Abertay academic against nannying: Newsnight Scotland interview

Watch this televised interview between Dr Stuart Waiton, against nannying, and Dr Andrew Fraser and Laura Williamson in favour of what they term a caring society that is willing to help people reduce their smoking and drinking.

It's always interesting to see health medics, who claim a political consensus in favour of their view, weigh in on their opponents and characterise them as rather irresponsible, selfish individuals who believe in pleasing only themselves. They claim to care for the children and society at large more than these un-community-minded free-market maniacs.

From what I know of Dr Stuart Waiton, he is no more a free-market maniac than I am. He quite reasonably rejects the notion that the health professionals hold a monopoly of wisdom about people's decisions, and rightly derides their eagerness to help people make the 'right choices'. There is an assumption that the patrician middle class has all the right answers, and anyone who disagrees puts himself (or herself) automatically in the wrong.

The two pro-establishment doctors sow the seeds of their undoing by claiming that a quarter of Scots smoke (9.29), and that people in poorer districts benefited less from the smoking ban than people in more affluent districts (10.40). Both statements reiterate the failure of tobacco control to achieve its stated aims. The smoking rate has not changed significantly since the smoking ban was introduced, the same figures (one in four Scots smoke, smoking kills 13,000 a year) have been trotted out since the millenium: a rapidly escalating tobacco control budget has done nothing to reduce the smoking rate or the alleged death rate.

Dr Williamson goes to far as to say that '[Dr Waiton's] argument for a minimal state would be okay if everybody had the same degree of freedom', but social inequalities lead to health inequalities, which it is the government's duty to correct. 'People need help, and what the government is trying to do is create this level playing field.'

She argues in favour of a system which she must acknowledge is not working. She knows the smoking ban hasn't really helped narrow the health inequalities gap. Intervention is needed to prevent 'the chronic diseases that result from smoking, obesity, alcohol consumption'.

Missing from their argument is any glimmer of interest in the socio-economic condition of patients whose interests they claim to be helping. Dr Fraser says that people know the answers but don't make the right decisions, and yet stops himself short of saying 'We love coercion'. If it is part of their faith that economic wellbeing improves health outcomes, that is where their efforts at 'levelling the playing field' should be addressed, instead of working to create countless new offences, which adversely affect people's prospects when they fall foul of the law.

More importantly, where did this idea come from that chronic diseases result only from lifestyle choices? Is it that the mega corporations are too important to politicians for their activities to be attacked on the grounds of environmental and public health damage? Note that Dr Williamson refers only to the budgets of tobacco and alcohol industries: not about the budgets of any other kind of industry, although these other industries must be even more powerful if they can avoid the government and medical establishment's hit list. Everyone knows people who have died early in spite of doing all the right things with their health: non-smokers, non-drinkers, joggers, you name it. No one is safe. [Late edit: more on this here: How working kills smokers: 'There is no question that smoking contributes to poor health. But to claim that smoking is the primary cause of preventable death and disease is one of the greatest scams in modern history.' H/tip Freedom2Choose newsletter, April 2013.]

The doctors wind up stating that we should look to a fair Scotland where we care about each other and community. And on the face of it, what's not to like? Only that the politicians and the medical establishment do far too little to campaign against economic hardship, which they know to militate against 'healthy choices', and place too much emphasis on lifestyle factors when explaining how people get ill.

Supreme Court hearing for tobacco display ban, Scotland

The latest hearings in the appeal of Imperial Tobacco against the tobacco display ban will be heard next month at the Supreme Court in London. ASH Scotland describes the scene thus:

The UK Supreme Court has set a date to hear the legal challenge by Imperial Tobacco against the Scottish Government’s legislation to ban unstaffed tobacco vending machines and tobacco displays at point of sale. In response Sheila Duffy, Chief Executive of ASH Scotland, said: 

'These public health measures were passed overwhelmingly by our democratically elected Parliament and have twice been upheld by the Scottish courts. 

