E-cigarettes: harm reduction or just a cheat?

21. January 2013 10:01

When I was small I used to watch my grandparents smoking with some fascination. “I’m going to smoke when I grow up,” I assured them, somehow mistaking it for a career choice.

In fact I never started smoking. Not even a puff behind the bushes on Wanstead Flats. While waiting not to smoke, though, I had my sweet cigarettes which I used to hold between two fingers, affecting stylish poses, before eating. I graduated onto chocolate cigarettes, which came wrapped in edible paper, and chocolate cigars – but only at Christmas-time.

At some point sweet cigarettes were banned, for what now seem like obvious reasons. Although I believe you can get still them from retro shops with the red tips removed. So they’re just white sticks, really.

Anyway, I mention my nicotine nostalgia in relation to the recent threat from the European Union to ban electronic cigarettes; arguably the modern adult equivalent.

E-cigs are much healthier than tobacco cigarettes because ‘smokers’ do not inhale the same carcinogens – just the nicotine. They are also better for the surrounding environment, since the ‘smoke’ they emit is merely vapour. You can imagine that if they really catch on they will not only reduce the incidence of lung cancer but also bring smokers back into the pub, or at least enable them to stay in the indoor conversation without having to nip out for a fag.

Pubs, though, seem to be nervous about seizing this opportunity. Very few, that I can find, sell e-cigarettes. A friend of mine was once puffing on his e-cig in the pub and he was almost roughly bundled out the door before the staff established his actions were perfectly legal.

The EU’s objection, which is much the same as the objection to sweet cigarettes, is that they are a form of gateway drug. People might start on e-cigs and before you know it they’ll be on Capstan Full Strength. But surely this, to me, small possibility is vastly outweighed by the benefits. E-cigs could be a very effective method of what those in the drugs and alcohol field call harm reduction.

What lies behind the EU’s stance is, I suspect, a feeling that e-cigarettes are cheating by making possible a relatively healthy nicotine hit. And it doesn’t really like the idea of people taking drugs without any bad consequences.


Statutory pub code targets a New Big Six

14. January 2013 11:32

So the government has, after all that, decided the pub industry cannot be trusted to regulate itself, and is proposing a statutory code and independent adjudicator to ensure landlords treat their tenants fairly.

The industry, or at least the part represented by the British Beer & Pub Association, is exasperated at the surprise move. It has already set up new structures to deal with complaints and its code of practice is currently on its sixth draft.

Personally, though, I think the government is doing broadly the right thing. If it had only done it sooner it would have saved a lot of bother. In fact, the previous Labour Government, which was making a lot of noise about the need to take action in the days leading up to the announcement, could have done something itself when pubco practices were more inflexible than they are today.

My suspicion is that it is somehow tangled up in the survival of the coalition. Did the Tories concede the principle self-regulation to its partner in a policy swap? Perhaps we’ll never know, but LibDem business secretary Vince Cable seems to have taken more trouble than most politicians to get a good grasp of the issues. It’s significant that he chose not to include a statutory right to a free-of-tie option. This is not a threat to the tied house system as such.

Important questions remain, however. The main one being exactly which pub operators and which pubs come under the legislation.

“The Code is expected to apply to all pub companies which own more than 500 tied leases,” says the Department for Business Innovation & Skills. In the pub industry ‘lease’ is shorthand for the long assignable leases introduced as an alternative to the traditional tenancy. If that’s what the BIS means only two companies, Enterprise Inns and Punch Taverns, will be affected.

Cable, however, said in Parliament that six companies will be subject to the new regulation. This suggests that ‘lease’ here includes tenancies. It makes sense, too, because the 500-pub threshold neatly excludes family brewers, who are reckoned to have a better relationship with their licensees and would feel the burden of regulation more heavily.

If I’m right the New Big Six (the old Big Six were the brewers who dominated the industry before the 1989 Beer Orders) are: Enterprise, Punch, Marston’s, Greene King, Star Pubs & Bars and Admiral Taverns (Trust Inns sits just about the threshold but can easily dispose of a few pubs to get under it).

