Tag: Forest

Campaigners Slam RYO Tax Hike

Photo: Tobacco Reporter archive
Campaigners have slammed U.K. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt after he announced that duty on hand-rolling tobacco would be increased by 10 percent above the “tobacco duty escalator” (inflation plus 2 percent).
“The chancellor has just raised two fingers to working class people across the country,” said Simon Clark, director of the smokers’ group Forest.
“Raising duty on hand-rolled tobacco by such a punitive amount is going to push more smokers further into poverty or into the hands of illegal traders including criminal gangs.”
Hunt made his comments during his Autumn Statement on Nov. 22, when the chancellor announced his latest financial package to the House of Commons
According to Treasury figures, smokers will be paying an extra £2.21 ($2.77) for a 30-gram packet of hand rolling tobacco.
Smokers will be paying an additional £0.66 per pack of 20 manufactured cigarettes and an extra £0.33 per 10 gram of cigars.
The Treasury expects to rake in an extra £40 million from the measure next year.

This is a clear attack on smokers from poorer backgrounds, many of whom use hand-rolled tobacco because until now it’s been cheaper than buying manufactured cigarettes.
Simon Clark, director, Forest
“This is a clear attack on smokers from poorer backgrounds, many of whom use hand-rolled tobacco because until now it’s been cheaper than buying manufactured cigarettes,” said Clark.
“Instead of punishing adults who smoke with punitive taxation designed to force them to quit, the government should focus on the underlying reasons why a greater proportion of people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are smokers.
“Often it’s because of their environment but, instead of improving the conditions in which many people live, this Tory government is determined to force smokers to give up a habit that may relieve some of the stress caused by their environment.”
November 23, 2023
U.K. Mulls Single-Use Vape Ban
The United Kingdom will likely announce a public consultation next week on a plan to ban single-use vapes, reports The Guardian. While the government has accepted the benefits of e-cigarettes in helping smokers quit, it is increasingly concerned about the environmental impact and youth appeal of disposable products.
Research conducted by Material Focus suggested vapers in the U.K. throw out 5 million single-use e-cigarettes every week, a fourfold increase on 2022. This amounts to eight vapes a second being discarded, with the lithium in the products enough to create 5,000 electric car batteries a year, according to the organization.
Smokers’ rights group Forest said that if the U.K. government’s aim is to reduce smoking rates, banning disposable vapes would be “a significant own goal.”
“Vaping has been a huge success story, with millions of smokers choosing to switch to a product that is far less risky to their health. Part of that success is due to disposable vapes which are convenient and easy to use,” said Forest Director Simon Clark.
“The answer to the problem of children vaping is not to ban a product many adults use to help them quit smoking, but to crack down on retailers who are breaking the law and selling e-cigarettes to anyone under 18.”

The answer to the problem of children vaping is not to ban a product many adults use to help them quit smoking, but to crack down on retailers who are breaking the law and selling e-cigarettes to anyone under 18.”
Simon Clark, director, Forest
While stressing that the plans to ban single-use vapes were only at the consultation stage and no decisions had been made yet, the U.K. Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA) said it too opposed the idea.
“We welcome the idea of a consultation on disposables as it’s key that the industry gets the opportunity to highlight the benefits, and therefore continued need, for single-use vapes as a smoking cessation method,” said UKVIA Director General John Dunne in a statement.
A ban, however, is not the answer, he cautioned. “Some 220 people die from smoking every day, 365 days a year,” said Dunne. “Disposables have proved to be highly effective in helping smokers quit their habits due to their ease of use, accessibility and low entry price points. They are one of the main reasons as to why the number of adult smokers in Great Britain has hit record lows for the last two years according to the Office for National Statistics.”

