Doctors? Don't they make you sick!

The British Medical Association excelled itself yesterday. Not content with banning smoking in public places, it issued a new report (left) containing a number of "key recommendations" - for example, banning the display of cigarettes in shops and "encouraging" parents to "adopt" smoke-free homes if they smoke. The magic word used to justify such measures is 'children'. Like most people, I prefer not to see children smoking. Nor do I condone those who smoke around children, but I don't condemn them either.

Let's put this in perspective. Millions of children grew up surrounded by tobacco advertising and sponsorship (let alone cigarettes on display in shops), yet the majority of us chose not to smoke. Nor is smoking around children the worst offence in the world. An entire generation of children grew up in the Fifties and Sixties with adults smoking around them - and we are living longer than ever. (I'm not suggesting these two facts are connected, but you get my point!)

Anyway, if you're interested, here are those recommendations in full:

• Smoking cessation services should be targeted at high risk groups to include those in the lower socio-economic groups, pregnant mothers, those with mental health problems and children who are looked after by the state, in foster care or in institutional settings.
• Taxation on all tobacco products should be standardised and increased at higher than inflation rates to reduce the affordability and therefore availability of cigarettes.
• Cigarettes should not be displayed at the point of sale and tobacco vending machines should be banned.
• Legislation to ban the sale of packs of 10 cigarettes.
• Legislation raising the minimum age of sale of tobacco products to 18 should be introduced across the UK and strictly enforced.
• A licensing scheme, already in place for shops that wish to sell alcohol, should be introduced for tobacco.
  The UK governments should continue with country-wide media campaigns to inform the public about the health effects of exposure to second-hand smoke at home and in cars.
• Parents who smoke should be encouraged and helped to quit smoking, and to adopt smoke-free homes if they continue to smoke.

You can see where some of these proposals are leading:  (1) a ban on smokers as foster carers; (2) a ban on smoking at home and in cars; (3) an army of tobacco control officers to enforce the bans; (4) parents who smoke accused of "child abuse" etc etc.

What we are witnessing is a relentless, systematic assault on a significant minority of the population who are doing nothing worse than consuming a legal product. Ironically, some of these measures are sure to be counter-productive. Banning smoking in public places makes it MORE likely that people will smoke at home; increasing tobacco taxation further still is VERY likely to create a smuggling epidemic (it's happened before); banning the sale of packs of 10 cigarettes will hit those adults who want to cut down (possible on the road to quitting) because they will HAVE to buy a pack of 20. And you know what? They'll smoke 20 in the same time it would have taken them to smoke ten. It's called temptation and no government can legislate against that.

Meanwhile the BMA will continue its remorseless campaign to reduce smokers to the role of lepers, vilifying and stigmatising them until finally - browbeaten into submission - they quit the habit. If this is what the 'caring' medical profession has come to, God help us. And don't forget - today tobacco, tomorrow food and drink.

Getta pizza this

From the American Civil Liberties Union. Activate the sound on your computer and click HERE.

War on free speech

Iain Dale (left), one of Britain's most successful bloggers (and a friend of The Free Society), drew attention last week to EU legislation that will curb our right to free speech. "Its aim," he wrote, "is to make holocaust denial a criminal offence, but it has far reaching implications beyond that. I have never believed that you can legislate on people's thought processes. If someone believes the holocaust didn't exist they are clearly bonkers, but does that mean they should be banned from articulating that view? Surely the best way to defeat such idiots is to expose their specious arguments? That's what you do in a free society." I couldn't have put it better myself.

Smoking: problem solved

Former US paratrooper Greg Billingsly sent us the above image.  Greg points out that while the outgoing US Surgeon General's 2006 report called for a total ban on smoking in enclosed public places, it also admitted, in a section called 'Technological Strategies for Controlling Secondhand Smoke', that there ARE ventilation technologies available to minimise the (alleged) hazards of secondhand smoke:

"The concept is straightforward: process a portion of the air locally and remove secondhand smoke constituents with commonly used devices mounted on ceilings. The devices use the principle of electrostatic precipitation to remove particles or a series of filters to remove particles and odors. New devices have become available recently and include ultraviolet-activated photo catalytic systems that oxidize vapor phase organic compounds. With the addition of filters to this configuration, these devices could also remove particles. However, widespread application of these systems to effectively control secondhand smoke exposure in buildings has not yet been demonstrated."

In other words, the technology exists to accommodate smokers without inconveniencing non-smokers - but it hasn't been fully utilised. One solution is to insist that proprietors who want to accommodate smokers have to apply for a license. In order to get that license they would have to install an approved ventilation system. If some businesses can't afford the technology - tough. They'll just have to be non-smoking. But that shouldn't be a problem. After all, how many times have we been told that smoking bans are good for business? The UK may have ignored this option but we are hopeful that the EU will take a more pragmatic view when it considers submissions to its Green Paper Consultation, ‘Towards a Europe free from tobacco smoke: policy options at EU level’. Don't bet on it, though.

