New York to ban smoking in parks and pedestrian areas

I reported last year that New York City's health commissioner Dr Thomas Farley wanted to ban smoking in the city's parks and beaches.

This week the Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg announced proposals to ban smoking in parks, beaches and some "car-free" pedestrian areas of New York such as Times Square.

This is a pretty dispiriting statement for anyone to make, let alone a bright guy like Bloomberg. Forget for a moment the arguments about smoking indoors. When does anyone ever experience "prolonged exposure" to environmental tobacco smoke outside?

Seriously, I am trying very hard to think of a single scenario in which this could happen and I can't think of one that doesn't involve bondage.

I have only visited New York once - five years ago in the heat and humidity of July. There's a lot to like about the place but this sort of control freakery, bordering on fanaticism, doesn't paint the city in a good light.

While I was there I did all the usual tourist things - Empire State Building, Central Park, Statue of Liberty, Spamalot. The Immigration Museum on Ellis Island in New York Harbor was my favourite attraction because it provides such a fascinating insight into the 20 million immigrants who travelled to the New World in often appalling conditions. (Some were too ill to be accepted and were sent back.)

Millions were trying to escape poverty, starvation or political oppression in Europe and elsewhere. I wouldn't pretend that smoking bans are in the same league, but prohibiting smoking in the open air amid spurious claims about the effects of exposure to ETS outdoors is hardly cause for celebration in a so-called free country.

Full story HERE.

See also: An Englishman in New York

Update on Friday, September 17, 2010 by Simon Clark

Let's hope the same thing doesn't happen in London and other British cities. Boris may not be the laissez faire politician he once was but I can't imagine him pushing for a ban on smoking in parks and pedestrian areas.

Ken Livingstone, on the other hand, wanted a public smoking ban in London long before the Labour Government introduced a nationwide ban - one of many good reasons, in my view, to back Boris for re-election as Mayor in May 2012.

How the media works

I am so cheesed off about the coverage of the child asthma admissions story (sample headline: "Scottish smoking ban cuts childhood asthma attacks" - Reuters) that I fired off an email to one health correspondent who shall remain nameless.

I will never forget the time this particular journalist begged me to give them an exclusive comment, minutes after I came out of a meeting with the then Health Secretary John Reid. I couldn't say much because I had promised to keep our meeting private. (Little did I know that Reid's advisors were at that very minute briefing the media about our discussion!)

Nevertheless, I helped this person with their story, but has that help ever been reciprocated? What do you think?!

Anyway, here is this morning's testy little exchange:

From: simon@forestonline.org
Subject: Child asthma admissions
Date: 16 September 2010 08:40 BST
To: xxxxx

Disappointed you didn't ask us [Forest] for a quote re the child asthma admissions story.

Did you read the report and see how the figures have been massaged? You might like to read about it HERE and HERE.

It is incredibly frustrating that you have not included a balancing comment.

----------

From: xxxxx
Subject: Re: Child asthma admissions
Date: 16 September 2010 10:10 BST
To: simon@forestonline.org

If you are aware of a study, then please don't wait to be asked to supply a comment in future.

----------

From: simon@forestonline.org
Subject: Re: Child asthma admissions
Date: 16 September 2010 10:40 BST
To: xxxxx

I wasn't aware of it until late yesterday afternoon when the Daily Mail contacted me. Strangely enough we are not sent press releases by the tobacco control lobby for the simple reason that they don't want us to comment. Your job is to be a bit more balanced.

----------

From: xxxxx
Subject: Re: Child asthma admissions
Date: 16 September 2010 10:41 BST
To: simon@forestonline.org

Well, I'm here well into the evening so feel free to contact whenever you become aware of something you want to comment on.

And thanks for reminding what my job is. Much appreciated.

----------

From: simon@forestonline.org
Subject: Re: Child asthma admissions
Date: 16 September 2010 10:46 BST
To: xxxxx

Someone has to.

I'm really angry about this. Do you not read these studies? Your report is taken almost word for word from the press release. I know you're a health correspondent and rely on the tobacco control lobby for stories but it's disgraceful to run such a one-sided story when you must know that the figures have been massaged beyond belief.

