Search This Site
Forest on Twitter

TFS on Twitter

Join Forest On Facebook

Featured Video

Friends of The Free Society


Powered by Squarespace
« Now IEA calls for end to state aid for anti-tobacco groups | Main | Exclusive to Velvet Glove, Iron Fist »

Forest: cut public spending on tobacco control groups

Forest today publishes a new report, Government lobbying government: the case of the UK tobacco control industry. I have written about it on Conservative Home: The state should stop giving anti-smoking groups public money to lobby the Government. Here's a taste:

A report commissioned by the smokers’ lobby group Forest reveals that the UK tobacco control industry receives the vast majority of its funding from the public purse, and much of this money is then used to influence government to spend even more public money on tobacco control measures.

According to our research a range of local and regional organisations (Smokefree partnerships) are funded entirely with public money through local government grants or NHS/Primary Care Trust funding; some university departments devoted entirely to tobacco control receive funding from central government (Department of Health) and the NHS/primary care trusts; and several charities dedicated to tobacco control lobbying of central government are funded almost entirely by central government!

Two examples: commencing June 2008 the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies will receive £3,694,498 over five years. It was also awarded a £1.2 million grant to develop and pilot several projects to implement smoking cessation services. Smoke Free North West meanwhile secured almost £1.9 million from the PCTs in 2008 to “complement core national funding”.

The Forest report also highlights the public money given to anti-smoking “charities” such as ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) and No Smoking Day.

ASH UK, for example, received a direct grant of £142,000 from the Department of Health in 2009 (£191,000 in 2008 and £210,400 in 2007) plus £110,000 from the Welsh Assembly Government in 2007. In 2008-09 ASH Scotland received £921,837 from the Scottish Government followed, in December 2009, by a £500,000 grant from the Big Lottery to fund a major three-year research project into smoke-free homes in Scotland. ASH Wales meanwhile received £115,800 from the Welsh Assembly Government in 2008-09 and £113,000 in 2007-08.

Click HERE to comment.

You can download the 18-page report HERE. I'm not expecting any coverage in the mainstream media (although a press release has been sent to every daily newspaper in England, Scotland and Wales) so I hope the blogosphere can make up for it. Over to you.

References (2)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    It's time this stopped. We ALL have to tighten our belts including those in the anti-smoking industry who leech and lie for a living.
  • Response
    one must wonder how the coalition can justify keeping the tax tap open like this while they are simultaneously cutting off funds for schools and libraries.

Reader Comments (48)

Well done Simon, a magnificent report.

October 27, 2010 at 12:37 | Unregistered CommenterEddie Douthwaite

Very well done on your report Simon, now we're getting down to the hub of the matter.
Cutting off the life line of Tobacco Control and ASH and their afilliated tenticles is the right thing to do and give smokers some sanity to know that they're not paying towards shooting themselves in the foot by paying these quangos for their own demise.
Its a disgrace in a recession that our money is being used against our will on these useless, faceless, unaccountable quango wankers when funds for essential services like schools, libraries and the less well off are being cut to keep these pampered bastards in the style they have become accostomed.

October 27, 2010 at 13:29 | Unregistered Commenterann

And what should NEVER EVER happen again is that someone from a lobby group like ASH is seconded to a Govt dept to force through it's own economically damaging policies such as the tobacco display ban.

We cannot vote for these people, and we can't even get information about their dodgy dealings through FOI so they should not have such a privileged and close relationship with Govt ministers or depts especially when what they propose adversely affects the tax payer and majority of people.


October 27, 2010 at 14:24 | Unregistered CommenterPat Nurse

Over to you Mr Pickles

The simple answer to all of that Pat, is that Eric Pickles has to do his job - and be seen publicly to be doing his job.

October 27, 2010 at 15:01 | Unregistered CommenterBill

Good report Simon - highlighting that in recent years common sense (and also business sense) has been jetted when it comes to tobacco regulation.

