Say No To Nanny

Smokefree Ideology


Nicotine Wars

 

40 Years of Hurt

Prejudice and Prohibition

Road To Ruin?

Search This Site
The Pleasure of Smoking

Forest Polling Report

Outdoor Smoking Bans

Share This Page
Powered by Squarespace
« Happy anniversaries | Main | Going through the motions »
Wednesday
Jun172015

ASH Scotland – Sheila take a bow

When I was in Edinburgh yesterday I took part in a phone-in on BBC Radio Scotland.

The topic, as you might expect (see previous post), was smoking in cars with children.

I was on for 25 minutes and during that time I had the following exchange with Sheila Duffy, CEO of ASH Scotland.

Sheila Duffy:
For me one of the real benefits in this legislation is raising awareness about tobacco smoke being a harmful substance. Now Forest is largely funded by tobacco companies ...

Me:
And you're funded by the taxpayer, Sheila. You get £900,000 from the Scottish Government. You're funded by the taxpayer and you use that to lobby government …

Duffy:
No we don't get that much from the Scottish Government …

Me:
How much do you get from the Scottish Government? How much?

Duffy:
What, what we do is we look at the evidence and we look at the facts and we …

Me:
How much taxpayers' money do you get annually?

Duffy:
… and the facts are that this is ...

Kaye Adams, Radio Scotland presenter:
How much taxpayers' money do you get, Sheila?

Duffy:
Um [pause], we [pause], certainly not as much as nine thousand [sic].

Me:
How much?

Duffy:
It's about eight hundred thousand.

Me:
[Laughing] Very close then.

Duffy:
We get that to provide services. We get that to ...

Me:
And lobby government!

Duffy:
No, we don't use taxpayers' money to lobby government. We use grant funding to lobby government.

Me:
Semantics, Sheila, semantics.

Adams:
OK, I'm not sure where we're going with that but let's bring in some callers.

Click here if you want to listen. The exchange above begins at 8:38.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (8)

Bravo Simon. I don't have a problem with not smoking in the car when the grandkids are in it but I oppose a ban because it isn't about protecting chidren. It's about using the heavy hand of the law via exploitation of children to force adults to stop smoking on their own property.

It didn't take long for them to reveal that as they now also demand a ban in all cars with kids or not. I resent being criminalised when I've harmed no one. My car is also my cafe since being excluded from society and I will not allow the antismoker industry any rights to anything I own gained from sheer hard work and not handouts for nothing like they get.

Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 17:42 | Unregistered Commenterpat nurse

Sheila Duffy:
"For me one of the real benefits in this legislation is raising awareness about tobacco smoke being a harmful substance."

And that's what it has all been about, smoking bans in pubs included, after all, if you are trying to make other people believe that something is really a very dangerous substance, you have to make them act as if it was.

Even if that takes the force of law to do it.

Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 18:15 | Unregistered CommenterRose2

Nice one, Simon, nice one! Keep it going and start questioning the so called 'science' behind it all.

Well done.

Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 18:39 | Unregistered CommenterFrank J

I agree totally Frank. The levels of 'danger' to these children must be put into perspective. Simon, why not use the BBQ analogy? It's hard hitting and really does show how tobacco control are making a mountain out of a molehill.

I would have went down this route...
"The toxins from a typical 2 hour BBQ are the equivalent as you'd get from a whopping 220,000 cigarettes. This would mean that a child travelling in a car, inhaling mummys cigarette smoke from a couple of cigs...every single day...would have to travel for 300 years to get the equivalent dose as they'd get from ONE sunny barby party!"
This being the case, shouldn't you be looking to pass legislation on banning children from BBQ's Ms Duffy?

Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 20:02 | Unregistered CommenterDave Copeland

Listened to the phone in conversation and was surprised that even you, Simon, were enthusiastic about an education campaign rather than the force of law. What education?? The lie, peddled by TC that smoking in a car with children present poses a real danger to children? It would become one of those 'facts' that Everyone Knows and people would self-police rather than risk being despised as an irresponsible person. It really shouldn't be a choice between education or the force of law since there is no question of danger but a choice that car users make based on consideration of the comfort of their children and, by God, children don't seem shy these days about making their preferences known.

Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 21:09 | Unregistered CommenterJoyce

The trend for bans against smoking in cars with children will soon be a campaign against smoking in all cars just as the indoor smoking bans now followed by calls for outdoor smoking bans.

As Pat Nurse already commented, these bans are not about health; they are about denormalizing smoking.

The scientific rationale for bans is weak at best. Indeed, the evidence from the majority of studies shows there is virtually no significant risk from second hand smoke.

Smoking bans are little more than sanctioned intolerance.

Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 0:01 | Unregistered CommenterVinny Gracchus

I agree Dave and Joyce. And when anti-smoker stooges start banging on about those 4000 chemicals, please, please, point out they are only in there because Govt allows them to be so if they are so dangerous - lethal in fact - then why does Govt approve them? http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_847.pdf

Why also did Govt under Gordon Brown refuse to allow an e-petition calling for a ban on all additives in tobacco? Could it be because those 4000 chemicals are a con and no where near as dangerous as those dependent on smoke hating for their income and wealth say they are?

In truth, Govt is not serving us historic child smokers well or fairly because it isn't giving us the answers we're looking for to maintain good health now as grandparents. It simply repeats propaganda motivated by ideological lobby groups such as ASH which I suggest has become dangerous to our health because of it's quit or die, quit or be abused, quit or be socially excluded, quit or have your children, homes and jobs taken stance.

Because of its hate campaigning, ASH is not an organisation that can be trusted with truth - your interview proves it. When faced with truth, Duffy's immediate response was to lie. This is what they always do and the media and Govt should be made aware they are being used and manipulated by what I and many other smokers consider to be hysteric frauds.

Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 11:49 | Unregistered CommenterPat Nurse

Well done Simon. For far too long, the industry funding argument has been used as a form of censorship. As you well know, the BBC in the form of at least one prominent health journalist has bought into it, as have most medical journals. Sadly, they see no double standard whatsoever in promoting partisan research produced by people with vested political interests and they largely ignore the unethical waste of tax payers money represented by government paying organisations to lobby government.

The state funding for lobbying argument is not especially attractive or high brow but Duffy brought it upon herself and I would have no hesitation in repeatedly attacking her on that basis. It is high time that people such as Duffy reaped what their unpleasant ad hominem approach to debate has sown.

Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 12:15 | Unregistered CommenterChris Oakley

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>