Freedom-2-Choose (Scotland)

The research juggernaut: anti-tobacco funding makes campus go non-smoking

2012-02-11T11:54:00.001+01:00

The University of Texas at Austin is set to ban smoking throughout its 350-acre site. This is a new condition of the Cancer Prevention Institute of Texas, a significant research donor.

The ban on smoking is inconvenient (and it is hard to imagine it being effectively enforced in any event), but the message this curtailment sends out about the funders' research agenda is incontrovertible. A major funder can insist that all recipients force its students to forgo tobacco on campus – if you think this makes for an atmosphere that can foster an open scientific criticism of ideas (especially those critical of the anti-smoker agenda), I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

At least it's out in the open. The bias has always been there, but the research institutions are now powerful enough to flex their muscles and enforce behaviour change as a condition of receiving funding.

Getting cold for a good cause at 83?

2012-02-11T02:01:00.002+01:00

This is a government health warning:

Exposure to

cold weather

can seriously damage

your health

This used to be fairly common knowledge, but a home for the elderly in Dunfermline plans to close its smoking room and turn it over to general use. Smoking will take place in a shelter in the grounds, subject to the usual legal restrictions. The story is here.

In line with government hopes and expectations, the home (Canmore Lodge) has waived the exemption that applied to residential accommodation when the ban came in. Andy Kerr, then Health Minister, said:

Residential homes are where people live and have their home. We felt that, as long as there was a smoking policy in such places, people would have the right to smoke where it was deemed to be their home, just as others in the community have that right. There were obvious humanitarian and other reasons for that exemption.

Local MSP Helen Eadie has protested against the home's plans. It seems that some Labour MSPs did not realise what a Pandora's box they were opening by supporting the smoking legislation.

Note that this policy is introduced to a home that currently accommodates only two smokers. Among the reasons given is that they want the room to be available to more people. This goes beyond the requirements of the law, which allows designated smoking areas in exempted premises. Devoting resources to the construction of a legal smoking shelter is an appalling use of resources, including fees, whether privately or publicly paid to the parent company.

There are methods for dealing with secondary smoke exposure.

This is a frankly an abuse of power over vulnerable people who depend on others for their daily needs. The relatives of the residents involved protest in the article, but they are clearly open to the suggestion that their elderly relatives would be much better off not smoking: a hypothesis that is clearly irrelevant to the absolute certainty that smoking in a warm room endangers health far less than smoking in a bus shelter that is 50 per cent enclosed.

The web site for the organisation is here. There are contact details if you wish to formally protest this decision. Incidentally I note that the section of their page entitled News Articles does not include any stories at all ... what a shame they will really have to kick off with a story about allowing the elderly to freeze.

Press release, Freedom2Choose.

Framework Convention on Tobacco Control to slash travel help for least developed economies

2012-02-09T16:38:00.000+01:00

Participation by leaders of less developed countries in all FCTC events will be more expensive after the next COP, according to this announcement following COP-4. Before travel assistance was introduced to delegates from poorer countries in 2000, participation by their leaders was very limited.

The announcement ends with a recommendation to lobby their government representatives for a reversal of this policy to ensure maximum participation of leaders of poor countries.

It is difficult to see how the FCTC can really be an immediate benefit to countries that struggle to afford an airfare to attend an international conference. There are more immediate demands on every health budget in the world than tobacco control: tobacco control is a blunt instrument hacking clumsily at a single factor among the myriad causes of non-communicable diseases.

More on Wales: vending machines ban goes live

2012-02-09T11:35:00.000+01:00

I'm a week late on this but it's still worth including because of the debate between Simon Clark and the ASH Wales representative, Carole Morgan-Jones. Caught out early on by the BBC interviewer, who asks Morgan-Jones how she knows the quantities of cigarettes sold illegally through vending machines that need to be banned because they cannot be monitored, she fails to substantiate other than by saying 'studies done by the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies', and essentially suggesting that the policy is formulated on the basis of anonymous surveys. She then all but claims that radio controlled or other vending machines would not stop children buying tobacco because bar staff are too busy to check ID properly (this line of argument emerges at the end when time has run out). This is nonsense: anyone dealing with age-restricted goods has to carry out age verification. The only real modification that radio controlled vending machines would have required would have been ensuring age verification awareness for personnel in hotels, launderettes, cafeterias and other outlets where machines were accommodated.

How to avoid trouble at the border

2012-02-08T19:46:00.000+01:00

Courtesy of Nothing2Declare: to help you bring tobacco back from your holiday legally.

Front

Back

Please feel free to print and distribute to other travellers.

Welsh Government proposes smoking ban amendment

2012-02-08T01:10:00.002+01:00

Although this proposed amendment exempts only television studios and indoor filming locations, it is notable that the proposal issues from the Welsh Government. Apparently it fears competition from England where actors are permitted indoor smoking if artistic integrity demands it. The consultation reads:

“The smoking ban has been a major issue for a number of productions that have been filmed in Wales, especially period dramas set in a time when smoking was commonplace.

The creation of an exemption for performers could therefore benefit the Welsh economy by possibly bringing more productions to Wales.”

The story is here. Anti-smokers are up in arms – furious at the reversal of the zero tolerance approach that the Welsh Government simultaneously pursues in the matter of smoking in motor cars, and insisting that the power of suggestion should be enough:

Julie Barratt, director of the Chartered Institute for Environmental Health in Wales, said: “There is no suggestion that where a character is stabbed or shot that the artistic integrity of the performance requires they should be stabbed or shot or that for artistic integrity purposes a character shown taking drugs intravenously should actually be doing so – such activities are capable of being acted using props and special effects.

It is absurd to suggest that smoking is in theatrical terms the equivalent of an assassination: something you can't do for real. The point is that smoking should stopped from being viewed not only in polite society but in the theatre. The very reason for allowing an exemption would be to enable authenticity and realism in the theatre: insisting on allowing ASH Wales to undertake the artistic director's job in programming will do Wales no favours in the programming business. The ASH Wales spokeswoman says:

'We want to de-normalise and de-glamorise smoking so children do not see it portrayed as normal behaviour and something they should imitate.'

Denormalise and deglamorise? They want smoking to be seen as (1) abnormal, (2) unglamorous and (3) only something that people do when their lives are so abject as to fall under the radar of televised drama? (or do they just want their own way – hang the cost?)

The proposal includes certain conditions that must be satisfied before smoking can take place, including the exclusion of all children and members of the general public from any room used for filming smoking. Somewhat absurdly the consultation questions ask whether children and the public are sufficiently protected from passive smoke. Perhaps we can expect answers from ASH Wales and the director of the Chartered Institute for Environmental Health in Wales that will detail the threats from third and fourth hand smoke (as well as the portrayal of smoking by both normal and glamorous people).

The consultation document and other related documents are here (English and Welsh). It does not specify that you need to live in Wales to fill it in (an address box is included).

The Scottish Government should take note: if this is approved, we could lose programming opportunities to Wales as well as England!

Angela Harbutt (Liberal Voice) crosses swords with Lord Faulkner

2012-02-07T23:09:00.003+01:00

Further criticism of Lord Faulkner's article yesterday comes from Angela Harbutt, new entrant to the world of professional campaigning who is now working on the hands off our packs campaign. Angela's voluntary campaigning has produced blog posts like this in the past.

She takes issue with Lord Faulkner's view that tobacco companies have undue influence with politicians by pointing at the raft of recent legislation restricting smoking, and points instead to the disproportionate influence of tobacco control.

If there is a need for transparency – it is a need for government to come clean on just how much public money is being spent on Tobacco Control and just how far the tentacles of Tobacco Control have reached into government health policy. It might not be a bad idea to also get a truly independent body to evaluate how effectively this money has been spent. In August 2010 Eric Pickles MP announced that the government was going to stop "government lobbying government". This must surely apply to Tobacco Control.

She points out that like many of us in the population, her campaigning has so far been voluntary.

What drove me to campaigning? A richly funded and politically active health lobbying industry that has agitated constantly to price out of reach, limit access to, or otherwise bully people into ending consumption of, things deemed undesirable or unhealthy.

She has accepted payment from Forest to undertake a campaign against plain packaging.

Perhaps not surprisingly, her piece was published with Lord Faulkner's response immediately below. It has since been edited, but the original read as follows:

For Angela Harbutt to compare "Big Tobacco" to organisations devoted to improving public health is laughable, but hardly surprising from someone who admits to being funded by FOREST, an organisation set up by the Tobacco Manufacturers Association to promote the interests of the tobacco industry.

Leaving aside the point that Angela Harbutt has not been paid for her previous five years of campaigning, rendering the point he makes inaccurate, Lord Faulkner somehow also has the belief that Forest was started as a tobacco industry front group. Its actual funding from tobacco companies is listed on the front page of its website. Simon Clark of Forest wrote to the PoliticsHome website pointing out the error, and clearly His Lordship has no evidence for his belief (other than that it is received tobacco control wisdom): hence the corrected version.

All that is left to Lord Faulkner after his attack on Angela Harbutt are (1) the somewhat pointless supposition that not smoking would save many hundred thousand lives, (2) the assertion that it is important that universities participate in studying the causes of disease (is that what happens in universities party to the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies, which seems to have a loaded name) and (3) the suggestion that tobacco is the only consumer product that kills when used as intended. That old chestnut – never mind the fact that alcohol, salt and now sugar are catching up fast.

Does that mean that the health lobby will be fighting within itself for resources soon? That will show them as the one-trick ponies they are.

EDIT: background to latest edit of Lord Faulkner's response.

Spot the tobacco industry front group (article 5.3 again)

2012-02-07T00:44:00.003+01:00

Lord Faulkner of Worcester makes no secret of his enthusiasm for tobacco control. In this article he sets out to 'smoke out tobacco companies' influence'.

