So, today we have beautiful weather - the sun at Wimbledon, rain at Silverstone. Fanatastic start with Hamilton. I will spend the duration of the British Grand Prix read and reply to comments on 'Smoke Post It'. If you are not happy with the response, keep in mind my rules of this blog. If I will be completely ignored, probably because you've crossed the line between passionate defense of your case, which is fine by me, and be gratuitously offensive, which is not. And although, as you say, I was elected representative - I voters in Bristol East, and is accountable to them rather than the entire British electorate. Tripartite obtain different levels of service they receive by writing me an e-mail me or come to me in one of my operation - that just as it should be. (To one person, who asked if he could see me - yes, if you live in Bristol East. I'm pretty sure that all the MPs voted in Bristol for a complete ban, so if you live elsewhere in the city, you can do the same points to who your representative is not elected).
What I did this to cut and paste all the comments in a separate document - which runs at 102 pages. I'm going to read, delete those that do not need (or may not deserve) the answer. Then I summarize the key themes, as well as respond to them en masse, rather than on individual contributions. I will spend up to two hours on it, until the Grand Prix is over - and to prove, I devote this much time, I insert a running commentary on the progess of Hamilton. He had just overtaken by Kovalainen.
The first point - my comments on these responses to be organized in the woods or other pro-smoking / Pro choice groups. I am simply pointing out that these were people who had a very strong position on this issue, and do not represent a cross section of views. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that recent newspaper articles about the success of the smoking ban, citing data on heart attacks, public support, etc., have attracted only a few comments. This is because they are a moderator? Or is it more fun handing abuses MP than anonymous journalist?
The second point - Godwin's Law. References to Nazis, etc. appalling. We are talking about banning smoking in bars and clubs mean that people should stand at the threshold - perhaps in the cold and rain, admittedly - if they want to smoke a cigarette during the alignment. And - perhaps - some bars and clubs close. This compares with the millions of people to be arrested and sent to concentration camps and gas chambers, and hunger and shot? (See also "Hitler was a vegetarian argument ').
The third point - the scientific evidence on passive smoking was reviewed and discussed at greater length to the Parliament voted on the ban. I considered it carefully, in particular, evidence or there is no better ventilation or smoking to achieve the same goal. I have been and remain convinced that secondhand smoke poses a real threat to public health. I Blogged about the dangers to the Citation of scientific evidence in policy, since each side can usually find the facts and figures that support their own prejudices (eg choosing a badger on GM crops in the field of nuclear energy, and it is only a few questions) . All we can do as politicians is to try to be open to the possibility, read the information available, try to determine what evidence a truly independent (as opposed to funded by the tobacco industry or the pharmaceutical industry) and to handlers from people whose opinions we respect ( For example, in this case, Dr Ian Gibson and Doug Naysmith, two members with extensive experience in the field of health and as a scientific backgrounds). Which I did. I do not think that quote from ash deny anything I have said here or in previous posts. In the end, I did not change its decision regarding (a) the dangers of smoking, (b) the health benefits of smoking cessation, and (c) the risk of passive smoking. Without a doubt, you accuse me of ignoring the evidence, I do not, I do not think it is authoritative or coercion.
The fourth point - for me, passive smoking and its impact on bar and restaurant staff was only one factor affecting my support of the ban on smoking in public places. This is obviously not going to make me very popular among supporters of the forest, but I subscribe to the view that smoking is something that should not be encouraged. Can any of you say that smoking is good, that it should be encouraged? You comfortable with the fact that British American Tobacco is now pushing their product on children in developing countries, selling one cigarette in an attempt to get them hooked? You say that this is a matter of choice. For you, yes. But my priority to young impressionable people that I do not want to see smoking. They probably do so if they see something like a silent society promotes. And the point of McDonald's - I think it's a bad analogy, the government criticized manufacturers Junk Food, and taking certain actions against them as part of the obesity drive (for example, pre-watershed ban on advertising junk food and vending machines in schools). The difference lies in the fact that smoking is addictive. If someone said their consumption of junk food harms their health, they can abandon it with little faith. When my grandmother was diagnosed with lung cancer she was completely unable to quit smoking after almost 60 years of smoking. I remember her on her deathbed as she wasted away, the question "How long will it take to die?" She died at 73, and her three sisters died at 98, 100 and 101. My partner's uncle, who spent most of his working life at production line at the factory, where all the smokers died from lung cancer two years ago, in her fifties, a few months after diagnosis. My father - who smoked, and cakes have always insisted that the link between cancer and smoking, and cancer and nutrition has not proved '- died of cancer ten years ago this week. He was 56. So that's where I'm going with.
