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.

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).

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.

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.

Rome sweet Rome

Manchester United are in Rome tonight and, two weeks ago, so was I. The Italian government surprised many people when they banned smoking in all indoor public places, including cafes, bars and restaurants, in 2005. No-one was more surprised than the Italians themselves. "It happened so quick," I was told. "We didn't have time to protest."

Unlike the UK and Ireland there are exemptions for venues with sealed ventilated smoking rooms, but in practice few places can afford such a facility. It wouldn't be Italy however if someone didn't stretch the regulations. By great good fortune (or maybe not) we found ourselves in a restaurant where an hospitable  restaurateur had created a 'smoking room' by combining a gigantic ventilation shaft with a thick blue curtain that was pulled across the room to separate us from the non-smoking area. Thanks to his ingenuity, our group was able to light up, inside, in comfort. And no-one minded a bit.

Meanwhile in Wales this week it was reported that in order to get around the smoking ban, one man has come up with the brilliant idea of adding an extension to his house which, to all intents and purposes, offers a 90-seat bar for him and his mates. If stretching the rules was an Olympic sport, Kerry Morgan would win a medal; but I still think my Roman restaurateur would win gold.

Another little loss of liberty

An early start to my day in Cardiff. Smoking in enclosed public places was officially outlawed at 6.00am. Shortly after seven I'm on Radio Wales, broadcasting from the old Welsh Assembly building which is still used by the BBC. It's not a studio as such - just a spartan office with an ISDN machine on the desk. Apart from three security guards, the building seems to be empty. Mid morning (after a FULL Welsh breakfast) I'm back in Cardiff Bay for a live outside broadcast on News 24 plus a pre-record for the local lunchtime news. Channel 4 News want an interview this afternoon and I've been invited to appear on Wales Today in another live OB - this time from the Miskin Arms in Miskin, near Pontyclun, a few miles outside Cardiff.

The point I try to make - as reasonably as possible - is that we're not against smoke-free environments. In this day and age, when the majority of people are non-smokers, smoke-free should be the norm. But why does smoking have to be banned in EVERY pub, club and bar? What's wrong with smoking and non-smoking pubs, or separate, well-ventilated designated smoking rooms, or private smokers' clubs, all of which are now illegal.

Evidence from Ireland and Scotland suggests that most people will adapt and accept the ban (while continuing to smoke!!). But that doesn't make the law RIGHT. Legislation based on dubious research and inconclusive evidence (about passive smoking, for example), legislation that is out of all proportion to the actual (rather than the perceived) risk, is WRONG. Likewise, legislation designed to force people to give up a legal product is social engineering. Unjust laws weaken society because they bring the law in general into disrepute.

It's only smoking, some might say, it's no big deal. But they'd be wrong. Look at the bigger picture. After tobacco politicians and campaigners will target something else. They've already started. Little by little, bit by bit, the noose controlling our public and private behaviour will get tighter until we are all clones of Big Government. They can't help themselves. That's what they do. It has to stop.

A true liberal

I frequently despair of Liberal Democrats who - in word and deed - abuse the right to call themselves 'liberal'. Thankfully there is at least one member of the party who is true to the name. Lembit Opik (left), Liberal Democrat MP for Montgomeryshire, has added his voice to those who oppose the introduction of smoking bans in all enclosed public places. Yesterday he gave the following quote to Forest for a press release about the forthcoming ban in Wales: "In a liberal society you have to be careful about what you ban. I don't smoke, and nor do I intend to, but I'm uneasy about a blanket ban because it sets a dangerous precedent about the reach of the state." Thanks, Lembit, for having the guts to stand up and be counted.

Update on Saturday, March 31, 2007 by Simon Clark

The artistic director of the Wales Theatre Company is allegedly miffed that the Welsh Assembly has banned actors from lighting up on stage. (In England, film and theatre stages are exempt if prohibition conflicts with the "artistic integrity" of the performance.) The South Wales Echo reports that, "Despite being a vociferous anti-smoking campaigner, Michael Bogdanov said he would rather his actors be able to smoke."

So, let me get this right. Bogdanov is a "vociferous anti-smoking campaigner" but he's less happy when the ban directly affects HIM. They just don't get it, do they? If you currently support a ban on smoking in ALL public places you are effectively supporting a ban everywhere else, including stage, car and home, because that's where this level of intolerance is leading us.

You also risk increasing restrictions on our eating and drinking habits, our ability to travel when and where we want and a host of other freedoms because, if we don't stop these assaults on our liberties now, we will all be steamrollered by an unstoppable bandwagon otherwise known as the nanny state. Are you listening, Michael Bogdanov?

Cigarettes, whisky and all that jazz

I met Alan Plater last night. Plater is one of our most successful film and TV screenwriters. His credits include Z Cars, Softly Softly, The Beiderbecke Tapes, A Very British Coup, Fortunes of War and The Last of the Blonde Bombshells.  We met at Boisdale in Belgravia where the Boisdale Blue Rhythm Band - who performed at The Free Society's launch party last year - were recording the last of 17 tracks for an exclusive Boisdale/Forest CD to be called Don't Do That!. Tracks include 'Smoke, Smoke, Smoke That Cigarette',  'Cigarettes and Silhouettes', 'Cigarettes, Whisky and Wild Wild Women' and 'The Last Smoker'. 

First track on the album is a new song, 'I'm Going Outside', with lyrics by - Alan Plater. In Orkney recently, he and his wife Shirley Rubinstein - both heavy smokers - found themselves out in the cold every time they wanted to light up. "I'm 71, it's minus four degrees, and I'm going outside!" He laughs at the absurdity of it all but has strong words for the government's anti-smoking crusade which he describes as "hypocritical", "puritannical" and "sanctimonious". Don't Do That! featuring 'I'm Going Outside' will be released in May. Watch this space.