Plain Packaging: Commercial expression, anti-smoking extremism and the risks of hyper-regulation

Today promises to be a bumper 24 hours of annoying prohibitionists, for it is the day the Adam Smith Institute publishes a paper I wrote about the ridiculous plain packaging proposals. I'll post the link to the report later [UPDATE: It is here.] but, for now, here is the Adam Smith Institute's press release.

Government’s plain packaging proposals for cigarettes will bring no benefits to public

• There is no evidence that the proposals will reduce consumption or give any public health benefit.
• Plain packaging may lead to an increase in the counterfeit cigarette trade, making cheap tobacco more easily available to young would-be smokers.
• The policy creates a dangerous precedent – plain packaging could be extended to other products such as alcohol and fatty foods.

Ahead of a public consultation on the plain-packaging of cigarettes, the Adam Smith Institute have released a report today (Monday) arguing that the proposals will do nothing for public health and are profoundly illiberal. There is no evidence that plain packaging will have any effect on existing smokers or the smoking rate. The policy represents a desperate attempt by the public health lobby and government officials to be seen as ‘clamping down’ on tobacco in an increasingly maniacal war on smoking.

No Health Benefits

The plain packaging rule is aimed at stopping non-smokers from making a decision to engage in a habit. However, there is no evidence that the colour and logos on a pack of cigarettes is an influencing factor on people choosing to start smoking. Indeed, in the case of increasing the graphic warnings on packs, a comprehensive Canadian study found that “the warnings have not made a discernable impact on smoking prevalence”. Previous studies show that packaging design does little to impact the smoking rate.

Smoking numbers have not changed since 2007 with the rise of the ‘denormalisation’ of tobacco and aggressive anti-smoker policies. Aggressive anti-smoking policies don’t appear to work. Furthermore, plain packaging has been recognised as the weakest and least popular of ASH’s (Action on Health and Smoking) 12 anti-smoking policies proposed in 2008.

The Slippery Slope

Apart from the lack of health benefits there is also the risk that such a policy would be introduced for alcohol, fatty foods or sugary drinks. What happens today in tobacco tends to happen to other unhealthy products tomorrow. In fact, this slippery slope trend has already started in Australia, where they are currently planning to introduce plain packaging. As soon as the Australian government had approved the policy they swiftly moved on to look at how this could be applied to alcohol. Once plain packaging is enshrined in law for tobacco it will be easily extended to other lifestyle choices. That’s why the Adam Smith Institute argues the nanny state juggernaut must be stopped in its tracks.

Counterfeiting and intellectual property

In order to introduce plain packaging the government would need to breach international trade rules and confiscate tobacco companies’ intellectual property, without any proof that this would yield public health benefits. Furthermore, there is reason to believe the policy will have a negative effect both on public health and the tobacco industry.

Already 1 in 9 cigarettes around the world is counterfeit, with counterfeit cigarettes often having two to three times the level of heavy metals found in legitimate brands. Plain packaging will mean the standardising of cigarette packaging, which will help illicit trade. The policy is likely to boost the black market in the UK, offering cheaper cigarettes more likely to lure young and new customers. Any illicit trade can only hinder efforts to reduce smoking, so plain packaging proposals may in reality be damaging for public health.

Plain packaging, if introduced, would be a triumph of a dogmatic minority over the public. It would be an indiscriminate, illiberal law with no basis in evidence, reason or commonsense, whilst masquerading as a public health initiative. Author of the report Plain Packaging: Commercial expression, anti-smoking extremism and the risks of hyper-regulation, Christopher Snowdon, adds:

“It is extraordinary that a government which claims to be against excessive regulation should be contemplating a law which even the provisional wing of the anti-smoking lobby considered unthinkable until very recently. It seems that fanaticism has become institutionalised and a handful of extremists have become the de facto policy makers in matters related to tobacco. The public are gradually waking up to the fact that these neo-prohibitionists will never be satisfied. There is always another cause to campaign for, always new demands to be met. If it is not smoking, it is drinking. If it is not drinking, it is eating.

Plain packaging is the most absurd, patronising and counterproductive policy yet advanced under the disingenuous pretext of ‘public health’. It will serve only to inconvenience retailers, stigmatise consumers and delight counterfeiters. Those who would dictate what we eat and drink are already incorporating plain packaging into their plans. It’s time to say ‘Enough.’ The monomaniacs have had their own way for too long.”

ASH got hold of the report early doors and came up with their own press release on Friday...

Tobacco industry “invisible hand” behind Adam Smith Institute ‘plain packs’ report

A report by the Adam Smith Institute published today in advance of a public consultation on tobacco packaging advances the views of the tobacco industry, namely that putting cigarettes in plain standardised packaging would have no public health benefit, would increase the illicit trade in tobacco and would set a “dangerous precedent” for other products.

All of these arguments misrepresent the truth and ignore the fact that glitzy packs are designed to attract new young smokers to replace the100,000 in the UK who are killed each year by their habit.

Firstly, there is now a large body of evidence to show that plain packaging will be effective. Experimental studies and surveys from around the world show that plain packs are less appealing, strengthen the impact of the health warnings, and make the packs less misleading.

Secondly, there is no evidence that plain packaging will lead to an increase in tobacco smuggling. Existing packs are already easily counterfeited. Plain packs will still have to have covert markings, tax stamps and health warnings that are required on current packs so they will be no easier to counterfeit. And the argument that it will “breach international trade rules and confiscate tobacco companies’ intellectual property” is also fallacious, according to the tobacco industry’s own legal advice, revealed in litigation.

Thirdly, the “domino theory” i.e. that once a measure has been applied to tobacco it will be applied to other products is patently false. The same argument was used against the ban on tobacco advertising, but 9 years after the tobacco ban in the UK, alcohol advertising is still permitted with no sign of it being prohibited. Tobacco is a uniquely dangerous consumer product which is why there is a WHO health treaty (the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control) to regulate tobacco use.

Deborah Arnott, Chief Executive of ASH commented:

“Why would the tobacco industry and its allies be so vehemently opposed to plain packaging if they weren’t so frightened that plain packaging would work? [Er, if you read the report, you'll find out—CJS] The Adam Smith Institute, by publishing this report, is acting as the mouthpiece for the tobacco industry, as it has done on many previous occasions. It should come as no great surprise that the Institute takes a pro-tobacco line but it should be more transparent about its association with Big Tobacco.”

The Adam Smith Institute has in turn responded to the 'Big Tobacco' allegation...

We commissioned this report ourselves because it reflects our free market, libertarian ideology. Indeed, the Adam Smith Institute does not do commissioned research.

However, there are a couple of tobacco companies that have corporate subscriptions at the Institute. The revenue from this – while welcome – is not terribly significant. It amounted to less than 3 percent of our 2011 income. Moreover, neither of these companies has played any role whatsoever in the production or editing of this report. We take our independence very seriously.

The British Medical Journal asked for a response from me so I sent them this. As they probably won't publish it, I'll post it here:

I'm pleased that Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) are familiar with Adam Smith's "invisible hand" concept despite their obvious contempt for free markets and free societies. As usual, they offer not a shred of evidence that plain packaging will deter people from smoking. Their claim that counterfeiters' lives will not be made easier by making cigarette packs look virtually identical is as credible as their belief that plain packaging will not inconvenience retailers.