We welcome the idea of a consultation on disposables as it’s key that the industry gets the opportunity to highlight the benefits, and therefore continued need, for single-use vapes as a smoking cessation method.
John Dunne, Director General, UKVIA
Dunne suggested that the issues of youth vaping and environmental damage are due in part to lax enforcement of rules designed to prevent such problems. He pointed to recent research by Arcus Compliance showing that fines handed out to retailers for underage and illicit product sales amounted to just over £2,000 ($2,494) in 11 major provincial U.K. cities between 2021-2023.
Dunne also warned of unintended consequences of banning disposable vapes. According to him, the black market already represents over 50 percent of the single use market in the U.K. “This would only accelerate with a ban, he cautioned.
Dunne further highlighted industry efforts to tackle electronic waste, citing research by Waste Experts showing that disposable cigarettes are highly recyclable. “However, the biggest challenge is getting consumers to recycle their vapes and providing the waste disposal facilities in public places and at points of use that will enable higher recycling rates,” he said.
In a note to investors, TD Cowen said a ban on disposable vapes could benefit global tobacco companies with vapor exposure. While multinationals such as British American Tobacco and Philip Morris International have exposure to the disposable vape market in the U.K., category economics are more favorable for pod-based systems, according to the investment bank.
September 12, 2023
Cautious Welcome for U.K. Insert Proposal
Photo: Tobacco Reporter archive
Smokers’ rights campaigners have given a cautious welcome to a U.K. government proposal to add pack inserts to tobacco products to encourage more smokers to quit.
On August 14, the British government launched a consultation on a proposal the plan, which calls for adding leaflets inside cigarette packs to encourage smokers to quit, telling them they could enhance their life expectance and save lots of money if they abandon smoking.
Tobacco-related harms are estimated to cost British taxpayers an estimated £18 billion every year, including over £1.72 billion in costs to the state-funded National Health Service.
SImon Clark
“If the inserts provide constructive information about quitting there is some merit in the idea,” said Simon Clark, director of the smokers’ group Forest.
“For example, inserting information about reduced risk products such as e-cigarettes, heated tobacco and nicotine pouches would make a lot of sense.
“Targeting consumers with more anti-smoking messages, which are on the pack already, risks warning fatigue and won’t work.”
While welcoming the proposal in principle, Clark expressed concern about who would bear the expense of adding the inserts. “If the cost is passed on to consumers, who already pay punitive rates of taxation on tobacco, it may be counterproductive because more smokers will switch to illicit tobacco products that won’t have inserts added,” he said.
The pack inserts envisioned by the British government are already used in Canada, Australia and Israel, among other countries.
August 14, 2023
Forest Urges Freeze on U.K. Tobacco Duty

Photo: John Gomez
Smokers’ rights group Forest is urging the U.K. government to freeze excise duty on tobacco in its March 15 budget after a poll found that almost two thirds of respondents (65 percent) believe the tax on tobacco in the United Kingdom is already “about right” (38 percent) or “too high” (27 percent).
Only one in five (20 percent) of those asked think the tax on tobacco is “too low,” while 15 percent said they “don’t know.”
Conducted on behalf of Forest by Yonder, the poll follows a recent report that the cost of a pack of cigarettes could go up by £1.15 ($1.36) after the Budget, while a 30-gram pouch of hand-rolled tobacco could rise by £2, if Chancellor Jeremy Hunt decides to stick with the annual tobacco escalator of inflation plus 2 percent.
The poll also found that 62 percent of adults think that purchasing tobacco from the black market is an “understandable” response given the high cost of tobacco sold legally in the United Kingdom whereas only 22 percent of respondents believe this is not an “understandable” response. Sixteen percent said they “don’t know.”

The Chancellor should freeze duty on tobacco and give smokers a break.
Simon Clark, director, Forest
According to the survey, Brits also believe that the government has more pressing concerns than tackling smoking.
Asked to consider a list of 10 issues for the government to address in 2023, respondents said tackling the rising cost of household utilities such as electricity and gas is the most important priority (54 percent), followed by improving the health service by providing more beds, frontline staff and cutting waiting lists (48 percent), tackling inflation (40 percent), and addressing care for the elderly (32 percent).
Other top priorities included tackling climate change (28 percent), the housing shortage (26 percent), and helping businesses recover from the impact of the pandemic (17 percent).
Tackling smoking was bottom of the list (10 percent), alongside tackling obesity (10 percent), and tackling misuse of alcohol (9 percent).
“The chancellor should freeze duty on tobacco and give smokers a break,” said Forest Director Simon Clark.
“Raising the tax on tobacco not only discriminates against poorer smokers, it will drive more consumers to the unregulated black market.
“This is bad news for legitimate retailers and bad news for the Treasury which could lose billions of pounds in revenue if more consumers buy their tobacco from illicit traders.”
“Significantly, there is very little stigma attached to buying tobacco on the black market. In a cost of living crisis the public understands that many consumers will opt for the cheaper option, even if it’s illegal.”
March 8, 2023
Campaigners Against Ban on U.K. Cig Sales

