Despite changing attitudes, FOREST still has an important role to play, says Director Simon Clark.
By George Gay
Simon Clark readily admits that some people, even some people operating within the tobacco/nicotine industry, see the Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco (FOREST), of which he is the director, as something of a dinosaur. Indeed, he feels it is part of his job to counter this idea by letting it be known that FOREST is fighting for timeless principles—those of freedom of choice and personal responsibility.
Not only are these principles timeless, in fact; they are universal in the sense that they apply to all consumer products, not only tobacco in its smoked form, as the name of the organization suggests. For the past 45 years, while not promoting the consumption or use of any product, FOREST has defended the rights of adult consumers, properly informed, to enjoy, without being harassed by excessive regulation, any product that may be sold legally in the U.K.
But what is of course most impressive is that FOREST, almost uniquely, has been willing to stand up publicly for the rights of cigarette smokers, who, though still amounting to more than 6 million people, have been treated like outcasts by much of polite society—like people of the wrong class, people considered to be without agency, without the mental capacity to make the “right” choices for themselves.
And, regrettably, it is not only the public health community that has tried to “denormalize” cigarette smokers in this way. In recent years, so too have large swathes of the tobacco/nicotine industry—those who would sell cigarette smokers alternative lower-risk nicotine products, some of them while still selling cigarettes. Many of these companies and organizations have acquiesced in the face of claims that smoking is a “problem” that must be solved rather than a legal activity that provides enjoyment, in various ways, to those who indulge in it.
The Slippery Slope
Clark, a nonsmoker, should not be seen as a dinosaur, however, because he and FOREST have long supported the idea of offering cigarette smokers alternative lower-risk products, but the emphasis is on “offering.” He views with dismay verging on disdain the way that some in the tobacco/nicotine industry are willing to throw cigarette smokers under the bus by supporting government efforts to eradicate cigarette smoking and, indeed, tobacco consumption in all forms. And he has a point. Shortly after I met up with Clark in London in July, an email dropped into my inbox with news from the U.K. Vaping Industry Association, toward the end of which was this sentence: “Furthermore, the vaping industry is all about [my emphasis] achieving a smoke-free Britain, and we look forward to working with the new government’s initiatives that support this, as long as it doesn’t damage the vast potential of vaping as our best hope for getting there.’”
Hmm, you really must be careful what you wish for, and Clark has a salutary message for tobacco/nicotine companies and organizations that align closely with public health, including Philip Morris International, which, while selling combustible cigarettes, are calling for their eradication. He is convinced that once those public health organizations that are now trying to eradicate tobacco smoking do so to their satisfaction, they will go after nicotine consumption using the successful playbook they have honed in respect of cigarette smoking. And, in part, those offering the main forms of alternative products are laying the groundwork for their own demise. By trying to promote their products as therapeutic devices whose only purpose is to provide a way for smokers to quit combustible cigarettes, they are setting a time limit on these products’ useful lifespans. And by supporting the government’s efforts to meet its 2030 target (in England—other nations within the U.K. have their own targets) of ending tobacco smoking, they are further limiting those lifespans.
Perhaps it might be as well if those attempting to wipe out cigarette smoking revisit their dinosaur imagery. When the dinosaurs were wiped out in the great extinction event of more than 60 million years ago, about three-quarters of all animal species went with them—for the same reasons. Surely, the time has come when it is necessary for those promoting vaping and other tobacco-smoking alternatives to say that they are so confident about the safety of their products that they see no reason why nonsmokers should not consume them.
Looking Ahead
I met up with Clark because I was interested to know if, in this, FOREST’s 45th anniversary year, he believed that the organization would be around to celebrate 50 years. “I’m more hopeful now than I was a few years ago that we will get to our 50th,” he said. “I wouldn’t keep FOREST going just for the sheer hell of it. I genuinely think we still have a part to play in the political process.”
But he is cautious, saying he takes one year at a time, partly because he doesn’t take FOREST’s funding for granted. Philip Morris, never a major source of funding, made its last donation to FOREST in 1997, two years before Clark became FOREST’s director, while BAT, the first company to support the organization, pulled its funding three years or four years ago. That leaves Imperial and Japan Tobacco, the two major tobacco companies on the U.K market.
Perhaps the split with BAT was inevitable. While Clark says he understands the political and business reasons behind the shift in focus toward lower-risk products, I think the company’s latest claim to be creating a better tomorrow by building a smokeless world would be a little paternalistic and get stuck in the craw of this lifelong libertarian. The trouble here is that by claiming to be able to create a better tomorrow, BAT seems to be saying that everybody must sign up to the same idea of what constitutes a better tomorrow, riding roughshod over Clark and FOREST’s cherished principle of freedom of choice.
