Dutch anti-smoking ban campaigners were successful yesterday in maintaining the advantage they have gained in exemptions to the smoking ban. This report says that not only is smoking in small bars legal, but smoking is largely carried out in larger bars too.
No doubt ban enthusiasts would say that this is because there is an exemption in small bars, and that only a comprehensive ban can be fully enforced. But the exemption was gained in the first place because of widespread and well organised opposition.
Sorry for Marc Willemsen, who wishes to turn the tide back in the antis' favour. (But not very sorry.)
Showing posts with label Dutch smoking ban. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dutch smoking ban. Show all posts
Wednesday, 16 May 2012
Tuesday, 6 March 2012
Saturday, 3 March 2012
Dutch chastised again for neglecting tobacco control
Let this be a lesson. Countries that don't fulfil their obligations under the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control will be repeatedly admonished by the Framework Convention Alliance and its supporters.
Sunday, 5 February 2012
Consulting mosquitos
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Dutch come under fire for their lax attitude to tobacco control, because they have rolled back the tobacco campaign and withdrawn the funding for smoking cessation campaigns.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':
'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.)
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.)
Sunday, 11 December 2011
Dutch under fire for lax tobacco controls
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.
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.
Monday, 24 October 2011
Florence, the mosquito, and the tobacco industry smear
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.
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.
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.
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.
Monday, 4 July 2011
Netherlands and Scotland plough different furrows
A short Dutch report tells us that the smoking ban is a far more relaxed affair in Dutch bars, with ashtrays in over half of them (note, you can still get a drink in a non-smoking environment in the Netherlands if that's what you prefer).
In Scotland further bans are still being discussed. Sheila Duffy explains in her (comment-free) blog that ASH Scotland supports a public consultation on extending the smoking ban to private cars (smoking is already banned in work vehicles) – whereas the British Medical Association has called for an overall ban on smoking while driving.
It's unusual for ASH Scotland not to bid for the most extreme action going on smoking. Ms Duffy claims that household exposure is a more important problem ('likely to be a greater source of exposure for children'), but is 'not an area for legislation'. Does this mean that she takes issue with Dr Douglas Noble's conclusion (quoted here) that:
A report and summary of last year's study on smoking in cars by NHS Greater Glasgow (with a headline designed to sensationalise the issue) can be found here (same text here with comments). Also discussed here.
We won't know the legislative programme on smoking in Scotland until after the Scottish Parliament reconvenes in September. But it won't resemble the Dutch one.
In Scotland further bans are still being discussed. Sheila Duffy explains in her (comment-free) blog that ASH Scotland supports a public consultation on extending the smoking ban to private cars (smoking is already banned in work vehicles) – whereas the British Medical Association has called for an overall ban on smoking while driving.
It's unusual for ASH Scotland not to bid for the most extreme action going on smoking. Ms Duffy claims that household exposure is a more important problem ('likely to be a greater source of exposure for children'), but is 'not an area for legislation'. Does this mean that she takes issue with Dr Douglas Noble's conclusion (quoted here) that:
In cars, particle concentrations are 27 times higher than in a smoker’s home and 20 times higher than in a pub, in the days when you could smoke in public places.Even if ASH Scotland has not advocated a total ban in cars, the idea will go before legislators. It's interesting to speculate whether, in responding to the public consultation it seeks, ASH Scotland would oppose a smoking ban in cars, or whether it would simply sit on the fence.
A report and summary of last year's study on smoking in cars by NHS Greater Glasgow (with a headline designed to sensationalise the issue) can be found here (same text here with comments). Also discussed here.
We won't know the legislative programme on smoking in Scotland until after the Scottish Parliament reconvenes in September. But it won't resemble the Dutch one.
Monday, 13 June 2011
Dutch cut back on smoking cessation
I have learned over the last few years to become very cautious on the issue of universal health benefits – getting all medication free at point of need. Being congenitally hypothyroid I got everything I needed (for that condition) free even before the Scottish Government made everything free. The point is that I believe everyone should have the right to life-saving drugs – the problem is that when the state provides health care, it also decides what is essential, what you need. That is why it can criminalise somebody for treating themselves with cannabis for multiple sclerosis yet think nothing of prescribing Champix, or ritalin for kids, or countless other pharmaceutical remedies that someone else has decided society 'needs' so much that it should get it without the individual paying for it. The beneficiaries of this arrangement are easily identified and less easily satisfied with their stupendous market share in medicines.
In the Dutch case, they are definitely doing what they should be doing in Scotland, and axing subsidised smoking cessation. Anyone who wants to give up smoking needs a lot of will power.Many people can do it without drugs if they want to do it at all. This is not denying anyone treatment for leprosy, malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, or any other life-threatening condition. It's withdrawal of health budget money from behavioural change, which is acknowledged by practitioners not to be effective.