Photo: Taco Tuinstra
Campaigners have slammed the suggestion that a future Labour government could ban the sale of cigarettes to eradicate smoking by 2030.
Speaking to the BBC, shadow health secretary Wes Streeting said Labour would consult on banning the sale of cigarettes.
Simon Clark, director of the smokers’ rights group Forest, condemned the idea.
“The health risks of smoking are well known, but it’s a legitimate habit that millions of adults enjoy,” he said. “Banning the sale of cigarettes to future generations won’t stop people smoking. It would merely drive the sale of tobacco underground and into the hands of criminal gangs.”
Clark pointed out that current U.K. smoking rates are the lowest on record and an increasing number of smokers are switching voluntarily to reduced-risk products like e-cigarettes without government intervention.
“Given all the problems facing the NHS [National Health Service] and the country at large, it’s laughable to think that tackling smoking might be considered a priority for a future Labour government,” said Clark.
During the BBC interview, Streeting said more radical options were needed as the U.K. was set to miss its target of being “smoke-free” by 2030.
“One of the things that was recommended to the government in one of their own reviews was phasing out the sale of cigarettes altogether over time. We will be consulting on that and a whole range of other measures,” said Streeting.
Streeting said he would pay close attention to the results of a recently announced law in New Zealand that makes it illegal to sell tobacco to anyone born on or after Jan. 1, 2009.
Under the new rules, which take effect this year, the country’s smoking age of 18 would be raised year by year until it applied to the whole population. Beginning in 2023, those under 15 would be barred from buying cigarettes for the rest of their lives.
“I am genuinely curious,” he said. “If we are going to get the NHS back on track, we need to focus on public health.”
Streeting’s comments follow a review ordered by Sajid Javid when he was health secretary, which listed 15 measures to give the U.K. its “best chance” of hitting a national target of making the U.K. smoke-free by 2030.
January 9, 2023
Hear, Hear!