One journalist I spoke to told me he was "sceptical" about the figures but his paper felt "obliged" to run the story. Is that [your] position too?

----------

From: xxxxx
Subject: Re: Child asthma admissions
Date: 16 September 2010 10:49 BST
To: simon@forestonline.org

Here is the contact for the Glasgow University press officer who I am sure would put you on their mailing list so you are aware of future stories you may want to comment on. Hope that is helpful.

Er, thanks. (I already had those details anyway.)

Perhaps I'm in danger of burning my bridges with certain journalists but I am really fed up with the way some of them go about their job.

When I made a similar complaint to another health correspondent recently she replied:

Before you get shirty with me, I can tell you that your comment was filed as soon as you sent it. 5.30pm. I assume it wasn't used for reasons of space as it came so late.

I pointed out that the reason she got our quote "so late" was because she hadn't contacted us for comment and we only heard about the story when the BBC alerted us to it a few minutes earlier.

The idea that the tobacco control lobby will send press releases in advance to Forest is naive to say the least. I wouldn't send ASH or the BMA a Forest press release in advance but I'll tell you this - I don't have to because I know damn well that journalists will do that job for me.

So this is how it works:

1. If we are very lucky a journalist will send us a press release with the results of new "research" plus the report on which it is based one or two days in advance (if it is embargoed) and ask us for a comment. That gives us time to read the report, consider our response, and issue our own statement.

2. If we are reasonably lucky a journalist will send us a press release with the results of new "research" one or two hours ahead of the late afternoon deadline that most daily newspapers have and ask us for a comment. This gives us a bit of time for a considered response but it's harder, at that stage, to get our statement picked up by a wider audience.

3. If we are merely lucky we will be asked for a response to a tobacco control story minutes before the deadline when there is barely time for a considered response and virtually no time to write and release our own statement and get it to other media outlets.

4. If we are unlucky journalists won't bother to contact us at all.

In fact, as you can see, some journalists no longer seem to think it's their job to phone us (or anyone else). Instead we're supposed to be mind readers. Somehow, without anyone contacting us or sending us the relevant press release or report, we're supposed to know that the anti-smoking industry has issued a new decree or study or whatever, and we're expected to call journalists with a comment on a story we don't even know exists!!

Yes, I know that journalists are increasingly stretched and don't have time to make the calls they might have done in the past. Some stories, however, demand a response, and today's report about child asthma and the smoking ban was one of them.

PS. Do I think it's a lost cause? Absolutely not. It's a challenge that I enjoy (even on days like today!) and I for one have no intention of giving up. Onwards and upwards!

Has the smoking ban reduced child asthma admissions?

Yesterday I was asked by the Scottish Daily Mail to comment on a new study by the Centre for Population Health Studies at the University of Glasgow that claims that child asthma admissions have dropped 18 per cent per year in Scotland since the introduction of the smoking ban.

Superficially the press release seemed quite plausible:

The rate of hospitalisations for children with asthma in Scotland has dropped by more than 18 per cent year-on-year since the introduction of the ban on smoking in public places in 2006, according to scientists.

Before the smoking ban came into force, admissions for asthma were increasing at a mean rate of 5.2 per cent a year. After the ban, admissions decreased by 18.2 per cent per year, relative to the rate on March 26, 2006.

Professor Pell said: "The aim of the study was to determine whether the smoking ban produced benefits for people who do not have occupational exposure to tobacco smoke. We found a reduction in asthma admissions among both preschool and school-age children.

"It is clear that smoke-free legislation has resulted in a reduction in the rate of respiratory disease in populations other than those with occupational exposure to environmental tobacco smoke."

But wait. Professor Pell has history. It was her study in 2007 that suggested that the smoking ban was responsible for a big cut in heart attack admissions in Scotland. Not everyone agreed - see Has the smoking ban reduced heart attacks by Tessa Mayes in the Spectator (October 2007) and Health fears go up in smoke by Chris Snowdon, published by Spiked (December 2008).

