| HOME | New Additions | NEWS ITEMS | ARTICLES | Letters from the Papers and DoH, MP & Press Emails | ODDS & SODS | LINKS | CONTACT |
I am concerned
that much legislation and decision making by the Government is
based upon opinion, data and recommendation that, despite
established guidelines, is biased by design. It is possible that
this has happened through incompetence but evidence suggests that
tactics were used to ensure predefined conclusions were achieved.
If you are in
any doubt read How to run a national tobacco
campaign, What to Expect from the Tobacco Industry and comment from ASH descibing their campaign in
England -Smoke and Mirrors "Campaigning of this kind is literally a
confidence trick"
The starting point for my concern begin on 3 March 2003 when the Choosing Health consultation document was published and a requirement that they should hear from as many people as possible.
The Cabinet Office code of practice demands - Documents should be made widely available, with the fullest use of electronic means (though not to the exclusion of others), and effectively drawn to the attention of all interested groups and individuals.
A quote from the consultation results analysis shows the undue influence that organised, funded groups can have on such a consultation.
National ban on smoking in public places/workplaces
This was the largest single issue raised in the consultation – 1,376 out of 2,230 responses to the consultation addressed this specific issue. It should be noted that 609 of these submissions were prompted by the Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) campaign for smoke-free places. These submissions are included in the total number of responses referring to this issue for the purpose of this analysis.
I have refrained from looking further back in time when I could question the implications that might be drawn from a quote such as “the total cost to public funds of support for Action on Smoking and Health in 1988-89 will be £230,000 ; this amount being a grant from the Department of Health under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968.”
I believe that either the Code of Practice had not been satisfied or the DoH had failed to ensure that unbiased opinion was gathered. Distribution of information to official health bodies is one of their everyday tasks and many ’health’ groups such as ASH are regularly fed with appropriate information. What is not easy is to ensure that lay people, those most affected by current proposals, are consulted and proportionate in their responses.
Yet on 20 Dec 2004 -------“Lord Warner: The consultation for the Choosing Health White Paper took into consideration objective empirical evidence from opinion surveys and polls, such as the Office for National Statistics (ONS), alongside opinions expressed to the Department of Health by individuals and interest groups to ensure a truly representative picture of the general feeling.”(a)
Very fine words but demonstrably innacurate.
Choosing Health (2004)--Tony Blair wrote these comforting words “Small changes in the choices people make can make a big difference. Taken together, these changes can lead to huge improvements in health across society. But changes need to be based on choices, not direction. We are clear that Government cannot – and should not – pretend it can ‘make’ the population healthy. But it can – and should – support people in making better choices for their health and the health of their families. It is for people to make the healthy choice if they wish to. Choosing health sets out what this Government will do to help them.”
The focus of this document is CHOICE and what happened to the 'Small' of small changes and the bit about choices not direction'?
The Summary for Chapter 4 started …. “The environment we live in, our social networks, our sense of security, socio-economic circumstances facilities and resources in our local neighbour hood can affect individual health” and continued by introducing the proposals for smoking restrictions …….
“Smoking is a major cause of illhealth. Balancing the rights of people who choose to smoke against the interests of the majority who object to secondhand smoke at work and in public places was one of the most controversial issues in the consultation. This is an area where campaigns and public demand for change have not done enough to achieve national targets to reduce prevalence in smoking. We intend therefore to shift the balance significantly in favour of smoke free environments.
By 2006, all government departments and the NHS will (subject to limited exceptions) be smoke free. We will consult on detailed proposals for regulation with legislation where necessary so that by the end of 2008, all enclosed public places and workplaces will be smokefree except those specifically exempted”
At this point some concern must be raised–
There is no evidence for a ‘majority who object‘ to exposure. What does appear in the 2005 National Statistics News release is a majority in favour of more restrictions (not Bans) and interestingly enough a minority 31% suggested that there should be no smoking in pubs. - The 2006 figure is 33% suggesting that those figures produced by polls commissioned by ASH aan CANCER RESEARCH UK are somehow tainted. This should also add doubt to the accuracy of their submissions.
If national targets were not being achieved questions should be asked. The Government provides funding for the Department of Health to promote smoking cessation and helps to fund anti-smoking groups. We should ask how much money has been provided, how wisely and how effectively it has been used. The obvious observation is that they have failed in their task and perhaps proposed draconian measures are required to divert attention from their failure. .…………..“The really tough job is to stop young people from smoking – and we’ve failed miserably. So we’ve got to look at other ways of getting young people’s smoking down.” , wrote Maureen Moore, director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) in Scotland.
