After two fringe events, the media can't leave him alone even for a quick pint before tonight's Comedy Store event.
It promises to be a cracker in front of a full house.
Adrian Everett, the chief executive of the Bromsgrove-based company, said it had taken 14 months to clear the 30-second advert with Clearcast, the body that vets TV advertising before broadcast. E-Lites was forced to drop any footage of the product itself or promote the “intrinsic benefit of switching” from tobacco to ecigarettes.Clearcast is a service with, it claims on its website, "50 years expertise in ensuring that television advertising complies with BCAP codes". If anyone knows the rules, it is them, or so E-Lites and three other e-cig sellers assumed.
Ten Motives: misleading because it encouraged viewers, and particularly young adults and children, to visit the website but did not make clear the characteristics of the product;In fact, this was the crucial factor in the banning of all of them. The ASA made much the same explanation in all cases, such as this from the Sorse Distribution judgement.
ZULU Ventures: misleading, because it encouraged viewers, and particularly young adults and children, to visit the website but did not make clear the characteristics of the product;
Sorse Distribution: misleading, because it encouraged viewers to visit the website, but did not make clear the characteristics of the product.
Zandera (E-Lites): misleading, because they omitted material information about the product, specifically its ingredients and that it contained nicotine.
We noted Clearcast had understood that references to the type of product (e-cigarettes) were prohibited by the BCAP Code and that it was for that reason they omitted that information from the ad. However, we understood that the BCAP Code rule only required that ads for non-tobacco products such as e-cigarettes (whether or not they contained nicotine) did not reference or promote smoking or tobacco and did not include a "design, colour, imagery, logo style or the like that might be associated in the audience's mind with a tobacco product". We considered the rule did not prevent an ad containing verbal or text reference to an 'e-cig', 'e-cigarette', or 'vaporiser', providing that it did not also create a link between the product and smoking or tobacco products. We considered it important that ads such as this made clear the nature of the product being advertised and stated whether or not it contained nicotine. We judged that to be material information the consumer needed to know in order to avoid the likelihood of being misled. Because the ad did not make clear the nature of the product being advertised, and that it did not contain nicotine, we concluded the ad was misleading.
On this point, the ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.2 (Misleading advertising).So, they were considered misleading because Clearcast had given advice which was over-cautious. A simple thing to fix by amending them to supply more information about their products.
We acknowledged that there were no direct references to smoking or tobacco products, but the ad nonetheless referred to smoking by showing the man going outside for a cigarette. Although, as stated in point 5 above, the reference was oblique, rule 10.5 was nonetheless clear on this point, whether or not the portrayal was negative.
We considered that a dancing baby was likely to be very attractive to a broad range of children for whom the baby and the dance moves would both be engaging. We recognised that for younger children the reference to smoking was unlikely to be noticed or understood, but for older children, in particular teenagers, the inference would be clear.The secondary concern here, then, was that canny teens would know the guy was off for a sneaky puff ... just as they see in real life.
It said that the TV advert could amuse children and breached rules which restrict adverts that might interest children from referring to smoking.The Metro article was alarmist and bore little resemblance to the judgements.
E-cigarette advert is banned over baby and nicotine fearsBut that's as nothing compared to the Guardian and Huffington Post, both of which blatantly lied.
E-Cigarette Adverts Banned Over Viewer Complaints They 'Normalise Smoking'While The Guardian also made the lie a central part of their article in the header ...
TV and radio ads for E-Lites must not be broadcast again in current form following complaints they normalised smoking... and also - without clarification - led readers to believe that tax-sponging government lobbyists Smokefree South West were pivotal in the outcome.
Smokefree South West and 41 others said the ad promoted a nicotine-based product and encouraged and normalised smoking or the use of E-Lites.Indeed they did, but the ASA rejected their complaint out of hand.
5. Smokefree South West and 41 other complainants who believed that ad (b) promoted a nicotine-based product and encouraged and normalised smoking or the use of E-Lites, challenged whether the ad was irresponsible and therefore harmful.
5. Not upheld
As already noted above, e-cigarettes could be sold legally in the UK and were not a prohibited category under the BCAP Code, although they should be advertised responsibly.
