Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
This week, we ask: Should films featuring smoking automatically be given an 18 rating? . . .
by Andy Hull, Chair of Smokefree Liverpool
YES, yes, 1,650 times yes . . . That's the number of young Liverpudlians we reckon are currently smoking as a direct result of seeing "tobacco images" on screen. . . .
by Neil Rafferty, spokesman for Forest, the smokers' rights group . . .
I've seen the anti-smoking extremists up close, so naturally I'm a bit cynical when they say it's all about "the children".
When a film receives an 18 certificate, it excludes not only youngsters but many adults who don't like excessive violence and strong language. That's why film- makers like 15 certificates, because it says, "this is entertainment for grown-ups, but it doesn't go too far".
The extremists know that by slapping an 18 certificate on smoking scenes, more and more film-makers will just stop showing smoking altogether until cinema will depict a world in which smoking does not exis. This is not just censorship - it is intimidation and bullying.
And, if this was to become a reality, how long before scenes of excessive drinking or consumption of fast food are given the 18 certificate "to protect the children"?
Jump to full article »
THE landlords of a Suffolk pub have become the first victims of the smoking ban - and last night a campaign group predicted that hundreds of pubs across the country will close as a result of the controversial crackdown.
After more than two years running the Greene King-owned Elephant and Castle in Hospital Road, Bury St Edmunds, licensees Marian and Gareth Thomas have decided to call time on their business.
The couple, who had their plans for a smoking shelter outside the pub turned down, claim the smoking ban was the final straw.
The news prompted Forest, the campaign group for smoker's rights, to warn the pub could be the first of hundreds nationally to be hit by the ban, and warned rural areas looked set to be the worst affected of all.
g Tobacco.
When was it founded? It was launched in 1979 by a former Battle of Britain fighter pilot (and pipe smoker) Sir Christopher Foxley-Norris who died in 2004. Legend has it that he was standing on the platform at Reading station in Berkshire, puffing on his pipe, when an old biddy walked up and demanded that he put it out. He was so annoyed that he decided to get a few like-minded individuals together and launch a campaign to defend smokers' rights. The rest, as they say, is history. . . .
Who funds you? Most of our money is donated by tobacco companies. A smaller sum comes from Friends of FOREST (ordinary smokers and the occasional wealthy benefactor). Contributions from the latter are increasingly important because funds have become increasingly tight in recent years as companies such as Philip Morris decided that placating government is more important than defending the hard-pressed consumer.
OK, but aren't you still just a mouthpiece for the tobacco industry? Not at all. We speak our mind as we see fit and we guard our independence jealously - whatever the cost. In 2001, for example, our decision to pursue a successful campaign against Customs and Excise (see Cross-Channel Shopping) cost us dearly when the tobacco company Gallaher decided that because of our work in this area it would withdraw funding. C'est la vie. We represent smokers (who want to smoke) and tolerant non-smokers, not the tobacco industry. . . .
Now that Scotland has banned smoking in enclosed public places and England, Wales and Northern Ireland are about to follow suit, what future is there for FOREST?
Good question. We may have lost this battle but we don't intend to go away. We will never give up arguing that people should be allowed to smoke in some indoor public places (it's called freedom of choice) but the reality is that the debate is moving on. Already some people are calling for a ban on outdoor smoking and there is a deliberate, publicly-funded campaign to "denormalise" smoking. This can only lead to further discrimination against people who smoke and our role is to combat those who want to promote intolerance and illiberal policies designed to target a substantial minority of the population.
Few now expect the new regime to be introduced without any legal challenges. Alan Chalmers, employment partner at the law firm DLA Piper, warns that employers may be forced to ban smoking breaks for workers who want to pop outside for a cigarette. "There has never been a right to smoke at work and employers are not required to provide facilities for their staff to smoke outside, even if smoking has previously been permitted in the workplace," he says. "The smoking ban may lead to an increase in complaints from non-smokers that smokers get extra breaks. If smoking breaks are allowed, employers should have a policy making it clear what is acceptable and what is not."
There are also cultural concerns raised by the ban. Sunday is expected to be the last day of the shisha café, a place where customers smoke the Arabic water-pipe in which fruit-scented tobacco is burnt using coal, passed through an ornate water vessel and inhaled through a hose. The last five to 10 years have seen a rapid growth in the number of these cafés across the country, particularly in Manchester and Birmingham.
On Monday night, the journalist and broadcaster Andrew Neil was the guest speaker at a special event organised by the pro-smoking group Forest to mark the introduction of the ban. He was joined by Antony Worrall Thompson and David Hockney. Forest, which describes the ban as illiberal and draconian, said the event was "possibly the last opportunity for you to eat, drink and smoke at major indoor public event anywhere in the UK".
Pro-smoking group FOREST will tonight make a last-ditch stand against the smoking ban in England by calling for exemptions for pubs and private clubs.
The group will urge the government to allow designated smoking rooms in some pubs and allow private clubs to devise a policy in line with their member's wishes at a dinner for celebrities and MPs at the Savoy Hotel in London.
Simon Clark, director of FOREST, will tell around 400 guests, including MPs and peers: "We have lost the battle but we haven't lost the war. The smoking ban is out of all proportion to the risk from second-hand smoke."
The event - Revolt In Style: A Freedom Dinner - will be hosted by TV chef and restaurateur Antony Worrall Thompson.
Antony Worrall Thompson has said that the impending smoking ban is an "infringement of civil liberties" and that pro-smoking campaigners will "fight on" after the July 1 ban.
Speaking before the Revolt In Style Dinner at the Savoy hotel in London, the television chef and restaurateur insisted that smoking is a sociable activity and that the Irish ban had merely driven people on to the streets.
