Greg Mulholland shows his liberal credentials
Having given Greg Mulholland a bit of a hard time recently, it’s only fair that I highlight this Early Day Motion (EDM) - also from Greg. Great stuff. This particular EDM concerns the Sec state for health “considering” an extension of the smoking ban to include beer gardens and the outside of pubs. I did not agree with every word in the EDM and would have liked some reference to some of the other measures (such as the possible move to enforce plain-packaging on all cigarette packs) but I did approve of his point that ”there needs to be a reasonable balance between protecting the rights of non-smokers and the rights of adults who smoke”. Nice one Greg.
It should be noted that NO OTHER MP signed this motion. Not one. I am not sure quite how an MP goes about getting signatures- but, assuming there was not some clerical cock up of some description, where or where are the Liberal Democrat MPs signatures?
You can read the EDM here…
EDM 785: EXTENSION OF THE SMOKING BAN 03.02.2010 ” That this House is concerned over the Secretary of State for Health’s review of the current smoking ban legislation and its possible extension to include beer gardens, outside pubs and designated smoking areas; notes that pubs, bars and other similar venues have already had to make considerable alterations to their premises in order to adapt to the smoking ban; further notes that pubs have already suffered serious economic repercussions since the introduction of the smoking ban by way of lost revenue and the costs incurred by building smoking shelters; observes that smoking has serious health implications and supports measures to discourage it; however believes that there needs to be a reasonable balance between protecting the rights of non-smokers and the rights of adults who smoke; deems that this balance would not be maintained if smoking in an open air beer garden or legal smoking shelter were banned; further believes that pubs play a hugely important function in the communities they serve; fears that if pubs are required to place further draconian restrictions on smoking then people will choose to stay at home and pubs will no longer be able to perform an important function at the heart of the community; and is concerned that if people are forced to stay at home and smoke this may have health implications on family members and visitors, including young children, due to the dangers of passive smoking”
Update: Simon Clark over at ”Taking Liberties” has echoed our nod to Greg Mulholland. He says.. “Obviously I don’t agree with every single word - the dangers of passive smoking on “family members and visitors” has been greatly exaggerated - but beggars can’t be choosers so congratulations to Greg Mulholland for making a stand on this issue”
Ranked no. 56 in the UK
Ranked no.6 in the UK
February 4th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Can I add my own hear, hear to Greg and wish him my best. What a refreshing change and shame on all those other MPs who have not signed it yet too,
February 4th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
I suppose a party with liberal in its name has to have at least one or two who act in a liberal manner.
Doff of the cap to the man.
February 5th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Whilst I appreciate the stand Mr Mullholland is attempting to take here, has he really been living in the real world for the past 2 and half years?
Pubs are closing at alarming rates precisely because many smokers ARE ALREADY STAYING AT HOME!
I am not concerned about so called harm to visitors and children from SHS, because this has never been proven and as has been said on the Taking Liberties blog, if SHS were so dangerous howcome people who have grown with smoking all their lives, even if they don’t smoke themselves, are still living longer, healthier lives?
I still tend to think that the ban on smoking is a scheme to try and kill more smokers off as many who have smoked for years are likely to die with 1 or 2 years of giving up because their immune system becomes more vulnerable! Look at this along with the fact that government cannot afford to pay pensions in the future because too many of us are living too long.
February 5th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
All very well, but it still leaves smokers at the mercy of the weather. It’s about time more MPs called for an amendment to allow smoking areas INSIDE pubs. Do people not realise that they will probably withdraw this threat (as a ‘goodwill gesture’) if the ban remains as it is after the review? They will simply reintroduce this idea at a later date.
February 5th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Too much is made of passive smoking. I was born in 1940. My father smoked 60 cigarettes a day in front of us children. We had coal fires and when the wind blew, we had smoke blown into the room. I cycled to work in the smogs of London. Despite all this, all three of us children are alive and healthy.
A report from New Zealand say that a bit of cigarette smoke can actually help a child’s immune system.
February 5th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
I am quite stunned, a liberal politician with a liberal view.
Well done that man, the hospitality trade may survive after all.
Quote. ”there needs to be a reasonable balance between protecting the rights of non-smokers and the rights of adults who smoke”. Yes and that reasonable balance would be smoking and non smoking pubs and clubs. Ban the smokers from non smoking pubs and to be fair ban the non smokers from the smoking pubs. That way, hospitality may return to our social lives and HMG still manage to create an unjust and unneccesary divide in society.
Since smokers are not going away anytime soon, this would be the best compromise.
