'Zealotry plain and simple': e-cigarettes to be banned from Glasgow's Commonwealth Games

So says the Scotsman leader today. The games organisers, after taking advice from the public health community, announced their intention to ban e-cigarettes at the games, having last year announced their intention to ban tobacco.

Public health illuminary Sheila Duffy said:

“The Commonwealth Games will showcase excellence and aim to build a healthy legacy for the next generation. Providing smoke-free environments during events will help deliver on that commitment, and the decision to exclude e-cigarette use should make enforcement more straightforward and also help put the appearance of smoking cigarettes out of fashion.”

And from Health Minister Michael Matheson:

“I welcome this, as e-cigarettes are not regulated, nor have they been proven to be safe and effective.”

This is nonsensical: Matheson's doubts about the 'effectiveness' of smoking are based on the assumption that they are designed as a smoking cessation tool. As an alternative to smoking there is no doubt of their effectiveness. You just put down a roll-up and pick up an e-cig: job done. As to the appearance of smoking cigarettes, these devices appear more like inhalers than cigarettes these days.

These people, especially Duffy, have made a career choice out of the desire to stop people smoking. You would have thought that an anti-smoking sports event would be a lifetime's opportunity to encourage people to quit smoking because 'the single best thing you can do for your health is to stop smoking'. But that's not good enough, because it's not actually enough to stop smoking – you must do so in the approved way.

A Scotsman reader also remarks:

Clever of them to wait until all the tickets have been sold before imposing this ban - and whatever others will be announced before the summer.

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't approve of a smoking ban at the Commonwealth Games either. The public health community only seems to count as public health hazards things that they can blame on the general public: habits, including eating, drinking and smoking. The biggest offender in public health terms is multiple deprivation, and the Commonwealth Games stirred up controversy by accepting sponsorship from ATOS, the company notorious for declaring people of all shades of invalidity fit to work. Clearly there is more to this event than a friendly opportunity to compete internationally in sports, and even the public health community is set on laying unhelpful conditions to participation.

NHS Tayside responds to complaints about smoking shelters

Late last year Smokers Justice presented a complaint to NHS Tayside about their smoking policy following this story.

Phil Johnson of Smokers Justice sent me this reply from NHS Tayside.

NHS Tayside, along with other Health Boards in Scotland, considers smoking to be the most serious threat to the health of the people of Tayside. In accordance with this view we believe that, as a public health organisation, it should contribute, in every way possible, to continuing the de-normalisation of smoking. A key component of this is NHS Tayside's policy which bans smoking in its grounds. Our own staff, visitors, other Health Boards and the Scottish Government has strongly supported our Smoking Policy.
[Links added]

In line with any other Policy, the smoking ban has to be enforced and our experience since 2006, (when the Policy was launched), has indicated that the employment of a Liaison Officer, along with support from NHS managers, is the most effective approach. The Courier and Advertiser is trained to persuade those NHS staff and visitors who smoke in our groundsto put out their cigarettes and signpost them to support services to help them quit smoking permanently. In the case of staff, he can also report smokers to their line managers for potential disciplinary action. Given the fact that our staff are viewed by the public as exemplars for health, then their behaviour can have a significant impact on the beliefs and attitudes of others. This is particularly important in the case of smoking.

I should stress that NHS Tayside staff who smoke are offered, and receive, considerable support from smoking cessation experts to quit smoking. Many of our staff have actually sought support to quit smoking as a result of our Policy.

We do have one smoking shelter in each hospital for in-patients to smoke. We decided not to have any others because our experience showed that this would dilute the message of our Policy. Also, when we tried to have more shelters pre-2006, staff and visitors saw this as an excuse to smoke anywhere they liked.

Therefore it is essential that we maintain the strength of our message within the Smoking Policy, which, along with other tobacco control initiatives, will eventually lead to a smoke-free Scotland. [Emphasis added]

Good luck with that one, NHS Tayside. The direction of travel has changed since anti-smoking rhetoric became an international government obsession, reflected in the smoking rate seen against anti-smoking government expenditure in Scotland:

Figures on tobacco control and smoking cessation expenditure obtained from FOI request from the Scottish Government, December 2012

Number of smokers taken from Scottish Household Survey reports

It is hard to find a way to say how unproductive tobacco control spending is on actual outcomes regarding smoking levels. And since we know so little about that, the figures on heart attacks and other health indicators are fairly meaningless as it remains as impossible as it ever was to measure either smoking levels or passive smoke exposure.

On the issue of smoking in hospitals, the casus belli in this case, read Smoking Scot, whose research and detailed accounts are worth pursuing.

I am very familiar with General Hospitals and their smoking shelters and I've had ample time to observe the dynamics of several shelters. During daylight hours the main users are hospital staff, able bodied patients and outpatients. During visiting hours those patients who need help with drips, catheters and such frequently enlist the help of family and friends - and they park themselves close to the entrance. There's nothing rebellious about this, the simple fact is the entrances to the shelters are not wide enough for a standard wheelchair and - in almost all cases I witnessed - we're talking about the aged or severely infirm, some with a terminal condition and all with something medical attached to them. Exposing them to rain, snow or extreme cold in a flimsy hospital gown is simply not an option for those who really care about them. Reality is so very far removed from the idealistic little vacuum of Simpson and McMahon.