It would also be
interesting to know exactly who Tony Blair’s public are that
demand change. Maybe change is wanted but I the word
demand is used to promote a strength of opinion that might come
from extreme groups. The "Choosing Health: Making Healthy
Choices Easier" White Paper published in November 2004
accepts that only 20% wanted smokefree pubs can somehow only a
few lines later offer the comment "However, change has
been slow and public demand for action has increased. It is one
of the few instances in this White Paper where we believe the
right response is Government action in the form of
legislation."
What Public Demand? It has obviously that
of interest groups such as ASH who made up 609 of the 1376
mentioned earlier and from other selected but unnamed surveys or
groups.
By the time of the election the Labour Party fought on a well-reported platform of ‘restrictions’ and on 17th June the Queen’s speech announced that “legislation to restrict smoking in enclosed public spaces and workplaces will be introduced”
By June 2005 a consultation document was published.
Many specific decisions had been made on the back of previous consultation and again the Cabinet Office Code of Practice applied. The Partial Regulatory Impact assessment makes interesting reading and deserves scrutiny.
The fourth objective is to “save thousands of lives over the next decade by reducing overall smoking rates.” This is admirable but it is already happening. The next two sentences mention specific figures. The aim is that smoking rates will be cut to 21% by 2010. The drop from 28% in 1998 to 25% in 2003 shows an average drop of 0.6% each year. The current trend would suggest a possible 4.2% drop to 20.8% by 2010. There appears to be little need for anything but continued voluntary efforts and eucation.
Specific evidence from Ireland, ignored by government, shows that after an initial fall smoking rates leveled off and in the past year rose by 1%. An increase of 4% more smokers. Volume 1 of the Committee report
Many encouraging but often challenged claims are made in paragraph 5 but the figures at the end of Paragraph 9 show serious tunnel vision. It assesses the cost to the NHS but fails to mention the £10billion pounds raised by the exchequer from tobacco taxation and that a saving of £100 million for the NHS would cost the exchequer £500 million. A better financial gain to the nation might be achieved by banning the amateur from ‘healthy’ contact sports costing the country well over £1 billion each year.
Paragraph 20 explains that in September 2004 an initiative was launched for further voluntary action. It seems that within 12 months someone thought this voluntary effort insufficient.
Paragraph 25 admits that a total ban may not reflect public opinion. This is a significant statement and commonsense anticipates there will be an adverse reaction when people’s opinion is ignored. Comments in future justifications for a ban such as the Government's Response published to the House soon before the February 14th vote "The Government recognises that public support for smoke-free legislation has strengthened rapidly, especially since the publication of the Choosing Health White Paper in 2004."......."Further evidence of quickly shifting public opinion on smoke-free enclosed public places and workplaces came through the publication of an opinion poll conducted over the period 2-7 December 2005 by polling firm YouGov" This is where an incredible 71% was shown to support a total ban yet the ONS figure of 33% in July 2006 casts doubt on the wisdom of promoting figures from an online poll commissioned by ASH and Cancer Research and capable of being influenced by informed bias.
Paragraph 26 states that there is only 20% support for non-smoking in pubs a figure that is often swollen beyond recognition in debate. It also explains that there has been no significant enforcement problem in Ireland. This only to be expected but it fails to mention many anticipatable downsides such as street violence, the attraction to young peaple of a smoking presence outside public houses and increased drinking & smoking in home environments.
The fourth option, paragraph 32, does to some extent mirror public opinion and despite being suggested (paragraph 49) as the preferred option is omitted from the current bill.
Paragraph 38 considered possible disproportionate impact upon any group and claims that no group will be disadvantaged. This surely cannot be true if smokers comprising 25% of the population have restrictions placed upon their legal activity. Later in the paragraph it mentions increased smoking rates in lower socio-economic groups and less support from them. I wonder just how much effort was put in to ensure that they responded proportionally to the consultation.
Paragraph 40 focuses on the impact in rural areas and expressed the opinion that there would be no disproportionate impact. They claim there was no evidence at that time but we must all be aware of reports from Ireland and even after only a few months from Scotland.
There were 2 distinct options, no ban & total ban. The middle ways were less distinct. They would require imaginative discussion and could not be expected to receive anything other than documents illustrating a variety of possibilities. The disappointment was that the trade submissions gave the impression that many of them had given up, accepted there would be a full ban and decided that interim investment would be a waste. This is not surprising since only a year earlier they had agreed new long-term targets with government.
