Archived Issues

There is a scene in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid where these eponymous outlaws cannot figure out why the posse pursuing them is so relentless. “Who are those guys?” Butch asks Sundance. He wasn’t interested in getting a list of their names, of course; he wanted to know what motivated a group of men to suffer the deprivations of the pursuit when the potential reward was, on the surface at least, scant.

At the end of January, I found myself asking a similar question during a conference in Brussels organized by the International Coalition Against Prohibition (TICAP). The conference largely concerned itself with discussing the discrimination being wrought against smokers through the use of accumulative prohibitions. But in the background was the wider issue of what role governments and non-elected bodies should play in controlling the legitimate activities of individuals.

            In asking who were these people, like Butch, I was trying to find out what had motivated them—in this case, to attend the conference. After all, they seemed to be ordinary people who were donating their time and, in some cases, paying their own fares—the conference was free—to attend. At least one person had traveled from the United States to be there.

            So what did they hope to get out of it? What did they hope to achieve? A better deal for smokers? A debate about a better deal for smokers? In Brussels? What were they thinking of? Who are these people?

            In a document given out to delegates, TICAP described itself as a coalition of national, regional and international organizations—it listed 25 organizations from eight countries—opposed to “damaging prohibitions which in most cases serve to enrich special interest through scientific fraud and political manipulation, where adults are treated as children and freedom of choice is brushed aside.” It is opposed also to “a philosophy that sees the state as the dispenser of rights and social discrimination and the citizen merely an obedient production unit.”

            And in a passage that has particular but by no means unique resonance within the tobacco debate, it says it will fight for “a free and just society where individually established quality of life—not collectively established quantity of life—is the paramount value of that society.”

            It certainly has a fight on its hands. The conference was originally billed as the First World Conference Against Prohibition: Smoking Bans and Lies, and was to be held in the conference room of the European Parliament under the patronage of Godfrey Bloom, the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) member of the European Parliament for Yorkshire and Humber, and a member of the IND/DEM group in that parliament.

           

Banned from Parliament

But once word of the conference got around, wheels were set in motion and the venue booking was cancelled, though not until the last minute. I signed up for the Jan. 27-28 conference in November but I was told by the organizers only on Jan. 22 that the venue had been withdrawn by the Bureau of the parliament on Jan. 15.

            The cancellation, which apparently was decided behind closed doors and without reference to the organizers, was made following a letter from Florence Berteletti Kemp, director, Smoke Free Partnership, to the president of the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering, calling on him, the Bureau and the Quaestors (Quaestors—this is clearly a body that has lost touch with the people it is supposed to serve) to investigate the merits of granting the use of the premises. The letter, among other things, invoked the dignity of parliament and a number of sub-clauses to the rules on the use of the parliament’s premises to persuade those in charge of such arrangements that this piece of democracy in action had no place in the EU parliament building. Quite so.

            Of course, as soon as one sees the EU divisions mobilized behind the flags of dignity and sub-clauses you can be pretty certain that the arguments stumbling along, trying to keep step, are badly lame. Sub-clauses are the rivets of mental lockdown. They are designed to seal the democratic container from the prying eyes of all who are not part of the inner sanctum. By denying the oxygen of debate, they produce the stultifying air much beloved of bureaucrats. Secondhand smoke might be unpleasant to some people, but this bureaucratic miasma will destroy your brain cells. Graphic warnings should be in place.

            One sentence in Kemp’s letter is instructive. “The TICAP conference purports to develop methods and strategies to end ‘the use of pseudo-science’ in relation to tobacco control, in contrast the WHO FCTC [World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control] recognizes ‘that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke cause death, disease and disability,’” it said.

            Surely, all right-minded people want to put an end to the use of pseudo-science in whatever field it is used. And who believes in the existence of unequivocal scientific evidence? As somebody once wrote, only by giving up the quest for fixed certainty can you relate better to the world as it is, rather than a world as you would have it be.

            Kemp’s letter, copies of which were widely circulated, would have caused many of those involved in the conference to ponder also what connection there could be between “dignity” and “discrimination.” Can dignity exist within a discriminatory landscape? Probably, but definitely only within the oppressed group, never within the oppressors.