The United Kingdom National Smoking Cessation Conference started today, with 603 delegates learning all the tricks of the trade. For example, they plan to teach 'disadvantaged carers' (single parents?) how to exercise TA (temporary abstinence) using NRT (nicotine replacement therapy) so as not to hurt their kids – anti-smokers' peculiar idea of harm reduction (take a pharmaceutically prepared substitute). I have my own feelings about these campaigns to stop people smoking at home. But that aside, the money spent on smoking cessation would be better spent on almost any other aid, not only for disadvantaged carers of children but also of carers of people with dementia, many of whom who are likely to be elderly themselves instead of all these resources invested in stopping people from smoking.
I don't know how far the Dutch cuts go, but insofar as they stop supporting this appalling market in NRT and related medications, I'm with them.
In the Dutch case, they are definitely doing what they should be doing in Scotland, and axing subsidised smoking cessation. Anyone who wants to give up smoking needs a lot of will power.Many people can do it without drugs if they want to do it at all. This is not denying anyone treatment for leprosy, malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, or any other life-threatening condition. It's withdrawal of health budget money from behavioural change, which is acknowledged by practitioners not to be effective.
The United Kingdom National Smoking Cessation Conference started today, with 603 delegates learning all the tricks of the trade. For example, they plan to teach 'disadvantaged carers' (single parents?) how to exercise TA (temporary abstinence) using NRT (nicotine replacement therapy) so as not to hurt their kids – anti-smokers' peculiar idea of harm reduction (take a pharmaceutically prepared substitute). I have my own feelings about these campaigns to stop people smoking at home. But that aside, the money spent on smoking cessation would be better spent on almost any other aid, not only for disadvantaged carers of children but also of carers of people with dementia, many of whom who are likely to be elderly themselves instead of all these resources invested in stopping people from smoking.
I don't know how far the Dutch cuts go, but insofar as they stop supporting this appalling market in NRT and related medications, I'm with them.
Tuesday, 24 May 2011
SLTA invites Dutch and Croats to reconsider smoking ban
The Scottish Licensed Trade Association has invited licensees from countries where the smoking rules are more relaxed – the Netherlands, Croatia and Hungary – to a meeting with Scottish licensees in order to explore possibilities of relaxing the ban.
At a time when the world awaits an avalanche of outdoor smoking bans (following New York) and apartment bans (following Australia), perhaps the last thing anyone expected was for the Scottish licensed trade to announce that smoking bans in pubs are not needed! This is not in fact what the SLTA is saying to the press – they are looking for 'some accommodation', not a return to the old days.
Good luck to them. Bringing Scottish licensees face-to-face with their counterparts who have fought successfully against restrictions in other countries is an inspired move, and we hope it will restore some confidence to our licensed trade.
In the mean time, the Scottish licensed trade and all hospital managers should know that there is a European Air Quality Standard, EN 13779, that deals with non-residential human occupancy and discusses tobacco smoke as just one of a range of conditions in buildings that must be dealt with. This documented is dated 2007, so it has been known for some time that tobacco smoke is reckoned to be a problem capable of resolution. There never has been a need for a smoking ban, and the whole of Europe should know it by now.
At a time when the world awaits an avalanche of outdoor smoking bans (following New York) and apartment bans (following Australia), perhaps the last thing anyone expected was for the Scottish licensed trade to announce that smoking bans in pubs are not needed! This is not in fact what the SLTA is saying to the press – they are looking for 'some accommodation', not a return to the old days.
Good luck to them. Bringing Scottish licensees face-to-face with their counterparts who have fought successfully against restrictions in other countries is an inspired move, and we hope it will restore some confidence to our licensed trade.
In the mean time, the Scottish licensed trade and all hospital managers should know that there is a European Air Quality Standard, EN 13779, that deals with non-residential human occupancy and discusses tobacco smoke as just one of a range of conditions in buildings that must be dealt with. This documented is dated 2007, so it has been known for some time that tobacco smoke is reckoned to be a problem capable of resolution. There never has been a need for a smoking ban, and the whole of Europe should know it by now.
Saturday, 7 May 2011
WHO demands general smoking ban in Germany
It is harder now for European authorities to claim that smoking bans are universally popular. Germany has failed to enforce its ban, Spain has protested vigorously, and Belgian café proprietors and customers have also protested about a ban due for implementation in food establishments on 1 July, three years earlier than planned. The Netherlands has also thrown off its ban for bars without employees.
Demands not just for a full implementation of the ban in Germany but for the law to be enforced centrally instead of in its federal states have appeared, of all places, in the British Medical Journal. I only have access to the abstract but already the Heidelberg branch of the World Health Organisation gets its say, claiming that the German people are exposed to dangerously high levels of smoke in their restaurants and pubs.
(Clearly he seems to be under a misapprehension that people are forced to allow smoking in pubs and that unwilling customers are forced to go into them.)
