Anti-Smoking poster from 1915

 
There's something charmingly blunt about this anti-smoking poster from 1915. It also contains a number of strangely prescient cues for tobacco policy (and some elements of illegal drug policy) over the following century.

via Joe Bott (full size image here) 
with hat tip to Boing Boing

Tobacco regulation: saving lives vs personal freedom

The UK’s Department of Health (DoH) has announced an ambitious new strategy for reducing smoking in the population from 21% currently, to 10% by 2020.

In 2007 the Government brought in a ban on smoking in virtually all enclosed public and work places. This move added to earlier regulatory controls including the restrictions on displaying tobacco products, prominent graphic health warnings on packaging, raising the age access limit, and progressive increases in tax. These came on top of bans on all forms of tobacco advertising, and historic increases in investment in public education of smoking health risks. Combined, these measures are widely seen as having contributed to a substantial reduction in smoking across the population since the 1970s.

Transform has supported these policies, including the ban on smoking in enclosed public places, that have demonstrably delivered positive health outcomes without the need to resort to criminalisation of users or abdication of market control to criminal profiteers, quite the opposite in fact. For more discussion see our recent submission to the DoH 2009 consultation on tobacco policy.

Along with a raft of new public health measures (such as extending tobacco cessation treatment provision) The DoH is now considering extending tobacco regulation further. Policies that are being consulted upon include:

• Plain packaging - removal of all logos/branding
• Ending the sale of tobacco from vending machines (a significant source of tobacco for young people)
• Promoting smoke-free homes and cars
• Reviewing whether to extend legislation from enclosed public places and workplaces to areas like entrances to buildings

Plain packaging in particular seems like a good idea, and one with a strong evidence base that can hardly be seen as restricting user freedoms. One suspects that it wont happen in the short term at least, with a tokenistic ban on smoking around entrances, that wont serve any real purpose being the move that is actually enacted. Some countries are already going further. Finland, which outlawed tobacco advertising as far back 1976, aims to make smoking in a car carrying anyone under the age of 18 illegal by this summer.

Other countries, such as the US, are lagging behind in many of these moves, at least at Federal level (some states such as California have introduced very restrictive controls on smoking in public places). Last year Barack Obama signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. This legislation, which was passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 307 to 97 and the Senate 79 to 17, granted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) extensive new authority to regulate tobacco products. It means that the FDA would regulate the content of tobacco products, prohibits the use of the terms “light,” “mild,” and “low” on packaging and in advertising and mandate dramatic changes in the nature and strength of cigarette warnings, which by 2012 would have to cover the top 50% of both front and rear panels of cigarette packages. And it also stipulates that the FDA must reissue its 1996 regulations, which, among other things, would prohibit outdoor advertising of tobacco products within 1000 ft (305 m) of a school or playground, limit advertising in publications with a “significant youth readership” and ban brand-name sponsorship of sporting and cultural events.

To most Europeans, none of this seems new or radical. However in America such stipulations are frequently seen as a threat to the First Amendment of the Constitution – in other words they contradict commercial freedom of speech. Opposition to these policies comes not only from the tobacco manufacturers but also the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The ACLU sent a letter to senators arguing that,

‘… regulating commercial speech for lawful products only because those products are widely disliked — even for cause — sets us on the path of regulating such speech for other products that may only be disfavored by a select few in a position to impose their personal preferences.’

This idea that tobacco advertising controls are an unacceptable infringement on freedom of speech seems mistaken, when it has been recognised the world over that tobacco, specifically smoked tobacco, is not a 'normal' commercial product in that it causes direct and serious measurable health harms (around 50% of smokers will die prematurely as a result of their use) even when used as directed. This sets it aside from even alcohol.

The WHO has estimated that, at current global rates, there will be 1 billion tobacco related deaths during this century. Even the ACLU accepts there are must be some limits on freedom of speech. If the prospect of a billion deaths is not enough not justify some restrictions (not on use remember, just marketing) you have to wonder what would.

What is of more interest to Transform, however, is the policy disconnect that exists between tobacco policy and drug policy more generally. Most governments have acknowledged that using tobacco is hugely damaging to health and that stricter regulations are proven to reduce levels of use relative to prevalence patterns that emerged during the unregulated commercial tobacco promotion of earlier in the last century.

In the developed world, tobacco has been falling since the 70's, As a result of improved regulation, the reigning in of commercial marketing and increased public health education. This is in stark contrast to use of most illicit drugs.