Where the line is drawn will be debated in the consultation period, but as it stands there appears to be logic to it.

However, isn’t true that all the problems lie with the bigger pubcos? The tenants of family brewers need protection, too, and the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers has suggested that a voluntary code should remain for them.
What none of this will do is have a dramatic impact on the rate of pub closures. The damage has already been done and the challenges faced by publicans reach far beyond the tied house system.


Have we really wasted 25 years promoting alcohol guidelines?

7. January 2013 11:33

Decisions made by various royal colleges some twenty-five years ago are coming back to haunt them.

Alcohol guidelines that recommended a weekly limit of 21 units for men and 14 for women were “plucked out of the air”, a doctor involved in the decision later admitted. The guidelines were not based on scientific evidence but political expediency. The medical profession needed some hard numbers that could sell to policy-makers; numbers that were neither too low nor too high. They had to set a credible target.

And the guidelines have, until recently, been a great success to the extent they have been accepted not only by doctors and governments but by the drinks industry, which uses them in its educational materials.

But there is little evidence that they have been adopted by drinkers, which you would think is the best way to judge their effect. People generally know about the limits and understand the concept of a unit, but unfortunately alcohol doesn’t come by the unit but by the glass, bottle and can. Even in the on-trade, where strict measures are poured, the number of units in a ‘glass of wine’ can vary wildly according not only to the size of the glass by the strength of the wine, which can be between 8% and 15% ABV.

It is, of course, impossible to keep track of unit as Sir Liam Donaldson admitted in a special report on Radio 4’s ‘You and Yours’ programme last week. He claimed, “[it is] not an easy thing for people to hold in their minds when they are going out to a bar or the pub.”

Sir Donaldson was Chief Medical Officer for England for twelve years until he left his post in 2010. During the time he never, to his knowledge, questioned the validity of unit guidelines. He told ‘You and Yours’ host Dr Michael Mosley that revisiting alcohol units and addressing the issue “more scientifically” was “one of the things on my list I didn’t get round to”.

Now the current CMO, Dame Sally Davies, is getting around to it. There has been speculation that her review will simply lower the recommended limits. But it now seems more likely that the whole idea of units and weekly and daily guidelines will be scrapped. There were hints on ‘You and Yours’ that drinking advice is better tailored to the individual, which would be progress as long as it isn’t confined to genetic factors.

Meanwhile, it looks as though we’ve wasted a quarter of a century on a futile exercise.


Shakespeare’s Local – and Yours

17. December 2012 11:50

As I sit here in front of the screen, wondering what to drivel on about this week, Tony ‘Baldric’ Robinson is reading BBC Radio 4’s Book of the Week. It’s Shakespeare’s Local; Beer Writer of the Year Pete Brown’s history of a single pub, the George Inn in Southwark.

Multi-tasker that I am, I’m also going through the morning’s typically seasonal headlines:

‘Thousands of People At Risk Through Christmas Drinking’
‘When Social Drinking Becomes a Problem’
‘“Families Like Mine Pay More for Food to Subsidise Binge Drinking,” says David Cameron’

Whether or not there actually are any other families are like David Cameron’s it makes for cheerless reading, especially against the background of Brown’s effervescent narrative.

I’ve read the first couple of chapters myself and it is madcap stuff. Brown is off the leash, scuttling here and there, delving into each and every nook and cranny that takes his fancy, veering off at tangents, shuttling backwards and forwards in time. It’s a style that evokes a bustling, busy inn with all its comings and goings, its quirks and colourful customers.

Eyebrows have been raised over the idea of writing a whole book about a single pub, but when you’ve got six centuries to cover there’s plenty to work on. The book is an extraordinary celebration of our drinking culture, and it’s great that it is on the wireless. It should make sure Shakepeare’s Local is wrapped up under plenty of trees this Christmas…

Taking a step back, though, it’s curious that we can be so enthusiastic about pubs and so depressing about the consequences of going out and having a drink. There is much more to pubs than drinking, of course, but alcohol remains an essential part of the experience. The George Inn would certainly not have survived as long without it. A similar contradiction is revealed too in the way politicians express their devotion to the pub, but end up doing precious little to support it.