At no time in the report was there any reference to the social exclusion that many smokers will suffer or the perceived benefits that smokers or Community get from their activity. Groups such as ASH make suggestions that the ban will liberate smokers or provide opportunities totally ignore this
Throughout the document claims are made about the numbers of smokers who want to give up. It should be noted that it also made claims about the number who will give up but failed to mention that, of the 530,000 people who set a quit date through NHS stop smoking services in England in 2004/05, 44% had failed within 4 weeks. This emphasizes the fact that it is very difficult to stop smoking and smokers will suffer stress under any ban. I understand that quit rates when using patches are as low as 7%. Any further quitting is likely to be due to legislated social pressure better known to some as social engineering.
There will be many social costs to individuals & communities but there is little or no consideration given to this.
Guardian Article October 27 2005 - Blair insists on 'unworkable' smoking ban - "The health secretary, Patricia Hewitt, was forced into a retreat yesterday when she announced that the cabinet was now leaning towards the introduction of a smoking ban that is against her own advice and which her aides only days ago described as unworkable and weak" Even at this stage it seems that some sense will prevail
On 24th November 2005 a report on the consultation was published and it is difficult to assess exactly who responded but the attitudes chart shows only 10% against the proposals. It also shows that out of 57000 responses 50,500 were from individuals and over 4,000 from people running licensed properties. The licensees made up 80% of the antis. -----80% of the 5689 leaves only 1138 or 2% of individuals against the proposals. No mention is made of individuals responding from the pro-smoking group FOREST but it must be assumed that a large proportion of the 1138 responses were generated by the group This results in an astoundingly low figure of submissions from individual smokers.
Further clarification comes from the mention of many responses in the form of pro-forma letters or emails.
Cancer Research UK presented a petition with
17,500 signatures and 7,200 emails. Fresh- Smokefree North East
and ASH North West had a postcard campaign that added another
2,800 to give a total from the main sources of 27,500 pro
responses. It is hard to imagine that other organised groups such
as ASH throughout the rest of the country failed to respond in
great numbers. As
mentioned previously ASH were sufficiently active to provide
almost half the responses to a previous consultation
See the list of the
organisations which were sent a copy of the consultation at the
bottom of this link
(Remember ASH was
established in 1971 by the Royal College of Physicians
AND ASH receives funds for
projects undertaken to further the objectives of the
organisation. Currently, funds are provided
by the British Heart Foundation (BHF), Cancer Research UK and the Department of Health.) http://www.ash.org.uk/html/about/Strategic%20Plan%202005-08.doc . Cancer Research UK and ASH commissioned Polls that have since
proved seriously wide of the mark and additional evidence in Vol
1 shows they also sponsored research by LACORS. All these groups provided very
acceptable evidence to the Committee.
There is little that indicates the consultation document reached much further than health authorities, anti-smoking lobby groups, tobacco manufacturers or the licensing trade. How was the consultation promoted to ensure that it truly satisfied the Code of Practice?
THE CONSULTATION IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED.
REMEMBER -The Cabinet Office code of practice demands - Documents should be made widely available, with the fullest use of electronic means (though not to the exclusion of others), and effectively drawn to the attention of all interested groups and individuals.
The Bill is a Health Bill promoted from policy coming from the ‘guardians of our health’, the Department of Health. Their job is to promote Health and to do this a large network of action groups have been set up and are supported by the Department and Health Authorities. The DoH are charged with promoting their opinions but sceptics might suggest this could be to the expense of detached and objective proposals and to factors outside their area of expertise.
An interesting exercise is to look at some of the results of the consultation that are downloadable from http://www.publications.parliament.uk .
The Minutes of Oral Evidence are available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmhealth/485/485iii.pdf
There are too many answers that deserve comment but I have made notes about some of them. These should be seen alongside a copy of the minutes.
Dr Fiona Adshead & Mr Nick Adkin both from DoH provided many answers that deserve scrutiny.
Q5. A universal view about smoking rooms ( the licensing trade promoted these as a solution) could not have been expected since that was not included in the consultation document.
Q11. It was claimed that one of the key elements was that they were ‘committed in Choosing Health to consult on it’.
Q13. ‘The policy we put forward needs to reflect both English needs, circumstances, issues around public opinion…………………….” Consultation is again mentioned.
Q14. “……but I think what is important is that health evidence is only one part of the decision making process: so that obviously public opinion in each country, circumstances, workability, practicality and other issues need to be taken into account, and this is why we put so much emphasis on doing a thorough consultation and listening to as many stakeholders. I think it is worth saying that about 57,000 people responded to our consultation, which gives us a firm basis for understanding what would be practical & effective.” - There are 14 Million smokers yet there is no evidence that they were regarded as stakeholders.
