In the interests of openness, seeing as Freedom2Choose restrict access to their site to those who agree with them, here's some more extracts (bad spelling and typos theirs, not mine). They've also been urging their members to vote in my website poll on CCTV cameras in Bristol - which was fairly obvious given the way the pendulum had suddenly started swinging.
"If she is foolish enough to argue that comparing labour policy to National Socialism is wrong and scaremongering then I'm afraid that her stand is indefensable, historical fact bears that out with a simple comparison of policies".
"Operation Barbarossa was Hitler's invasion of Russia, Hitler coined the term Totaleskrieg. It is historical fact, just as my points in reply to Mz Mcarthurs point are historical fact, they cannot be disputed and to try to do so would make her look like a nazi sypathiser."
"I have updated some of the points already made so please keep that in mind and I am still digesting Scaemes comments with a view to limiting Kerry's response while still beating the point she has made any thoughts on that would be helpful."
"[Suggested comment:] 'Why are you arguing about the Nazis Kerry? While I concede that the history of the Third Reich and Hitler's policies have a valuable place in the history of polititics and how they should not be conducted but where is the relevence here?'
I think that turns the issue around to her and kills the Nazi argument dead."
"I tend to agree with the above, although many can see the parallels with Hitlers SBE & health fanaticism, when dealing with people like McCarthy & other politicians & antis it's better not to give them the chance to fob us off as loonies, and I think F2c should always be promoted for what it is a PRO-CHOICE organisation.
I know it's hard not to get wound up, I get angrier by the day, but I'd leave out any reference to Hitler or nazi and just stick to a polite letter and present them with the evidence which totally debunks ASH.
Although I've referred to the SBE as a nazi policy on here, I haven't done so when writing letters. Any mentioin of Hitler or nazi just plays into their hands, to them mentioning these things, you've lost the argument before you started."
Showing posts with label smoking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label smoking. Show all posts
Tuesday, 22 July 2008
Sunday, 6 July 2008
Cigarettes and alcohol
So, we have perfect weather today - sun in Wimbledon, rain in Silverstone. Fanatastic start by Hamilton. I will spend the duration of the British Grand Prix reading and replying to comments on the 'Smoke it' post. If you're not happy with the response, bear in my mind this blog's rules. If I've ignored you totally it will probably be because you've crossed the line between passionate advocacy of your cause, which is fine by me, and being gratuitously offensive, which isn't. And although, as you say, I'm an elected representative - I'm elected by voters in Bristol East and answerable to them, not the entire British electorate. Constituents get a different level of service, which they get by writing to me, emailing me or coming to see me at one of my surgeries - which is exactly as it should be. (To the one person who asked if he could come and see me - yes, if you live in Bristol East. I'm pretty sure all the Bristol MPs voted for the full ban, so if you live elsewhere in the city you can make the same points to whoever your elected representative is).
What I have done is to cut and paste all comments into a separate document - which runs to 102 pages. I'm going to read through, delete those which don't need (or possibly don't deserve) a response. Then I'll summarise the key themes, and respond to those en masse rather than referring to individual contributions. I will spend up to two hours on this, till the Grand Prix is over - and to prove I'm devoting this amount of time to it, I will insert a running commentary on Hamilton's progess. He's just overtaken Kovalainen.
First point - my comment about these responses being orchestrated by Forest, or other pro-smoking/ pro-choice groups. I was merely noting that these were people who already had a very fixed position on this issue, rather than representing a cross-section of views. Incidentally, it's interesting to note that recent press articles about the success of the smoking ban, citing the figures on heart attacks, public support, etc, have attracted only a handful of comments. Is this because they're moderated? Or is it more fun doling out abuse to an MP than to an anonymous journalist?
Second point - Godwin's law. The references to Nazis, etc are appalling. We're talking about a ban on smoking in pubs and clubs which means people have to stand on doorsteps - possibly in the cold and rain, admittedly - if they want to have a cigarette during an evening out. And - arguably - some pubs and clubs closing down. And that's comparable to millions of people being rounded up and sent to concentration camps and starved and gassed and shot? (See also the 'Hitler was a vegetarian argument').