After dark was a time of great poignancy when those without family had to make it to the entrance on their own. I spent a couple of evenings chatting to an aged widow (close to the entrance; even a hospital gets quiet after 21.00 hrs), who was remarkably candid about her condition and immediate future, despite having to wheel her drip which had her catheter reservoir dangling precariously on a hook. However they all had one thing in common, considerable personal dignity. None of us wanted to be in hospital yet those places, the entrance (after everyone had naffed off), or the shelters were great levelers. Met many very interesting people, got lots of tips and advice, even made a friend, and was delighted for him when he finally got what he wanted and passed over. And not one of them had any smoking related illness. Guts, bowels, breasts and brain cancers mainly.

Continue reading

Smoking Scot continues, discussing the perils of developing a culture of covert smoking, questioning who is demanding smoke-free health services, despairs at the myopic medical establishment view of smoking itself. The piece stands by itself but raises points that have been touched on this blog many times.

The main point is that actions enforcing the denormalisation agenda have no effect whatever on smoking rates, except perhaps to retard their decline. Like Sheila Duffy, NHS Tayside is living in a dream world if it believes the present trajectory will lead to a smoke-free Scotland.

Smoking rooms would lead to more restrictions outdoors, says Bish

The Publican's Morning Advertiser reports overwhelming support for a change in the law to allow support for smoking rooms in licensed premises.

Yet Nick Bish, CEO of the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers warned against 'turning back the clock':

“We need to be careful what we wish for – starting a debate on smoking rooms does not mean it will end there and would inevitably re-open discussions about restrictions in beer gardens, and no-smoking anywhere near the premises. That would turn customers off and the trade away,” he said.

I appreciate that Nick Bish has a busy job to do – there are many other issues in the licensed trade than smoking – but he heads an organisation that opposes a plank of legislation that has ruined many in his sector and done pub values no favours at all. The thought that ASH might attempt to force an outdoor ban is interesting, but the whole premise of the ban is meant to be protecting workers from second-hand smoke exposure.

Publicans are forced by the smoking ban to ensure that the no smoking is observed, without compensation and on pain of dire penalties if they get it wrong (as this Irish publican discovered). Bish's members should demand better representation: Bish accepts as given that government is there to restrict smoking areas and will inevitably get its way if there is a fight.

Share prices tell much of the story. The smoking ban has caused huge damage. Perhaps HorecaClaim can help. But the issue needs proper leadership.

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

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

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

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

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.

One step forward, two steps back on outdoor smoking?

Not much time available today. Two stories via Dick Puddlecote: One with the welcome news that Councillor Paul Bartlett's motion to ban smoking outdoors in Stony Stratford, due to be proposed on 20 September, has been withdrawn (go here, background links provided).

Two (the bad bit) on the implications of the Localism Bill, currently going through the House of Lords. A motion has been added that would enable local councils to outlaw smoking in 'any place or description of place that is not smoke-free under section 2 of the Health Act 2006'. It seems that no conclusion has yet been reached on this part of the Bill, since yesterday's debate didn't progress enough.


One might think that a Localism bill would offer councils the opportunity to overturn a smoking ban if local people wanted them to, but it appears that 'localism' only works under certain conditions, according to the New Local Government Network.

There are elements that, at a quick glance, look decidedly devolutionary. The General Power of Competence, for instance, gives local authorities the same power to act that an individual generally has. They will be freed to act in innovative ways, that is, in doing things that are unlike anything that a local authority, or any other public body, has done before or may currently do. Where Councils were previously overshadowed by uncertainty – nervous about investing resources in doing something for local citizens, only to then be told that they weren’t allowed – now they can just get on with it.

Great, but wait, there are some strings attached … The Bill has three clauses that give provision to the Secretary of State to restrict any activity of a local authority under the new general power. In its current form perhaps it would be more accurately called “A General Power of Competence, except when the Secretary of State, or one of his successors, decides that it is not”.

It allows local authorities to legislate only in areas approved by the Secretary of State. That's not really localism. Incidentally however it does typify officialdom in the area of smoking. No one would officially criticise someone for refusing to hire a smoker (that's an employer's prerogative), but an employer would be breaking the law by supplying a smoking room. 

Smoking ban overturned by popular demand, Indiana

Well you have to see their point:



The smoking ban was brought in because smoking is unhealthy and because of the litter. I can't see much litter in the picture.



'... so many golfers opposed to the ban that Brainard decided to reverse the executive order.'

Street smoking ban: Gather at Stony Stratford

Recent enthusiasm for outdoor smoking bans, making it impossible for residents to smoke in the public highway, has reached Buckinghamshire, where town councillor Paul Bartlett has proposed a street ban in Stony Stratford.

Some licensees feel anxious about the proposal, but its ramifications go far beyond the pub sector. Blogger Dick Puddlecote plans a day out in Stony Stratford on Saturday, 16 July, three days before the proposal is made.

Dick invites everyone:

Anyone who objects to  Bartlett's proposed fussbucketing is welcome, and there is a Facebook group set up HERE for inviting like-minded friends. Although we're meeting initially in a bar, let's hope enough turn up to spill into an impromptu party.

Invite all you can – and go, of course, if you're free!

Edit: Dick Puddlecote has posted an update here. Things are gathering pace.