Where there’s smoke…
It is a matter of public record, but nevertheless its good to see that the Dom Post is today giving Peter Dunne’s support for the tobacco industry a good work out. The article (offline) reads as follows:
Anti-smoke lobby given assurance on Dunne role
ANTI-SMOKING groups have won a Government assurance that United Future leader Peter Dunne will have no say on tobacco issues, due to his perceived close links with the industry.
Mr Dunne, who received the roles of associate health minister and revenue minister outside Cabinet in the deal to form a government, has a long history of criticising anti-tobacco groups and their measures. He is one of the few MPs to consistently vote against the current smokefree bars legislation.
In 2000 he said Prime Minister Helen Clark had a “fanatical anti-smoking obsession” and described Action on Smoking and Health as an extremist pressure group. He has labelled tobacco control spending a “scandalous waste of money”. Ash, the Asthma and Respiratory Foundation and the Smokefree Coalition, concerned about Mr Dunne’s appointment, wrote to Miss Clark saying they feared his personal views could influence tobacco control measures.
Ash director Becky Freeman said she was stunned when she heard about Mr Dunne’s portfolios and sought confirmation he would not be a stumbling block to smokefree initiatives. “We’re pushing for picture warnings on cigarette packets, and if for some reason there’s a delay I’d be looking to see if there was any interference from Peter Dunne. We’ll be watching to see if he is actually committed to health, or if he’s just a health minister in title alone.”
Wellington School of Medicine public health researcher George Thomson said he doubted Mr Dunne’s ability to impartially consider the evidence and make decisions for the public good when it came to smoking issues.
“He’s declared his position over the last 20 years very strongly, so it would appear that he has very strong views on the people who are going to offer him expert advice. He is going to be getting the advice that he has been condemning for the last 20 years.”
In a letter to Miss Clark, Asthma and Respiratory Foundation executive director Jane Patterson said the group would hate to see smokefree initiatives undermined by Mr Dunne.
In a written reply, Miss Clark assured Ms Patterson that Mr Dunne had “very specific responsibilities which do not extend to our smokefree policies”. There would be no moves by the Government to repeal smokefree laws.
Mr Dunne said his role as associate minister of health was focused on development of a long-term national medicines strategy and he had not sought any involvement in tobacco control.
Damien O’Connor remained the minister responsible for tobacco issues. Smokefree lobby groups should have confronted him directly with their concerns but they did not have the guts, Mr Dunne said. “The notion that I cannot exercise this role because I don’t automatically agree with them, I find hypocritical and bigoted in the extreme.”
Measures advocated by anti-smoking lobby groups had been a disaster, he said. “There are more young people smoking than ever before, and smoking related problems are worse than ever.”
All of which has to be weighed against UF’s attacks against the Greens for our Drug Law Reform policy. As recently as August Judy Turner was still absurdly describing the Greens as ‘pro-drugs’.
So, UF want personal cannabis use to remain a criminal offence. This means that as a result those that buy it never see any health warnings on its packaging, don’t pay any tax on it to pay for discouragement and treatment and often don’t seek assistance for abuse problems. Oh, and despite the illegality of cannabis making it an easy fundraiser for gangs.
At the same time, UF is opposed to health warnings on tobacco packets, to taxpayers’ money being spent on discouragement and to laws that protect non-smokers from secondhand smoke. All of which are measures that, as a side effect, reduce tobacco multinationals profits.
Seems to me that both the tobacco and illegal cannabis industries benefit from United Future’s support for the status quo.
November 25th, 2005 at 2:06 pm
I have no truck with Mr Dunne, but isn’t it interesting that ASH and ARF appear to believe that the only shrill voices that should be heard where tobacco is concerned are there own..?
Regardless of the relative merits of the argument, a basic requirement for democracy is a voice for all parties.
Whilst I can scarcely believe I’d defend the tobacco companies, they are infact about the only effective lobbyists on the pro-tobacco side of the argument, so silencing their perspective gives ASH et al a free reign to evangelise their own narrow perspective.
November 25th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
I find that article extremely narrow minded. With no evidence at all it assumes that Dunne’s motivation is corrupt, ie he wants to help the tobacco industry kill people. Perhaps such evidence exists elsewhere however the article is of considerable length and could have spared a couple of sentences to elaborate.
Dunne is not recognised as a champion of civil liberties, but what if his thinking is something more like this: ‘Smoking is bad for a person and I personally wouldn’t make that choice (or perhaps he does, that’s irrelevant) however freedom is more important to me, so I will not interfere in the rights of two adults to do business on private property if it harms nobody else?’
November 25th, 2005 at 9:17 pm
Right, except it only applies to tobacco and alcohol, but his principles seem to stop right there. He gets strangely defensive when perks supplied by tobacco companies are mentioned.