Third point - the scientific evidence on passive smoking was debated and discussed at great length before Parliament voted on the ban. I considered it carefully, particularly the evidence on whether or not better ventilation or smoking areas would achieve the same objective. I was, and remain, convinced that passive smoking is a genuine risk to public health. I've blogged before about the perils of citing scientific evidence in politics, as each side can usually find facts and figures which support its own prejudices (e.g. on the badger cull, on GM crops, on nuclear energy, to name just a few issues). All we can do as politicians is to try to be as open-minded as possible, read the available information, try to determine which evidence is genuinely independent (as opposed to being funded by the tobacco industry or the pharmaceutical industry) and take a steer from people whose opinions we respect (e.g. in this case, Dr Ian Gibson and Doug Naysmith, two MPs with a huge amount of experience in the health field and both with scientific backgrounds). Which I have done. I don't think the quote from ASH negates anything I've said here or on previous posts. To summarise, I haven't changed my mind about (a) the dangers of smoking, (b) the health benefits of giving up smoking, and (c) the dangers of passive smoking. You will no doubt accuse me of ignoring the evidence; I haven't, I just don't think it's authoritative or compelling.
Fourth point - for me, passive smoking and its effect on bar/ restaurant staff was only one of the factors influencing my support for a ban on smoking in public places. This obviously isn't going to make me very popular with the Forest supporters, but I subscribe to the view that smoking is something that should be discouraged. Can any of you argue that smoking is a good thing, that it ought to be encouraged? Are you comfortable with the fact that British American Tobacco are now pushing their wares on children in the developing world, selling single cigarettes in a bid to get them hooked? You say it's a matter of choice. For you, yes. But my priority is young impressionable people who I don't want to see taking up smoking. They are more likely to do so if they see it as something which society tacitly encourages. And on the McDonald's point - I think it's a bad analogy; the Government is criticising junk food manufacturers and taking some steps against them as part of the obesity drive (e.g. the ban on pre-watershed junk food advertising, and vending machines in schools). The difference is that smoking is addictive. If someone is told their consumption of junk food is harming their health, they can give it up with a modicum of willpower. When my grandmother was diagnosed with lung cancer she was completely incapable of quitting, after nearly 60 years of smoking. I remember her on her death bed, as she wasted away, asking 'how long does it take to die?' She died at 73; her three sisters died at 98, 100 and 101. My uncle's partner, who spent most of her working life on a production line in a factory where everyone smoked, died of lung cancer a couple of years ago, in her fifties, a few months after diagnosis. My dad - who smoked roll-ups and always insisted that the link between cancer and smoking, or cancer and diet was 'not proven' - died of cancer ten years ago this week. He was 56. So that's where I'm coming from.
Fifth point - I was involved in discussions on this issue prior to Labour's 2005 election manifesto; in fact I argued for a full ban at Labour's National Policy Forum a few years prior to this, but John Reid won the day on that occasion. I agree it would therefore have been wrong for Government whips to have pushed the full ban through Parliament, given that it wasn't a manifesto commitment, but they didn't; there was a free vote. Parliament votes all the time on issues which aren't in the governing party's election manifesto - e.g. the recent free votes in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. So we were pledged to introduce a partial ban, and had a free vote on whether to take it further.
Sixth point - John Reid frequently made the 'class' point, describing smoking as one of the few 'working class pleasures'. I didn't agree with him then, and I didn't agree with him now. I actually think it's just as patronising to say you're defending a working class pleasure as it is to say that the working class need to be saved from themselves. I don't draw a distinction between who smokes. I just think it's a bit disingenuous of Forest to push this line when their idea of effective political lobbying is to congregate in private members clubs in Belgravia and host champagne tea parties in the Commons.
Seventh point - public support for the ban. I was quoting figures widely reported in the press, and I don't think in any case you are saying you have majority support? I can only base it on published figures (and I've cited references for those) and what I've seen in my constituency. I've had virtually no complaints - two, I think - since the ban and one of those was from someone who said he wasn't allowed to smoke in his own home anymore. It doesn't come up on the doorsteps either (once, I think). As I've said, my office is based above a labour club, in which we hold our local party meetings. Customers there haven't complained to me. I have, I admit, had a couple of letters recently about the potential impact on corner shop profits if cigarettes have to be kept under the counter and packets of ten are banned; shop owners tell me that 25% of their profits are based on cigarette sales. I have some sympathy with them if they're facing a threat to their livelihood, but given that I think smoking is something which should be discouraged, I can't exactly condone the fact that their profits are made from selling cigarettes. We can't continue to promote cigarette sales just to keep them in business. (And just to reiterate, I'm not saying people should be prevented from smoking; I just don't think we should facilitate it. I'm not interested in forcing people to give up, but I want to make it easier for them, and I definitely do want to discourage young people from taking it up.) I think this also answers the point about why I don't think separate bars for smokers is a good idea.