Photo: Bertie Watson
Participants in the Forest Summer Lunch event lament the continuing assaults on personal choice and personal responsibility.
By George Gay
And … (slight pause for effect) … the Golden Nanny Award goes to … (rustling of envelope) … Javed Khan!
Yes, during a ceremony that brought to a close the Forest Summer Lunch and Awards* at the Boisdale of Belgravia restaurant in London on July 5, Khan was recognized for his contribution to the nanny state. The event, which was co-hosted by Forest (Freedom Organization for the Right to Enjoy Tobacco, for the uninitiated) and Ranald Macdonald, managing director of Boisdale Restaurants, was attended by about 60 guests, who included friends of Forest, broadcasters, journalists, parliamentarians and think tank representatives.
Khan, however, was not in attendance, though he had been invited, so the award, presented by Forest Director Simon Clark, was collected by the editor of the Nanny State Index, Christopher Snowdon, who, unfortunately, was unable to guarantee that it would reach its intended recipient.
Khan’s absence was a pity because he had been a shoo-in for the award after the publication of his report, Making Smoking Obsolete, which was published June 9 as an independent review into the U.K. government’s smoke-free 2030 policies. The review had been commissioned by then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Sajid Javid, apparently to help inform the government’s policies aimed at countering health inequalities within England, which are part of its “leveling up” agenda.
A story on MedPage Today described the Khan review as providing “cutting-edge recommendations with the aim of achieving a ‘smoke-free 2030,’” but to my way of thinking, the review is confusing, blinkered, paternalistic and spiteful in its calls for the further degrading of cigarettes and their packaging and the further impoverishment of smokers. But perhaps worst of all, it is devoid of new ideas, so its general theme is to suggest the way forward through the inflation of the failed policies of the past.
But perhaps none of this matters. Within three hours of Khan’s award being announced, though, I should emphasize, unconnected with the announcement, Sajid Javid resigned from the front bench in what was to become a government meltdown that, over a couple of days, saw the resignation of almost 60 ministers and culminated in that of the prime minister, Boris Johnson. The ruling Conservative Party is deeply divided, and what happens in respect of the review’s recommendations could well depend partly on who the party picks as its new leader and, therefore, the new prime minister. It should be pointed out, however, that it is unlikely the result of the leadership contest will provide good news for smokers—just varying degrees of bad news.
Speaking during an after-lunch Q&A session conducted by Mark Littlewood, the director general of the Institute of Economic Affairs, Clark said he was opposed to targets such as the smoke-free 2030 goal. Forest had no problem with the falling smoking rates of the past 50 years. Society had changed, he said. People now knew about the health risks associated with smoking, and many were choosing to switch to products that were less risky than cigarettes. But Forest believed that decisions about quitting smoking should be made on the basis of choice and personal responsibility. It was against people being forced or coerced into giving up smoking, which was a possibility given that the “ludicrous” smoke-free 2030 target could not be achieved on a voluntary basis. If the Khan review was accepted, smokers were going to be coerced into quitting through a range of measures, including the extension of smoking bans from inside hospitality venues to outside those venues, and by pushing up taxes, which would force even more people into poverty.
In addition, Clark expressed concern that even if the government achieved its target, those opposed to tobacco would not be satisfied. At the moment, many of them said that vaping was a good alternative to smoking, but their long-term goal was not smoke-free—it was tobacco-free and nicotine-free. “These people will never stop, and we have to stand up to them,” he said to loud applause from guests who listened to Clark throughout with respect, interspersed with whoops of delight and cries of “hear, hear!”
Turning to what he described as Khan’s “so-called independent review,” Clark pointed out that the acknowledgements made in one of its appendices comprised a who’s who of tobacco control. Forest tried to engage with Khan during the review period, but it wasn’t clear whether he had even read its submission because the only response it received was a note saying that, under article 5.3 of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, he couldn’t engage with Forest. It was rather pathetic, Clark said, when somebody who was supposed to be conducting an independent review would not engage with representatives of an important stakeholder. Why would you conduct a review if you were not prepared to engage with that important group of people? Such a stance suggested that Khan had no interest in the views of the people who comprised this group, no interest in why they smoked or why they enjoyed smoking and no interest in why they didn’t want to quit.
Khan, Clark said, had made about 14 recommendations, but it was interesting that, given that it was an independent review, he hadn’t come up with a single original idea. The ideas were all copied from New Zealand, Canada, the U.S. and elsewhere. And they included some bizarre ideas, such as changing the color of cigarettes to dirty green. This was an attempt to take cigarette sticks down the same path as cigarette packaging, which had been turned into “plain packaging.” There was no evidence that plain packaging had made any difference whatsoever to smoking rates, so the idea that smokers were going to give up simply because the color of their cigarettes had been changed was nonsense.
Currently, cigarette packs carry huge warnings, so everybody is aware that there are serious health risks associated with smoking, but now Khan wants “smoking kills” written on the side of cigarettes. How far was this going to go? Clark mused. This latest review showed how desperate the anti-smoking lobby had become. “We’ve had enough education, we’ve had enough regulation, we’ve had enough legislation; just let it go,” he said.
It would seem that the public, too, has had enough. Last week, said Clark, on the 15th anniversary of the smoking ban, Forest had carried out a poll in which it asked 2,000 people what the government’s priorities should be, and, of the 10 options given, the top three were tackling the rising cost of energy and gas, tackling rising inflation and improving the health service. Some of the issues that people thought the government should treat as moderately important were helping businesses recover from the impact of the pandemic, addressing care for the elderly and tackling the housing shortage. The topics that were deemed the least important were tackling smoking, tackling the misuse of alcohol, tackling obesity and tackling climate change.
In fact, the previous paragraph should probably have opened with, “It would seem that the public, too, has for a long time had enough.” Clark said that Forest had been running annual polls for many years, and it had always turned out that people did not consider tackling smoking to be an important priority for this or any other government. “It was time governments started listening,” he said.
Finally, Clark, who has been at Forest since 1999, was asked what the future held given that the percentage of British people who smoked had dropped from about 40 in 1979, when Forest was formed, to about 14 now. From the Forest point of view, he said, he wasn’t looking forward very far. He didn’t know where we were going to be in 15–25 years, though he believed there would still be a substantial number of people smoking.
But Clark said that for him, Forest had never been just about smoking, a point that is hinted at in the first two words of the organization’s full name, Freedom Organization for the Right to Enjoy Tobacco, and that is underlined by the guestlists of Forest events, which comprise mostly people who can be described loosely as libertarians, some of whom are smokers. “It’s always been about personal choice and personal responsibility,” he said. “They are the principles that we have been fighting for, and those principles don’t age. And that is why I think there will always be a role for a group like Forest, even if it has to change its name in the future because there are so few actual tobacco smokers. It’s all about choice and personal responsibility, and we need to put those issues, those principles, higher up on the political agenda because in recent decades, politicians seem to have forgotten about them.”
*Special presentations were made during the awards ceremony to Liz Barber and Pat Nurse, described as two Forest supporters who previously had remained unsung heroes.
The first award of the afternoon went to the semi-retired Daily Mail columnist Tom Utley, who was painted as a smoker of heroic proportions and who was said to be described by Wikipedia as having made a career out of opposing wokery. Second up was Will Lloyd, the commissioning editor of Britain’s Unheard online magazine, who collected an award on behalf of David Hockney, described as arguably Britain’s greatest living artist and, despite the best efforts of Utley, unarguably its greatest smoker.
Then, after Snowdon had stood in for Khan, a special award was made to Ranald Macdonald for his longstanding but hitherto officially unrecognized support of Forest, which, over the years, had included hosting numerous events at Boisdale venues.
George Gay is Tobacco Reporter’s European editor, but his territory spans the globe. Based in London, George has covered the tobacco industry since 1982, initially for a U.K.-based publication and since 2004 for Tobacco Reporter. George’s understanding of industry issues, combined with his keen sense of observation and dry wit, have earned him a loyal following among Tobacco Reporter’s readers.

