CMO promises more anti-smoking measures
Sunday, June 24, 2007 
Chief Medical Officer Sir Liam Donaldson (left) today gives an interview to the Observer in which he pledges a "further sustained crackdown on smoking after the ban comes into force in England next Sunday".
Plans include removing cigarettes from public display, putting graphic picture warnings on cigarette packets, outlawing the sale of packets of 10 cigarettes, and reducing the number of cigarettes that we can bring into the country from inside the EU from 3,200 to 200. (That's a laugh. The Chancellor had to increase the number from 800 to 3,200, a few years ago, because high taxation in the UK had sparked a smuggling epidemic. Do you think the CMO spoke to Gordon Brown before he came up with this crackpot scheme?)
Donaldson also wants advertising campaigns to "educate" parents about the 'dangers' of smoking around children. How long before smoking in the presence of children is officially declared a form of child abuse? Full story, including a short quote from me, HERE.
Reader Comments (147)
Simon, why don't the tobacco companies stand up for their customers? I don't want these images on the packaging. I'm awfully squeamish, and the packaging itself will make me a lot sicker than the contents, I can assure you.
Perhaps I could sue HMG for inducing constant nausea.
The only people who *will* want those images on the packaging are kids. As I understand happened in the States, they'll no doubt start collecting and trading them.
What I will do is have my non-squeamish partner remove the packaging and I will then repackage the contents into something aesthetically pleasing.
Also - are David Hockney's badges going to be available to the public? Did you get around to asking him?
What Planet does this incumbunt come from? It must be Utopia. If would he and his the rest of his brain dead Cronies let us know when the next flight is arriving. so that we can all book up for the return flight.
The man has is a habitual liar on the smoking issue and his 2002 reort on passive smoking is an exercise in misdirection. Donaldson lists all sorts of chemicals with scary sounding names without stating the amounts and whether or not they are above or below permitted exposure levels. I wish I could have called his report "a classic exercise in misdeirection" but I can't because it's naff and if I recall correctly he even list substances like magnesium and any reflective reader will recall that such chemicals may be bought as food supplements in health food shops. Hey Liam baby, it's the dose that makes the poison. Remember that? Obviously not and the man needs a refresher course in basic toxicology.
Donaldson will eventually be called to account, rest assured, for the distortion of medical science to suit his fanatical agenda benefits no-one. I hope you're reading Liam!
Donaldson is pretty ugly too. Just look at that skin!
If that's what being an anti-smoker does for someone you can keep it: forever!
I don't remember Liam Donaldson's Denormalise Smoking Party winning a majority in the last election.
So much for the legislation being passed to protect the health of non smokers - as if any of us believed that one. They've popped their bottle of mineral water to celebrate 1st July and are now getting down to the business of extending the ban and demonising smokers even more.
The awful thing is I think they'll get away with it unless the anger of the country's 14 million smokers is mobilised. Simon said on another thread that he didn't think that there would be any support for an organised protest. I'd like to see Donaldson's plans widely reported in the mainstream media and FOREST, as the only funded pro choice organisation that I know of, organise a planned, determined campaign to heighten public awareness and then test the water. If this is beyond FOREST's remit as a political lobby group then I wish they would persuade their masters that their remit should be widened. Political lobbying is useless when a Democracy has become a Dictatorship.
Joyce, re your reference to "organised protest" I was talking about a Countryside Alliance style march with tens/hundreds of thousands of people taking part. Of course we believe in organised protest. That's what Forest does, day in, day out, but on a small scale (within budget), and that's what our Revolt In Style dinner is - an organised protest.
This time last year we attempted, in vain, to interest The Big Debate/F2C in joining an organised protest (ie a well-coordinated media campaign) but the offer was rejected. This is not the time or the place to discuss why. As you know (because you and I have spoken on the phone and I was very open and frank with you) I prefer not to have such discussions on a public forum. But an opportunity was lost. I'll say no more than that.
Thanks for your response, Simon. I apologise if I seem to be "teaching granny to such eggs" but I can't be alone in my frustration that there are millions of angry people who, collectively, could have an extremely powerful voice. As an individual one can do relatively little - letters to MPs and local rags from a few peope can be easily dismissed. As a member of a grassroots organisation such as freedom2choose more can be done and, despite focus on the JR, members are finding ways to spread the word.