If increased regulation and public health education has been proved to successfully contribute to a reduction in tobacco use and health harms, it is follows that these same policies might also be successful in reducing the harms associated with other – currently illegal – drugs. Unfortunately, we cannot even begin to explore the options for better market regulation whilst drugs are subject to rigid blanket prohibitions that mean no such market interventions are possible, default control falling to criminal profiteers and the economic dynamics of a completely unregulated illegal market.

For more information about proposed models of regulation for tobacco, alcohol and currently illegal drugs, see our Transform's new book – ‘After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation’.

Pseudoscience tobacco advertising from the bad old days

Tobacco products have had a long and inglorious history of largely unfettered marketing built around pseudoscience, false and misleading claims, and appeals to medical authority. The situation has improved today with tighter regulation of advertising and marketing in much of the developed world, even if tobacco companies have redirected their thoroughly unpleasant energies towards more sneaky marketing practices and less well regulated emerging markets in the developing world.

But for those of use who live in the new era of the tobacco advertising ban it is easy to forget the cynicism and shamelessness of tobacco marketing in the golden era of the 30's 40's and 50's. Below is a selection of some of the very worst, taken from the extensive collection lovingly archived by the Stanford School of Medicine. Click the images below to see full size.


The Chesterfield brand has the scientist actually smoking as he looks down the microscope. He has apparently 'discovered' that there is 'no unpleasant aftertaste'.


Chesterfield again: "Scientific Evidence on the Effects of Smoking! After 10 months, the medical specialist reports that he observed no adverse effects on the nose, throat, and sinuses of the group smoking Chesterfield."



Chesterfield now combining pseudoscience with the more familiar celebrity endorsement, here from Perry Como, apparently suggesting that you can smoke two packs a day for fifteen years with 'no adverse effects'. A medical specialist says it, so it must be true.



Lucky Strike this time, in one of a long series of celebrity endorsement pseudoscience ads about the 'mildness' of their product relative to others. All proved by 'scientific experiments' done by and unnamed 'independent consulting laboratory' . Using stage, screen and recording stars of the day, such ads frequently suggested that their product had actual benefits for the throat and voice.



Nicotine is a stimulant and this ad isn't a world away from advertising of stimulant drinks like Red Bull today, but interestingly the tobacco marketers managed to simultaneously run numerous similar sciencey-ads that describe tobacco's calming and relaxing effects.



'"Its Toasted" Your Throat Protection—Against irritation—Against Cough' - as endorsed by 'August Heckscher, President Child Welfare Committee of America'. Apparently 'Everyone knows that heat purifies and so toasting removed harmful irritants that cause throat irritation and coughing. No wonder 20,679 physicians have stated Luckies to be less irritating!'


And how do we know Lucky Strike's science is so spot on? Well, they have a big imposing building with 'RESEARCH LABORATORY' written on the outside, staffed by clever looking people in lab coats, wearing glasses and using test tubes and machines with lots of dials and nobs (Laboratoire Garnier being the modern day equivalent) . 'Prove to yourself Luckies are finer - get a carton today!'

The Truth About Irritation of the Nose and Throat Due To Smoking.' .... 'Their tests proved conclusively that on changing to Philip Morris, every case of irritation due to smoking clearly up completely or definitely improved.'.... 'These facts have been accepted by eminent medical authorities.'



Camel ran a long series of ads based around their research that 'More Doctors smoke Camels'. This may or may not have been true, but was shamelessly appealing to the reassuring authority of medical practitioners (arguably far higher then than it is today). Often portraying doctors and surgeons (in the mandatory white coats) actually smoking, this one above is particularly awful, featuring a five year old girl proclaiming to her paternal looking doctor figure and radiant young mother that 'I'm going to grow a hundred years old'. It then goes on to inform us that 'and possibly she may - for the amazing strides of medical science have added years to life expectancy' You can 'thank your doctor and thousands like him - toiling ceaselessly - that you and yours may enjoy a longer better life' . THIS IS A CIGARETTE AD. 



This bizarre ad plays the medical authority card along with the pseudoscience claims but uses Side-show entrepreneur Robert Ripley of 'believe it or not' fame to back it up (answer: Not).

When not using doctors as reassuring authority figures, Nurses were a solid second choice. Especially beautiful ones surrounded by hunky soldiers.



Dentists were also used, sometimes 38,381 of them. In this ad we laughably learn that the tar caught in the filter 'cannot stain your teeth!'. Filters did not remove any more tar etc. than the equivalent length in tobacco - but were cheaper. Just another ingeniously dishonest marketing wheeze.