"If you go to Dublin, everybody is out on the pavement - including the non-smokers," he said, adding that the ban was the "start of a slippery slope".
"Tonight's a celebration, it's not a wake, and we intend to fight on and hope one day that we'll be able to get exemption licences. It's an infringement of civil liberties, really. . . .
Simon Clark, director of pressure group Forest (Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco), was telling the event's 400 guests that "we have won the battle but we haven't lost the war".
He said say: "We urge the Government to amend the legislation to allow designated smoking rooms in some pubs and allow private clubs to devise a policy on smoking in accordance with their members' wishes."
Claire Fox, director of the Institute of Ideas, was saying: "It is a sign of our small-minded times when the most exciting new idea to come out of politics is banning smoking.
Smokers' rights campaigners are to make a last stand against the 1 July ban in England by urging the government to make some exceptions.
Lobby group Forest will call for legal amendments so some pubs and private clubs can provide smoking areas.
Forest director Simon Clark will tell 400 guests at the Revolt in Style dinner in London: "We have lost the battle, but we haven't lost the war."
Make bingo halls and private members' clubs in Scotland exempt from the smoking ban - that’s the rallying cry from pro-smoking lobby group Forest.
A poll, carried out by Populus for Forest, revealed that 74% of adults in Scotland believe that private clubs, including working men’s clubs, should be allowed to provide a well ventilated smoking room.
Two-thirds of adults (66%) believe that bingo halls should also be allowed the same privilege.
"The ban has been in force for a year now and most people still feel that places like private clubs should be able to permit smoking in separate well ventilated rooms," said Forest’s Neil Rafferty.
CAMPAIGNERS yesterday called for private clubs and bingo halls to be exempt from the public smoking ban in the wake of a survey. . . .
Smokers' rights group FOREST commissioned a poll of 1004 adults, 46 per cent of whom had never smoked.
Three quarters of people in Scotland believe there should be exemptions to the smoking ban, a poll has suggested.
The Populus survey, for the pro-smoking group Forest, revealed 74% of 1,004 people surveyed thought private clubs should be allowed smoking rooms.
It comes a week ahead of the ban's first anniversary, and found that the same percentage backed the idea of specialist smokers' clubs.
But Health Minister Andy Kerr said the ban had been "a resounding success".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Ivan Lewis): The Conservative party has no shame whatever. . . .
In The House Magazine, the organisation Forest recently had an advert saying, “No thanks†to the nanny state, which, it says, tells people not to eat, drink, smoke or think. It attacks politicians for having a dialogue with people about responsible approaches to their health. Big government, it says, is watching. It says, “Eat, drink and smoke.†At the Conservative party conference in Bournemouth, however, almost 400 people tried to get into Forest’s fringe meeting, and hospital staff were forced to turn people away, citing health and safety reasons.
The flurry of activity comes as Formula One draws ever closer to ending its long-term relationship with tobacco companies. With regulators in Europe and elsewhere moving to close some of the last loopholes that permitted cigarette companies to sponsor auto racing, the hundreds of millions of dollars that these brands used to lavish on Formula One are dwindling.
As of next season, two tobacco brands that have long been high-profile Formula One sponsors will be out of the circuit. Mild Seven, owned by Japan Tobacco, has ended its relationship with the Renault team, while a deal between British American Tobacco’s Lucky Strike brand and the Honda team has also expired. Other cigarette brands, like West and Benson & Hedges, previously bowed out.
Tobacco brands had been willing to pay a premium for these sponsorships because Formula One was one of the last marketing options left for the industry. With that money now disappearing, some teams feared a financing crisis. Instead, analysts say, as racing executives prepare to gather next week in Monaco for a conference on the commercial side of the sport, the sponsorship market looks surprisingly healthy.
The departure of the tobacco brands may actually have helped to attract a new kind of marketer
Almost nine out of 10 Scots believe the current smoking ban has gone far enough, according to a new poll.
The research conducted by Populus for smokers’ lobby group FOREST showed that 87 per cent of the Scottish public were opposed to any further restrictions.
It also revealed that a majority were also against a ban on smoking outside pub and clubs (61 per cent), on beaches (61 per cent) and places of work (61 per cent).
Smokers will be denied life-changing operations unless they agree to kick the habit, it was revealed today.
Cash-strapped hospitals say patients will not be given treatments such as hip and knee replacements until they try to give up. Those who fail could be denied treatment all together.
Managers in Norfolk and Newcastle, where trusts are millions of pounds in debt, say smokers are at a greater risk of complications and the move will help save them money on further care.
But critics accused them of putting its finances before the health of its patients - and warned it could lead to surgeons being "brow-beaten" into breaking the Hippocratic Oath. . . .
Smokers, however, claim they are being discriminated against. Neil Rafferty, of the pro-smoking pressure group Forest, said: "This is blackmail, pure and simple.
"Smokers pay their taxes like everyone else. In fact, because of the very high duty on tobacco, they probably pay a lot more tax than the average person.
"They are entitled to free healthcare and health trusts do not have the right to make up conditions."
Other critics say that while there are valid medical reasons for recommending smokers quit before an operation, finances, should not play a part in the decision to operate.
He was chairman and, in 2003, president of Forest - the Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco.
He was no mere frontman for Forest either. In 2005 he wrote a well-researched refutation of the Chief Medical Officer's pronouncements on passive smoking entitled "Smoking out the Truth". In this he declared: "The imposition of a ban on smoking in so-called public places represents a triumph of prejudice and propaganda masquerading as science." He added, ". . . hatred of cancer is no excuse for hatred of smokers nor for stirring up the wholly phantom fear of passive smoking especially by cynical politicians to whip up support for illiberal, intolerant policies of prohibition."