This is part of a growing international problem. We have heard from partner organisations from Australia to Uruguay that, having lost the battles over scientific evidence and public support, tobacco companies are resorting to delaying valid public health measures in the courts. 

Tobacco kills half of its long-term consumers and Imperial Tobacco should accept the public, political and legal judgements that it cannot be treated like an ordinary product.

I am looking for the Supreme Court to rule against Imperial Tobacco and clear the way for Scotland to implement these important public health measures.' 

She seems to be making a fuss because the courts are being used exactly the way they should be designed to be used: for a company to challenge what it perceives as unfair legislation. But in the eyes of tobacco control a tobacco company that uses the courts in this way is somehow perverse and unreasonable. Her reasoning that tobacco cannot be seen like an 'ordinary product' misses the point that campaigns against other products will gain strength if this one prospers, as we see in the latest embarrassing escapade in the campaign to denormalise alcohol.

She clearly expects a court victory, but one is tempted to conclude that she requires a vote against the tobacco companies in principle, rather than on the legal case presented. That would certainly not be a conclusion that reflected the purpose of the courts: victory should be on legal grounds, not on the basis of whether either side represents tobacco interests.

Are these tobacco stooges reporting from Moscow?

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

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

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

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

But what's this?

Tobacco companies agree with the store owners.

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

Source

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

BBC News 24 interview, Friday 6 April

We haven't managed to see it but Michael has written down what he could remember.

INTERVIEWER: In Edinburgh we have Michael Davidson, Chairman of Freedom to Choose (Scotland), pro-smoking group.
MICHAEL: Can I just put one thing straight before we start? We're not pro-smoking, we're pro-choice.
INTERVIEWER: I take it you're against the display ban?
MICHAEL: Yes. We believe this is just another step in the denormalisation and stigmatisation of smokers, we feel that smokers should be allowed to make our own choices in life.
INTERVIEWER: But it's not about adults, is it? It's to discourage children from smoking.
MICHAEL: Well, that's how they dress it up but if you think about it, the more you hide something from children the more intriguing it becomes to them. And anyhow, when children walk down the street they see smokers outside. That's advertising smoking, and it's a consequence of the smoking ban in pubs.
INTERVIEWER: But the government claims at provinces in Canada where they have display bans have seen a drop in smoking.
MICHAEL: Yes I'm familiar with some of these studies, but what the government isn't saying is that in other provinces, where there's no display ban, they have also seen a drop in youth smoking.
INTERVIEWER: So are you saying the evidence is inconclusive?
MICHAEL: Yes, the evidence is inconclusive.
INTERVIEWER: Swimming against the tide?
MICHAEL: Yes, because we're fighting against the state, but we have a great deal of support from people we speak to on the street.

Smoking not part of Lansley's life

We're all in it together, remember?

But Andrew Lansley wish to persuade us that 'smoking is no longer part of life'. He used it to justify the tobacco display ban, which we have been reliably told he voted against when in opposition.

All this means is that there is an official policy to denormalise tobacco: not that most of its users recognise that smoking is no longer part of life.

Display ban enters England: Freedom to Choose (Scotland) interviewed on BBC News 24

Yes it's true. Michael Davidson (Chairman, Freedom to Choose (Scotland)) was interviewed yesterday evening on BBC News 24. This is a rolling news service and unfortunately doesn't do i-player. So I haven't even seen it and I was out of the house working yesterday when he got the call and still there when the broadcast went out.

The display ban, introduced on Good Friday in England, seems to involve sliding doors in front of the cigarette racking, behind the tills at the supermarket checkout (small shops don't have to apply it until 2015). Checkout staff must queue up to access cigarettes and close the sliding door after each one. Nothing sensible like leaving the doors open for the next cashier. How long is such madness sustainable?

European tobacco policy risks increasing illicit tobacco trade, says Transcrime

The story is here.

Full report downloadable from here and executive summary here.