"More scientists and educators smoke Kent." - again promoting the healthy cigarette / filter myth. Kent's Micronite Filter (Lorillard Tobacco Company) for at least 5 years in the 1950s contained crocidolite asbestos, one of the deadliest forms of this fibrous mineral. Smokers inhaled millions of deadly fibers per year and were never told of the hazard. Filtered brands nonetheless have been massive success, growing in market share from 2 % in 1950 to 50 % in 1960, and 99% today.


This Phillip Morris classic appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1946. It encourages 'physicians who smoke a pipe' to use the new 'country doctor pipe mixture' . Also one of the only such ads to feature a journal reference.




A long running and highly successful series from Lucky Strike played on the slimming power of tobacco - suggesting that if you didn't smoke, you would eat sweets instead and become obese instead of, in this case. a strapping hurdler. Similar ads in the series played on women's insecurities about their weight. They were eventually stopped when the tobacco companies were sued by candy manufacturers, although candy flavoured cigarettes were to follow. The marketing of 'slim' cigarettes to women (using images of slim women) continues to this day in the US and elsewhere where a total ban has yet to be enforced.

Here's an old UK ad for Greys cigarettes (ten for sixpence) that plays on the all to common parental fears of losing your children because the cigarettes provided at your cocktail parties were causing the completely invented problem of 'smoke-dyspepsia' (indigestion). 'These specially prepared cigarettes are invaluable for preventing smoke dyspepsia. And if you don't believe this—Well, what on earth will you believe?' . Having introduced the new brand to her social events, with children reclaimed, one of the guests proclaims to the delighted Mother: 'These topping Greys are the making of your cocktail parties Mrs Scholfield!'



Another earlier UK ad (1918) for Ricoro cigars has a doctor telling his patient he can smoke 'as many as you wish', the patient replying 'Ricoro is the pleasantest prescription a doctor ever ordered'


Finally, towards the end of the 50's as public health science was catching up on tobacco companies and the era of pseudoscience health claims was drawing to a close, an ad for Old Gold that says 'we don't try to scare you with health claims' before displaying the almost unbelievably in-your-face hypocrisy of immediately then making scary health claims.

Tobacco company marketing, it is safe to say, cannot be trusted. At all. Ever. Tobacco is not a conventional product and needs to be regulated and controlled differently to other consumer goods, as do all potentially harmful and addictive psychoactive drugs. Tobacco provides a valuable lesson in what happens when such controls are not put in place and profiteering is prioritized over public health.

Further reading

• More discussion of contemporary tobacco policy in Transform's recent submission to the DoH consultation on tobacco control
• Broader discussion on tobacco policy and striking a balance between prohibition, regulation and free markets, in 'After the war on drugs, Tools for the debate'
  
• See also: chapter on tobacco regulation in 'After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation' 

Update 07.09.11 : On advice from a comment poster below, I have removed one of the ads - for 'Dr Batty's Asthma cigarettes' - which although featuring in the Stamford collection at the time of writing, appears to be a fake (from analysis of the Fonts among other things). Asthma cigarettes did, however, once exist - as this paper reveals.  

Transform submission to the DoH alcohol policy consultation

Transform have made a submission to the latest DoH consultation on Alcohol policy, a section of which is copied below. The complete submission is available here (pdf). The submission includes some broader political discussion points:

• The negative influence of the alcohol industry on implementation of public health based regulation.
  
  
• The Government’s historic failure to stand up to industry pressure, or undertake the potentially unpopular regulatory measures required
  
  
• The anomalous status of alcohol policy, relative to a) tobacco policy and b) illegal drug policy

It includes an endorsement of the Alcohol Concern submission regarding answers to the specific questions posed as well as some additional recommendations on alcohol pricing and drink driving limits (neither covered in the consultation document), advertising/marketing controls, and product labeling.

• Government relations with a profit-making drug industry

The alcohol industry has fought tighter regulation at every juncture, with current and previous Governments evidently all too willing to prioritise industry interests over the concerns of the Royal Colleges of Medicine, The British Medical Association, numerous public health bodies and independent NGO’s, not to mention the overwhelming weight of published scientific research and epidemiological evidence. The current failing state of alcohol controls are a shameful testimony of the systematic failure of government to stand up to vested interests in the alcohol industry and their substantive lobbying resources, combined with an inability to demonstrate principled leadership and pursue public health policies that might incur short term political costs.