ASH say that it is "patently false" to think that "once a measure has been applied to tobacco it will be applied to other products". Have they been living in a cave for the past five years? The British Medical Association is currently demanding that graphic warnings be placed on wine bottles. Where does ASH suppose they got that idea from? The BMA also wants - in their own words - "a complete ban on [alcohol] advertising as has been done very successfully with tobacco." Activists in Australia are already calling for junk food to be sold in plain packaging. Rather than denying these facts, ASH should be proud that they are blazing a trail for busybodies, cranks and authoritarians of all varieties.

Fun and games...

Share

Tweet

Carrying an e-cigarette is forbidden at UCSF

The University of California, San Francisco—the home of anti-smoking über-zealot Stanton Glantz—has banned students from using and carrying e-cigarettes across campus, inside and out.

To provide a smoke-free environment for its faculty, staff, students, patients, and visitors, UCSF shall be a smoke-free campus.

The policy, which has been flagged up by Glantz on his blog, applies to all "University-owned or leased property, buildings, space, and University-owned passenger vehicles and moving equipment" and includes all "smoking tobacco products".

To the scientifically illiterate goons at UCSF, "smoking tobacco products" includes products which are not smoked and do not contain tobacco.

Smoking tobacco products means inhaling, exhaling, burning or carrying any lighted or heated cigar, pipe or cigarette (traditional or e-cigarette).

Just unbelievable.

Share

Tweet

Another barking mad idea from a doctor

A letter in this week's British Medical Journal has been press released around the world and may feature in today's newspapers. Although it appears to have been written by a precocious child, it is actually from the pen of a grown man, and a doctor at that.

The letter is actually an online comment to an article in the BMJ from last month. The BMJ must have been so impressed by its startlingly original contents that it deemed it worthy of a wider readership.

Fundamental re-think on smoking is needed
Paul D Jepson
F2 doctor, public health

Excuse my naivety, but isn’t smoking’s continued legality one of the most important factors accounting for its slow rate of decline?

If you mean that fewer people would smoke if smoking was illegal, then yes, but it's not quite as simple as that, is it?

Any other drug causing a fraction of the morbidity and mortality of tobacco would have been outlawed long ago, putting aside alcohol for the moment.

Why should we put aside alcohol? Perhaps because it doesn't fit your argument?

In 2010 mephedrone became a class B drug following widespread media coverage and reports of some deaths in the preceding months, although the evidence surrounding the dangers of mephedrone does not exist.

I agree. Mephedrone should not have been banned, as I argued in The Art of Suppression. Unfortunately, we live in prohibitionist times and there is no greater engine of prohibition than the public health establishment, as epitomised by the British Medical Journal.

This is in stark contrast to tobacco, which is responsible for around 100,000 deaths each year in the UK. Why should smoking get special treatment?

I suppose because 1.5 billion people worldwide like consuming tobacco and people can function perfectly well under the influence of nicotine in a way that they can't under the influence of party drugs and amphetamines. The majority of people believe smoking should be legal so it is. We call it democracy and, in a free society, informed adults have a right to put what they like into their bodies even if it carries a risk to their health. The question is not why should smoking get special treatment, but why shouldn't drugs be legal?

For mainly economic and political reasons, adults with enough change in their pocket can walk into their local shop and buy a packet of cigarettes. They will not be judged and will not feel ashamed: smoking is an acceptable addiction.

If that is true - and broadly speaking, it is - it is not for want of trying from the denormalisers of public health. Every effort is made by alleged health campaigners to stigmatise smokers, demonise tobacco and villify the manufacturers. If this hate campaign has not yet led to actual lynch mobs, it only shows that the general public are more tolerant than the British Medical Association. That, again, answers your question as to why smoking remains legal.

If the tabloid press were to publish a list of the names of the more than 250 people killed by smoking related disease each day, would the government be as fast to react as it did for mephedrone?

[splutter]

[wipes coffee from keyboard]

Assuming this to be a serious suggestion, I will attempt a serious reply. Leaving aside the extraordinary distastefulness of the idea and the unconscionable invasion of privacy, the main problem is that such a scheme would be impossible to carry out. No one is able to name these hypothetical 250 people because doctors and coroners very rarely list smoking as a cause of death. Although the BBC recently affected shock at the reluctance of doctors to name smoking on death certificates, all smoking-related diseases are multi-factoral (ie. have more than one cause) and all smoking-related diseases can be contracted by nonsmokers.

So while there is a good chance that a smoker who dies of lung cancer developed the disease because of his smoking, there is a chance that he would have got it even if he had not smoked. In the case of heart disease - which is the biggest contributor to the 100,000 figure - it is impossible to say that smoking was the cause of any one death. This lack of certainty in individual cases is the main reason why personal injury lawsuits against tobacco companies tend to fail in court.

Imagine a fat smoker with a family history of heart disease, a poor diet and a stressful job. Can a doctor say with any certainty that his heart attack was 'caused' by his smoking, his diet, his stress, his genes or his diet? It can't be done. The 100,000 figure comes from assumptions taken from the epidemiological literature based on aggregate data from hospitals. It is an estimate. It is not based on a running total of clinically proven 'smoking-related deaths'.

Even if such a list could be created, who is going to pay for the column inches in the tabloids every day? Since this letter was written by an authoritarian doctor of public health, we must assume that the taxpayer will, as ever, be expected to foot the bill. And why only tabloids? Are we to assume that smokers do not read the broadsheets?

Finally, on a practical note, the great majority of the 250 daily deaths would be of people in their 70s, 80s and 90s. Smoking prevention campaigns are largely targeted at people in their teens and twenties. It is doubtful whether listing the names of people who, for the most part, enjoyed the proverbial 'good innings' is really going to have desired the shock value for the target group of devil-may-care youngsters.

People’s attitude towards drugs should be evidence based, and not informed by politics or popular opinion.

Quite so. Let's legalise them. Prohibition didn't work with alcohol, it doesn't work with drugs and it won't work with tobacco.

How must smokers feel when they are encouraged to quit their habit by the same government that welcomes tobacco taxes so gladly?

I suppose it makes them think that politicians are greedy hypocrites. A valuable lesson learned, no?

While smoking remains legal, the number of smokers is never going to fall significantly—no matter how much taxes rise, how plain cigarette packets become, or how many millions of pounds is spent on cessation.

Smoking rates have actually fallen very significantly over the years and may continue to do so. Admittedly, they have flat-lined since 2006, when the government began listening to the 'experts' of tobacco control and introduced divisive, ill-considered policies like total smoking bans, graphic warnings and display bans. Maybe the politicians will learn their lesson and withdraw their funding from astro-turf anti-smoking groups in the same way as it has recently stopped funding Alcohol Concern. (Rather than try and raise money from the general public, Don Shenker has realised that the game is up and has resigned. Cheers!)

Perhaps the smoking rate will continue to flat-line. Or it might start going back up. Or it might fall again. Who knows? It's none of your business and it's none of mine either. The risks of smoking are universally acknowledged and there is a great big warning on every pack saying 'Smoking Kills'. Having accepted that prohibition doesn't work, we must also accept that informed adults have the choice to smoke or not smoke. There really isn't more to say on the matter. You live your life and I'll live mine.