Eighth point - I know quite a few smokers, and they all support the ban. Some didn't support it before it was introduced, but do now. Some have actually said they prefer being in non-smoky pubs, even though they are smokers themselves. I have not been approached by a single landlord in east Bristol about the impact on their business. I'm told dry-cleaners' business has also been affected, as people's clothes no longer stink of smoke after a night out. So should we reverse the ban just to keep them in business? It doesn't make sense. As for Ireland, my father lives in a very rural part of Carlow (not to be confused with the 'dad' I mentioned earlier, who was my stepfather from the age of two) and he says that it's actually a Government crackdown on drink-driving which has had the biggest impact on his local pubs, not the smoking ban which came in earlier. Old boys who would drive from their villages to the pub in the evenings now stay at home and drink alone. Which is sad, but does it mean Irish authorities should turn a blind eye to drink-driving?
Anyway, I've spent two hours on this, Hamilton has won (and I've missed a phenomenal race).
I don't expect to make anyone happier as a result of what I've said. As for what happens now - you are of course free to comment on this post, which you no doubt will. I am not going to close the blog down, but I am not going to prolong the debate by responding to comments as we will just end up going round in circles. I will start moderating comments if necessary. And I am going to delete any comments about smoking on non-smoking related posts. As I said, I'm not prepared to allow this blog to be hijacked by proponents of a single cause, especially not one with which I so vehemently disagree.
What I have done is to cut and paste all comments into a separate document - which runs to 102 pages. I'm going to read through, delete those which don't need (or possibly don't deserve) a response. Then I'll summarise the key themes, and respond to those en masse rather than referring to individual contributions. I will spend up to two hours on this, till the Grand Prix is over - and to prove I'm devoting this amount of time to it, I will insert a running commentary on Hamilton's progess. He's just overtaken Kovalainen.
First point - my comment about these responses being orchestrated by Forest, or other pro-smoking/ pro-choice groups. I was merely noting that these were people who already had a very fixed position on this issue, rather than representing a cross-section of views. Incidentally, it's interesting to note that recent press articles about the success of the smoking ban, citing the figures on heart attacks, public support, etc, have attracted only a handful of comments. Is this because they're moderated? Or is it more fun doling out abuse to an MP than to an anonymous journalist?
Second point - Godwin's law. The references to Nazis, etc are appalling. We're talking about a ban on smoking in pubs and clubs which means people have to stand on doorsteps - possibly in the cold and rain, admittedly - if they want to have a cigarette during an evening out. And - arguably - some pubs and clubs closing down. And that's comparable to millions of people being rounded up and sent to concentration camps and starved and gassed and shot? (See also the 'Hitler was a vegetarian argument').
Third point - the scientific evidence on passive smoking was debated and discussed at great length before Parliament voted on the ban. I considered it carefully, particularly the evidence on whether or not better ventilation or smoking areas would achieve the same objective. I was, and remain, convinced that passive smoking is a genuine risk to public health. I've blogged before about the perils of citing scientific evidence in politics, as each side can usually find facts and figures which support its own prejudices (e.g. on the badger cull, on GM crops, on nuclear energy, to name just a few issues). All we can do as politicians is to try to be as open-minded as possible, read the available information, try to determine which evidence is genuinely independent (as opposed to being funded by the tobacco industry or the pharmaceutical industry) and take a steer from people whose opinions we respect (e.g. in this case, Dr Ian Gibson and Doug Naysmith, two MPs with a huge amount of experience in the health field and both with scientific backgrounds). Which I have done. I don't think the quote from ASH negates anything I've said here or on previous posts. To summarise, I haven't changed my mind about (a) the dangers of smoking, (b) the health benefits of giving up smoking, and (c) the dangers of passive smoking. You will no doubt accuse me of ignoring the evidence; I haven't, I just don't think it's authoritative or compelling.