As with the tobacco industry, the alcohol industry is solely profit-motivated and therefore public health issues become a concern only when they threaten to impact on the bottom line. The industry will always to strive to concede as little market control to regulators as possible by deploying a now familiar menu of faux outrage and populist posturing (the nanny state against ‘a man’s right to have a drink in the pub’ etc.), dubious science (creating the false impression there is a genuine debate or controversy over issues like the efficacy of price and advertising controls), and token gestures (such as ending branding of child sport replica kits, setting up www.drinkaware.co.uk etc.). These efforts have been startlingly effective at distracting from, or delaying any meaningful regulatory legislation and have successfully kept what regulation has been passed at a voluntary level, meaning it can largely be ignored or sidelined to the point of being almost completely ineffectual.

The alcohol industry as a whole will never willingly accept any policies involving increased or stricter regulation that leads to a substantial decrease in consumption - as this will obviously lead to a consequent decrease in profits. Yet this is exactly what is required if issues of binge drinking and problem drinking in particular are to be addressed. It is important to remember that problematic and binge drinking constitute a significant proportion of alcohol industry profits; they are, quite simply, hugely profitable market sectors. Going on past experience - which demonstrates much of the industry not only avoiding the issue but actively encouraging unhealthy (but profitable) drinking behaviours - we have no reason to believe the alcohol industry when they claim to be serious about reducing such problems. Transform recommend that in the future they are kept at arms length in all development of public health policy and that some form of independent scrutiny of industry lobbying is established (and made public). The time for voluntary regulation of alcohol marketing has passed – it was a doomed experiment that has transparently failed on all fronts. The industry has held the balance of power in the policy-making equation for far too long, with systematic policy failures and disastrous public health outcomes there for all to see. It is time the brief was taken away from those that profit from maximising consumption and is returned to the public health experts whose goal is to minimise harm.

• Alcohol and tobacco policy

Some comparisons between alcohol and tobacco policy are appropriate here. Whilst there are obviously differences in how each should be approached, in many key respects research from around the world illustrates that the basic regulatory principles and public health approaches that underlie them are remarkably similar – for example regards price controls, controls on marketing and promotion, controls on availability, and controls on where and when they may be consumed. Yet developments in alcohol policy seem to be lagging at least 10 to 15 years behind progress on tobacco regulation. Whilst tobacco policy is delivering dramatic improvements in public health outcomes, the situation with alcohol is deteriorating.

The reasons for this disparity are hard to fathom, after all, tobacco industry lobbying was arguably no less ferocious or well funded 10 or 15 years ago than today’s alcohol lobbying and PR machine. We can only assume that it is an issue of political fear, and that a failure of leadership is primarily to blame. These fears appear to be two fold; firstly the negative public reaction to increased prices and other regulatory market restrictions, and secondly concerns about potential negative consequences for the alcohol industry itself, which, we are informed in the consultation document’s second paragraph, turns over £40 billion a year, whilst creating only £20 billion in health and social harms. Maybe from a certain perspective this constitutes a reasonable piece of political maths, but from any ethical or public health analysis – it is entirely unacceptable.

This baffling situation begs the question of how bad the public health crisis with alcohol misuse must become before it is taken anything like as seriously as tobacco?

Gordon Brown demonstrates safe, sensible and social drug use

Related blog posts:

Transform submission to the DoH consultation on the future of tobacco control
related themes are tackled

The fault lines in current drug policy
comparing approaches to alcohol and illegal drugs

Another alcohol strategy: fine words, but spineless
commentary on the June 2005 alcohol strategy this latest consultation is a follow up to

Why pulling alcohol ads from kids replica kits is nowhere near enough
a rant about the cynical alcohol industry

Government complicity in the alcohol marketing scandal
the industry couldn't have got away with it for so long without a bit of help

Supercasinos, drugs, and alcohol prohibtion: more than a whiff of ministerial hypocrisy
our leaders just haven't figured out how to be consistent when regulating 'vice'

Transform submission to the DoH consultation on tobacco control

Transform's have made a submission to the Department of Health's consultation on the future of tobacco control. The complete pdf of Transform's submission is available here, the introduction and one of the discussion points, on the wider implications of tobacco control policy, are copied below.

Introduction

Transform welcomes this consultation as timely, thorough and thoughtful, and hope that it will allow us to build on the recent achievements made in tobacco policy with more appropriate targeted regulation based around evidence of effectiveness on key public health indicators.