It’s that time of year when you’re allowed to hope that things will change, but until it does I encourage you to support your local over the festive season - and into the New Year - as Shakespeare supported his. There are still plenty of great pubs out there.
Have a merry one!


Purging the Dogmas of Drink

10. December 2012 15:46

There are times, when following the hyperbole around drink in the mainstream media, I have to wonder whether it’s really me who is going mad. So it was good to visit the oasis of sanity that is the British Sociological Association Alcohol Study Group symposium, which took place in London at the weekend.

I’m not a sociologist. I don’t wear nearly enough corduroy. But they let me in, as they let in a whole kaleidoscope of perspectives on drink.

Most alcohol conferences focus almost exclusively on the pathological, negative aspects. But while the darker side of drink is certainly not ignored, here it’s mixed with lots of other stuff, giving a genuine sense of the complexity of the subject.

On Saturday there were presentations on the problematic marketing strategies of brewers in Nigeria, and another on a tale of addiction and recovery as told by a former professional footballer.

There was a whole session devoted to women’s drinking that opened up a debate around how they negotiate the impossible demands on them when they go out on the razzle. It was brilliant antidote to the kind of moralising nonsense and titillating pictures you get in the likes of the Daily Mail.

Another interesting paper looked at how alcohol policy is interpreted, talked about and recycled by drinkers themselves – and the awkward gap between policy and actual cultural change. And, for something completely different, a couple of architects revealed their thinking about what makes J D Wetherspoon pubs so successful.

The final session focused on research itself, the difficulties encountered when trying to get people to talk about their problematic drinking, and the work of Alcohol Research UK, which plays an important role as a body independent of both the industry and the public health lobby.

Then we went for a curry.

It was all a refreshing contrast to narrow arguments about minimum pricing - supposedly ‘not a silver bullet’ - but to hear people talk; you’d think it the only alcohol policy in town.

The discussions were sharp and critical, but with the aim of clarifying the subject rather than shoring up the bastions around the position you’re defending and shooting down anyone who disagrees.

Of course, we have to come to conclusions at some point otherwise we’d just be academic observers. But gatherings like this are a necessary to purge the dogmas that pervade the alcohol field; we need more like this please!


Misapprehending minimum pricing

3. December 2012 11:40

James Morris of Alcohol Research UK put his finger on it on Twitter. To paraphrase, he said that minimum unit pricing is widely misunderstood because people are trying to think of it as working on an individual level.

“Actually MUP is about a small effect across a larger number of people,” known in public health circles, he adds, as the “prevention paradox”.

What this means is that rather than targeting alcohol policy at people who have a drink problem you deliberately take measures that affect the behaviour of most, or all, of the population. You see the results not in the better health of a particular group of defined individuals, but in the statistical improvement in health across the whole population.

The theory accepts that the majority of people will modify their behaviour, will buy less booze, even if their health isn’t at risk. By some mysterious mechanism, however, overall harms will be reduced.

It’s not surprising that this isn’t well understood. It’s counter-intuitive to say the least. And for me proof rests not only in the stats but in a satisfactory explanation of how you got to those results. I’ve yet to be convinced by any narrative about how minimum pricing will work.

You can see this problem in the way that the case for MUP has been fundamentally reframed for the benefit of politicians and the public they have to persuade.

In the beginning, which wasn’t that long ago, minimum pricing got its first mention in the UK in an appendix to a 2007 report by SHAAP (Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems). This report is specifically concerned with population-wide measures.

When Chief Medical Officer, Liam Donaldson, called for a 50p minimum unit price in 2009, the idea was rejected by the Labour government. The feeling was that it would penalise the majority for the benefit of the few. This was exactly what it was supposed to do.

But the advocates for MUP blinked, and started arguing that it was a measure targeted at heavier drinkers (though the Sheffield University researchers who modelled the effects have had to concede that dependent drinkers will be less likely to cut down).

Now the present government is claiming that minimum pricing will principally reduce ‘binge-drinking’ among young people.

Whether it will or not we don’t really know, but it certainly isn’t what minimum unit pricing was conceived to achieve.


