More questions than answers
Friday, May 1, 2009 Last week I was curious to know why Aberdeen University had bothered to respond to the Scottish Health and Sport Committee’s call for evidence in respect of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill. As a graduate of that university, I thought I'd ask. So I sent them an email, part of which read:
In particular, I would like to ask why "The University of Aberdeen believes that the measures proposed to eliminate sale of tobacco product displays and vending machines are both justifiable as are the associated penalties".
The University's submission is signed by Professor Stephen Logan, Senior Vice-Principal.
As far as I can tell, no other university has responded to the call for evidence. Why Aberdeen? And on whose authority, other than Prof Logan, was this "evidence" submitted? I would be grateful for a response.
This week I received the following reply from Shaunagh Kirby, Head of Communications:
The University was invited to respond to this consultation, and as a major centre of teaching and research in medicine and life sciences we felt that it was appropriate to take that opportunity.
The response from Professor Logan was submitted on behalf of the University’s community of health-related scientists, which includes teams working in the area of smoking and health.
Our academic community is committed to seeking and providing evidence in all areas of research, including the factors which affect public health. They are satisfied that evidence exists to support the potential of legislation proposed in this bill reducing the proven and substantial adverse health impacts of tobacco use and the number of young people smoking.
I may be missing something, but this reply invites more questions than it answers.
Incredibly, for an institution that has "teams working in the area of smoking and health", Aberdeen's feeble submission contains not a shred of evidence or research to support a ban on tobacco displays and vending machines.
Nor does it refer to any secondary evidence. The university is "satisfied" that "evidence exists" to support legislation but they can't be bothered to tell us what it is! All we get is a bald statement that:
The University of Aberdeen believes that the measures proposed to eliminate sale of tobacco product displays and vending machines are both justifiable as are the associated penalties.
Er, that's it.
We are told that the university "is committed to seeking and providing evidence in all areas of research" but there's precious little sign of it here. So much for one of the "major centres of teaching and research in medicine and life sciences".
Full submission HERE.
Reader Comments (12)
They bend the truth for funding.
Thats why.
My thoughts exactly Specky. If they go against the grain or government dictat then they will struggle for funding in the future!
Just proves how corrupt all politics is!
Gerard Hastings works for Stirling University/Open University (i believe with some input from CRUK), but no reply came from Stirling or Open University.
Yes, funding will have a lot to do with it.
Reading some of the supporting consultation responses is really dull because they back up their support for the legislation by quoting figures like 13,500 deaths a year in Scotland from smoking (amazingly this figure has survived the 17 per cent drop in heart attacks intact), and other information that the government has used to justify the legislation in the first place.
(I suppose you all know Gerard Hastings? He has a slavish appetite for tobacco control.)
Is it not sad how all branches of science are politicised in this manner .
If Scientists, be it medicine, chemistry, physics,climatology, biology, lie for money we are in deep trouble here .
Imagine if creationists could afford to buy these people .
We would be forcibly plunged back into the past world of superstition where doubters are branded heretics.
Actually thinking about it we already do have that situation in science do we not?
Science is on the brink of losing all credibility in the same manner Politicians have by brandishing phoney statistics to meet political ends.
An example of Gerard Hastings's work http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/images/pdfs/tobcon_pointofsalereport1
Quote from above work designed to show how persuasive Point of Sale can be: 'Customers who come in for just a pouch of tobaccocan often be persuaded to leave with rolling papers, a packet of filter tips and even a rolling machine, as long as theya are able to see a range of accessories merchandised next to one another.' Sinister, what?
Belinda, what if they can see the papers, filter tips and rolling machines - would that prompt them to ask for the toboacco?
Am I being stupid here - I am not sure if the associated paraphinlia is included in the 'get it under the counter' rules?
Having said that, even if it has other, often apparently totally irrelevant, things can trigger the thought, desire or memory that something to do with smoking was in the mind to be purchased or tried.
I believe it would all be hidden to protect the customer. Can't have them being reminded that baccy is not much use without rolling paper now can we.
Just wondered, as this government have done even more stupid things in the past!
Let's face it, it will soon be easier to get hold of cannabis - in fact the kids probably already find that easier than buying cigs!
The person from Aberdeen Uni - does he drive, if so what. I bet it gives of a lot more toxics than my cig does
"Just proves how corrupt all politics is!"
More importantly, Lyn - it shows just how corruptingING our 'politics' has become.
Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it is GOVERNMENT itself which has become corrupt.
'Politics' at least implies the free (and sometimes passionate) exchange of DIFFERENT points of view and contrasting philosophies.
In part, The People have only themselves to blame: the oft-repeated whine 'Why doesn't the Government DO something ?' - a whine which has become increasingly more insistent since the War (Michael Foot's Golden Age of Socialist Organisation and Control) - has met with the appropriate response.
Now, Government 'DOES' everything (including dictating how to ACT, how to SPEAK, and how to THINK)- and our individual autonomy has practically vanished as a result.
The Civil Service (once the envy of the World), Academia (ditto), the Broadcasting Media (ditto), the Police (ditto), our Local Authorities (ditto) and practically all our public institutions and bodies (including the Royal Society) have been subjected to the Vampire's Kiss - and have become de facto members of the vastly-expanded Governing Class.
And perhaps I should include Her Majesty's Loyal 'Opposition' ('Laugh?' - I never thought I'd start.....)................
The choice - as I see it - is simple:
Less Government and More Freedom.
Or More Government and Less Freedom.
It's THAT simple.
But, in 2009, how many REALLY care ?
Maybe the Government should tell us..........