• Following a dialogue with Action on Tobacco and Health (ASH) Transform fully endorse ASH’s detailed submission (1) to this consultation and its answers to the individual questions posed.
  
  
• Transform also fully endorse the World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control (2) signed by the UK in 2003

In addition to this endorsement of the ASH submission we include some additional comments on overlooked elements of issues relating to tobacco harm reduction that are relevant to Question 17 (3) in the consultation document.

Transform would also like to present some additional discussion points not directly addressed in the consultation document regarding:

• Possibilities for a more radical restructuring of tobacco market regulation
  
  
• Discrepancies between alcohol and tobacco policy development
  
  
• The wider issues raised around drug policy and how to regulate drugs

The wider issues raised around drug policy and how to regulate drugs

All drugs, whether currently legal or illegal, need to be subject to the optimum level of regulation such that harms, both to individual users and the wider community are minimised and wellbeing maximised. Better regulation of tobacco is now delivering positive public health benefits, and as we argue above, it is hoped, and indeed seems likely, that these lessons will soon be translated into more effective regulation of alcohol markets.

However, it is hard to ignore the fact that such regulatory interventions, on price, packaging, availability, ingredients/strength, marketing etc, and the positive outcomes they can demonstrably deliver are entirely beyond the reach of government when it comes to drugs covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act. Responsibility for control of illegal drug markets was abdicated to criminal networks and unregulated street dealers when they were subject to absolute prohibitions against their production, supply and use, enforced with criminal law.

The distinction between legal and illegal drugs is not based on any rational evaluation of harms, but rather is a quirk of our political and cultural histories over the last 200 years. Indeed a recent Lancet paper (4) ranked alcohol and tobacco as more harmful than many illegal drugs.

The disjuncture between how we approach legal and illegal drugs is entirely illogical, and the case for all drugs to be regulated within a single regulatory framework, by a single regulatory agency, using a consistent set of evidence-based public health principles/tools seems overwhelming. Why are alcohol and tobacco the primary concern of the DoH, whereas over 200 illicit drugs are covered by the Home Office? It is a quite bizarre and untenable situation. Even the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the body of experts appointed to advise Government on drugs issues recently argued that:

"As their actions are similar and their harmfulness to individuals and society is no less that that of other psychoactive drugs, tobacco and alcohol should be explicitly included in the terms of reference of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (5)"

Transform argues that the sorts of questions being asked about appropriate levels of legal regulation and state intervention in the tobacco and alcohol consultations are precisely those we should be asking for currently illegal drugs. The current anomalous legislative framework however, completely denies us this opportunity and there is a striking and depressing contrast between the public health pragmatism of these DoH documents and the shallow politically-driven criminal justice posturing that characterised last year’s disgraceful drug strategy consultation (6). The DoH should unambiguously assert that drug policy is primarily a public health issue and is should therefore be the primary responsibility of the DoH and relevant public health authorities.

No credible calls have been made for an outright ban on tobacco, or for it to criminalised and brought within the Misuse of Drugs Act. Indeed, when the then Home Secretary, John Reid, was asked on the Jeremy Vine radio show (BBC Radio 2, 11.11.04) if he supported such a ban he replied:

“Prohibition doesn’t work, as the US found out many years ago.”

---

[1] http://www.smokefreeaction.org.uk/news/ASH_DH_Consultation_tobacco_control_final.pdf

[2] http://www.who.int/features/2003/08/en/

[3] Do you support a harm reduction approach and if so can y9ou suggest how it should be developed and implemented.

[4] Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse . The Lancet , Volume 369 , Issue 9566 , Pages 1047 - 1053 D . Nutt , L . King , W . Saulsbury , C . Blakemore.

[5] Pathways to Problems 2006 http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication-search/acmd/pathways-to-problems/Pathwaystoproblems.pdf

[6] Discussed in more detail in the submissions from Transform: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Policy_General_DrugStategyConsultationSubmission.htm and the Drugs and Health Alliance: http://drugshealthalliance.net/documents/consultation_submission.php

Imperial object to cannabis health warnings on Rizla

The ongoing and rather ridiculous saga of Rizla (or rather Imperial Tobacco, which owns the brand) cashing in on its central role in the multi-million pound cannabis paraphernalia market whilst its PR people pathetically try to disassociate the company from cannabis use, has taken a new and unfortunate turn.

