• Full Story

Whaleoil: Govt 'blindly funding' anti-smoking groups

Email
Print

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 5:12a.m.

Cameron Slater (file pic)

Cameron Slater (file pic)

Controversial blogger Whaleoil is accusing the Government of wasting millions of dollars by blindly funding anti-smoking organisations.

Cameron Slater is making a submission to the Maori Affairs Select Committee inquiry into tobaccoo use among Maori.

He says anti-smoking groups are not rigorously audited, are not stopping people smoking, and have no targets to reach.

“We’ve got $55 million being spent on stopping smoking, but no measurements, no statistics that are goals, no numbers that we want to get to,” he says.

Slater says the Government needs to step up and hold the NGOs to account.

Some groups are double or even triple dipping into the public purse, he says.

“They get funding from the Ministry of Health and then they get funding from the DHB as well, for exactly the same programme,” he says.

“It’s all Government money, it’s just different buckets that they’re getting it from.”

Radio LIVE

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

17 Mar 2010 09:09a.m.

David wrote:

To Craig Young: nicotine is only one chemical in 400 plus that are in cigarettes it can be highly addictive however it is the only non toxic, in the amounts people get from smoking, element to tobacco. It is the burnt particulates (cancer causing) and carbon monoxide that have destructive health impact.
To eddie: the apparent increase in cancer cases is in fact as a result of improved early detection and the fact of this highlighted in the media gives the impression of an increase in the number of deaths.
Finally to Cameron Slater: It is not uncommon for NGO’s to apply to different funds for funding, as each source of funding applies to only a part of the work they do. Let me spell it out to you, going to different funds for different work is not double dipping. The funding is not blindly given, there are targets and they are measured.
PS: I may disagree with you but thanks for encouraging debate, keep stirring!

15 Mar 2010 03:00p.m.

Craig Young wrote:

Cancer sticks use nicotine as their core chemical compound.
Nicotine is a toxic and highly addictive drug. Of course people have a hard time breaking away from it if they're seriously hooked. If it were a new psychoactive substance, no doubt it would be automatically banned, as all other hard drugs are- particularly given its toxicity and destructive health impact.

12 Mar 2010 10:12a.m.

Ty Williams wrote:

No max he don't. Anyone with half a brain should be able to figure out that giving millions to a few non-smokers to tell smokers that smoking is no good for them is making someone rich at the tax-payers expense LOL.

If the govt gave each smoker a copy of Allan Carrs easyway to stop smoking you'd see an 80% reduction instantly and not the pitiful 7% strike rate they have now.

11 Mar 2010 08:43a.m.

Max wrote:

Does this blogger guy work for the tobacco companies I wonder?

10 Mar 2010 01:24p.m.

Craig Young wrote:

Could I point out that the loony libertarian subculture of true believer followers of Ayn Rand have long held that their 'liberty' to get lung cancer, respiratory and cardiovascular problems entitles them to chain smoke merrily away, and that they oppose advertising restrictions and bans on cancer sticks? Methinks I see an ideological purity angle to Mr Slaters latest outburst...

10 Mar 2010 10:28a.m.

eddie wrote:

What about the billions, worldwide, that go to cancer Research?...anyone know of any cancer that has been eradicated/stopped over the recent past?....another organisation that seems to be given so much money voluntery by joe public, but no results are required, needed...indeed we still have the same, if not more deaths from cancer than before...or is it my imagination?