The general public also opposed the proposals presented last year in the consultation to the Revision of Tobacco Products Directive 2001.

Several bloggers yesterday noted the levels of public funding going to promote plain packaging in the south-west region: Dick Puddlecote, Simon Clark, Patsy Nurse and Anna Raccoon for starters – and of course the Hands off our Packs campaign.

The conclusions of Transcrime were summarised in the Executive Summary as follows:

There is no reliable information which which to assess the introduction of maximum limits on ingredients.  The crime risks may vary from marginal to extremely significant depending on the extent and type of the limitations imposed. No [extended crime risk assessment] is currently possible. 

There is a high risk that generic packaging may favour the increased counterfeiting of tobacco products.

There is a medium risk that the implementation of the 'polluter pays' principle may cause the [illicit trade in tobacco products] to grow as a consequence of significant increases in the prices of tobacco products. 

There is a high risk that banning the display of products at points of sale may increase the [illicit trade in tobacco products] to grow because of difficulties in identifying legitimate products and retailers.

 I think that's fairly clear.

Miscellaneous on tobacco control

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.

Scottish Government's 2012 smoking campaign

You've read this story before, there is never a better time to stop smoking, and you are more likely to quit if you call the government stop smoking helpline.

Not even  recent mainstream reports of nicotine replacement as a failed treatment stops the Scottish Government in its tracks.

Also in the Evening Times, which also reports on the deferred tobacco display ban, which the Scottish Government now believes will be in place by 2015. It includes the provocative line:

The Scottish Government also needs to notify the European Union (EU) of the revised regulations – including one specifying how much of the area where cigarettes are stored can be seen when a sale is made.

Needs to notify the European Union? Are we really under that kind of obligation to the EU? 

Legal challenge to the display ban

You thought it had been dropped?

Deborah Arnott seems to have done:

Deborah Arnott, chief executive of Action on Smoking and Health, said: "What a wonderful Christmas present from the tobacco industry. This will bring festive cheer to all those working to prevent children and young people from taking up smoking."

Seems as if someone is already trying to rub Scotland off the map!

The ban on the display of tobacco products in large stores could be delayed for as long as three years due to legal wrangles with tobacco manufacturers, the Scottish Government has admitted.

Good that they didn't ruin Christmas for the ban champions in Scotland, anyway.

Tory Health Minister criticised for dialogue with tobacco industry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy New Year!

Imperial Tobacco threatens appeal to Supreme Court

The story is here. The writer speculates that an appeal to the Supreme Court could cause trouble, if the Supreme Court ruled against the Scottish Government.

However the Supreme Court has already rejected an appeal from Sinclair Collis (vending machine company owned by Imperial Tobacco) on the legislation that will ban vending machines this year.

Much as I would like to see the courts overturning the legislation, I fear that they have already been lent on by legislators, and they are not providing the impartial service that they should be providing.

Legislators are not minded to heed appeals from what they perceive as tobacco interests – even though the results of a recently published European consultation on tobacco regulations revealed that ordinary citizens argued against the display ban in the same terms as the tobacco industry (para 6.6.4).

Such prejudice should not even register with the courts.

National Federation of Retail Newsagents complains at extent of ASH influence: Liberal Vision

Good for Liberal Vision for reporting this letter from the NFRN to the Prime Minister complaining about the close relationship between the Health Minister and Action on Smoking and Health:

This statement and public acceptance and deliverance of awards to an organisation that has been lobbying her department, MPs and other government departments (and indeed is granted government funding on the basis that it not be used for lobbying purposes) has called into question the manner in which recent tobacco display ban legislation has been made; and the ability of the Minister to be considered unbiased on the issue.

I attach a copy of the event report from an independent parliamentary reporting service and would ask that you formally conduct an investigation into the conduct of your minister in the light of her public admission that she had worked with an officer of an ASH funded parliamentary lobby group on recent legislation “behind the scenes”. Moreover, this inappropriate conduct necessitates a review of the legitimacy of the legislation itself. [emphasis added]

[...]