Q19. “…… and, for example, from Ireland, they estimate that an extra 7,000 smokers have given up since the introduction of their ban.”. ---Q 31 recognised that there were reports from Ireland that tobacco sales had started to rise. Neither Dr Adshead nor Mr Adkins were aware of such an important fact.
Q24. Dr Adshead: “I think there is already evidence that some pub chains have put forward that they want to go smoke-free anyway, and I think there is quite a lot of evidence, in terms of responsiveness to customer wishes, that businesses have already gone smokefree.” I have not yet found any published written evidence to support the suggestion that any pub chains wanted to go smoke free. Mr Hutson of Wetherspoons gave evidence that they were in the process of making most of their pubs smoke free but this should be read alongside further testimony” but our view is, and has been for some time, that a ban, whether it is through legislation or consumer choice, is inevitable in any event”.
Q26 Dr Taylor: You did say there were four things that helped you to decide: heath evidence was one part, public opinion was another, and enforceability was another. What was the fourth?
Dr Adshead: It is about how effective and practical it will be, but essentially, as Nick has already reflected, this is based on health advice and evidence, public opinion, really was what will work and be effective obviously in the government in question, which obviously for us is England.
Q34 Refers to a former secretary of state (Dr Reid) who suggested some exemptions so that smoking was not pushed back into the home and that the Royal College of Physicians claimed it didn’t ‘stack up’.
Dr Adshead “Certainly my understanding of the evidence …….. is that there is not any evidence that smoke free public places legislation increases smoking in the home….” Was there any evidence that it didn’t?
After offering evidence about Lung Cancer & Heart disease Dr Hackshaw, Deputy Director of Cancer Research UK and University College London Cancer Trial, was asked how robust his ‘simple analysis’ was from a scientific point of view and how widely accepted is the science underpinning these claims? His answer was that the methodology that underpins the claims is established methods in epidemiology.
Q69Chairman: Is it questioned by other scientists at all?
Dr Hackshaw: Not that I am aware.
Surely all methodology is questioned to ensure it is reliable and many scientists have questioned the validity of the SCOTH findings. “Reputable” scientists seem to reject results offered by anti-smoking groups. Not all are ‘tainted by tobacco money’ but that’s the observation from Sir Liam Donaldson. We could also suggest that results offered by anti-smoking groups and those dependent in some way upon the DoH are tainted by their declared abhorrence of smoking!!!
Later questions indicate a level of sympathy shown by medical professionals for smokers ;-
Q96 Dr Taylor: I am concerned about the little old ladies who live alone, who only get out once a week and they go to a bingo hall. They still smoke. They smoke in their own home, there is nobody else there and they are not causing any harm to them. The fact that smoking is banned in their bingo hall means they cannot go to bingo. How can we counter that?
Dr Ashcroft: I am not sure it does mean they cannot go to bingo; it means they can go to bingo and nip out every so often for a cigarette.
Q97 Dr Taylor: It does not mean that they cannot, but it means they would lose their sense of enjoyment, which is to have a fag while they are playing bingo.
Dr Ashcroft: The experience suggests that those who are really committed to the enjoyment of cigarette smoking, or tobacco smoking in any form, find other ways of sociability around their smoking. Smoking with their friends outside is no less a form of social interaction than smoking inside. I doubt Dr Ashcroft, Reader in Biomedical Ethics at Imperial College, London has much experience of trying to avoid the pouring rain while huddling in a Manchester doorway but I could be wrong! New evidence from Scotland that was not available at the time but might have been anticipated is that there have been closures due to the smoking ban and there may no longer be a Bingo Hall to stand outside.
During the session when Ms Deborah Arnott, Director of Action on Smoking & Health (ASH), gave evidence it was especially interesting to realize that ASH had already pre-empted the outcome of Consultation and indeed the deliberations of Parliament by providing QC’s opinion, informing employers of their duty and assuring committee that employers ‘were on notice of that’.
Q419Mr Burstow: So is a ban the only practical step?
Mr Callaghan: …………..
Ms Arnott: Can I add to the point of guilty knowledge because ASH has a QC’s opinion on this issue, which I am happy to supply to you, saying that the date of guilty knowledge is definitely passed. We sent this opinion to all the major hospitality trade employers and we explained what this meant in terms of their legal responsibilities and that is because ventilation and other solutions are not sufficient, their only course of action was to prevent smoking in the workplace. They are on notice of that now.