The bigger picture

Having started the thread ('Can you Adam and Eve it?', April 17th), I feel I ought to come to the defence of Rob Simpson who is currently under fire (in the comments section) for defending smokers' rights. Richard Canzio, for example, argues that "To use smoking as a platform for the erosion of freedom ... is quite frankly self-indulgent. There are far more worrying issues that affect everyone." Yes, Richard, there ARE far more important issues than the right to smoke in a pub or private members' club but if, like me, you believe in individual freedom, personal responsibility and market forces, there are some important principles at stake.

As a non-smoker, I believe the smoking issue is important on a number of levels, not least the fraudulent nature of the passive smoking campaign. If it's OK to exaggerate and mislead people about the effects of passive smoking (which I'm convinced the government is doing), how can we be surprised when we're misled about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? If politicians are allowed to play fast and loose with the truth on issues like secondhand smoke, how can we complain when lying spinning becomes a habit?

I want to live in a liberal, tolerant democracy. Banning smoking in EVERY indoor public place may not matter to many, but it is neither liberal nor tolerant. It's not even democratic. Non-smokers may be in a majority but poll after poll, including government-funded research, has consistently found that an overwhelming majority of people in the UK - when given a range of options rather than a simple 'Yes', 'No' - favour a choice of smoking and non-smoking facilities in pubs, clubs and bars.

Society changes and attitudes towards smoking have been changing for 30-40 years. It's the pace of change that I object to because it's not based on public opinion, which is relatively benign on the issue, nor market forces. It's driven by a small but vociferous group of well-organised, well-funded campaigners who represent no-one but themselves. Meanwhile they are supported by craven politicians who by actively seeking to stigmatise a substantial section of the population are going way beyond their remit in a free society. (Whatever happened to education, education, education? In Blair's Britain it's become coercion, coercion, coercion.)

I'm not sure if this a good analogy, but there were those who argued that the Falkland Islands were not important enough to defend by going to war. At the time many of us believed that we were right to fight because, had we not, it would have given the wrong signal to rogue states throughout the world and a loss of freedom for the Falkland islanders could have been the catalyst for a series of land grabs by dictatorships and other regimes throughout the world. We'll never know because we won that particular battle.

The point is, if people are not prepared to defend relatively minor freedoms, you may one day lose a far more precious freedom that DOES matter to you. That is why we have set up The Free Society. We want to show that there is a link between the war on tobacco and what many of us perceive to be an erosion of freedom in other areas. The idea is to establish a loose coalition of genuine (not phoney) libertarians who understand the need for less not more government involvement in our daily lives and have the integrity to defend things that they themselves have no direct interest in. That's our big idea. Smoking is a small but important part of it.

Songs for swinging smokers

Further to the previous item, Forest has also joined forces with Boisdale to produce a CD featuring no fewer than 20 smoking-related songs. Entitled You Can’t Do That!, the CD includes classics such as Smoke, Smoke, Smoke That Cigarette, Smoke Gets In Your Eyes, and Giving Up Giving Up. It also features a new song, I'm Going Outside, with lyrics by acclaimed playwright and screenwriter Alan Plater. All songs are performed by the Boisdale Blue Rhythm Band who played at our 'Politics and Prohibition' party at last year's Conservative party conference.

The CD will be released ahead of the public smoking ban on July 1st and will be distributed to journalists, broadcasters and politicians to promote both the dinner and our message that the ban is unnecessarily severe and that opposition to the ban remains both vocal and visible. It will also be used to generate support for Forest and The Free Society among musicians, artists and patrons of Boisdale. Friends of Forest will receive a copy; so too will every guest at the Savoy (see below).

Dinner with destiny

I spent yesterday morning at the Savoy Hotel in London. Together with Ranald Macdonald of Boisdale we were negotiating the terms of what, sadly, will be an historic occasion - possibly the last major public event in England where guests can smoke indoors while they are eating, drinking and enjoying the finest entertainment! Organised by Boisdale, Forest and The Free Society, 'You Can't Do That!' will be advertised as a 'freedom dinner' with guest speakers, live music and other attractions. Provisional date: Tuesday 19th June from 7.30pm. Tickets available from 1st May. Watch this space for more details.

Would you Adam and Eve it?

Dr Luke Clancy is chairman of ASH Ireland. I've met him once or twice and I quite like him. Like many anti-smokers he means well and genuinely wants to improve the health of his nation. Unfortunately, like the good Samaritan who insists on helping the old lady across the road when she is perfectly happy where she is, he and his ilk go too far.