People seem happy to tell priests to keep out of politics and stick to religion: not a view I would necessarily agree with – everybody should have a say in politics. I would only agree to limiting religious interference in politics if religion wanted to keep secular interests out of politics. Why don't people realise that health is the new religion? Why do people tolerate health officials who are so steeped in politics that they happily recommend interfering with German legislation in order to achieve their smoke-free agenda?
The study is entitled 'Full smoking ban is needed in Germany as four out of five pubs flout regulations'. What size of budget is needed to report what is common knowledge: that people can smoke in German public houses?
The Netherlands didn't get off scott-free either. Tobacco control has no respect for national boundaries.
Demands not just for a full implementation of the ban in Germany but for the law to be enforced centrally instead of in its federal states have appeared, of all places, in the British Medical Journal. I only have access to the abstract but already the Heidelberg branch of the World Health Organisation gets its say, claiming that the German people are exposed to dangerously high levels of smoke in their restaurants and pubs.
(Clearly he seems to be under a misapprehension that people are forced to allow smoking in pubs and that unwilling customers are forced to go into them.)
People seem happy to tell priests to keep out of politics and stick to religion: not a view I would necessarily agree with – everybody should have a say in politics. I would only agree to limiting religious interference in politics if religion wanted to keep secular interests out of politics. Why don't people realise that health is the new religion? Why do people tolerate health officials who are so steeped in politics that they happily recommend interfering with German legislation in order to achieve their smoke-free agenda?
The study is entitled 'Full smoking ban is needed in Germany as four out of five pubs flout regulations'. What size of budget is needed to report what is common knowledge: that people can smoke in German public houses?
The Netherlands didn't get off scott-free either. Tobacco control has no respect for national boundaries.
Sunday, 16 January 2011
Professor in Public Health claims Dutch government swayed by tobacco lobby
Thousands of licensees united to campaign against the smoking ban in the Netherlands, which was never fully enforced before recently being scrapped for bars without employees. The change to the law was made by the incoming Coalition government in the Netherlands, and endowed Professor Marc Willemsen blames the tobacco interests of the Defence Minister for the policy change. Over twelve hundred publicans voice their opposition to the ban in campaigns, and yet the tobacco industry's influence on a single cabinet minister over-rides all other considerations.
To Professor Willemsen, Minister Hillen's presence on the Cabinet as a lobbyist tobacco undermines Dutch compliance with Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This is meant to protect health policy from tobacco industry influence. Or, perhaps, to ensure that anybody with any (alleged) interest in tobacco, however peripheral, is excluded from discussions of tobacco policy. The fact is that no lobbying interest should dictate government policy, and while it might not be unreasonable to have laws or guidelines on lobbying, excluding interests from lobbying at all is not reasonable or rational.
Professor Willemsen alleges that 'the tobacco industry has strategic connections in government circles', although it isn't clear that he has evidence of financial interests in tobacco for anyone other than Hillen. No other minister is specified in his blog post. It's arguable whether Mr Hillen's presence on the Cabinet made any difference to the outcome of the Dutch licensees' rebellion. No one asks which Cabinet ministers get freebees from Big Tobacco's rivals in the nicotine market: Big Pharma, or whether such influence is improper.
Professor Willemsen's solution? He 'argues for confrontational campaigns which clearly show the damage smoking causes to the body. He also favours higher duties on tobacco and a less prominent location for tobacco products in supermarkets'. None of which has much relevance to smoking ban policies. As for tobacco in shops, its position behind the counter means that it is out of the reach of pilferers and easily accessible to shop staff. Nothing could be more sensible.
More on the Dutch story here.
Professor Willemsen's recipe for success
To Professor Willemsen, Minister Hillen's presence on the Cabinet as a lobbyist tobacco undermines Dutch compliance with Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This is meant to protect health policy from tobacco industry influence. Or, perhaps, to ensure that anybody with any (alleged) interest in tobacco, however peripheral, is excluded from discussions of tobacco policy. The fact is that no lobbying interest should dictate government policy, and while it might not be unreasonable to have laws or guidelines on lobbying, excluding interests from lobbying at all is not reasonable or rational.
Professor Willemsen alleges that 'the tobacco industry has strategic connections in government circles', although it isn't clear that he has evidence of financial interests in tobacco for anyone other than Hillen. No other minister is specified in his blog post. It's arguable whether Mr Hillen's presence on the Cabinet made any difference to the outcome of the Dutch licensees' rebellion. No one asks which Cabinet ministers get freebees from Big Tobacco's rivals in the nicotine market: Big Pharma, or whether such influence is improper.
Professor Willemsen's solution? He 'argues for confrontational campaigns which clearly show the damage smoking causes to the body. He also favours higher duties on tobacco and a less prominent location for tobacco products in supermarkets'. None of which has much relevance to smoking ban policies. As for tobacco in shops, its position behind the counter means that it is out of the reach of pilferers and easily accessible to shop staff. Nothing could be more sensible.
More on the Dutch story here.