It is interesting to see that. ASH, a heavily funded and supported group appear, to be so far ‘ahead of the game'. They have already decided what a major funder, the Government, will decide. The specific opinion of witnesses during this session was that the simplest and easiest option to enforce was the complete ban. I would like to think that there might be some recognition of the fact that the people of this country are people not simple pets they have power over. The needs and complexity of human beings are unlikely to be served best by simplicity and the best answer should not be disregarded for the sake of bureaucratic convenience.
Referring to the California study by Professors James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat that Professor Donaldson claims was funded by tobacco money:
Q441 Mr Amess: What is your view of their research?
Professor Sir Liam Donaldson: Firstly, the study was carried out by the researchers who were partly sponsored by the tobacco industry, so there was a clear conflict of interest there. Secondly, it was using data from the American Cancer Society. The American Cancer Society subsequently disowned the study and criticised it on the fact that the methods used were unreliable and misleading. Quite honestly, I do not think that study stands up to any scientific scrutiny whatsoever, leaving aside the conflict of interest in the funding which to me is tantamount or comparable to a research study on organised crime being funded by the Mafia.
Here I must insert a quote from the Report
in Volume 1 and question whether a report paid for, accepted by
and presented by the Department of Health might receive a similar
‘organised crime being funded by the Mafia’ comment.
It is a shame that Sir Liam did not act upon his apparent 'fit of
peek' about his questioning and resign! He like all the health
officials and anti-smoking groups cannot accept that they could
be wrong.
15. More recently, the case that SHS is harmful to public health has been made by the Department of Health’s Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health. In 1998, it produced a report which concluded that exposure to SHS was a cause of lung cancer and heart disease in adults, as well as of a variety of diseases in children. Surely a group with a vested interest in proving that smoking was evil should not be in charge of producing the report.
The following question and answer must be
read before my comment beneath.
Q444 Chairman: You were presented last November
with the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health’s
(SCOTH) Report.
Professor Sir Liam Donaldson: Yes.
Q445 Chairman: Has that been challenged by
anybody?
Professor Sir Liam Donaldson: No, it has
not. That is one of the expert reports that I was referring to.
Every single person who has read anything about SHS and ETS
has heard of criticism from other qualified scientists, doctors
and statisticians. I don’t know who is right but I know the
answer “No it has not”
is wrong.
The information offered by Mr Shaun Woodward, Under Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, about the proposed total ban in Northern Ireland was generally welcomed by committee.
Q499 Chairman: Thank you.
Could you explain why the decision was taken to implement a
comprehensive ban in Northern Ireland?
Mr Woodward: Yes, we had had a great deal of
consultation over the last 12 months in Northern Ireland,
concluding with a major exercise between December 2004 and March
of this year which produced over 70,000 responses, broken down
into three categories.
………………………………….
I should stress, Chairman, that I think it is prudent to
recognize that there would have been something of a campaign
behind that level of response.
It might also be prudent for us to realize that there was something of a campaign behind responses to our Consultation! It is also worth noting that a Country the size of England gained fewer responses than Northern Ireland.
There are 602 questions and there comes a time when one thinks that a point might have been made.
Some written evidence is also presented and I would draw attention to my analysis of the ASH submission in this volume.
The submission on page 123 of 128 by Professor Roger Scruton is well worth a read. He puts the Peoples point across very well and offers a breath of fresh air to the debate. Is this the thinking man's alternative to the tunnel vision evident throughout my reading.
Smoking in Public Places Volume 2 with written evidence can be found at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmhealth/485/485ii.pdf
It makes informative reading and could indicate that the medical establishment (receiving support from where?) was of one mind. I would like to believe that the Health Specialists are the right people to effect social change but I don’t.
( http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmhealth/485/485.pdf )
contains a number of references that place considerable weight upon the opinions in the responses to consultation. Typical of this is Paragraph 58. The responses to the consultation demonstrated little public support for the specific proposals contained in Choosing Health; the overwhelming majority of the 57,000 respondents (over 90%) favoured a simpler and more comprehensive ban on smoking in public places, while over 80% were opposed to licensed premises being granted a longer lead-in time. The “vast majority” also believed that membership clubs should not be exempted from the legislation.
Due to the failure of DoH consultation to satisfy the Cabinet Office Code of Practice the statement that it ‘demonstrated little public support’ is a truth of sorts but only because it is based upon flawed consultation.
Reading through all the question and answer sessions two main types of response can be identified. The first by Health professionals and other guardians of public well-being are clear cut and appear to suggest the only way to achieve this major step forward is to introduce a 100% ban at the earliest possible time. A major reason was that a simple ban would be easier to enforce. The other is that there are alternative approaches that take into account the need for change with various approaches leading to a position where smokers are not outlawed but where non-smoking gradually becomes the norm.