NHS drinking quiz provides food for thought

26. November 2012 09:01

To show a bit of willing in Alcohol Awareness Week, I took the NHS online myth-buster test, a true-or-false kind of quiz about misconceptions around drinking.

I only got two wrong. One was the fact that alcohol reduces the possibility of conception. I was foolishly factoring in the increased likelihood of intercourse. The other I reckon I’m right about, and the NHS has got it wrong.

It’s about whether eating before drinking makes you less likely to get drunk. I know you can’t always trust your own individual experience but in this case I’ve built up so much evidence over 40 years of going to the pub (including under-age, before you get your calculator out) that, well, it’s surely incontrovertible.

Scraping together the scraps of medical science I’ve picked up, I reasoned that food in the gut slows the absorption of alcohol through the stomach wall into the bloodstream, meaning that, as it’s metabolised out, at any one moment there’s less alcohol in your blood and you are, by an objective definition, less drunk.

But I still felt on shaky ground. How could I possibly know more than the NHS? Then a drugs and alcohol researcher I know tweeted me a link to a study he’d been involved in (as a human guinea-pig) which confirms that if you eat before you drink your performance impairment is significantly reduced. In other words, you’re less drunk.

As the NHS warns, if you drink enough, you’ll still get drunk. I don’t dispute it. But I know that if I drink, say, four pints on an empty stomach I’m going to feel quite squiffy. If I eat, most times I’ll feel OK, I’ve still had a good time, and my chances of falling under a bus are reduced.

That has to be a good thing. It’s practical harm reduction and we should be encouraging people to eat – which the NHS, to its credit, does in a footnote.

And changes in the pub industry mean that people are more likely to take solids on a night out. I remember when few pubs served food in the evenings. Now menus are designed so you can quite easily snack or dine to help you manage the effects of your drinking.

What the NHS is scared about is weakening the message that people should drink less. That’s true for some, but for most of us responsible drinking is a matter of reducing harm, not consumption.


Alcohol Awareness Week: It’s time to talk about stigma

19. November 2012 11:36

Alcohol Awareness Week is underway, and this year’s theme is ‘It’s time to talk about drinking’. Do they mean me? Somehow I don’t think so. I never stop talking about it, writing about it, thinking about it. Now and then I even get a chance to drink the stuff.

I also rather suspect that most people talk about drinking quite a lot. Drinking is, after all, woven into the social fabric of our lives. What Alcohol Concern, which launched Alcohol Awareness Week last year, means is that it would like us to talk about drinking in certain ways, in:

“… conversations about the health risks, social problems, stigmas and taboos associated with talking about the dangers of alcohol.”

If there is a taboo about talking about the dangers of alcohol, it’s clearly one that Alcohol Concern has managed to wriggle out of. As have politicians of every stripe. Not to mention the mass media. It’s almost like the reverse of a taboo. It seems compulsory to mention it at every available opportunity.

It’s a gloomy subject, but my guess is that it crops up in pub chat, too, more than it used to, thanks to it being in the news so much. And I don’t just mean my pub chat. People don’t say, “oh here comes Phil, better think up something to say about the application of alcohol attributable fractions to liver disease”. At least I hope not.

But, dare I say it, Alcohol Concern does have a point. It’s hard for people with an alcohol problem to talk about it to their mates. It’s hard for them to turn down a drink. They don’t feel part of the crowd. There might even be something shameful about it.

For many, the easy way out is to not to go to the pub. But that would be a mistake. It only isolates them more.

This stigma is a major worry for drug and alcohol workers. It blocks the conversations and possible treatments that can help people with a problem.

When it comes to illicit drugs, of course, it’s worse because what they’re doing is deemed illegal. But it certainly exists for alcohol – and the sensational demonising of drink by politicians, the media, the medical profession and groups like Alcohol Concern risk deepening that stigma, making it harder, rather than easier, for people to talk.


The evolution of the bouncer

12. November 2012 09:08

Nice to know that Tracy Bird, licensee of the Newman Arms in London’s West End, is liking her new door supervisor.