Like many advocates of smoking bans he sees tobacco as unique in its bad health effects. In spite of an increasing public health focus on drink, salt and now sugar, tobacco trumps all in its capacity to blight lives. However, as people point out increasingly, notwithstanding the UK government's professed concern for health it faces millions in fines for exceeding outdoor pollution limits set by Europe.

Because tobacco has uniquely damaging effects on human health, public health departments take an interest in tobacco. They do the same with alcohol, salt and now sugar. Output from the really big corporations, which include military–industrial corporations, remains outside the interest of public health: systemic impacts on public health including bad housing quality, chronic employment insecurity, sales of school playing fields and the more direct effects of industrial and post-industrial pollution are all conditions that we must live with: health improvement means the modification of lifestyle factors.

Needless to say I take Lord Faulkner's factoid that tobacco kills one in every two smokers with a very large pinch of salt. This stupendous figure justifies his proud description of Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: after describing the behaviour of lobbyists, he goes on:

Tackling such entrenched and profitable vested interests is never easy. That is why Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention is so crucial. It clearly states that when political parties are setting and implementing public health policies related to tobacco control, they shall ‘act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry in accordance with national law.’

What makes tobacco so unique?

The industry is desperate to get the ear of politicians, warning of the dire consequences of better health policies, undermining the evidence presented by doctors and scientists. It does this by providing a little advice here, a little hospitality there and some very generous speaker’s fees.

Isn't this what lobbyists all do?

And to reach those who won’t talk directly to the tobacco companies themselves, they use front groups often without making explicit tobacco industry links and funding. Most recently they funded retailer groups like the National Federation of Retail Newsagents and the Tobacco Retailers Alliance to argue against putting tobacco out of sight in shops,

The NFRN is seen here explaining its acceptance of tobacco industry money in order to campaign against the legislation. The Tobacco Retailers' Association acknowledges support from the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association at the foot of its website. Forest (Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco), the only tobacco-funded campaigning group for tobacco consumers, carries a disclaimer on its website:

Forest is supported by British American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco Limited and Gallaher Limited (a member of the Japan Tobacco Group of Companies). The views expressed on this or any other Forest-affiliated website are those of Forest alone.

People like Lord Faulkner seem incapable of believing that an organisation receiving funding from tobacco companies can retain an independent view. Payment from the tobacco industry implies that the groups concerned don't even have an independent view – they just want to put forward the view of their suppliers, even though independent retailers represent a sector in their own right – a sector that is struggling.

To ensure the implementation of Article 5.3, he wants Andrew Lansley (Health Minister) to ensure the publication of all dealings between the tobacco industry and government officials. As for organisations he imagines are in receipt of industry funding:

“Smokers’ rights groups” and retailer front groups will continue to claim they have a right to be heard. Perhaps so, but they should no longer have the right to hide from Parliament the payments and briefings they receive from tobacco corporations. The tobacco companies will still have the right to discuss how they comply with government health policies. They should no longer be the arbiters of what those policies should be.

I have a tip for Lord Faulkner. He would find it much easier if he simply accepted briefings from the tobacco industry. Then he would not need to worry about whether independent retailers (or Forest for that matter) were giving him the tobacco industry perspective covertly. Or perhaps it is easier to reject tobacco companies' views and dismiss everyone else as 'useful idiots'.

Consulting mosquitos

2012-02-05T01:39:00.004+01:00

Yet again the Dutch come under fire for their lax attitude to tobacco control, because they have rolled back the tobacco campaign and withdrawn the funding for smoking cessation campaigns.

Chief among the complaints of the anti-smoking campaigners is the attitude of Anne Mulder, Public Health spokesman for the Liberal Party. He admits that the health department 'does hold meetings with the tobacco lobby':

'It's a legal product, I think it's right I speak to everyone and that's what I'm doing. I don't have any problem speaking to the lobbyists. If you want to make policy you have to speak to people on all sides then make your own decision.'

The inevitable objection (see earlier example):

'If you want to control malaria you don't invite the mosquitoes to negotiate with you on these issues. This is so illogical. It is absolutely irresponsible what they're doing, it's not a health policy not at all.'

The mosquito is a very poor example to illustrate why relevant interests should not be consulted over policy. Politicians don't control malaria, nor do they prevent disease. They legislate on policy. If you want to control malaria as a medic, you go to war with the mosquito and if you need the support of the law then other considerations might become relevant. The fact that mosquitos cannot speak for themselves has absolutely no bearing on the propriety of consulting all relevant parties to issues on which laws are being passed (Sheila Duffy also had a go a few months ago when she blogged,
'Malaria kills people, but mosquitoes don’t have PR agencies and expensive promotions budgets,' a consideration that is absurd as well as irrelevant.)

In consulting with tobacco companies the Dutch are flouting Article 5.3 of the WHO's Framework Convention for Tobacco Control. This measure seeks to 'protect' health policy from tobacco industry influence – because the FCTC is the first global multilateral treaty of the World Health Organisation. It should worry people that the WHO believes tobacco should be the subject of its first multilateral treaty, or that the tobacco industry is the only one supposed to be a threat to national public health policies, and whose influence must be resisted. (More here.)

Miscellaneous on tobacco control

2012-02-03T01:31:00.000+01:00

1. Front page view of local rebel (local to Northern Ireland that is) on his way into prison. There will be a further report of his release shortly.

2. Court of Session turns down Imperial Tobacco's case against the Scottish Government claiming that the tobacco display ban is unconstitutional. Imperial may yet appeal but no final decision is yet made.

3. 'More smokers expected to die outside pubs this winter.' Speaks for itself.

Political crimes

2012-01-30T11:42:00.001+01:00

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

2012-01-23T20:42:00.002+01:00

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

2012-01-22T14:30:00.001+01:00

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

2012-01-18T00:57:00.000+01:00

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

2012-01-15T22:15:00.001+01:00

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

2012-01-15T21:44:00.003+01:00

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

2012-01-15T17:45:00.001+01:00

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

2012-01-14T12:43:00.001+01:00

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

2012-01-10T19:58:00.000+01:00

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

2012-01-08T02:32:00.008+01:00

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

2012-01-02T11:28:00.002+01:00

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

2012-01-01T14:58:00.001+01:00

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!

British Heart Foundation cites survey of young people to support plain packaging

2011-12-29T14:36:00.002+01:00

Press reports state that the British Heart Foundation's latest plea to the UK government for plain packaging of tobacco relies on a survey of young people. This is a reserved issue, but Scottish political representatives are being lobbied to put pressure on Westminster.

Other examples appear in the Independent and in Scottish regional papers. Resting a call for plain packaging on what a survey of under three thousand young people think is sadly not unprecedented (the invention of third-hand smoke precedes it: would you stop smoking if you believed that smoke clings to your clothes and kills your children?).

Who here thinks this paragraph convincing evidence that plain packaging would stop children being interested in tobacco?

A total of 2,771 young people took part in the online survey, carried out for BHF, which found 90% thought plain packs were less attractive than branded ones.

Did the survey ask whether tobacco in plain packaging would be found preferable to no tobacco at all? Considering that at least four fifths of those participating are likely to have been non-smokers, the answers are not surprising, especially since the survey designer, British Heart Foundation, has clear views on the issue. Even this document relies, not on facts but on what young people believe the facts are (p. 6):

The research found that the proportion of young people believing that more than a fifth of children their age smoked fell from 62 per cent before the display ban to 46 per cent following it.

Granted it also cites more conventional sources of evidence in addition to surveys of young people. But its conclusions and arguments are far-fetched and unconvincing.

The EU Tobacco Product Directive, implemented in 2003, stopped companies using text and trademarks to suggest that a particular tobacco product is less harmful than others on packaging. However, the tobacco industry has continued to use gold and silver packaging on products to associate them as being ‘lighter’ or ‘lower-tar’ products.

Dick Puddlecote has more on the issue of whether different levels of tar present different levels of danger. All product lines from butter to baked beans alter colouring to reflect issues such as low fat levels or low salt or sugar, as a basic method of communicating clearly to customers what the product is. Being banned from using the words will increase the imperative to communicate with colour. Whether this same information leads people to believe that tobacco is safer if it has lower tar levels is moot. A public message that smoking is socially unacceptable is a poor vehicle for communicating the relative safety of different tar levels, since its core message is that smoking is always bad for you, and you are misled if you believe that any tar level is less dangerous than any other. In effect the levels of tar are no business of the smoker, who will use the information unwisely.

The British Heart Foundation does not consider the possibility that removing branding from the range of factors that prompt customers to choose their product leads the customer to decide on the basis of price, and could result in a price war, and certainly does not concern itself with the argument that illegal drugs are already sold in plain packaging. All scenarios assume that plain packaging will lead to customers seeing warnings more clearly, hence drawing the correct conclusions and desisting from smoking as a result.

Scotland youth smoking rising or falling?

2011-12-29T01:26:00.001+01:00

Do you believe this (Youth smoking rate continues to rise, from 2008) or this: Teenage smoking falls to lowest level since 1982, from five days before Christmas)?

Knowing the authorities in Scotland, either version will be used as a good reason for repeating its annual reminder to smokers that now is as good a time as any to give up.

The Scotsman's version includes a choice quotation from Ms Sheila Duffy:

Chief executive of ASH Scotland Sheila Duffy said: 'Many smokers decide to quit and find it easier than they thought it would be.'

This depends on your definition of 'many'. NHS services acknowledge that only 8 per cent of quitters are recorded as successful at 12 months.

A Daily Record story from last month is downbeat about youth smoking rates and smoking rates in deprived areas, and takes the opportunity to attack cuts in tobacco control expenditure in Scotland to £11.4 million. This is a lot of money to spend 'controlling' a legal substance, especially when the results of expenditure result only in an uptake of pharmaceutical smoking cessation products, and complete cessation of smoking in so few cases.

