Skip to main content

Smoking Rooms - a Liberal Alternative (2)

I link to the debate in which I spoke for a short time (having been requested by the Speaker to keep it short).

The key facts are:
a) Smoking generally is going down
b) The Evidence from Ireland is:
- i) as a result of the ban smoking went down by an additional one off about 5%
- ii) people now smoke outside pubs or at home more than they used to
c) Secondary smoke is dangerous although not as dangerous as primary smoking.
d) 95% of deaths attribted to secondary smoke arise from smoke in the home.

The House of Commons has accepted that workers may be exposed to the level of smoke they encounter in outdoor areas.

The effect of the ban (which I voted for) is that smoking will move into homes and onto the streets. That which moves into homes will cause more deaths from passive smoking in the home and at least of the order of deaths that are reduced as a result of smoke-free bars.

If, and this does need to be proven, a ventilated smoking room can have a concentration of smoke of the order of a garden - which is feasible. Then the logic remains to allow ventilated smoking rooms. Fewer people would die as a result of secondary smoke and people would keep the option of a fag and a pint.


Jock Coats said…
Ah, the "lounge bar" and "smoke room". How novel! I never really did understand why this almost ubiquitous example from the past was not an option. So many of the "theme pub" renovations in the eighties and nineties destroyed these concepts in the odd notion of "classlessness" but they also I believe helped with the separation of trouble makers (who almost inevitably seemed to gravitate towards the smoke room with its less salubrious surroundings and slightly cheaper beer).
TonyF said…
Then the logic remains to allow ventilated smoking rooms. Fewer people would die as a result.

So, I take it, you voted against the total ban?
I was very saddened indeed to hear that several MPs (including John Hemming) who stand under an umbrella that describes itself as "liberal" decided that adults will no longer be allowed to form an association with like-minded individuals, the purpose of which is to gather together to enjoy a pint and a fag together.

It is even more disturbing to discover that evidence regarding changes in peoples' smoking habits that have occurred in the Republic of Ireland since they banned smoking in public bars, etc. has apparently been misrepresented.
Bob Piper said…
One of the problems of 'smoking rooms' is that the litigatious (no, not you this time John) have used them to argue that by being put in a room with other smokers - and ventilation is apparently not a solution - their health us put at a bigger risk because they are having to inhale other people's smoke as well. I know it might sound daft, but bear in mind people have sued the cigarette companies for 'making' them inhale nicotine.
PoliticalHack said…
Why do the rights of a minority of smokers take precedence over the rights of employees to work in a safe environment? As I have pointed out before, this is about health and safety.

The idea of smoking rooms is a non-starter, as employees would still be required to enter the room and the evidence is that affordable extraction systems would not work effectively to remove the toxins from the air.
TonyF said…
Incidently John, you brought up the subject of smoking rooms so why haven't you got one at Osmond House?

Lib Dem members who smoke come in there to do their printing but their not allowed to have a fag in there.
john said…
There is an office on the first floor of Osmond House which is smoking.

The issue on smoking rooms is one of ventilation. I have said to the lobbyists that they need prove the level of smoke is about the same with ventilation as it is in a pub garden.
Earnest said…
Excellent work on this personal blog. I am going to tell my family about this personal blog. More than likely you will want to take a look at my personal blog and give me an idea how to improve it.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…