Fourth point - for me, passive smoking and its effect on bar/ restaurant staff was only one of the factors influencing my support for a ban on smoking in public places. This obviously isn't going to make me very popular with the Forest supporters, but I subscribe to the view that smoking is something that should be discouraged. Can any of you argue that smoking is a good thing, that it ought to be encouraged? Are you comfortable with the fact that British American Tobacco are now pushing their wares on children in the developing world, selling single cigarettes in a bid to get them hooked? You say it's a matter of choice. For you, yes. But my priority is young impressionable people who I don't want to see taking up smoking. They are more likely to do so if they see it as something which society tacitly encourages. And on the McDonald's point - I think it's a bad analogy; the Government is criticising junk food manufacturers and taking some steps against them as part of the obesity drive (e.g. the ban on pre-watershed junk food advertising, and vending machines in schools). The difference is that smoking is addictive. If someone is told their consumption of junk food is harming their health, they can give it up with a modicum of willpower. When my grandmother was diagnosed with lung cancer she was completely incapable of quitting, after nearly 60 years of smoking. I remember her on her death bed, as she wasted away, asking 'how long does it take to die?' She died at 73; her three sisters died at 98, 100 and 101. My uncle's partner, who spent most of her working life on a production line in a factory where everyone smoked, died of lung cancer a couple of years ago, in her fifties, a few months after diagnosis. My dad - who smoked roll-ups and always insisted that the link between cancer and smoking, or cancer and diet was 'not proven' - died of cancer ten years ago this week. He was 56. So that's where I'm coming from.
Fifth point - I was involved in discussions on this issue prior to Labour's 2005 election manifesto; in fact I argued for a full ban at Labour's National Policy Forum a few years prior to this, but John Reid won the day on that occasion. I agree it would therefore have been wrong for Government whips to have pushed the full ban through Parliament, given that it wasn't a manifesto commitment, but they didn't; there was a free vote. Parliament votes all the time on issues which aren't in the governing party's election manifesto - e.g. the recent free votes in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. So we were pledged to introduce a partial ban, and had a free vote on whether to take it further.
Sixth point - John Reid frequently made the 'class' point, describing smoking as one of the few 'working class pleasures'. I didn't agree with him then, and I didn't agree with him now. I actually think it's just as patronising to say you're defending a working class pleasure as it is to say that the working class need to be saved from themselves. I don't draw a distinction between who smokes. I just think it's a bit disingenuous of Forest to push this line when their idea of effective political lobbying is to congregate in private members clubs in Belgravia and host champagne tea parties in the Commons.
Seventh point - public support for the ban. I was quoting figures widely reported in the press, and I don't think in any case you are saying you have majority support? I can only base it on published figures (and I've cited references for those) and what I've seen in my constituency. I've had virtually no complaints - two, I think - since the ban and one of those was from someone who said he wasn't allowed to smoke in his own home anymore. It doesn't come up on the doorsteps either (once, I think). As I've said, my office is based above a labour club, in which we hold our local party meetings. Customers there haven't complained to me. I have, I admit, had a couple of letters recently about the potential impact on corner shop profits if cigarettes have to be kept under the counter and packets of ten are banned; shop owners tell me that 25% of their profits are based on cigarette sales. I have some sympathy with them if they're facing a threat to their livelihood, but given that I think smoking is something which should be discouraged, I can't exactly condone the fact that their profits are made from selling cigarettes. We can't continue to promote cigarette sales just to keep them in business. (And just to reiterate, I'm not saying people should be prevented from smoking; I just don't think we should facilitate it. I'm not interested in forcing people to give up, but I want to make it easier for them, and I definitely do want to discourage young people from taking it up.) I think this also answers the point about why I don't think separate bars for smokers is a good idea.
Eighth point - I know quite a few smokers, and they all support the ban. Some didn't support it before it was introduced, but do now. Some have actually said they prefer being in non-smoky pubs, even though they are smokers themselves. I have not been approached by a single landlord in east Bristol about the impact on their business. I'm told dry-cleaners' business has also been affected, as people's clothes no longer stink of smoke after a night out. So should we reverse the ban just to keep them in business? It doesn't make sense. As for Ireland, my father lives in a very rural part of Carlow (not to be confused with the 'dad' I mentioned earlier, who was my stepfather from the age of two) and he says that it's actually a Government crackdown on drink-driving which has had the biggest impact on his local pubs, not the smoking ban which came in earlier. Old boys who would drive from their villages to the pub in the evenings now stay at home and drink alone. Which is sad, but does it mean Irish authorities should turn a blind eye to drink-driving?