            And just in case anyone thinks that only the conference delegates think that smokers are discriminated against, here is part of a reply by Alexandr Vondra, president-in-office of the council, to a question (unconnected with the conference) asked in the European Parliament. “I am a member of the 30 percent minority in Europe: I am a heavy smoker, and I feel terribly discriminated against in this building,” he said earlier this year.

            What was perhaps most worrying about the exchange that took place after Vondra had said this—and much more—was the standard of debate, especially given that this is a parliament deciding issues that affect the lives of nearly 500 million people. “Thank you, president-in-office, for your honesty,” one person said.” You quoted your mother—well, as a mother, can I urge you to stop smoking, while sympathizing with your plight in the building?” “As a mother”? What is that meant to mean? What has it got to do with anything? Does simply being a mother confer great insights into the smoking debate? Most female rabbits are mothers many times over.

            But to return to the question of dignity, having attended the alternative conference that was quickly convened under the title of “Thinking is forbidden” at the Hotel Berlaymont Silken, close to the parliament building, I can say that it posed no danger to anybody’s dignity. The delegates may have been drawn from the hoi polloi and some of them may have been signed-up members of the awkward squad, but they were as attentive as any audience I’ve come across and moreso than a lot of audiences. They were certainly more considerate. Speakers weren’t interrupted by phones going off and the endless noise of the door banging as delegates wandered in and out, as happens at some conferences. The few interruptions there were comprised people whooping at those things that pleased them, which merely indicated that they had been paying attention—as did the number of questions that followed each presentation.

            So in an attempt to answer my original question about who were the people who attended the conference, I would have to say that despite what I wrote above, simply by dint of their actions, they weren’t ordinary. They were motivated enough to pursue the cause of putting a stop to smoker discrimination, persecution, denormalization ... call it what you will. And being mostly from the EU, they had the gumption to challenge the diktats issued by the unelected European Commission and tamely passed by the parliament and the Council of Ministers.

            Do they have a chance? My head says no, but my heart says that’s no reason for not trying, for not making as much noise as possible. Somebody has to make a stand before the personal freedoms, hard-won by our ancestors, are allowed to atrophy before they have fully matured. And if ever there were a time to make noise, it’s now. Many governments, institutions and those formerly believed to be experts have allowed much of the world to slip into a state of economic meltdown. This is the time for a new order, not more of the same, as those with vested interests would have us believe; time for those who like to stand on their dignity to make way for those willing to roll up their sleeves and get a little dirty. It is probably time for the bureaucrats and political technicians to make way for more creative people. Bring back the poets.

            If governments around the world have not yet realized that there is a lot of anger around, they had better wake up soon. Summer will soon be approaching in the Northern hemisphere.

But perhaps they have woken up. One conference attendee told of how, in the 1950s, fearful of an insurrection, the authorities in what was then East Germany started closing bars—those frightfully undignified mini-parliaments where debate was part of the natural order. The reference was clear: pubs and clubs were once again being closed, though this time widely within the EU and through the subterfuge of smoking bans and increasing taxes on alcohol—all for our own good of course.

            It’s almost too easy for the authorities isn’t it? Clear the bars of smokers and you divide and conquer them. Or it would be if this were the 1950s. But this is the 21st century and there is now available that macro parliament, the Internet, which is young and brash and hasn’t yet been fooled into believing that dignity, as defined by those who think they are the sole trustees of such a state, should be the arbiter of debate.

            I talked to three women smokers at the conference who each felt excluded from their local pubs where part of their social lives had formerly been played out and they told me that, following the smoking ban in England, they had retreated to their homes and their computers. They hadn’t given up smoking; they had simply taken to smoking while chatting on the Internet from the privacy of their homes, where they were reasonably free from the unwarranted attention of the state, the informers and the smoking police—a sort of toned-down Stasi clamping down for what they would see as the greater good: an unquestioning, gray uniformity.