The following comment is one that I thought I could never make and in different circumstances might ’stick in my throat’.
The Minister for Public Health has been highly criticised for the Bill in it’s present unpopular form but, after reading her response to questioning I must conclude that the following statement in the Conclusions is quite uncalled for.
135. Subsequently the Government’s explanation for its policy has changed. In her appearance before us, the Minister for Public Health was very well briefed, but the oral evidence she gave us was unconvincing. We doubt that she believes in the policy she espoused. Cutting through the Minister’s answers, her defence of Government policy amounted to a statement that ‘we must take people with us’. On further examination this is nothing more than the dubious contention that because a majority of the population were opposed to it, a ban in pubs should not be introduced because the public would not comply with it. The Government does not oppose a comprehensive ban in principle. It is implicit in what both she and the Secretary of State told us that once opinion polls indicate that a small additional shift in public support for a total ban, the Government will have no objection to one. In fact, this has already occurred. A majority of the population now support a ban.
The Committee had made up their mind that a complete ban was the way forward no matter what people think of it. Caroline Flint however stuck to her guns about the will of the people - looking at the broader picture - partial bans will provide workers with more choice than they have now - not focus on a one-size-fits-all public health policy and much more.
The whole set of documents shows a focus on 100% protection from passive smoking in the workplace. It is only in passing that the other 95% of deaths that they attribute to passive smoking are mentioned and no consideration is given to effect upon the many smokers who cannot or do not wish to give up their legal habit.
I believe the British Government should avoid following in the extreme footsteps of other Countries and States. Panic, hype, selective comment and fear of litigation are the basis of many bans.
The situation in this Country should be examined in the broadest context leading to a truly British response to the benefit of all its citizens.
This may not be
popular with extremists but extremist never have and, hopefully,
never will control Britain.
The sadness of their approach is their closed minds which have
diverted attention and vital funds away from searching for other
likely causes. Lung cancer is an illness of old age and half of
it's victims die well into their 70s and 80s. Surely we should be
looking to the many possible causes of cancer in the young. If it
was up to ASH they'd be happy to blame ETS for everything.
This demonising of smoking hides the fact that Doctors don't have the answer!!
CONSULTATION – The cornerstone of good government is there to provide an equitable & acceptable solution to the Nations needs. The public understand this word but seldom experience it.
There is a reason for it and the hope is that all sides of the debate will contribute to fair and equitable outcomes. Too often we hear that consultation is the act of the 'expert' telling their audience what is going to happen.
Any
consultation that results in the predetermined satisfaction of
only one side is a sham.
It's all a bit late and Tony Blair, trying to hide the
incompetence of the past, has recently published a campaign with
the title of LET'S TALK' --------------- Maybe a better campaign
would be 'WE'LL LISTEN'.
Any reader who
has tried to get answers from a Government department knows that
they don't read, don't care, don't answer and generally treat the
public with contempt.
Consult, Talk, Listen - they don't know what these words mean but
we do. They are our right.
--------------------------------
The report could be likened to a visit to the hospital. The patient has a swollen ankle and is told by the surgeon that the only cause could be Deep Vein Thrombosis and the cure was amputation. He asked all the assistant surgeons in the room for confirmation. They, being dependant upon a reference from the chief surgeon, said ………… "Off with his leg!"
But my doctor says it’s not that and I’m getting better! Can’t it be treated in other ways? -Aren’t there any pills that might help? -Why has this happened?-What is the cause?
"Oh, Shut up." comes the reply. "We’re the experts …... Off with his leg."
As a result of surgery other complications set in and the patient died.
At the autopsy it was revealed that the problem had been only a sprain and by removing stress and strain from it, it would have got better. The surgeons closed ranks.
The NHS is in a massive mess and has not got the best record for successful treatment but I would be the last to cast aspersions by mentioning estimates of deaths caused by medical errors!
The DoH run the NHS. The DoH developed the Health Bill. This guarantees the most major piece of social engineering inflicted upon this country is a farce.
--------------------------------
The cost of smoking to the NHS is
estimated to be around £1.7 billion each year so it is
interesting to look at figures provided by Pinnacle Insurance http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=341464&in_page_id=4.
£1bn-a-year bill for sports injuries
THE cost of sports injuries tops £1 billion a year, according to
statistics gathered by Pinnacle Insurance. This bill includes the
cost of medical treatment at the time of a sporting incident, the
cost of treating recurring injuries and the money lost to
businesses whose staff are off work due to a sport-inflicted
problem.
