Who funds Forest? The same could (and should) be asked of ASH
Tuesday, November 3, 2020 at 13:30 I shall be on BBC Radio Essex this afternoon.
They want me to discuss a report in the East Anglian Daily Times that revealed that hospitals in Ipswich and Colchester have been forced to reverse their non-smoking policy and install shelters and cigarette bins after smokers ignored the smoking ban.
The main problem, it seems, was smokers dropping cigarette butts on the periphery of the grounds and the NHS trust was concerned about the impact on people living nearby.
This is not the first time I've heard of local residents being affected adversely by hospital smoking bans.
Even if they are enforced, which rarely happens, it doesn't stop patients, visitors and even staff from smoking.
Instead they congregate somewhere else, individually or in groups, sometimes outside the houses of local residents.
Anyway, while I don't condone people dropping litter (including cigarette butts), I feel far more strongly about hospital smoking bans that discriminate against the sick and the infirm and those who simply want a comforting cigarette to help them through a stressful situation.
Another reason is that they are unworkable without a disproportionate use of force and Big Brother style engagement that can include wardens, CCTV cameras, public address announcements and so on.
Thankfully, in this instance, the local NHS trust has seen sense and come down on the side of common sense and pragmatism.
Anyway, I shall be discussing the issue on BBC Essex with Hazel Cheeseman, director of policy at ASH, but only after some behind-the-scenes shenanigans.
According to the BBC, Hazel would only agree to go on air with me if listeners are told at the outset that Forest is funded largely by tobacco companies.
Since this is not a secret I happily agreed – as long as the presenter also tells listeners that ASH is part-funded by the taxpayer.
I'll let you know what happens.
In the meantime it says a lot about ASH that they are attempting to dictate to broadcasters how Forest is introduced before they will go head-to-head with us.
Reader Comments (4)
Just imagine how much good our money could do if spent on an advertising campaign urging smokers to use pocket ashtrays.
Of course that won't happen. ASH gets a large proportion of our money and will only spend it on dehumanising and demonising campaigns aimed at stigmatising smokers and forcing them out of their communities and designing health inequalities for them.
No wonder that in time of need, like at hospitals, we are inclined to say fcuk you. Treat us with contempt and the reward is contempt right back at them.
Sorry, a further thought re my last post.
Wouldn't it also be more accurate to describe ASH as ALSO funded by the tobacco companies.Tobacco companies do, after all, pay taxes!
Full disclosure on tea finding of ASH and tobacco coral pressure groups should be a matter of course. They receive funding from government and Pharma interests to fuel their assault on liberty and choice.
Alo, lest I forget—good news on the reversal of the draconian outdoor bans, Next we need to see indoor accommodation restored.
I'm intrigued, where else do the tobaccco companies get their money other than from smokers?
Serious question, do they sell the nicotine for nicotine patches and the solanesol for pharmaceutical and beauty products?