The fifth point - I was involved in discussions on the subject until 2005 the Labor Party's election manifesto, in fact, I advocated a complete ban on Labor's national policy forum for several years before that, but John Reid won on this occasion. I agree, so it was wrong of the Government whips have pushed the total ban through Parliament, given that it was not a manifesto commitment, but they did not have a free vote. Parliament votes all the time on issues that are not in the election manifesto of the ruling party - for example, the last free voice in the Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill. So we pledged to introduce a partial ban, and it was a free vote on whether to take it further.
The sixth point - John Reid is often made the point 'class' to describe smoking as one of the few "working-class pleasures. I do not agree with him then, and I do not agree with him. I really think it is just as patronizing to say, you protect the working class of pleasure as it meant that the working class must be saved from themselves. I do not distinguish between those who smoke. I just think it's a bit disingenuous for the forest to push that line, when their ideas effectively to meet in political lobbying Private Members Club in Belgravia and host champagne tea in the Commons.
The seventh point - the public support for the ban. I quoted the figures widely reported in the press, and I do not think that in any case, you say, you have the support of the majority? I can only base it on published figures (and I have cited references for those), and what I saw in his constituency. I have almost no complaints - two, I think - since the ban, and one of them was the one who said he was not allowed to smoke in their own homes longer. It does not appear on the threshold of a (once, I think). As I said earlier, my office is located above the work of the club, in which we adhere to our local party meetings. Customers were not complained to me. I confess, I had a couple of emails recently about the potential impact on earnings the corner store, if cigarettes should be kept under the counter, and a package of ten prohibited; shopkeepers tell me that 25% of their profits are based on cigarette sales. I have sympathy with them if they are faced with the threat to their existence, but given that I think smoking is something that should not be encouraged, I can not quite accept the fact that their earnings from trade in cigarettes. We can not continue to promote sales of cigarettes just to keep them in business. (And just to reiterate, I am not saying that people should not be allowed to smoke, I do not think we should encourage this. I am not interested to get people to give up, but I want to make it easier for them, and I definitely want to be young people are not taking it.) I think this also answers the point about why I do not think that separate bars for smokers is a good idea.
The eighth point - I know a lot of smokers, and they all support the ban. Some do not support him before his presentation, but I do now. Some of them actually said that they prefer to be in non-smoky pubs, even if they smoke themselves. I have not approached one landlord in East Bristol about the impact on their business. I was told, dry Cleaners business also suffered, and clothes people are no longer smells of smoke after the evening. So we must reverse the ban just to keep them in business? It makes no sense. In Ireland, my father lives in a very rural part of Carlow (not to be confused with "daddy" I mentioned earlier, who was my stepfather at the age from two), and he says that this is actually the government crackdown drink - driving who have had the greatest impact on his local pub, not a ban on smoking which came before. Old Boys, who would be evicted from their villages in a pub in the evenings now stay home and drink alone. What a sad, but it means the Irish authorities should ignore the drink-driving?
Anyway, I spent two hours on this, Hamilton has won (and I missed a phenomenal race).
I do not expect to make someone happy by what I said. And what happens now - you, of course, free to make comments on this post, which you undoubtedly will. I'm not going to close the blog down, but I'm not going to extend the discussion, responding to comments, we just end up going in circles. I'll start moderating comments, if necessary. And I will delete any comments about smoking in the smoking related posts. As I said, I am not prepared to allow this blog to be abducted by supporters of a cause, especially not one with which I so strongly disagree.
No comments:
Post a Comment