Yesterday it was reported that a study by a team from the Research Institute for a Tobacco Free Society in Dublin, led by Clancy, had found that "the smoking ban in Ireland has cut air pollution in pubs and improved bar-workers' health". (Full report HERE.) The study was (of course) widely reported yet a simple glance at the press release should have alerted even the most gullible health correspondent. By their own admission, the team relied on "volunteers"  whose evidence consisted of "self-reported workplace exposure" and "self-reported health symptoms". And we're supposed to take this study seriously???!!!

It's hardly rocket science to conclude that smoking bans reduce exposure to airborne carcinogens. However it's the dose that makes the poison and although secondhand smoke may increase our exposure to carcinogens, the concentration of particles is usually very small. The best ventilation systems (which tests show can remove up to 90% of all gases and particles from environmental tobacco smoke) reduce it even further.
 
Many people find a smoky environment unpleasant but that doesn't justify a ban on smoking in EVERY pub, club and bar in the country. Luke Clancy's feeble report should be condemned for what it is - junk science designed to justify an unnecessary and authoritarian piece of legislation. Similar "research" has appeared in Scotland. Expect more of the same within six or 12 months of the smoking ban in England.

Hedonism, Noi and moi

Cripes, as Boris Johnson would say. I've been invited to take part in a late night ‘speak easy’ on hedonism at the Institute of Contemporary Arts. According to the blurb, my fellow speakers on Friday 11th May include comedian Simon Munnery; Sebastian Horsley, writer and author of Dandy in the Underworld; John Noi, editor of Spektacle, a new-fashioned magazine that describes itself as ‘not for everyone but neither is good taste’; Travis Elborough, cultural commentator and author of The Bus We Loved: London's Affair With the Routemaster; Alexander Mayor of Alexander’s Festival Hall; and Sam Roddick, founder of "erotic emporium" Coco de Mer. For those who don't know, the ICA is just off The Mall. To book, click HERE.

PS. On May 17th, also at the ICA, the Straight Acting Theatre Company (above) will present "a mixture of music, theatre and live art that interrogates the queer term 'straight acting' particularly in relation to English nationalism". Now THAT I would like to see.

The IPPR's brave new world

Hats off to the Institute for Public Policy Research. New Labour's most influential think-tank knows how to attract publicity. Writing in the latest issue of Public Policy Research, the IPPR magazine, Observer columnist Jasper Gerrard says that Britain should consider raising the legal drinking age to 21. Failing that, he suggests making 18-year-olds carry smart cards "which record how much they have drunk each night and making it an offence to serve more alcohol to anyone under-21 who had already consumed more than three units". (Full report HERE.)

Can Gerrard be serious? Sadly, I think he is. Nor is he alone. His proposal is similar to one put forward by a doctor in Scotland who last year suggested that people should be limited to three units of alcohol when they go to the pub. The idea was dismissed as ludicrous and impractical but, thanks to Gerrard, the idea has resurfaced  but with one significant 'improvement' - the smart card. Of course the idea is still ridiculous - and worryingly authoritarian - but others will no doubt repeat it in the hope that it gets taken up by campaigners and politicians who are either on a mission to 'protect' us from ourselves or will do anything to justify their existence.

Meanwhile, keep an eye on the IPPR. Earlier this month Simon Retallack, the organisation's head of climate change, called for tobacco style health warnings to be displayed on holiday ads, warning people about the possible damage that flights and cars will do to the environment. What next? A ban on short-haul flights? Weekend breaks abroad? Or perhaps we'll be issued with a smart card that monitors how far we've travelled by car or plane and prevents us from going any further once we've reached our 'limit'.

Shisha cafes face extinction

Keri Remes of the magnificently named High-Life Hookahs sent me this image of Blair, Bush and Bin Laden. Keri is one of many people trying to persuade the government to exempt shisha cafes from the smoking ban. A couple of weeks ago I was invited to a press conference hosted by Ibrahim El-Nour of the Edgware Road Association in London. Ibrahim's impassioned plea included the points that:

"Shisha smoking is a social activity enjoyed by different age groups in a happy environment. It is an alternative culture that reflects the diversity of British society today.  Its popularity is reflected in the prevalence of shisha cafes in many major cities and towns in England, Wales and Scotland. For many young people, from all walks of life, who do not drink or frequent bars and pubs, the main leisure and social activity is to visit a shisha cafe. Here, they can socialise, debate and discuss their affairs without being intoxicated, introduced to drugs or subjected to violence and anti-social behaviour."