August 1, 2022
Campaigners Attack Cost-of-Smoking Claim

Simon Clark (Photo: Forest)
Smokers’ rights campaigners have rejected a claim that smokers cost society £17 billion ($23.3 billion) a year in the U.K.—£5 billion more than previously estimated.
On Jan. 14, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) published an economic analysis of U.K. data suggesting that the cost of smoking is significantly higher than previous estimates have shown.
The higher estimate is a result of a new assessment of the impact of smoking on productivity. According to ASH, smokers are more likely than nonsmokers to become ill while of working age, increasing the likelihood being out of work and reducing the average wages of smokers. Smokers are also more likely to die while they are still of working age, creating a further loss to the economy.
The report also cites smoking-related fires as a major cost to society, in the form of fire-related deaths, injuries and property damage.
“The suggestion that smokers are a significant economic burden on society is absurd,” countered Simon Clark, director of the smokers’ lobby group Forest.
“More than 80 percent of the cost of tobacco in the UK is tax and the revenue from the sale of legal tobacco is almost £10 billion a year. That’s a fact.
“In contrast, the contrived claim that smoking costs society £17 billion is based on nothing more than estimates and calculations.
“As well as making a huge contribution to the public purse, smokers make a significant contribution to the local economy because without the money they spend on tobacco many village shops and convenience stores would lose a regular source of income.
“The health risks of smoking are well known. If adults choose to smoke that’s a matter for them not government. Ministers must remember that and not be swayed by exaggerated claims about the cost of smoking to society.”
January 14, 2022
Back Choice, Beat Prohibition