F2C is unfunded. I appreciate that FOREST doesn't benefit from the obscene funding enjoyed by ASH PLC but I feel that it could benefit by raising its profile among the general public. I believe that many angry voices woud be raised if people only realised that there is opposition to the ban, the fraud on which it's based, the real agenda of Donaldson and his ilk and the lengths that they are prepared to go to. An organisation which could harness that anger would be in a position to effectively counter them.
Those are good points Joyce.
I think we need a bit of creativity somewhat like Fathers for Justice. As we are in a position where the main stream media is not interested in our case we either go round them and reach the public through other media like the internet or we do such astonishing things that the MSM cannot ignore us.
I think there are many tactics that wouldn't take a lot of money or a lot of people to pull off, but I think there are a couple of things for us to sort out before that. I wouldn't want to be any part of a namby-pamby campaign that pleaded for exemptions to the law. Also we need to agree on why the law is wrong.
To my mind the law is wrong not because smokers lose any rights. They never had the right to smoke anywhere that they didn't themselves own. Owners have always had the right to create a no smoking pub or whatever if they chose to. The people who have lost rights are the owners of pubs, clubs, restaurants, workplaces, and everywhere else called "public" that isn't public. The real issue is that the government has presumed to further dilute the most basic right of all, the right of owners of property to decide what can happen on their property. This is the big deal and it applies to a far bigger section of the population than just those who smoke.
I so badly want to fight but up to now there seems to be little going on where I live other than silent acceptance (accept for those who are thrilled by it and have now found some misguided courage to challenge smokers on the street). It sickens me and the fact that I cant do what I want and I cant devise my own policies in my own business premises is driving me scatty. What sickens me more is the thought that this is only the beginning and my kids will never know true freedom! If I knew where there were going to be protests, round here, than I would join them. I cant do it on my own though, I've got kids and my business to think about. Although my business isn't a pub this idiocy is a threat to it just the same.
I thought Hitler died in a Berlin bunker in 1945!
Simon,
Did Sir Liam Donaldson ever respond to Lord Harris' challenge?
I just found details here:
http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page306.asp
Bernie, you make a valid point point about pub, club and restaurant owners' loss of rights concerning smoking on their premises. But with one or two exceptions isn't it curious that there seems to be a deafening silence coming from most of these people? It's almost as if they stand in the dock accused of allowing passive smoking on their premises but only allowed to address the court through their lawyer on their behalf. So, in a metaphorical sense, aren't many pro smokers engaging in this debate assuming the role of defending lawyer?
If business owners are really offended and put out by the new smoking laws wouldn't it be so refreshing to hear them speak up for themselves on this issue?
As for the suggestion for a 'Fathers for Justice' style protest, I think that is going a bit too far. I just cannot imagine Simon, Bernie or any of the contributors to the smoking debate on the Forest website engaging in such antics. Please, let's have some dignity for goodness sake.
Robert, there are plenty of examples of pub, club and restaraunt owners publically denouncing the ban - on this very site we have the club owner who's hired Cherie Blair to fight the ban. There is no "deafening silence", expect in mainstream media - who are doing their very best to ignore pub closures in Scotland (almost 200 now) and Ireland (around 1200 and losing 1 a day).
That's the whole point, Rober E. Most people have only heard one side of the story. If more media attention was given to both sides of the argument, they would be standing up to all this, I'm sure.
As it is, there's a sense of being browbeaten by endless and repetitive messages and articles pushing the government line.
"A lie can be half way around the world before the truth has time to put it's boots on"
Winston Churchill
Robert says that with one or two exceptions isn't it curious that there seems to be a deafening silence coming from pub, club and restaurant owners' loss of rights concerning smoking on their premises?
It is curious at all Robert, these people have been threatened by our government with the possible loss of their businesses if they do not comply with, and police, the law as it now stands.
I have spoken to many restaurant and bar owners, and they have all said the same thing, that there is nothing they can do except wait and see how things progress. I used to own a bar myself, and I know how difficult it is to obtain a licence and to keep that licence, you only need one or two objections and you can lose not only your licence for you livelihood with it.
It would take a very brave man or woman to risk that at this early stage. I think most of them are just waiting, and hoping.
Robert
A direct question
Please answer yes or no.
Is this draconian law discrimination against a minority??