Professor Willemsen's recipe for success
Thursday, 6 January 2011
Trouble in Spain, and they don't like the smoking ban either
There appears to be rebellion in Spain against the smoking ban. Faced with austerity measures for the sake of stabilising international markets, the authorities there couldn't let the public take solace in a smoke and a drink, but the austerity measures had to include a ban on public smoking too. There are reports that some licensees will not enforce the law.
The unhappiness shows itself in a fight over smoking, resulting in a hotelier needing stitches. I remember hearing about a bar tender in Leith who was hit by a glass in the early days of the ban in Scotland: reported here. Such incidents have been rare in Scotland, at least not widely reported. A landlord in Bolton was rewarded by a broken leg for enforcing the smoking ban. Bar staff should not have been used to police a ban against their customers that must have been soul-destroying for thousands of people on both sides of the bar.
Feelings about watching Spain go through what we've already been through are inexpressible ... their ban is worse because it applies to certain outdoor areas.
The Dutch example could help them. What can the rest of us do?
The unhappiness shows itself in a fight over smoking, resulting in a hotelier needing stitches. I remember hearing about a bar tender in Leith who was hit by a glass in the early days of the ban in Scotland: reported here. Such incidents have been rare in Scotland, at least not widely reported. A landlord in Bolton was rewarded by a broken leg for enforcing the smoking ban. Bar staff should not have been used to police a ban against their customers that must have been soul-destroying for thousands of people on both sides of the bar.
Feelings about watching Spain go through what we've already been through are inexpressible ... their ban is worse because it applies to certain outdoor areas.
The Dutch example could help them. What can the rest of us do?
Monday, 20 December 2010
Keeping warm in winter with the NHS!
God bless them! The NHS has issued advice to help keep us warm in winter, quoting winter death rates of up to 30,000 in the UK. It defines the vulnerable groups, including the elderly, disabled, those with heart and lung conditions and those on low incomes.
According to the General Register Office for Scotland winter deaths are on the decline, and it appears to deny that Scots are dying from the effects of the winter cold: “There is no single cause of additional deaths in winter. Very few are caused by hypothermia. Most are from respiratory and circulatory diseases such as pneumonia, coronary heart disease and stroke. In only a small proportion of deaths is influenza recorded as the underlying cause.” The video on the NHS link however explains the link between cold weather and heart trouble and advises people with heart conditions to avoid extremes of temperature.
Do the people who give such advice consider that it does not apply to the millions of smokers – many of them elderly or disabled – who are expected to expose themselves to the cold outdoor air whenever they wish to smoke? The NHS link also points out the dangers of isolation and depression, especially for elderly people living alone. In order to satisfy those who fear the long-term effects of exposure to secondary smoke, we are putting society's most vulnerable in imminent danger from the combined effects of cold air, and extremes of temperature. The 'social and welfare clubs', pubs and cafés where people could pass the time of day in company with neighbours are, in many places, no longer fit for purpose and have sometimes not even survived.
Approaching 20,000 people died in the December 2009–March 2010 period in Scotland: a startlingly high figure compared with the figure quoted by the NHS as cold weather-related deaths for the UK. I don't understand why this total should be so high in relation to the national (UK) figure. The General Register Office seems confident of a continued downward trend, in spite of austerity measures in general and rising fuel prices in particular.
Lift the smoking ban so that people can use pubs and clubs as the uncensored and welcoming social meeting places that we want them to be, and that people need all the more in times of severe weather.
According to the General Register Office for Scotland winter deaths are on the decline, and it appears to deny that Scots are dying from the effects of the winter cold: “There is no single cause of additional deaths in winter. Very few are caused by hypothermia. Most are from respiratory and circulatory diseases such as pneumonia, coronary heart disease and stroke. In only a small proportion of deaths is influenza recorded as the underlying cause.” The video on the NHS link however explains the link between cold weather and heart trouble and advises people with heart conditions to avoid extremes of temperature.
Do the people who give such advice consider that it does not apply to the millions of smokers – many of them elderly or disabled – who are expected to expose themselves to the cold outdoor air whenever they wish to smoke? The NHS link also points out the dangers of isolation and depression, especially for elderly people living alone. In order to satisfy those who fear the long-term effects of exposure to secondary smoke, we are putting society's most vulnerable in imminent danger from the combined effects of cold air, and extremes of temperature. The 'social and welfare clubs', pubs and cafés where people could pass the time of day in company with neighbours are, in many places, no longer fit for purpose and have sometimes not even survived.
Approaching 20,000 people died in the December 2009–March 2010 period in Scotland: a startlingly high figure compared with the figure quoted by the NHS as cold weather-related deaths for the UK. I don't understand why this total should be so high in relation to the national (UK) figure. The General Register Office seems confident of a continued downward trend, in spite of austerity measures in general and rising fuel prices in particular.
Lift the smoking ban so that people can use pubs and clubs as the uncensored and welcoming social meeting places that we want them to be, and that people need all the more in times of severe weather.
