The campaign group behind a petition to overturn the smoking ban has extended the deadline for signatures after an overwhelming rush in the last few weeks.
Freedom to Choose was due to stop accepting petitions from its Big Debate website at the end of this month but the deadline has been pushed back to July as the public's awareness grows.
Spokesman Robert Feal-Martinez said: "We are aware that the Pro-Ban, Anti Smoking lobby will leap on this announcement, claiming our Petition is failing. We can live with that, because as with most things they say that would be a lie. The truth is I am receiving lots of phone calls and emails from people who have just heard of the petition, thanks to the Morning Advertiser and a growing number of regional media, the word is spreading far and wide.
"I had a phone call today from a 70-year-old from a Conservative Club desperate to help. This made me realise we have touched a raw nerve.
"The Public will not stand for any more of Tony Blair's control freakery. Whilst we have set June as the new date, again we will leave it flexible. The Ban is far from being set in stone, more and more Peers are expressing concern and that is to do with the work all those at Freedom to Choose have put in highlighting the lies."
The group expects to collect around 50,000 signatures from across England and Wales.
To download a copy of the petition click here.To visit the Big Debate website click here.
To comment on this or any other story email us by clicking this link
Your CommentsAlastair Elliott via email 20/04/2006"This is a good thing I have also come across a lot of people when travelling around that were not aware of the Petition until I mentioned it to them and could not wait to get thier hands on copies to sign, the word is spreading so it gives a great opportunity for those who think that they have missed out to now make their voices heard."
Robert Feal-Martinez via email 20/04/2006"Once again we thank MA for their support. I also have to say that we are deeply indebted to Dr Michael Siegel who is an Internationally renowned Anti Tobacco Campaigner who has given his consent to Freedom to Choose to use his articles to highlight how the likes of ASH, BHF and others are lying to the public. I get the impression that Dr Siegel is ashamed that his fellow Doctors and Scientist colleagues are prepared to lie and distort the science in relation to passive smoking. This is the latest from the Good Doctor;
British Heart Foundation Corrects Inaccurate Claim about Effects of Secondhand Smoke
Apparently in response to criticism from me and others about an inaccurate claim on its website, the British Heart Foundation has changed its web site to correct its assertion that "for every four non-smokers who work in a smoky environment like a pub, one of them will suffer disability and premature death from a heart condition because of secondhand smoke."
That claim has now been eliminated.
The inaccuracy stemmed from confusion about the difference between relative risk and absolute risk. A 25% increased risk of death among bar workers due to secondhand smoke exposure does not mean that 25% of bar workers exposed to secondhand smoke will die from that exposure. The 25% increased risk is relative risk, but the claim that 25% of bar workers will die from the exposure refers to absolute risk.
The Rest of the Story
The British Heart Foundation is to be congratulated for quickly and decisively correcting this inaccurate public claim. It is clear that this organization is concerned about the accuracy of its scientific statements and when the problem was called to its attention, it promptly responded by deleting the incorrect statement.
I only wish that the 44+ anti-smoking groups which have made inaccurate claims about the acute cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke would follow the British Heart Foundation's lead by retracting or correcting their fallacious statements.
I think we'll see, pretty quickly, in the days ahead, whether or not the anti-smoking movement is truly concerned about its scientific integrity or whether it is simply trying to push its agenda, even at the expense of the accuracy of its reporting of the science."