Before Tony Blair became Prime Minister most of the regulation relating to tobacco was achieved in voluntary agreements between the government and industry. The last 14 years have seen a number of headline grabbing measures - smoking bans, graphic (medically pornographic?) warnings on pack, display bans - all purportedly in the name of saving the nation's health.The Dept of Health will maintain it's been staggeringly successful, the tobacco lobby wil say it hasn't and has exacerbated problems like the illicit trade and nil awareness of less harmful products.

Time has moved on so what about some common sense. Government (be it Dept of Health, HMRC, Defra (nb cigarette litter is UK's no1 litter problem)) and tobacco manufacturers and retailers sitting down and agreeing a mutually acceptable method of regulation. Surely there's no dispute about the key issues: information about the harm caused by tobacco and smoking
how that harm can be reduced and raising awareness of smokeless products
availability of smoking cessation products
preventing youth access
tackling the illicit (smuggled and counterfeit products)trade and
changing smokers' littering behaviour.

Equally surely, a framework of regulation which covered all these issues would provide a ROI (return on investment) of considerable more value to the public than is currently the case. And of course it would signal real RESPONSIBILITY - one of David Cameron's key themes - on the part of all parties' ie government, tobacco manufacturers and retailers!

Charles Hamshaw-Thomas
Principal, CSR Solutions

October 27, 2010 at 15:46 | Unregistered Commentercharles hamshaw-thomas


The question of the supposed risk of Second Hand Smoke is far from settled ( Cherrypicked studies and misrepresentation of the risk) and SHS was the reason for the introduction of the smoking ban .

It is the Aim of ASH to have a Tobacco Free Society and they use the "Salami Slice " tactics to get more and more restrictions in pursuit of that goal.

A totally INDEPENDENT review of the "scientific evidence" and studies that led to the smoking ban is the only way to protect the integrity of real science and fight the tyranny of global tobacco control and the vested interests of the pharmaceutical companies.

The denormalisation campaigns aimed at Adult Smokers have nothing to do with youth smoking, the illicit tobacco trade, or litter, they are a dogma led attack on those who enjoy the legal habit of smoking.

The Anti-Smoking lobby are experts in using the "divide and rule" tactic while pretending to discuss possible solutions," compromise" is not a word that they recognise yet they seek compromise from others.

October 27, 2010 at 17:01 | Unregistered CommenterEddie Douthwaite

The demise of these anti-smoking quangos is long overdue as well as the undemocratic influence they have had on HMG's policies and new laws. I truly hope that the bonfire of these groups is as ruthless on their own persuit of the anti-smoking agenda. I will not shed one tear at their destruction - they have ruin many an ordinary persons' social life by the smoking ban.

October 27, 2010 at 18:28 | Unregistered CommenterBill C

@Charles Hamshaw-Thomas

May I say more constructive comments if I maybe bold enough to say.

The problem in theory at least is that under the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control it is immoral to include Tobacco companies and paid tobacco advisors in the consultation process.

Such is the level of corruption and authoritarianism.

October 27, 2010 at 18:45 | Unregistered CommenterDave Atherton

October 27, 2010 at 18:50 | Unregistered Commentermaryjane

Cracking activity on Conservative Home. Do The People Who Matter read CH (and, for that matter, ASI) - is it influential?

I take it, Simon, that the report will also be landing on the desks of the Right People?

October 27, 2010 at 19:39 | Unregistered CommenterJoyce

I keep scanning the lists of squashed quangos looking for the anti-smoking lobbyists, to no avail! So very pleased to see this report, Simon - well done.

October 27, 2010 at 19:40 | Unregistered CommenterRose W


Conservative Home is read by most Tory MPs daily and also by the Cabinet's Special Advisors so indirectly Cameron and Clegg will get a summary of events and probably comments too.