The different stories about whether smoking is going up or down emphasise only that no one really knows what the smoking rates are. Even if it were clear that smoking rates were coming down, it would be no guarantee that people's choices would lead either to greater longevity or improved quality of life.

Secondary smoke issues at home in Middlesbrough and the Delaware county courts

2011-12-19T02:33:00.003+01:00

Here is the background to this story. We are entering the territory of home smoking bans – except they will not be bans applied by central government, but restrictions written into the small print of tenancies. Action on Smoking and Health is keen to encourage people who (imagine that they) experience discomfort from their neighbours' smoke to investigate the terms of their leases for 'nuisance clauses'.

Using smoke-free laws as a clear basis for protecting the health and well-being of one section of the population at the expense of another is what we have come to expect from zealots of this order. They recommend 'reasonable' informal negotiation with smoking neighbours as a kick-off and graduate quickly to the point where complainants are advised to record their symptoms. This is deeply alarmist stuff, clearly intending to induce anxiety about the perceived harm from secondary smoke coming through ventilation shafts, wire ducts and who knows what else. Scepticism about the level of harm from smoke inhaled by householders is expressed clearly by anti-smoking scholar Simon Chapman:

Tobacco smoke also contains ultra-fine particles. Other sources of ultra-fine particles (UFPs) include "laser printers, fax machines, photocopiers, the peeling of citrus fruits, cooking, penetration of contaminated outdoor air, chimney cracks and vacuum cleaners."[8] Wallace and Ott's data on concentrations of UFPs in restaurants and cars found "cooking on gas or electric stoves and electric toaster ovens was a major source of UFP, with peak personal exposures often exceeding 100,000 particles/cm3 .... Other common sources of high UFP exposures [in restaurants] were cigarettes, a vented gas clothes dryer, an air popcorn popper, candles, an electric mixer, a toaster, a hair dryer, a curling iron, and a steam iron."[9]

It is important that research documents residuals from tobacco smoke. But it is equally important that consumers and policy makers are not led to believe that the chemical compounds thus located are somehow unique to tobacco smoke. Unless in the extremely unlikely event that residents burn copious quantities of solanaceous vegetables (aubergine, tomato) which contain small amounts of nicotine, tobacco is going to be the only source of nicotine in homes. But it will not by any means be the only source of many of the ingredients of "third hand smoke" that the unwitting or the fumophobic may believe are attributable only to smoking. The omission of this information in such reports risks harming the credibility of tobacco control. [emphasis added]

Middlesbrough then: here is the story of John Baker at Freedom-2-Choose. His local council left asbestos in his housing association apartment block decades ago and have now come back to clear up the mess. This will necessitate John moving upstairs, into a guest flat. The woman who informed him of this arrangement also advised him that there would be no smoking in the guest flat. At the time of writing he did not know if this restriction was written into any lease or just something the housing association representative felt like saying. But even if it was an empty threat, the climate is now such that it was a believable one.

Now to the Delaware courtroom, where the chips are on the table. Businesses affected by the smoking ban are fighting a lawsuit saying that the claims concerning the dangers of secondary smoke have no credibility. They have obtained under cross examination evidence of conflicts of interest: a witness promoting the smoking ban admitted receiving financial assistance from Johnson and Johnson, who manufacture smoking cessation aids. They have also presented evidence of a substantial drop in takings following the smoking bans. A result is expected in the next few days.

It is good that while Action on Smoking and Health and its Scottish cousin stride ahead with plans to stop everyone smoking at home, the basic premise that secondary smoke kills is far from being universally accepted. We have not yet established that people are harmed by smoke even emitted in the same room before seeking ordnances banning people from smoking in their own homes.

Offensive garments not allowed in the Chamber during sensitive debates

2011-12-15T02:07:00.010+01:00

Slogan in video: Fans not criminals
Slogan in photograph: SNP Shame on you

No one expected the Offensive Behaviour and Threatening Communications Bill not to be voted into law yesterday, and so it came to pass. The Bill was voted in this afternoon. Also:

Today, the SNP-appointed Presiding Officer Tricia Marwick instructed Parliamentary security to prevent members of FAC entering the debating chamber of the Scottish Parliament. We intended to do no more than wear t-shirts spelling out the message 'FANS NOT CRIMINALS'.

I joined up with this group outside the Scottish Parliament. We were led to a committee room by Hugh Henry MSP, who welcomed us to the debate: several MSPs also came to this room, including some of the Bill's supporters and a lively discussion ensued – more of a shouting match. It was clear that no understanding between the two sides would result, and in any case within ten minutes it was nearly time for the stage 3 debate. The MSPs drifted off and we were about to follow, when the message reached us that people wearing garments with slogans would not be admitted to the Chamber, although they would be admitted if the garments were removed.

It remains unclear exactly what actions, songs and so forth will be criminalised by the Bill – I heard one member offering the explanation that this was 'context-dependent'. This seems to offer little assurance to fans. Opponents of the ban point out how few people have been arrested over the years. The test is whether 'reasonable people' might find specific behaviour or songs offensive. Since so few people have been arrested for so-called sectarian offences at football matches over the last 30 years, many 'reasonable people' might find it hard to identify many offensive actions or remarks. It seems that the trend is to make crimes out of actions and utterances that might have caused trouble rather than those that do cause trouble.

Scotland has recently seen the jailing of a Rangers fan for threatening communications before the Bill was even passed.

During the debate itself (videos here), I noted a point from David McLetchie MSP (18.32 minutes in). He says that government attempts to imply that opponents to the Bill are somehow in favour of offensive behaviour and sectarianism. He urges that both sides should treat each other's positions with respect. He is not the only person who has made this point in the hearings and debates leading to the passing of this Bill (see also 36.19 mins into the video). Of course such tactics are very familiar to us in the smoking debate: we are accused of being indifferent to smoking rates, disease from smoking, discomfort from smoke, if not actually being in receipt of tobacco company payments. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terrorism," said President Bush, setting a poor example in democratic leadership, but a good example in browbeating opposition. I hope that those MSPs who feel insulted and undermined by this tactic will remember not to use it themselves in the context of the smoking debate.

Edit: Herald comment on the new Act
Coverage from Fife: Academic delivering 3,000-name petition in last-ditch bid to halt Offensive Behaviour bill
Protesters banned from chamber as SNP use majority to pass anti-bigotry bill

Eddie's interview, Leith FM, 2010

2011-12-14T01:00:00.000+01:00

Eddie Douthwaite, until recently Chairman of Freedom to Choose (Scotland), gave the following interview to Leith FM nearly two years ago – when the skies were full of volcanic ash from Iceland. Eddie gave the interviewers some enlightening new angles on the smoking ban issue, and the switchboards lit up. Listen below.

Click To Play
Eddie Douthwaite on Radio Leith FM

Eddie – the ferret – an exemplary interview and one we will build on. Thanks for all you've done.

Scottish smoking cessation statistics

2011-12-11T23:12:00.004+01:00

Stunning success greets smoking cessation efforts in Scotland!

Source

I had a double take on seeing these figures – under the impression that quit rates were negligible, especially after noting that smoking rates in Scotland have risen in the last few years.

These figures are based on a three-year period spanning March 2008 to March 2011. The report reads that nearly 90,000 gave up in these three years. The figures are presented with a cumulative total, which gives the impression of a lovely steep incline – because the point of it was to show successful quits since 1 April 2008. Of course it wasn't the case that nobody gave up in March 2008, or that 90,000 people gave up in March 2011. If the graph showed individual totals for each three-month period, the steady incline suggests that the line would appear flat at around 30,000 per year or 7,500 a quarter.

The really important matter here is not brought to the fore: figures are for four weeks, and the rate at twelve months is given as 8 per cent. Fewer than 10 per cent of attempts at quitting are recorded as successful at one year.

Value for money? I find it hard to believe that finding a publicly subsidised market for smoking cessation treatments isn't a significant aim in this stupendous effort to stop people from smoking.

Dutch under fire for lax tobacco controls

2011-12-11T01:12:00.000+01:00

As often this story is told effectively by Chris Snowdon, but the background is as follows. In brief, the Dutch rolled back their smoking ban about a year ago. Shortly afterwards Wiel Maessen of Forces International, a Dutch citizen who had been active in organising opposition to the ban, was approached by Stanton Glantz for an interview, as he was seeking to understand how the ban in the Netherlands had come to be overturned. The interview between these two was recorded.

The ban was reversed for bars with no employees, relying on the argument that the ban was about protecting workers. The fight has not ceased for overturning bans everywhere in the Netherlands. But there is a counter-attack from the international forces of tobacco control. This Dutch pro-tobacco control researcher's blog output over the last year has been four pieces lamenting the renegade tendencies of the Dutch in tobacco control. For not only has the Dutch government partially overturned the smoking ban – it has also cut the funding for the Dutch anti-smoking campaign organisation STIVORO.

The antis' retaliation to this insubordination: here from Stanton Glantz on the lifting of the smoking ban (or the 'failure of policy' on tobacco) and here from an army of professional tobacco control advocates on the cessation of funding to STIVORO and similar measures (or on why the Dutch government is 'abandoning smokers to their fate') – also reported here.

Stanton Glantz's efforts to connect action taken by publicans in the Netherlands to the tobacco industry fail because there is simply no evidence to connect them. Chris Snowdon explains. The other study, promising Dutch smokers an early death because of the direction of Dutch tobacco policy, is hardly more convincing.

Protest the Offensive Behaviour at Footbill Bill

2011-12-10T14:34:00.000+01:00

The Stage 3 debate will take place on Wednesday 14 June, in the session beginning at 2 pm. A rally is expected to gather outside the Scottish Parliament around 1 pm.