The mental health charity Rethink, which has for a long time been a welcome and rational (if often lonely) voice in the cannabis debate, has called for cannabis health warnings to be put on Rizla packets. Unsurprisingly Rizla have not responded well, claiming that:

"We don't endorse the illegal use of cannabis using any of our products"

That may well be so, but they are of course perfectly happy to make bags of money from the illegal use of cannabis using their products. They would no doubt deny it, but many of Rizla 's products, the king size papers and paper rolls specifically, are used almost exclusively for cannabis consumption and not, as I recall Rizla laughably claiming in the past, for truck drivers who like to have a 'longer roll up'. Given this reality, having appropriate health warnings on the packets , for both tobacco and cannabis, seems eminently sensible.

Rethink, as part of this call, and its new cannabis health eduction campaign: Educating Reefer, had mocked up some Rizla packets with the warning 'Cannabis can destroy your mental health'. For the record the campaign materials all seem very sensible but I'm not completely sure young people will get the 'educating reefer' pun, or that the wording of the Rizla warning is ideal. But anyway, The Rizla packet mock-ups featured on the website and some of their publicity material for the new campaign, and I saw them when they were also shown in a slide at the (non-public) ACMD cannabis classification hearings last week. Unfortunately, as Rethink informed the ACMD meeting, the website has had to be re jigged and the printed materials withheld from distribution because Imperial's legal people have got all touchy about it.

Now I really don't like tobacco companies. They have a long and reprehensible history of putting profit before any form concern for ethics or public health, from lying about lung cancer through to fighting any form of regulation with their enormous PR and lobbying machines. They have, to some extent, been brought to heal in recent years with the advertising and public smoking bans in much of the West, although they are now directing the generally unpleasant energies to aggressive market expansion in the developing world where controls are less vigorous, there are billions of non-smokers to target, and governments more 'flexible'. Vile (yes you, if you're reading this).

In the UK Rizla occupies an odd and rather anomalous place in smoking and public health policy. Because they are not selling the drugs with which their products are invariably used, many of the restrictions and controls we associate with tobacco (let alone cannabis) are not deployed. This loop hole means that not only can they brush off suggestions for cannabis health warnings, but they are not required to even have tobacco warnings like the ones seen on cigarettes and rolling tobacco. More worryingly perhaps, Rizla can apparently advertise anywhere they want, and they do - unsurprisingly for unprincipled profiteers – aggressively, to youth markets: football game hoardings, ads in youth oriented magazines (often with drug culture allusions), 'Rizla lounges' at music festivals , a website full of video games and mobile downloads, and so on. Who do they think they are kidding? Imperial Tobacco vs Rethink. You tell me who the bad guy is, then tell me who has the best lawyers.

If I had an image of the Rethink Rizla mock-up I'd post it here and wait for the legal chill to arrive. Sadly I don't have the image (do send one, if you happen to have it to hand), so instead here's an image from the satirical website the DailyMash, at least in the spirit of the Rethink campaign:

Happy Christmas from an old drug warrior

Just say no, etc.

More from the Reagans on drugs

Why Transform supports the smoking ban

As the smoking ban comes into force in England it is an apposite time to talk about what effective drug regulation is and what it is not.

It is a common misconception that those who support the legalisation of drugs are against any kind of drug control. This is why legalisation/regulation is often – wrongly - referred to as liberalisation or relaxation of the drug laws.

In fact, apart from the most libertarian of libertarians, most of those in the reform movement actually support more control, not less. Bear in mind that it is prohibition that has abrogated all control of the drug market to organised criminals and unregulated dealers.

So, just for the record Transform supports the ban on smoking in enclosed public places, partly because of the health issues, but crucially because smoking is anti-social. In essence smoking inflicts smokers’ drug use on non-users, and to that extent it is irresponsible drug use. The issue isn’t nicotine use that is the problem, it is the route of administration. This is not an affront to civil liberties, rather it is legislation that stops users inflicting their drug use on others. If someone wants to use nicotine, they can: there are no plans afoot to ban the use of patches, inhalers, snuff, or Nicorette chewing gum in pubs (although, strangely, some oral tobacco products have been banned at EU level). Indeed if the Government had any sense they would have used this new legislation as a cue to promote the use of smokeless tobacco as a safer alternative to existing smokers (it is approximately 99% less risky). It is bizarre, indeed scandalous that smoking harm reduction has yet to bother UK policy makers, given that smoking is the most deadly of all drug habits by a vast margin: the WHO estimates smoking will kill a billion people in the next 30 years.