As I mentioned, this letter may be the subject of some news coverage today, presumably because it raises the spectre of the 'next and final step'. I'll be on BBC Radio Sussex at around 9.50am talking about it.

Share

Tweet

Cigarette butts - some loony proposals

Some shocking news from New Zealand...

Smoking bins being installed at the Greymouth railway station are being partly funded by British American Tobacco.

Pass the smelling salts. Is there no end to the schemes of these evil-doers?

Keep New Zealand Beautiful announced the bin deal on on September 30. The press release did not mention the link with the international tobacco giant.

Dirty, underhand stuff. Looks like Big Tobacco has been caught pushing their evil, er, litter bins on rail companies.

Or perhaps not...

Keep New Zealand Beautiful national programme manager Tracy Shackleton said KiwiRail had requested the bins.

Oh.

"If a company rings up and requests the bin, we will, of course, oblige."

Right.

KiwiRail passenger general manager Deborah Hume said the company was not aware of the connection with British and American Tobacco.

So now what happens?

However, it agreed to accept the bins in order to address a litter and safety issue "and that still stands".

I see.

Erm...

What was the problem again?

West Coast Tobacco Coalition chairwoman Anne Hines, in a letter to the head of KiwiRail, said butt bins normalised smoking.

Of course, it's an issue of denormalisation. There was I thinking that litter was a problem that could be alleviated with litter bins, but I forgot when when tobacco is involved the only solution is the stigmatisation of its users and the total eradication of cigarettes. How silly of me, and how silly of the train company to have made the same mistake.

The bins normalised smoking, and allowed tobacco companies to claim social responsibility, she said.

Actually, what 'normalises' smoking is all the smokers hanging around smoking after being forbidden from smoking for their entire train journey. And since, as already mentioned, the press release did not mention the tobacco company, they can hardly be accused of claiming social responsibility. Nevertheless, social responsibility is what we would call it from any other industry.

They did nothing to encourage people to stop smoking, which would reduce the number of discarded cigarette butts.

This may come as a shock to you, Anne, but not everything in the world is designed for the purposes of social engineering. However abnormal you may view the habit, 20% of New Zealanders continue to smoke and they do so in an increasingly limited number of places. In your excitable imagination, abolishing cigarette bins in designated smoking areas will make smokers think "there's nowhere to put this, I'd better give up smoking now", but here in the real world a lack of cigarette bins leads to lots of cigarette litter. If tobacco companies pay for some cigarette bins, the financial burden is shifted from the taxpayer to the smoker (because, of course, smokers fund the tobacco companies). This is an equitable solution to a negative externality. So, really, what is the problem?

The truth is that tobacco controllers like Ms Hines don't like cigarette bins because they are practical solutions to a simple problem. They prefer to deprive smokers of somewhere to put their litter and then portray them of being inconsiderate, socially irresponsible litter bugs. Like all neo-prohibitionists, they create a problem—in this instance, banning smoking in every indoor place and then abolishing cigarette bins outdoors—and then blame other people for the inevitable consequences.

Cigarette litter is a useful weapon to use against smokers, particularly now that outdoor smoking bans are a priority. A staggering amount of junk research has been produced on the topic this year alone (have a look). Take this article from the anti-smoking comic Tobacco Control for example. It encourages advocates to make alliances with environmental groups to capitalise on the cigarette litter 'problem' while attacking the tobacco industry for having the temerity to support tidy-street programmes. As with the New Zealand "news story", the article contains scandalous "revelations" about cigarette companies which don't exactly set the heart racing.

The tobacco industry has been concerned about cigarette butt litter as an issue since the 1970s; a 1979 Tobacco Institute memo stated that smokers’ ‘careless, offensive and occasionally harmful’ cigarette butt disposal practices were contributing to the declining acceptability of smoking. A decade later, the industry was concerned about the ‘potential for anti-smoking groups to seize [the litter] issue to attack cigarettes’.

They got that right then, didn't they? How very prescient.

The tobacco industry has responded to the litter issue through partnership with Keep America Beautiful (KAB), an anti-litter organisation.

Yet more secret funding and backroom dealings?

Er, no...

The industry has made no secret of its ties to KAB and similar organisations

Well, fine. Why should they? Cigarette butts are an important source of litter, as tobacco control groups are constantly telling us. So, what is to be done?

Currently, Philip Morris is funding KAB’s ‘Cigarette Litter Prevention Program’. This program has four strategies: increasing smoker awareness that ‘cigarette butts are litter ’; installing public ashtrays; promoting pocket ashtrays; and ‘encouraging enforcement of existing litter laws’.

In other words, treat cigarette litter the same as every other form of litter. Sounds fair enough. Other industries are expected to encourage responsible disposal of waste, why not the tobacco industry? The answer, apparently, is that...

Like secondhand smoke, litter is a consequence of smokers’ behaviour; the industry has no direct control over it.

That's rather contentious, to say the least, and also flatly at odds with the following sentence...

The tobacco industry has managed the litter issue to its advantage by blaming it on individuals and - as with other issues, including tobacco-related disease - denying its own responsibility.

So which is it? Is cigarette litter the result of individual behaviour which the industry has no control over, or is the industry responsible for cigarette litter while blaming helpless individuals? Or do the authors of this article have no coherent argument at all?

Industry-preferred ‘solutions’ to the litter problem are smoker education, installation of permanent ashtrays and distribution of pocket ashtrays. Although they implicitly blame smokers for litter, these approaches also enable smokers to keep smoking despite increased restrictions and declining social acceptability.

I case you hadn't noticed, smokers are able to smoke regardless of whether there are permanent ashtrays and do so in abundance. It's not a choice between a world with cigarette bins and a world of mass abstinence. It's a choice between lots of cigarette litter and less cigarette litter. The "industry-preferred" solutions are identical to governmental solutions used for every other form of litter: education and the provision of disposal units. No one would seriously argue that removing litter bins from the streets would result in the abolition of rubbish, so what makes cigarette butts any different?

The authors then proceed to give tips on how anti-smoking campaigners can infiltrate environmental groups on the pretext of being concerned about litter while actually pushing an abstinence-only message.

Allies should reach mutual understanding about the nature of the problem. An organisation focused on ‘litter ’ might regard ashtray installation as a reasonable solution.

No kidding. But what do they know, eh? As far the experts from Tobacco Control are concerned, these organisations are deluding themselves (and probably in the pay of Big Tobacco), so they need to be re-educated by the Johnny-come-latelys of the anti-smoking movement.

The environmental principles ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ should be foregrounded, ensuring that smoking prevention and cessation (ie, ‘reduce’) are considered fundamental.

That's right. Anti-smoking campaigners—who are not in the least bit interested in littering as an issue—are going to alter the decades-old environmental message of "reduce, reuse, recycle" and turn it into "reduce, reduce, reduce." The hubris of these people beggars belief. Take this gem of an idea, for example...

Legislation could require that a sealable return envelope be included with each pack sold, that retailers only accept returns in those containers

Recycling mandates and waste mitigation regulations are not ordinarily designed to curb use...

You're right. They're not, but a handful of monomaniacs briefly and disingenuously joining the environmental movement can change all that, right?

However, if laws requiring cigarette retailers to accept butts back for recycling cause them to stop selling cigarettes, this would also be a gain for tobacco control.

