The truth about tobacco?

This week sees the launch of another book about smoking. (I know, I know, you wait years for one and then three or four come along at once.)

Smoke Screens: The Truth About Tobacco is the work of Rich White, a graduate of Canterbury Christ Church University. According to the blurb:

"The book explores all aspects of tobacco smoking including smoking trends among social classes and detection bias and its impact on diagnosis.

"It examines in depth the evidence linking smoking to specific diseases, how attitudes towards smoking have changed over time, and how and why tobacco smoking has the negative status it does today."

Actually, that makes it sound a bit dull. Truth is, this book has the word "contentious" written all over it and it is certain to generate strong opinions.

Smoke Screens will appeal to those who are dubious about the alleged risks of smoking and believe - rightly or wrongly - that the benefits outweigh those risks. Whether it will convert anyone who takes a rather different view of tobacco remains to be seen.

Some of the chapters are available online HERE and you can purchase the complete book HERE.

Alcohol and tobacco: two peas in a pod

Earlier this week I had a meeting with a management consultancy whose clients include a well known drinks company. They wanted to know what lessons the drinks industry could learn from the war on tobacco. I was happy to help.

By coincidence, this week's Spectator includes a letter on the subject of alcohol and tobacco. It is written by Rupert Fast, a long-standing supporter of Forest who attends most if not all of our London-based events and is never less than quietly supportive of Forest and the cause in general.

Rupert writes:

Sir: Everything Rod Liddle says about how the war against smoking was always going to lead to similar ones against other legitimate pleasures is true. The smoking ban was not the thin end of the wedge, though. The rot set in with crude warnings on tobacco products and the banning of cigarette advertising on television. The political crusade accelerated when traditional socialism became discredited. Getting nowhere attacking Big Business in general, the opponents of global capitalism turned their attention to businesses that could be deemed ‘unethical’.

The drinks industry has been asleep during all this, under the false illusion that smoking and drinking are completely separate issues. The last hope is that all industries smeared as ‘bad’ (fast food, confectionary, bottled water and the like) engage with genuine liberals and libertarians and challenge head on those who despise them and wish them to go bankrupt.

I'm not sure that I agree that the war on tobacco, and now alcohol, is entirely motivated by a hatred of big business - although there is an element of that among some campaigners.

What I do agree on is the suggestion that the drinks industry is wrong to believe that smoking and drinking are separate issues. It is clear, however, that the drinks industry wants to distance itself as much as possible from tobacco to the extent that some people are prepared to claim that the impact of "passive drinking" is tiny compared with the (alleged) impact of passive smoking.

I can understand, tactically, why the drinks industry wants to do this. I would argue however that they risk playing into the hands of the "health" lobby which wants to divide and rule, picking off one industry after another.

In a perfect world the food, drink and tobacco industries would stick together. So, too, responsible smokers and drinkers, not to mention every liberal-minded person in the country. Unfortunately the real world is rather different.

Stopping short of prohibition

Money Week reports that 2009 could be a landmark year for Big Tobacco. In America "Congress will soon pass an aggressive bill that will bring cigarettes under the control of US health authorities. Strict rules on advertising will be introduced and the path will be paved for Congress to raise federal cigarette taxes by 61 cents, to $1 a pack."

Interestingly, though, "The bill prevents the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from ever banning cigarettes". I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. Full article HERE.

No respite for smokers

Smokers have more reason than most to be unhappy with Alistair Darling's pre-Budget report. The Chancellor reduces VAT but in order to keep the retail price of cigarettes etc at its pre-Budget level he increases the tax on tobacco. Note: the reduction in VAT is temporary, the increase in duty is permanent.

Once again, the people hardest hit are the low paid and the elderly who rely on state pensions. This may be "the most Left-wing Budget since Labour came to power" (see below), but when it comes to smokers (the majority of whom come from working class backgrounds) the government demonstrates yet again how little empathy it has with its original core vote.

PS. Iain Dale believes there could be a problem with the government's plans to raise the duty on fuel, alcohol and tobacco. See HERE. Interesting to note that the increase in fuel and alcohol duty is due to come into effect on 1 December, whereas the hike on tobacco came into effect last night at 6.00pm, giving consumers no time to stock up. The devil is in the detail - and this mean-spirited government is determined to make life as hard as possible for anyone who dares to light up.

Where's the harm in legalising snus?

An interesting debate is brewing about the future of snus. Snus is a form of smokeless tobacco that has been popular in Sweden for, oh, yonks. When the country became the 15th member of the EU in 1995 it managed to negotiate an exemption from a law banning the sale of snus within the EU, and that remains the situation today.

What has changed is that some members of the anti-smoking industry have started to champion snus as part of a harm reduction initiative. A recent issue of the British Medical Journal (February 16) featured a "head-to-head" debate between John Britton, professor of epidemiology at City Hospital, Nottingham, and Alexander (Sandy) Macara, president of the National Heart Forum and a former chairman of the British Medical Association.

Britton is a familiar figure in the smoking debate. If pushed, I would describe him as a hardliner. (It was he, for example, who famously declared there is "no debate" about the threat of passive smoking.) Nevertheless, it is Prof Britton who wants the ban on snus to be lifted. You can read the full article HERE.

Another advocate of smokeless tobacco is Clive Bates, the former director of ASH. Writing on his blog, Bacon Butty, in September 2007, Bates didn't mince his words when he declared that:

If you want to say something absolutely jaw-dropping in its idiocy, then you need to cloak it in lots of fake sophistication. And this is what ASH Scotland has done with its new position paper on smokeless tobacco. No less than 266 references are used to support the truly stupid idea that smokeless tobacco, which can substitute for cigarettes and is far less hazardous, should be banned.

He went on to add:

The thing I find most troubling about this sort of posturing is what it means at an individual level. In effect, these remote health planners are saying to a person who smokes cigarettes that they should not have access to a much less risky alternative. Where did the acquire the authority and the bare-faced arrogance to do that? How did they become so sure of themselves that they feel qualified to restrict the harm reduction options available to someone struggling with addiction? So on those estates in Glasgow, where smoking prevalence can be as high as 70%, ASH Scotland says 'no' to lower risk alternatives. You must quit. And if you don't quit - well, you might as well die.

Strong stuff, well worth reading. See HERE.

And for a brief history of snus, read THIS.