Forest
This is a pro smoking lobby which is funded by tobacco companies. They claim to represent smokers (who want to smoke) and tolerant non-smokers, not the tobacco industry. However they admit to be funded by tobacco companies. Forest is a company which wants a partial ban not a complete ban like ASH, on smoking this is a major difference between the organisations. Forest states, to accommodate smokers there can be smoking rooms were a non smoker does not need to enter or ventilation which should remove most tobacco whilst it is being consumed hence it will allow smokers and non-smokers to socialise together.
The Government
The government is a democratically elected party responsible for running the country daily affairs and helping its citizens. As smoking in the country has increased, the government has become more and more aware of its implications on people’s health. This is why the government has proposed a bill, to ban smoking in all public areas. However, the public feel that this is an infringement to their rights as smoking is a habit, hence it needs to be done often in many social places such as work. As they are at work this will make them be away from home and won’t enable them to smoke this may cause even more health problems.
Article from FOREST
This document is stating that the issue on smoking is a topic which needs to be taken seriously and the government “have either gone far enough or are too restrictive”. This media release shows many statistics such as “strong support for the proposal to allow smoking in licensed premises that do not serve food (58 percent in favour, 36 percent opposed)”. This article repeatedly mentions about it questions which it carried out to the public, however it does not give any indication as to how or where forest carried out its research. This article also uses opinion at times to manipulate the reader, evidence of this can be seen when the article states “It must defend the concept of choice and not allow itself to be intimidated by a minority of anti smoking fanatics”. This quote is stating that by proposing the bill the government are only listening to the people who want smoking to be banned and not looking at it from a broader view.
Article from ASH
This article is suggesting that “…overwhelmingly backs a new law to end smoking”. This article shows that ash has made more of an effort to put their point across as they have carried out their research “…in all four countries of the united kingdom”. The advantage ash has over forest is that it works closely with their companies which gives them an increase in both publicity and credibility. This article also uses opinions when ash’s director Deborah Arnott says “There would be nothing for the government to lose from this decision and so much for all of us to gain”. The government will surely have voters and members who smoke and will feel isolated, more over some people are so addicted to cigarettes that if they do not have it they can become rebellious and cause a hazard to the society.
Bias
By reading both articles I am not able to see any bias. On the other hand ash is a company which woks with cancer research U.K. This enables them to communicate directly with their target audience this is why I believe that the research which was carried out by ash is unfair as they only asked questions to their own targeted people they did not ask the public in general.
I also believe that forest have given us unfair results. One major factor which keeps making people question forest is that it is funded by tobacco companies. This means in order to keep their business running they need the financial help of tobacco companies. This is why I believe that forest have given us results which can be questioned of their reliability. As the company is still running it shows they are financially comfortable, they wouldn’t print out information which will give their donator a bad name otherwise how else will the business run?
My Opinion
As there are many smokers in the U.K, I think it will be hard for the government to put a complete ban on smoking. If the government did put this bill in to an act it will result in them losing many votes so the government is stuck as to what decision to make. This is why I believe the government may put more restriction on smoking but not a complete ban. Personally I am unable to choose which company I favour as both have a good argument. However the organisation ash is trying to think of the health and safety of people on an international scale, whereas forest is representing a population of smokers in only a few countries.
So you accept restrictions on smoking?
Of course. We understand the desire for restrictions on smoking in many public places - theatres, cinemas, shopping malls and public transport, for example. And because we believe in choice (for smokers and non-smokers) we support more smoke free areas in pubs, clubs and restaurants. Nevertheless we resist calls for a complete ban because we believe that, with the help of technology (improved ventilation, for example), prohibition is completely unnecessary. It is quite possible to accommodate smokers without inconveniencing non-smokers. Where private businesses are concerned (and that includes pubs and restaurants), we think it's up to the owner to devise a policy on smoking that best suits his business. It has nothing to do with politicians.
Surely health considerations are paramount?
Of course health is important but it's not the only factor. We accept that government has a role to play educating the nation about the health risks of smoking (and other activities) but in a free society freedom of choice and market forces are equally important. We believe the anti-smoking culture that is developing in Britain is profoundly unhealthy because it encourages some people - employers and politicians, for example - to openly discriminate against a significant minority of the population.
What is your policy on underage smoking?
FOREST represents adult smokers. Adults are old enough to make a mature decision about whether or not they wish to smoke, taking into account the health risks and other factors such as cost. Children, in our opinion, are not which is why we don't want anyone under 16 to smoke. We are also against underage smoking because the issue is frequently used as a stick with which to beat adult smokers. Ban tobacco advertising, we were repeatedly told, because it allegedly influences children to start smoking. No mention of the adults who are now being denied legitimate information about a perfectly legal consumer product.