Amongst the many problems with this three-o'clock-in-the-morning idea is that the waste involved in manufacturing envelopes to be sold with every pack of cigarettes, combined with the energy used in posting cigarette butts around the world for no useful purpose, is far more environmentally destructive that a few butts on the pavement. And since the aim of this plan is explicitly to inconvenience smokers and shop-keepers, I suspect that even the looniest green activist will be happy to forego this "gain for tobacco control".

The authors also see a chance to pursue their usual objective of upping the price of cigarettes and limiting availability. If you've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Waste mitigation programs may also raise the price of cigarettes, a well-established means of reducing smoking prevalence rates, and reduce the number of retailers willing or qualified to sell particular goods.

And the madness keeps on coming...

One idea that has not been tried is banning cigarette filters.

[splutter]

Filters have not been shown to reduce the harms of smoking.

Actually they have been shown to reduce the harms of smoking (I could write a whole post on this subject if anyone's interested). Filters are probably the only innovation in cigarette design to have helped reduce the harms of smoking in a century of searching, and yet here are alleged health campaigners recommending their abolition.

So let's get this straight. On the pretext of protecting public health, cigarettes need to be made more dangerous. On the pretext of environmentalism, countless trees need to be cut down to manufacture billions of pointless envelopes. On the pretext of reducing cigarette litter, smokers need to be deprived of litter bins.

How can anyone take these people seriously?

Share

Tweet

Give psychotic drug to the mentally ill, urges ASH

I returned from the International Harm Reduction Conference on Friday, a day late thanks to a cancelled flight. Carl Phillips—a more dedicated blogger than I—has written a series of posts about the conference at Ep-ology (eg. here, here and here) and I'll mention some themes in the next few posts.

As you may know, the harm reduction movement is focused on drug use, especially intravenous drug use, but is sympathetic to all forms of harm reduction. In the field of tobacco, that means snus, e-cigarettes, nicotine drugs and any other 99% less harmful nicotine delivery device.

Inevitably, there is a faction which tends towards Nuttism—defending illegal drugs as an means to condemn legal drugs (named after its greatest living exponent, David Nutt). Alarmingly, a representative of the WHO blamed drug use on smoking, using the post hoc ergo propter hoc logic that most people who take drugs have previously smoked cigarettes. Still more alarmingly, he suggested that it might be better to view smokers as criminals and drug users as victims.

Mercifully, he seemed to be in the minority. Most delegates work with—or are themselves—drug users and smokers, and they see neither as criminals nor addicts. Amongst harm reductionists, opinion varies from those who don't condone drug use but think it should be made as safe as possible, to those who think taking drugs is a human right. Certainly, there is an acceptance that people take drugs because (a) they like them and (b) they have psychological benefits.

If you suggested that people take drugs solely because of (a) peer-pressure and (b) addiction, they would laugh in your fatuous face. We tell school children that, of course, because if we told them the whole truth they would be more tempted to try drugs. And because they're children, it's okay to use a childish argument. But that's all it is—a simplistic half-truth to deter the kiddies from taking drugs. It has no place in the adult world. (I'm not saying that some drugs aren't addictive, BTW, but part of the addiction/habit comes from the enjoyment.)

When it comes to nicotine, however, simplistic half-truths persist even amongst many grown ups. And so when ASH Scotland asks why smoking prevalence is exceptionally high amongst people with mental disorders, they come up with every answer except the truth—ie. that nicotine helps alleviate the misery.

Most people start smoking in their mid to late teens before they realise how dangerous and addictive the stimulants in cigarettes are.

This is at least partly true. However, it doesn't explain why many people return to smoking years later, nor does it answer the question of why so many people with mental illness smoke, including 88% of schizophrenics.

Nicotine triggers the release of dopamine in the brain so smokers learn to associate cigarettes with pleasure and when they stop smoking they may experience withdrawal then associate relief with the next cigarette, and so begins the withdrawal/feedback loop.

Er, not really. Smokers don't learn to associate cigarettes with pleasure. Nicotine releases dopamine which provides pleasure. It's not a Pavlovian trick. It happens with each cigarette.

Some research appears to indicate that people with schizophrenia smoke as a kind of ‘self-medication’ to improve memory or reduce symptoms...

Here, the truth begins to sail into view...

...but the reasons for the higher rates of smoking amongst people with mental illness are complex and not yet clearly understood.

And sails away again, to be replaced with the standard line:

It should be remembered that people with mental illness are subject to the same peer pressure and inducements from the tobacco industry as the general population.

I'd love to know what inducements the tobacco industry have been using in Scotland in recent years (I guess it's those evil colours they use on the cigarette packs just above the massive health warning). But even if we accept this facile line of reasoning, it doesn't explain why people with mental illness smoke at three times the rate of the general population.

This being ASH, the purpose of the whole exercise is to call for total smoking bans in mental health units and to push pharmaceutical products. Not just any old pharmaceutical product either. They suggest...

Varenicline (trade name Champix)

You've got to be kidding. Champix (AKA Chantix), the drug that has been officially blamed for hundreds of deaths and many more psychotic episodes? From Michael Siegel's blog:

The FDA responded to the more than 100 reports of suicides, more than 400 reports of violence, and more than 11,000 other cases of severe side effects associated with Chantix by requiring Pfizer to place a "black box" warning label on the medication. The label warns physicians to monitor their patients for adverse psychiatric effects, such as severe depression, violent behavior, and suicidality.

According to the FDA:

Chantix has been linked to serious neuro-psychiatric problems including changes in behaviour, agitation, depressed moods, suicidal ideation and suicide. The drug can cause an existing psychiatric illness to worsen or an old psychiatric illness to recur and the symptoms can recur even after the drug is discontinued.

A recent study of 484 drugs found that Chantix made violent behaviour EIGHTEEN times more likely.

Varenicline has the largest number of reported violence cases, the highest proportion of violence cases (PRR = 18.0) ... of any of the 484 evaluable drugs.

Wow. That sounds like a great drug to be giving people who are already mentally ill and/or violent. Is there any limit to ASH's irresponsible stupidity?

Share

Tweet

ASH Wednesday (part 1)

Man goes to the doctor to hear the results of his test. Doctor says: "Do you want the good news or the bad news?" The man says he'll take the good news. "You're going to have a disease named after you."

That's how it was yesterday when the government's "new" policy on smoking was announced. I'll come to all the bad news tomorrow in a much longer post, but there was one small silver lining, as the Ashtray blog reported:

In an extremely positive piece of news for the UK electronic cigarette industry the UK Medicines and Healthcare Product Regulatory Agency (MHRA) have announced what they are going to do about the electronic cigarette.

Nothing.

At least for now.

Good news for e-cigarette users. Not such good news for cigarette users (more tax, more denormalisation, plain packing, display ban) and terrible news for snus users (UK will continue to support the EU ban).

Meanwhile, the BBC's medical correspondent Fergus Walsh has expressed his own strong views on the subject of smoking and provides a clue as to why the BBC is prepared to rewrite any old press release from the anti-smoking lobby.

De-normalising smoking is a key part of discouraging the young from taking up the habit.