            Clearly, these three women and the other delegates are made of sterner stuff than the bureaucrats gave them credit for. It was a pity that the 11th-hour change of venue meant that simultaneous translations could not be offered, but otherwise, the few inevitable technical hitches that occurred were treated with insouciance, and the enthusiasm of the delegates was undiminished, perhaps enlivened.

           

War

All in all, this was a well-run event that was totally inclusive—or that tried to be. There were suits and sweatshirts, and professors and barmen, all rubbing shoulders—tattooed and not. The only people who weren’t there were the prohibitionists, but even they would have been heard if they could have brought themselves to step down from the dizzy heights of their dignity and simply show up.

            No, there was one other notable omission. Where was the tobacco industry? Where, in particular, were the tobacco manufacturers? If any of their representatives were present, they weren’t owning up to it. Why? Weren’t they even curious about what was going on? These, after all, were their customers, though granted, they weren’t their shareholders.

            Their absence did not go unnoticed either by the delegates or the speakers. A clearly angry Gian Turci, who gave the opening address to the conference, said the tobacco industry was a cowardly industry that allowed the customers who kept it alive to be chewed up by the “Health Nazis,” their ideology and their blatant epidemiological frauds.

            Turci, who is a member of the board of directors of FORCES International*, a member of the TICAP board of directors, and president of FORCES Italy*, had torn up his prepared address when the conference was booted out of the parliament’s premises. He was no longer in a mood for a fight. He was declaring war.

            Why didn’t he deliver his prepared speech, which apparently advocated “justice and fairness”? “Because the bureaucratic public health beast has shown its colors again,” he said. “Because it has, once again, demonstrated its contempt for truth and democratic debate. Because, my friends from all over the world, this is not a conference tuned to finding peaceful coexistence, because peaceful coexistence is not what the Health Nazis want. They want our subjugation, humiliation and the utter elimination of our way of life. All that for our own good—and no tyrant has ever spoken different words.

            “This, my friends, must be a conference of war.”

            In an address that mentioned how the World Health Organization had cut the tobacco industry out of the debate, Turci said the “fanatics” had been honest in one thing only. “They said they were declaring war on tobacco—and thus on smokers …,” he said. “We bear the blame for not having heard their declaration of war … because … we simply could not believe it.”

            So was Turci being fair in lambasting the tobacco industry in the way that he did? Partly I think. I asked a number of manufacturers why they had not sent representatives to the conference and, to my way of thinking, most of their answers were in the range of lame to unconvincing.

            But this is what Imperial Tobacco said: “We were aware that this conference was taking place but chose not to participate principally because our involvement would be misconstrued. Our view was that by not taking part the event would gain additional credibility in the eyes of many observers as an independent forum for voicing opposition to smoking bans.”

            This is perhaps not particularly convincing of itself, but it is when you set it against, for instance, a press note issued in February by the U.S.’ fourth-biggest tobacco manufacturer, Commonwealth Brands, which is owned by Imperial. Commonwealth expressed concern about Missouri's newly proposed statewide smoking ban and said it believed that smoking bans infringed upon the freedoms and rights of its smokers.

            Missouri's existing legislation, which left the option of whether to ban smoking or not to the patrons and management of public premises, was a perfectly workable and fair solution, it added. 

This position aligns closely with one of those expressed at the conference and, while there are clearly some areas where the anti-prohibitionists and the manufacturers do not agree, there is surely enough common ground and common interest that they should work together wherever possible to further the interests of smokers.

            One thing that might have concerned the manufacturers is to be found in the force of Turci’s opening address, though it should be emphasized that this was not the address he had planned to give, but the one he gave only after receiving the shock of the cancellation. Tobacco manufacturers, to differing degrees, don’t like to rock the boat. The boat might be sinking, but they don’t want to rock it. Sometimes, it would seem, some of them are not even sure if they are willing to move the deck chairs around. This can perhaps look “cowardly” when viewed from the point of view of TICAP, but from the point of view of the manufacturers it is possibly the only way they see of engaging with the real world.