In light of these recent statements, I regrettably now see proof of these suspicions which is deeply offensive to our members who have campaigned so hard to see the government fulfil its pre-election commitments to bring the debate back to the House of Commons for a free vote and which the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats publically opposed in opposition. 

[...] 

Writer Angela Harbutt also has hard words to say about ASH and its aims and working methods:

ASH receives huge amounts of money from the taxpayer  and sadly, like so many publicly funded bodies with too much money and too little scrutiny it has NOT gone about its task well. ASH has now become a fat, over-staffed, political, and single-minded organisation hell bent on eradicating smoking from the face of the earth, by whatever means necessary.  Where it could have worked with the industry to find solutions to the issues, it has set itself up against the manufacturers, the retailers and the consumers. And much of its so-called advice has been at best ineffective, and all too often counter-productive, with huge financial and social unintended consequences.

ASH's destructive behaviour is of course in line with the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. It does not sit well with ASH's original remit, as Angela Harbutt points out in the comments below:

As I understood it ASH was set up in 1971 as a campaigning health charity to work towards eliminating THE HARM caused by tobacco – not created to work towards eliminating tobacco. If that remains their public aim then working with the industry is surely a pretty sensible thing to do?

 Angela ... come to Scotland!

Scottish government delays tobacco vending machine ban pending legal action

On Thursday, the Scottish Government announced that the vending machine ban, due to be implemented on 1 October, has been delayed, as legal proceedings by Sinclair Collis are ongoing. Sad for Michael Matheson to be making such an announcement in his first tobacco-related press release as Public Health Minister – but he is confident that the Scottish Government's case will be victorious, and such setbacks are to be expected in political life.

I can't see that the Scottish Government has a leg to stand on in trying to persuade the courts that vending machines, the most expensive retail outlet for tobacco, need be banned to ensure that children don't use them to access tobacco. The fact that children obtained them in test purchases does not prove that most children would choose to spend over the odds on getting tobacco out of vending machines regularly.

In any case Sinclair Collis, the Imperial Tobacco vending machine subsidiary, has developed  radio controlled vending machines described here (I can't get the video to work, can anyone else). The idea is that staff activate machines only following age verification, and activation lasts only for a single purchase. No purchase can take place without activation following age verification if needed.

A final stage amendment requesting ministers to consider the use of these machines was voted against in January last year, partly for fear that Scotland would fall behind in the fight against tobacco (start at col 23116). The idea that someone had a technological answer to the bare possibility of children obtaining tobacco from vending machines was regarded as a dangerous distraction from the serious business of denormalising tobacco.

The tobacco display ban, which requires retailers to conceal packs of tobacco on sale rather than display them, has also been delayed by a legal challenge.

British American Tobacco admits funding newsagents' campaign against display ban

It has emerged at the AGM of British American Tobacco that this tobacco company provided funding and input to the campaign of newsagents to resist the tobacco display ban.

An earlier story by the same Guardian writer quotes Parminder Singh, President of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents:

There is no way that the NFRN could afford the resources and expertise to mount such a high profile campaign to fight on its members' behalf to oppose the tobacco ban without some help towards funding. We are grateful, therefore, to have some help from the tobacco manufacturers to do this.

At stake is the tobacco display ban, legislation enacted already in the Republic of Ireland (a tobacco smuggling hotspot) and voted into law in both Westminster and Holyrood, but not yet implemented. To say the law is controversial understates the case. There is no conclusive evidence that putting tobacco out of sight will make the prospect of smoking any less attractive to young people.

The retail trades, including newsagents and convenience stores, have to put their case against the combined wisdom of the Department of Health and all the health charities, with added lobbying from pharmaceutical interests. The government will not give tobacco interests a hearing. This seems a marriage made in heaven: the  newsagents have access to government but no money, the tobacco interests have pots of money but no access.

