Enough's Enough

Nine years ago Clive Bates, the-then director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), denied that his group wanted to ban smoking in all public places. They just wanted more “no-smoking areas” said Bates, and that's what the hospitality industry - via the Voluntary Charter on Smoking in Public Places - did its best to provide.

Ignoring a huge increase in non-smoking areas in pubs and restaurants, ASH (and every other anti-smoking organisation), wasn't happy and by 2003 they were demanding a total ban on smoking in all enclosed public places, including every pubs, club and bar in the country.

Encouraged by their success in achieving a comprehensive smoking ban, ahead of schedule, anti-smoking campaigners are now working to introduce more restrictions, firstly to capitalise on the momentum they have created, and secondly to use what evidence of “success” the current bans throw up to justify further action for the good of public health

The "next logical step" - a phrase first used by anti-smoking campaigners in California to justify bans in open air parks in Los Angeles - includes graphic images on cigarette packets and a series of point of sale initiatives designed to "denormalise" smoking. These include bans on the display of tobacco in shops, cigarette vending machines, and the sale of packets containing ten cigarettes (10-packs).

Another proposal is to stop smokers lighting up in private spaces. First port of call is not the home but the car. Accuse smokers of (a) driving dangerously, and (b) invoke the “secondhand smoke” weapon if others (especially children) are present.and clamp down on “noise pollution” and “increased litter” which are the direct result of … banning smoking in enclosed public places!

In America, blanket bans have encouraged and even promoted an anti-smoking culture that has resulted in outright discrimination to the extent that smokers have been denied employment. Some companies now breathalyse employees when they arrive at work to check whether they have been smoking, in their own time, on their way to work. Could this happen in Britain? It's happening already. Some companies already refuse to employ smokers, advertising for "non-smokers only".

Demonisation of smokers

Another tactic is the demonisation of smokers. The British Heart Foundation (BHF), on behalf of the Department of Health, spends millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money each year on anti-smoking ads. In various publications and articles, they have said: “Our intention is to declare war on smoking, not on smokers.” Yet one BHF poster for schools, but which has appeared in health clinics and care homes, reads: “Symptoms: Bad breath; Stained teeth; Clothes stink; Bad skin; Always broke – Conclusion: Smoker”.

The UK government’s TV ad in 2005 had the tagline, “If you smoke, you stink”  – the word “stink” chosen for its negative double meaning. Other ads had messages like, “Minging teeth” and “Cat’s bum mouth”. Former public health minister Caroline Flint once commented: “This latest series of adverts marks a new and exciting route for the campaign.”

In October 2005, it was reported that shocking pictures of rotten teeth, blackened lungs and cancer tumours would soon be carried on cigarette packets. A senior Department of Health source said: “This is the next step in the journey of reaching our ultimate goal of eliminating cigarette smoking completely.”

An ASH UK publication, “How to run a national tobacco campaign – a short guide”, says that an effective national tobacco strategy should include public communication programmes that “contribute to de-normalisation and create an emotional response in smokers”. This includes “arousing fear and distress [as] a legitimate approach.”

Banning smoking in private areas

Bans on smoking in public places, and increasingly outdoors and in vehicles, are now being followed-up by restrictions on smoking even in private places. The next step is to ban council – and other workers – from visiting the homes of smokers. Accuse parents of “child abuse”, threatening to remove children from their parents and banning smokers from fostering children. (A powerful weapon in the anti-smokers’ armoury is to profess concern “for the children”.)

In February 2006, it was reported that hundreds of thousands of smokers would be banned from lighting up in their own homes when nurses or other health workers visit them, under new rules drawn up by the Royal College of Nursing. The move, “informally backed” by the British Medical Association, dramatically widens the scope of the public clampdown on smoking - taking it from the workplace or the pub into the living room.

In March 2006, smokers in Glasgow were urged to extend the nationwide smoking ban in public places to their own homes.  At the same time, an English anti-smoking group called on people to consider banning smoking at home.

In Canada, now that Ontario has introduced a ban on smoking in all enclosed public places and workplaces, an anti-smoking campaigner said, “It may be time to consider protecting residents of condominiums, multi-unit homes, attached and semi-detached dwellings and apartments from second-hand smoke originating in adjacent or nearby units.”

Because of the children

Government public health campaign adverts now highlight the alleged effects of smoke on children in general and babies in particular. Recent campaigns suggest the start of the softening-up process to win the public over so that smoking can be banned almost anywhere where children are present – including cars, council-owned houses, parks and beaches.

In October 2004, the Ontario Medical Association in Canada (OMA) advised the province to extend public smoking bans into private places. The OMA recommended that the Canadian Government possibly institute a ban on smoking in any homes, vehicles or facilities that offer childcare services.

In March 2006, one of Scotland’s biggest local authorities threatened to remove foster children from smokers. New rules introduced by Dundee city council would ban smokers from adopting and fostering children under the age of five unless they agree to keep their homes smoke free. Smokers who already have foster children under five in their care faced having them removed if they smoke at home.

The following month, two foster carer couples from Dundee were banned from looking after children for refusing to give up smoking. Claire Dickinson, of the Fostering Network, said: “It is clearly better for a child to live in a smoke-free environment, but being a good foster carer is about much more than whether or not you smoke.”

In June 2006, an Arkansas legislator went so far as to ask his colleagues to examine whether it should be against the law for pregnant mothers to smoke.


Campaigners in America even want films that feature people smoking be given an adult rating.

Censorship

Smoking bans can result in blatant censorship. In March 2006 actors in Scotland were banned from filming scenes with cigarettes, cigars or pipes. Even a request to permit herbal cigarettes was rejected. The ban led to one of Scotland’s leading dramatists, John Byrne, best known for Tutti Frutti, to think about emigrating. The ban also has unintended consequence of censoring the act of smoking at home from the screen - while it remains legal in reality.

In July 2006, Brunel University removed Isambard Kingdom Brunel’s famous cigar from a new, life-size statue of the eminent Victorian. It was unveiled revealing a close likeness, but no cigar. It echoes a row before Christmas, when Brunel’s cigar was airbrushed from a photo used in school textbooks, to protect children from a “harmful” image.

In July 2006, Mel Smith, the comedian, actor and director, created worldwide headlines when he threatened to smoke a third of a cigar on stage at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival. Smith, who was to play the cigar-smoking wartime leader Sir Winston Churchill, ruled out using a fake cigar saying:

“I will not have people protecting me from myself. That’s the whole problem with this country. I’ve often wondered what the Scottish Parliament does. Maybe this is an opportunity for me to find out. The thing I would like to say about it is that it would have delighted Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler, as you know, was anti-smoking. You couldn’t smoke at Adolf Hitler’s dining table, so he’d be pleased, wouldn’t he? Congratulations Scotland.”'

Forest says, "Enough's enough". Hence our campaign.
Smoker 

"Tobacco is not an illegal substance yet the government is persecuting a minority. I think that's a disgrace in a social democracy."

Ronald Harwood
screenwriter
_____