Opposition to the Bill is growing:

MEPs don't have a smoking ban in the workplace

2011-12-01T13:25:00.000+01:00

I've seen the room referred to in this article. It has nice big windows and extensive views.

Scotland's ten-year decline in heart disease and stroke deaths

2011-12-01T11:44:00.002+01:00

Less than a week after we learned that the drop in smoking rates especially among Scotland's deprived communities has been disappointing, we discover that Scotland's heart and stroke deaths have dropped sharply over the last ten years, with most of the gains in deprived communities.

The source is Scotland's official source of figures: you can view the relevant chart by going to document MC1 (the top one) and clicking the tab at the bottom left hand side of the document (I don't know how to import an excel page into blogspot post).

The figures here are about the success of treatment rates – they concern an improvement in mortality after conditions have been treated, rather than prevention. The impact that Professor Jill Pell's study declared was on hospitalisations, not deaths.

Taken together, what do we learn? The figures show no trace of the 17 per cent drop in heart attacks that were alleged to have followed the Scottish smoking ban: there is no sudden dip following 2006. There is also no real drop in smoking rates, making the claims originally made by Professor Jill Pell even more problematic (there can be no significant drop in smoke exposure if there is no significant drop in smoking rates). Finally there is a decline in heart attacks and stroke deaths in deprived areas, which have not seen a significant drop in smoking rates – although this is attributed to more successful treatment rather than a lower incidence.

Charity Cancer Research UK's income drops

2011-11-30T05:35:00.005+01:00

Who knows what has caused this drop in the income of Cancer Research UK – whether it is another symptom of the recession or whether other considerations play a part. As we enter a day when record public sector strikes are expected, it is clear that much of the general public, who fund charities, are under severe and continuing financial pressure.

Regular readers of this blog will know that I have a specific gripe with this page from the Tobacco Advisory Group on the CRUK web site, in which they virtually dictate the results of any study that they fund on tobacco:

TAG particularly funds research and activities that support:

Current UK policy priorities, e.g. see the 'Beyond Smoking Kills' report.
Greater regulation of all products containing tobacco and nicotine.
Greater tax and/or smuggling measures in the UK.
Tackling health inequalities and addressing the needs of groups with particularly high rates of tobacco use.

The only way to describe this is policy-led research: in other words it is politically motivated – not led by an open-minded investigation of the science surrounding tobacco and health, but led by the desire to restrict tobacco consumption. If anybody wonders about the sheer volume of studies that emerge on a weekly basis on tobacco this kind of agenda will help to explain it, along with the likes of TRDRP in the US. Funds exist solely to ensure that studies with a specific anti-tobacco agenda see the light on a daily basis.

In Scotland, the Tobacco Advisory Group of Cancer Research UK has been particularly active, contributing significantly to major policy papers on which the Scottish Government is expected to base its tobacco policy – this information is obtained by searching Sheila Duffy (ASH Scotland) on the CRUK site. Search Deborah Arnott (Action on Smoking and Health in London) and you will get similar results.

I also don't think a charity should be writing government policy on tobacco control. ASH Scotland is a voluntary organisation that calls itself a charity, which employs (at last count) 27 personnel and has collected nearly £1 millions in Scottish government grants in recent years. (This submission responds to a call for evidence from the Scottish Government's finance committee for 2012/13, and seems to say in outline that they need money to discourage people from smoking, and yet more money to ascertain whether the money they spent in the first place was effective.) It is effectively a substantial arm of the government (last I was aware, there were only four staff at Administrative Officer level or above dealing with illegal drugs in the Scottish Government, plus secretarial support). Already heavily funded by the Scottish Government, ASH Scotland gets additional support from Cancer Research UK. This, to me, is an improper use of resources contributed to charity.

I would be interested to know whether Eddie (comment #1) is correct in his supposition that the public's awareness of this use of Cancer Research UK's money has contributed significantly to its decline in fortunes . I haven't purchased anything in a CRUK shop since I became aware of the extent of its policy-led anti-tobacco funding. I don't mind scientists discovering that tobacco is dangerous if they approach their research in an open-minded way, but I do mind it when a result justifying further restrictions on the tobacco trade is made a condition of funding of this research (it can't even be called medical research if these are the conditions set).

Number-crunching and sectarian offences in Scotland

2011-11-28T23:33:00.001+01:00

Following a report entitled 'Religiously aggravated offending in Scotland' comes a blog post that is well worth reading, as it argues effectively against the government's case for bringing in legislation on offensive behaviour at football matches on the available evidence.

Using figures from the official report (2010–2011), Chris Graham shows how small the problem is with sectarian aggravation in Scotland, compared with other categories of hate crime. The figures run as follows:

Crimes labelled racial aggravation numbered 693 charged (compared with 6, 452 racially aggravated crimes), less 106 who were not prosecuted. Less 303 who were not found guilty, leaving 390 convictions.

Offences on police accounted for 41 per cent of all the charges. Breach of the peace, as opposed to assault, accounted for 72.5 per cent of the charges. Custodial sentences were handed down on only 70 individuals out of 693 charged.

Chris points out further that this it is very hard to define the crimes recorded as sectarian. As many people have pointed out, the word sectarian does not appear in the drafting of the Bill. As with this report, it appears that the target's religious affiliation is unimportant: it is enough that the behaviour is offensive in the eyes of a third party:

this report does not present any information about the religious beliefs or affiliations of the people targeted by the offensive conduct. The legislation defines a religiously aggravated offence as an incident where the offender evinces towards the victim “malice and ill-will based on the victim’s membership (or perceived membership) of a religious group or a social or cultural group with a perceived religious affiliation”, or, the offence is motivated by the same. There is no data held by Police or COPFS on victims’ membership of religious or cultural groups with a perceived religious affiliation as this is not relevant to the definition of the crime in law.

Since the target's religious affiliation is irrelevant to the definition of offensive behaviour, it seems a peculiarly messy definition of a crime. It seems beyond absurd to attempt to frame a law around perceived offensive behaviour aimed at football-related sectarianism, but refuse to admit that the religious faith of the person offended against bears any weight, especially bearing in mind that nearly half of the targets were police officers. Doing this on the basis of a conviction rate of 400 convictions in a country that recorded over 150,000 crimes in 2009–2010 adds to the absurdity.

Pinning this on to football is also provoking, says Chris Graham:

Perhaps the most important statistic in relation to football and this proposed bill is that only 12.9% of these reported charges took place at football matches. So why then, Mr Salmond, do we have a bill which specifically targets football fans? Even if there was a sectarian issue in this country it certainly hasn’t been taking place predominantly at football.

It is heartening to see the level of signatures creeping up on this petition, but even more to see intelligent pieces like this from Chris Graham and more.

Who's in charge over there?

2011-11-27T21:56:00.001+01:00

What do Scottish Parliamentarians do if they want to smoke at work?

It's all written down here, in a policy statement from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the organisation that runs the Parliament building and its affairs. It tells you where and when you can smoke and what you must not wear while doing so. It tells you what will happen if you flout the policy. The sugar on the pill is an offer to cover half the costs of treatment to any employee who wants to give up smoking (what's in it for them – being known as Investors in People, perhaps?). (This looks as if it could add up considerably, but it is limited to £292 per person per year. We might never know why they don't just round it up to £300.)

I don't know what the Macedonian equivalent to the SPCB is but wouldn't it be fun if this situation kicked off here?

Philip Morris withdraws claim to see Stirling University research

2011-11-27T21:18:00.001+01:00

Only the Independent has run with this story so far – written by Steve Connor, whose story that Philip Morris was demanding sensitive research information from Stirling University caused a furore in September.

They haven't announced that they are dropping their demand to see the information; but they have missed a deadline specified by the Scottish Information Commissioner, meaning that the only way to proceed with getting the information is to start all over again.

I'm not sure why they dropped it: it doesn't help that we have only one version of the story. According to Steve Connor the university declined to accept reimbursement from Philip Morris for costs incurred. I can't see how the Scottish Information Commissioner would accept such a refusal from the university, but I don't know all the rules (maybe there are laws against money changing hands in these circumstances, in the interests of equality).

Perhaps, having decided to sue the Australian government, they have bigger fish to fry.

Pell declares a disappointing drop in smoking rates

2011-11-27T01:22:00.003+01:00

Jill Pell (not to prejudice readers) has published a study that concludes:

Quit attempts increased in the three months leading up to Scotland's smoke-free legislation, resulting in a fall in smoking prevalence. However, neither has been sustained suggesting the need for additional tobacco control measures and ongoing support.

This sounds like a call for 'reward for failure', which we seem to see too much of these days. We're not succeeding in bringing down smoking rates, so we need to up the budget and try even harder. (More comment here.)

Of course I have not studied her subject in detail, but I don't believe she is the first to point out that the long decline in smoking rates has flattened out in recent years. I don't know her methods either but she does seem quite thorough:

Our study has a number of strengths. We used a robust and flexible modelling approach. We had Scotland-wide data from all prescribing sources, including prescriptions issued in Scotland but dispensed elsewhere. We had data over a seven year period, including three years following the legislation, reducing the risk of random variation due to short follow-up. We also had nationally representative quarterly data on smoking prevalence.

Scotland-wide data? A seven-year period? Both (indeed either) of these would have made the heart attack study considerably more credible.

But in this case it's not her method I'm quarrelling with. It's her conclusion that resources have to be increased, even though all she has created is a nation of serial quitters. Sadly, her kind of thinking seems to prevail in establishment circles.

Campaigner for choice in the news on car smoking ban

2011-11-27T00:59:00.001+01:00

Local campaigner Bill Gibson hits the headlines in Dumfries-shire (again).