Returning to the subject of effective regulation, Transform also supports the raising of the age of tobacco sales from 16 to 18. We also call for ingredients lists to displayed on both alcohol and tobacco packaging, for health warnings to be displayed on alcohol products, and for a ban on alcohol advertising, starting with sponsorship of sports, music events and other advertising that directly reaches/targets children and young people.

We want better regulation not softer law. And for those politicians who claim that drug law reformers are soft, why have they not been calling for tobacco to be sold under licence, or for alcohol licensing laws to better enforced? Why have they repeatedly caved in to the alcohol and tobacco industry lobbying efforts to stall or water down any measures to strengthen regulation? How many publicans have been prosecuted for sale of alcohol to people who are drunk (illegal under the Licensing Act 2003)?

One of the problems we have in convincing the wider public to support reform is that governments of all shades have made such a pig’s ear of the regulation of currently legal drugs. The shorthand for which is the trite argument, ‘Why would we want to legalise more drugs? Look at alcohol and tobacco.’ The aim of any drug policy should be the optimum regulatory framework for minimising harms and maximising wellbeing. For legal drugs this can mean more and bettter regulation, whilst for illegal drugs, bringing them within a framework where they can be regulated at all.

When we began asking questions a few years ago as to why alcohol did not carry a health warning, we were told by the Department of Health (DH) that, ‘Alcohol drunk in moderate amounts in appropriate circumstances is not a danger to health’ - something that remains true for almost all drugs, legal or otherwise (see blog on alcohol policy). As for why ingredients are not displayed on tobacco packaging, the story from DH was that tobacco is so dangerous, additives are irrelevant. The Tobacco Manufacturers Association kindly sent us the booklet on the list of allowable additives in tobacco products. In this long list of noxious substances, was sugar, allowed at a level of up to 10% of the total in cigarettes – nice on your cornflakes, but do you want to smoke it? It goes against the central ethos of consumer rights that we are denied access to this information.

We must begin to put pressure on all governments and regulators to legislate so that legal drug dealers are obliged to conform to recognised codes of practice with regard to the sale of consumables, particularly in light of the fact that we are asking for new products to be added to the list of legally ‘regulated’ drugs.

Why alcohol ads being pulled from kids replica kits is nowhere near enough.

.

It was only last week the blog was commenting on exactly this issue (I have also considered it in detail previously) and how it was an ongoing disgrace for football, the drinks industry and of course, the Government.

So all change then. Kids will no longer be used as, in the words of Mr Poley, chief executive of the alcohol industry PR organisation, The Portman Group: "walking billboards for alcohol". Good news this, in a small way, sort of. But several hugely important and un-ignorable issues remain to be addressed.

Beer branding for toddlers!
Using kids as 'walking billboards' will end (in a couple of years, hopefully)

First amongst these is concerned with the millions of 'walking billboards for alcohol' that will remain, in the form of 'adults'. These include the large majority of fans at football games, and of course crucially the players themselves on the drug promoting teams. The children may not be wearing the brands themselves for much longer (although I still occasionally wear my Saints replica kit from the 80's sponsored by Draper Tools), but the level of exposure to the branding messages will drop little, if at all . The posters in the kids bedrooms will still be plastered with the branding, so will the football stickers they swap in the playground, and the games they watch on TV will be too.

In fact, not only are the televised games saturated with alcohol advertising on the walking billboards that are the players and fans, but also the non-walking type, the animated advertising hoardings surrounding the pitch and peppering the stadium itself even when non booze-branded teams are playing. It’s not just for beers either, you can also see ads for Vodka-Kick (a rather revolting vodka-based alco-pop aimed at the youth market) on prominent display at World Cup Qualifiers, Champions League matches as well as at several Premiership, Championship, Division 1, Division 2 and SPL grounds. Astonishingly, given the ban on tobacco advertising, you also still see ads for Rizla rolling papers in televised games - given these are used exclusively for tobacco and/or cannabis, this seems like a ridiculous loophole. Elsewhere in sports we have our national teams sponsored by beer (UK cricket team) and whiskey (Scottish rugby union team), tennis tournaments sponsored by Stella Artois, and of course the blazingly moronic sponsorship of formula one, Nascar and a whole slew of high speed racing sports sponsored by the drug implicated 1000s of speeding related road deaths.