I can't say too much but about 6 months ago I advised indirectly some senior Tories and the feedback I got was the high point of tobacco control had been reached. We now must grasp the moment and roll back the legislation.

ASH will now have to debate matters on a more evidence based footing and less spin. Also what has been encouraging after ASH fibbing about pub closures I am increasingly being asked for my opinion on prohibition by MPs, advisers and think tanks.

I genuinely believe that ASH have been given enough rope and have their hands on the trap door handle ready to pull.

October 27, 2010 at 21:11 | Unregistered CommenterDave Atherton

Charles Hanshaw Thomas - I dispute that smokers are the worst litterers. I would say that gum chewers are - especially where I live. It's terrible and it takes 10 years to clear. cigarette ends are biodegradable - it is like dropping a leaf.

The subtle public health tool "denormalisation" set out to promote "smokers as litterers" as well as "smokers as..." many other horrible things. It appears to have completed much of it's work but that doesn't make it's repeated and unfounded allegations true.

October 27, 2010 at 21:27 | Unregistered CommenterPat Nurse

"...Time has moved on so what about some common sense. Government (be it Dept of Health, HMRC, Defra (nb cigarette litter is UK's no1 litter problem)) and tobacco manufacturers and retailers sitting down and agreeing a mutually acceptable method of regulation. Surely there's no dispute about the key issues: ... and
changing smokers' littering behaviour. "

Or - maybe someone should involve the Ash Tray Industry and see if they might have a solution to the "littering problem".

I bet the Ash Tray Industry and the Smoking Room Industry both might have a solution to this "alarming horrible problem".

October 27, 2010 at 21:39 | Unregistered CommenterJane

Dave - I hope your'e right about the high point being reached.

I take it you've made many MPs aware of the fact that there is no post-mortem evidence that SHS (second hand smoke) has ever killed anyone...and that this is often peddled by the likes of ASH, anti-tobacco control and the previous government.

October 27, 2010 at 23:08 | Unregistered CommenterBill

Indeed. 25% of the adult population smoke. What did they think would happen when they removed all the ash trays "for fear of encouraging smoking."

100% of the public take a dump every day. If every toilet in the land was removed to solve the problem of that "filthy, smelly function" would they really be surprised when the streets were full of s***?

The litter problem, such as it is, was directly caused by the anti-smoking legislation. As was the loss of 10% of a previously thriving industry and "problems with noise" (funny how there were no problems with noise when everyone was, er, inside). ASH are a costly cancer to our society and they need to be excised from its body. Totally.

October 28, 2010 at 0:35 | Unregistered CommenterMr A

Well done, Simon and team.

What would be a really useful follow-up - if at all possible - would be to trace some of these specific grants for specific reports/activities/etc. from the funding to the outcome.

October 28, 2010 at 3:51 | Unregistered CommenterAno

As long as the UK (and all other countries) remain signatories of the WHO FTC they are legally bound by it. At least that's what the EU Council claims

Look at what happened to the economically devastated Greece? Noone will convince me that the comprehensive smoking ban that they implemented on Sept. 1st was not a condition for their bail out by the EU! Not in a country where almost half of the population smokes and their economy is in a mess. No government is stupid enough to implement such a law at the worst time possible unless they got extreme outside pressures, bribes and/or threats. And Spain, another country in deep trouble, is following in the same steps on Jan. 2nd.

Not that cutting the funding back from these leeches is not a good thing, but what everyone should be pressuring their gov't to do is to pull out of the WHO FTC convention in order to acquire the independence to do as they feel is best for their own country in matters of tobacco control! Did you know that the USA didn't even ratify it? This doesn't mean they don't have some of the most rabid anti-smokers out there, far from it, but they are at least deciding of their own fate internally.

October 28, 2010 at 4:57 | Unregistered CommenterIro

Yes, an excellent report.

Just one question regarding 'tobacco control'. WHY do we NEED it ? Sensible, unbiased information, perhaps. But 'control'..........................................?