We acknowledged the care taken with the TV ad (b) to avoid showing the product or referring directly to tobacco smoking. Although viewers would understand the man tapping his shirt pocket and leaving the room implied he was going outside to smoke, we considered that the ad's emphasis was on what had been missed as a result of smoking and that the ad's depiction of tobacco smoking was therefore negative. For that reason, we considered that the ad did not encourage or normalise smoking.
On this point, we investigated the TV ad (b) under BCAP rules 1.2 (Social irresponsibility), 10.4 (Tobacco prohibited categories) and 4.4 (Harm and Offence), but did not find it in breach.I take it we can discount any bleating from the Graun about press accuracy in the future, then? This is about as blatant as lying gets for a newspaper.
|"♫ Drifting along with the tumbling tumbleweeds ♫"|
Great to thank our poll winner @edballsmp for promise to support pubs with energy bill and business rates freeze pic.twitter.com/VmkLPGhqfZ
— CAMRA (@CAMRA_Official) September 25, 2013
A ban on smoking in all areas of jails in England and Wales is being considered by the Prison Service.
It is thought the move is linked to potential legal action by staff and inmates who have suffered the effects of passive smoking.In which case, this makes the Prison Service rather lame. This 'legal action' stuff has already been tested at the European Court. It's called the Labate case.
"The Tribunal rejected as manifestly unfounded the claims for compensation submitted by the applicant."I'm surprised a UK government agency isn't aware of this. They are massive fans of everything European, yet this precedent seems to be completely off their radar.
As usual, secondhand smoke is being used as the excuse for more draconian rules, but the fact that smoking will also be banned in outdoor areas and exercise yards - and that smokeless tobacco will also be included - shows that it's not really about passive smoke and it's not really about health. But then, it never is.Quite.
"The era of big, bossy, state interference, top-down lever pulling is coming to an end."
"No more of a government treating everyone like children who are incapable of taking their own decisions. Instead, let's treat adults like adults and give them more responsibility over their lives."If you read here regularly, you'll know it was David Cameron in 2008 and 2011 respectively. Since then, we've just seen a continuation of Labour's infantilisation of the public, including caving in to state-funded lobbying by the tobacco control industry over the display ban - that both coalition parties were opposed to prior to 2010's general election - along with encouraging the insatiable health lobby by considering daft schemes like plain packaging and minimum alcohol pricing which were in neither party's manifesto.
AGENCIES responsible for tackling obesity, capital city planning and security advice on asylum seekers are to be slashed as Tony Abbott takes the axe to Labor's reform agenda.
The Coalition will also begin unwinding key "nanny state'' agencies such as the Australian National Preventative Health Agency, established to lead the national fight against obesity, alcohol abuse and tobacco use.
Health Minister Peter Dutton has been critical of ANPHA's decision to spend $500,000 on a study into a potential "fat tax" despite neither side of politics supporting such a move.
Two major health agencies - the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the year-old National Health Performance Authority - are under review and could have their combined budgets - of around $40 million a year - slashed.
Climate Change Minister Greg Hunt has already taken the knife to key agencies, including the Climate Commission.Remember that Abbott was elected with a hefty majority precisely because he was promising to do all the above. And, unlike Cameron and Clegg, he seems to be actually delivering.
Initiated in 2007 in the Lot-et-Garonne, Cig Liberty was the first company in France to promote the electronic cigarette. At its head, Richard Pfeiffer, a former smoker who after a lot of health problems wished to find an alternative to his smoking.
On site, there are three models of e-cigarettes (déclinables with options) and more than a hundred consumables. Liberty Cig offers, in fact, 34 different flavors of refills (melon, strawberry through mint, coffee or redbull and aromas around tobacco) declined each time, four doses of nicotine.He's doing so well, so he is, that it has attracted unwanted attention. In the words of our esteemed reader:
Bergerac, our local town, is the centre of the French tobacco industry (we have a very interesting, and the world's only, tobacco museum!). So, a natural place for the e-cig business to set up shop.
Burglary is an almost unknown vice outside of the big cities, it just never happens, and as for 'Ram raids' - they don't exist outside of jewellery hoists in Cannes.