November 25th, 2005 at 10:17 pm
If his thinking really is: “Smoking is bad for a person and I personally wouldn’t make that choice (or perhaps he does, that’s irrelevant) however freedom is more important to me, so I will not interfere in the rights of two adults to do business on private property if it harms nobody else?” I say that would make him “hypocritical and bigoted in the extreme” for objecting to cannabis smokers having the same personal right to choose.
In my opinion, any politician who would object to protecting the health of non-smokers from being afflicted by second-hand smoke does not deserve to hold any kind of health portfolio.
November 25th, 2005 at 10:56 pm
Dunne is fundamentally hypocritical as he plays a tune to appeal to the conservative constituents he seeks who see tobacco as acceptable and cannabis as not. All drugs should be legal for adult consumption on private property with the permission of the property owner because adults own their bodies and have the right to decide what they put into them.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:30 am
“ie he wants to help the tobacco industry kill people.”
well, I think it’s a matter of public record that he wants to help the tobacco industry. Kill people, I wouldn’t know. Perhaps he’s a holocaust denier in that respect.
November 26th, 2005 at 1:58 am
liberty scott: I would add the caveat “and it is not to the detriment to others” e.g. a person cannot choose to harm their bodies if doing so negatively affects their children or community
November 26th, 2005 at 4:20 am
The Associate Health minister you have when you’re not having an Associate Health minister. Just like the Foreign Affairs minister.
November 26th, 2005 at 8:46 am
Hummm… Frog, like others I hold no water for Peter Dunne, but I think you should really be careful before getting on the ASH bandwagon here.
It wouldn’t take much imagination to pitcture the outrage if the election had gone slightly differently, and various lobby groups had demanded “assurances” that a Green associate Health Minister would “have no say” in (for the sake of argument) drug policy, their pet issue, because you’ve taken a *ahem* more liberal view.
FWIW, I don’t completely agree with your policy. But I sure don’t think that means the Greens are in the pockets of drug dealers, or that it immediately disqualifies the Greens from holding any health-related role in a left-leaning Government.
And, Alistair, Peter Dunne isn’t a Holocaust denier in any respect and I really think that’s the kind of shrill and ugly rhetoric that just undermines the credibility of the anti-tobacco lobby. I thought you were a fan of debating issues over name-calling?
November 26th, 2005 at 10:24 am
libertyscott said..”..All drugs should be legal for adult consumption on private property with the permission of the property owner because adults own their bodies and have the right to decide what they put into them…”
i find myself in total agreement on this issue with a previously described
rightwing loonie’..
clearly a case of left and right meeting behind the bike shed..eh..?..:)
clara said..”..“and it is not to the detriment to othersâ€? e.g. a person cannot choose to harm their bodies if doing so negatively affects their children or community..”
a bit of a wide-open/ranging caveat there clara…some hysterical ones would argue an adult puffing on a joint meets your strictures..eh..?
and what exactly is your definition of ‘the community’..?….
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 27th, 2005 at 3:14 am
I’m really surprised Dunne is against the recent tobacco reforms, given that he appears to be against legalizing pot for health reasons.
The only way I can imagine he avoids painful cognitive dissonance is by believing that pot smoking hurts others. That could be argued, to roughly the same extent that drinking piss harms others.
November 27th, 2005 at 10:21 am
Ben:
Well, I’m also amazed at the severe cognitive dissonance of those who think the state has no business telling them they’re not allowed to smoke pot wherever then damn please but don’t extend the same courtesy to people who use drugs they don’t approve of. Once more, the most vocal people on both sides of an argument have one thing in common - blatant hypocrisy or at least, a lack of intellectual honesty and consistency.
November 27th, 2005 at 11:50 am
Incorrect Craig. I for one certainly support smokfree legislation applying to cannabis and also think that the community and government has an absolute right to say people shouldn’t smoke pot. I just think the govrnment has no right to make people criminals if they continue to do so, in spite of the health risks. Oh to have the ‘draconian and authoritarian’ anti-smoking laws apply to cannabis!
To think that being told not to smoke in confined public places is in the same ballpark as being arrested and potentially thrown in jail (and yes it does happen) just for holding some pot is ridiculous.
For what it’s worth I think the government should decriminalise all drugs, but the most addictive and dangerous should no be for sal in shops. I guess that means people growing their own tobacco and brewing their own beer.
November 27th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
Digger:
No, quite correct. I’ve actually had coversation with people who hold exactly that position. My point is that Dunne isn’t the only person who seems *ahem* slightly inconsistent when it comes to his attitudes regarding pot and tobacco.
Hey, I know there are more thoughtful folks discussing these kinds of issues than Dunne and the screech-owls at ASH, but they don’t seem to get a lot of face time in the media do they?
The self-righteous and hysterical just make better copy, I guess.
November 27th, 2005 at 6:57 pm
Craig, you understand perfectly clearly, I’m sure, that I’m not advocating criminalizing tobacco. So your point is utterly lost.