It does not matter whether or not publicans and others wait and hope - the outcome is inevitable! We are having miserable June weather and once the ban comes in, people like me will not venture out in torrential rain to be treated like lepers and pay money out for that privilege. There are very many people who now cannot afford to go out drinking in their locals as much as they used to (due to mortgage prices, heating and fuel costs and inflation etc.), and those (like me) who do go out, will be staying at home more. Why should I subsidise non-smoking venues of benefit to people opposed to my freedom of choice? Admittedly, I am extremely sorry for landlords and stewards etc. but, if most places close, then there may be an outcry, but until that happens, a lot of people may remain complacent. I like Bernie's idea of protest like Fathers4Justice - that got on TV and got good media coverage, so why not?! As for going too far - we have not even started yet. It is people who believe the same as you, Robert Evans, who have gone too far. Rob Simpson has given figures for places closing down in Ireland and Scotland - multiply these by about 10 and you may have a realistic figure of what will happen in England in the foreseeable future. Robert Evans and like-minded people do not seem to be able to predict what will happen due to this inability to compromise. They seem to possess some utopian view of the pub-world where everything in the garden will be rosy post-ban. Peter Thurgood and others are correct when they mention that people dare not speak out because pub landlords etc. will get their licences revoked if they go against the prevailing government line. This is the same in a lot of jobs/professions today. In England today, you can do as you like, as long as you do as you're told! ps, Sheppy - Hitler actually did die in the bunker in 1945 - it's just that he has been reincarnated and cloned very many times over! Sadly for us they are in charge of us and paid huge salasries for doing so.
Robert
You are avoiding my question.
No change there, Andrew, Robert usually conveniently avoids responding to my provocation! I'm not a betting person, but I reckon his response would be 'the negative'.
Jenny
The reason Robert won't answer the question, is due to the fact it will show him as a bigot.
Hi Jenny & everyone,
Just received this from the office of the prime minister;
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page12069.asp
all I can say is what a load of old crap!!!!
Hi Andrew - indeed he is - he'd be great in the government - they avoid answering questions directly too!!
Hi Carl - my sentiments exactly - I got one too! I loved the way the bit about 'private members' clubs will not be exempt in the future' was underlined - in other words, no scope for appeal or compromise. If they are prepared to dish out the horse manure (apologies to horses) - they'll have to be prepared to take some!!
Jenny
Reckon they`re gonna have to take loads especially this week,very pleased to see all the media attention for tonights dinner,I just hope that some good will come of it!.
Sorry - it has been pointed out to me that the bit about private members' clubs wasn't underlined in the actual e-mail which was sent - however, it is good to highlight this particular aspect because many had hopes re: private members' clubs. Also - if they do reduce the allocation of cigarettes to 200 only from abroad - well, that will upset a lot of other businesses abroad, but I still think people will find ways around this one!!
All publicity is good publicity Carl - and I sincerely wish everyone tonight all the best and PLENTY of publicity!!
Jenny,
If they reduce the duty paid allowance from 3200 to 200 cigs at present then there will be rioting on the streets!!,as well as being involved with our local Royal Naval club my wife and I help run a coach hire business,being on the south coast this means we have easy accses to the channel ports,and we run a day out to belgium so people can buy cheap booze and tobacco, we are already having all sorts of problems with HMRC who are seizing goods off of people even when they are under the limit!!,rumour has it that some unscrupulus customs officers are selling siezed goods back to the belgians,still looking for the proof on that one though!!.
Interesting how Robert refuses to answer my question. Many people in Germany during the war claimed they were not aware that concentration camps were within a short walk. You are in denial Robert.
Andrew, sorry for the delay in answering your question which was "Is this draconian law discrimination against a minority?"
No, I don't believe it is. It simply requires people to refrain from smoking indoors in public places. Stepping outside for the 5 minutes that it might take to have a smoke is nothing more than an inconvenience.
One smoking shelter that I was looking at yesterday looked more like a smart conservatory. It had a marble floor, wicker style furniture and glass top tables with ash trays on them. Admittedly, it was only about 50% enclosed but it didn't look too bad at all. If I was out with some smoking friends I would be quite happy to sit amongst them and enjoy the company. Is this or the new rules coming in in England on the 1st July discrimination against a minority? No, I don't believe it is.
Robert
You do surprise me.
What did I tell you, Andrew?!! and I'm not a betting person - answer in the negative. My local pub has a large tree which 'shelters' the benches and wooden tables - I wonder if the Council will condemn that!! Thanks for the info re: cigarettes etc. Carl - the way things are going, I think your area and many other areas may be experiencing riots - at least I live in hope only I bet (yet again!!) we don't get to hear about them.