I have no idea, nor do I really care, how much of the campaign was paid for by British American Tobacco. The reason Health Secretary Lansley will not speak with tobacco interests is that the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control forbids it. Then the health lobby loses itself in moral indignation when the tobacco industry behaves like businesses all over the world, and uses its funds (which it is forbidden by law to use for its own advertising or to sponsor kids to play football) to help business partners.  As far as I'm concerned placing obstacles in the way of tobacco interests attempting to buy influence simply diverts their direction of travel. Tobacco interests have every right to a voice in decisions affecting their product, especially considering the level of taxes levied on their products. Stifling the voice of the tobacco industry and taking the huff when it refuses to lie down and die is just being childish. Here's illustrating:

"For any major company to seek to covertly lobby MPs through the back door is disgraceful, but particularly when it comes to tobacco. The Government has legal obligations to protect public health policy from the vested interests of the tobacco industry and it can only do this if the tobacco industry is transparent about its lobbying activities", said Deborah Arnott, the chief executive of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).

Since the WHO forbids tobacco companies from lobbying openly, the inference is clearly that they're not allowed any voice.

"Lobbying by the NFRN was effective in significantly delaying the implementation of the legislation in small shops and it has already admitted that it received support from tobacco manufacturers for this campaign. The question is which tobacco manufacturers. If BAT was involved it needs to come clean."

The inference here is that NFRN's delaying tactics were successful only with tobacco industry funding. Does that mean the newsagents should have been silenced by lack of funding? The alliance with tobacco was enough to discredit the NFRN's campaign completely?

Behind the scenes are the extraordinary demands of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, not least its dictates about who may influence public policy: as if this needs to be decided by a non-elected global body.

Interestingly, outside the doors of the British American Tobacco AGM, was gathered a group of young people demonstrating against child labour in the tobacco plantations. They were photographed with Deborah Arnott, CEO of Action on Smoking and Health and Kevin Barron, the Labour MP who questioned BAT. I hope, but don't expect, that Deborah Arnott and Kevin Barron will be sure to remind these young people that exploitation of children isn't limited to tobacco companies.

Hobson's choice at the Scottish polls

For a minority government, the scale of the vote in favour of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services Bill on its final reading on 27 January last year was impressive (108 members voted in favour and 15 against). A similar landslide vote brought in the smoking ban itself on 30 June 2005 (97 in favour, 17 against). In both cases the Scottish Conservatives provided the only opposition. 

It's no secret that the Westminster Conservatives have been disappointing on the issue of the smoking ban (and related issues) since gaining power with the Liberal Democrats in Westminster last year. It is hard to imagine the Scottish Conservatives having the upper hand in any coalition emerging from the Scottish elections (not that being the stronger partner at Westminster has helped any!) 

Scotland's elected representatives are voted using the party list system (additional member system). This means that each person votes for a constituency MSP and for a regional MSP. Although meant to favour minority parties, the plan here shows that Holyrood is as dominated by major parties as Westminster. Since the Scottish media views the election as a two-horse race, major parties naturally respond by urging their supporters to vote for them on both lists. The result is dismally predictable. 

Further: I have never been sure what the list members are meant to represent. Constituency MSPs represent their constituents – in theory anyway. Are you meant to vote for the policies that they represent, rather than for their personal effectiveness as political representatives? Do they feel any sense of responsibility for their voters, or does most of their loyalty go to whatever party selected them to fight regional seats on its behalf?

Both Labour and the SNP want further powers for the Scottish Parliament. One wants Scotland to be its own country and the other doesn't. Personally I feel that Scotland has too many people trying to run it in too many different places (Edinburgh, London and Strasbourg) and that matters should be made simpler by chopping the devolved assemblies and allowing their function to be filled by regional Westminster MPs, who would meet in the regions (including London of course: no more West Lothian question!). (For reserved issues they could all meet together at Westminster. Much less travelling would be needed.) It would bring legislators closer to the voters on certain issues, whether in Cardiff, Edinburgh or Stormont. 

