[Intl-tobacco] UK Secretary of State for Health says 'Let Poor Smoke'

[Robert Weissman]

1. Message from Deborah Arnott, ASH UK, re: unbelievable UK Health Sec comment
2. Guardian: Let poor smoke, says health secretary
3. Evening Standard: 'This is patronising ... it's just a stereotype'

Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 14:52:46 +0100
From: "Deborah Arnott" <deborah.arnott@ash.org.uk>

If you haven't seen it our Health Minister John Reid is quoted on the
front page of the Guardian today saying 'Let poor smoke'.

This is the link to the media briefing we've put out on this feel free
to use anything you want. We're also drafting a letter to John Reid
which we will be asking people to sign up to shortly.

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/press/040609.html

Here's the link to the Guardian  story if you haven't seen it yet.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,11032,1234608,00.html

And here is the letter we've sent the Guardian. The more responses from
as many organisations as possible the better.

For Publication Letters
The Guardian

Wednesday 9th June 2004


Dear Sir,

You report that Health Secretary John Reid has described smoking as "one
of the few pleasures left for the poor on sink estates and in working
men's clubs", and that attempts to reduce smoking rates, by for example
ending smoking in the workplace, are "an obsession of the learned middle
class" ("Let Poor Smoke": 9.06.2004)

Perhaps Dr Reid should try to justify this, for example to a widow on a
Council estate whose husband died young from lung cancer, emphysema or
any other of the lethal diseases caused by smoking. I doubt if she would
see his remarks as helpful.

Smoking is in fact the biggest single contributor to health inequality,
and specifically differences in life expectancy, between social classes.
Men in social class V have about one chance in two of surviving until
the age of 70, while the chances for men in social class 1 are three in
four. Half this difference is accounted for by smoking. Exposure to
secondhand smoke in the workplace causes about seven hundred premature
deaths every year as well as many thousands of episodes of illness. Most
of the three million or so employees routinely exposed to other people's
smoke work in low-paid and insecure jobs. They too deserve better from
the Health Secretary.

The Government has promised a White Paper on public health for the
autumn. If Dr Reid's contribution on tobacco is to say 'let the poor
smoke', then his policy on obesity will presumably be 'let them eat
cake'. Fortunately Mr Blair has so far shown more concern for the damage
that smoking does to every section of society and poorer communities in
particular.

Yours sincerely,

Deborah Arnott
Director

Deborah Arnott
Director
Action on Smoking & Health
102 Clifton Street
London
EC2A 4HW

Tel: 020 7739 5902
Fax: 020 7613 0531
Mobile: 079 7693 5987
e-mail: deborah.arnott@ash.org.uk
web: http://www.ash.org.uk



Let poor smoke, says health secretary

Patrick Wintour and Colin Blackstock
Wednesday June 9, 2004
The Guardian

The health secretary, John Reid, angered health campaigners and
anti-smoking groups when he said yesterday that smoking is one of the few
pleasures left for the poor on sink estates and in working men's clubs.

Mr Reid said that the middle classes were obsessed with giving
instruction to
people from lower socio-economic backgrounds and that smoking was not one
of the worst problems facing poorer people.

"I just do not think the worst problem on our sink estates by any means is
smoking, but it is an obsession of the learned middle class," he said. "What
enjoyment does a 21-year-old single mother of three living in a council
sink estate get? The only enjoyment sometimes they have is to have a
cigarette."

His statement provoked an angry reaction from anti-smoking campaigners.
A spokesman for the anti-smoking group Ash said: "It's incredibly
patronising to talk about smoking in this way. The argument is that we
should have smoke-free work environments. John Reid has got this hang-up
about the middle class imposing itself on the lower class, when it's the least
empowered, people like bar workers, who are having smoking imposed on
them."

According to Ash, men in socio-economic groups AB are twice as likely to
reach the age of 70 as those in groups DE, with smoking being the biggest
contributing factor. Women in social class 5 are almost twice as likely
to die
from lung cancer as women from social class 1.

