Monday
May262008
Scotland leads, England follows
Monday, May 26, 2008 Hot on the heels of the announcement by the Scottish government that it intends to ban the display of tobacco in shops, UK health minister Alan Johnson has announced that the Westminster government is considering similar moves.
Johnson's comments - on yesterday's Andrew Marr programme on BBC 1 - have been picked up by many of today's newspapers. Comments by Forest are featured in the Financial Times, Independent and Daily Mirror, to name a few.
Update on Monday, May 26, 2008 by
Simon Clark
Simon Clark
See also THIS post by the Telegraph's Alex Singleton.
Update on Monday, May 26, 2008 by
Simon Clark
Simon Clark
I shall be discussing this issue on Five Live from 10.00pm tonight. Some bank holiday!
Reader Comments (29)
Plainly, this lot leaned nothing since Crewe. They, of course, think the ASH line is trendy and modern but what a waste of time these ideas are.
If fathead Johnson did any real research he would realise such policies have no effect on smoking rates at all but they will damage more people's businesses.
Also, it's interesting to see the pathetic Liberal Democrats and the equally pathetic Tories jumping on the same crass bandwagon. Can anyone remember when parliament was so stupid before?
"Can anyone remember when parliament was so stupid before?"
Last week.
They are doing this to divert the public's attention away from something significant which is obviously happening and which they don't want us to focus on (eg.the economy going bust at a rapid rate). I believe a certain A Hitler behaved in a similar manner in his bunker whilst the bombs were falling on Berlin in 1945. This sort of action will have the opposite effect and tobacco sales will go through the roof! Buy some shares now if you don't have any!
I believe they were talking about it on the news today, and showing clips (obviously filmed with a secret camera or CCTV) showing a group of young teenagers sparking up and handing around........a pack of 20!!
The AHS rep - Sandford - I think it was, lied through her teeth as usual. The success of such measures in Canada! Ha! Sales are up in Canada plus the black market in reservation produced cigarettes. It's the same everywhere and any gullible anti-smoker halfwit or dumb politician (I'm not sure which are dumber) can check for themselves if they get off their fat stupid arses.
One: check the profits of the major tobacco companies over the past three years - all are up. You can get their accounts for a small fee from Companies House.
Then check the share price index and tobacco shares are up, up, up.
A question for Forest:
I'm wondering about the legality of 'hiding' legal goods away from would-be purchasers and whether this breaches consumer law. This part is quite interesting:
Price Marking Order 2004
The Price Marking Order 2004 which came into force on 21 July 2004, covers products, not services, and is limited to sales between retailers and consumers. It requires the selling price, and where appropriate the unit price, of products to be clearly displayed.
http://farnhamchambers.co.uk/consumerlaw.aspx
The proposals of both the Scottish and Westminster parliaments would seem to be in breach of the law.
And:
1. How can consumers judge what is a fair price for their tobacco product if they are unable to see it?
2. How can consumers compare the prices between products if they can't see them?
I imagine that they miight be allowed to display photographs of the pack fronts with prices.
I listened to the programme and would like like to make some comments.
Simon did a great job.
It was good of Antony Worrall Thompsom to express his strong views.
I remember only one listener, phoning in disagreeing that enough is enough. He said he smoked 65 fags a day and would quit if fags were £25 a packet. He would probably 'beg, steal and borrow' to satisfy his habit or move to illegal drugs which would be a lot cheaper.
Ms Arnott said that she didn't have shares in pharmaceutical companies, but failed to say that such companies fund ASH, along with the Government and Cancer relief, who pay her wages. If smoking was made illegal she would lose her £50,000 a year job.
The person who represented retailers said that he wanted consultation before any decision was made. Retailers are the experts and should be consulted.
Richard Bacon is obviously a non-smoker. He made it quite clear that he could see the pleasure in drinking alcohol and eating, but saw NO pleasure in smoking.
On last night's R5live programme, Simon said that smokers had got used to the ban. This must have been music to the ears of Arnott. That Richard Bacon dislikes smoking with a passion made it all the more important that Arnott was challenged. For example, her claim that smokers die on average 16 years earlier than non-smokers. It should also have been pointed out that ASH receives money from drug companies who smoking cessation drugs seem to have serious side effects and whose nicotine replacement products are useless.
Actually, jon, on no balance sheet of ASH's have I seen pharmaceutical monies inputted. I am not saying that has never been the case, nor am I saying that ASH don't have any significant contact with Big Pharma because they do and could be described as being one of Glaxo's sales reps. However, unless ASH have trading subsidiaries which may receive funding inputs from Big Pharma, as I said, none of ASH's own balance sheets I've seen bear witness to this.