What of smoking issues in the election manifestos of the two front horses? Well, here is what the Scottish National Party had to offer in 2009 (current manifesto not yet released), under the heading 'Creating a smoke free Europe':

Preventing smoking in public places is an important step to creating a smoke free, healthier Scotland and the SNP is working in partnership with our European neighbours in the fight against tobacco. In addition to the Scottish Government’s smoking prevention action plan, a number of initiatives have been taken at a European-wide level and the SNP will continue to work with the EU to make sure that future initiatives are powerful tools in creating a smoke free Europe.

At least it's clear. Labour's message isn't quite so blunt, but the direction of travel is similar.

Scottish Labour led the UK in banning smoking in enclosed public spaces. We remain determined to do even more to tackle Scotland’s high smoking rates. We will introduce a revised Tobacco Control Strategy that will tighten up the loopholes in legislation to prevent tobacco advertising on merchandise. We will consult on the desirability of a ban on smoking in cars that are carrying child-passengers.

That's your choice.

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

More like this please.

Extracts:

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

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

H/tip Pat Nurse

Scottish tobacco display ban deferred

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

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

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

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

Tobacco display ban: The Observer, the Newsagents' federation, tobacco companies and ASH

The Observer's wholehearted endorsement of the tobacco display ban today can be expected in view of this paper's support for tobacco restrictions to date. Its reasoning is also typical. Even though it admits that the facts don't entirely support a ban, it still manages to present a ban as the only rightful course of action.

Whether a ban deters young people from smoking is fiercely contested. Several Canadian provinces that introduced a ban have witnessed a significant fall in youth smoking. But provinces that did not introduce a ban have also seen falls.

The evidence is inconclusive, as the Scottish Government also knows, but evidence is far from being the key issue.

The researchers concluded the ban helped to "de-normalise" tobacco in the minds of children. The truth, long recognised by the tobacco industry, is that these displays are just another form of advertising and so, in the case of cigarettes, should be consigned to history.

The key issue is that tobacco companies are getting away with 'free advertising', just like any other supermarket commodity. Denormalising tobacco in the minds of 'children' (what age?) does not in any way guarantee that the children will forgo smoking once they find out where their elder siblings and friends get tobacco. The intention to break an association between tobacco and shops clearly carries the risk that people will get tobacco from illegal sources.

Another article, this one yesterday in the Guardian, is dangerously wide of the mark. It reports the National Federation of Retail Newsagents is tainted by association with the tobacco industry in its efforts to oppose the tobacco display legislation.

In 2009, when MPs were first deciding on whether to back the ban, the federation took out full-page advertisements in the Times opposing the move. When a federation member asked officials who had paid for the ad he was told, "don't ask". Finch said he was alarmed at the federation's secrecy, adding: "It's supposed to be a trade association, not the Plymouth Brethren."

Members of the NFRN are entitled to ask questions about campaigns by its leadership. But deciding the display ban issue is another problem entirely. Deborah Arnott from Action on Smoking and Health concludes simply that any view that has been even tainted by association with the tobacco industry must be resolved against the tobacco industry's area of interest. Automatically and without prejudice to other issues.

However, allegations that a trade body that has lobbied MPs has been influenced by tobacco firms will be seized on by health campaigners. The UK is a party to the World Heath Organisation convention on tobacco control, which compels governments to ensure the drafting of policies is free "from vested interests of the tobacco industry".

"The government is required to protect its public health policies with respect to tobacco from the commercial and vested interests of the industry," said Deborah Arnott, director of the anti-smoking campaign group, Ash. "If the government repeals or significantly delays the display ban it will have utterly failed to live up to its international treaty obligations."

Article 5.2 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control does indeed compel governments to 'protect health interests from tobacco industry interference'. This particular provision is inherently undemocratic, on the basis that anybody has the right to influence government in its area of interest. Informed debate should be guaranteed by government, the media and the courts: such debate is impossible if key industries are excluded.

