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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Doff of the cap to the man.