Moral of the story: let ASH repeat myths and lies but let's ensure we don't.
On last night's R5live programme, Simon said that smokers had got used to the ban.
I haven't. And I don't know any who have. I'm sure there are plenty who endure it uncomplainingly, much like they endure every other law promulgated by our nanny state. Smokers may bite their lips and get on with life, but that's not the same as having "got used to the ban".
The trouble with non-smokers like Simon Clark is that while they can see that the ban is wrong in principle, they don't actually experience the ban in practice. It's not something that's happening to them, after all.
Er, I didn't say anything of the sort. (I wouldn't dream of making such a general statement.) I said that while many smokers have adapted to the ban (which is true) many are still angry and frustrated at the extent of the ban. I went on to point that as a result of the ban Forest regularly gets emails from "lifelong Labour supporters" who say they will never vote for Labour again.
Simon. What you say is true. If anybody has any doubts, they can listen again to the whole programme on the Radio 5 website, under Richard bacon-smoking.
Er, I didn't say anything of the sort. (I wouldn't dream of making such a general statement.) I said that while many smokers have adapted to the ban (which is true) many are still angry and frustrated at the extent of the ban. - Simon Clark
Then I take back what I wrote earlier.
Apologies to Simon. I must have been too angry at the programme to concentrate. Also Blad is correct. I can find no evidence of ASH itself receiving money from drug companies. ASH though, does seem to have a close relationship with drug companies. For example,
Professor John Britton, listed as one of the trustees of ASH, receives money for work on NRT.
From http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/4/251 we have:
Competing interests: John Britton has received a speaker’s honorarium for speaking at a conference organised by a manufacturer of smoking cessation therapies, and has received consultation payments from several companies involved in smoking cessation. He also led a clinical trial of nicotine replacement therapy funded by Pharmacia. Sarah Lewis, Deborah Arnott and Christine Godfrey have no competing interests.
From Tony Blair's Ten Years of Tobacco Control, in the Lancet July 2007 we have:
JB has consulted for a company developing a nicotine vaccine and took part in a clinical trial of varenicline that was funded by Pfizer. AM and DA (Deborah Arnott) declare that they have no conflict of interest.
I have frequently not seen eye to eye with Simon, but he would never be such a pea brain as to make a remark like that. That would put him on a par with an idiot like Alan Johnson.
I actually though Simon did rather well on that one and would have loved it if he'd had the last word on the show instead of it being left to that practised liar of an ASH representative.
Yes, congratulations to Simon on all he has done and continues to do. It would sicken me to evem be in the same room as those bigots, let alone attempt a live broadcast. He does it very well indeed.
I would take issue with him on one important point, though. He still frequently infers that although accepting smoking has risks, he defends smokers' rights to freedom of choice. Such risks have still never been proved, they really haven't. Attack mode is better than defence. Better to make it clear that the jury is still out.
The fact that very many pharmaceutical products have always had nicotine as their base, proves their knowledge of its beneficial properties. They use other namees for it, i.e. Niacin, Nicotinic Acid, Vitamen B3. It is still good old fashioned nicotine, though.
They will splutter that nicotine taken in drug form is not as harmful as smoking. Again, this is not true. Nicotine based drugs have always had many harmful side effects which smoking does not have.
I have seen this simply as a commercial war, ever since Big Pharma started their "research" into the dangers of smoking some 40 years ago.
The problem with rights for smokers would appear to be apathy. The hauliers protest, the gay activists protest, animal rights protest, smokers stay silent. New Labour need to be made aware of one thing, they have lost over 20 million votes. Now Mr Cameron do you want them???
Mr Cameron, sadly, has his head up an unmentionable place. Someone sane would want those votes but this fellow is not just stupid, he is also unprincipled in his views on strategic decision making.
Maybe it's time to really start placing pressure on the Tory Party. To date, we've just been tickling it.
Blad
Surely the approach should be to compare European countries with exemptions. We are only asking for the same considerations. If the Tories refute European exemptions then are they not as discriminatory as New Labour. Perhaps they will argue most of Europe is wrong and we are right. A letter along these lines will provide interesting reading on reply.
Sadly, Boris, Europe's bans just get more stringent even if they start with exemptions. Moreover, there is an interesting issue here, in that, this approach is, legally, fundamentally different from ours. In the legal systems of continental Europe, everything is prohibited except those things for which there are exemptions. In English law, everything is permitted except those things which are forbidden.