This is not to say that Clark is trying to bite the hand that feeds FOREST or that used to feed it. This is part of what he had to say at a gala dinner marking FOREST’s 40th anniversary, sentiments that he stands by today. “Finally, I’d like to thank the tobacco companies who have supported FOREST for 40 years. We don’t take the companies’ support for granted, and we know that society’s relationship with smoking has changed and will continue to change, and we also know that the companies are changing and moving toward safer nicotine products, as indeed they should.
“FOREST’s focus is also evolving to embrace and support risk reduction products, but as long as there are adults who choose to smoke, enjoy smoking and don’t want to quit, we will never abandon them because it’s our belief that choice and personal responsibility are paramount.”
Work Remains
FOREST is not making a big thing of its 45th anniversary because it believes there is so much going on regarding tobacco smoking regulations that a celebration would have been self-indulgent. Even at its annual lunch, held at the Boisdale restaurant in London in May, which would have provided a suitable vehicle for a celebration, Clark demurred, instead using the occasion to carry forward its campaign to Beat the Ban—the generational ban on selling tobacco products, which, at that time, was making its way through parliament with cross-party support.
As it turned out, an election was called, and the tobacco and vapes bill that included the ban was abandoned. But that, of course, is not the end of the matter. The new government has committed to resurrecting the bill, though what form it will take is not clear.
And there is more to come. All tobacco issues in England are likely to be geared around 2030, when smoking is due to have been eradicated from the country—or, rather, in line with the strange way of such matters, is due to be reduced to about 5 percent from the current 13 percent. Clark expects that efforts will be made to reduce the number of outlets allowed to sell cigarettes, and he predicts that pressure will be applied to ban smoking in more outdoor areas, including beaches, which is ironic given that for many people, beaches have become no-go areas due to the illegal but wholesale dumping of untreated sewage into our seas and waterways. He also believes that the generational tobacco sales ban will collapse under the weight of its own absurdities but rather than be abandoned will form the basis for public health, having itself upset the generational balance and harmony, to call for the generational playing field to be leveled up by banning the sale of cigarettes to everybody. Politically, this sort of strategy is called “Building on failure.”
Education Instead of Coercion
To be clear, though, Clark has no problem with falling smoking rates; as he says, societies change, but he is concerned that the apparently arbitrary 2030 target date is going to be the springboard for more draconian regulations as the government sees that it has no chance of meeting it. He believes the government’s role should extend no further than educating people about the dangers of certain activities, including smoking, though he emphasizes that education should not include propaganda and fearmongering. Once governments start to exaggerate health risks, they lose their audience, he says. And he has no truck with the use of punitive rates of taxation, which amount to attempts at social engineering and in part lead to the government’s losing control of the market to illicit operators at the expense of the retail sector.
One of Clark’s big concerns is that governments are, in this way, increasingly interfering in all manner of people’s lifestyle choices by attacking those choices rather than their likely causes. Noting that smokers are more prevalent in deprived areas, governments have chosen to double down on anti-tobacco activities in those areas rather than taking the more difficult route of attacking the cause of the deprivation.
While such things make him angry, so that at times he can come across as quite cross, he also tends to see the funny side of things. With a twinkle in his eye, he told me it was interesting how many senior politicians whose periods in power were going pear-shaped would choose an easy target, such as smoking, to bolster their flagging legacies. Theresa May, as prime minister, had hit on the 2030 target date, seemingly without much evidence to support the relevance of that year, and Rishi Sunak, as prime minister, had lifted the generational tobacco sales ban from an opposition idea.
Finally, it would be amiss not to mention the word enjoyment, which is very much part of the FOREST name and credo but can get overlooked because the organization is continually fighting fires. Clark said that one of the things he was most proud of during his time as director of FOREST was his commissioning eight years ago of a study by the Centre for Substance Use Research in Glasgow, Scotland, into the attitudes of about 600 confirmed smokers: people who smoked and didn’t want to quit. “The pleasure of smoking: The views of confirmed smokers” found that more than 90 percent of respondents smoked because they enjoyed it and derived pleasure from smoking. Just over half said they were probably addicted to smoking but didn’t care because the pleasure outweighed the addiction.
The results of the study did not receive a great deal of media attention, probably because it goes against the received idea that smoking is a disgusting habit that most smokers wish they had never started and would not start given their time again. But one of the things that I take away from the study is Clark’s courage in commissioning it in the face of such received ideas. And partly because of his courage in standing up for what many think is a lost cause, smokers can be thankful that this “dinosaur” hopes he will be in charge as FOREST approaches its 50th anniversary. “I still enjoy my job,” he said. “I still think I have something to offer. I still get a kick out of it. And I still think we have a role to play.”
