to rally against smoking ban

A rally against the smoking ban in enclosed spaces, due to begin 1 June, will take place in Sofia on Sunday featuring local film stars:

[One of them,] Slabakov, a passionate chain-smoker, argues that the ban on smoking was approved not without the assistance and financial support of drug cartels.

"Humans are not angels. Once you uproot one vice, there is more free room for another one to take root. I am absolutely sure that drug cartels are pouring money for this ban to be introduced. Have you noticed that over the last 15 years talk about drugs is not so popular, whole cigarettes have gained the reputation of the biggest scourge of mankind?" 

I have no more evidence on this than Slabokov but it is an interesting thought. There is absolutely no doubt that the biggest beneficiaries of restrictions on tobacco use are illegal traders, and according to the article illegally traded tobacco already constitutes up to two-fifths of the tobacco market.

Bulgarian political representatives had the sense not to ban smoking outdoors in a vote yesterday.

Scottish Government pays incentives to allow expectant mothers to shop at Asda

Free NRT thrown in, although it will probably be claimed that this is optional. The compulsory part is giving up smoking. Public health  minister Michael Matheson claims that this scheme has been 'a success' (a 50 per cent success rate at one month). Launched in Tayside, he now wants it rolled out across Scotland (the news article claims £50 a month is paid out, but other sources give £12.50 a week).

The Taxpayers Alliance's investigations showed over £60,000 had been spent with only a quarter of those attempting to quit succeeding even in the short term. There were allegations that some non-smoking families resented the financial help given to parents who succeeded in quitting under the scheme. According to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the long-term prospects for people quitting under this scheme are not necessarily good:

However, a search by the Cochrane Collaboration of all the available evidence looking at whether competitions and incentives help smokers to quit in the medium to long term showed that such incentives do not enhance long term smoking cessation rates, with early success tending to dissipate when the rewards are no longer offered.

Earlier this year a Tobacco Control Study was reported in several papers including the Scotsman showing that nicotine patches, even in conjunction with counselling, do not give quitters an advantage over people stopping without pharmaceutical support.

This has to be a pharmaceutical company's dream: patients getting a financial incentive to participate in a programme that gives them free medication.

It seems that no cost is too great where smoking cessation medications are concerned. Look at the delegate list for this year's UK National Smoking Cessation Conference. So far 261 people have registered for at least one day, at £250 (£375 for two days) with recommended accommodation at £99 per night. At a guess I would hazard that most of it is reclaimable on expenses, plus food. So the cost to the public purse so far (for 261 delegates) has run from anything between just over £62K (for one day with no accommodation), to nearly (£150K for two days with two nights' accommodation. Some people might even need three nights!) And they still have a few weeks to sign up more delegates.

All in a concerted campaign to dissuade people from using a legal product.

ASH's tobacco company stooge list is an own goal

That crazy list again: Chris Snowdon, who was named personally as a closet friend of tobacco, unwraps some of this.

The main mistake that ASH makes is that those on this huge list ... (h/tip Simon Clark)

Adam Smith Institute
Alcan Packaging
Alliance against IP Theft
American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union
Anti-Counterfeiting Group
Association of Convenience Stores
Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers
Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (BASCAP)
British Brands Group
British Chamber of Commerce in Belgium
British Retail Consortium
Cato Institute
Confederation of British Industry
Confederation of European Community Cigarette Manufacturers
Deloitte
Democracy Institute
European Cigar Manufacturers’ Association
European Communities Trademark Association
European Policy Centre
European Policy Forum
European Rolling Papers Association
European Roundtable of Industrialists
European Risk Forum
European Smoking Tobacco Association
European Smokeless Tobacco Council
European Travel Retail Council
Federation of Small Businesses
FORCES
FOREST
Fraser Institute
Freedom to Choose (F2C)
Global Intellectual Property Centre
Independent Retail News
Institute of Economic Affairs
Interbrand
International Chamber of Commerce
International Trademark Association
ISBA (Incorporated Society of British Advertisers)
Leicester Asian Business Association (LABA)
Liberal Vision
London Economics
Markenverband
National Association of Cigarette Machine Operators
National Federation of Retail Newsagents
Nude Brand Consulting
Privacy International
Progressive Vision
Responsible Retailers
Rural Shops Alliance
Save Our Pubs and Clubs
Scottish Grocers Federation
Sinclair Collis
Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue
Transatlantic Public Affairs
The Free Society
TICAP (The International Coalition Against Prohibition)
Tobacco Industry Platform
Tobacco Manufacturers Association (TMA)
Tobacco Retailers Alliance (TRA)
Tobacco Workers Alliance
Union ales Fabricants (Unifab)
Unite