(click to enlarge)

This time he addresses the car smoking ban proposed by the BMA: he points out that air cleaning technology renders car smoking bans quite unnecessary. (Unfortunately the article omits a paragraph, which probably named the Brussels Declaration on Scientific Integrity.)

So far the debate in the Scottish Parliament has been limited, with one Oral Question to the Public Health Minister, Michael Matheson, who insists that there is 'no intention' to even have a public consultation on the issue in Scotland 'at this stage'. That won't please Sheila Duffy and her ilk and they will want to know why we don't protect children when we make such a point about protecting adults.

Scotland might very well come under pressure to pass a car ban. Northern Ireland is already making plans. The Guardian reports:

... the BMA hopes that the devolved administrations in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, which are pursuing some innovative public health measures such as alcohol minimum pricing and presumed consent organ donation, might take their own action.

The Prime Minister has expressed himself to be 'nervous' about a smoking ban in cars. After all,

"We do not believe that legislation is the most effective way to encourage people to change their behaviour," a Department of Health spokesman said.

Eh?

The Welsh Assembly wants an educational approach for three years and then to apply a ban if people don't mend their ways during this time. I have to say their logic is provoking. As I've already said, passive smoke exposure is already so lethal that adults have to be protected from it, with savage penalties handed down to transgressors of the public smoking ban. But for exposing children (allegedly exposed eleven times more than in a bar) there is a three-year period of grace.

Who understands these people?

Smoking can damage the resale value of your car (but we'll clean it up for you)

2011-11-24T15:41:00.000+01:00

I observed this, posted on Facebook by Action on Smoking and Health. On the face of it, it just tells you how smelly smoking makes your car – en passant, drawing attention to the BMA's proposals to ban smoking in cars. But it concludes:

“You are likely never to get rid of the smoking smell completely, but a comprehensive interior clean from a professional automotive cleaning specialist should make a big difference. This clean may cost you in the region of £150, but should help ensure it attracts interest from buyers in the first instance, and will ultimately help achieve a better price for the car,” [Peter Grøftehauge, Autorola’s chief executive] added.

You can really trust ASH not to spot when somebody's jumping on the bandwagon for a fast buck, can't you? For valeting services, look no further.

Ban fails to reduce smoking rate in Scotland's deprived areas

2011-11-21T09:47:00.000+01:00

The Daily Record tells us that smoking rates are up. The BMA in Scotland and Scottish Labour both say that resources need to be concentrated on poor areas, with Jackie Baillie, Shadow Health Secretary, criticising cuts in smoking cessation funding.

The one who has it nearest the mark is probably the professor from University College London, who blames the high mortality rate and general poverty. The best way to encourage people to give up is to create an economy and housing infrastructure that will support people's security and stake in the future. The current economic climate is not helping anyone in this respect and funding smoking cessation is money down the toilet. Good for the SNP for reducing this budget, painful although it is bound to be for them. A recent US study reports that the long-term prospect of stopping smoking is only 6 per cent: to the best of my knowledge this rate reflects other studies.

Only four people from Glasgow were interviewed for this piece but not one of them supported the BMA's theory that most people want to give up smoking: the only one who reported attempting did so on grounds of cost. It used to be common knowledge that motivation was key. The key now seems to be social pressure (denormalisation), and it doesn't work.

Ironically, areas with fewer smokers will be less likely to lose their social amenities as a result of the smoking ban. It is not surprising that areas with few prospects and effectively no public houses will see smoking rates rise. This is what the government calls 'tackling health inequalities'.

Scotland discusses smoking ban in cars

2011-11-19T10:22:00.004+01:00

Wednesday's Scotland Tonight featured a discussion on the smoking issue. Attacking the ban was, unusually, a university lecturer (rather than a campaigner, professional or otherwise), and defending it was a member of the BMA.

The clip is here – following the interview, after a few moments' silence, the presenter reads a couple of comments that have been emailed to the show.

I could not argue with any of Dr Stuart Waiton's major points: that doctors expect policy to be based on the latest piece of research, the moralistic tone they adopt on health issues, the zero-tolerance obsession about risk ...

As for Dr Gary Hamilton from the BMA: suggesting a discussion between Dr Waiton and the relatives of the 44 people who died of passive-smoke-induced lung cancer in any given year on obsessive attitudes to risk is fairly disingenuous, since he does not know who these people are. He does not know who the people are who allegedly died, because they are the product of a mathematical model, not actual deaths observed empirically. It's not as if he were offering an employer the opportunity to discuss the absurdity of wearing safety helmets with the families of people who had suffered fatal head injuries at work. Reprimanding Dr Waiton for accepting the risk of secondary smoke is far easier than remembering the United Kingdom's appalling record in air pollution generally.

Dr Hamilton comments that we can 'save 33 children from dying a year'. Since there is no direct evidence that secondary smoke causes diseases, even supposing that children are exposed to harm from smoke, there is also no evidence that their deaths occur when they are still children, or even that they occur prematurely.

Unfortunately Dr Hamilton was not asked to explain why protection of children has lagged behind protection of adults, when children are presented as more vulnerable and the environments in which they are exposed to smoke 23 times more lethal. (Or 11 times more lethal. They're making it up as they go.)

Dr Hamilton refused to be drawn on whether the BMA wishes to ban tobacco completely.

The issue goes to the Scottish Parliament next Thursday (24 November) in an oral question (question 12).

Thinking of the children?

2011-11-19T00:18:00.001+01:00

How can anyone possibly believe that these people care about children: the BMA and all who think like them? I posted this today:

We were prevented from smoking in bars because - to quote the authorities - there is NO SAFE LEVEL of secondary smoke. We were actually *prevented* from doing it, even in private clubs between consenting adults - not just discouraged or shown the dangers, but told YOU WILL NOT DO IT BECAUSE IT IS COMPLETELY lethal and UNACCEPTABLE to expose even consenting adults to it.

Then after a few years we are told that exposure in cars was 23 times more lethal and we should stop doing it in cars. Five years later - *twenty-three times more lethal in a car* - and we know how children have no choice. This is not concern about children ... if they were so concerned about children a ban in cars would have come years ago. This is just using children as a propaganda tool in the next stage of restrictions on smokers. Twenty-three times more lethal than a level of danger so great that we were forbidden by law from taking the risk. (Note that they have quietly reduced this 23 to 11, but not before the public was fed a grossly inflated version.)

I think Robert Dow has it right on the button.

A car is smaller than a bar, but there would usually be no more than two people smoking in the car, and most people would not smoke continuously in a car if they smoke at all. In a bar the upper number of smokers depends entirely on the size of the room, and also ventilation factors also vary so enormously that nobody could take this as a scientific measure. This is typical of the so-called science on secondary smoke. It is based not on measured amounts of anything, but guesswork and generalisations.

(I've just heard Amanda Sandford tell George Galloway on Talksport that she doesn't think the time is right for an outright ban in motor cars (bless the BMA, for letting Action on Smoking and Health be seen as moderate on a smoking issue). Even though passive smoke exposure is eleven times greater than in a smoky bar and children don't get a say, there should be no ban, just a debate.)

They really messed it up, didn't they?

2011-11-16T01:57:00.002+01:00

Today another outburst from the Department of Health will be felt in Scotland, when a Department of Health campaign to ban smoking in cars is carried into Scotland, thanks to the Scottish branch of the BMA.

The claim is that exposure to passive smoking is 23 (or 27) times greater in cars than in 'a smoky bar'. Given a choice between protecting children in cars and adults in bars, in the face of those figures, I would argue that the authorities made the wrong choice. As they never fail to point out, children have far less choice about entering cars than adults have about being anywhere. So why wait four (or five) years after banning smoking in bars before telling us that exposure in cars is over 20 times more dangerous?

That's apart from the crazy idea that you can draw any meaningful comparison between 'a smoky car' and 'a smoky bar'. On the unscientific nature of the comparison, Chris Snowdon has more.

Note radio interviews this morning: Patsy Nurse on BBC Radio Lincoln at 7.30 and 8.10 a.m., Dave Atherton on BBC Radio WM, 9.30 a.m. and Chris Snowdon on BBC Sussex (radio?) at 9.40 a.m.

Also Dave Atherton on BBC Radio Stoke, 10.20 a.m.

Freedom of Information is a tool of aggression, says President of the Royal Society

2011-11-16T01:31:00.001+01:00

Ten weeks after the furore caused by freedom of information requests by Philip Morris, The Independent, through the voice of Sir Paul Nurse (President of the Royal Society), attacks the use of Freedom of Information as a so-called 'tool of aggression'.

Philip Morris caused consternation by requesting details about research concerning childhood smoking undertaken at Stirling University. The Scottish Information Commissioner demanded that Stirling University should issue a substantive response – as far as I know, this is still pending (but you can hear an interview with the Information Commissioner (and with Gerard Hastings of Stirling University, including a statement from Philip Morris) at the link here).

I'm not familiar with the disruption that such FOI requests can produce. But like many readers, I find it hard to see why publicly funded research should not be put at the disposal of the public. Given that tobacco companies are systematically excluded from any public health discussions involving smoking, there is some justice in allowing them to see the fruits of publicly funded research involving their own product. I don't believe that tobacco companies should dictate public health policy, but nor should they be barred from making any contributions.

Since I don't respect the exclusion of tobacco companies from public health debates, it is unsurprising that I should feel that Stirling University should comply with the FOI request. But there is also the practical point of limiting Freedom of Information. Where would you draw the lines? How would you guarantee that the people who are granted access to the information they seek are not actually related by their third cousin's marriage to someone on the Philip Morris's board of directors?