October 28, 2010 at 6:36 | Unregistered CommenterMartin V

Terrific thread over on ConservativeHome as a result of Simon's report.

October 28, 2010 at 8:15 | Unregistered CommenterRose W

Have used the report here:

October 28, 2010 at 8:17 | Unregistered CommenterBelinda

the "HERE" link in "You can download the 18-page report HERE. I'm not expecting any coverage in the mainstream media " no longer works for me. Is the pdf it points to still there?

October 28, 2010 at 10:38 | Unregistered CommenterFredrik Eich
October 28, 2010 at 10:46 | Unregistered Commenteridlex

The Greek smoking ban brought in last September WAS a condition of the bail out by the EU elites. I'm fuckin raging about that, because Greece was only one of two countries that sell my particular cigarette that I could combined hol with a stock up and that will now end up being another country on my hit list to avoid in future.
Why wasnt ASH and the Tobacco Control outfits included in the 300 quango cull Dave & Co were ponsoficating about?
Looks to me that the EU elites are calling the shots and have the power over governments.
Maybe they told Dave & Co which quangos they could cull too.
I wish someone would do a report on the Brussel Babes and question why their entertainment budget was increased last March by 85% bringing their annual budget to over a million.
The chosen media hacks must be entertained royally on that kind of money!

October 28, 2010 at 11:17 | Unregistered Commenterann

Fredrik, link works for me. Anyone else?

October 28, 2010 at 11:30 | Unregistered CommenterSimon Clark

Works for me, too.

October 28, 2010 at 12:16 | Unregistered CommenterBelinda

Links work fine for me now.

October 28, 2010 at 12:20 | Unregistered CommenterFredrik Eich

Thank you works fine.

October 28, 2010 at 12:34 | Unregistered CommenterBill

This study gives you an idea of what Tobacco Control advocates are thinking:-

Downloaded from on April 9, 2010 - Published by

Public support in England for a total ban on the sale of
tobacco products
Lion Shahab, Robert West

Background This study aimed to determine the level of
support for a sales ban on tobacco in England to provide
a benchmark against which any changes over time can
be assessed.
Methods 8735 people from England who participated in
one of five monthly cross-sectional household surveys in
2008 were asked to indicate whether they would
support the statement that ‘the government should work
towards banning the sale of tobacco completely within
the next 10 years’. In addition, sociodemographic and
smoking characteristics were assessed.
Results A substantial proportion of the total sample
(44.5%; 95% CI 43.5% to 45.6%) would support a move
towards a complete ban. While never smokers (OR 2.02;
95% CI 1.82 to 2.25) and ex-smokers (OR 1.41; 95% CI
1.21 to 1.65) were more likely to support this idea, even
among current smokers, a third would favour moving
towards a sales ban of tobacco products. Adjusting for
other background characteristics, younger, female
participants, those living in London and those from lower
socioeconomic groups were most likely to support a ban.
Among smokers, a higher cigarette consumption,
smoking enjoyment and contentment with being
a smoker were associated with opposition to a ban,
while feeling uncomfortable being a smoker, wanting to
be a non-smoker and being worried about future health
consequences of smoking were associated with support
for a ban.
Conclusion Support for movement towards a ban on
the sale of tobacco is higher than might be imagined. It
is conceivable that as smoking prevalence falls further
and smoking becomes more socially unacceptable,
support might grow to a point where such a policy could
become feasible."

If you were asked the question 10 years ago " will there be a smoking ban in public places" most people would have answered NO.

Look forward 10 years from now and you will see what the Tobacco Control advocates are aiming for.

October 28, 2010 at 14:15 | Unregistered CommenterEddie Douthwaite

I would prefer if they just banned it. It would be easier and cheaper to source tobacco and at least the profits would go to real criminals and not the bunch of lying thieves in parliament.