Anyway, let's take a closer look at Jill Pell's latest study. On page 36 there's a graph and it shows the daily hospital admissions for asthma among children between January 2000 and October 2009:

2000 ..... 2391
2001 ..... 2142
2002 ..... 2034
2003 ..... 1803
2004 ..... 2621
2005 ..... 2103
2006 ..... 2633
2007 ..... 2056
2008 ..... 2235
2009 ..... 1397

Let's re-jig that list with the smallest number of hospital admissions at the top and the largest number at the bottom:

2009 ..... 1397
2003 ..... 1803
2002 ..... 2034
2007 ..... 2056
2005 ..... 2103
2001 ..... 2142
2008 ..... 2235
2000 ..... 2391
2004 ..... 2621
2006 ..... 2633

If Jill Pell is correct in her assertion that "It is clear that smoke-free legislation has resulted in a reduction in the rate of respiratory disease in populations other than those with occupational exposure to environmental tobacco smoke" you would expect the years 2006-2009 to be at the top of the table because the smoking ban was introduced in Scotland in March 2006.

But they're not. They are spread evenly over the period. In fact, some of the years with the lowest hospital admissions for child asthma were before the smoking ban!!

According to Professor Pell's own study there is only one year in which hospital admissions for child asthma fell substantially and that is 2009, a full three years after the smoking ban was introduced.

Given this evidence I defy any reasonable person to state with conviction that the smoking ban (a) caused the sudden drop in admissions in 2009 or (b) is responsible for lowering child asthma admissions in Scotland.

Anyway, here's the comment I eventually gave the Scottish Daily Mail:

"This study doesn't prove anything. We're told that child asthma admissions have dropped 18 per cent per year since the smoking ban, yet their own figures show that, prior to the smoking ban in March 2006, admissions were more often than not lower than after the ban.

"The only significant drop in admissions took place in 2009, three years after the smoking ban. It would extremely foolish, based on these figures, to assume that the smoking ban was primarily responsible.

"This is another example of figures being massaged to justify a draconian piece of legislation that has helped to close 700 pubs in Scotland and ruined a great many people's social lives."

If he hasn't done so already Chris Snowdon will be posting a rather fuller analysis on his blog Velvet Glove Iron Fist.

Update: Chris has posted HERE.

Update on Thursday, September 16, 2010 by Simon Clark

The Mail didn't use my quote but I'll let you into a little secret. The reporter told me that he was "sceptical" about Jill Pell's study but the paper felt "obliged" to run with it.

Update on Thursday, September 16, 2010 by Simon Clark

Needless to say the story has been picked up by an unquestioning media. The Scotsman, for example, has it HERE. You can comment. Pathetic.

Smoking ban hits Irish pubs too

Forest Eireann has just issued a press release commenting on the Smoking Gun report commissioned by the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign and widely reported in the Scottish media last week. It follows a report, reported by the Irish media this week, that "The pub trade is experiencing a 'meltdown' with sales down by more than 14 per cent in the first seven months of the year" .

The story was based on figures from the Drinks Industry Group of Ireland whose group secretary talked about ongoing “cost pressure” generated by government-related costs such as commercial rates and regulation.

Forest Eireann's press release informs us that:

Using data from the Revenue Commissioners, researchers found that the number of pub losses demonstrate a very close statistical relationship between the introduction of the smoking ban in 2004 and the rapid decline of the Irish pub ...

Analysis of statistics set out in the Statistical Report on the Revenue website showed that Ireland lost 1,097 pubs in the four years immediately following the ban.

Researchers found a striking similarity between the rate of closures in Ireland following the ban, and those in Scotland, England and Wales following theirs – despite considerable differences between the pub traditions.

Full press release HERE. I have posted a comment on the Forest Eireann blog and would welcome your comments HERE.

Comment moderation

In view of some of the comments that have appeared on a previous thread I have introduced comment moderation. I will update your comments as quickly as I can. It's a pain but it had to be done. Hopefully it won't be for long. On the other hand, perhaps I should have done this years ago!

Lawyer in hiding from ASH

From Australia via the Irish Independent and Forest Eireann. Click HERE.

Btw, don't you think the ASH Australia logo (left) is so much better than the logos used by their counterparts in England, Scotland and Ireland? It's not just the wisp of smoke, it actually looks like a cigarette packet!