Friday, 17 December 2010
Ireland watches Greece
Ireland, where ministers could boast that the smoking ban has been successfully implemented since 2004 (even if it's widely ignored outside towns and cities, which I've heard said but can't confirm), comments on Greece, where it is abundantly clear that it hasn't been and probably can't be implemented, even after the Greek Government has imported enforcement officers from overseas to advise them.
Both countries have also experienced austerity measures at the hands of the EU.
Richard Pine, the writer, states that the smoking ban was immediately accepted in Ireland, and clearly feels that the Greeks have a problem with smoking – but do I pick up a sense that he profoundly respects the Greeks' ability to defend their national sovereignty and their national passion for smoking?
Both countries have also experienced austerity measures at the hands of the EU.
Richard Pine, the writer, states that the smoking ban was immediately accepted in Ireland, and clearly feels that the Greeks have a problem with smoking – but do I pick up a sense that he profoundly respects the Greeks' ability to defend their national sovereignty and their national passion for smoking?
Dutch MP explains smoking ban decision
On this clip, a Dutch MP explains his decision to retract the smoking ban on the small bars in Netherlands. If you've listened to the clips in this post you will recognise some of the voices, notably a few happy customers in a smoking-permitted and a less-than-happy Cecilia Farren (ASH). Cecilia appears to feel that vested interests only exist in the tobacco industry, in order to sully what would otherwise be an open-and-shut case like asbestos. She doesn't see that a life is a continual battle of conflicts of interest – even though GASP, her own organisation, is a commercial entity that promotes smoking cessation and tobacco control.
The Dutch MP, Anne Mulder, speaks for the new Coalition government in the Netherlands. He explains that the decision is ideological, based on people's responsibility for making their own decisions. Economic considerations are minor, even though they are likely to be a factor in people's decisions: he doesn't see this as a problem – anti-smoking interests argue that the economic interests of the licensed trade or tobacco industry are a dangerous distraction (and any pharmaceutical interests of their own are of course irrelevant because their intentions are beyond reproach).
People smoke. Other people wish to provide recreational venues for them. We don't need to interfere.
I think that was the solution that the Coalition Government was meant to come up with. Instead they came up with Nudge, and misunderstood it. To nudge people to stop smoking, you have to improve their standard of living, because people with a better standard of living smoke less. Spending precious health budgets on tobacco control freakery couldn't be more irrelevant.
***
If you have plenty of time on your hands listen to this clip too: Wiel is interviewed by Jason Mohammed on BBC Wales, along with Dr David Bailey of the BMA in Wales. Public reactions take this discussion to nearly two hours, but there is much of interest near the beginning. Interesting: it sounds as if BBC reporters have accepted that the ban has damaged trading conditions for the hospitality. They ask, should we amend the smoking ban and save our pubs? I never cease to be amazed by members of the general public, faced with publicans who personally witnessed their takings plummet between June and July 2007, or over the following weeks and months, who insist that their problems are nothing to do with the smoking ban. One licensee complained of such criticism, 'I was obviously hallucinating when I watched my takings go through the floor after the smoking ban came in'. Dr David Bailey is one such know-all, who appears to have thought it unlikely that Wiel's association of twelve hundred publicans had experienced any economic hardship (even though some of them had lost up to 70 per cent of their takings).
The Dutch MP, Anne Mulder, speaks for the new Coalition government in the Netherlands. He explains that the decision is ideological, based on people's responsibility for making their own decisions. Economic considerations are minor, even though they are likely to be a factor in people's decisions: he doesn't see this as a problem – anti-smoking interests argue that the economic interests of the licensed trade or tobacco industry are a dangerous distraction (and any pharmaceutical interests of their own are of course irrelevant because their intentions are beyond reproach).
People smoke. Other people wish to provide recreational venues for them. We don't need to interfere.
I think that was the solution that the Coalition Government was meant to come up with. Instead they came up with Nudge, and misunderstood it. To nudge people to stop smoking, you have to improve their standard of living, because people with a better standard of living smoke less. Spending precious health budgets on tobacco control freakery couldn't be more irrelevant.
***
If you have plenty of time on your hands listen to this clip too: Wiel is interviewed by Jason Mohammed on BBC Wales, along with Dr David Bailey of the BMA in Wales. Public reactions take this discussion to nearly two hours, but there is much of interest near the beginning. Interesting: it sounds as if BBC reporters have accepted that the ban has damaged trading conditions for the hospitality. They ask, should we amend the smoking ban and save our pubs? I never cease to be amazed by members of the general public, faced with publicans who personally witnessed their takings plummet between June and July 2007, or over the following weeks and months, who insist that their problems are nothing to do with the smoking ban. One licensee complained of such criticism, 'I was obviously hallucinating when I watched my takings go through the floor after the smoking ban came in'. Dr David Bailey is one such know-all, who appears to have thought it unlikely that Wiel's association of twelve hundred publicans had experienced any economic hardship (even though some of them had lost up to 70 per cent of their takings).