This late attempt to secure an exemption for what are essentially smokers' clubs will almost certainly fall on deaf ears because the anti-smoking agenda is now so extreme that 'tolerance', 'compromise', even 'culture', are dirty words. Nothing can be allowed to dilute the impact of the ban which is designed not just to 'protect' barworkers but force people to give up a legal consumer product.

Shisha bars are unlikely survive the ban because, unlike a pub or a restaurant, the principal activity is smoking a shisha pipe. In New York, shisha bars are exempt from the ban. Sadly, in Blair's Britain, few people seem to care that an entire culture is about to be destroyed.

Financial freedom: money talks

I am currently reading Piers Morgan's new book, Don't You Know Who I Am?. I enjoyed his previous diary, The Insider, and I very nearly named this blog The Outsider as a sort of tongue-in-cheek homage. There is something about Morgan I rather like. He may be a (self-confessed) prat at times but I admire his energy, his cheek and his effervescent style of writing. I even have a sneaking regard for his apparent shallowness and persistent name-dropping.

Early in the book he recalls an interview, in June 2005, with Simon Cowell. Describing a moment in his life, ten years earlier, when a record company he had invested in went bust and he found himself completely broke, Cowell said:

"There was a weird sense of freedom at having absolutely zilch but still having the energy and desire to change my life for the better. I got rid of my house and swapped my Porsche for a £7,000 car I'd paid cash for, but that didn't embarrass me. It was just the way it was ... I vowed then never to borrow money again. If I could afford something, I would pay cash for it; if I couldn't, I would wait. In an odd way, it was a very good thing for me."

The book doesn't explore this issue further (nor should it) but perhaps we can. In a week when it has been revealed that in order to get on the property ladder some people are having to borrow up to six times their annual salary, future generations could find themselves in a financial straitjacket that may have serious repercussions for individual freedom. On the other hand (thanks in no small part to our ability to borrow surprisingly large sums of money), those of us who are not cash rich have the freedom to buy a new car, enjoy expensive holidays or indulge in home improvements that may have been denied to previous generations.

BTW, Simon Cowell is another man I admire. Neither he nor Morgan is a saint, nor do they pretend to be. Morgan likes a drink, Cowell likes a smoke. Together they would make excellent patrons of The Free Society. Watch this space. 

Care to comment?

It's two weeks since we launched this blog and I'd like to thank those who have taken the time and trouble to post a comment. Compared to the Forest website, which attracts almost 3,000 visitors a day, traffic has been relatively slow but I am sure that will improve, especially when the blog is combined with The Free Society website when it goes live next month.

In the meantime I am delighted that, to date, almost every comment has been thoughtful and considered. What we are trying to do is create a lively forum that will develop into a platform for those with libertarian beliefs who find themselves disenfranchised or unrepresented in the current political climate. At the same time we want to encourage serious debate (and a few laughs) so feel free to take issue with me or your fellow posters.

This is a long-term project. I hope that, in time, we can create an extended family with 'relatives' and friends throughout the UK and beyond. If you care to comment on any of the issues raised here, please do so. The sooner we can spark intelligent debate, the sooner people will sit up, take notice, and enable The Free Society to achieve its objectives.

Website of the week

As advertised on the Scotsman website. Click on image above or HERE. Well, it made me laugh.

Big Brother is watching you

In response to a previous post, Caty Crawford writes: "What do people think about the news that more CCTV cameras are to be fitted with loudspeakers to allow security staff to chastise people who, for example, litter? Is it just coincidental that the Government has announced this ahead of the smoking ban?"

'Talking' CCTV cameras are nothing new. Petrol stations have had them for years, the idea being that if anyone has a problem operating the pump a member of staff can guide them through the process without leaving the till. Of course, most people now know how to operate a self-service pump so the system is very rarely used, but it did happen to me once and the sound of an anonymous, disembodied voice barking orders via a concealed speaker is quite disorientating.

Meanwhile some hospitals have already invested public money installing similar systems to stop people dropping fags ends outside the building. The irony is that increased litter is one of the consequences of banning smoking in all enclosed public places; and in order to counteract that, the authorities have to employ more officials, install more CCTV cameras, issue more fines, and so it goes on.

Many people - Home Secretary John Reid among them - will argue that if you do nothing wrong 'talking' CCTV cameras won't affect you. But there's a bigger issue here - the fact that someone, somewhere, is watching, waiting to chastise you if you put a foot out of place. I'm not condoning those who drop litter or engage in other anti-social activities, but surely education is better than this oppressive, Big Brother approach?

A few months ago Austin Williams, who runs the excellent Future Cities Project, put the explosion of CCTV cameras like this: imagine that instead of a CCTV camera on every corner, a policeman with a pair of binoculars is watching and recording your every move. Viewed in that light, CCTV cameras take on a very different complexion.