SMOKE FREE BOLLOX MASQUERADES AS NEWS

There I was the other day at work at a local weekly newspaper when the phone rang.

"Did you get my press release?" the woman's voice on the other end of the line asked.

"Err, not sure," I said. "What's it about?"

"It's from the the local health authority," she said. "And I can't understand why it hasn't been picked up as it is a really good story."

"Send it through to me and I'll make sure I look at it." I didn't want to discuss it on the phone and be kept ages but I promised to look out for it and ring her back once I'd seen what it was about.

The lady duly sent it and I almost choked on my cuppa when I realised it came from the local Smoke Free Alliance bragging about how The Lincolnshire PCT had saved £181,000 in three years from people who, allegedly, no longer had to go to hospital with heart attacks.

Oh, here we go again. I thought. Crap propaganda but as an impartial journalist I am not allowed to take that line and knowing that I could not deal with this story impartially, I passed it on to my newsdesk with an explanation of why I wouldn't touch that story with a barge pole.

I did ask my newsdesk, however, that if they did feature this story, would they please add balance by either contacting Simon Clark at Forest or the local F2C person who lives in the area. I pointed out how Smoke Free has cost us an arm and a leg and a £181,000 saving in three years is nothing compared to the half a billion pounds of tax payers' money that has been ploughed into the Smoke Free ideology already.

Newsdesk wasn't that keen on the story as it happens - even when I pointed out it would make a great feature on the third anniversary of the blanket smoking ban. I have now left the paper as my cover stint has ended and as it is one of the few that does not have an online presence, I'll perhaps never find out if it got covered or not.

As far as I was concerned, it was yet another fake study aimed at further isolating smokers with the aim of excluding them from accessing health care.

Not all my journalism colleagues on various papers care to be so impartial. They are all too often anti-smoking and not interested in portraying the smoker's cause. It's a good job some of us are - even when the story is one that we would rather chuck in the bin where it belongs.

HANG ON A MINUTE ....

I pass the Phoenix smoke free shop every time I go into town and I find this propaganda board monumentally offensive.

I'm sure that the recent "I'm not scared of anything except my mum and dad dying" ads run on TV have been slammed by the Advertising Standards Authority as "misleading" and "likely to unnecessarily scare children" and an order has been made that they are NOT to be shown before 7pm.

Why then, can someone tell me, does smoke free think it is acceptable to have this rubbish on display on a board outside the shop from morning until late afternoon?

A point I wished to make, but didn't have the time during my conference speech, was that if smoke free ideology has such public support, then why is this place always devoid of custom?

Perhaps someone has some thoughts or answers to both of the above questions.

MOTION CARRIED TO END SMOKE FREE BURDEN ON TAXPAYERS

A symbolic victory has been won at the UKIP conference where 90% of delegates voted for a motion to end the huge drain on public finances and the political power of the unelected Smoke Free quango.

The motion was put forward by the UKIP Lincoln constituency and the speech was delivered by yours truly to about 1,600 people who, I am relieved to say, gave me a huge round of applause before creating a sea of orange by holding up the coloured YES voting cards. Four people voted against the motion and five people abstained.

Thanks must go to David Atherton for his meticulous research and stats which found their way to several internet sites including the Devil's Kitchen who also gets my thanks after I lifted some figures from there.

I battled with these figures, and lost much sleep, as I worked out how best to present them and worried that I might end the conference covered in rotten eggs and tomatoes because the antis have led us all to believe how much EVERYONE loves the new smoke free world that we are all forced to live in.

It was my first public speech and so I am entirely relieved not to have broken down into a nervous shamble as I took the stand. I'm not sure that all of the speech, which appears below, was read out as I had just four minutes to say my piece but the message must have got through.

After I left the podium, I was greeted by several people wanting to shake my hand. Only one person seemed unhappy with the result. He asked me what would happen to all the staff. I said I didn't know. Perhaps some could be moved to work in more beneficial areas of the NHS. The man stomped off muttering that I obviously hadn't thought it through. A colleague pointed out that it would be cheaper to pay them all dole money rather than the £403 million currently poured into the quango for use in several areas of health, propaganda and advertising.

It's also worth pointing out that there were three branch motions. The first two attracted speakers for and against. Neither motion was passed. Not one person registered to speak either for or against the smoke free motion so I had the floor to myself and a whole bunch of eager listeners.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy the speech below. I say it is a symbolic victory because it proves to me that the general public is not supportive of the hugely expensive and powerful smoke free ideology.

The Motion :

We propose to abolish the smoke free quango within the NHS, which uses millions of pounds of taxpayers' money. With the poor state of the economy, public sector costs must be cut and this hugely expensive quango must go.

The Speech :

Smoke Free was founded some 30 years ago when the majority of people smoked. It's initial aims were to ensure that there were smoke free places in a society where everyone was allowed to smoke everywhere, all of the time.

It has done such a successful job that there has been a massive cultural shift in the perception of smoking. Smoking rates are now down to 22%. Everywhere in Britain is now smoke free so what need of such an organisation which has evolved from a small department within the NHS Health Promotions Department to become a quango made up of 90 Government funded groups.

Tax payers have poured in almost half a BILLION pounds over five years. The public pays for them but does the public generally support that which it pays so heavily for?

If we take the example of Action on Smoking and Health, we can see that from its £675,000 annual income, private donations from the general public amount to just £11,000. Almost £200,000 comes from the Government. The general public donated £20 million to the Donkey Sanctuary so there is obviously more public support for donkeys than smoke free ideology.

The main argument for smoke free is the desire to save the NHS the estimated £1.7 billion cost of treating smokers who pay £10 billion in tax. If they pay that much, then surely they deserve to receive treatment if they suffer with a smoking related illness later in life. (Actually, research from Holland reveals that healthy people cost health services more - £210,00 in a lifetime as opposed to smokers - £165,000.)

That aside, bearing in mind the current smoke free legislation, smoking rates have begun to rise again slightly since the blanket smoking ban but I don't think we will ever see the same number of people taking up the habit as we saw 30 years ago.

According to research, reported in the BMJ, despite the massive amount of public funding poured into this quango, 98.4% of people fail to give up smoking. That means a huge chunk of that half a billion pounds goes down into a black hole never to be recovered.

The political power of this quango is another grave concern. One call from the unelected smoke free quango in Europe stopped an anti-prohibiton conference from taking place in our supposedly democratic Euro Parliament hosted by elected representatives from UKIP on behalf of their constituents.

Another example of the political influence of smoke free can be seen in the so called "public consultation" on the current tobacco display ban which will sound the death knell for small, independent retailers.

The organisations invited to respond were all - except for two - Government funded smoke free groups, which, it seems to me, end up being paid to lobby the Government to get the result that the Government wants.

So what next? Where can the smoke free quango go from here now that we are, indeed, smoke free?

In the same way that smoke free "zones" were voluntary - until they were enforced by law - we now have voluntary smoke free homes initiatives. We can only base what might happen next on what has happened before. If this intrusion into our private behaviour does not stop, there could well be enforcement measures to restrict smoking in one's own private home.

This would be a step too far. We have no guarantees as the march of prohibition moves ever forward that this will not happen and 12 million law abiding adults who enjoy a legal product would not find themselves criminalised in future. It must stop now!

Civil liberties concerns aside, can bankrupt Britain really afford this half a billion pound cost when it could be used far more effectively in many other areas of the NHS and particularly in direct patient care.