October 28, 2010 at 17:05 | Unregistered CommenterMichael Peoples

If they ban tobacco completely, we will either have stop smoking or become criminals involved in the illegal activity of smoking and we don't deserve that especially when some of us have been smoking legally almost all of our lives.

Make no mistake - if this does not begin to turn around now, this is exactly where Tobacco Control will be in 10 years. Smokers as criminals hiding in the shadows or empty shell robots and ASHites and TC as the heavy handed enforcers.

Who would have thought at the time the ban was imposed almost four years ago that they would resort to using anti-terrorism methods of detection to catch out smokers and pub landlords (as they did in Norfolk recently) or follow smokers in wait for them to drop a fag end so they can issue immediate fines or a court summons (as they did in Lincoln recently).

October 28, 2010 at 19:36 | Unregistered CommenterPat Nurse

At the risk of introducing ‘politics’ into this fine discussion (Heaven forfend), I have to say that Eddie’s terrifying post above demonstrates as clearly as anything can that the British Psyche has been so successfully manipulated into accepting a Socialist World View – continuously enforced and rejuvenated by a Scientific Elite - that it will soon be almost incapable of independent thought, outside of a few, scattered enclaves of free-thinking souls on the Internet (while it still survives).

Pat’s cri de coeur is a timely reminder of what we have lost, are losing, and shall continue to lose.

‘Tobacco Control’ (and the assumptions underpinning its validity) is the stunningly successful progeny of another from of ‘control’ – Mind Control. Political Correctness, the European Union, and ‘Climate Change’ count among its equally successful siblings.

As far back as the early Fifties, that saintly philosopher, Socialist, and 'humanitarian' Bertrand Russell, predicted (with approval) the political importance of Mass Psychology in the emergent ‘scientific societies’, run by a ‘scientific dictatorship’. In time, he said, it would be possible to persuade children that snow was black, and to entrench this view so successfully that ANY opinion that snow was white would merely demonstrate “a morbid taste for eccentricity.”

Things are not yet THAT bad, though, surely ?

Well, just consider the attitude of the BBC or the MSM generally to Climate Change Scepticism, any critique of the European Union or the United Nations (especially on patriotic grounds), or requests for an amendment to the Smoking Ban (especially on libertarian grounds), and you will realise just how far up the Body Politic this poison has spread.

I fear that it’ll take a more powerful physick than mere Reason or Fashion to remove it…………….

October 28, 2010 at 22:33 | Unregistered CommenterMartin V

Mark Littlewood of the Institute Of Economic Affairs adds his two penny worth.

"No one can object to citizens establishing campaigning groups to draw attention to the potential health risks of tobacco consumption or to pharmaceutical companies aggressively lobbying to promote their alternative nicotine products, such as chewing gum and patches. But for taxpayers’ money to be given over to such causes is wholly unacceptable."

October 29, 2010 at 0:31 | Unregistered CommenterDave Atherton

1. As regards Eddie D’s abstract (published by the Brit Medical Journal, note), once again we see the illogical invocation of the majority opinion. Since the enjoyment of tobacco is only of interest to those who enjoy tobacco, of what significance is the opinion of people who do not enjoy tobacco? The fact that non-smokers would not mind if tobacco was banned is irrelevant – in just the same way that the opinion of teetotallers would be irrelevant if the matter under discussion were ‘prohibition’ (and is this not precisely what was the problem with prohibition in America?).

2. Did anyone notice something peculiar about the structure of Ash Scotland (the last item in Simon’s report)? It is worth taking a look. Ash Scotland has 27 current employees (with two ‘vacant’ positions at this time). Of the 27, 23 are female and only 4 are male. That is, only 15% are male and 85% are female. In view of all the ‘equality in the workplace’ legislation and the recently passed Equalities Act, is there not something odd about this gender distribution? After all, this is a government funded organisation, and it is not as if the duties of the posts require super-human strength, or anything like that. Why is this government funded organisation so out of balance gender-wise? I feel that it is almost certainly illegal.

