Forest petition - final total
Friday, December 17, 2010 
Well, that went down to the wire. I can't tell you how busy we've been these past couple of weeks (or how many Christmas parties I've been to) but we finally submitted Forest's response to the EC Tobacco Products Directive consultation this afternoon, an hour or so before the deadline.
And the petition? Well, the online petition we launched ten days ago attracted a total of 1655 names (and addresses) of whom 1610 were EU citizens. Others came from America, mostly, but also Australia, Thailand, Japan, Mexico, Norway and Switzerland, but we had to exclude them because the consultation was targeted at EU citizens only. (Perhaps I didn't make that clear.)
Anyway, given that the petition didn't get much promotion beyond Forest's mailing lists, Iain Dale's Diary (which helped add 150-200 names earlier in the week), Taking Liberties and two or three other blogs (Dick Puddlecote, Pat Nurse and the ASI blog), I'm not unhappy with the result.
Interesting to note the location of respondents, by country. I've had a quick glance at the documentation and the numbers seem to break down as follows:
United Kingdom, 1300
Netherlands, 157
Spain, 31
Denmark, 31
Romania, 21
Ireland, 19
Belgium, 12
France, 11
Germany, 9
Poland, 6
Estonia, 5
Sweden, 3
Finland, 2
Portugal, 1
Greece, 1
Hungary, 1
Total: 1610
PS. The EC has previously tried, and failed, to exclude Forest from stakeholder meetings in Brussels on the grounds that we are not an EU-wide organisation. Now, perhaps, they will believe me when I say that we have supporters in a number of EU countries.
H/T to Wiel Maessen for the Dutch contingent.
Simon Clark
Here are some excerpts from Forest's online submission:
Scope of the directive
The [consultation document] not only ignores the very important issue of consumer choice, it is also looking for problems that do not exist ... The EC should not be proposing further regulations and/or restrictions that are not based on clear scientific evidence.
Smokeless tobacco products
Europe is supposed to be a single market. It is therefore wrong to deny consumers in all EU member states the opportunity to purchase a product [snus] that is freely available and widely used in another member state ...
Consumer information
Forest rejects the suggestion that packaging is used as an “advertising tool”. Packaging allows the consumer to differentiate between different brands. There is no credible evidence that packaging is a significant reason why anyone, let alone “vulnerable groups”, start or even continue to smoke ...
Increasing the size of the picture warning will have little or no long-term impact other than adding to the unnecessary “uglification” of our surroundings and the unacceptable “denormalisation” of a legal consumer product ...
The [consultation document] talks of “current package design … generating evocative images such as luxury, freedom and glamour”. Tobacco control campaigners often refer to “glitzy” packaging. We are not aware of ANY tobacco packaging that falls into these categories ...
A much bigger problem, not addressed by the [consultation document], is the exaggerated “quit or die” message implicitly promoted by most health warnings, supported by pictorial warnings that are not only ugly and offensive but exaggerate the risks to most consumers. We do not question the health risks associated with smoking but we do question the way those risks are communicated to the general public. In our experience the health messages are now so gruesome (and run counter to most people’s personal experience) that the opportunity to educate consumers in a sensible way is being lost.
Access to tobacco products
Forest supports proof of age card schemes but we do not support further controls on the display of tobacco products. There is insufficient evidence to support the claim that such a move would reduce smoking rates among children or adults.
Likewise we do not believe that a ban on tobacco vending machines will reduce youth smoking rates. Instead it will restrict choice for adult consumers. Use of tokens, credit cards or radio-controlled vending machines would all but eliminate underage access without the need for a ban.
We are concerned that increasing restrictions on tobacco displays and vending machines are designed to artificially “denormalise” smoking and stigmatise adult consumers who choose to purchase a legal product in full knowledge of the health risks of smoking.
Banning tobacco display and vending machines will encourage illicit trade and the sale of counterfeit tobacco in pubs and bars. Not only will the governments lose revenue, consumers (including children) could be put at greater risk.
A ban on tobacco displays is an act of commercial censorship that will eventually reduce choice for adult consumers because tobacco companies are less likely to develop new brands and products if their ability to communicate with their customers is severely restricted.
Plain packaging
As long as tobacco remains a legal product, manufacturers must have the right to differentiate between their products by means of graphic design and consumers should be allowed to differentiate easily between brands.
