For me it helps to view each party not as a superorganism, but as a collective of individuals with their own distinct (if not explicit) political views. Yes on the surface the trend of ‘PR Politics’ has moderated and centralised policy within the parties, but representative democracy is more complex than that; idealogical differences, characters & loyalties of each of the members actually create a very dynamic system within parties themselves.

For example, the Tories have a very right-wing sect and Labour a staunch socialist one. There’s Blairites, Brownites, Thatcherites and every other idealogical allegiance going. And as it stands, my political views match closest with the Labour collective (although the LibDems carry a fraction of my support). Although they’ve done some fucking stupid shit, like Storm said, they’re certainly the lesser of three evils. I hope the current/next generation of Labour heavyweights will change things, but perhaps that’s a little optimistic.

Oh! On the meat thing: That was also the point I was making with that video: meat eaters (of which actually, I am one of) force everyone else to breathe their meat fumes from the cooking process. And for some reason they’re allowed to cook the meat in the same building where people and their children are trying to eat.

Would you support a reasonable regulation simply requiring that all pub and fast-food served meat simply be prepared by healthy and fumeless boiling?

– MJM

I may be mistaken, but I don’t think you ever answered my question about why BBQ pubs should be tolerated. Using your arguments, I could say, “Why must I tolerate an evening of BBQ smoke simply because my friends can’t go an evening without eating BBQ? Or, to look at another example, I’m sure you realize that sunshine is a much more firmly proven human carcinogen than secondary smoke exposure. Why should workers be forced to get malignant melanoma simply because you enjoy eating lunch outdoors on a patio? You do realize of course that sunscreen and awnings only provide “partial protection” … much the same way Antismokers will claim ventilation and filtration only provide partial protection. And, as long as patio dining is not illegal, you may have friends who you want to have lunch with every afternoon, but they may insist on outdoor dining and force you to risk cancer.

Wouldn’t it be simpler if all patio dining were banned? Do you think that would be a good idea?

The meat argument had to do with you (as a theoretical vegan) not being able to go out and enjoy eating with your friends because restaurants only cater very superficially to vegans. And actually there are *no* meat restaurants that I know of that guarantee the utensils used to prepare their vegan dishes weren’t earlier used to disembowel an innocent lamb.

You make a good point about niche businesses, but then why is there a need for a smoking ban? If pubs are doing well with the nonsmoking throngs, they certainly wouldn’t revert back and lose their customers if the ban were lifted. And if there *were* a few that did… well I hardly think you could complain that you were being “forced” to go into them. You indicate that 79% of adults don’t smoke in the UK, so wouldn’t normal economic forces push 79% of the pubs to ban smoking on their own if indeed that’s what people wanted?

Final suggestion: You might want to read my “Lies Behind The Smoking Bans” at:

http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/PASAN/StilettoGenv5h.pdf

When you see how the research has been twisted it might alleviate some of your concerns and put them in perspective. Feel free to offer any specific, substantive criticisms you might have: I promise I won’t mind, and I’ll try to stop back to respond.

– MJM

First of all, I’m a woman. If you’re going to insult me, at least get my gender correct. And don’t refer to me in third person, it’s hugely disrespectful. If you want to reply to one of my comments, then just reply.

I’m going to bother commenting anymore because you have just really pissed me off. You didn’t produce a structured argument that gave me an insight into why the smoking ban should be lifted. No. You just insulted me. Well done, you have all the social skills of a baked potato.

Why must I tolerate an evening of smoke simply because someone cannot go an evening without smoking?

Smoking is a legal right, yes, but it is also an addiction and my right NOT to put my own health at risk should be infringed to cater to those addictions is simply unfair. It’s not about tolerating something I don’t like, it’s about not wanting to risk something like lung cancer. You can smoke if you wish, but when you do, you have to take the consequences with it, be that having to stand outside when you smoke or refraining from it for an evening because your friends are uncomfortable putting their health at risk from second-hand smoke. And forcing an asthmatic to go to a non-smoking pub is also beyond unfair.

I don’t understand your other argument about meat because being an omnivore on it’s own isn’t unhealthy. You can’t compare eating meat to smoking, they’re entirely different things. Also, if you’re vegetarian/vegan and don’t want to eat meat at a restaurant, you don’t have to. The meat is not stuffed down your throat while you’re trying to eat your own dish. When around smokers, you have no choice but to inhale their smoke.

As for the argument about the profits of pubs – pubs are a business, if they didn’t have the smoking ban they would be catering to the minority (21% of adults smoke in the UK, http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/smoking/lung-cancer-and-smoking-statistics). The pub that would mentioned is likely to have made so much profits because of the availability to 1) smoke, 2) not smoke and 3) not be surrounded by smoke, which is more than just lifting the smoking ban will do. It also had something to do with being one of the only pubs to do that, which meant she filled a niche that other pubs didn’t, therefore attracting more customers. It was innovation, something all businesses need to survive whether there is a smoking ban or not. As well as this, if the bar staff do not smoke, then they are going to be forced into a smoking environment whether they like it or not.