This evening, I was reading via Hansard part of the debate in parliament about the Health Bill. It was very odd to read, verbatim, a statement from Caroline Flint in the House of Commons, that the objective to exercise in the Health Bill was to ban SHS <u>where it was a problem</u> but not entirely. I have the record on my computer and can provide the verbatim quote if anyone wants it. Of course, some dickhead MP got up and said that it would be better to ‘be absolutely clear, and ban it totally so that people would self regulate’. I wonder if this was the reason that the Bill was amended at the last minute, after any possibility of representations had passed? Well, no....the decision had already been made. That is what is unforgivable to me – the fact that the Labour hierarchy already knew that they were going to introduce a full ban before they wrote in their manifesto that it would be partial.

Very good report, Simon. Send it to all MPs (if you have not already done so).

October 29, 2010 at 2:43 | Unregistered CommenterJunican

I agree with Martin that the common denominator here is Mind Control of the masses be it climate change, the EU or political correctness.
We all laughed when we heard of the smoking ban and said it would never happen.
Now they're planning to change the Lisbon Treaty for purpose, when we were told it could never be altered once it was ratified.
Just like Ireland's so called democratic No vote that was forceably changed twice through Mind Control.
Doesent it make you wonder how all these written in stone diktats can be changed at the stoke of a pen when a certain elite decides its not fit for purpose.
That is, except our legal smoking rights!
Correction to previous post above, the EU entertainment budgets was increased to €2,047.450.
Nice work if you can get it.

October 29, 2010 at 11:01 | Unregistered Commenterann

Junican -

Re your observation that:

"only 15% are male and 85% are female.................",

there are, believe me, VERY good reasons of Managerial Psychology (forget the PC angle here or the legalities) why this is so.

They are rarely spoken out loud, of course - but you can probably figure them out for yourself.

October 29, 2010 at 13:43 | Unregistered CommenterMartin V

Ann -

Apologies - but I mis-posted my reply to you on the latest thread !

Too much Scotch in the coffee again.........................

October 29, 2010 at 13:46 | Unregistered CommenterMartin V

Martin V.

Quite so, although there is something not quite precise. For example, in my golf club there is a 'ladies section' . The ladies, somehow, (although they comprise less than 10% of the membership) somehow manage to pervert the processes (starting times, for example), to their advantage. The important thing is that their arguments are always EMOTIONAL rather than 'rational'. Of course, their husbands are also members............
This illustrates how EMOTIONS can be used to justify repression. Is that not precisely what we are seeing? All the blandishments of ASH and co are EMOTIONAL, even if they are shrouded in statistical terms.
That is why ASH Scotland is 85% female. Only a group of females can be so dishonest as to ignore the science and reality.

October 30, 2010 at 2:18 | Unregistered CommenterJunican

Junican -

Glad you got the point !

But, as I've said elsewhere, if the strong and intelligent women who regularly contribute on this site were 'typical' of women in general, we'd probably have none of these problems. They AUTOMATICALLY command respect from the Thinking Male - without recourse to the shield of Vulgar Feminism, behind which the stupid, the un-informed, and the gullible cower in defence of their incompetence.

And then, of course, we have the modern phenomenon of the Girly Man (aka the New Man) - but that's another story, isn't it ?

And a fascinating Tale Of Our Times it is, too................................

October 30, 2010 at 9:26 | Unregistered CommenterMartin V

Have a look at the Delegates List of the UK National Smoking Cessation Conference 2010.

75% of the delegates are women.

October 30, 2010 at 12:04 | Unregistered CommenterEddie Douthwaite

Eddie - thanks for the link...I've left my comments on their feedback. Has anybody else done the same?

October 30, 2010 at 13:36 | Unregistered CommenterBill

Crikey - it's getting as bad as the BBC Drama Department !

Whatever happened to good old 'balance', I wonder..............................