Beware conspiracy theorists

Three days ago someone called "Jed" posted a comment on my post about Green MP Caroline Lucas. It was 600+ words which annoyed me because it was only last week that I reminded readers to keep comments short and to the point.

(Note: this isn't a hard and fast rule. If the comment is well written and informative and justifies a greater number of words I'm happy to be flexible.)

Significantly however there was no reference either to my post or any of the preceding comments. It appeared to be a standalone article about tobacco control with the usual stuff about the Nazis (yawn). So I deleted it.

A few hours later it reappeared, posted this time by "Sid". I deleted it again.

On Saturday night the same article was posted for a third time. This time it was posted by "arold" and there was an additional comment that sounded (to me) like a threat:

Until you can give me a reason not to post this I will continue to post it and embarrass you.

Charming.

Normally I don't respond to this sort of thing because it merely adds fuel to the fire but on this occasion I thought it would be impolite not to offer an explanation. So yesterday I posted the following comment:

You are entitled to your opinion, although this is not a blog that encourages conspiracy theories or references to National Socialists in relation to tobacco control.

The reason for deleting your original comment was because I had just posted a reminder asking people to limit comments to 200 words and yours was 600+. If you want to submit an article or a guest blog please do so and I will consider it for publication here or on our Free Society website ...

You also posted using several different computers whilst employing at least three different names (none of which, I assume, are your own), which set alarm bells ringing. Oh, and you then threaten to "embarrass" me if I don't publish your comment. Nice.

I guess this is my grumpy old man moment. Fact is, I'm too old to be embarrassed and I'm too old to put up with someone threatening me on my own blog. I'm old school and this blog comes with a set of house rules. If you don't like them I politely suggest that you find a blog or other forum that is more accommodating. There are thousands to choose from.

A couple of hours later "arold" posted a further comment:

Just trying to point out that blocking me from the site due to my reasonable post was strange AND it will be easy for me to reboot and continue posting. Now surely blocking me several times for what I have posted is unreasonable Simon. I can only conclude that the post ruffles to [sic] many feathers.

I had no idea that you can reboot a computer and acquire a new IP address to foil people who do not want to be followed online. (Sounds a bit spooky to me.) But it got me doing a bit of research because it suggested that my new acquaintance may have previous experience of avoiding pesky access filters and I wondered why that might be.

This is what I discovered.

A simple Google search revealed that the "comment" posted on this blog on Friday had already been published in June 2009 on a largely inactive US website called the Open Free Press. From there I found a link to the original source, an American blog called Pragmatic Witness.

Pragmatic Witness is the work of someone hiding behind the name of Whitewraithe. Until recently Whitewraith had a second blog, No One Has Jurisdiction For The Truth. This was discontinued on August 25, 2010, when readers were directed to "visit my new blog Coldeye".

Coldeye is introduced as follows:

My new blog will endeavor to uncover and reveal the alleged extraterrestrial agenda (exo-politics) and its correlation to the orchestrated program by the shadowy world elite to destroy The United States of America and usher in "their" new world order.

I've no idea what that's about and I don't intend to find out. Life's too short.

The nature of Pragmatic Witness is characterised by an article entitled 9/11 and the Zionised Events. According to Whitewraithe, it's "one of the finest articles I’ve ever read on 'the' issue of the century". Posted on Saturday it begins:

The Mega-Terror of Sept 11 was the starting gun for the last lap in the Zionist International Jewry’s race to its major End Goals. This hidden Cabal of anti-God, anti-Humanity Zionist Jews has been stealthily but methodically marching on for centuries toward diabolical goals that it has been also refining and expanding all along.

A quick scroll reveals a series of similar posts.

Meanwhile, writing on Taking Liberties yesterday, my unwelcome visitor commented:

Now anyone with any sense knows 9/11 was an inside job and the end game is Iran. Sad but true. It's a shame Simon deletes my posts and wants this facts [sic] hidden from the people.

I'm not sure how we jumped from tobacco control to the claim that 9/11 was an "inside job" but there you go.

Let me be clear, I am not a conspiracy theorist and I have a polite message for anyone who is: please do not to use this blog to promote your often bizarre fantasies. I don't want to block or moderate comments but I will if I have to.