Robert E: It's no use just picking out the smartest shelter you can find and imagining that this will be representative of the provision made by pubs in general.
That will not be the case.
Imagine the greatest, admired for their maverick ways, I'm talking about an era we will never see again, Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jnr, Dean Martin. They would turn in their graves. We'll all end up straight laced robots.
You couldn't invent someone like 'Sir' Liam Donaldson, could you ?
When next he calls for the 'legal' limit on the number of fags brought in from outside to be reduced 'from 3,200 to 200', perhaps SOMEONE will remind him (and Gordon Brown and all those pushy little Customs Officers) that - so far as the European Union is concerned - there is NO 'limit' on the amount of tobacco brought in for personal use, or as gifts for friends.
Yes, I know it's a hackneyed point, but it DOES need to be repeated every so often - just to drive it into the Cro-Magnon skulls of our New Masters.
But, don't worry, everybody: I'm sure David (The Heir) Cameron will restore these and other lost freedoms - once he's saved the Planet and sorted out all our 'work/life balance' problems for us..............
Won't he ?
Robert, forcing smokers out the door for a smoke is an inconvenience that's easy to dismiss when it's not you that has to put up with it. I wonder how keen you'll be to join your smoking friends in that shelter when the temperature's low and the wind and rain is up and you realise how little shelter those shelters actually provide.
The truth of the matter is the law IS discriminatory and he's why; it's motives are to "encouragae" people to quit. The law is designed to make it as awkward and unpleasant as possible to smoke. It is "inconvenient" by design. The passive smoking argument is a convenient hammer with which to strike at the smoker - and only the truly niave give it any real credence; it's been proven time and time again that modern ventilation is more than up to the task of dealing with any passive smoking issues, but was rejected out of hand. The real motiviation is blatantly obvious in the words of the CMO for those who choose to see.
That is why it is discriminatory. The level of inconvenience is irrelevent. In America in the 50s it was only a minor inconvenience for the blacks to sit at the back of the bus.
Rob
Your last couple of lines is where we are.
Robert
You are discriminating, and hiding behind a mask (authority). I am sure you would have said that there was no apartheid. Wasn't my fault I marched them into the gas chambers, it was orders. Surely you know enough about history to know, the state is very rarely RIGHT.
Until this week, this site has been extemporary in the way the posters have handled the forthcoming ban, and in the way they have spoken about what is happening. But now, as the dreaded ban looms nearer, I can see the anger and venom starting to come out, and the trouble is, it seems to be aimed at the wrong person.
Robert Evans is only speaking his mind. I do not agree with his thoughts on this matter, but he is entitled to them, as much as we are entitled to our freedom to live our lives the way we choose, and not the way we are being dictated to live it.
Someone will probably say that if he is entitled to his thoughts, then so are we, which is correct, but lets not get carried away with taking our anger out on Robert, he didn't make this law, we should be concentrating our anger and our energies on the people who did make the law, and trying our hardest to overturn it, or at least get concessions written into it.
I think Robert's ideas regarding shelters and his willingness to sit with his smoking friends in these shelters, are condescending to say the least, and I also think that much of what he is saying is very much tongue in cheek, designed especially to rile the posters on here, and with that in mind, he seems to be doing a particularly good job.
If we concentrate our efforts and do get some concessions within this law, it will at least be a start, and then, maybe, we will be able to have a few sly digs on this site, about how much we like non smokers, and how we would even agree to sit with one now and again, and share our experiences of smoking, indoors of course
With regard to the reduction in duty paid cigarettes, I may be being a bit thick here, but I understood that an individual could bring back 3,200 duty free from EU countries and as many as they could carry, duty paid, from EU countries. Certainly that is what my husband and I have been doing for a number of years and even when stopped at customs, no action has been taken because they have been for our own use, cheaper local brands and only 2 or 3 different types.
Is it now being said that we will not be able to bring back any or only 200 duty paid from the EU, or is this referring to duty free?
Lyn
This hasn't happened yet Lyn, it is only another proposal by the mad doctor, which I doubt very much will ever get off the ground
Lyn,
The mad doctor is refering to duty paid cigs from the eu,evrey time I come back through Dover we get stopped and asked where we have been, as soon as they (HMRC) suspect you have been through Belgium then its straight into the shed,a few weeks ago they detained ALL of my passengers and took their passports away,all of them were under the limit,but because they were classed as frequent travellers they lost all their goods, when you come back through Calais immigration they now swipe your passport,this now shows when you last travelled and how long you were abroad for.
