« No Smoking Day: who will put this zombie event out of its misery? | Main | Philip Morris and ASH want government to increase tax on cigarettes »
Sunday
Mar052017

Burning your £££s to help overseas smokers quit

We know about the millions of £££s of taxpayers' money squandered on stop smoking services that fewer and fewer smokers actually use.

We know about the millions of £££s of public money given to anti-smoking groups such as ASH, ASH Scotland and ASH Wales.

We know too that the tobacco control industry wants the government to spend millions more on mass media campaigns designed to 'persuade' smokers to quit.

Crazy though that expenditure is, at least the money is being targeted at UK residents.

In contrast, consider the £15,000,000 (at least) of UK taxpayers' money that has been allocated to help non-UK residents to stop smoking.

This isn't a new story – it first appeared in November ('Britain's aid budget is being used to support 'quitting measures' in less developed countries') – but today's papers suggest it's an issue that's gaining traction.

According to The Sun:

About £15 million of Britain’s health budget will go on helping foreigners quit smoking.

It is part of £150 million from the Department of Health money pot which went on overseas aid last year — a figure which has ballooned in three years.

The same story appeared in the Mail and the Express but the headline in the Express summed it up best – Foreign aid farce.

Don't hold your breath but perhaps MPs will now demand a full independent audit that identifies every penny of taxpayers' money that is being spent on all smoking cessation initiatives overseas.

Initiatives, for example, like last year's "researcher links workshop" in Uruguay. According to the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies (UKCTAS) website:

Following a successful grant application, a group of UKCTAS researchers have in collaboration with colleagues in Uruguay’s University of the Republic organised a workshop to explore how research into smoking and alcohol use in pregnancy can be used to develop and implement effective policies to curb the use of these substances, which remain a problem in many parts of the world, including the UK and Uruguay.

The British Council, which sponsored the event, receives funding from the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (ie the taxpayer).

And according to UKCTAS the taxpayer-funded British Embassy also chipped in.

The question is, how many more smoking-cessation projects like the Uruguayan workshop are funded with our money?

Sending a group of researchers on a round trip of 13,600 miles to link up with public health professionals on the other side of the world may not be the most scandalous or extravagant use of taxpayers' money but it all adds up.

With the UK one of the first countries to commit to funding the next phase of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) negotiations, and the former tobacco programme manager at the Department of Health now on secondment with the World Health Organisation in Geneva, questions must be asked about the DH's global ambitions and the cost and relevance to the British taxpayer.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (2)

Look like evidence that tobacco control is a shadow state. All public funding for tobacco control and false charities (pressure groups) should be eliminated.

Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 23:23 | Unregistered CommenterVinny Gracchus

This event in Montevideo has all the external trappings and markings of a scientific event (a collection of academic PhD's and advanced students get together and hold conferences and workshops). So, their sponsors argue it should be publicly funded just like scientific events in all other fields are funded. However, external appearances are deceptive: these folks are not scientists, they are first and foremost policy advocates and activist. Their event (like COP meetings sponsored by the WHO) is not a scientific event, where new data and theories are presented, assessed and critically discussed: these are events to evaluate how global smoking regulation policy is best implemented, and all "science" in it is merely judged in terms of how useful it may be for this policy implementation. It is not about science and it is not about health, it is about implementing global policy on lifestyles. The global nanny should not be funded by the British tax payer, or by tax payers in any other country, let nanny Bloomberg or nanny Gates pay the bill.

Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 0:23 | Unregistered CommenterRoberto

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>