Anyway, I've spent two hours on this, Hamilton has won (and I've missed a phenomenal race).
I don't expect to make anyone happier as a result of what I've said. As for what happens now - you are of course free to comment on this post, which you no doubt will. I am not going to close the blog down, but I am not going to prolong the debate by responding to comments as we will just end up going round in circles. I will start moderating comments if necessary. And I am going to delete any comments about smoking on non-smoking related posts. As I said, I'm not prepared to allow this blog to be hijacked by proponents of a single cause, especially not one with which I so vehemently disagree.
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
There is power in a union
I didn't get time to post Monday's good news (although the turtles being set free was quite heart-warming, wasn't it?) Anyway, I launched a new APPG on Credit Unions and the Minister, Kitty Ussher, used the occasion to announce fundamental changes in credit union law. This was what we were being set up to lobby for, so it left us in a bit of a quandary as to whether or not to disband immediately, mission accomplished. But we have decided to trudge on, ploughing our not very difficult furrow, which will mostly involve talking to the Treasury about the detail of the proposed new laws.
To get a bit anoraky on you for a moment... The idea of a 'common bond' is to be revised, which will basically mean that if, for example, First Bus decided it wanted an employees' credit union, it wouldn't need to have separate ones in each geographical location where the company operates; it could have a company wide one. (And some big companies are very interested in that, which could hugely boost the credit union's coffers). The bit I'm really excited about though is the fact that groups, as well as individuals, will soon be allowed to open credit union accounts. This opens the door for Bristol's huge number of voluntary sector organisations to start supporting the credit union - and for the credit union to support them when they hit cash flow problems towards the end of the financial year and are waiting for new funding to come on stream.
Speaking of the voluntary sector, today - Tuesday - the Government announced another £500m for New Deal for Communities , which includes Bristol. It's been a year since the smoking ban was introduced on 1st July 2007 and the results are pretty good (98% compliance and 76% public support, but I've already blogged about that). And the sun was shining at Wimbledon. But it's going to rain tomorrow.
To get a bit anoraky on you for a moment... The idea of a 'common bond' is to be revised, which will basically mean that if, for example, First Bus decided it wanted an employees' credit union, it wouldn't need to have separate ones in each geographical location where the company operates; it could have a company wide one. (And some big companies are very interested in that, which could hugely boost the credit union's coffers). The bit I'm really excited about though is the fact that groups, as well as individuals, will soon be allowed to open credit union accounts. This opens the door for Bristol's huge number of voluntary sector organisations to start supporting the credit union - and for the credit union to support them when they hit cash flow problems towards the end of the financial year and are waiting for new funding to come on stream.
Speaking of the voluntary sector, today - Tuesday - the Government announced another £500m for New Deal for Communities , which includes Bristol. It's been a year since the smoking ban was introduced on 1st July 2007 and the results are pretty good (98% compliance and 76% public support, but I've already blogged about that). And the sun was shining at Wimbledon. But it's going to rain tomorrow.
Smoke it
My recent post about the success of the smoking ban mentioned a reception by Forest, the pro-smoking group at a private members club in Belgravia. And today they're having a champagne tea party for MPs in the Commons. Kind of bears out what Libby Brooks is saying in today's Guardian.
The article on Amsterdam's smoking ban, and its impact on coffee shops, is quite entertaining, especially this quote: "It's absurd. In other countries they look to see whether you have marijuana in your cigarette, here they'll look to see if you've got cigarette in your marijuana."
The article on Amsterdam's smoking ban, and its impact on coffee shops, is quite entertaining, especially this quote: "It's absurd. In other countries they look to see whether you have marijuana in your cigarette, here they'll look to see if you've got cigarette in your marijuana."
Sunday, 29 June 2008
The smoking ban one year on
I have decided that, in the face of the media witch hunt going on at the moment (and from looking at today's Sundays, I don't think there's any other word for it), I am going to have a daily 'good news' item. Again, this is from today's Observer, but I'll summarise some of it here.