Have a nice day.

Update on Monday, September 13, 2010 by Simon Clark

The plot thickens. According to her profile on MySpace, Whitewraithe is 52, female, and from Tennessee. She has now abandoned MySpace because of problems posting images (MySpace deleted them). YouTube isn't too keen on her videos either and her channel is no longer accessible. Fancy that!!

Furthermore I have just listened to a podcast in which Whitewraithe is interviewed as "Debra", although it is made clear that this isn't her real name either. The podcast is produced and presented by a man who we learn is at home in North Idaho, half naked because of the (rare) humidity, while his NINE children play outside.

You couldn't make this up. It's like an episode of Louis Theroux's Weird Weekends.

Anyway, Jed/Sid/arold is clearly NOT Whitewraithe aka "Debra". I've never heard a 52-year-old woman from Tennessee use the expression "Look it up old son" so I suspect that whoever it is lives closer to home and has simply copied a 15-month-old article from an anti-semitic website and dumped it on this blog - and the poor fellow wonders why I deleted it!!!

Ah, the joy of the world wide web ...

PS. Why do conspiracy theorists hide behind so many aliases? Say what you like about David Icke (one of Whitewraithe's MySpace friends) but at least he uses his own name.

Countdown to Bangalore

Breaking news ... further to a previous post, I have just had injections for typhoid, hepatitis A, diphtheria, tetanus and (I think) yellow fever. The nurse told me that my arms will be sore for the next 48 hours but, this morning, I only felt a little prick.

Update on Monday, September 13, 2010 by Simon Clark

"Why are you going to India?" asked the nurse.

"I'm speaking at a conference on tobacco," I replied. "I defend people who smoke."

Momentary pause.

"Everyone's got to have a job," she said brightly, sticking the needle in a little further.

Ouch.

Lady T and Nancy too

Highlight of the TaxPayers' Alliance dinner last night was not the speech by Dr Arthur B Laffer, good though it was, but the sight of Baroness Thatcher, 85 next month, meeting and greeting a long line of guests who were keen to pay their respects to the former prime minister.

What this picture (taken with my iPhone) doesn't show is the scrum that was going on around us as people jostled to get a better view. I think I did rather well to sneak in front of everyone.

In frail health, Lady T was unable to stay for dinner in the medieval Guildhall in the City of London, but her presence was felt throughout the evening, especially when Lord Forsyth, one of her closest political friends, got up to give his speech.

Michael Forsyth, as he then was, gave me my first job when I left university, but there were lots of familiar faces at last night's event, including one or two I haven't seen for years.

There was even a message from Nancy Reagan, still flying the flag for her husband after all these years.

Quite an evening. Who could ask for anything more?

2010 Great British Pub Awards

Just back from two days (and two nights) in London where I have been attending the Great British Pub Awards and, last night, the TaxPayers' Alliance Gala Dinner.

Two very different events but equally enjoyable. On Thursday 700 people descended on The Hilton, Park Lane, where a drinks reception was followed by dinner in the main ballroom. Star of the show was Lenny Henry who provided the after dinner entertainment as well as compering the awards ceremony.

Guests on our table included two MPs, Brian Binley and Philip Davies, and it was Brian who presented the Best Creative Outdoor Area award which was co-sponsored by JTI and the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign.

After that it was back to the (free) bar, with guests dancing to a fantastic covers band called MiB.

Above: Brian Binley MP with the owners of The White Horse, Brancaster Staithe, Norfolk, winners of the Best Creative Outdoor Area award sponsored by JTI and the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign.

Another day, another dinner

This is becoming a habit ... I'm at the Guildhall in London for my second black tie dinner in two days. (I hate wearing a dinner jacket and bow tie because they always feel too tight!!)

Tonight's event is the TaxPayers' Alliance Gala Dinner in the Great Hall (above). Guest speaker is Dr Arthur B. Laffer, creator of the 'Laffer Curve' and 'The Father of Supply-Side Economics'.

No, I've never heard of him either but it should be a good evening.

Must go. The champagne starts flowing in approximately five minutes ...