The point of principles such as Freedom of Information is to provide transparency, and limiting it destroys the concept. There is no point in enshrining a point of principle around sharing information with people that you would happily share the information with if the principle were not in place. Like the principle of habeus corpus, it must apply to anyone if it is to have any meaning at all. There's no point in agreeing not to imprison people without charge 'unless they're terrorists').

Stirling University ran a poll on Facebook which led to a lively discussion. They won the poll, and then withdrew the page because they lost most of the points in the discussion (why remove it otherwise?) I wrote to the University to ask them where the page was: answer here.

Ban lifted in mental health units, Western Australia

2011-11-15T01:27:00.000+01:00

Following reports that patients have resorted to dangerous measures in order to smoke, including exchanging sex for cigarettes, Mental Health Minister Helen Morton has announced her intention to lift the ban in mental health facilities. There are reports that treatment attempts are impeded by the ban, which is widely felt to be cruel to patients, and the move is supported by a staff union known as United Voice.

Dissent came unsurprisingly from the Australian Council on Smoking and Health, whose spokesman said:

the council's call was "misguided, retrograde and exaggerated". He said the smoking ban, introduced on all public hospital sites in 2008, was "being very well implemented and there will always be one or two exceptions". [first link above]

One or two? Well, who knows? I suspect the problem was a little more serious than that, in order to convince an Australian government minister that a smoking ban has gone too far.

Hair-raising stories about desperate measures can be found on this side of the globe too: the Isle of Man prison banned smoking recently and this is the result: unfortunately the authorities there have less empathy than they have managed to show in Australia

Maryland Judge agrees no evidence that smoke a nuisance, but with caveat

2011-11-14T00:49:00.001+01:00

The story is here, previously reported on this blog here. Anti-smoking campaigner James Repace represented the claimant in a case that aimed to show that secondary smoke provided a significant nuisance to his client, and that the housing provider failed to deal adequately with the problem.

Northrop said that the level of secondhand smoke entering David Schuman’s townhouse was not an actionable nuisance. Nor did he see bad faith in GHI's handling of Schuman’s complaints.

What I don't understand is this, near the foot of the article:

Northrop found in favor of the defendant on eight of the nine counts, but he granted a permanent injunction against inside smoking by Mr. and Mrs. Popovic.

Mr Popovich was reported to have ceased smoking in his home from consideration of his wife's illness. Why apply an injunction if the smoke wasn't actionable ... and if the information was available that Mr and Mrs Popovich were no longer smoking at home, surely the injunction was superfluous anyway.

Cigarette butts recycled: t-shirts and anti-corrosion chemicals

2011-11-12T20:32:00.002+01:00

T-shirt made from fabric containing 30 per cent cigarette butts (Asia Japan Watch)

The t-shirts are a new story, but they have already been displayed on the catwalks in Kyoto. Students realised the potential of the many discarded butts lying around, and found ways to remove the toxins in order to produce a viable product in a fabric comprising 30 per cent cigarette butts. Local companies were employed to do the spinning and make the garments. The story is in today's Telegraph.

The use of chemicals from butts in oil industry applications was reported last year in the BBC and also here: Chinese scientists discovered properties in the chemicals that would protect steel from corrosion (includes some comments.

Interesting that novel, innovative and resourceful ideas come from the Far East, whereas from the US we get this – a US study that the British Medical Journal just had to print. The study is funded by the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program: This is their page on environmental pollution, third hand smoke and tobacco related litter. The amount of money these people have to spend on anti-tobacco research is dizzying.

This report's conclusion:

The best solution to the cigarette butt waste problem is for smokers to quit, whether for reasons of their own health, the health of others, or the health of the environment where more than 5 trillion cigarette butts are deposited each year. At a minimum, however, the economic and administrative burdens of cigarette butt waste should be taken off state and local government agencies and taxpayers, and, following the principles of product stewardship and extended product responsibility, tobacco manufacturers should shoulder the entire financial burden for the collection, transportation and safe disposal of cigarette butt waste. The next best solution is to adopt a comprehensive Maine-style product stewardship law covering cigarette butt waste.

Anything but acknowledge that the tobacco-related waste might serve a useful purpose.

Plain packaging to be rammed through Australian senate following limited debate

2011-11-10T14:39:00.000+01:00

Not my words.

British Heart Foundation gleefully informs us that the Bill has been passed and that plain packaging is on the way. Why isn't the British Government following this example?

The EU has already been warned that legal action will follow any attempt to bring the legislation into Europe.

Success for tobacco companies is not unprecedented. This link tells of a Cincinnati court blocking a requirement to add graphic images to cigarette packs because the judge felt that tobacco companies had a high chance of success in challenging the requirement.

Confused believer in liberties hails ban

2011-11-04T01:29:00.002+01:00

Former smoker PM David Cameron applauded the smoking ban in bars while suggesting that actually smoking bans in cars were going too far and he is nervous about it.

I've been trying to work out all day what he meant. He is a strong believer in civil liberties but the ban has worked. What does that actually mean?

Government and non-governmental agencies right up to international level have colluded to ensure that two people can't share a smoke convivially in comfortable surroundings anywhere in public – even in private clubs. That has to be an infringement of liberty. As liberties go, it's pretty basic. There is no other way to describe it. It means that an authority gets to dictate the terms on which people associate with each other, and blocks what has been an accepted part of public social intercourse for many decades. Somewhere between a fifth and a third of the population smokes – varying from district to district. So how does a liberty lover get to believe that this 'works'?

The mind boggles, but I can only assume that the Prime Minister finds the outcome of the legislation pleases him, as a non-smoker who might be trying to avoid lapses in the style of Clegg and Obama – and it has been successful insofar as the people haven't taken to the streets yet. Something that doesn't restrict his personal freedom doesn't enter the picture in his understanding of liberties. Prime Minister – real liberty lovers enjoy the concept of liberties. They don't sacrifice the liberties of others – other people's liberties are as precious as their own.

Sad to say, Labour MP Alex Cunningham (who is trying to criminalise smoking in cars with children present) might also find the Prime Minister amenable on the subject of motor car bans, if he tries hard enough to persuade him.

Study confirms the self-evident: that smoking bans endanger patients

2011-11-02T12:06:00.000+01:00

The story is here.

And we are talking about Canada, where sub-zero temperatures are common. Patients who are sick must go outside, away from doorways and shelters, and expose themselves to the frosty air if they want to smoke. In the cold and dark, and according to this, security staff couldn't care less for their safety. And they need a study to confirm that this is putting patients at risk?

What would be worth a good study grant would be an investigation into why anybody should find this surprising.

Ninewells hospital's Hallowe'en party

2011-11-02T01:23:00.000+01:00

Hallowe'en frolics at Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, as hospital staff let their hair down and forget the day-to-day trauma of the workaday world.

Except they don't. Even a seasonal party gets turned into a don't-smoke-or-you'll-die 'event'.

Ninewells Hospital is after all an acknowledged expert in the control of infections.

Voluntary restrictions on smoking to the rescue of family pets: epidemiology

2011-11-01T01:37:00.000+01:00

From the University of Glasgow comes a professor, Clare Knottenbelt, who wishes to warn the public about the dangers of exposing their pets to secondary smoke. Her website page at the University of Glasgow admits the lack of any clear evidence of a link between secondary smoke exposure and illness in dogs and cats – or at least that it is hard to elucidate, which is much the same thing. The professor's study was funded by the British Small Animals Veterinary Association – not part of the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies, but apparently still willing to fund studies without very much medical benefit.

There seems little real appetite for further smoking restrictions to be made law, but it seems that pressure will grow, for as long as anti-smoking interests hold sway, on parents and pet-owners to desist from smoking near children and pets. Since children and pets have remained at 'life-threatening' risk for over five years since the smoking ban was introduced to 'save the workers', it is hard to imagine that the risks are real. If secondary smoke is so dangerous to the young, who can't choose where they spend time (as anti-smokers never tire of telling us) the best course of action would have been to campaign against smoking in the home, rather than against smoking in the workplace – much of it being out of bounds to kids for most of the time).

As explained in the video below there is no measurable study of secondary smoke that demonstrates harm.

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

2011-10-28T11:16:00.002+01:00

Well, they asked for it really.

Shisha feels weight of smoking ban

2011-10-26T23:58:00.003+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illicit tobacco: Two stories, UK and London, Ontario

2011-10-26T00:14:00.000+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Australians won't pay tobacco levy

2011-10-25T00:05:00.001+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh aye!

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

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

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

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

Florence, the mosquito, and the tobacco industry smear

2011-10-24T02:00:00.002+01:00

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

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

Bekijk de video in andere formaten.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The new elitism, surveillance and the harm principle

2011-10-24T01:01:00.000+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A weekend away

2011-10-22T16:01:00.000+01:00

Tourism with a difference: follow the story here!

A worthwhile and practical blog – visit here.

From Ireland: Haven't patients suffered enough?

2011-10-22T15:49:00.002+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

The Irish got it wrong again

2011-10-19T23:12:00.000+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rangers fan jailed for being offensive on Facebook

2011-10-18T23:10:00.001+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRESS RELEASE FROM DR STUART WAITON

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

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

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

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

As Waiton argues

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

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

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

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

http://takealiberty.blogspot.com/

Sectarianism Bill

2011-10-17T11:51:00.002+01:00

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

Text of thePetition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pell and asthma again

2011-10-14T22:44:00.001+01:00

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

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

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

Blackpool revokes partial outdoor smoking ban

2011-10-14T22:19:00.000+01:00

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

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

Fifteen-minute lecture on rethinking alcohol policy

2011-10-12T23:48:00.000+01:00

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

Bad news day for Australian government

2011-10-12T20:47:00.000+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Duffy in print

2011-10-12T00:40:00.001+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit: Scotsman piece now online.

