ASH Daily News for 08 July 2008

Q and A: Martin Dockrell on the BMA recommendations for the portrayal of smoking to be taken into account when classifying films

Martin Dockrell is campaigns manager for Action on Smoking and Health. We [The Scotsman] spoke to him about the British Medical Association (BMA) recommendations for the portrayal of smoking to be taken into account when classifying films.

What else can be done to stop young people seeing smoking as cool?
I think a much better recommendation from the BMA is to sell cigarettes in plain packets. This gets rid of the red and silver and gold packaging but also gets rid of the "mild" and "light" brands, which is like saying you are just as dead whether you shoot yourself with five bullets or six bullets.

What do you think of media portrayals of smoking in general?
Smoking is not portrayed in a very realistic way in the movies – what you tend to get is depictions of smokers being healthy and wealthy when the truth is that smokers tend to be in bad health and be economically poor. Although you often see actors smoking on the screen, you rarely see the consequences. So while you see someone stub out a cigarette, you do not see them having a heart attack or dying of cancer.

Do we need to introduce legislation to stop magazines and newspapers publishing pictures of celebrities smoking cigarettes?
No, we just need people to act responsibly. We know that images of celebrities smoking encourages the kids who are fans of that person to take up the habit. So editors need to be aware that they are perpetuating the "James Dean effect".

Why is smoking seen as glamorous when it is a filthy habit that can kill?
Because the tobacco industry has invested a huge amount of money in making it look cool. They have paid popular actors to endorse cigarettes when they do not even smoke.

Isn't reclassifying films that portray smoking just another form of censorship?
Making smoking glamorous is misleading people about a public-safety issue. I would censor that.

Source: The Scotsman, 07 July 2008
Link: http://tiny.cc/2QiDl

Stubborn smokers costing the boss

Employees who smoke in vehicles could be putting buyers off when cars and vans go for resale, warns an automotive auction house. British Car Auctions (BCA) is making the announcement one year on from the introduction of the smoking ban in public places, including company vehicles. Tim Naylor, PR Manager at BCA, commented "Presentation is one of the strongest price factors in the used car market and becomes even more important when used vehicle values are under pressure, as they are now.

"Buyers have their pick of a huge range of used cars and vans and any vehicle that is below par in terms of its condition may well be passed over". Naylor added, "Presentation is not just about how it looks, but how it smells! As well as the potential fine if caught smoking in a work vehicle - which is classed as a public place - the loss of value should be another good reason for businesses to make sure employees avoid lighting up in company vans. This will avoid the lingering smell of cigarettes hanging in the interior as well as eliminate the risk of discolouring and leaving scorch marks on the interior trim or upholstery. All of these things put buyers off, even if they smoke themselves."

While professional valeting can alleviate most of the effects of smoking, it means extra cost and time in the selling process and still might require the replacement of interior trim, such as nicotine-stained headlining. Naylor added, "With buyers having the upper hand in the current market, it's vital that businesses selling company vehicles make sure that they are in the best possible condition. "Any vehicle that has been heavily smoked in will undoubtedly be at a disadvantage."

Source: New Car Net, 07 July 2008
Link: http://tiny.cc/Bin6S

NZ: Cigarette flavouring outrages anti-smoking group

Anti-smoking campaigners are fighting to ban cigarette flavouring which could make the nicotine habit more tempting for youngsters. The product comes in a range of fruit flavours and is poured on tobacco, masking the taste of smoke and raising fears it could make the habit easier to swallow. With flavours like silly strawberry, punched up pineapple and spiffy spearmint, anti-smoke campaigners say the tobacco additives are the latest bid by the tobacco companies to lure young people into addiction.

"Often with their first cigarette they find the flavour is extremely harsh so anything that is adding flavour to that or making it less disgusting is a serious concern," says Ben Youdan of ASH (Action on Smoking and Health). It is illegal to sell flavoured cigarettes, but ASH believes tobacco companies have found a loophole by encouraging the separate sale of fruit flavoured additives. The products are banned in South Australia and the ministry of Health here is looking at doing the same.

"We will have to move either to ban these products or to make sure they are not widely sold across New Zealand - particularly to youth where they are clearly targeted," says Associate Health Minister Damien O'Conner. Liquorice, banana, strawberry and other flavoured cigarette papers have been in stores for years but it seems they too are likely to be taken off the shelves. 3 News spoke with both big tobacco companies today. Phillp Morris said they do not supply the product and would support a government ban while British American Tobacco did not reply.

Source: 3news.co.nz, 08 July 2008
Link: http://tiny.cc/zZFGp

Kenya: Law banning smokers from public puffing takes effect

A law banning smoking in public places and regulating tobacco products in Kenya came into effect today, spelling the end of a convoluted legal tussle between the government and tobacco firms. The Tobacco Control Act, passed in parliament last year but given a nine-month implementation period, provides a legal framework to control the production, manufacture, sale, advertising and use of tobacco products.