According to government body Sport England, the riskiest of the
active sports, based on the number of incidents, are rugby,
football and hockey, and the least risky are keep fit, weight
training and running.
8 years ago University of Leicester suggested the costs were even greater than that http://www.le.ac.uk/sp/ludus/jan98.html .
Employed and amateur sportsmen accept a risk of serious injury but often at the expense of their employers and health service There are so many activities that we are encouraged, (and in schools forced) to take part in that involve risk. It cannot be unreasonable that an adult can choose to accept risk. Only the ‘nanny state syndrome’ would insist that this should not be allowed.
Employees rights must be respected but they are adults with a freedom to choose.
The Bill is based upon the insistence that passive smoking kills and is reinforced by loud statements such as "Immediate effects of secondhand smoke include cardiovascular problems such as damage to cell walls in the circulatory system, thickening of the blood and arteries, and arteriosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) or heart disease, increasing the chance of heart attack or stroke." Followed by loud cries of Just half an hours exposure to tobacco smoke can bring on a heart attack.
(If this was the case it's logical the suggest that thousands of schoolchildren would have failed to return from the bikesheds at the end of break.)
These highly emotive statements are heard so often. They are designed to evoke fear in the population and with government encouragement are promoted by highly funded extreme groups. The truth is rarely newsworthy and ‘foul’ is called if anyone opposes their view. Unfortunately many of the public believe what they say.
The mass of suspect evidence from ASH indicates just how much money the anti-smoking lobby must have spent. Their over-zealous missionary zeal has proved ineffective in attempts to reduce smoking prevalence. A more honest approach might be more persuasive. ( In passing I should add that as a teacher and a smokler I encouraged many not to smoke. They accepted my explanation of adiction and financial costs far more readily than the 'party line' from the 'holier than thou health professionals'.
Despite their incompetence smoking levels are gradually falling and I believe a re-evaluation of current, across the board measures would have better and broader success.
According to the committee the answer to higher smoking levels in socially deprived areas is to use a bigger stick whereas the fluffier but more effective answer might come from listening to views such as those from Caroline Flint and Professor Roger Scruton.
The British Pub has evolved over many years to become an established adult haven. Some morph into other forms and ‘child-friendly’ pubs are a major but not unique trend.
The licensee is charged with creating contentment for all his custom and responds to his community. Many traditional pubs are an environment populated largely by smokers and tolerant non-smokers. They provide a social service and should be valued.
Creative action could use them to benefit the community. The Minister for Public Health attempted to explain government’s concern about the many and various aspects of social deprivation but the committee appeared interested only in smoking.
Efforts to engender values and improvement especially in deprived areas would be best achieved with an embrace rather than a killer blow.
Social improvements could come about from within a community if the health professionals were willing to ‘get their hands dirty’ and embrace community opportunities. All we seem to hear is a condemnation of some lifestyles yet many that condemn have the privilege of not being confined by social deprivation. Bureaucratic expediency has no place in solving these problems even Social Engineers need to get some muck on their hands.
The problem is your enemy -- not the people.
A total ban is the extremists’ incompetent solution to something they have no understanding of.
Avoid problems -------Take the people with you.
------------------------------------
It should be possible to build on the massive strides already made through partnership and consultation with trade bodies and honest education to promote change rather than imposing it. It is already evident that damage is done and many problems are caused by complete bans. Some solutions have already been suggested and I have added one below based a previous document.
--Child friendly venues could ensure there is no smoking in child friendly areas. Evidence suggests that turning smoking out into the streets is counter-productive by being on display to young people
--Adult only venues could choose to be smoke-free, smoke friendly or even both if they can ensure reasonable ventilation/air regulation.
--Customers can make informed choice through effective, compulsory signage
--I never use restaurants, have never understood the insistence that there should be no smoking but would have thought it reasonable to provide smoking/non-smoking areas or restaurants at the discretion of the proprietor.
--Smoking can be moved away from the bar and encouraged into a steadily decreasing area appropriate to public demand.
--Smoking will decrease naturally and will become a less ‘normal’ activity.
--A ventilation system that introduces fresh air behind the bar and removes it from behind the smoking area may not remove every carcinogen but it’s a real and reasonable suggestion! The insistence on chasing every last tobacco carcinogen dismisses the acceptable solution of air quality improvement.
--A more expensive approach of providing a separate/enclosed smokers or non-smokers area might be feasible in larger venues attracting the broadest audience but pubs are places of social interaction not segregation.
-- The WHO chooses not to employ smokers. Might it not be equally correct for smoke friendly establishments to restrict employment to smokers.