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
Dutch smoking ban partially repealed: BBC interviews all day
As reported here, the Netherlands has repealed its smoking ban for bars under seventy square metres with no employees. This has been announced with some media fanfare in the UK, with the question even being asked on air whether a partial revocation of the ban would work over here. (By over 'here', I mean the UK. I am sorry to say that this reversal in the fortunes of anti-tobacco has not been reported in the Scottish press [edit: see first comment]).
Interviews went on throughout the day. It started with a broadcast with Paul Greer interviewing Wiel Maessen and Cecilia Farren. The story in the clip is badly presented with nil research evident on how to spell Wiel's name or even what gender he is. But it's worth hearing the interview, in which Cecilia Farren (ASH) accuses opponents of smoking bans of conducting a campaign of terror. She also suggests that the tobacco-related interests of a single sympathetic MP outweigh the interests of around twelve hundred rebel bar owners, and are sufficient to characterise the reversal in the smoking ban as the result of tobacco industry lobbying.
A debate on Radio Five Live from 9 this morning (Nicky Campbell) was spirited and showed anything but consensus. Brian Binley MP, who has campaigned to reform the smoking ban, participated.
An interview on the World Service (start from 49) follows with Paul Greer interviewing Wiel and Southampton publican Simon Bell who runs Talking Heads and another pub in the city. Wiel explains the history of the ban's reversal, the huge losses that publicans had experienced following the ban. Simon Bell obligingly opines that the Dutch system would be adaptable to the UK provided that extraction and air cleaning were in place.
In The World Tonight (at 40.00), Paul Greer distresses Cecilia Farren by conducting a group interview inside a smoky pub. The locals' views reflect support for the move, commenting mostly on viability and an improved atmosphere, and the move is declared popular with English visitors. The landlady comments that people have clearly missed the experience of pub smoking and come into the bar because they see people smoking inside. Paul Greer again invites Simon Bell to reiterate that it would be possible in the UK to provide separate accommodation for smokers and non-smokers.
Finally BBC News 24 saw a head-on confrontation between Nick Hogan, the celebrated licensee of the Swan Inn in Bolton and the Swan with Two Necks in Chorley (both sadly now closed), and Paul Hooper of ASH. It happened at 9.30 pm, and is worth a look if anyone can find it. Nick does not flinch through Paul Hooper's denials that the smoking ban hit bars and the licensed trade, and his insistence that passive smoking kills and that heart attack rates have materially changed, but argues the point for a change in the law.
After a long day of interviews, Wiel's assessment surely gives grounds for optimism. The smoking ban and similar legislation are based on a failure to negotiate. The smoking ban has been defeated by people who know how to negotiate, and who will not allow doctrinaire attitudes to dominate. The solution to the smoking issue is not to be found in excluding part of the community but by actively resolving conflicting preferences. No solution that starts out by attempting to marginalise or denormalise is acceptable, and the Dutch have proved it.
What's the Dutch for Congratulations? Proficiat! And Cheers? Proost!
Interviews went on throughout the day. It started with a broadcast with Paul Greer interviewing Wiel Maessen and Cecilia Farren. The story in the clip is badly presented with nil research evident on how to spell Wiel's name or even what gender he is. But it's worth hearing the interview, in which Cecilia Farren (ASH) accuses opponents of smoking bans of conducting a campaign of terror. She also suggests that the tobacco-related interests of a single sympathetic MP outweigh the interests of around twelve hundred rebel bar owners, and are sufficient to characterise the reversal in the smoking ban as the result of tobacco industry lobbying.
A debate on Radio Five Live from 9 this morning (Nicky Campbell) was spirited and showed anything but consensus. Brian Binley MP, who has campaigned to reform the smoking ban, participated.
An interview on the World Service (start from 49) follows with Paul Greer interviewing Wiel and Southampton publican Simon Bell who runs Talking Heads and another pub in the city. Wiel explains the history of the ban's reversal, the huge losses that publicans had experienced following the ban. Simon Bell obligingly opines that the Dutch system would be adaptable to the UK provided that extraction and air cleaning were in place.
In The World Tonight (at 40.00), Paul Greer distresses Cecilia Farren by conducting a group interview inside a smoky pub. The locals' views reflect support for the move, commenting mostly on viability and an improved atmosphere, and the move is declared popular with English visitors. The landlady comments that people have clearly missed the experience of pub smoking and come into the bar because they see people smoking inside. Paul Greer again invites Simon Bell to reiterate that it would be possible in the UK to provide separate accommodation for smokers and non-smokers.
Finally BBC News 24 saw a head-on confrontation between Nick Hogan, the celebrated licensee of the Swan Inn in Bolton and the Swan with Two Necks in Chorley (both sadly now closed), and Paul Hooper of ASH. It happened at 9.30 pm, and is worth a look if anyone can find it. Nick does not flinch through Paul Hooper's denials that the smoking ban hit bars and the licensed trade, and his insistence that passive smoking kills and that heart attack rates have materially changed, but argues the point for a change in the law.