Last night, the plate glass window of 'Liberty--Cigarettes' was stove in by a vehicle - and the entire stock of the shop lifted by thieves.
Who'd a thought, even six months ago, that the marketing genius of the light fingered brigade would have been turning their hand to 'pssst, wanna cheap e-fag'.
My taxi rides since have been punctuated by calls from other taxi drivers enquiring on behalf of customers as to any sighting of another shop selling liquid nicotine for desperate vapeurs!Is this the first instance of an e-cig heist?
Smoke Spots allows consumers to interact and discuss venues with great smoking areas where they can comfortably smoke whilst they’re out. The site includes forums where experiences can be shared, a blog for inspiration and a growing database to find smoker friendly pubs, bars, restaurants and clubs.
Already getting more traffic than expected and around 2,000 Facebook fans, the popularity of the site is increasing. New spots from across the UK are being submitted every day - a clear indication this service is helping consumers find great facilities.
To enter the competition, registered users simply add a new spot or an event to the site and they are automatically entered into the prize draw. The prize includes flights, transfers and accommodation on Ocean Drive, South Beach for two people.Annoyingly, Simon's article was written while I was on holiday in the Midlands where I used quite a number of venues which would have been good entries, but I didn't see his post till I got back, and now don't remember the name of any of them.
|The front - anyone got a pic of the covered smoking area at the back?|
If you watch as much football as I do, you notice trends: a booze ad, then a gambling ad, then a payday loans ad. Might there be a link between the three? When the England football team played recently, hoardings around the pitch told us that Carlsberg was ‘the official beer of the England team.’ The American PGA has an ‘official vodka’ sponsor. Whisky sponsors are in sports as varied as Formula One, rugby, golf, polo and rowing. FA Cup sponsored by Budweiser.
I'm not going to slag off the alcohol industry because they are legitimately selling a legal product that rakes in billions of pounds to the Exchequer. If they are allowed to sell it 24 hours a day, why shouldn't they?
@PhilipDaviesMP forgive me if I give this GCSE politics exchange a miss. You get back to promoting gambling drinking and punishing the poor
— Alastair Campbell (@campbellclaret) September 18, 2013
[Home Office minister Jeremy Browne said:] "I am instinctively uneasy about restricting the freedom of individuals to observe the religion of their choice.
"But there is genuine debate about whether girls should feel a compulsion to wear a veil when society deems children to be unable to express personal choices about other areas like buying alcohol, smoking or getting married."Making out anyone under 18 to be nothing more than unthinking drones opens up so many ban possibilities, doesn't it?
Cars should be banished from town centres, a Liberal Democrat minister has claimed.
Transport Minister Norman Baker said drivers should be hit with big increases in parking charges so they are ‘disincentivised’ from parking near high street shops.This is the Lib Dem solution to the long decline in town centre shopping, is it? Err, isn't the precise reason out-of-town shopping centres are so attractive that there is free parking and easy access?
UK's Top 50 Worst Political Blogs 2013
10. SpikedI must get me a sidebar badge for this noteworthy achievement. Anyone good with graphics?
9. Underdogs Bite Upwards
8. The Commentator
7. Frank Davis
6. Velvet Glove, Iron Fist
5. Comment is Free
4. Dick Puddlecote
3. Harry's Place
1 Socialist Unity Blog
Australia could become the first major nation to outlaw smoking, with a federal government-funded trial about to test the viability of electronic cigarettes as a safer, permanent replacement for tobacco.
Medical experts, cancer groups and anti-smoking lobbyists battled for decades to rid cigarettes from public spaces.
The Sun-Herald can reveal that as part of its anti-smoking reform agenda, the previous Labor government committed more than $1 million to a pioneering study that, by 2015, will determine whether or not e-cigarettes could be utilised to phase out traditional cigarettes altogether.Now, on reading it, I had serious doubts about this as being true (in fact, it made me laugh so abruptly that the cat scarpered for the back door) for a number of reasons.
