Writing in today’s Times behind a paywall, Natascha Engel, Labour MP for North East Derbyshire, relates how she stood in the rain outside a miner’s welfare hall smoking with a angry but partially mollified constituent.
…he told me about his father in law who used to come to the welfare every night and spent all evening drinking one pint of Guinness. He was a chain smoker. Since the smoking ban he’s never been back.
“He’s can’t stand outside in the rain like this. He’s an old man.” He told me about how his father-in-law never goes out any more. “He’s lonely and miserable. And he still chain smokes.”
Natascha Engel now says that, given the chance again, she would not vote for the ban. It is good that she has the empathy to see and the courage to state that the reason the smoking ban is wrong is that it makes people more miserable than they would otherwise have been. Just that. That is reason enough. Arguments about health are very interesting, and I have no doubt that the dangers of passive smoking have been exaggerated, but the fact that an old man has had the solace of smoking in company with his friends denied him trumps all that. I do wish Ms Engel had been able to perceive this at the time when her vote might have done some good, but better late than never.
Obviously Natascha Engel has seen the light, found a heart and realised just what this evil, spiteful, restrictive ban has done to folk in this country. There was never any option but choice. The non smokers are so pleased with the ban that they’ve not even bothered to keep the pubs alive-that’s why 9,000 once perfectly good businesses have now closed!
Shame on the NuLiebour government of 2006/07 but all credit to Natascha Engel for finally seeing the light!
So what is she going to do about it? She has acknowledged that the change was wrong. Will she ask how many colleagues feel the same way? If a significant number do, will she ask for a vote on rolling back the legislation? Will she challenge the state funding of the anti-smoking lobby? Will she challenge the pseudo-science of the anti-smoking lobby. Will she promise to fight any further anti-smoking legislation?
@Alex: don’t be silly, she’ll do sweet FA. Its a nice little bit of PR – ‘I feel your pain I really do, wish I hadn’t voted for it, but times have moved on, we can’t remove the ban now etc etc’.
People like that have no souls.
I’m cynical about this. So she feels that NOW is the right time to think hard about this! Sure..retrospect and all that…but this isn’t exactly rocket science. You stop people doing stuff they like and you are surprised that they are less happy than they were?
A good kick in the shins I think.
It is very clear to all that the smoking ban was a step too far and it has been killing our pubs and clubs since 2007, the government of today is a far different one that conned people over the “dangers ” of passive smoke, a great many of the MPs today either voted against the smoking ban or did not vote at all on the issue. It is time for them to look again at the ban and have the guts to say, it was wrong. It is time for the ban to be Reformed to allow both Business and the Public Choice, it is the only way forward and given the economic climate we now have it would be a lifeline to our Pubs and Clubs saving both business and jobs.
Here in the Midi people are starting to smoke again in bars. The bartenders have been told by their trade association that is the client who is solely responsible if he is caught smoking. In any case the Gendarmeries all close at 6:30!
Far from seeing the error of their ways, the powers that be are gleefully moving along to Phase Two, banning smoking in all public places and cars which just might contain a child at some time or other.
The bansturbator Councilor in Stony Stratford, has backed down for now, in the face of a large protest, but it has already happened in New York, even if only one fine has been issued so far.
If the Government stopped funding ASH it would be a good start.
So here’s the rub, both parties have valid points. To protect the role of the owners of establishments, it was taken out of their hands and made a universal ban on smoking. However, for those who are opposed to the smoking ban, as business owners, should be able to file for a permit or license to allow smoking. Just like a liquor license, a smoking license issued or approved by the ATF or just the government in general. That way, just like alcohol, tobacco usage can be a taxed and moderated income that could reduce the cost of tobacco products if the manufacturers were given part of the taxes or licensing fees as compensation for their losses.
Whilst being anal about excessive bansturbation, it’s easy to forget this whole sorry episode is the natural progression from socialised medicine. Once the government have legal responsibility of your health then they pretty much have a carte blanche to dictate how you live your life.
Concentrate on the real bogeyman here, having the right to kill yourself slowly and the choice of paying the higher premium means starts with evicting the nanny government out of your bodily functions, not something our Nat is likely to go along with, being a member of the control freak party.
I can volunteer to buy you a health policy but I can’t make you live so as to reduce the premiums I pay for it. If government volunteers to provide you with health care, why should that be any different?
I can volunteer to buy you a health policy but I can’t make you live so as to reduce the premiums I pay for it. If government volunteers to provide you with health care, why should that be any different?
The difference is that the government has not volunteered to pay for my healthcare. It charges me for that healthcare whether I use it or not and I cannot decline. If I ever need it, even though I’ve paid in for decades, it can then say ‘Nope, you didn’t live as instructed so you can’t have any’.
If you were paying for my private healthcare (without charging me) I would still have to pay the government for healthcare I would no longer need.
So there’s quite a big difference, really.
“…an old man has had the solace of smoking in company with his friends denied him trumps all that”
Whereas, the wish of those inside the club to breathe clean air counts for nothing at all, apparently.
That’s right, Andrew. Nothing. Unless they decide to buy the pub, at which point they can run it as they see fit.
Andrew Duffin writes, “Whereas, the wish of those inside the club to breathe clean air counts for nothing at all, apparently.”
You simply assume that that is the wish of “those inside the club”. How do you know? All that you can tell from the evidence is that some people do not dislike the smoking ban enough to make them stop attending.
Still, it might indeed be the wish of many to have a non-smoking environment. (It would be my preference, certainly.) Fine, then there is no need for the use of force, is there? If that is the wish of enough of them then it will pay the landlord to make his pub or club non-smoking.
And those for whom smoking is a more important pleasure can go elsewhere – everybody ends up fairly happy. That is the way voluntary systems work. Pity we don’t have one. For the old man in Engel’s story, and for thousands like him, there is no elsewhere.