As I've said before, denormalisation is a sinister term with sinister consequences. Aside from the fact that it suggests that the government can decide what is and is not normal, denormalisation is stigmatisation by another name. Stigmatisation creates hatred and allows the most hateful people to come in from the fringes and be regarded as something close to normal. You only have to read some of the comments to Walsh's piece to see this.

John_from_Hendon wrote:

Passive smoking also needs to be curtailed: so ban smoking in public, in vehicles, at sea etc. even if the only person present is the smoker.

Smokers could then kill themselves with their vile addiction, but not be able to harm others either financially or health-wise.

Alternatively perhaps we could put something in the water (or more rationally the cancer sticks / coffin nails) that made smokers violently sick every time the took a puff (or in every twentieth fag)!

I prefer the option of poring scorn on smokers ghastly habit. Make smokers be subject to sets of practical jokes - for example vile diseased lungs in a packet of cigarettes on a random basis. Illegality with addictive substances only creates a very profitable criminal distribution system.

I would also hope that smokers were put to the bottom of all heath service queues - or that they should fear that this will happen.

ASH must be very proud.

Share

Tweet

A dark day for satire

Do my eyes deceive me or is public health jumping the shark yet again?

This, from the Beeb:

'Give out statins with junk food'

Fast food outlets should consider handing out cholesterol-lowering drugs to combat the effects of fatty food, say UK researchers.

Taking a statin pill every day would offset the harm caused by a daily cheeseburger and milkshake, the Imperial College London team said.

It would only cost 5p a customer - similar to a sachet of ketchup.

Doesn't look good, does it? But before we over-react, we all know how the media can exaggerate research findings for dramatic effect. So let's have a look at what was written in the actual study...

Routine accessibility of statins in establishments providing unhealthy food might be a rational modern means to offset the cardiovascular risk. Fast food outlets already offer free condiments to supplement meals.

A free statin-containing accompaniment would offer cardiovascular benefits, opposite to the effects of equally available salt, sugar, and high-fat condiments.

Okay. Checked it, and that's what it says. WTF? Have these people have gone stark staring mad? Prescription drugs handed out in McDonalds to any random person that wanders in off the street?! Prescription drugs (made by GlaxoSmithKline) which have prescription-level side effects being equated with sachets of ketchup?! Hell, let's just pump the stuff into the water supply and be done with it.

It is now officially impossible—even in the depths of an absinthe-induced hallucination—to come up with a spoof that would out-parody the schemes of public health. These people are going to put The Onion and The Daily Mash out of business.


UPDATE: As if to prove my point, I see that my little joke about pumping statins into the water supply has indeed been seriously mooted, way back in 2004: Statin-fortified drinking water?

Share

Tweet

The swine that flew

So, it's out with the old and in with the new...

August 10th 2010:

Swine flu pandemic over, says world health body

The swine flu pandemic has been declared officially over by the World Health Organization.

Millions of people were affected across the world by the infection after it emerged in April last year. But the pandemic - the first for 40 years - proved much less deadly than many had feared.

In the UK, more than 450 people died, but that was well short of the 65,000 predicted as the worst-case scenario.

August 11th 2010:

Superbug NDM-1 To Kill Millions Unless New Antibiotics Found

A new superbug NDM-1 which is resistant to almost every antibiotic is poised to spread and wreak havoc across the world unless new antibiotics are developed quickly warns the UK Health Protection Agency.

As we now know, swine flu was a scandalously expensive health scare. Aided and abetted by that self-aggrandising, fear-mongering old crank Sir Liam Donaldson, a relatively mild influenza bug was turned into a multi-billion dollar cash cow for the pharmaceutical industry (this being his second attempt to generate panic in this way).

Donaldson's eagerness to have a bona fide pandemic on his hands was shared by the World Health Organisation, who—according to Tom Jefferson, a researcher for the international Cochrane Centre—changed the very definition of the word:

"On 1 May the WHO's global pandemic website had the old definition of an influenza pandemic, which included very large numbers of cases, complications and deaths," he said.

"By 4 May that definition had disappeared and what remained was simply a new virus which spreads rapidly and infects very many people."

By September, the grim reaper remained conspicuous by his absence. Donaldson ratcheted up fears as winter drew closer, resolutely ignoring the fact that the Australian flu season had come and gone with a mere 162 deaths—a fraction of the 3,000 lives that normal flu typically claims. Virologists could see that a winter epidemic was never on the cards:

Dr Stoehr believes that, over the course of last summer, after a Phase 6 pandemic was declared, the WHO failed to read the signs about swine flu coming from the southern hemisphere winter.

"In July and August the Australia and New Zealand national influenza centres were indicating the southern hemisphere outbreak was mild," he said.

"Virologists, myself included, thought well, it's not so likely that this virus will become more severe."

Nevertheless, Donaldson described swine flu as the "biggest challenge [to the NHS] in a generation" and predicted that a third of the UK population would come down with the virus in the winter. In an act of near-insanity, the British government ordered 110 million doses of the swine flu vaccine Tamiflu, the Department of Health ordered 32 million face masks and the Home Office made plans to dig mass graves.

In the event—despite the coldest winter for 30 years—there were fewer deaths than in the average flu season. The final death toll was 450—0.7% of the 65,000 predicted in Donaldson's worst-case scenario. Of these 450 deaths, only 70 could be solely attributed to swine flu.

Like all disciples of the precautionary principle, Donaldson could attribute the low death toll to his own policies. But there were even fewer deaths in Poland, whose government did not buy a single dose of Tamiflu.

In truth, it was obvious within a week of the initial outbreak that swine flu was not going to be a major killer. If it was going to slay millions, it would have done so in crowded and poverty-stricken Mexico City, where the scare began. Clearly, this was a fairly contagious but not very potent disease. Swine flu single-handedly brought the phrase "chronic underlying health problems" into the popular lexicon, as they seemed to be a prerequisite for any swine flu-related death. The chance of dying from the disease once you contracted it was 0.0001%.

There is now a substantial body of evidence that the over-reaction was largely due to the excessive influence of Big Pharma. This from The Guardian:

Scientists who drew up the key World Health Organisation guidelines advising governments to stockpile drugs in the event of a flu pandemic had previously been paid by drug companies which stood to profit, according to a report out today.

Wolfgang Wodarg, former chairman of the Council of Europe Health Committee called the swine flu frenzy "one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century."

"It's just a normal kind of flu. It does not cause a tenth of deaths caused by the classic seasonal flu. The great campaign of panic we have seen provided a golden opportunity for representatives from labs who knew they would hit the jackpot in the case of a pandemic being declared.

"We want to clarify everything that brought about this massive operation of disinformation. We want to know who made decisions, on the basis of what evidence, and precisely how the influence of the pharmaceutical industry came to bear on the decision-making."

So what of today's news? Firstly, let's remember that the NDM-1 bug is not in the news because there has been a sudden outbreak. The media are only reporting a paper that has just been published in The Lancet, which studied 37 of the approximately 50 cases that have been reported in the UK over the last two years. According to the BBC: "For some of the patients the infection was mild, while others were seriously ill, and some with blood poisoning." The low infection rate and very low mortality rate do not suggest we are looking at an epidemic. The Lancet study emphasised the need to monitor NDM-1, which would obviously be sensible. The more hysterical claims are the media's alone.

Don't go digging any mass graves just yet.