Mr Reid's deliberately challenging remarks at a Labour Big Conversation
event in south London suggests he will be cautioning against an outright ban
on smoking in public places being included in the Labour manifesto.

He said he was an advocate of informed choice for adults, rather than bans,
describing himself as favouring empowerment, rather than instruction. Mr
Reid fears advocates of a ban are behaving as if members of the public are
incapable of coming to their own sensible decisions.

Mr Reid's views were welcomed by Simon Clark, director of the smokers'
lobby group Forest (Freedom of the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco), who
said: "We're not looking to encourage people to smoke. There's a lot of people
out there for who smoking is a lot of pleasure and it's encouraging to
see that
John Reid recognises that."

Mr Reid's comments put him at some distance from Tony Blair, who said last
week the government was considering measures to ban smoking in public
places but hinted such measures could be left to local authorities. Tessa
Jowell, the culture secretary, has also made clear that legal bans would
be a
last resort.

Faced by calls for a ban at the meeting attended by health professionals and
the local community, Mr Reid said: "Be very careful, that you do not
patronise people because sometimes, as my mother used to say, people from
those lower socio-economic backgrounds have very few pleasures and one of
them is smoking. I worry slightly about the unanimity of the middle class
professional activists on this."

Ministers are currently wrestling over whether to back a nationwide ban on
smoking in public places, allowing councils to impose bans.

Mr Reid insisted the government had not come to any decision, but added that
if the government imposed any smoking restrictions, it would be done "in
the British way", and not ape the bans introduced in either New York or
Ireland.

Dr Reid, who gave up a 60-a-day habit himself 18 months ago, is deeply
suspicious of bans on choice for adults.

He argued these people really needed help by changing the fundamental social
conditions which led them to smoke. "My argument is that empowerment is
different from instruction. You have got to be very careful that you do not
say to the 75-year-old that 'you are better off if you are not going to
be able
to go to a working men's club and smoke'."

The British Medical Association said that it was surprised by Mr Reid's
remarks, but it would continue to lobby for a ban. "Quite apart from the
individual damage to smokers, there's passive smoking to consider. It isn't
just damage they do themselves, it's the damage they do to others."

The minister was more sympathetic to calls for compulsory simplified food
labelling setting out the sugar, salt and fat content of products. He also
recognised that children needed better advice on nutrition and better school
diets.

Mr Reid also said he wanted to find a new way to involve the ethnic
minorities and working class in their own health, including by opening
health care centres in shopping centres, or by using health advice from
football clubs. "We need to find places where people work, that are more
accessible, more identifiable for them, less preachy, less hectoring, less
dictatorial, then we may achieve success in the field of public health," he
said.



'This is patronising ... it's just a stereotype'
By Matheus Sanchez, Evening Standard
9 June 2004

Single mothers from estates in London reacted with anger to Dr Reid's
comments, branding them "negative" and "patronising".

Dionne Powell, 26, a single mother of one from Neasden, said: "That's
wrong. Those comments aren't very helpful, it's just a stereotype. There
are are so many other things to do apart from smoking: we have parks,
you can read, go to the cinema, go bowling, there's always things you
can do for fun.

"I am all for a ban on smoking. You can't go anywhere these days without
passive smoke. In a bar or club it feels like you've smoked a packet of
cigarettes. It's just nasty."

Her sister Chantelle, 27, a single mother of four from Stonebridge Park,
challenged the Health Secretary's
assumptions: "We're both single parents and don't smoke so we think he
is wrong. Just because we live on council estates doesn't mean we have
to smoke.

"It's like saying any black boys in an estate will smoke weed and grow
up into crime. With smoking you just throw all your money away. You're
supposed to be a role model for your kids and even if you live in a bad
situation you don't have to follow what other people do."

Lauren Parke, 29, a single mother of two from Brondesbury who does not
smoke, said: "This is patronising. There are people who are well off and
smoke and I don't think it has anything to do with living on a council
estate. I hate people who smoke when they are with young children. I'm
one of those people who will say, 'Excuse me you have a baby there, how
can you smoke?'"