Bird, you might remember, had a recent run-in with Westminster Council over being made to serve customers more slowly and close her famous pie restaurant at weekends.

Westminster has backed down on those two, but the third requirement, to employ door staff, has stuck.

In fact, it’s brought positive benefits to the pub. Its reduced thefts and helped staff to keep order, by removing drunks, for instance. Some think the law against serving intoxicated customers is a dead letter, but any good licensee will want to remove them with a minimum of fuss.

The pub industry has changed a lot over the last decade, and the evolution of the bouncer into the door supervisor has been a largely unsung example of progress.

Of course, it would be lovely if pubs and bars didn’t need to have someone on the door. Bird herself was extremely reluctant to employ someone, understandably fearing it would undermine the traditional pub atmosphere of the Newman Arms.

Part of the reason for her initial aversion surely goes back to the old image of bouncers as underworld heavies who caused more trouble than they prevented. But in 2003 the regulation and certification of door staff by the Security Industry Authority transformed the situation.

The badge that new-age bouncers wear on their arms show they’re professionals who aren’t going to rough you up or sell you drugs. They might even have people skills. The old euphemism of ‘greeter’ now has a grain of truth to it.

So it was good news when the government decided not to chuck the SIA onto the ‘bonfire of the quangos’ as it originally intended. And qualifications for door staff have now been expanded to include physical intervention training.

That was a controversial area at one time, but the argument has been won that, realistically, the need for physical force is going to come up from time to time, and a professional door supervisor should know when and how it’s appropriate to use it.

So that’s all good. Except that I read the other day that the government is still aiming to phase out the SIA in its current form by this time next year and will launch a consultation shortly.

Worryingly, deregulation remains on the cards. And with it the possibility that all this good progress will be reversed. If we’re not careful, the bouncer could be bouncing back.


They think it’s all over… but the beer duty debate was a hollow victory

5. November 2012 11:37

Watching the beer duty debate in Parliament last week was like going to a football match where only one of the teams had turned up. As Andrew Griffiths led his team opposing the duty escalator onto the pitch, somewhere down the motorway MPs who were in favour were playing whist in a broken-down coach.

It wasn’t a complete waste of time. There was some entertaining play on both political wings and it was a useful training exercise as all the arguments against the escalator were honed and finessed. The crowd on Twitter went wild.

There was a nervous moment when a spectator ran onto the pitch and tried to dribble the ball in the direction of Scotch whisky. But the referee, deputy speaker Dawn Primarolo, called him offside and sent him back to the stands.

Still, Griffiths’ side failed to score the goal they wanted – a review of the escalator. Somehow the opposition goalkeeper managed to get there, and after watching the three-hour build-up from between the posts Sajid Javid simply picked up the ball and took it home.

That’s democracy, I suppose. But it would be mean to say that nothing was achieved. Especially after the magnificent effort to get 100,000 signatures on the petition that forced the backbench debate.

The arguments made around the importance of pubs were particularly strong, and Javid said he’d “make sure the government does more to help the industry”. Although we’ve heard before how much they love pubs and all we get are Early Morning Restriction Orders and Late-Night Levys.

As for the punishing beer duty escalator, it looks like the government is happy to let it keep running, each year adding inflation plus 2% to tax. There is the deficit to worry about, of course, even though a shrinking beer market is cancelling out the gains to the Treasury.

And lurking behind the debate is the public health lobby. The inflation of alcohol’s cost to society makes drink an easy target for taxation. There is a good case to be made in favour of beer and pubs as positive contributions to responsible consumption, and that case was well made in Parliament last week. Yet not a single health minister was there to contradict it.

You might deduce from that they don’t have an argument. Or, more likely, they have no intention of changing their minds, fearful of the ‘wrong messages’ any curb on duty might send out.

But if they don’t turn up they can’t be challenged. Beware hollow victories.


About the author

Phil Mellows

Phil Mellows is a freelance journalist and writer specialising in the UK pub industry and alcohol policy. For more information, and the Politics of Drinking blog, go to www.philmellows.com
You can also follow Phil on Twitter at www.twitter.com/philmellows

Month List