My Comment about the ASH Press release condemning the Lord's Report

RE: THE ASH PRESS RELEASE
The ASH condemnation of the Lord’s Statement shows just how arrogant and shortsighted she can be.

1. The risks are well known to be relatively minor, have no basis in science and defy the normal conventions of statistical certainty. There are many more serious challenges to health. Interestingly enough the SCOTH Report is as stated a Government Report. It was published by the DoH the same group as introduced the Health Bill. It was produced by health specialists dependent on the DoH and Government for income and research funding. IT IS TAINTED by a CONFLICT of INTEREST and as such, just like tobacco research, is 'suspect' and should not be accepted. ----Rules are rules!
2. The Legislation may be crystal clear but it is not proven that the minimising of one specific carcinogen will improve overall public health. The ASH view of Public Health is simplistic, blinkered and short-sighted. Physical Health is important and dependent upon many factors not just tobacco smoke. Mental health, enthusiasm and hope also play a massive part. Exclusion, demonisation and the denial of pleasure can affect individuals to such an extent that life has less value. Depression is a killer. The Health Committee took no evidence about the psychological effects of a total ban, took no evidence from sociologists who might have been able to explain the positive role of smoking in lower socio-economic areas especially or even considered in any depth the damage that might occur in communities. They are not competent to comment on factors outside of their field of expertise. Higher smoking prevalence is a result of poverty not the cause of it. The committee showed that neither they nor the health experts understand how people, especially those with less privileged lifestyles, live or how such legislation will affect them. This legislation is a direct result of the failure of ineffective, poorly presented anti-smoking education despite the massive investment of public funds in groups such as ASH. Research shows that ASH used funding to commission polls and studies by other groups who then offered them as 'expert' evidence to committee!
3. UCL evidence indicates that smoking will increase in the home and furthermore evidence from Ireland shows that smoking is likely to increase. A fall from 31% in 1998 to just 25.5% in March 2004 shows the value of effective education; the drop of only 1.5% to a rising 24% in December 2005 is hardly a commendation for such a socially damaging measure as a ban. Other statistics show smaller drops in home and car ETS exposure than in the UK where there was no ban.

It must be realised that the only evidence accepted by the committee was from the many health 'experts', funded health and anti-smoking groups or from official reports from abroad produced to justify similar bans. Even evidence and opinion from a minister suggesting less than a total ban did not suit and was decried. Yet John Reid appears to have the respect of his Party.

Major social changing legislation should not come from a single interest group. The committee was biased, the evidence was biased, the statistics were biased but, worst of all, our MPs were worked like puppets.

Far from the report being misleading it was a crystal clear statement of disproportionate legislation.