The "science" of e-cigarettes:gushing anecdotes from 11 self-selected vapers. This was actually published ascpjournal.org/content/8/1/5/…
— Simon Chapman (@SimonChapman6) March 8, 2013
"Lungs are made to breathe natural atmospheric air,not pollutants of any kind, and smoke or vapour is not their designed operating condition." - Kane
"I am very allergic to cigarette smoke. It causes my throat to constrict and triggers uncontrollable coughing and breathing problems. Substituting cigarettes with nicotine vapour does not address the issue. It panders to nicotine addicts and continues to expose the community to poison." - Severely Affected
"Common sense says e-cigs should be banned in public for the simple reason that nicotine is an extremely addictive substance and therefore we do not want to give the impression that they are socially acceptable or in any way cool." - StBobYou see, there is far too much stupid around (created by the tobacco control industry, it has to be said) for any government to even consider such a move right now.
Reynolds American Inc. may have just eight more years as a predominant traditional cigarette manufacturer if a leading tobacco analyst’s revenue projections about electronic cigarettes prove accurate.
Bonnie Herzog, with Wells Fargo Securities, has estimated Reynolds will have $4 billion in revenue from e-cigs in 2021 compared with $3.9 billion from conventional cigarettes.Ain't that free market clever? It's almost like it knows better than governments what people actually want, eh?
A front page article in the Sun Herald newspaper on Sunday 15 November (sic) presented incorrect information about electronic nicotine delivery systems (e-cigarettes) research at The University of Queensland.
The government had no input into the design of the trial and the decision to fund the study was based on the independent NHMRC panel's scores.
The research is being conducted independently of government. The purpose of the trial is to test the safety and effectiveness of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation by comparing their effectiveness in helping smokers to quit with traditional cessation aids such as nicotine gum and inhalators.
To characterise this independent university research as part of a previous government's “anti-smoking reform agenda” is simply incorrect.Nothing to see here, people. Politicians may be idiots, but they're not that stupid ... even Labor ones ... even in Australia.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) is so excited about that possibility that he goes off on an illogical rant that Siegel quotes:Quite.
Electronic cigarettes as marketed today—with flavors like bubblegum and strawberry—are targeted at young people with the very clear intent of creating a new generation of smokers. Without question, tobacco companies are using the same despicable tactics with e-cigarettes that they used in previous decades with traditional cigarettes to lure youth down a path of nicotine addiction and eventual death.Leaving aside the demonstrably false notion that fruity flavors appeal only to minors, Blumenthal is so focused on condemning tobacco and smoke-free e-cigarettes as the latest incarnation of Big Tobacco that he does not pause to consider whether what he is saying makes any sense. It does not, as Siegel points out.
The clear intention of electronic cigarette marketers is to sell as many electronic cigarettes as they can, not as many cigarettes as they can. In fact, of the more than 250 companies now on the general market, only one even sells cigarettes in the first place. Blumenthal's assertion, therefore, is not only unsubstantiated but preposterous.
Leading Australian health groups have launched an offensive against Coca-Cola's latest advertising campaign.
Twelve health groups, including Diabetes Australia and Nutrition Australia, have written a joint letter to Coca-Cola calling on it to scrap its campaign for sugary drinks and pull out of children's sport sponsorship.
Jane Martin from the Obesity Policy Coalition says the groups wanted to voice their concerns directly to Coca-Cola.
"We think we are best placed to talk about the implications and the solutions as far as sugary drinks are concerned," she says.
"I don't think the public should be taking dietary advice from Coca-Cola.
"They were the people that said it was a myth that Coke made you fat, a myth that it rotted your teeth and a myth that it was packed with caffeine."
She says those claims were found to be potentially misleading and deceptive.
The government has launched a consultation on a new Dartford crossing, costing up to £3bn. Readers came up with a much simpler solution to tailbacks - replace the toll booths. "It would appear most of the congestion is due to the antiquated manual toll collection system. I was surprised by the absence of electronic toll tags," said Bernard Murphy from Texas.I've got an even simpler suggestion. Scrap the tolls entirely and remove the toll booths. For why? Because we have already paid for the tunnel many times over ...