After a long day of interviews, Wiel's assessment surely gives grounds for optimism. The smoking ban and similar legislation are based on a failure to negotiate. The smoking ban has been defeated by people who know how to negotiate, and who will not allow doctrinaire attitudes to dominate. The solution to the smoking issue is not to be found in excluding part of the community but by actively resolving conflicting preferences. No solution that starts out by attempting to marginalise or denormalise is acceptable, and the Dutch have proved it.
What's the Dutch for Congratulations? Proficiat! And Cheers? Proost!
Thursday, 11 November 2010
Serbia introduces severe ban in educational establishments but a relatively lenient ban in bars
Thanks to Chris Snowdon for this. When I saw headlines about a Serbian smoking ban, for some reason I imagined it would be thorough.
This is 'thorough'.
True the ban does extend to some outdoor areas, and the penalties for managers that infringe the law are 200 times those applied to individuals, but the smoking doesn't stop people in the hospitality industry from practising basic hospitality.
What is it with the UK and its devolved assemblies?
This is 'thorough'.
Smaller bars and cafes can decide to be smoke-free or not, while bigger ones, as well as restaurants have to provide a non-smoking space that would occupy more than a half of the premises and be properly ventilated.And: 'Companies are allowed to provide a smoking area ...'
True the ban does extend to some outdoor areas, and the penalties for managers that infringe the law are 200 times those applied to individuals, but the smoking doesn't stop people in the hospitality industry from practising basic hospitality.
What is it with the UK and its devolved assemblies?
Saturday, 6 November 2010
Turks disenchanted with smoking ban, while Dutch fighter speaks to the Sun
As if half measures by the Dutch and Bulgarians were not enough, recent reports show that Turkey is also less than happy with the smoking ban with over 70 per cent of those interviewed (including the non-smokers) finding fault. The report doesn't speak of non-compliance, however. The results contradict an earlier survey that found widespread support for the ban, but also find business losses on a large scale.
Authorities last year expected that the smoking ban would be implemented without trouble. The tobacco control expert interviewed there, Elif Dagli, expressed particular happiness about the short time-scale of implementation. She also denied that there was any hint of human rights violation involved in a smoking ban. This might explain why she feels it should be possible to implement such a ban without spending years trying to convince the population that black is white. She blames business failures under the smoking ban on a refusal to adapt to new conditions
Meanwhile Wiel Maessen explains his fight in the Netherlands to the Sun newspaper. Bars could not compete on an equal footing (in a so-called 'level playing field'), because they did not have to space to cater for people smoking outside, or the facilities to reorient their businesses. Claiming (credibly) that up to 80 per cent of Dutch believed smoking in public should be allowable, he states that the bans themselves are socially and psychologically damaging, and more so to 'the common man' (ordinary people) who felt excluded from social engagement by such a ban. Elif Dagli would have little sympathy with this argument, but I am sure most Turks would see exactly what he meant. 'Smoking kills' is a simple argument, but the issues around smoking bans are far from simple.
Wiel points out great disparities between penalties imposed in the UK and the Netherlands, and says that the Dutch have a different approach to enforcement in many areas.
The European Commission's current consultation on the 2001 Tobacco Directive includes questions in every area of tobacco regulation about whether laws and enforcement should be included in the directive or left to member states to regulate. The European Commission will not win itself many friends by insisting on Europe-wide conformity on smoking regulation.
Authorities last year expected that the smoking ban would be implemented without trouble. The tobacco control expert interviewed there, Elif Dagli, expressed particular happiness about the short time-scale of implementation. She also denied that there was any hint of human rights violation involved in a smoking ban. This might explain why she feels it should be possible to implement such a ban without spending years trying to convince the population that black is white. She blames business failures under the smoking ban on a refusal to adapt to new conditions
Meanwhile Wiel Maessen explains his fight in the Netherlands to the Sun newspaper. Bars could not compete on an equal footing (in a so-called 'level playing field'), because they did not have to space to cater for people smoking outside, or the facilities to reorient their businesses. Claiming (credibly) that up to 80 per cent of Dutch believed smoking in public should be allowable, he states that the bans themselves are socially and psychologically damaging, and more so to 'the common man' (ordinary people) who felt excluded from social engagement by such a ban. Elif Dagli would have little sympathy with this argument, but I am sure most Turks would see exactly what he meant. 'Smoking kills' is a simple argument, but the issues around smoking bans are far from simple.
Wiel points out great disparities between penalties imposed in the UK and the Netherlands, and says that the Dutch have a different approach to enforcement in many areas.
The European Commission's current consultation on the 2001 Tobacco Directive includes questions in every area of tobacco regulation about whether laws and enforcement should be included in the directive or left to member states to regulate. The European Commission will not win itself many friends by insisting on Europe-wide conformity on smoking regulation.