Government: no plans to extend smoking ban to private vehicles

Further to my post about Caroline Lucas and her parliamentary question about smoking in cars where children are present, the Government response is quite encouraging. Responding to the Green MP's written question, health minister Anne Milton has replied:

We have no plans to extend the smokefree law to private vehicles. Many families are now voluntarily making their homes and their cars smokefree, reducing their children's exposure to second-hand smoke. We will continue to urge parents to do this in encouraging them to take responsibility for their children's health. The Public Health White Paper due later this year will set out our priorities for action in this and other areas of tobacco control.

As it happens, this is precisely the point I have made, repeatedly, in interviews on the subject. Why ban smoking in cars where children are present, I have said, when the evidence suggests that the vast majority of parents no longer smoke in those circumstances.

To support my argument I cite opinion polls and many of the comments on this blog. (See Smoking in cars - by smokers, Taking Liberties, June 2010.)

Perhaps (steel yourselves) the Government is actually listening.

AWT: pubs need smokers

After yesterday's excitement the pub theme continues with the Morning Advertiser's Great British Pub Awards.

Antony Worrall Thompson - patron of Forest and a leading supporter of the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign - is unable to attend the event in London tonight. Instead, he has written an open letter (above) to the 700 guests who are attending the event at The Hilton, Park Lane.

He writes:

The smoking ban has been a disaster for many pubs and you can understand why. Pubs used to be places where adults could meet and chat over a pint without the health police looking over their shoulders.

It may be unfashionable to say so but pubs need smokers and we must do as much as we can to accommodate them. If the Government won’t amend the legislation we must, at the very least, insist that ministers relax the regulations on outside smoking shelters so customers can enjoy a drink and a smoke in comfort.

Antony's letter appears in the Awards brochure which includes a further full page ad for the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign. We'll be sending copies to MPs and journalists next week.

I'll upload one or two photos from tonight's event - which finishes at 2.00am - over the weekend. (Can't promise I'll be in a fit state to do it before then.)

Scotland's smoking gun and ASH's response to UK pub crisis

Our report, Smoking gun: is the smoking ban a major cause of the decline of the British pub?, was released in Scotland this morning and was immediately picked up by the Press Association north of the border.

Since then we've been handling a number of media enquiries. BBC Radio Scotland wanted me to go on their lunchtime news programme but I was en route to Birmingham so, instead, I'll be talking about the report on Newsdrive later this afternoon. Fingers crossed, the story will also appear in one or two newspapers in Scotland tomorrow.

Meanwhile BBC Scotland has the story online. So too Scottish Television.

H/T to Dave Atherton for the links above.

Update: The Scotsman is also reporting the story. Radio Scotland, Forth One and Radio Borders have been running the story in their news bulletins.

Update on Wednesday, September 8, 2010 by Simon Clark

A feature of our press release to the Scottish media was this quote by Paul Waterson, president of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association:

"This research shows how badly Scottish pubs have been hit by the indoor smoking ban, cut-price supermarket competition and regulation. Pubs are still going out of business every week and yet we hear calls for outdoor smoking bans and even more regulation.

"Scotland's pubs are a national asset that are in peril because of unfair competition and ill-thought through regulation. It is time for the Executive to have a joined up approach that aims to help our industry and the major role it has in the economy and society, not allow it to be driven into the ground."

Turning the air Green

As part of her campaign to save the planet, Caroline Lucas, the Green party's first ever MP, recently tabled this question: "To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward legislative proposals to create an offence of smoking in cars where children are present".

In March Lucas wrote on her blog:

The Green Party is the only party who are serious about improving the quality of the air, and stopping the 50,000 deaths a year that occur as a result of air pollution - a toll which makes air pollution as harmful as passive smoking.

50,000 deaths a year as a result of ETS? Where the hell did she get that figure from?!

Is she referring to Britain, Europe, the world? The former MEP doesn't say, but given the domestic nature of the post and the fact that it appears on a website dedicated to offering "A strong voice for Brighton, a strong voice for a fairer and greener country", most people will assume that she is talking about the UK.

In future I will take anything Ms Lucas says with a large dose of salt, and I would advise her constituents to do so too.

The answer, btw, to her parliamentary question on smoking in cars is due today. Watch this space.