The idea for a tunnel crossing was first promoted by Kent and Essex county councils in 1929. A pilot tunnel was completed in 1938, although World War II meant the tunnel was not completed to full diameter and opened to traffic until 1963. Tolls had been in place since the opening of the first tunnel, and were enacted to pay for the construction of the scheme.... and we have also paid for the QEII bridge as well, over ten years ago. And because politicians promised they would stop charging us as soon as that happened.
Motorists have been let down by the government u-turn on the decision to continue charging at the Dartford crossing, it has been claimed.
From [April 2003] motorists should have been able to cross for free but the government's change of mind means car drivers still have to pay the £1 charge.This, of course, has since doubled to £2, and £5 for HGVs and coaches. Having said that, the government have been very generous in allowing you to use the roads - that you have already paid for in an imaginative variety of ways - for free between 10pm and 6am. Aren't they nice?
"We had a public consultation in 2000 about what we should do about the tolls and the public came to the conclusion the best thing was to continue the toll as a congestion charge."Well that worked like a dream didn't it, sunshine?
The Highways Agency is already on to this and expects to replace the booths towards the end of next year. It is looking for suppliers to provide number plate recognition - similar to how money is collected for the London congestion charge. Along with new road layouts, they say the changes are expected to be finished by October 2014.
Cost: Between £68m and £84mSo, to summarise:
Around 207,000 children aged 11-15 start smoking in the UK every year according to new research published today (Friday).
This means that nearly 570 children are lighting up and becoming smokers for the first time every day.
With so many children starting to smoke each year, Cancer Research UK is urging the government to commit to plain, standardised packaging of tobacco. Research has shown that children find the plain packs less appealing and are less likely to be misled by the sophisticated marketing techniques designed to make smoking attractive to youngsters.I don't see any caution there, just an implication that plain packs will carve big holes in that 'jumbo jet' number. The latest use of the figures was just last week in Westminster, where MPs Nick Smith, Tony Baldry, Julian Huppert and Fiona Bruce emphasised urgency - all identically quoting CRUK's 200,000 kids who will miraculously recognise harm from smoking which they'd never quite noticed before (despite it being part of the national curriculum, for chrissakes!).
PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Governor Chafee has vetoed legislation that would have banned anyone under the age of 18 from using or purchasing electronic cigarettes.
The American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, and other health advocacy groups, in calling on Chafee to strike down the measure, said it represented a "stalking horse" for tobacco and e- cigarette companies that want to exempt the growing industry from the regulations and taxes imposed on traditional tobacco-based products.Here were the behemoths of anti-tobacco - after decades of crying 'think of the chiildren' - objecting to a rule which would have made e-cigs an adult only product. Surely a bout of madness, you might assume.
Why would any public health group want to work to ensure that youth have free access to electronic cigarettes?
There is no legitimate public health justification for such a position.
However, there is a possible political explanation. These anti-smoking groups, which have an ideological opposition to electronic cigarettes because they look like cigarettes, don't want the electronic cigarette companies to be painted as responsible companies that have supported actions to prevent youth access to their product. Instead, they would prefer that youth do have access because if large numbers of youths do start using these products, then they can successfully argue for a ban on electronic cigarettes. If youth continue to avoid these products (as they are now), it will be difficult for these organizations to convince policy makers that they should ban the products or put severe obstacles in their way (such as high taxes or stifling regulation of their sales or marketing).Indeed. And so it came to pass that the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) created a typhoon of publicity this week by releasing an alarmist report on youths using e-cigs. It prompted loud, garish, and largely derogatory articles about e-cigs from Yahoo, CBS News and the LA Times amongst others, despite the CDC's article being desperately flawed and pre-determined junk.
"There's vapour like smoke," marvels Matthew Theunissen. "It crackles like a cigarette, gets warm in your hand like a cigarette and there's that familiar sensation in the back of the throat."
Theunissen stopped smoking this week, one of a team quitting as part of the Herald on Sunday's Quitters campaign. The journalist, 27, had been 10 years on the baccy, but has now bought himself an e-cig and is impressed.
It is that sort of reaction that Christopher Bullen and his team of Kiwi researchers have seen among the 650 smokers they tracked.
E-cigarettes are more socially acceptable than cigarettes or patches, and people are willing to use them for much longer, Bullen says.