Wednesday, 3 November 2010
Small bar exemptions to Dutch smoking ban formally announced
A formal announcement in the Dutch parliament confirmed that there will be an exemption to the smoking ban (first reported on this blog here), to include any bar below 70 square metres and without employees. Fines so far issued will be allowed to lapse, meaning that the ban, for small one-operator businesses, is effectively in tatters.
This development is the result of determined opposition and effective lobbying from the Dutch hospitality industry . These people have not given up the fight, and will move on to defend the entire hospitality industry's right to entertain its customers properly.
Respect!
This development is the result of determined opposition and effective lobbying from the Dutch hospitality industry . These people have not given up the fight, and will move on to defend the entire hospitality industry's right to entertain its customers properly.
Respect!
Wednesday, 29 September 2010
Dutch ban for small pubs lifted again (what happened to Scotland?)
Dutch small bars are celebrating the lifting of a smoking ban that was first imposed in 2008. The ban still applies to any outlet that employs staff, but any enterprise in the hospitality sector without staff is free to allow smoking.
Since the ban was ostensibly imposed on the grounds of protecting staff, one-man operators fought it on the grounds that they had no staff needing protection. Partial success in the courts last year led to a temporary lifting of the ban on such operations, but these judgements were overturned and the ban became general once again, but it has never been effectively enforced. This week's change has come from a new Dutch government – only just formed several weeks after the general election on 9 June.
Dutch bar owners, apart from not enforcing the ban, have also made their feelings known in other ways. They are well organised, and in a sensible way: i.e. the small bars have banded together as they have had a specific campaign regarding the smoking ban.
What has happened in Scotland and the UK? Dominated by chains and breweries, the fight for licensees since the ban struck their pockets has focussed on tied licences and (happily for the government) supermarket prices. It is never easy to get the powers that be to admit that the licensed trade, rendered unfit for purpose to up to half its customers by the smoking ban, has suffered thereby. And since some venues have stood to gain at the expense of their smaller neighbours, the trade has itself been divided.
In reports on the recent study that demonstrated the damage done by the smoking ban (in Scotland as well as the rest of the UK) the response from Paul Waterson of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association is lukewarm if not downright disappointing. Here, he says that pubs have been hit by the smoking ban, but not what an absolute travesty the ban is, and he does not recommend a review.
Even before the ban became law, the SLTA's stance was conciliatory rather than defiant. They declared they had compromise proposals on the table. Regrettably this proves to have been too genteel an approach to the enemies that were pushing at the door. What kind of bargaining counter is a 'compromise proposal'? Now that the Scottish Government's anti-smoking agenda has proved anything but genteel, bodies like the Scottish Licensed Trade Association must grow teeth and defend their members' choice of customers be respected. How is it to any licensee's advantage to be forced to put customers outside?
Weil Maessen, who represents the Dutch small bar umbrella organisation KHO, reminds us that the fight is not over until the whole hospitality sector regains choice. Brilliant: not just defiant but intelligent and prepared to deploy strategy and keep fighting!
Since the ban was ostensibly imposed on the grounds of protecting staff, one-man operators fought it on the grounds that they had no staff needing protection. Partial success in the courts last year led to a temporary lifting of the ban on such operations, but these judgements were overturned and the ban became general once again, but it has never been effectively enforced. This week's change has come from a new Dutch government – only just formed several weeks after the general election on 9 June.
Dutch bar owners, apart from not enforcing the ban, have also made their feelings known in other ways. They are well organised, and in a sensible way: i.e. the small bars have banded together as they have had a specific campaign regarding the smoking ban.
What has happened in Scotland and the UK? Dominated by chains and breweries, the fight for licensees since the ban struck their pockets has focussed on tied licences and (happily for the government) supermarket prices. It is never easy to get the powers that be to admit that the licensed trade, rendered unfit for purpose to up to half its customers by the smoking ban, has suffered thereby. And since some venues have stood to gain at the expense of their smaller neighbours, the trade has itself been divided.
In reports on the recent study that demonstrated the damage done by the smoking ban (in Scotland as well as the rest of the UK) the response from Paul Waterson of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association is lukewarm if not downright disappointing. Here, he says that pubs have been hit by the smoking ban, but not what an absolute travesty the ban is, and he does not recommend a review.
Even before the ban became law, the SLTA's stance was conciliatory rather than defiant. They declared they had compromise proposals on the table. Regrettably this proves to have been too genteel an approach to the enemies that were pushing at the door. What kind of bargaining counter is a 'compromise proposal'? Now that the Scottish Government's anti-smoking agenda has proved anything but genteel, bodies like the Scottish Licensed Trade Association must grow teeth and defend their members' choice of customers be respected. How is it to any licensee's advantage to be forced to put customers outside?
Weil Maessen, who represents the Dutch small bar umbrella organisation KHO, reminds us that the fight is not over until the whole hospitality sector regains choice. Brilliant: not just defiant but intelligent and prepared to deploy strategy and keep fighting!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)