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

2011-10-11T00:34:00.001+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

Investment ethics

2011-10-08T11:03:00.003+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TB as a smoking-related disease

2011-10-07T00:38:00.000+01:00

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

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

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

Astonishingly a spokesman for the British Lung Foundation commented thus:

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

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

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

Social responsibility/business levy splits retail trade in Scotland

2011-10-06T00:04:00.001+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schuman trial on home smoking: Repace debates

2011-10-04T23:38:00.000+01:00

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

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

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

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

Unions support smokers (sometimes!)

2011-10-04T00:03:00.001+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

Non-report on smoking cessation in Aberdeen

2011-10-03T12:20:00.001+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inappropriate influence at the Labour Conference?

2011-10-02T16:56:00.001+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

Shopkeepers warned to expect influx of underage smokers

2011-10-02T15:21:00.000+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

Vending machine bans live today

2011-10-01T19:03:00.000+01:00

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

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

Westminster smoking ban petition: Forest appeal; Greek amendment

2011-10-01T10:59:00.000+01:00

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

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

Taxing supermarkets for tobacco and alcohol sales

2011-09-30T00:17:00.000+01:00

Via the business rate the Scottish Government announced last week that large shops selling alcohol and tobacco will be charged a levy, to be spent on public health initiatives.

Naturally Sheila Duffy of ASH Scotland has welcomed this announcement, not least since public health initiatives (what she describes as preventative measures) are her business. She spent time last year pleading for spending in the area of prevention to be maintained. Her blog also exalts the recent UN summit on non-communicable diseases and applauds the Australian Health Minister Nicola Roxon's stupendous gift of A$700,000 (the amount seems to differ depending where you read it) to the World Health Organisation.

Because tobacco control works and delivers real health benefits, of course.

Cuts are being felt in the anti-smoking business. The charity No Smoking Day will lose its budget from the Department of Health leading to a merger of No Smoking Day with the British Heart Foundation.

Scotland's attempt at a solution, the business levy, has angered businesses, but the SNP's majority makes it a working possibility. Its ambition to raise £110 million over three years for public health initiatives is likely to sour relationships between the Government and the retail sector (possibly many of its customers, since retailers may be forced to raise prices generally), and possibly enrich lawyers.

Criminalising football fans: Offensive Behaviour at Football Bill (Scotland)

2011-09-28T22:58:00.002+01:00

Controversy continues to follow the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill 2011 on its passage through the Scottish Parliament. The essence of the Bill is to make criminal acts of songs or gestures that are perceived to threaten others at or in relation to football matches. At its root is the historically tense relationships between fans of the 'Old Firm' (Rangers and Celtic), but the terms of the Bill would apply to perceived sectarian aggression anywhere in Scotland (or even in some cases abroad, see section 7).

The Bill is vague to a fault:

(b) the behaviour—

(i) is likely to incite public disorder, or
(ii) would be likely to incite public disorder.

(2) The behaviour is—
(a) expressing hatred of, or stirring up hatred against, a group of persons based on
their membership (or presumed membership) of—

(i) a religious group,
(ii) a social or cultural group with a perceived religious affiliation,
(iii) a group defined by reference to a thing mentioned in subsection (4),

(b) expressing hatred of, or stirring up hatred against, an individual based on the
individual’s membership (or presumed membership) of a group mentioned in any
of sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) of paragraph (a),
(c) behaviour that is motivated (wholly or partly) by hatred of a group mentioned in
any of those sub-paragraphs,
(d) behaviour that is threatening, or
(e) other behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive.

Indeed it takes the shape of an unquantifiable threat: as described here by Roger Cassidy of the Ballingry Celtic Supporters' Football Club:

Strathclyde Police Assistant Chief Constable Campbell Corrigan has recently admitted that he could not publicly state which songs would get you arrested ... In conclusion, it is this ambiguity of the draft legislation that most concerns our membership – with the possibility of a law being introduced that you won't know you're breaking until the police arrest you for it.

Opposition has come from several quarters, on the basis of civil liberties concerns and the absurdity of locking people up for singing songs. Among those expressing concern have been Index on Censorship and John Downie at the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. The SCVO's line acknowledges the problem of outlawing players from crossing themselves on the pitch. However, Downie's solution to sectarianism (getting rid of denominational schools) seems at best an indirect route to addressing the issue of perceived sectarianism at football matches and at worst irrelevant or even counter-productive.

By contrast Stuart Waiton (a sociologist from Abertay University) argues that Scottish football is not the hotbed of sectarianism that promoters of the Bill make out. In the video below he gives evidence to the Justice Committee on a range of issues: people who take pleasure in taking offence, issues of incitement, to what extent sectarianism really features outside football, and what is or should constitute criminality at a football match.

Waiton welcomes the demonstrations that have so far taken place against the Bill and would like the clubs to show that the legislation isn't needed:

If Rangers and Celtic supporters, bloggers and associations came out in support, not of their own right to sing what they like, but their opponents’ right to do so, the case against the Bill would be strengthened immeasurably.

The focus of the campaign must be along these lines (a petition is also available).

Judith Mackay, non-communicable diseases and the Endgame on tobacco

2011-09-24T21:40:00.000+01:00

I'm all for prioritising non-communicable diseases, provided the communicable diseases are under control, of course. Dementia has a good case for prioritization. However the UN summit on non-communicable diseases appears to focus on lifestyle factors, encouraging a much more regulated environment for food, drinks and tobacco what Judith Mackay describes in the interview in this story as the 'big four'.

Interesting points:

1. Mackay feels that taxation is the answer on smoking cessation, rating it more highly than public education or a specific purchasing age.
2. She seems to take it for granted that getting rid of smoking would inevitably result in improved health (not taking into account the possibility that people might acquire other harmful habits like another drug or excessive eating). In other words, that 'tobacco causes health inequalities'. I feel that blaming the tobacco industry for deaths from tobacco consumption (which she compares with blaming the mosquito for malaria) is wide of the mark. Even if it were demonstrated that none of the supposed tobacco-related deaths cited by the World Health Organisation were caused by other factors, the tobacco industry does not create the demand, so much as supply it. Trying to starve the market by inflationary tax increases is unlikely to drive everybody to healthier living, especially as worsening economic conditions drive the world's population into lives of increasing uncertainty.
3. Mackay also has no qualms about preserving public health policy from the influence of industry, or any doubts about the legitimacy of international, unelected authority such as the World Bank.

She introduces the Endgame – a concept of reducing the rate of smokers to 5 per cent globally. There is a New Zealand study on this – New Zealand being one of the first and only countries to announce a target date for the endgame (2025). You can download the study from the link.

You can see further explanation of the tobacco control movement and the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control here (recorded in 2010):

Tobacco sales go underground in Scotland?

2011-09-23T14:12:00.000+01:00

The Herald reports that less than half of tobacco retailers have registered under a compulsory scheme brought in with the tobacco display ban legislation. The deadline, 1 October, draws ever closer.

The penalty for non-compliance with registration, at £20,000, is a considerable sum. It is unclear how a compulsory registration scheme will protect the nation's youth from unscrupulous sellers.

Perhaps up to half of our tobacconists intend to anticipate the effects of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act (the tobacco display legislation) and hide their tobacco from the beginning of next month.

It's hard to believe sometimes that the authorities don't want to drive the product completely underground.

Where did our Facebook page go? The answer!

2011-09-22T12:50:00.008+01:00

The question:

Dear Professor Hastings

I was disappointed to see that the Facebook page discussing Philip Morris's FOI request to your University has been withdrawn.

It is very rare to get any discussion on tobacco control with key figures in the movement such as yourself and Simon Chapman. I would hope to see the page restored, and that similar opportunities will occur in the future.

The answer (after an automatic email announcing that Professor Hastings was on study leave):

Dear Belinda,

Thanks for your comments. We agree that the site provided a valuable opportunity for people to express their opinions and discuss this matter. The page was designed as a poll to provide a quick snapshot of public opinion. And in two weeks served that purpose very well indeed. 412 people voted: 352 were 'Against' handing over the data. 51 were 'For' and 9 maybes.

Our intention is to re-launch with a mandate for longer term engagement and discussion about this important issue.

Will keep you posted.

Best wishes,

Mark

Did they actually read the comments? Or just look at the poll?

Air pollution and the public health agenda

2011-09-21T23:54:00.001+01:00

You will have seen discussion boards where somebody points out that exhaust emissions are worse for you than passive smoking, and someone else says 'ah, but we need cars'! as if this were a good enough reason to ban something that we supposedly don't need, without any proof that it's damaging.

When I was growing up in the 1970s word had reached us in East Yorkshire that Glasgow had a poor health record. We were told that much of this was because of poverty, substandard housing and a damp climate. No one in those days told us that drinking and smoking was the cause or gave us that pearl of twenty-first century wisdom – that smoking causes health inequalities.

But in the corridors of power there is evidence of change going back twenty more years. (H/tip to Rose for the link.) Published in 2002, this link reports attempts to disguise the impact of air pollution on the London smog of 1952:

Delegates attending an international conference in London today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Great London Smog of 1952, which caused an estimated 12,000 deaths, will hear how governments from the late 50s onwards deliberately downplayed the huge threat to public health caused by air pollution, and sought to shift the blame firmly onto cigarette smoking instead.

In 1953, Dr Guy Scadding, speaking on the television programme Matters of Medicine, had expressed a belief that air pollution was as much a factor in whether someone developed lung cancer as smoking, citing the significantly higher number of deaths from the disease among those living in polluted cities, as opposed to the countryside, and assuming that rates of smoking were likely to be similar in both populations.