If a government feels that an industry's activities have a harmful effect on the population it should ensure that issues resolving that industry should allow other affected voices to be heard. Conflicts of interest are what make up society's business. Government is not entitled to exclude the key industry completely from deliberations, or to assume that any conflict in which tobacco participates (or is perceived to participate) must be decided against it regardless of the the arguments put forward. Tobacco interests, according to the WHO, include 'other vested interests', effectively disenfranchising retail interests or any others perceived to benefit from tobacco sales.

Deborah Arnott doesn't care about the issues brought forward regarding the display ban. She appears to care only about the enforcement of an international treaty that effectively gags tobacco companies (and associates) from any contribution whatever to legislation concerning their product. I don't believe that tobacco companies should have uncontested influence over government, but neither should they be prevented from having any influence at all. Tobacco companies do participate in government consultations, but in the current climate participation at this level is unlikely to help them.

Court challenge delays Scottish display ban

The display ban was passed into Scottish law on 27 January 2010. A year later, the Scottish Government has had to put it on hold owing to a legal challenge from Imperial Tobacco, which has argued that the Scottish Government is not competent to pass the legislation.

Caledonian Mercury takes up the story (along with Scottish MSM and one or two local papers). There is little on the legal argument, most of it takes the form statements from Health Minister Shona Robison and Sheila Duffy. "The ban on displaying tobacco products in shops is being introduced to make cigarettes less attractive to children and young people," says the Health Minister. "It is disappointing that a tobacco display ban for large retailers will not be able to be introduced this year due to continuing tobacco industry legal challenges, but sadly not in any way surprising," says Sheila Duffy. I could have read their press releases myself: Scottish media coverage is typically disappointing.

By Stage 1 of the Bill in its report, September 2009 it was clear that there was no conclusive evidence that the tobacco display ban would have its intended effect of deterring the young from smoking. Richard Simpson wasn't put off: September 2009:

The fact that we do not have all the evidence is not a reason not to have such a ban. I promise members that if we always wait for the evidence, the tobacco industry—this is particularly the case with that industry—will use every means in its power to get around every piece of legislation that every country passes. 

I hope the newsagents and tobacconists have all made a note of that statement. For Richard Simpson MSP, the balance of probabilities (even if, as in this case, it goes against him!) will suffice as the basis of legislation that is likely to damage low-margin businesses in the pursuit of an ideological goal (elevating health concerns above all others is ideological).

Frank Davis's recent piece The Scaremongers rings true here. Frank describes how the health lobby (right up to the World Health Organisation) fills the place once occupied by religion, where faith and conviction can legitimately over-ride physical evidence. It's fairly inevitable that any industry whose business was threatened by legislation (especially on the basis of evidence that the industry considered unsound) would attempt to defend itself – yet Simpson presents this scenario as if to suggest that the Devil guides tobacco industries in their sneaky attempts to get around what now passes for Divine law inspired by a Health-driven Deity.

The health debate shows an ugly side to quasi-religious fervour. They hate the sin, but profess to love the sinner. Possession by demons makes a grand excuse to marginalise and disenfranchise sinners, all for their own good. Impoverishment is immaterial, if it improves spiritual (and physical) health. All this goes for smokers and likewise for the sellers of tobacco.

We can hope that this "healthist" religion has not afflicted the courts and that they are still able to occupy their rightful place in the body politic, as independent decision makers in justice. Shopkeepers like to offer a service to the customers (offering goods for display) just like publicans used to be able to do (offering an ashtray). Stopping them trading autonomously without good cause on the pretence that customers' children might be tempted into bad ways (without any evidence that prohibition actually works) will damage them. Putting them under constant fear of surveillance in case they are caught infringing the rules during restocking is actually vicious, and moreover really fiddling while Rome burns, and won't stop cheap imitations flooding the streets. Even without the devolution issue on which Imperial Tobacco is relying, there is enough to send this legislation back under a rock