Primarolo: she's 'avin' a laugh
Friday, May 9, 2008 Health minister Dawn Primarolo has given the following written answer to a question from Richard Benyon, Conservative MP for Newbury. Richard asked whether the Department of Health "has collated the number of cases of illnesses caused by the effects of passive smoking since the implementation of the smoking ban in 2007".
The answer is, of course, "No" because it has always has been impossible to list with any accuracy "the number of cases of illnesses caused by the effects of passive smoking" (if indeed they exist). But this government doesn't do straight answers. (Have you heard Gordon Brown on PMQs?) Instead, Primarolo (or one of her minions) writes:
We have commissioned research on the health impacts of smokefree legislation in England. However, early assessments are that this legislation is proving to be effective in significantly reducing levels of second hand smoke in enclosed public places and workplaces.
Research from Scotland has reported a range of benefits since smokefree legislation was introduced there, including dramatic improvements in air quality in pubs, improved health, reduced tobacco consumption and no increase in the amount of smoking in the home.
No-one doubts (do they?) that the level of "secondhand smoke" in enclosed public places is less than it was before the ban. Or that the air quality in poorly ventilated smoking rooms has improved. It hardly takes a genius to work that one out.
But where is the evidence that SHS is a significant risk to most people's health in the first place? Or that there is any risk at all in a controlled (ie well-ventilated) environment?
As for "research from Scotland" reporting "improved health", she couldn't, by any chance, be referring to the study discussed HERE by Tessa Mayes in The Spectator? Now that would make me laugh.
Reader Comments (9)
This is also on the main Forest website but I think is worthy of another airing. In In 1999 the American Environmental Protection Agency was caught with it's hands in the cookie jar, "EPA caught red-handed on passive smoking". "Authors Gio B. Gori and John C. Luik expand on a recent decision by Judge William Osteen of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Osteen said the EPA started from the preconceived claim that ETS is a risk for lung cancer and then went out to prove that claim by whatever means imaginable". Would you like more? "The court determined that the EPA had knowingly, willfully and aggressively disseminated false information, with far reaching regulatory implications in the United States and worldwide."
News Scotland.com states
'The stereotype of Scotland being a nation of drinkers and smokers appears to have been borne out by new research.
The country spends £3 per household a week more than the rest of the UK on alcohol, tobacco and drugs'
So things in Scotland are much better.
Re above. See home page, smoking room for link.
It's not that good an article. Tessa Mayes still adheres to the opinion that:
"Few would deny that smoking can be harmful to the health of smokers. After decades of research, scientists have shown that smoking causes most lung cancers. Smoking is also a risk factor in heart disease, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and asthma."
The facts are very different.
After years of research scientists have not proved that smoking can uniquely be shown to be the cause of lung cancer or any death for that matter. I suggest, for just one reference, that Ms. Mayes goes to Scot Courts and takes a look at the McTear case where Richard Doll was a witness. It emerged there, and contrary to popular supposition, that Doll never proved that primary smoking causes lung cancer.
I do wish people would check their facts more thoroughly and stop pumping out these erroneous clichés. Or should I be more Anglo-Saxon and blunt? The word is "crap."
The word 'crap' is a very apt one, and may be applied to very many aspects of life in the Britain of 2008.
i agree with you jennie of yorkshire
Democracy may have been better served if Richard Benyon had asked for the actual details of deaths recorded due to SHS, including name, address and medical records.
We keep hearing about the body count for deaths caused by passive smoking but where are the corpses?
Ali in answer to your question, Where are the Corpses? It is obvious that none of the anti smoking brigade, nor the government can possibly produce these, however what they can do is to carry on with a load of hot air, talking in circles and basically evading the point - they are good at this.
It seems that what the people need to do is to keep asking, not every day, but several times every day and not the same people either, different people with different backgrounds should pose the question: smokers, non smokers and whoever else wants to get at some semblence of the truth.
It will still take time to penetrate the thick skins and dense skulls of these people who are supposed to run the country, those that are OUR SERVANTS and not our masters, but then again, that is something else thick skins and dense skulls are useful for; forgetting other facts as well! It reminds me of how good men are at selective hearing!
This type of response from one of Blair's, no Gordie's babes is just typical of politician's nowadays, stating the bleeding obvious and telling you nothing. You would expect this from an air-head, not a minister of the crown.