"E-cigarettes give the whole enjoyment of seeing the vapour cloud coming up, and there's the manipulation of the product in the fingers, which is cool and sexy."Only a few years on the market, and already terms like 'cool and sexy' are being banded about? Now that's progress.
|A typical e-cig user, pictured yesterday|
Sheila Duffy, chief executive of Ash Scotland, said: "I am disappointed by the NICE decision. Patches and gum are much safer than tobacco, but they are produced by companies whose profit is money and these companies are looking for long term use to provide that profit.
"Addiction, in whatever form, is not a good state for people to be in."Not really, she was talking about something else, the odious hypocrite.
Gerald Howarth (Aldershot, Conservative)
As my hon. Friend rightly said, the Government consulted extensively. Some 665,000 people responded to that consultation, of whom 64% opposed what he is advocating.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East, Conservative)
It was not a referendum or a vote; it was a consultation. It is the power of the arguments that matters in a consultation, rather than necessarily the volume, particularly when the arguments are organised by a lobby such as Philip Morris.Just take that in for a moment. A member of the UK parliament is entirely dismissing around 420,000 objections to the consultation simply because he doesn't agree with them. Instead, later in the debate he has this to say:
[...] a February 2013 poll on the issue found that, overall, 64% of adults in Great Britain were in favour of standardised packaging—great public support.
A further poll by YouGov, conducted in March, showed support for the policy from 62% of Conservative supporters, 63% of Labour supporters and 60% of Liberal Democrats.Specifically, this refers to polls by ASH themselves, and a pollster whose President is a trustee of ASH. For Blackman, this is perfectly acceptable 'evidence', whereas a necessarily impartial government consultation is somehow bent.
West et al report that across 10 years, 5,453,180 smokers attended and set quit dates at English smoking cessation services operating through 151 English Primary Health Care Trusts (PHCTs). However, they do not specify if these were unique individuals or included multiple attendances by some smokers.
By applying relapse estimates to their four week data, they calculate a 12 month cessation yield above that which would have been expected from just writing a prescription for a smoking cessation treatment. For the most recent year this was an additional 21,723 ex-smokers. Averaged across the 151 PHCTs, this is 144 per PHCT, less than 3 each week.Not great for an outlay from our taxes of £84m per year, eh? When even rabid anti-smokers describe state-sponsored nagging as an abject failure, the waste of taxes is shown to be even more stark, no matter how much the state's mouthpiece try to pretend otherwise.
"... it is not just Big Tobacco anymore. Public health must also contend with Big Food, Big Soda, and Big Alcohol".It kinda rubbishes the now legendary 'myth' #7, doesn't it?
Myth #7: It may be tobacco today but other consumer products will follow
FACT: Tobacco is not like any other product, it is the only legal consumer product on the market which is lethal when used as intended. That is why the UK and over 170 other governments have signed up to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control which places legal obligations on governments to strictly regulate tobacco products. Plain packs for tobacco will not therefore set a precedent for other consumer products.As Chan's comments prove, the only mythical aspect of this non-myth is that it has somehow been imagined by those opposed to regulations. The slippery slope is not only encouraged by public health tax spongers, it is also something they regularly boast about as being future policy.
Parents of newborn babies are being told to wear smoking jackets and not touch their child for up to half an hour after having a cigarette - to protect the babies from smoke residue.Yep, the kid may be crawling towards an electric socket with a knitting needle, but keep well away in case they experience real danger.
[Counties Manukau smokefree programme manager Vicki Evans said] "We recommend parents wait at least 20 minutes and wash their hands before touching their baby after having a cigarette, and wear protective clothing which is then removed after smoking."Absurd, much?
However, a leading quit-smoking advocate says enforcing thirdhand smoke measures do little to protect children in the long run.That'll be because there is no such health danger as thirdhand smoke. Considering the evidence consists of a telephone poll; a study so corrupt in method that its authors should be relegated to flipping burgers for a living; and a press release by an anti-bacterial floor mop company; anyone who actually buys into the fantasy must be so idiotic as to also believe that there was once a World War 2 bomber on the moon ... which then vanished.