Share

Tweet

E-cigarettes look set to be banned

So it looks like they're going to ban e-cigarettes in the UK. The fools.

Michael Kitt at ecigarettedirect.co.uk has received a letter from a Trading Standards Officer who has (apparently) been told by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) that they  will be opting for what they always said was their preferred option and banning all nicotine products. There are are—of course—two major exceptions: the most hazardous nicotine products (smoked tobacco) will continue to be on sale, as will the least effective smoking cessation aids (pharmaceutical nicotine).

From the letter:

I have been in discussions with other Trading Standards authorities and have found out that the consultation is almost complete. The outcome will be that as of a date (yet to be announced) there will be a 21 days period and then these products will be outright banned in the UK, unless the traders apply for certification as a medical device from MHRA. This process could be complicated and costly so it is expected that many traders may cease trading.

What this means for vapers like Leg-Iron is that it's back to the cigarettes. The least harmful nicotine delivery device is to be withdrawn in favour of the most harmful. And in the boardrooms of Pfizer and Philip Morris there was much rejoicing.

How has it comes to this? As I said at the International Harm Reduction Conference back in April, I think it comes down to a combination of fanaticism and pharmaceutical pressure.

Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights - in a press release titled Electronic Cigarettes are NOT a safe alternative! - criticised the e-cigarette specifically because it mimics the act of smoking and because it contains nicotine.

Only pharmaceutical nicotine products escape criticism, partly because they are marketed as a medicinal cure for a ‘disease’ and partly because they administer nicotine without providing pleasure.

This has led to a somewhat inconsistent view of nicotine, described as being perfectly safe in pharmaceutical products but highly toxic in e-cigarettes, snus and other tobacco products. The EPA describes it as “acutely toxic (Category 1) by all routes of exposure (oral, dermal and inhalation)” while the MHRA says thats “nicotine, while addictive, is actually a very safe drug.”

Five years ago, when I began researching Velvet Glove, Iron Fist, I was wary of making too many claims about the influence of the pharmaceutical lobby. Although Big Pharma (or, more accurately, the pharmaceutical companies who happen to make nicotine products) have funded the anti-smoking movement lavishly over the last twenty years, there were anti-smoking fanatics long before they got involved and, for the most part, the movement's prohibitionist agenda has remained unchanged. While it is important to be aware of the conflicts of interest, especially when nicotine replacement products (NRT) are being touted, people like John Banzhaf and Stanton Glantz were going to be saying the same things with or without Big Pharma's cash.

But I have been saying for some time that the anti-smoking movement's attitude towards the e-cigarette would be the litmus test of pharmaceutical influence. There is no doubt that Big Pharma is seriously worried about the e-cigarette's impact on their sales, as an industry report suggested:

E-Cigarettes Will Revolutionise the Face of Tobacco Smoking and Could Pose a Threat to the Smoking Cessation Market

In February, the Department of Health (of which MHRA is a part) went further than ever before in pushing pharmaceutical nicotine, not just as a smoking cessation aid but as a long-term substitute. Needless to say, this change of emphasis suits the makers of nicotine products just fine. 

In the e-cigarette, we have a product that is—at the very least—99% less harmful than cigarettes. In all probability, it is 100% safe (because, as MHRA say, nicotine is "a very safe drug"). Furthermore, there is considerable anecdotal evidence that e-cigarettes are more effective as smoking cessation aids than anything sold by Big Pharma. It is certainly reasonable to say that they require some regulation, if only to prevent contaminated or substandard products going on sale, but to ban them entirely is sheer madness. As Paul Bergen says over at Smokles:

There is good reason for some sort of standards for any widely used product. This is just a very bad way of going about it.

If cigarettes did not exist and e-cigarettes were some unique nicotine delivery device then this approach would not be entirely out of sorts. It would still be unusually demanding in its short time frame for compliance but the worry would center more around commercial concerns than concerns of health.

However we have been repeatedly reminded by national authorities that too many people are dying from smoking, implying that these same authorities think this is not a good thing, and also implying that they would support actions that would bring down those mortality figures.

Quite simply, the ban on e-cigarettes—like the ban on snus—is going to result in more people dying of smoking-related diseases. It is a victory only for those with a bone-headed prohibitionist mindset, it is a victory for the precautionary principle and it is a victory for big business. No organisation that supports the ban can seriously claim to be working in the interests of public health.

If and when this ban is confirmed, will we hear objections from ASH? After all, ASH claims to support harm reduction. There must be some amongst their number who joined the movement because they wanted to help people quit smoking and save lives. Will they speak out or will they keep quiet in deference to the companies who pay for their conferences?

H/T: Kate at Vapersnet.org 

Share

Tweet

Cheers!

I think we can file this one under 'the next logical step'...

Thailand currently has the most draconian anti-tobacco laws in Asia and was amongst the first to adopt both the display ban and the graphic warning. The effect has been the uglification of everyday life in the name of public health. We Brits have already seen graphic warnings on cigarette packs hit our shores and the display ban may or may be winding its devious way towards us (see last post).

Meanwhile, Thailand is motoring ahead and now plans to put graphic warnings on alcohol.

Thailand is pressing ahead with its plan to force alcohol manufacturers to carry graphic picture warnings on the bottle after the policy was cleared of trade barrier concerns by World Trade Organisation members.

Here are some of the charming images under consideration (they will have to cover at least 30% of the can or bottle)...

The slogans read (clockwise from top left): 'Drinking alcohol causes hypertension and liver cirrhosis', 'Drunk driving causes disability or death', 'Drinking alcohol leads to unconsciousness and even death', 'Drinking alcohol leads to adverse health effects and family problems'.


And why not? Once we accept that one hazardous product must be adorned with photographs of death and disease, what's stopping us doing it to them all?

Therein lies the simplistic beauty and the hideous logic of the slippery slope. And food will be next.

Share

Tweet

The case of the missing cigar

Winston Churchill, the obese, binge-drinking chain-smoker whose life was tragically cut short at the age of 90, has had his cigar airbrushed from the photo that hangs outside the Britain at War museum. 

So whodunnit? No one is owning up. Staff at the museum insist that they were unaware of the change and are not saying who handled the image.

Intriguingly the museum, which gives all profits to charity, declined to name who put together the display and, crucially, who enlarged the image for the poster.

I trust they will find out and then name and shame the person responsible. Any modification of historical documents should be treated extremely seriously by a museum of all places. This kind of airbrushing is Orwellian and Stalinist in the literal sense (although it was the Nazis who first airbrushed a photo to remove smoking—in a poster of Stalin during the Nazi-Soviet pact). None of these are precedents to be followed and, regardless of context, altering the past is a line that should never be crossed.

The Churchill airbrushing was spotted by a visitor to the museum, David McAdam, who said:

"Viewing the now disfigured image reveals just how unhinged the vociferous anti-smoking lobby has become. So much for the notion that only communist tyrants airbrushed history."

They've been doing it for years, of course. The Beatles, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, John Paul Sartre and Robert Johnson have all been subject to historical revisionism. 

The anti-smoking lobby appears to treat history in the same casual manner as it treats science and economics. If it can be twisted to serve the overarching cause, it will. Back in 1996, an article in Tobacco Control called for an image of Franklin Roosevelt to appear sans famous cigarette-holder on the highly dubious grounds that the brain haemorrage which killed him was 'smoking-related'. 