An inconvenient truth: Some people enjoy smoking. (Photo: pikselstock)
There are millions of adult smokers who don’t want to quit. Their preference should be respected.
By Simon Clark
The announcement in December that the New Zealand government intends to ban the sale of tobacco to anyone born after 2008 is merely the latest example of a process dubbed “creeping prohibition.” Smoking bans, the prohibition of flavored cigarettes and punitive taxation are just three measures that have only one aim and that’s to eradicate smoking and create a utopian “smoke-free” society.
The health risks associated with smoking have been well known and widely understood for decades. As a result, millions of people have stopped smoking. Many more have chosen never to smoke. Nevertheless, many adults still enjoy smoking and don’t want to quit, and everyone—the tobacco industry, vaping advocates, public health campaigners and politicians—should respect their choice. Instead, a key stakeholder, the adult smoker who doesn’t want to quit, is increasingly marginalized and ignored.
In 2016, as director of the smokers’ group Forest (Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco), I commissioned a report called “The Pleasure of Smoking: The Views of Confirmed Smokers.” Despite making every effort to promote it, the study was largely ignored, but it’s still relevant, and if we were to commission the same report today, the results would, I believe, be very similar.
In brief, a survey of over 600 smokers by the Centre for Substance Use Research (CSUR) in Glasgow found that nearly all respondents (95 percent) gave pleasure as their primary reason for smoking. Most of those surveyed (77 percent) expected to smoke for many years, with only 5 percent envisaging a time in the near future when they might have stopped. More than half the respondents (59 percent) had used alternative nicotine-delivery products such as e-cigarettes. Few, however, were persuaded to switch permanently from combustible cigarettes to vaping.
At the time, Neil McKeganey, director of the CSUR, said, “This research has provided considerable detailed information on the way in which smoking is viewed by a group of confirmed smokers, a body whose opinions are rarely taken into account by government or tobacco control groups. The implications of these findings from a smoking cessation perspective are significant because there is a clear gulf between the way smoking is typically viewed as a negative, somewhat reprehensible, behavior and how the smokers themselves saw smoking as a source of pleasure—a choice rather than an addiction.”
One company that wants to eradicate combustible tobacco is tobacco giant Philip Morris International. In 2018, the company said it wanted to phase out cigarettes as soon as possible. In 2019, the then managing director of Philip Morris U.K. said, “There is no reason why people should smoke anymore.” Last year, the company even urged the U.K. government to ban the sale of cigarettes within a decade. While I applaud and support PMI’s commitment to developing reduced-risk products, this represents an outrageous attack on consumer choice—never mind rival companies—and is an insult to the many adults who enjoy smoking, don’t like vaping and don’t want to quit smoking.
In addition to funding the Foundation for a Smoke-free World, launched in 2017, PMI also funded, in 2019, an online initiative called Quit Cigarettes. It was created by Change Incorporated, part of the VICE Media group. Headlines on a dedicated campaign website included: “How Smoking Increases Chances of Genital Warts,” “How Smoking is Ruining Your Sex Life,” “Is Smoking a Deal-Breaker on Tinder?” “How Cigarettes Blight British Seaside Towns” and “This is How Smoking Makes Your Penis Shrink.” The Change Incorporated website also included “witty” one-liners such as “Definition of a cigarette—a bit of tobacco with a fire at one end and a fool at the other.” To be fair to PMI, a disclaimer stated that “VICE maintains editorial control, so Philip Morris International may not share the views expressed,” but it’s hard to argue that the campaign did not broadly complement PMI’s own anti-smoking agenda.
To be clear, Forest, which was founded in 1979, is fully supportive of efforts by PMI and other companies to develop, manufacture and market risk reduction products, be it e-cigarettes, heated-tobacco, nicotine pouches or products yet to be invented, because we believe in choice. We also support efforts to educate and inform consumers about the relative risks of different nicotine products so they can make informed choices, including not to smoke or vape.
What we cannot support are campaigns and strategies that appear to undermine or belittle smokers who don’t want to quit while targeting a “smoke-free world” that, in our view, can only be achieved by creating a society in which generations of consumers are not only denied a choice of combustible products but are increasingly restricted from using them and punished or ostracized when they do. If smokers choose to quit or switch to reduced-risk products voluntarily and without coercion, there would be no cause for complaint. Embracing or meekly accepting measures designed to prevent adults from smoking is another matter.
Unsurprisingly, several vaping advocacy groups and companies have also jumped on the anti-smoking bandwagon. In 2020, a leading vaping company in the U.K. backed calls to ban smoking outside pubs in England. Another wanted to see less smoking on TV. Meanwhile, a global vaping advocacy group is currently running a campaign called “Back Vaping, Beat Smoking.” The campaign logo features a boxing glove, and one campaign banner features a boxing ring with two boxers inside the ring. One represents vaping, the other smoking. The figure that represents “smoking” is cowering in a corner. The message is clear and, in my view, unnecessarily provocative. There are many positive ways to promote vaping to smokers, and this isn’t one of them.
More anti-smoking messaging was evident at a rally organized by pro-vaping groups in London in November. One placard that read, “Back Vaping, Protect the NHS” implied that smokers are a drain on National Health Service (NHS) resources in a country where taxpayer-funded medical treatment is free at the point of use. In fact, the estimated cost of treating smoking-related diseases on the NHS is £2.7 billion ($5.57 billion) a year. The annual revenue from tobacco taxation is currently around £9 billion, so in financial terms, smokers are neither a burden on the health service nor the taxpayer.
So why are these and other groups promoting the type of messages we would normally expect from anti-smoking activists? Perhaps they hope to win recognition or support from politicians and the public health industry. If so, they are likely to be disappointed because evidence suggests that the tobacco control industry, including politicians and campaigners, are only interested in vaping as a short-term “solution” to the “problem” of smoking. Few, if any, consider vaping to be a long-term alternative to smoking and certainly not a pleasurable habit in its own right. In their view, e-cigarettes and other reduced-risk products are smoking cessation aids and a stepping stone to giving up nicotine completely.
Which brings me to the public health endgame. Is it smoke-free or nicotine-free? What is the long-term outlook for all nicotine consumers, even in more liberal markets, if governments achieve their initial target of a smoke-free world? It’s clear to me, and others, that even in countries like the U.K. that currently have a relatively relaxed attitude to e-cigarettes, the endgame for public health campaigners is the eradication of all forms of recreational nicotine.
Some tobacco harm reduction advocates seem to think that eradicating combustible tobacco will ultimately benefit all smokers because their physical health will improve, but what about those like British artist David Hockney, 84, who says he smokes for his mental health? Is he, and millions like him, not entitled to make that choice for himself? “I couldn’t imagine not smoking,” says Hockney, “and when people tell me to stop, I always point this out. I’ve done it for 68 years, so are you telling me I’m doing something wrong?”
Meanwhile, by failing to challenge the stop smoking brigade, tobacco harm reduction campaigners are actually advancing the inevitable attempt to force consumers to give up all forms of nicotine. Indeed, the idea that vaping will not be a future target for every public health campaigner, even those who are currently well disposed to vaping as a smoking cessation tool, is naive if not laughable.
Millions of adults enjoy smoking and don’t want to quit. The war on smoking is therefore a war on choice and pleasure, and users of all recreational nicotine products should be fighting as one united army. Instead, by failing to support smokers who don’t want to stop, many tobacco harm reduction advocates are foolishly, for short-term gain, weakening the efforts of those who truly believe in freedom of choice and personal responsibility. And if we lose that battle, I guarantee we will lose the war on nicotine too.
Simon Clark is director of the smokers’ lobby group Forest (Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco).

