Conspiracy of silence?

Interesting to note how little coverage was given by the media to FOREST’s latest opinion poll, conducted by Populus, the well-respected pollsters who clients include The Times newspaper.

The poll, the first to ask the public what they think of the Government’s plan to ban smoking in all public places in England except private clubs and pubs that don’t serve food, found that 45% think the proposal “goes far enough”, 31% think the proposal “goes too far”, and only 22% think the plan “does not go far enough”. In other words, only one in five support a total ban on smoking in all pubs and clubs.

FOREST published the results on Monday 28 December, one day before the House of Commons was to debate the new Health Bill (aka the smoking bill). Now, you might think that newspapers – especially those like The Times, Daily Telegraph and Independent who oppose a total ban – might find the results worthy of at least a paragraph or two.

Not a bit of it. The only media outlet that mentioned the poll at all was BBC News Online and that was only a small throwaway paragraph at the bottom of a much longer story about anti-smoing campaigners stepping up the pressure for the 'partial' ban to be made total. Compare that to the coverage the BBC habitually gives any poll that suggests a majority favour a blanket ban.

Now, people are perfectly entitled to be sceptical about the results of any poll commissioned by FOREST (although I hope they are equally sceptical about polls commissioned by the anti-smoking lobby, local politicians and the media themselves) but consider this. Over the past 18 months FOREST has commissioned Populus to conduct no fewer than six polls on the subject of smoking in public places, and the results have been remarkably similar each time, with around 70% consistently opposed to a blanket ban on smoking in pubs, clubs and bars.

During the same period the Government, via the Office for National Statistics, has been conducting its own research and, guess what, their results are almost identical to the Populus findings – 68% opposed to a total ban on smoking in pubs (July 2005). But are the media interested? What do you think?

Health lobby marches on

Sensing victory in its relentless campaign to drive smokers underground (sorry, "denormalise" smoking by banning the practise in all public places), the health lobby is already turning on its next target - food. According to researchers, "Poor diets cost the NHS £6bn a year in ill-health - three times as much as smoking" (BBC News, 15 November 2005).

Although our old friends at the British Heart Foundation team "admitted the figure was crude ... it could still be used to help form policy". That's right, don't let some crude estimate get in the way of people's freedom to eat what they want. (Ditto: passive smoking, smoking in public places.)

And what sort of policies do these evangelical health crusaders envisage for Britain? Why, food labelling (no problem with that, as long as we're not going to get exaggerated, tobacco style health warnings emblazoned on every carton of cream), restrictions on TV advertising (absolutely not - that's social engineering, folks) - and (of course) additional taxation on fatty foods and dairy products.

It's all so familiar. And doesn't it make you sick?!

Enemies of freedom

According to the Independent (12 November), Labour MPs plan to defy Tony Blair by voting to outlaw smoking in all pubs despite the Government backing away from a total ban. Some 37 Labour MPs have signed a Commons motion demanding "a complete and total ban on smoking in pubs, restaurants and public buildings" rather the partial ban that the Government has proposed.

Talk of a 'partial ban' (a term that misleadingly suggests that the Government has come up with a satisfactory compromise) has always amused me. Let's face it: the Bill that the Government wants to push through Parliament (not that there will be much opposition) will prohibit smoking in a staggering 99% of all workplaces, including every office (where designated smoking rooms will be consigned to history), every cafe, every restaurant and every pub that serves food, irrespective of the wishes of either the owner, the customers or the staff.

The only place that will escape a total ban is the 'wet' pub (ie those that don't serve food), so the idea that the Government is somehow being tolerant of those who choose to smoke (and those who choose to allow them to smoke on their premises) is nothing short of a joke. The smoking Bill is an illiberal Bill that spits in the face of tolerance and ignores public opinion. The only thing that can be said in its favour is that it is better than a total ban because it at least acknowledges that there should be an element of choice - however small - for smokers as well as non-smokers.

The antis, of course, don't want any form of compromise and they have plenty of support in Parliament. But let's not blame those Labour backbenchers who may (or may not) defy the Government and vote for a total ban. After all, we know what fuels their anti-smoking drive - and it's nothing to do with 'passive' smoking (or it shouldn't be, if they bothered to take the time to examine the evidence).

No, there are two reasons why Labour MPs support a complete ban: (1) the suspicion that the Bill, as it currently stands, will somehow 'victimise' the working classes who traditionally frequent wet pubs; and (2) a simple hatred of Big Tobacco, aka the 'evil empire'. Both reasons assume that people are too stupid to make up their own minds about smoking and where they wish to socialise, but the MPs concerned are at least being consistent with their socialist, anti-capitalist ideology.

The politicians who should really hang their heads in shame are those Tory MPs (about 50%) who are expected to take advantage of a free vote and support a total ban. And the Liberal Democrat MPs who are likely to follow suit. I mean, what's liberal about a total ban on smoking in ALL public places? Seriously, if I was a LibDem politician I couldn't live with myself if I was supporting such a draconian measure.

But it's the Conservatives who support a total ban who really get my goat. I know, I know ... the Tories have a long history of paternalism. But it would be nice to think that the Conservative Party stood for something - and I always assumed that it stood for such things as market forces, property rights and freedom to choose.

Clearly, when it comes to smoking, the Conservative Party has abandoned such principles and instead of denigrating the Government for introducing legislation that is largely unnecessary, a substantial number of Tory MPs will now march in the opposite direction, arguing that the Government hasn't gone far enough. Some will do it because they are shameful opportunists who want to embarrass the Government; others because they are like the majority of politicians - they can't wait to interfere in other people's lives and tell us what to do. Frankly, it stinks.

The police state we're in

North Wales police chief constable Richard Brunstrom has banned officers and staff from smoking (The Sun, 12 November 2005). Anyone who nips out for a fag break while on duty - even if it's in the car park - faces disciplinary action.

According to Brunstrom: "Smoking is a nasty and dangerous habit." Now, smoking may indeed be dangerous (potentially) but so is a lot of police work. If he's going to ban smoking perhaps he should ban other activities that are potentially dangerous to people's health, like traffic cops driving excessively fast in pursuit of joyriders and other criminals.

Being a policeman can be extremely stressful. Like other humans (they are human, aren't they?) they need the occasional break. If some cops choose to smoke in their break to relieve the stress that's a matter for them, not their overbearing chief constable.

As for smoking being a "nasty" habit - well, that's a highly subjective point of view. Some teetollers no doubt consider drinking alcohol to be a "nasty" habit. There are lots of things that some people might consider to be "nasty" but you can't ban everything on those grounds. Tobacco, as I recall, is a legal product. Chief constables are there to uphold the law not force their personal opinions on the rest of us.

There has been a lot of talk this week about the politicisation of the police. Just like politicians, it seems that senior cops are increasingly trying to micro-manage people's lifestyles and are introducing more and more rules and regulations with which to do so. Police state? You ain't seen nothing yet.