Essentially, my argument is that the health of the public is more important that businesses turning profits. If someone in your pub suffered serious health because of second-hand smoke because you didn’t want to see a downturn in your profits instead of innovating your way through it like businesses are meant to, then what would that make you?

Really it is the patrons responsibility. The landlord should have the right to protect their profits – and as smoking is legal, a blanket ban is a blatant infringement of that right. Perhaps they need to be aware of public health, but that does not mean they need to beckon to it – if it did, they would need to stop serving alcohol and letting people get drunk. The very fabric of the pub is to put oneself in ill health – alcohol is a carcinogenic neurotoxin and drinkers literally poison themselves into a new mental state. As all patrons choose to enter, they assume the risks, be it breathing in smoke or getting into a fight with an aggressive drunk.

Thing is, pubs are not leisure centres and people do not go there to benefit their health. So banning smoking because of estimated numbers is not only wrong but hypocritical.

Your argument about smoker vs non-smoker works both ways of course. A smoker could easily say “if I want a cigarette with my drink I need to stay home”. So the question is why are the rights of non smokers more important than those of smokers? It can be argued that as smokers pay more to the economy and make up the bulk of pub profits that they are more important. So much are pubs reliant on smokers that not only has each country with a ban hurt badly from it, but a few places have fought to overturn it just to stay in business – and they have stayed in business as a result. The landlady a couple of years ago in the north of England who found a loophole in the law and allowed visitors to smoke in a separate room saw profits triple in a week through word of mouth alone. So essentially the argument of health means the landlord needs to pander to the minority of guests.

Re the car accident, yes, I’d agree, particularly since by driving you are clearly and inarguably placing others, including children, at a real and imminent risk of injury, maiming, and death.

Re the sex: I’d say it’s more like “If you don’t want to get pregnant, use birth control or be sure your partner uses birth control” while mandating pub smoking bans would be more like mandating that all men get reversible vasectomies unless they’ve got a signed contract from a particular woman who declares she wants to get pregnant.

And you wrote, “I’m friends with smokers and having to go to a different place than them just because I don’t smoke doesn’t make any sense.”

You don’t have to go to a different place. You can go with them and tolerate the smoke for an evening because you know the enjoyment they get from it is important to them (sort of the same way you might not like loud music or BBQ smoke but will sometimes go to such places if your friends enjoy such things); or you can sometimes ask your friends to go with you to places that ban smoking because that’s what you enjoy. I don’t see why it should be a problem?

“The burden lies on smokers because what they’re doing is unhealthy.”

Let’s say you enjoyed going out to eat, but firmly believed that meat products were bad for your health. And let’s say that most restaurants offered wonderfully prepared meat-based menus with only the barest token nod to their meatless dishes. Would that justify a ban on meat-restaurants simply because you could look at the omnivores and say “what they’re doing is unhealthy”? (Particularly when you think about the fact that most restaurants have their cooking areas in the same building — supposedly with separate ventilation, but the Antismokers tell us ventilation doesn’t work. See my BurgerKing 10 second video at :

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4415

to see what I’m talking about.

And finally you wrote, “I don’t expect smokers to even want to smoke around people who have a serious problem with it, eg. asthmatics.”

I’m sure most smokers certainly wouldn’t want to smoke around people who have serious problems with it. That’s one of the nice aspects of having the choice between smoking and nonsmoking venues: those with serious problems with smoke wouldn’t go to the smoking ones.

– MJM

Pubs are indeed private property but not in the sense that it is their home. Pubs are for the public, they serve the public, therefore they need to be aware of the health of the public.

Also, if I wanted to spend an evening with my friends at the pub but didn’t want to inhale their smoke, then my only option is to stay at home. That doesn’t seem fair simply because I choose not to smoke. When thinking of the rights of the smoker, you have to think of the rights of the non-smoker as well.

Okay.

Your argument here is that “if you don’t want second-hand smoke, don’t go to a pub with smoke”, which is effectively the same argument as “if you don’t have to get pregnant, don’t have sex”, “if you don’t want to get in a car accident, don’t drive.”

You can’t segregate smokers and non-smokers by giving them different pubs. I’m friends with smokers and having to go to a different place than them just because I don’t smoke doesn’t make any sense.

The burden lies on smokers because what they’re doing is unhealthy. I absolutely do not have a problem with people smoking; it’s up to them and nothing to do with me, but I expect the same courtesy as I don’t want to be surrounded by smoke. And I don’t expect smokers to even want to smoke around people who have a serious problem with it, eg. asthmatics.

If a smoker cannot spend an evening in a pub without smoking, then that is the problem of the smoker, not of anyone else.