"The main objective is to protect people's health and in terms of tobacco, you are protecting the smoker and you are also protecting people around the smoker," said James Nyikal, permanent secretary in the ministry of public health and sanitation. The ban defines "public places" as office blocks, working areas, court buildings, education institutions, residential areas, places of worship, police stations, prisons, markets, malls, cinemas and theatres, children's homes and playing fields. But it allows smokers to light up in "special designated areas."

The law bans the sale of cigarettes to people aged under 18 years, selling tobacco in a packet of less than 10 cigarettes, promoting tobacco by sponsoring public activities and branding of buildings other than those owned or leased by manufacturers. The courts blocked previous attempts to enforce the nationwide ban on grounds that the government did not give tobacco firms enough compliance time and would force them to destroy millions of dollars worth of their products.

Last year, local authorities in the capital Nairobi and the regional town of Nakuru banned smoking in public but with mixed results. Under the ban, violators are liable to imprisonment of between six months and three years or a fine of 50,000 to 3 million shillings (46,000 dollars, 29,000 euros). Smoking earns the Kenya government about 5 billion shillings (76 million dollars, 49 million euros) a year in taxes, but costs five times as much in disease, disability and death, according to official figures.

Source: Yahoo News, 08 July 2008
Link: http://tiny.cc/aRHu4

Kerry McCarthy MP on the 'Smoke it' post

After she spoke out against activities of the tobacco industry funded Forest the lobbyists attempted a mass posting to the MP's blog. Kerry McCarthy, Labour MP for Bristol East, has responded by addressing each point made by Forest supporters reproduced here.

So, we have perfect weather today - sun in Wimbledon, rain in Silverstone. Fanatastic start by Hamilton. I will spend the duration of the British Grand Prix reading and replying to comments on the 'Smoke it' post. If you're not happy with the response, bear in my mind this blog's rules. If I've ignored you totally it will probably be because you've crossed the line between passionate advocacy of your cause, which is fine by me, and being gratuitously offensive, which isn't. And although, as you say, I'm an elected representative - I'm elected by voters in Bristol East and answerable to them, not the entire British electorate. Constituents get a different level of service, which they get by writing to me, emailing me or coming to see me at one of my surgeries - which is exactly as it should be. (To the one person who asked if he could come and see me - yes, if you live in Bristol East. I'm pretty sure all the Bristol MPs voted for the full ban, so if you live elsewhere in the city you can make the same points to whoever your elected representative is).

What I have done is to cut and paste all comments into a separate document - which runs to 102 pages. I'm going to read through, delete those which don't need (or possibly don't deserve) a response. Then I'll summarise the key themes, and respond to those en masse rather than referring to individual contributions. I will spend up to two hours on this, till the Grand Prix is over - and to prove I'm devoting this amount of time to it, I will insert a running commentary on Hamilton's progess. He's just overtaken Kovalainen.

First point - my comment about these responses being orchestrated by Forest, or other pro-smoking/ pro-choice groups. I was merely noting that these were people who already had a very fixed position on this issue, rather than representing a cross-section of views. Incidentally, it's interesting to note that recent press articles about the success of the smoking ban, citing the figures on heart attacks, public support, etc, have attracted only a handful of comments. Is this because they're moderated? Or is it more fun doling out abuse to an MP than to an anonymous journalist?

Second point - Godwin's law. The references to Nazis, etc are appalling. We're talking about a ban on smoking in pubs and clubs which means people have to stand on doorsteps - possibly in the cold and rain, admittedly - if they want to have a cigarette during an evening out. And - arguably - some pubs and clubs closing down. And that's comparable to millions of people being rounded up and sent to concentration camps and starved and gassed and shot? (See also the 'Hitler was a vegetarian argument').

Third point - the scientific evidence on passive smoking was debated and discussed at great length before Parliament voted on the ban. I considered it carefully, particularly the evidence on whether or not better ventilation or smoking areas would achieve the same objective. I was, and remain, convinced that passive smoking is a genuine risk to public health. I've blogged before about the perils of citing scientific evidence in politics, as each side can usually find facts and figures which support its own prejudices (e.g. on the badger cull, on GM crops, on nuclear energy, to name just a few issues). All we can do as politicians is to try to be as open-minded as possible, read the available information, try to determine which evidence is genuinely independent (as opposed to being funded by the tobacco industry or the pharmaceutical industry) and take a steer from people whose opinions we respect (e.g. in this case, Dr Ian Gibson and Doug Naysmith, two MPs with a huge amount of experience in the health field and both with scientific backgrounds). Which I have done. I don't think the quote from ASH negates anything I've said here or on previous posts. To summarise, I haven't changed my mind about (a) the dangers of smoking, (b) the health benefits of giving up smoking, and (c) the dangers of passive smoking. You will no doubt accuse me of ignoring the evidence; I haven't, I just don't think it's authoritative or compelling.