October 30, 2010 at 15:06 | Unregistered CommenterMartin V

Ladies who comment here should not be annoyed by what I have said - I hope that they are not. M\y comments are not aimed anyone in particular or even at women in general. I think that the ladies who comment here will agree that there are ladies who will shamelessly use EMOTIONAL ARGUMENTS to achieve their ends, without giving a toss about the actual facts. Gather 23 of this type together with males almost excluded and you have a recipe for much confusion.
I see that the Mirror has printed today a full page article called: "LADYKILLERS. A campaign to cut women's cig death toll" promoted by QUIT (with ASH along for the ride). Lots of nasty things listed of course. But what struck me most of all was the condescending attitude. Women are too stupid to think for themselves - they need help from big pharme. I quote: "...many women try to quit on their own. The evidence is strong that you will have more success with support." Health expert Dr Sarah Jarvis. Clearly, an expert who cannot read.

October 30, 2010 at 21:46 | Unregistered CommenterJunican

Junican -

I shouldn't worry about the reaction of the women on THIS site: they know a Hawk from a Handsaw - that much is obvious.

But there HAD to be a reason that David Rockefeller promoted New Wave Feminism in the Sixties. And you can bet it wasn't 'altruism'.

As for your "condescending attitude":

I can't think of anything MORE condescending than the idea of a Minister For Women (to deal with 'Women's Issues'). I thought Ministers were there to deal with People - and People's Issues. What a wally !

October 30, 2010 at 23:14 | Unregistered CommenterMartin V

I seems like death by a thousand cuts for ASH with the whole of the centre-right intelligensia having stuck the boot in on them. Rest assured the Department Of Health will have noticed. The civil servants will be mounting a damage limitation exercise internally whispering in the minster's ears about "preventable" deaths and nasty tobacco companies.

Lansley will be seen as a hypocrite continuing funding to ASH and is in a difficult poition. ASH, so I have learnt, on the tobacco display ban, continue not to cover themselves in glory. One possible outcome is that ASH will be whistling in the wind should they want any further restictions on tobacco.

Even more reasons to cut theor funding.

October 30, 2010 at 23:22 | Unregistered CommenterDave Atherton

An old video of ASH getting torn apart by the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment.

Even then they were up to their tricks.

October 30, 2010 at 23:23 | Unregistered CommenterEddie Douthwaite

Anti-smoker groups have plenty of reasons to celebrate and have gotten nearly everything they have asked for so far. They must be very happy and pleased with themselves. A lot of people are going outside in inclement weather and non-smokers can breathe easy across the globe and that is quite a cause for cheer for those who disapprove of indoor smoking.

Good little piggies know when to get their snouts out of the trough lest they come across as sore winners. I have faith that ASH that can find ways to bully the minority who still smoke on their own dime. I can only hope that they advise their propagandist friends in the United States, Tobacco Free Kids, to do likewise and dial it down a notch letting the remaining smokers stew in their own juices.

This is a very reasonable request for FOREST to make and one upon which all sides can agree. Thank you FOREST and well done, Simon!

Cigarette anyone?

October 31, 2010 at 12:55 | Unregistered CommenterRichard 23

Richard 23.

The current smoking ban was brought about by ASH and the other Anti-Smoking Organisation's blatant lies, cherrypicked studies and misrepresentation of the supposed risks of Second Hand Smoke.

To suggest that the current situation is acceptable, (the smoking ban in it's present format), suggests that the degredation of scientific integrity to achieve an end result is acceptable.

The Anti-Smoking lobby's aim is for a Tobacco Free World and they will use all the "dirty tricks" they can think up to achieve this end.

An INDEPENDENT Inquiry into the "science" that led to the smoking ban, taking into account the technological developments in recent years in Air Filtration Equipment is the only way to expose the falsehoods that resulted in the Smoking Ban.

October 31, 2010 at 13:49 | Unregistered CommenterEddie Douthwaite

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>