.. all have their own interests to look after. If this means following the same line as tobacco, it does not make them tobacco company stooges. The plain fact is that a wide range of actors in society will find themselves in opposition to the interests of the narrow, purist tobacco control dogma.  The wider ASH casts its net to condemn people who oppose its demands, the less reasonable it will seem to the ordinary person in the street.

Incidentally I did learn something interesting from the ASH tobacco company stooge list:

British American Tobacco’s public relations in the UK are handled by Weber Shandwick, which also counts the Japanese Whaling Association and the Chinese Government as clients.

Did Weber Shandwick lose this contract then? Shame. But the Scottish Government still uses them anyway.

Camus photograph censorship bid fails

Photographic impression of Albert Camus by Cartier-Bresson has been allowed to remain on display in spite of campaign by French Green party activists.

ASH compiles a list of people whose views on plain packaging cannot be taken seriously

It's here.

This is where article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control will take us. Everyone is ridiculous except tobacco control.


And they forgot this blog! (Must try harder.)

Sandford on the back foot

Well worth a listen – very entertaining.



I especially enjoyed Amanda Sandford's claim, quickly rebutted by Chris Snowdon, that tobacco is unique and there was no suggestion that the idea of plain packaging would be applied to any other product. See final bullet point here – this consultation is current. In the twinkling of an eye Amanda Sandford proceeds from 'absolutely no evidence of a domino effect: tobacco is unique and there is no question of this policy being extended', to 'just because it's on the table doesn't mean it will become law'.

The discussion panel chews over the so-called 'independent academic review'. I'm asking my MP to raise this with the Department of Health.

Scottish Wholesalers Association launches robust campaign against plain packaging

Wednesday 2 May saw the launch of this new campaign against plain packaging from the Scottish Wholesalers Association. Read more on the campaign page here (with a link to the Department of Health consultation based in Westminster but involving health departments from the devolved parliaments).

You can register your opposition to plain packaging here. Please spread the link!

Clarification by Berwickshire News: there are no criminal penalties for smoking in the grounds of Borders General Hospital

At the beginning of March I made a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about the Berwickshire News, which in an article about the health board encouraging smoking cessation, announced that breaching the smoking ban on the premises of NHS Borders was a criminal offence subject to heavy penalties.

The link to the clarification is here. This contains a link to the amended story.

Children discuss pretty boxes for CRUK study

Are these the kids whose confidentiality Gerard Hastings was so keen to protect last summer?



Oh they can't be, they're too young.

Robert Dow comments again in another letter to the press.

Do these clowns really think this is evidence that these children will take up smoking in ten years' time – just because they find the boxes attractive? I hate to cast any doubt on the integrity of the researchers (the whole project is ridiculous anyway) but it is hard to imagine that they presented these packs to the kids without hinting at what was expected of them. But that is almost beside the point. All this proves is that the kids have somehow managed to blind themselves to the pictures of diseased organs and babies in incubators (how does that make any kid 'almost happy'?) seeing only the 'pretty' packaging. It tells us nothing about the likelihood of their smoking later in life.

Dick Puddlecote has covered this issue in depth:

Nonsense about serving times as a consequence of plain packaging
Brand awareness claims not upheld by CRUK study