Fourth point - for me, passive smoking and its effect on bar/ restaurant staff was only one of the factors influencing my support for a ban on smoking in public places. This obviously isn't going to make me very popular with the Forest supporters, but I subscribe to the view that smoking is something that should be discouraged. Can any of you argue that smoking is a good thing, that it ought to be encouraged? Are you comfortable with the fact that British American Tobacco are now pushing their wares on children in the developing world, selling single cigarettes in a bid to get them hooked? You say it's a matter of choice. For you, yes. But my priority is young impressionable people who I don't want to see taking up smoking. They are more likely to do so if they see it as something which society tacitly encourages. And on the McDonald's point - I think it's a bad analogy; the Government is criticising junk food manufacturers and taking some steps against them as part of the obesity drive (e.g. the ban on pre-watershed junk food advertising, and vending machines in schools). The difference is that smoking is addictive. If someone is told their consumption of junk food is harming their health, they can give it up with a modicum of willpower. When my grandmother was diagnosed with lung cancer she was completely incapable of quitting, after nearly 60 years of smoking. I remember her on her death bed, as she wasted away, asking 'how long does it take to die?' She died at 73; her three sisters died at 98, 100 and 101. My uncle's partner, who spent most of her working life on a production line in a factory where everyone smoked, died of lung cancer a couple of years ago, in her fifties, a few months after diagnosis. My dad - who smoked roll-ups and always insisted that the link between cancer and smoking, or cancer and diet was 'not proven' - died of cancer ten years ago this week. He was 56. So that's where I'm coming from.

Fifth point - I was involved in discussions on this issue prior to Labour's 2005 election manifesto; in fact I argued for a full ban at Labour's National Policy Forum a few years prior to this, but John Reid won the day on that occasion. I agree it would therefore have been wrong for Government whips to have pushed the full ban through Parliament, given that it wasn't a manifesto commitment, but they didn't; there was a free vote. Parliament votes all the time on issues which aren't in the governing party's election manifesto - e.g. the recent free votes in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. So we were pledged to introduce a partial ban, and had a free vote on whether to take it further.

Sixth point - John Reid frequently made the 'class' point, describing smoking as one of the few 'working class pleasures'. I didn't agree with him then, and I didn't agree with him now. I actually think it's just as patronising to say you're defending a working class pleasure as it is to say that the working class need to be saved from themselves. I don't draw a distinction between who smokes. I just think it's a bit disingenuous of Forest to push this line when their idea of effective political lobbying is to congregate in private members clubs in Belgravia and host champagne tea parties in the Commons.

Seventh point - public support for the ban. I was quoting figures widely reported in the press, and I don't think in any case you are saying you have majority support? I can only base it on published figures (and I've cited references for those) and what I've seen in my constituency. I've had virtually no complaints - two, I think - since the ban and one of those was from someone who said he wasn't allowed to smoke in his own home anymore. It doesn't come up on the doorsteps either (once, I think). As I've said, my office is based above a labour club, in which we hold our local party meetings. Customers there haven't complained to me. I have, I admit, had a couple of letters recently about the potential impact on corner shop profits if cigarettes have to be kept under the counter and packets of ten are banned; shop owners tell me that 25% of their profits are based on cigarette sales. I have some sympathy with them if they're facing a threat to their livelihood, but given that I think smoking is something which should be discouraged, I can't exactly condone the fact that their profits are made from selling cigarettes. We can't continue to promote cigarette sales just to keep them in business. (And just to reiterate, I'm not saying people should be prevented from smoking; I just don't think we should facilitate it. I'm not interested in forcing people to give up, but I want to make it easier for them, and I definitely do want to discourage young people from taking it up.) I think this also answers the point about why I don't think separate bars for smokers is a good idea.

Eighth point - I know quite a few smokers, and they all support the ban. Some didn't support it before it was introduced, but do now. Some have actually said they prefer being in non-smoky pubs, even though they are smokers themselves. I have not been approached by a single landlord in east Bristol about the impact on their business. I'm told dry-cleaners' business has also been affected, as people's clothes no longer stink of smoke after a night out. So should we reverse the ban just to keep them in business? It doesn't make sense. As for Ireland, my father lives in a very rural part of Carlow (not to be confused with the 'dad' I mentioned earlier, who was my stepfather from the age of two) and he says that it's actually a Government crackdown on drink-driving which has had the biggest impact on his local pubs, not the smoking ban which came in earlier. Old boys who would drive from their villages to the pub in the evenings now stay at home and drink alone. Which is sad, but does it mean Irish authorities should turn a blind eye to drink-driving?

Anyway, I've spent two hours on this, Hamilton has won (and I've missed a phenomenal race).

I don't expect to make anyone happier as a result of what I've said. As for what happens now - you are of course free to comment on this post, which you no doubt will. I am not going to close the blog down, but I am not going to prolong the debate by responding to comments as we will just end up going round in circles. I will start moderating comments if necessary. And I am going to delete any comments about smoking on non-smoking related posts. As I said, I'm not prepared to allow this blog to be hijacked by proponents of a single cause, especially not one with which I so vehemently disagree.

Source: www.Kerry-McCarthy.blogspot.com, 06 July 2008
Link: http://tiny.cc/JTjPa