On balance the Sunday Post got it wrong
Readers will be familiar with my regular complaints concerning the way the media writes about the smoking issue.
I’ve been engaged in a running battle with journalists for years, most recently a Daily Mail reporter who requested my response to a series of questions before ignoring every single quote without so much as a by-your-leave.
Well, it’s happened again. Last week a reporter from the Sunday Post contacted Forest to say she was working on a feature ‘marking the anniversary of Scotland’s smoke-free legislation and its long-term public health impact’.
Note: the 20th anniversary of the introduction of the smoking ban in Scotland is on March 26.
‘As part of the piece,’ she wrote, ‘I’m reporting on expert claims that improved respiratory health following the smoking ban may have helped reduce the severity of respiratory outcomes during the Covid-19 pandemic.
‘I’d welcome a response from Forest to include balance in the article. In particular, I’d be grateful for your view on:
The long-term impact of Scotland’s smoking ban
Whether you believe smoke-free laws have delivered the public health benefits claimed
Links being drawn between smoking restrictions and Covid-19 respiratory outcomes
‘The article,’ she added, ‘will also reference criticism from public health groups who have accused tobacco lobby organisations of using tactics to influence or delay public health legislation. I’d welcome any response you wish to provide on this point.’
This was my reaction:
“The workplace smoking ban was a disaster for many pubs, especially inner city bars that had no outdoor area where smokers could light up in comfort. Hundreds of pubs closed and thousands of jobs were lost as many smokers chose to stay at home.
“A comprehensive indoor smoking ban was unreasonably draconian. Publicans should have been allowed to choose a policy on smoking based on customer demand. At the very least, they should have been given the option of providing separate, well-ventilated smoking rooms which would have kept the smoke away from non-smokers who didn't want to be exposed to cigarette smoke.
“Claims that smoke-free laws have significantly benefited public health are exaggerated. The impact of secondhand smoke on non-smokers is questionable, and there is no evidence that the smoking ban had a significant impact on smoking rates.
“Smoking rates fell slightly after the introduction of the smoking ban in 2006, but only in line with the pre-ban trend. A far more significant factor, when smoking rates began to fall more sharply from 2012, was the increasing popularity of e-cigarettes which offered smokers a reduced risk option to cigarettes.”
On the subject of smoking restrictions and Covid-19 respiratory outcomes, I said I wasn’t really qualified to comment, adding. ‘However, you might like to read a short blog post I wrote in Feb 2022. (Huge study finds current smoking associated with reduced risk of severe Covid-19.) In particular a study by Oxford University's Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences concluded that ‘Current smoking was associated with a reduced risk of severe Covid-19 but the association with e-cigarette use was unclear’. Elsewhere a ‘living rapid evidence review' found that ‘Compared with never smokers, current smokers appear to be at reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and increased risk of greater in-hospital disease severity’.
‘Like smoking and Covid,’ I added, ‘the impact of secondhand smoke on non-smokers is a big subject that cannot be covered in a soundbite, but if you have a moment here’s another blog post that explains our argument that the impact of secondhand smoke on non-smokers is questionable – Passive smoking: how science was defeated by the politics of public health.
As for criticism of ‘tobacco lobby organisations’ by public health groups, I gave her this quote:
“Organisations such as Forest have every right to lobby politicians and oppose legislation we believe discriminates against adults who choose to smoke tobacco. We have never encouraged people to smoke but we believe strongly that in a free society adults should be allowed to live their lives without excessive interference from the state.
“Smoking is a legitimate habit and if adults choose to smoke, despite the health warnings, that's up to them. Government has a duty to educate people about the health risks, but beyond that politicians and public health campaigners should butt out.”
Dear reader, the two-page feature in yesterday’s Sunday Post was divided into four sections: (1) the main 900-word article, (2) a section suggesting that ‘Scotland’s landmark smoking ban may have helped prevent worse outcomes during the Covid pandemic’, (3) a section featuring quotes from Jack McConnell, the former first minister whose Labour government introduced the public smoking ban in Scotland, and (4) a single case study featuring a smoker who claimed the smoking ban ‘made me give up [the] habit for good’.
In addition to McConnell, the report featured extensive quotes by Dr Rachel O’Donnell, associate professor at the University of Stirling’s Institute for Social Marketing and Health (ISMH). There were also quotes by O’Donnell’s colleague Professor Sean Semple; Dr Garth Reid, consultant in public health at Public Health Scotland; and Sheila Duffy, chief executive of ASH Scotland.
For ‘balance’ there was just one dissenting voice – mine. And this was the single (significantly edited and bowdlerised) quote the Sunday Post chose to insert at the very bottom of the main report:
Simon Clark, director of the smokers’ rights group Forest, said: “A comprehensive indoor smoking ban was unreasonably draconian. There is no evidence that the smoking ban had a significant impact on smoking rates.”
You couldn’t make it up – 23 words! In a 1,920-word feature I wasn’t even given space to respond to statements such as:
Smokers’ rights organisations and free-market institutes have historically opposed tobacco control measures while receiving industry backing, and companies also sponsor media coverage, political events, and policy discussions to shape public debate.
Or:
Organisations presented as grassroots or independent, such as Forest – the Freedom Organisation For The Right To Enjoy Smoking Tobacco – have historically received tobacco industry funding.
Somewhat bizarrely a leading article in the same edition appeared to sit on the fence with regard to further anti-smoking regulations (‘Smoking ban was a success, but should the state intervene further?’):
The ban has been an unqualified success, one that has saved lives and made work, socialising and commuting a better experience. Does that mean we are advocates of a Nanny State approach to government? The jury is still out.
There has to be a balance between giving people the right choose and public intervention. Yes, protecting services from bad life choices might seem like a good idea, but as William Wallace would no doubt agree – the Mel Gibson version at any rate – you’ll never take our freedom.
For the uninitiated, the Sunday Post used to be one of the best-selling newspapers in Britain. Described by some as a ‘Scottish institution’, and by others as ‘Scotland’s sleepiest newspaper’, in 1969 it had an estimated readership of 2,931,000, or 80 per cent of the population of Scotland aged 16 and over.
By 1999 that figure had fallen to 700,000, dropping to 143,000 in 2016, while the most recent figure (December 2025) was 25,651, with the average digital circulation for that month registering just 367.
In short, I shouldn’t be so annoyed by the Post limiting my response to a tiny soundbite because hardly anyone reads the paper nowadays. But it does annoy me because newspapers should be better than this. In fairness, the journalist did make the initial effort to contact Forest for a response, but why bother when all they used were a few heavily edited words? Personally, I find it baffling.
Home page photo credit: Tero Vesalainen/iStock