So lets be clear - even after this 'ban' (in fact a voluntary agreement, applying to new sponsorship deals after Jan 1 2008) any child watching a football game on tv, video, DVD or you tube, will still be aggressively bombarding with alcohol branding drug promotion. Going to or viewing a whole match (itself probably sponsored by Carling or Amstel) they will be exposed to literally hundreds if not thousands of individual alcohol branding/advertising messages.

The marketing folks know what they are doing: You catch'm young. Just like the McDonalds happy meal and cherry coca-cola deliberately target young consumers as a way of imprinting brand loyalty at a young age, so the beer marketers catch'm young as a way of securing the key market of young drinkers, significantly including the ritualised binge drinking associated with football that really pulls in the profits. That the Government kow-tows to this nonsense nothing short of a disgrace.

Mr Poley of the Portman Group has this to say about yesterday’s announcement:

"There is no evidence to link this marketing with under-age drinking"

You have to love the shamelessness of alcohol industry PR. He seems to be saying that advertising alcohol to young people doesn't effect consumption amongst young people. No doubt the multi trillion dollar global advertising industry and their clients would be fascinated to learn this. Its transparently rubbish - If advertising didn’t increase profits and consumption of their products, companies wouldn't pay for it. If anything, children are more susceptible to advertising and branding messages than adults - and contradicting Poley's industry sponsored opinion there is reams of evidence , yes reams of evidence, of how sport sponsorship effects alcohol consumption amongst young people (presumably why many individuals and organisations including the Royal College of Physicians, the European Commission and numerous NGOs have been calling for a ban on alcohol sport sponsorship for years).

This sort of industry claim is almost as preposterous as the 'smoking does not cause lung cancer' rubbish we had to put up with for decades from lying tobacco companies (who also made similar claims about tobacco advertising not affecting consumption). The Portman group have also claimed that alcohol sponsorship encourages sobriety by association with healthy sports participation in which precludes alcohol related ill health or drunkenness. Absolutely amazing – almost Orwellian in its twisted logic.

Mr Poley from the alcohol industry funded Portman group then tells us:

"Even so, drinks companies are concerned about the negative perception caused by their logos appearing on children's shirts."

Ah, so they don’t want the kids making their brands look bad. How very caring and considerate. We then learn that:

"Drinks companies are taking the lead even though this decision may lessen their commercial appeal as sponsors if clubs sell fewer shirts."

Aside from the barely credible altruism in this last statement, I would strongly question the statement 'taking the lead', given that the industry has been assiduously fighting any restrictions on alcohol marketing from day one. The alcohol industry will not take the lead on any public health initiative if their profits are jeopardised - end of story. This latest move is an exercise in tokenism in the run up to the publication of the new alcohol strategy in a few days time, targeting just the most overtly offensive strand of their youth marketing strategy - the vast majority of which, as discussed, will remain in place. Just as with last weeks announcement of health warnings and unit content on alcohol packaging, this is a half-arsed decision reluctantly taken years, if not decades, too late. It will have no significant impact on the tsunami of youth alcohol marketing - which will simply redirect it's energy elsewhere.

Given the growing public health crisis around youth binge drinking, alcoholism, and early onset cirrhosis, the Government should have heeded calls to ban for all alcohol advertising to non-adults years ago. In France alcohol sport sponsorship and all broadcast alcohol advertising is banned and, wouldn’t you know it, drinking and liver cirrhosis are falling, rather like smoking and related health problems are in UK since we banned tobacco sponsorship and advertising.

If the Government do not act they will be continuing to condone the aggressive promotion of drinking to young people, and through sports sponsorship, the association of an intrinsically risky drug with healthy pursuits and glamorous role models, the absolute polar opposite of their other very vocal anti-drug messages. We should not be persuaded by the tokenism of this latest sop to the critics, either by the industry or the Government. The suggestion from the PR bods is that ‘something is being done’ and everything will be fine now.

It wont. This is yet another a political ‘process’ announcement, pure PR in lieu of any actual policy 'outcome' success (just wait and listen to them parade these announcements when the new alcohol strategy comes out). A whole lot more needs to be done very rapidly and a ban on all sport sponsorship by alcohol brands would be a good first step.

Cannabis safer than tobacco in drug classifications

The Independent from the 1st August 2006 here lists the drug classifications which government advisers had established on the basis of scientific evidence but which have been ignored by the Home Office. Both alcohol and tobacco are deemed far more harmful than many illegal drugs.
The same paper later criticizes the existing classifications in much the same way that the recent parliamentary committee has done (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article1207620.ece.