And when a US poster company airbrushed Paul McCartney's cigarette from a reproduction of the Abbey Road cover, there was no resistance from ASH. Quite the reverse.

Amanda Sandford, from anti-smoking group Ash, said: “We are happy to support this action. People who see their idols holding cigarettes are more likely to copy them and start smoking themselves.”

At the time, Simon Clark of FOREST said:

“This is pathetic. What next? We will have to remove pipes and cigars from pictures of Sherlock Holmes and Winston Churchill. These people should stop trying to re-write history."

That now looks a very prescient observation, particularly since the BBC went on to produce a Sherlock Holmes series in which the great detective never smoked a pipe. Seriously, this has got to stop.

[Dick Puddlecote has found an even older example of cigarette airbrushing.]

Share

Tweet

What fresh hell?

Smokles is running a competition to predict the next absurd claim to be made in an anti-tobacco journal. Can you think of anything more ludicrous than third-hand smoke or heart attack miracles? If so, get yourself over there. Don't be afraid of letting your imagination run wild. Remember, this is tobacco control. No idea is too insane.

My suggestions:

Toxins from cigarettes can be transmitted down phone lines?

Smokers and non-smokers should be buried in separate sections of grave-yards?

Smoking bans lead to drop in rate of sexually transmitted diseases?

The sight of people smoking triggers lung cancer in ex-smokers?

Using the word 'cigarette' should be classified as tobacco advertising?

Share

Tweet

The next logical step (part 94)

The latest anti-smoking ruse in the erstwhile Land of the Free is forcing shopkeepers to show graphic posters of various smoking-related diseases. As Simon Waxman says in the Boston Globe, this is an act of compelled speech and yet another intrusion on individual liberty.

Waxman (presumably no relation to Henry) asks the age-old question: 'Where Will It End?' 

What will be next? We all know that these posters will not eliminate smoking in Massachusetts. Will smokers at some point be required upon purchase of cigarettes to sign notices indicating that they recognize the health risks? Perhaps we will demand that they watch videos of surgeries or smokers on their deathbeds. 

Or perhaps we could compel smokers to buy a licence—an idea that was seriously mooted in Britain not too long ago.

Antismoking crusaders have established a goal of zero. Ultimately, they want smoking to be illegal, but if this cannot be achieved, they will go to increasingly invasive and degrading lengths to ensure that every smoker quits “voluntarily.’’

Even those who support draconian smoking bans are starting to realise that the issue has never been secondhand smoke and it certainly isn't about children.

Yet many do not seem to care about this narrowing of individual liberty. This is what we exchange for the opportunity to harangue fellow adults about their private choices.

Some proponents of these posters and other extremist antismoking measures would reply that they are primarily concerned with youth smoking.

Very well. That is why it is illegal to sell and market cigarettes to minors. At some point, we must recognize that we have done all we reasonably can to insulate youth from smoking and that in ostracizing adults, we only create pariahs in our communities.

What is more, how can it be ethical to harass adults for the ostensible benefit of children? Human beings do not have greater moral worth as children than as adults. An adult’s freedom to pursue legal activities in peace shouldn’t be sabotaged because some of his peers want a different lifestyle for their children.

These posters represent merely the latest indignity that smokers must suffer in order to shield radical nonsmokers from behaviors that disgust them. But it’s not the government’s job to protect people from offense, and existing laws in the Commonwealth are adequate to guard nonsmokers from secondhand smoke. It’s time antismoking zealots stopped shouting and gave their lungs a rest.

I strongly recommend reading the whole piece. I agree with every word of it and it's refreshing to see the mainstream media making the case against the fanatics so explicitly.

Share

Tweet

A package of cod psychology

Another cracking article over at Spiked, this time by Dr Michael Fitzpatrick, who reminds us that the Conservatives' public health policy is barely distinguishable from Labour's (ie. the nanny state writ large).

It is evident that Cameron’s choice has little to do with health, but is more a political selection arising out of prejudice against the sorts of people who engage in the sorts of activities that would be increasingly stigmatised under a new Tory government (as indeed they have been under New Labour).

Michael reiterates some of the arguments from his essential book The Tyranny of Health, questioning the validity of lifestyle modification in a nation of ever-increasing life expectancy. He then argues that even if such interventions can be considered morally justifiable, they simply do not achieve what they set out to do. Go read.

Share

Tweet

Fevered imaginations

On the same day that Australia takes the 'next logical step' of banning logos on cigarette packs, the colour red became the latest victim of anti-smoking hysteria.

Leading doctors are demanding an immediate government inquiry into “subliminal” tobacco advertising on Ferrari’s Formula One cars, and the company’s $1 billion relationship with the maker of Marlboro cigarettes.

The red, white and black bar code emblazoned on Ferrari’s racing cars and its drivers’ overalls is designed to remind viewers of a packet of Marlboro cigarettes, it is claimed.

Er, yes. It's uncanny isn't it?

Dr John Britton—a man who is happy to spout any old rubbish about secondhand smoke without checking the facts—is "stunned" by this audacious combination of white, black and red.

John Britton, a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and director of its tobacco advisory group, said: “The bar code looks like the bottom half of a packet of Marlboro cigarettes. I was stunned when I saw it. This is pushing at the limits."

The phrase "swivel-eyed obsessive" springs immediately to mind. Yes, these are the colours of Marlboro—albeit a completely different shade of red. They also happen to be the colours of this blog. They are, for that matter, the colours of my football team, and Middlesbrough even sounds a bit like Marlboro. Is there no end to this conspiracy?

Gerard Hastings, director of the Centre for Tobacco Control Research, said: “I think this is advertising. Why a bar code? What is their explanation?”

Why not a bar code? The Marlboro logo isn't a bar code. What is the connection? As the Ferrari spokesman has pointed out, if anyone has a claim to the colour red, it is the car maker.

"The premise that simply looking at a red Ferrari can be a more effective means of publicity than a cigarette advertisement seems incredible: how should one assess the choice made by other Formula 1 teams to race a car with a predominantly red livery or to link the image of a driver to a sports car of the same colour? Maybe these companies also want to advertise smoking!

"It should be pointed out that red has been the recognised colour for Italian racing cars since the very beginning of motor sport, at the start of the twentieth century: if there is an immediate association to be made, it is with our company rather than with our partner."

Once again, the increasingly nutty complaints of these groups says far more about their fevered imaginations than it does about the issue. They only serve to confirm what their critics have long said—that they are fanatics in the true sense of the word. Meanwhile, Philip Morris must be delighted to be receiving worldwide media coverage and countless mentions of their leading brand. All courtesy of the anti-smokers. Nice work, guys.

Share

Tweet

The slippery slope in action

John Banzhaf in 1991, on the 'slippery slope' argument that the war on tobacco would be followed by a war on food:

"They use the 'slippery slope' argument. 'My God, if they can do this to smokers today they can do this to people who eat Haagen-Dazs ice cream or whatever.'"

Ridiculous, yes?

Tackling obesity may require anti-smoking style approach: Canada's top doctor

Canadians need to do more to reduce their growing waistlines, but the country may not be ready for tough measures and legislation to help shrink the nation, according to the chief public health officer.

First comes the scare-mongering...