--After an initial total ban in Spain, commonsense came into play when smoking was allowed, under licence, in many bars, cafes and restaurants.
-- Total bans will not eliminate smoking. What they will do is move smoking from adult only areas into alternative, unregulated environments with similar consequences as those unadvertised but evident in Ireland. Smoking prevalence has increased, ETS exposure in the home and in vehicles has reduced but at a lower rate than in the UK where there is currently no total ban.
--Public Houses were the people's answer to the problems that the ban will cause.
This was foreseen in 2004.
In the words of Scottish Conservative Health Spokesman David Davidson MSP “………..The reality is that a ban on smoking is not required. The voluntary approach is working perfectly well, and at present the trend is for more and more restaurants, cafes and pubs to be no smoking or at the very least to create more smoke free zones in response to public demand. This is not surprising, after all the same process has happened in cinemas, aeroplanes and trains over several years, all without the need for legislation. The voluntary approach is the right way forward. It should be for people - not politicians - to decide whether or not they want smoke free environments…………...”
All the above should be unnecessary but only one view of the future is accepted by health professionals and their sponsored interest groups whose evidence is tainted not by tobacco but by their evangelical zeal.
My opinions are those of a layman who can claim few letters of accreditation after my name; only QBE and UOL
Qualified By Experience, University Of Life 1946 -
Voluntary regulation
costs nothing
The ‘costs’ of a Total Smoking Ban are Horrendous
--Irish smoking rates have risen during the past year reversing the previous gradual but continuous fall.
--Over 600 mainly local pubs have closed in Ireland since their ban began. Population statistics would suggest 12 times more might close in the England alone.
--The smaller trouble-free pubs will be the ones that shut. The major companies will happily continue to profit from their city centre binge-drinking establishments.
-- Local pubs are renowned for a lack of trouble but Scottish and Irish streets are less safe now more people are forced onto the street to smoke away from the control of publicans. There are reports of increased drug dealing outside pubs.
-- Lower socio-economically disadvantaged groups whose environmens are already beset by social problems ranging from criminal activity to riot will experience further frustration. Can we assume that our privileged experts have any first hand knowledge of their conditions?
-- After only 3 months of a complete ban there are Newspaper reports of Scottish Bingo Clubs closing and the estimate is that up to half will close. It might be interesting to re-read the mention of 'the little old lady' and Bingo in the oral evidence of the Health Committee "Dr Ashcroft: Smoking with their friends outside is no less a form of social interaction than smoking inside." There will be no outside or inside!
--A single heater for outdoor smoking areas will consume over 100 kilowatts each day with its associated financial and environmental costs.
--Deodorants used to cover the new aromas in public houses introduce more pollutants and irritants into the atmosphere.
-- The cost of employing hundreds (thousands?) of Smoke Police at £30,000+ each might be far better spent on Research on cures.
-- The cost Stop Smoking Products to the NHS and the people will be massive yet they are known to be far from successful (except for increasing the profits of Pharmaceutical Companies)
-- The imposition of smoking bans causes unnecessary hardship. Just one report of an 85-year-old smoker who stumbled, hit his head and died when he left the comfort of the pub for a cigarette highlights the inhumanity of totalitarian measures.
--Evidence is available that total bans will adversely affect the current lessening of ETS exposure in the home.
--There will no longer be ‘Public house concern’ for many lonely regulars who fail to appear at their appointed time.
--Social services will have to provide care for the elderly and disadvantaged who become isolated through the ban.
--Smoking will be removed from the adult only atmosphere of the public house and placed outside in full view of impressionable young people. Even beer gardens will be areas of conflict when families want to 'reclaim' them in the good weather.
--Extra regulations will be made to ensure that smokers are are given no protection from weather. The alternative in poor weather will be to move, with their non-smoking friends, to alternative venues probably their homes. These will become permanent and have the potential for creating neighbourhood conflict.
-- More regulations will be introduced to remove smokers from outside premises where non-smokers might appear and anywhere else the anti-smoking lobby decide.
--Drink sales will not be harmed but a reduction of wet sales in Ireland indicates that there is more socialising away from the controlled pub environment.
-- Anti-smoking groups target only smoking and smokers thus distracting attention from the broader view that recognises high levels of environmental pollution and many lifestyle factors that directly relate to so-called smoking related deaths.
-----------------------------------
Commonsense and much more evidence shows that an overall deficit will accrue from Government’s failure to anticipate health, environmental and social costs.
The Government will realise this in time
but will never admit their mistake.
They will tell the public how successful the ban is been and
implement more and more restrictions.
This Government treats the people of this country with contempt.
------------------------------------------------------