The year ahead
Tobacco control campaigners never rest. Or so it seems.
In the past decade a ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship was followed by a ban on smoking in all enclosed 'public' places including licensed premises.
After that activists moved quickly to ban cigarette vending machines and the display of tobacco in shops. (The latter, opposed by the Conservatives and Lib Dems in opposition, will be enforced in large stores later this year and in small shops from 2015.)
Meanwhile, and with little or no public debate, the 'denormalisation' of smoking (and therefore smokers) became official government policy with a series of publicly funded campaigns that included slogans such as 'If you smoke, you stink'.
The principal battlegrounds in 2012 are very clear:
1. Smoking in cars: following the largely negative response to the BMA's call for a ban on smoking in all private vehicles, and the almost certain failure of a Labour MP's bill on the subject, it would be easy to be complacent.
That would be a mistake. Tobacco control doesn't take 'no' for an answer. Like those non-elected mandarins in Brussels, they keep pushing until they get what they want.
Not for the first time devolution poses a serious threat to personal liberties. In Northern Ireland all political parties support a ban on smoking in cars and, as we saw with the smoking ban, as soon as one part of the United Kingdom introduces legislation the others fall quickly into line.
2. Smoking outside: in 2009-10 most of the interviews conducted by Forest on the subject concerned hospital grounds. In the past twelve months the debate has moved on. Now we are more often than not invited to defend smoking in or around play areas and public parks. Invariably the debate is less about health and more about adults acting as role models for impressionable children. Taken to its logical conclusion this would seem to support a ban on parents smoking in (or around) the home as well.
3. Plain packaging: aside from prohibition, this is the Holy Grail for tobacco control. The danger is, many consumers (smokers and non-smokers) may be lulled into taking a more relaxed view of plain packaging. Those that are may seriously under-estimate the long-term impact. Today tobacco, tomorrow alcohol, fatty foods and dairy products. The implications for all consumers are far-reaching because a ban on product branding and the enforced use of 'disgusting' colours and grotesque images is a real challenge to a free society.
I won't list them all now but the arguments for plain packaging are built on a number of fallacies. One is that packaging equals advertising. If this was true 'coloured' packs would have been outlawed at the same time as tobacco advertising but no-one, not even tobacco control, thought to argue that branded packs represent anything other than a means to distinguish between different brands (a minimum requirement in a free market).
Another fallacy is that cigarettes are sold in 'glitzy' packaging designed to entice young people to start smoking. Where is the evidence for this, apart from a half-baked 'report' by the British Heart Foundation (supported by ASH)?
Tens of millions of people have chosen not to smoke despite being exposed regularly to the sight of branded cigarette packs in shops and superstores. Should we deny consumers the sight of any branded product that might conceivably carry a health risk?
Furthermore the expression 'plain packs' is highly misleading. There is nothing plain about plain packaging. The Australian government has decided that the colour of all packs should be a deliberately unattractive olive green (or drab green as it became known when olive growers complained!).
In addition, two-thirds of the pack will feature grotesque images such as rotting teeth and hideous tumours. Is this an extension of the "uglification of England" that David Hockney once spoke of in relation to the escalation of'No Smoking' signs?
There is of course another battleground - the ban on smoking in pubs and clubs.
Faced with all the other challenges it would be easy to accept the existing legislation and move on. That is something Forest will never do. I won't lie. An amendment is going to be very difficult to achieve but 2012 marks the fifth anniversary of the ban in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and we will do everything we can to highlight the impact of the ban on pubs, clubs and consumers. In short, as long as there is support for change, we will continue to lobby politicians and government.
Given our limited resources it will be difficult to fight on all these fronts but with your backing we will do everything we can.
The good news is that we are in far better shape than we were prior to the smoking ban when, as I have often said, Forest ploughed a rather lonely furrow. We have plenty of friends out there, including readers of this and many other blogs.
The dramatic events in Stony Stratford in July showed what can be done when libertarians work together (an achievement in itself). It helped however that our principal opponent was a certified fruit loop and we had only one target to aim at. Tobacco control won't make the same mistakes again.
Over the coming weeks we will announce a number of initiatives including a new campaign that is currently in development. Details will be announced here and on the Forest website.
Happy New Year!
PS. I don't expect smoking in the home to be a major battleground in 2012 but we are not complacent – far from it. As I wrote in December, ASH is on the case and recently published a briefing paper on the subject.
Meanwhile Chris Snowdon has been highlighting the "bizarre case of Peter Lavac who blames two people who lived in a flat below him for 18 months for giving him lung cancer and now plans to sue". Full story here. Definitely one to watch.
Congratulations to David Hockney.
Britain's greatest living artist – a member of Forest's Supporters Council – has been appointed a member of the Order of Merit by the Queen.
The order, the BBC reports, was created by King Edward VII in 1902 and is restricted to 24 members and rare additional foreign recipients.
Curiously, an anti-smoking comment along the lines of 'Hockney is not worthy of the Order because he's a smoker' has been removed from the BBC website.