Margot, hello, a question. Do you know whether the over the counter tranquiliser, Kalms, comtains nicotine. I'm sure it does.
I've just 'listened again' to the programme. Doesn't Deborah Arnott sound so reasonable, so sensible and so kind (I'm thinking of the comment made by the smoker who advocated putting up the price of a pack of 20 to £25 to which Ms A responded that that would be too cruel to those who are addicted)?
Personally I thought that everyone who spoke against the ban and further restrictions sounded like people who were pleading. There is absolutely no point in appealing to common sense and civil liberties in these discussions. I think that every single statement that ASH makes has to be challenged in an equally reasonable, sensible tone so that the challenge sounds more reasonable and sensible than the statements that are being challenged. Ms A asserted, at least a couple of times, that there is sound evidence that removing point of sale display is effective in deterring young people from smoking. Absolutely, no-one directly responded to this assertion! What evidence? What was the methodology? How did they control other variables? What other studies have been done on determent? How do these studies compare with the effectiveness of point of sale display? In short, how valid is this "evidence" and how effective in comparison to other deterrents?
I appreciate that it isn't easy given the level of a show such as Richard Bacon's but I would use my air time to do no more than challenge ASH at every turn. especially when ASH refers for authority to "evidence" and the pro-choice lobby doesn't (because it can't). 'Their' evidence has to be demolished before 'our' case can be built otherwise we just appear to be trying to excuse the inexcusable in a climate in which the interests of various parties (retailers, adult smokers and so on) are subservient to the precautonary principle especially when applied to the Saving of The Children.
I'm thinking of the comment made by the smoker who advocated putting up the price of a pack of 20 to £25 to which Ms A responded that that would be too cruel to those who are addicted. - Joyce
What she actually said was that it "might be a bit cruel." I could almost imagine the grin spreading over her face as she went on to gleefully shout, "So let's do it!"
I think that every single statement that ASH makes has to be challenged in an equally reasonable, sensible tone so that the challenge sounds more reasonable and sensible than the statements that are being challenged.
I agree. Ms Arnott also said that "Smoking kills more people than obesity, alcohol, road accidents, and illegal drugs all put together." But there are actual numbers of real dead bodies of people who have died in road accidents or from drug overdoses. You can find the mortality statistics here. But there are no mortality figures for the number of people who died from smoking: it's a number that has been conjured out of thin air using statistical sleight of hand. Almost all antismoking statistics are of this nature. But they are allowed to get away with saying "Smoking kills X thousand people" as if they have the death certificates to prove it. They don't. But they always speak as if they did, and that their dizzy guesstimates are as rock solid as recorded body counts.
Sorry, timbone, I've been off-line most of the week and only just read your question regarding Kalms. I'll try and find out.
We could all have a look at the ingredients of over the counter drugs to see if they are nicotine based. Prescription drugs, too.
Very good reasoned arguments, Joyce. Time we went into attack mode rather than defence. Calm intelligent questioning of all sweeping statements and glib statistics is the way forward now.
The general public need to be aware the medical profession and those who quote them are not infallible and certainly not always to be trusted.
An interesting line of research has just been started to study the lifestyles of families who have suffered the modern phenomena of cot deaths in healthy babies compared with those who haven't. I hope they will add the question, "Does anyone smoke in the house?" The results may surprise them - but not in the way they would hope.
I've just received an email from a friend in America recommending the book below:-
Click here: Amazon.com: Reasons To Smoke (Running Press Miniature Editions): Max Brallier: Books
We all need to arm ourselves with rock solid facts regarding the benefits of smoking rather than just saying it should be freedom of choice.
Quite frankly we should chuck the bleeding controlling hypocritical creeps out of office. They have there head so far up there arse they dont hear the truth. They lost the local elections because of the smoking ban and they will lose the general election to. I suspect they already know that thats why they are eager to get smoking products under the counter as quickly as possible.They know full well that cameron the twit wont change any thing they bring in he hasnt got the guts.I really hope that smokers finally stand up and fight for a fair deal.We are being treated so badly by this poxy government they will never again get my vote.And if cigarettes are to be placed under the counter i hope everyone who works on the counter and recieves a bad back for bobbing up and down all day sues this poxy government.I am a law abiding citizen but i am beginning to think you are better treated if you are not law abiding.Prisoners can smoke in prisons. What a poxy nanny state we all live in created by this bloody terrible labour government Roll on election day..
And i hope gordon brown reads this