Having read all the comments (and re-read my own) I realise that Peter is quite correct in that we should actually start directing our anger at those who made this law. The problem is how can we do that? Many of us should, by now, have received the response to the e-petition from Tony Blair and, as usual, we have not been listened to. Only yesterday evening on Radio 4 news, I heard that the same person merely waives the possibility of a referendum aside on the EU issue and that is upsetting more people than the smoking ban.
It is very easy for us (and I agree with my fellow contributors) to criticise Robert Evans because his beliefs are obviously far different from our beliefs and we can use this blog to vent our spleen. What we are doing using this blog is very tame really but from next weekend onwards, such conflicts of opinion will be brought into the open air. I believe the government wants people to argue amongst themselves so that they do not direct their anger at them. However, imagine situations up and down the country from Sunday onwards when people do actually start arguing in public and reacting against each other. When this situation becomes reality, I, for one, believe that this will start to happen.
I do, however, hope that the EU cannot restrict people purchasing more than 200 cigarettes - however, due to the current position and not being allowed a referendum on Europe, such measures would not surprise me in the least. I used to love getting on a ferry and buying duty free digarettes/cigars years ago - it was part of the holiday and all that has been eroded and disappeared. The way things are moving now, the EU personal allocation may disappear too.
Lyn,
The mad doctor is refering to duty paid cigs from the eu,evrey time I come back through Dover we get stopped and asked where we have been, as soon as they (HMRC) suspect you have been through Belgium then its straight into the shed,a few weeks ago they detained ALL of my passengers and took their passports away,all of them were under the limit,but because they were classed as frequent travellers they lost all their goods, when you come back through Calais immigration they now swipe your passport,this now shows when you last travelled and how long you were abroad for.
Carl, your passengers need to sue. It has already been established by the European court that HM Customs are NOT allowed to swipe the goods of returning passengers. There's already been at least one test case (one that I know of) where HM customs were directed to pay the injured party compensation for the good seized.
HM Customs is an ongoing source of irritation for Europe and Britain has been under pressure for some time to sort it out - not that it seems to be doing much good right enough, but your passengers have a clear compensation case.
Jenny, the currently limitations on bringing alcohol and cigarettes into the country has little to do with EU. The limitations have been put in place by HMG to compensate for the tax disparity between us and the continent. HMG is well aware that if these limitations, which fly completely in the face of the idea of the EU, didn't exist then HMG would have no alternative but to lower the tax here to bring it more into line with Europe.
Thank you for educating me Rob. I'm sure HMG would not want to lower the tax here to bring it more into line with Europe judging by the amount of tax we pay on a packet of cigarettes/cigars and other tobacco products.
Rob,
Thanks for that ,some of them are indeed suing HMRC for goods siezed,At the time I had quite a heated discussion with the senior customs officer as to why these people were being picked on,AND guess what ? he had no answer!!,and even tried to get me arrested for verbal abuse!!I think at the time my passengers had the choice of being interviewed or leaving their goods behind,the onus being on them to prove that said goods were for personal use,the customs people were even asking how much money and what credit /debit cards people had on them.I could not believe what I was hearing!!.
I have since made a formal complaint and am still awaiting a reply.
Carl,
I'm sure I remember seeing on the FOREST site somewhere that FOREST helped someone sue Customs and the case shifted the onus from the individual to prove that goods were for their own personal consumption to Customs to prove that they were not. If you surf through the site I'm sure you'll come across it.
Joyce. There's a reason why we have a system whereby the state has to prove guilt is that its almost impossible to prove innocence. Logically you can't prove a negative and this is precisely what HM custom's ask people to do and precisely why Europe isn't happy about it.
On a side note the UK most certainly doesn't want to come down to European tax levels but is trying to cajole the rest of Europe into coming up to UK levels by having the EU set a minimum duty level for tobacco.
Jenny, I just don't agree with you at all that differences of opinion are going to boil over into open conflict from the 1st July. It's just not the English way of doing things at all. I was actually born in England and now live within just 5 minutes travel of the border, on the Welsh side that is. I am so looking forward to returning to my birth place on Sunday for a drink with my cousins.