(Foreword by CG)
Oh dear.
Oh dear oh dear.
Not a good day for the anti-smoking Jihadi over at ASH HQ!
Our resident legal eagle, Martin, has a set of disturbing questions for them.
We will let you know if they respond.......
Questions for Deborah Arnott and ASH
On 29 May 2003 Deborah Arnott, Director of Action on Smoking and Health, ASH, in countering fears that pubs and restaurants would lose money if smoke-free legislation was introduced, boldly stated:
“The evidence is clear that smoke-free environments are not only good for health but also for the pocket. It's a ‘win-win' situation: Non-smokers far out number smokers and the leisure sector can expect an increase in trade following the introduction of smoke-free policies.”
ASH calls on the Government to withdraw its endorsement of the Public Places Charter following failure of Charter to meet smoking targets
Bingo clubs and their players would certainly disagree with Arnott’s above statement. In fact 43 clubs across the country have closed in the last 14 months alone and a study says a further 108 are at risk as government tax demands and the impact of the smoking ban take their toll.
Reports suggest that “The industry is struggling to deal with the combined impact of double taxation, the removal of gaming machines and the impact of the smoking ban and The Bingo Association believes that for every club that closes, the Exchequer would lose £700,000 per year in revenue across a wide range of taxes. Don’t ruin our social lives: Save bingo halls
The Bingo Association warnings arrived less than a month after another press report revealed that:
Pubs have been closing at the rate of 27 a week – nearly four every day –over the past year as the savage impact of the smoking ban and spiralling costs combined to decimate the very heart of British life.
In total, 1,409 pubs closed in 2007 – a sharp acceleration when compared to 216 closures in 2006 and 102 in 2005.
The stark figures from the British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA) reveal the pub closure rate is seven times faster than in 2006 and 14 times faster than in 2005. Pub crisis: 27 close each week
Deborah Arnott is not alone in spinning the indefensible. She has other colleagues who have assisted her for the purpose of encouraging legislation designed to seriously undermine the business viability of the British Bingo and Hospitality industry.
For example, also in 2003, Scollo M, Lal A, A Hyland A & Glantz S claimed that:
Despite the scare stories perpetuated by the hospitality trade and tobacco industry, via funded initiatives such as AIR (Atmosphere Improves Results), independent economic analyses find no evidence that smoke-free laws harm business. See The Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation on the Hospitality Industry
Having clearly demonstrated that Arnott and others were way off target in relation to the economic impact of the smoking ban I was encouraged to conduct some further research into the medical evidence for the level of harm caused to non-smokers that might possibly be attributable to second hand smoke (ETS).
In Estimate of deaths attributable to passive smoking among UK adults: database analysis Konrad Jamrozik, BMJ. 2005 April 9; 330(7495): 812. we discover that
The author is grateful to Deborah Arnott of ASH (UK) for providing some important references…….. The calculations presented in this paper were commissioned by SmokeFree London, a collaboration of all 33 local borough councils in London concerned with extension of smoke-free policies in that city. I received no payment or any other consideration for conducting them. These data were originally presented at a conference on passive smoking in the hospitality industry organised by the Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians in May 2004,
I am more than a little cynical when I discover that anti-smoking organisations appear to have provided Jamrozic with all his data that indicate to me that the research was conducted to provide medical credence to a pre-determined political agenda.
As recently as 2001 a report was published which concluded that:
The question of whether or not ETS exposure is high enough to induce and/or promote the carcinogenic effects observed in epidemiological studies thus remains open, and the assumption of an increased risk of lung cancer due to ETS exposure is, at present, more a matter of opinion than of firm scientific evidence. Lung cancer due to passive smoking--a review.
When one looks at the grants received by ASH from the Department of Health and other Health Charities it becomes obvious that it became imperative by 2005 to generate some groundbreaking new evidence in order to maintain funding levels.
For example, between 1999 – 2004 ASH received grants from the Department of Health totalling £783,000. ASH Wales received £450,00 Source – Hansard
For the year ending April 2006 ASH’s Total income of £821K was 50% higher than the previous year - largely as a result of an increase in funding for new research. 87% of this income came as grants or research contracts- predominantly from government agencies and from the British Heart Foundation and Cancer Research UK. source
On behalf of British Hospitality Industry and Public donors to The Heart Foundation and Cancer Research UK I ask Ms. Arnott and ASH the following probing questions?
When considered against the incontrovertible evidence presented above do you still persist in your claim that -
The evidence is clear that smoke-free environments are not only good for health but also for the pocket. It's a ‘win-win' situation: Non-smokers far out number smokers and the leisure sector can expect an increase in trade?
Furthermore, did you and others collaborate with Konrad Jamrozik and steer him towards conclusions of the Health effects of ETS that many earlier medical researchers had been totally unable to substantiate? Was this perhaps for the purpose of securing your funding stream from grants from Government and other agencies?
I believe that the public have a right to know the answers.
Martin Hensman M.Inst.L.Ex, LLB (Hons)