A few years later, in 1957, the Medical Research Council was planning to issue a statement saying although smoking was a significant cause of lung cancer, up to 30% of cases might be caused by air pollution. But the Cabinet committee on cancer of the lung, fearful of another political embarrassment which could be caused by stressing the air pollution connection, asked the MRC to reconsider its statement. On 31 May 1957 a modified version was published, which asserted that although it was likely that atmospheric pollution did play a role in lung cancer, it was 'a relatively minor one in comparison with cigarette smoking'.

The clear conclusion?

'What was happening in this committee was a shift away from a concept of health and wellbeing related to an individual¹s environment, occupation, class or work, towards one focused strongly on that individual's responsibility for his or her health, which smoking came to symbolise. After the 1962 report, it was smoking and the type of public health which it epitomised which was to become the central public health issue. Smoking was something which the individual could do something about; air pollution was not,' explains Professor Berridge.

Public health, as far back as 1957, was to become judgemental. The medical establishment was already prepared to take an attitude on the issue, and suppress data that would inconvenience the public health message: 'take responsibility'. (Was this an early revolt against universal health provision free at the point of need?)

The medical establishment has appealed to corporations to take note that poor employee health is costing money. Hell, someone has to support them, and why not have a crack at those who support smokers, drinkers and the obese by offering them a livelihood?

Sometimes this smacks less of altruism than of a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise people. Usually, in fact. Any health problem can be resolved by addressing personal issues (smoking, drinking ...). People are not expected to protest about the extent of air pollution (or any other health issue) because health politics is no longer the domain of those most affected by health inequalities. Their duty is to look after themselves so that their employers can make more money from them.

Networking: tobacco control, social marketing and real friendship on Facebook

2011-09-21T20:18:00.000+01:00

From Dick Puddlecote and CAGE Canada, reporting the disappearance of Stirling University's Freedom of Information Request page yesterday.

As if to demonstrate further the Ivory Towers mentality of tobacco control comes this letter from tobacco control advocates Simon Chapman and Becky Freeman, down under ... leading to this Facebook group. You get in only if you have the right attitude and probably the right friends.

Social marketing in, commercial marketing out ... fair enough to a point, but what's with all the secrecy? For the record, ' We don’t welcome anyone with tobacco industry ties and those who are regularly offensive.' I don't have any ties to the tobacco industry, but I won't waste their time by applying.

Addictive?

2011-09-21T08:35:00.000+01:00

Anti-smoking authorities have a thirst for ever more shocking graphics to be printed on tobacco packaging in an effort to put people off. It may work to a point (provided that the government can persuade the public that its pictures are genuine). But surely at some point people become inured to so-called shocking images and the tactic ceases to have any impact.

The official reasoning is that tobacco is addictive. I was in Edinburgh listening to a talk about censorship, in which the question was raised of exposing children to pornographic images. The speaker talked about how pornography stimulates (especially in children) a desire for more of the same. Satiation doesn't come into it, the mind requires more and more of the stuff – especially young minds that are not fully developed.

This does not happen with tobacco. At least, I am not aware of consumption of tobacco increasing to maintain satiation, in the way that can happen with many other things: alcohol, gambling, cocaine. Consumption remains steady, and while deprivation is irritating, it can be lived with.

Quite unlike the thirst to curb tobacco consumption. From Velvet Glove, Iron Fist (the byline): "When politicians start legislating for private behaviour they find it very hard to quit."

Stirling University takes down Facebook page on Philip Morris issue

2011-09-20T14:11:00.000+01:00

Please correct me if I'm wrong but it looks as if this highly entertaining page – Stirling University Freedom of Information Request – has gone. Has been spirited off the face of Facebook. The link takes me to my home page, as if the Stirling University page had never existed.

Surely that was a bit drastic. They were ahead on the vote (last time I looked), most voters expressing support for the University's position. Must have been the arguments that scunnered them! from Bill Gibson, Dave Atherton, Iro Cyr, Cage Canada and others.

Background links here.

Performance enhancing? Mixed views on smoking and sport

2011-09-19T22:41:00.001+01:00

The international body overseeing enforcement of drug bans on the sports field now wishes to declare nicotine a 'performance enhancing' drug. This is because:

The performance-enhancing effects of nicotine included increased "vigilance and cognitive function," and reduced stress and body weight.

"Interestingly, nicotine also triggers a significant increase of pulse rate, blood pressure, blood sugar and epinephrine release owing to simultaneous stimulant and relaxant properties," the report said.

"Smokeless tobacco is a very attractive drug from a doping perspective," researchers suggested, because it did not damage an athlete's breathing and respiratory system.

Isn't this curious? Smoking gives athletes an unfair advantage in competitive sport!

This was my understanding of tobacco control's view of smoking and sport:

Tobacco smoke affects the lungs so that they work less efficiently. They can't pick up the amount of oxygen that a body needs when it is working hard.
Tobacco smoke contains a chemical (carbon monoxide) that gets into the blood stream and prevents it from picking up oxygen.
Tobacco smoke contains other chemicals that affect the circulation of blood. They make the blood vessels smaller so that they are less able to carry oxygen when your body is burning up large amounts of energy.

They really want to eat their cake and have it. Maybe the truth is that anti-smokers have failed to demonstrate that smokers don't perform well in sport – the next best conclusion is that their smoking gives them an unfair advantage over everyone else, and that smokers are cheats.

Canadian radio broadcast starring Gerard Hastings and the Information Commissioner

2011-09-17T22:13:00.005+01:00

Via Bishop Hill comes this link to an interview with Gerard Hastings from Stirling University, defending his case against Philip Morris, and Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion.

Edit: A permanent link to the interview is available here:

Professor Hastings makes the point that the studies in question are paid for, not publicly, but by 'a cancer charity', a somewhat cunning disguise for Cancer Research UK. One only needs to read CRUK's research preferences to understand that Philip Morris has clear grounds to assume that Cancer Research is prejudiced against its corporate interests. Professor Hastings may correct in thinking that charity-funded research should not have to comply with Freedom of Information requests – but charities that fund research should not announce their intentions to influence government policy prejudicially against the interests of specific industries. If Government chooses to outsource research to the third sector or universities it shouldn't expect to escape accountability.

After listening to Professor Hastings, listening to the Information Commissioner brings one down to earth. He is clear that the University has not understood the implications of FOI, because of Hastings' insistence that assuring his subjects of confidentiality would automatically exempt him from complying with the requirements of the law. He reiterated that he had ordered the University to provide a substantive response to the FOI request – not necessarily to provide the information requested, but otherwise to give adequate reasons for not supplying it.

Any result will be subject to appeal and could take several months.

Flaws in Australian plain packaging law threaten its validity

2011-09-17T10:55:00.003+01:00

This interesting report speculates that plain packaging law in is present state is unconstitutional would not survive court action.

According to this, branding is worth up to half the value of a 7 to 8 billion dollar business. The Australian Government relies on the idea that, because it will derive no benefit from the trade mark rights that it is stripping from tobacco companies, they will not have grounds to sue it. Its Constitution gives it powers to expunge or otherwise regulate trade marks, and compensation only applies if it actually acquires these trade marks.

I have no idea what precedents exist but for the Government to wipe out trade marks on such a scale without the prospect of material benefit from the move seems such a whacky notion I am not surprised that there is no constitutional provision for it.

Writer Crispin Hull is anxious for the legislation to succeed, and the flaw he points out is in the wording regarding the Minister's powers to make regulations:

The new legislation provides the minister with a sweeping regulation-making power. It says, ''Regulations made for the purposes of [giving effect to the plain-packaging legislation]: (a) may be INCONSISTENT with this Act; and (b) prevail over this Act ... to the extent of any inconsistency.

But basic constitutional law tells you that a minister cannot make regulations inconsistent with an Act of Parliament. The minister, like everyone else, must obey the law. ...

No Act can surely contain regulations that over-ride it. Hull's view seems to be that the Government is not sufficiently confident that the law is robust, and that they hope the regulations will allow it to make last-minute adjustments.

I find the rest of Hull's case rather odd ...

Other than the one legal point, the tobacco companies' submissions to the Senate inquiry have been contradictory and almost self-incriminating. They argue that plain packaging would result in tobacco companies only being able to compete on price, so they would have to lower their prices.

More people would then be able to afford to smoke more and this - the implication runs - would be a bad thing. They admit their product is bad.

They say plain packaging would make smuggling easier - again, lowering prices and causing greater consumption of their - by implication - bad product.

Their main argument against plain packaging is that it would ''lead to an increase in the uptake of smoking''. If their product is so bad why are they in the trade?

The question 'why are they in the trade' lacks relevance to the issue. Tobacco companies point out that if brand packaging has no place in the market, price will become a far greater driver, and a price war is a likely outcome. This will militate against any health gains that might be expected from a lower smoking rate in the population. Not only will the Government gain no benefit from 'acquiring' tobacco company trade marks, but its claimed health goals – the whole point of the legislation – will not be met.

As to why they are in the trade: they wish to meet and exploit demand for tobacco on a commercial scale. They also probably wish to stimulate demand, which goes with the territory of being in business. Legitimate businesses have obligations in meeting safety standards. It would benefit nobody if demand for this product were met by people without any legal obligations who work in the black market and beyond the law.

Hull concludes rather ineffectively with a familiar piece of flawed logic beloved of many supporters of plain packaging legislation:

Then [tobacco companies] say, ''There is no real world data to demonstrate that the plain packaging of tobacco products will be effective in discouraging youth initiation, encouraging cessation by existing smokers, or increasing the salience of health warnings.''

Well, if plain packaging is so ineffective why are they so worried about it?

This also fails to recognise the obvious point that branding is intellectual property and losing intellectual property will significantly diminish the value of their assets – and that the Australian Government will not gain from their losses, either financially or in terms of achieving policy goals.

Hull is all for improvements in the writing of this legislation before it becomes law. Whatever its state by that time, I hope it will be unravelled in court.