Going through the motions?
Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 12:13 Commenting on yesterday's post Pat Nurse suggests that responding to government consultations is futile.
A response from Forest … is likely to be ignored because it doesn't agree with the Govt agenda and we do know that modern consultation is a scam. Gotta go through the motions though, I suppose.
I share Pat's cynicism, up to a point, which is one reason I hate writing responses to consultations, but I disagree that it's a complete waste of time.
This past month is a good example.
At the beginning of August Forest responded to a consultation on the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc. and Care) (Scotland) Bill.
In our submission we were fiercely critical of plans to make it an offence to smoke in hospital grounds; we also argued against the use of excessive regulations to restrict the sale and promotion of e-cigarettes.
As a result of that I was invited to attend a meeting to discuss the Bill with the Scottish Parliament's Health and Sport Committee.
At that hearing on Tuesday one MSP made an impassioned plea for the Scottish Government to allow smoking zones within hospital grounds. Others made it clear they weren't convinced a complete ban was right or enforceable.
Given the opportunity to engage with a parliamentary committee I repeated Forest's opposition to a ban on smoking in hospital grounds and my comment that it was "inhumane, petty and vindictive" made headlines in several newspapers in Scotland. It also lead the local evening news on BBC1.
Today, as I mentioned earlier, Scotland on Sunday has reported the result of a survey – not any old survey but a Scottish Parliament survey – that found that almost two-thirds of Scots oppose "nanny state" plans to impose a smoking ban in hospital grounds.
Would all that have happened without Forest's intervention? I don't know.
But consider this. On Tuesday I was the only one of the four witnesses who spoke out against a ban on smoking in hospital grounds.
Linda Bauld (Cancer Research UK) supported a ban but said defining non-smoking areas was "complex".
Sheila Duffy (ASH Scotland) supported a ban, said it was good for people's health, and quoted the result of a 2014 YouGov poll that suggested a large majority were in favour of the measure.
Andy Morrison (New Nicotine Alliance) declined to comment.
Had Forest not submitted a response to the consultation and had I not been at the meeting on Tuesday those headlines would have been very different.
It's too early to say whether we've influenced the final regulations – I suspect the Scottish Government will still want to make it an offence to smoke in hospital grounds – but we've helped keep the issue alive and we have, perhaps, helped change public opinion.
Let's not forget too that Forest's submission to the 2012 Government consultation on plain packaging included over 250,000 petition signatures against the policy.
In total there were approximately 700,000 petition responses to that consultation, over 450,000 against plain packaging.
Was it a coincidence that it took the Department of Health eleven months to publish a report on the 2012 plain packaging consultation (the normal time is three months) or that the Coalition Government chose (at that time) to kick the issue into touch?
I'd be very surprised if our petition, submission and campaign wasn't a factor.
So for all those reasons I would argue that one should never dismiss responding to a public consultation as "going through the motions".
Yes, it can be tiresome, frustrating and dispiriting and may often end in defeat.
Sometimes though it's worth the effort. This week was one of those moments.
Reader Comments (8)
Congratulations, Simon, on keeping on plugging away. And bearing witness to truth and tolerance in a hostile court.
Any clues as to why the NNA's Andy Morrison declined to comment or would he not comment on that either?
I understand why responding to consultations seems futile. After alumni New Orleans the majority of people attending the public meetings about the smoking ban were against the ban. They were ignored, and if acknowledged given less time t o speak. The media did not cover their presence--indeed the local papers censored anti-ban comments. That said, political action at all levels is necessary to stop the campaign to denormalise smokers.
It is essential that smokers (and vapers) actively oppose these steps toward lifestyle control, expose the tobacco control lies, and advocate fair and equal treatment for smokers. Rather than abandoned participation in fora to counter the smoking bans, increased participation is needed.
Increased participation is needed, but the antis are being paid for spreading the junk science and hatred. They're not going to give their cushy lifestyles up. They live their lives knowingly understanding that what they do is a lie and ruins others.
They're not bothered as long as they're OK.
I know that you sometimes come in for a bit of stick for not being "aggressive" enough with anti opponents, or for seeming (sometimes) to be agreeing with some of what they say, and given the anti-smoking movement's total and complete inability to countenance even the tiniest compromise in anything smoking-related, ever, I can understand the frustrations of many smokers and smoker-supporters, many of whom now feel that when confronted with an implacable, dirty-fighting, bloody-minded opponent, the only way to win even the tiniest bit of ground is to be equally as implacable, dirty-fighting and bloody-minded oneself. But I, for one, really appreciate your constant responses on our behalf through formal means against the never-ending onslaught of new ideas for ways to bully, harass and persecute smokers wherever they may be.
And, yes, I certainly think that when it comes to committees/consultations like these, the fact that Forest (or rather, you, Simon) is prepared to stand up and be a lone voice in the wilderness asking simply for some consideration and reasonability does enable other - more fearful but nonetheless doubting - individuals to be brave enough to follow your lead.
Of course it can be dispiriting at times when, in the final analysis, the anti-smokers and their hangers-on simply bulldoze their new rules and regulations through regardless, but at least, having done so time and time again, despite numerous requests from yourself for just a modicum of humanity and tolerance, each time they do so it highlights just a little bit more how utterly obsessed these people are, and how unfairly they are prepared to treat a whole group of people whom they happen to dislike for no other reason, to be frank - and no matter how much they dress it up in pretty-sounding words - than to get their own way. Without your input, the veneer of "overwhelming public support" so beloved of anti groups as an excuse to do precisely what they wish, would go completely unchallenged.
So ... keep up the good work!
I agree, Misty. Were these punitive, humanity-free zealots ever loveable, open-minded toddlers? It's difficult to imagine. What happened? Might say the same of members of ISIL. Funny old world ....
I agree that the good work needs to continue and am sorry if I sounded hostile.
I am sick of the lies though. My kids are healthy and clever. All 3 of them have had awards for excellent attendance. I don't take days off work due to ill health unlike many of my non-smoking colleagues.
Other than child-birth, I have not used the NHS and I am approaching 50.
The lies from the people with money have infested me.
Excellent words Simon . Thank you for speaking up for people like me .