article here: http://uwstoutmedia.com/possible-smoking-ban-on-campus/

Do Job Centres carry the advertisements for these positions or are they kept from normal intelligent people.

No Smoking Day

UK Charity Number: 1006714

Website: http://www.nosmokingday.org.uk/
Stated Aims

NO SMOKING DAY’S MAIN ACTIVITY IS ORGANISING AN ANNUAL HEALTH AWARENESS CAMPAIGN THAT AIMS TO HELP SMOKERS WHO WANT TO STOP SMOKING BY CREATING A SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT AND BY HIGHLIGHTING THE MANY SOURCES OF HELP AVAILABLE TO PEOPLE WHEN THEY ARE READY TO STOP.
Context

No Smoking Day is a member of SmokeFree Action, which is campaigning for higher cigarette taxes, tobacco display bans, plain packaging of cigarettes and smoking bans in cars.
Summary

According to its 2007/08 accounts, No Smoking Day received an income of £745,804. Of this, £267,793 came from the Department of Health. A further £30,000 came from the Welsh Assembly and £25,000 was donated by NHS Scotland. Most of the rest of its revenue came from the sale of No Smoking Day products. There is no record of any voluntary donations from the public.

How does it manage to have charity status Mary?

Seems to me to be a Goverment funded Quango

QUIT was a member of the SmokeFree Coalition which campaigned for the UK government to ignore its manifesto commitment to exempt ‘wet’ pubs and private members’ clubs from the 2007 smoking ban.

According to it 2008 accounts, QUIT’s most generous donor is the European Commission with a contribution of £257,585.

This organisation also puts you in the “Frame of shame” Mary

The American Form of Government:

This is a quote from our House Of Lords from Sir Richard Peto on passive smoking. He helped Sir Richard Doll in the 1950s into the research which led to the accepted fact that ACTIVE smoking is a major contributor to lung cancer. The figures for the UK are 88% of lung cancer deaths are smokers and your risk of contracting it are 2.4% if you smoke.

“That is definite, and the threshold arguments are often politically motivated inventions which do not have much scientific plausibility. I am sorry not to be more helpful; you want numbers and I could give you numbers by direct extrapolation, but what does one make of them? These hazards cannot be directly measured.”

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/183/6021405.htm+house+of+lords+peto+passive+smoking&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk

“When we finished, Reid turned to his senior advisor and asked: “What do you think?” Julian Le Grand didn’t hesitate. “I agree with them,” he said, nodding in our direction.(Activists from Forest) Reid thought for a moment, then said (I paraphrase): “Yes, I’ve always been pretty dubious about passive smoking.”

“Professor Julian Le Grand, the top advisor to the Department Of Health on the health impact on smoking, in February of this year on Radio 5 Steve Nolan show was asked about the health impact of ETS and his answer in context was ‘I don’t actually think the arguments on passive smoking are all that strong.”

http://www.stogieguys.com/2008/02/02182008-stogie-news-governments-to-require-licenses-to-smoke.html.

Try that for starters. Now you show me any study that has looked at other causes of respitory illnesses, cancer, heart diseases, etc… from other air pollutants including traffic fumes, and what effect they have on both people who smoke and those who don’t.

It is very easy to blame smoking for all ills and target a minority group for social hatred than it is to fund studies that are not likely to result in billions of pounds in NRT products for Govt and pharmaceutical companies!

“Your editorial and article highlight the dangers of exaggerating the health impact of exposure to second-hand smoke (10 November, p 3 and p 8). ASH (UK) endorses your conclusion that bad science can never be justified. ASH, unlike some organisations, has never asserted that a single 30-minute exposure to second-hand smoke is enough to trigger a heart attack, and we are not aware of any UK health advocates who have done so.”

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626320.100

“”Epidemiology is not a direct science. Our business is promoting public health. It is possible that in certain cases some anti-smoking campaigners do exaggerate” and “A lot of the studies that have been done on passive smoking produce results that are not statistically significant according to conventional analysis.”

http://www.ipcvision.com/page05/t-luckhurst-01.htm