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.

Don't let science get in the way of a good policy

So says one Ray Pawson in the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association and reported here. This English-educated high flier in sociology concludes that although there is too much complex evidence to come to a sure conclusion about the level of exposure and the harm it will do, there is enough evidence to warrant the passing of legislation to prevent anyone from smoking in a car with a child in it.

A further account goes as follows:

While trying to determine the risks involved, the authors first looked at the mixture of chemicals that make up second-hand smoke and its concentration in cars under different conditions such as volume, speed and ventilation. Second, they looked at how long a person would be in the car. Third, they observed how long a person would be exposed to the second-hand smoke. Fourth, the extent of difference between how second-hand smoke affects children compared to adults was added to the risk equation and finally, the authors looked at the health impact, which is hard to determine because of all the different chemicals and toxins a person is exposed to in their lifetime.

I can't find much in the composition of smoke to get excited about: the diagram shows that smoke is about 90 per cent air and about 10 per cent a combination of other gases (further discussion here if you're interested). The account continues:

"Policy based on science and evidence has to exist amid uncertainty and this is managed by acknowledging the contingencies," write the authors. "Thus, i) because of the confirmed [confined?] cabin space, and ii) under the worst ventilation conditions, and iii) in terms of peak contamination, the evidence permits us to say that smoking in cars generates fine particulate concentrations that are, iv) very rarely experienced in the realm of air-quality studies, and that will thus constitute a significant health risk because, v) exposure to smoking in cars is still commonplace , and vi) children are particularly susceptible and vii) are open to further contamination if their parents are smokers."

 In the absence of any evidence on the smoke exposure levels in any individual car but taking a worst-case scenario, the authors attempt to pass this off as 'science', and use it to justify a policy that prohibits smoking in cars. They are correct (if this table is to be believed) that particulates of smoke are exceptionally fine (although the word 'concentrations' puzzles me as this depends entirely on the amount of smoking and air exchange). But calling this approach 'policy based on science and evidence' is taking the mick, when they're also saying that actual evidence isn't necessary.

I can't help feeling that the anti-smoking campaign did things the wrong way round if it wanted to convince us that it cares about children. First it went for smoking in the workplace and in pubs, in spite of warnings that people would smoke more at home. The rationale was to protect the workers. Only having achieved this did it start on protecting children in private spaces, with some local authorities prohibiting foster carers from smoking at home (claiming a stake in the shape of the children's health) and now cars are under discussion.

A policy based on children's health would have gone all out to make the claims about children first. This didn't happen because it would have meant an immediate intrusion on private space. The way it was done was the politically acceptable way: it has meant gazillions of car journeys have taken place in the meantime with children fully exposed to secondary smoke.

Not that I think it's done them any damage, or the ones exposed to smoke from their foster parents. If there is a genuine health issue many parents will respond to it by controlling smoke, but why disempower people with this 'no safe level of secondary smoke' nonsense?

If it comes to it, there's no safe level of anything.

Understanding the business of selling tobacco

Who knows more about selling tobacco. These people?

Or these people?

My vote goes to the former crowd. They sell tobacco, alongside other consumer commodities. They buy it every few days and sell it every day. The survival of their livelihoods depends on understanding the market environment, in tobacco and whatever else they sell.

They also believe in upholding the law around purchasing age. They make use of No ID No Sale (devised by the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association), a campaign designed to encourage age verification at the point of sale.

What about the British Heart Foundation? On the face of it they are an organisation designed to make the public aware of heart health. Nothing wrong with that. In this instance however they are using charitable donations to promote the tobacco display ban, which is a real waste of money when their expertise is not in the tobacco trade. Considering that many people who are in the tobacco trade consider that the display ban will make bootleggers stronger and sales to young people harder to control, they are using public funds to back a loser. And they claim (either in naive ignorance or untruthfully) that only the tobacco industry disagrees with their approach to the tobacco trade. In an era where universal benefits are about to be sacrificed on the altar of cost efficiency, just how stupid is this?

No doubt the British Heart Foundation works very hard to maintain its revenue stream, which is substantial (its Annual report is downloadable here). Their survival depends on successful fundraising (and significantly, legacy fundraising), running profitable second-hand shops and canny investments.

But it relies on naive arguments for its tobacco policies. There is no evidence that the display ban will work (I know I linked to this piece already but really, what are these people doing passing laws without knowing they will make any difference?)