Plain packaging will also make it substantially easier for criminals to supply counterfeit cigarettes that may have been manufactured and sold contrary to current regulations.
And so on.
Simon Clark
The Freedom Association has also submitted a response. I'm delighted because it shows that tobacco control is finally being taken seriously by non-tobacco related groups.
Ten years ago, had I invited the then chairman of The Freedom Association to speak out against tobacco control, I know exactly what he would have said. I was editing The Freedom Association magazine Freedom Today at the time and I didn't even bother to ask. I know what the reply would have been.
So credit to The Freedom Association and the author of the submission Stephen Hoffman. Click HERE.
Reader Comments (9)
Brilliant! Thanks Simon and the Freedom Association.
i posted it on a snuff forum also. i am in the US and a few of the people that signed it where from the US and at least one from South Africa
Very well done. I appreciate the ten years you have dedicated to ensuring the light does not go out in this one area of personal liberty despite any unfriendly nudges you may have been given to move on to something more "worthwhile."
In many ways tobacco control is an endlessly funded jobs programme staffed by petty minded authoritarians who obsess with every possible angle to snuff out the enjoyment of life by others. They are more than happy to continue in their efforts to waste every single penny in this crusade which ultimately will fail.
I for one hope Simon remains a persistent thorn in the side of the entrenched tobacco control establishment when the tide begins to turn and the most insulting of the petty rules against smokers start to fall away. Puritanical assaults come in waves over time, and like others in the past, this one also shall pass. It cannot happen soon enough.
Cynical attempts will likely be made to paint this as an effort of the 'big tobacco' boogeyman. It is not. It's the inevitable resistance that will always manifest itself when power is arrayed against the human struggle for self autonomy. This battle cannot be lost so long as we maintain our absolute right to make choices for ourselves.
Thank you, Simon, for continuing to fight on our behalf. And thank you, FOREST! 2010 will not be the year that the nanny locked everything away. Take that!
Readers may find this of interest.
GLOBAL TOBACCO CONTROL. Strategy Guide on HOW to ENFORCE Smokefree Laws. The LICENSED TRADE REPS, PUB AND CLUB OWNERS should note this answer to Question 2 about enforcement.
" But when we advocate for the enforcement of laws, our target shifts to a different set of authorities –national, state, and local government officials and private individuals (the owners, operators,and managers of private businesses)."
http://www.strategyguides.globalink.org/pdfs/Enforcement_Strategies.pdf
We must understand that the petition is only the first, very small step in countering the control that the Health Zealots have been building over some considerable length of time. The Health Zealots have control of the WHO (World Health Organisation); they took control while the politicians were looking the other way. They also took control of the EU 'Health Dept', directly as a result of the the WHO 'carte blanche' control of Tobacco Control. They have also taken control of our own Health Dept.
Our petition is just a small element of the resistance. The resistance will build.
Well Done Simon,
The numbers from the UK in particular who signed the petition show the level of concern people have. It is not as those on the statist side of the argument will say those in the pay of the tobacco who are signing this petition. The vast majority of people signing the document are signing it because they are fed up of state interference in the life be it coming from the British government and the statist EU.
Truer then ever is Ronald Reagan's famous words " the nine most terrifying words in the english language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help". So whenever some government bureaucrat tells you they are putting the prices of alcohol up in supermarket, making it harder to eat fatty foods and introducing plain packaging for tobacco, I urge people to remember Ronald Reagan's prescient words. A government whether a nanny or authoritarian should be small and not interfering in our lives. It should also not persecute people for a lifestyle choice whether it is drink, fast food or smoking.
Keep up the good work,
Stephen
Fifty Conservative MPs demand a free vote on shop tobacco display ban
Have a look and comment on it here
Taking Liberties readers might want to return the favour to the Freedom Association. On Radio 5 Live David Baddiel grossly insulted the organisation by comparing them to the BNP.
http://www.tfa.net/the_freedom_association/2010/12/bbc-must-make-full-apology-for-bnp-smear-on-the-freedom-association.html#tpe-action-posted-6a00e553c58ee588330147e0d24f8a970b
I concur with what David said.
Please write and complain to the BBC. We have a right of reply and its time we used it!