"The concern with the increasing rates of obesity is that this may in fact, be the first generation of children to not live as long and healthy as their parents," said Butler-Jones in an interview.

If that's true then why does life expectancy go up year after year?

Then the velvet glove is taken off to expose the iron fist...

Governments over the years, have passed various pieces of legislation designed to reduce smoking, including increased taxation and packaging requirements, and some health experts have been pushing for similar initiatives to combat obesity.

Proposals include banning the advertising of unhealthy foods, increasing taxes on food that isn't nutritious, subsidizing fruits and vegetables to make them more affordable for Canadians and forcing the food industry to change its labelling, packaging and ingredients.

Does anyone seriously dispute that the slippery slope is real, or that this was not always the next 'logical step'?

Share

Tweet

Blistering barnacles!

Turkish TV fined for showing Captain Haddock smoking

Turkey's media watchdog has fined a private television channel over scenes in the Tintin cartoon that show Captain Haddock and other villains smoking.

Now, I'm more of an Asterix man myself, but surely Haddock wasn't one of the villains? Let's check up on Wikipedia...

Haddock was first introduced as the whiskey loving captain of the Karaboudjan, a merchant vessel used by his first mate Allan Thompson without his knowledge for drug smuggling. Due to his alcoholism and temperamental nature, he is characterized as weak and unstable, at times posing as great a hazard to Tintin as the villains of the piece. He is also short-tempered, given to emotional and expletive-ridden outbursts, and capable of infuriating behavior; at one point in the album he even attacks Tintin

This guy sounds like a great role model for children. If only he didn't smoke, he'd be perfect.

Turkish broadcasters normally blur the images of cigarettes, pipes and smoke to evade fines, but critics say the method is counter-productive as it disrupts the viewer's attention and draws it to the smoking scene.

D' ya think? Come to think of it, doesn't Tintin carry a gun in these stories? And don't people get shot and killed?

One board member objected to the fine, arguing that children can distinguish between the fiction and non-fiction...

You mean to say that Explorers on the Moon and The Crab with the Golden Claws is fiction? Billions of bilious blistering blue barnacles!

...and that smoking fitted with the features of villains.

Of course. And what better way to show that a character is evil than having him smoke?

In Turkey, the world's 10th largest tobacco consummer, almost one in three adults smoke, with the rate reaching 48 percent among men.

So no chance of children seeing anyone smoking in real life then? Good work guys. Now if we can just ban Avatar, we should be well on our way.

Share

Tweet

The politics of the playground

Like many a political leader before him, the Mayor of Santa Cruz is learning that when it comes to tobacco, nothing you do is ever good enough to satisfy the prohibitionists.

As reported previously, Santa Cruz recently enforced an outdoor smoking ban to go along with its many other anti-smoking laws. Santa Cruz resident Ethan Epstein describes how 'comprehensive' these bans are:

In this bastion of “tolerance,” smoking has been banned throughout all indoor public spaces, outdoor dining areas, parks, beaches, and downtown thoroughfares. My (exorbitantly overpriced) apartment building has imposed a smoking ban that even covers private residences. 

I don’t smoke, but my girlfriend does, and she is forced to shiver in the bitter – for California – cold when she wants to light up. That smell wafting into your apartment is not cigarette smoke: it’s illiberalism and intolerance.

And what does the American Lung Association in California (ALAC) do to reward Santa Cruz's slavish devotion to the anti-smoking cause? It awards the city a 'D' in its Tobacco Report Card.

Treating this arbitary rating system with absurd high seriousness, ALAC spokesman Paul Knepprath said the city was oh-so-close to getting a 'C'.

Paul Knepprath, vice president for advocacy and health initiatives with the American Lung Association in California, said although Santa Cruz city code identifies "smoke" as a public nuisance, the wording isn't strong enough.

Knepprath said if the code specifically referred to second-hand tobacco smoke, it would have meant an additional bonus point, which after the errors were fixed, would raise the overall grade.

"That's how close it was," he said.

In other words, Santa Cruz could have only got a 'C' if its politicians lied and said that smoking outdoors posed a health risk to nonsmokers. There is, of course, no evidence for this.

What makes all this funnier, is that the Mayor has taken the news very badly indeed and has started throwing his toys out the pram. He scribbled an angry letter to the ALAC, saying...

"This is ridiculous and, frankly, it does not motivate me to press my City Council colleagues to take further action to reduce smoking: quite the reverse."  

Quite the reverse? You mean you're going to take action to increase smoking just because the ALAC hurt your feelings?

"I feel we are being abused and that the rating system is clearly a fraud and meaningless."

And Mayor Rotkin was still throwing a hissy-fit when the press caught up with him...

"Frankly, it makes me so angry I don't ever want to talk to these people again," he said in an interview.

Is this the level of school-yard politics we've be reduced to? Draconian laws being introduced to impress the bigger boys and then petulant name-calling when they don't get the pat on the head they feel they deserve?

I don't claim to be an expert on local politics in America, but aren't politicians supposed to be acting in the interests of their electorate rather than trying to to earn gold stars from out-of-town single-issue campaigners? Rotkin's reaction makes it pretty clear that climbing up a league table comes ahead of serving his electorate.

Rotkin himself is a rum fellow. He teaches 'Community Studies' at the University of California ("yes, I think I will have fries with that"). This includes an Introduction to Marxism, which I'm sure he teaches in a balanced and reasoned way, as you would expect from someone who edited The Socialist Review for ten years, describes himself as a "Marxist-Feminist" and lists his interests as...

Marxist theory, capitalist system, community power structure, institutional analysis, and affirmative action.

According to Discover the Networks:

Rotkin's ideals are outlined in his 1991 PhD thesis (entitled Class, Populism, and Progressive Politics: Santa Cruz, California 1970 - 1982), which describes his stealth strategy to implement socialism in the United States. A chapter from this thesis, titled "A Three-Part Strategy for Democratic Socialism," currently serves as an assigned reading for his "Introduction to Marxism" course. 

Part one of this strategy is Grassroots Organizing, which means finding groups with grievances against society and helping them to "wrest concessions," as he phrased it in his thesis. Borrowing from Saul Alinsky's tactics, Rotkin advocates hiding his true socialist agenda from the people he helps while "preparing the ground" for subsequent stages.

I don't wish to offend the good people of Santa Cruz who have elected him as Mayor four times, but from where I'm sitting this man sounds like an asshole.

And it gets better. Mayor Rotkin - who, let's say again, has banned smoking outdoors - is a board member of the American Civil Liberties Union. Is this guy for real, or what?

It's interesting to note that Santa Cruz's recent outdoor bans were brought in to curry favour with the ALAC after getting a 'D' last year.

The city received a "D" for 2008, which partially prompted the council to pass the ban on smoking along Pacific Avenue, West Cliff Drive, the Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf and other public sites. The ordinance, which took effect in October, expanded earlier prohibitions against smoking in restaurants and in lines for movies and concerts.

All of which makes last year's debate over whether or not to bring in these bans look like a bit of a charade. Policy seems to be being dictated by unelected pressure groups rather than the council. The silver lining is that the ALAC seem to have gone too far this time and alienated the childish and self-absorbed politicians upon whom they rely. I predict Santa Cruz will be getting a 'C' sometime soon.

Thanks to Becky for the tip

Share

Tweet