February 5th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
“…’there needs to be a reasonable balance between protecting the rights of non-smokers and the rights of adults who smoke’. Yes and that reasonable balance would be smoking and non smoking pubs and clubs. Ban the smokers from non smoking pubs and to be fair ban the non smokers from the smoking pubs. That way, hospitality may return….”
Well, you’re half right, Marley ;o)
I utterly agree that there should be smoking and non-smoking pubs and clubs. Personally, I would like this to be at the discretion of the owner, as it is their establishment and should be treated no differently from their living room (which, if you look at the docor of most pubs, is clearly how they started out!).
However, recognising the reality in which we live, I would settle for a system of licensing, much as we have with alcohol sales. Local Authorities could license smoking premises so as to ensure a balance of smoky and smoke-free venues. The money raised could contribute to anti-smoking properganda or health spending.
Where we part company is your suggestion that we should “Ban the smokers from non smoking pubs and to be fair ban the non smokers from the smoking pubs”. This may have been light hearted, said in haste or merely expressed poorly, of course. I would not ban either party from establishments aimed at the other. If smokers go to non-smoking pubs, they must desist from smoking; if non-smokers go to smoking pubs, they must breath smokey air.
That seems fair to me.
February 5th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
A politicans that possesses a common sense brain cell, amazing. But smokers shouldn’t expect a rush of signatures to Mr Mulhollands EDM. If it had been proposed by one of the very influential pharaceutical companies, NGOs or ASH they’d be fighting to be first to sign. I’m surprised the Clegg, even allowed Mr Mulholland to present this EDM.
Mr Mulholland, would be better placed to wait until the rabble that sits in the once respected, now the disrespected, House of Commons have been slung out. and that includes all 3 main parties.
Sadly, it’s doomed to failure as the hatred of smokers is so entrenched now that anything less than pure hatred for this section of society would be seen as having a spark of humanity.
Politcans of today are only interested in controlling people, denoramlisation & dehumanisation pograms.
But good luck anyway Mr Mulholland, and thank you from a dehumanisaed smoker, for trying.
Can I suggest Mr Mulholland, a more appropriate EDM would be that of - rather than perisiting in dehumanising & persecuting a high tax paying, hated section society for partaking of a legal pastime the only moral thing to do is make tobacco illegal immediately. What the government is doing is taking smokers taxes under false pretenses. If A. Burnhams proposals are introduced and outside smoking is banned than this will be akin to fraud, people are allowed to purchase tobacco but forbidden to use this legal product. I should imagine the take of signatures would be the same as that of the EDM Mr MUlholland is tabling now.
As to smoking/non-smoking establishments, don’t be silly, what would ASH do for an encore, their drip fed restrictions are designed to go on for years, to keep them in employment and assure their pensions. Smoking/non-smoking venues would essentially put them out of business, they can’t have that now can they, too many people in the business of anti-smoking rely on the hate a smoker propaganda campaign to even think about a compromise, let alone welcome it. No definitely a non-starter that one.
February 5th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Quote “However, recognising the reality in which we live, I would settle for a system of licensing, much as we have with alcohol sales. Local Authorities could license smoking premises so as to ensure a balance of smoky and smoke-free venues.” So you agree that we live in a fascist environment which means 25-30% of our population is bullied by a corrupt government.
Are you a politician Tom? because only a politician would have the gall to call for a licence extra and above the existing licence, to sell alcohol and tobacco to be consumed on the premises, which implies that nanny still wants an undeserved share of local profit. Unless of course you are advocating a free license, which would allow the authorities to invade our non smoking private premises which are struggling to survive in order to penalise them further.
Ok lets allow non smokers to go in smoking pubs and vice versa, after all we smokers don’t want to exclude any tolerant, normal folk from society. I was simply trying to make the choice easy on the simple brain.
February 6th, 2010 at 2:09 am
@Katie
Your post is one of the most in incisive, articulate and erudite posts I have ever seen. Could I ask you to drop me a line on daveatherton20@hotmail.com or dave.atherton@freedom2choose.info with you email address.
I think with people like you, opposition would easily crumble. I am sure Auntie Angela would approve.
Dave Atherton
Director
Freedom2Choose
February 9th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Marley: “only a politician would have the gall to call for a licence extra and above the existing licence, to sell alcohol and tobacco to be consumed on the premises”
At present, we have licences to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises, but the licences for sale of cigarettes require that one smoke them either off the premises or in those parts that do not have four walls and a roof. I am not sure that it requires gall to suggest that the licensing process could be changed to be more permissive.
A more permissive licensing system would be an improvement on the status quo, and would be easier to achieve than a complete repeal of the anti-smoking laws.