Since the smoking ban was introduced, there has been a record rise in the number of people giving up smoking. The figures for April to December 2007 (only 9 months) were up 22% on the previous year. 80% of people think the ban is a good thing. And fears that more people would smoke at home instead haven't been realised. There is also good news about people with lung conditions now being able to socialise without harming their health, and a predicted fall in the number of heart attacks (as happened in Scotland after they introduced their ban).
As someone who voted for the full ban, this makes me feel good.
The report ends by saying that the ban contributed to the closure of 1,409 pubs in 2007, compared with just 216 in 2006. I'd like to see more evidence of this. Has the number of people drinking in pubs gone down since the ban? Or have they switched to pubs where it's easier to smoke outside? I know a few pubs have closed down recently in east Bristol; some have been empty for a while and locals are concerned they're going to be sold off to property developers and turned into flats. But they tend to be in areas which are already well-served by pubs, and I suspect there may just be too much competition for them all to make a profit.
Since the smoking ban was introduced, there has been a record rise in the number of people giving up smoking. The figures for April to December 2007 (only 9 months) were up 22% on the previous year. 80% of people think the ban is a good thing. And fears that more people would smoke at home instead haven't been realised. There is also good news about people with lung conditions now being able to socialise without harming their health, and a predicted fall in the number of heart attacks (as happened in Scotland after they introduced their ban).
As someone who voted for the full ban, this makes me feel good.
The report ends by saying that the ban contributed to the closure of 1,409 pubs in 2007, compared with just 216 in 2006. I'd like to see more evidence of this. Has the number of people drinking in pubs gone down since the ban? Or have they switched to pubs where it's easier to smoke outside? I know a few pubs have closed down recently in east Bristol; some have been empty for a while and locals are concerned they're going to be sold off to property developers and turned into flats. But they tend to be in areas which are already well-served by pubs, and I suspect there may just be too much competition for them all to make a profit.
Friday, 20 June 2008
Visit to Millpond School
Had a really, really enjoyable meeting this morning with Year 6 pupils from Millpond School. I don't think I've ever met a bunch of kids who were so interested, so keen to ask questions - there were hands going up all over the place. I stayed for 90 minutes, and they still hadn't run out of things to say. Sometimes - usually with teenagers! - it's difficult to get much out of them and the teachers ended up asking all the questions, but these kids were great.
A lot of the questions were about what politicians could do to stop people smoking, drinking, dropping rubbish, carrying knives, carrying guns, etc, including this: "If smoking kills, as it says on cigarette packets, why isn't it illegal?" Good point!
We got into quite a debate about how laws can be passed to stop people doing things, and how this will mean that the majority of people comply - e.g. when seatbelts were made compulsory, most people starting buckling up. Then there's the issue of enforcement; some people will comply only if they think they're going to get caught. But the police have to prioritise what they do, so can't always be there to stop them. And then there's social pressure, when things like smoking in public places and drink driving becoming increasingly unacceptable.
When it came to talking about litter, I told them a couple of anecdotes. The first was when I was driving out towards Avonmouth one evening, stuck in traffic behind a minibus. The back doors of the minibus opened, and a carrier bag full of rubbish was dropped bang in the middle of the dual carriageway. And then they drove off. Then a couple of weeks ago, I was in traffic in London; the passenger door of the car in front opened, and a Wagamama bag, presumably full of leftovers, was again deposited on the highway. We've all seen people throw cans and crisp packets out of car windows, but I've never seen anything quite so blatant before. (And don't you kind of assume that people who buy takeaways from Wagamama wouldn't be the sort to dump rubbish in the road?)
The pupils looked suitably horrified when I told them about this. They were also really keen to tell me what they'd learned in lessons about the environment, and to discuss what could be done to encourage people to do more to tackle climate change; I told them the most important thing they could do was to evangelise about these issues to their parents, grandparents and anyone else they could win over. When they're not busy nagging their parents about smoking and drinking and walking to work, that is.
I'd say they were the brightest, best bunch of 10 year olds I've ever met. They've promised to write to me, and to have a look at my website. I really hope that in years to come I bump into some of them again, as they make their way through secondary school. And I hope they stay just as enthusiastic and passionate about the issues we discussed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