January 1, 2022
Forest Condemns Anti-Smoking Plan

Photo: sezerozger
Smokers’ rights group Forest has condemned plans by Ireland’s Health Service Executive (HSE) to consider a complete ban on the sale of tobacco.
HSE is reportedly contemplating a sharp reduction in the number of outlets allowed to sell tobacco products and a ban on selling tobacco products near schools and universities, along with an annual tobacco tax increase of 20 percent. Other measures to be considered include reducing the nicotine content of tobacco products, banning filters and adding health warnings to individual cigarettes.
“Any form of prohibition would drive consumers underground and into the arms of criminal gangs. Ireland already has a huge problem with illicit trade,” said John Mallon, spokesman for the smokers’ group Forest Ireland, in a statement. “This would make it far worse.”
“The government has no right to intervene to this extent. Tobacco is a legal product, and many adults enjoy smoking.
“Future generations of adults should have an equal right to choose to smoke, just as many adults will choose to drink alcohol, and that choice must be respected.
“Governments have a duty to inform consumers about the health risks of smoking or drinking, but beyond that, it’s a matter for the individual.
“Any attempt to impose further restrictions on tobacco will be fiercely resisted.”
December 30, 2021
PMI Urges U.K. to End Cigarette Sales

Jacek Olczak (Photo: PMI)
Philip Morris International’s CEO, Jacek Olczak, has called on the U.K. government to ban cigarettes within the next 10 years.
Olczak said PMI could “see the world without cigarettes … and actually, the sooner it happens, the better for everyone,” according to the Guardian.
“Give [people] a choice of smoke-free alternatives … with the right regulation and information, it can happen 10 years from now in some countries,” said Olczak. “You can solve the problem once and forever.”
PMI recently stated that it wants half its turnover to come from nonsmoking products as it pushes its new mission to “unsmoke the world” by phasing out cigarettes. The company has come under scrutiny, however, by anti-smoking groups that feel tobacco companies are situating themselves as part of the solution while still promoting and selling cigarettes.

We welcome PMI’s commitment to reduced-risk products. However, there are millions of adults who enjoy smoking cigarettes and don’t want to quit and that choice must be respected.
Simon Clark, director, Forest
Smokers’ rights group Forest rejected PMI’s suggestion.
“We welcome PMI’s commitment to reduced-risk products. However, there are millions of adults who enjoy smoking cigarettes and don’t want to quit and that choice must be respected,” said Simon Clark, director of the smokers’ lobby group Forest.
“If Philip Morris wants to leave smoking behind, good luck to them, but banning cigarettes won’t stop people smoking. It will simply drive the product into the hands of criminal gangs who will happily sell illicit and counterfeit cigarettes to anyone who wants them, including children.
“We support the carrot not the stick approach to smoking cessation. Trying to force smokers to quit by banning cigarettes is illiberal and a fool’s errand that will end badly.”
July 26, 2021