            Another reason the manufacturers might have been wary was because of the involvement of UKIP, some of whose policies manufacturers might not want to be associated with. But if this is the case, the manufacturers are allowing themselves to be the victim of what Victor Lowe once described as “vicious intellectualism,” whereby it is assumed that simply being in the same room as UKIP members signs them up for all of their policies. Debate will surely die if we allow ourselves to speak only to people whose ideas we agree with. Time and time again it has been proved that the only way to settle conflicts is for people to sit down and talk with others, even though they find their ideas unacceptable, even repugnant.

Excellent event

One thing is certain. By not being at the conference, the manufacturers missed out on an excellent event. Rarely can a conference have delivered such value to its attendees. This was a free conference that heard, via a video link from the U.S., scientist Dr. Gio Gori demolish the epidemiological fraud that props up the irrational fear of passive smoking perpetrated by governments and unelected bodies around the world. Dr. Gori is the sort of dignified presence that anybody wanting to learn the truth about passive smoking would do well to heed. He was director of the Smoking and Health program for the National Cancer Institute of the U.S. from 1968-1980, as well as deputy director of the Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention at the same institute.

            The award for the best anecdote of the conference would probably have to go to the economist Dr. Barrie M. Craven, who delivered an excellent presentation on the economic damage inflicted by smoking bans and who reminded delegates that in the middle of the last century, when 75 percent of people in the U.K. smoked, social cohesion was at its highest.

            Dr. Craven told how one bar owner in Germany had cut a series of holes in the walls of his bar following the imposition of a smoking ban. The holes were of such a size and such a height that a smoker could put his or her head and one arm outside, thus allowing him or her to remain inside while smoking outside.

            Dr. Craven, who is the former reader in public accountability at Newcastle Business School, University of Northumbria (UK), is now an associate of the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

I’m fearful of what one of the speakers, the philosopher Dr. John Luik, will make of my statement above that a person with his or her head and one arm outside and the rest of his or her body inside is “inside.” I’ll just have to point out that, in the case of smoking, the mind/body debate is decided simply on the grounds of sheer mass. This dismembered member of the hole-in-the-wall gang stands as a somewhat undignified metaphor for the smoking debate.

            As ever, Dr. Luik gave a faultless presentation, this one on how to fight the pandemic of prohibition, a presentation that was given additional weight by extending beyond tobacco to, for instance, the question of obesity.

            The conference heard rousing addresses from both Bloom and Nigel Farage, another British MEP and the founding member and leader of UKIP. Both men are powerful speakers and know how to work an audience, and they did so with good humor in Brussels.

            It was also addressed by the journalist and historian Christopher Snowdon, who is writing his first book, Velvet Glove, Iron Fist. A history of anti-smoking. Snowdon, who also manages and edits the Velvet Glove Iron Fist Web site, spoke encyclopedically about the history of the antismoking movement and the influence of the pharmaceutical multinationals on that movement and governments.

            But I would like to give the last word to another of the speakers, Dr. Jan Snel, who is a psychophysiologist in the Department of Psychology at the University of Amsterdam. Snel’s main interests are directed at the effects of using psychoactive substances such as nicotine, caffeine and alcohol on brain activity, mood, cognition and performance. His book, Permission to enjoy, gives evidence of the role of pleasure in these effects, and he spoke at the conference about the psychological damage caused by smoking bans.

            At the end of his address, he made a number of powerful “statements.”

• Smoking is a pleasure with beneficial effects on mood and cognition.


• Bans on smoking impose profound psychological and social burdens on smokers, who are labeled deviant, a label that impairs mental health.


• Enforced prohibition of smoking represents an ineffective, counterproductive and moralizing dead end.


• The concerns about the impact of smoking bans on mental health, well-being and quality of life have been given hardly any consideration.


• To derive people of pleasure and by that to harm their mental health is morally reprehensible.

In my view, Snel had finally answered the question who are these people? Clearly, on this reckoning they’re just people looking for a little of pleasure in life—a little pleasure enjoyed on their own terms without a posse relentlessly taking pot shots at them from behind.

­­­­­­­­________________________________________________________________________________

*two of the organizations that make up TICAP