Why I welcome Lord Laird's views
Friday, October 10, 2008 Two questions were tabled this week in the House of Lords by our old friend Lord Laird of Artigarvan. The first asked Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have to ban smoking in all enclosed places where children are present (not just cars, note, but "all enclosed places" including, presumably, the home); the second question asked, what proposals do they have to ban smoking in public open air spaces?
I say "old friend" because on 11 March 2003 Forest published the transcript of a conversation between Lord Laird and the late Lord Harris of High Cross. It took place in a small meeting room at the House of Lords and the only other person present - with a tape-recorder - was yours truly.
Lord Laird is a persistent anti-smoking activist and I thought it would be interesting to sit him down with Ralph Harris, chairman of Forest and a lifelong pipe smoker, so they could have a chat. In fact, the two men got on rather well and civilities were maintained from first to last.
That's not to say they agreed with one another. Ralph, I think, was a little shocked (and saddened) by some of the views expressed by his fellow peer. Following the encounter we issued the following press release (which both men endorsed):
On the eve of No Smoking Day, a leading peer has hit out at smokers, arguing that "they are not fulfilling their potential as human beings". Lord Laird of Artigarvan, a former Ulster Unionist MP, said, "How can people operate to the maximum of their ability when they are continually working out little ploys to get outside for a tobacco break?
"Smokers," he added, "are the nicest people in terms of their personality but their packaging and presentation is all wrong … We must set them free. We must cut them from the shackles of the nicotine weed. They cannot reach their full potential otherwise."
Lord Harris, chairman of Forest, said he was alarmed at Lord Laird’s "certainty of being right". He told his fellow peer, "A lot of people fulfil themselves through sucking at their pipes or smoking their fags. It’s part of their personality … I sometimes feel about heavy drinkers the way you do about smokers. It’s not for me. But the idea that I would want to characterise them as beyond the pale is preposterous."
According to Lord Laird, smokers are "socially excluding" themselves. He also criticised women who smoke. "I’ll tell you an oxymoron: an attractive female smoker. How can you have a girl go to all the trouble to put on nice perfume and then smell like a stale ashtray?"
Simon Clark, director of Forest, said, "He has obviously never met Kate Moss or Sophie Dahl! Lord Laird means well, but the idea that smokers should be treated as social outcasts is reminiscent of the Middle Ages. If anyone is to be socially excluded it should be fanatical anti-smokers who are unrepresentative of society at large."
The full transcript of their meeting contains a lot more of this stuff. At times you can't help but laugh. But before you dismiss him as an eccentric old fool, you should know that Ulster Unionist peer Lord Laird is a former bank official, bank inspector and computer programmer. From 1976 to 2005 he was chairman of John Laird Public Relations. Today, he is visiting professor of public relations at the University of Ulster.
Believe me, Lord Laird is no fool. But he is driven by a sense of righteousness that, in my view, could be his (and the anti-smoking movement's) Achilles heel. I want to hear more, not less, from people like him because I am convinced that, eventually, they will shoot themselves in the foot.
Reader Comments (23)
Simon -
You say of the Noble Lord that he is no fool.
However:
"According to Lord Laird, smokers are "socially excluding" themselves. He also criticised women who smoke. "I’ll tell you an oxymoron: an attractive female smoker. How can you have a girl go to all the trouble to put on nice perfume and then smell like a stale ashtray?"
He may not BE a Fool - but he certainly TALKS like an Idiot (and not a vey original one, at that).
Two points, really:
First - it is not smokers who are 'socially excluding themselves', surely - but the currently fashionable anti-smoking prejudice which is causing them to BE excluded ?
Or, perhaps he means it in the way that Jews 'socially excluded themselves' from Respectable German Society in the Thirties ?
Second, he considers the concept of an attractive female smoker as an 'oxymoron'. Well, I've been personally acquainted with quite a few such 'oxymorons' in my time, even kissing some of them on occasion.
The odd thing is that not one of them smelled (or tasted) like an ashtray, whether stale or otherwise.
Have I been missing out ?
In my younger days I had boyfriends who didn't smoke but who weren't deterred by the fact that I did! (I suspect that this says as much about men as it does about smoking!!)
It would be interesting to talk to younger smokers to find out if, in today's climate, they feel the degree of ostracism which I feel. I suspect that they don't, partly because they will have spent their adult lives being unable to smoke in situations in which I smoked for many years, and partly because the ban in pubs and so on is apparently seen as an opportunity to 'smirt'. I doubt that they feel the anger that I do and which I admit is, to some extent, kept alive by taking an active interest in the smoking issue. I believe that it should be kept alive because the smoking ban exemplifies the extremely important issues of the acceptable limits of government intervention in individuals' lives, the basis of public policy decision-making and the acceptability of methods to change behaviour. If, as a consequence, in Lord Laird's view, I choose to socially exclude myself, then so be it.
I don’t know why you bother with the uttering’s of someone like Lord Laird, whom you hope might one day “shoot themselves in the foot.”
How about contacting someone who could really do our cause some good…Lord Stoddart. He was always available to help freed2choose with their prospective Judicial Review…sadly it proved too expensive.
Lord Stoddart had this to say about the smoking ban.
"The final nails have now been hammered into the coffin of the freedom to smoke in enclosed public places. This piece of legislation must be one of the most restrictive, spiteful and socially divisive imposed by any British Government."
If Lord Stoddart were to stand up and ask the Government about possible amendments to the ban or better still repealing it, because of the damage being done economically and socially…then wouldn’t this be far more productive?
In the meantime I’ll ‘just jump down – turn around – and pick a bale of cotton’ waiting for Lord Laird to shoot himself in the foot…and bring the whole anti-smoking edifice crashing down – eh?
'David Gordon recently took an in depth look at the extent of spending within the Ulster Scots Agency. Wining, dining, taxis to Dublin - yet the good Lord Laird appears remarkably unperturbed about how he throws your money around'.
Is this the same Lord Laird?
Is it the same Lord Laird, who voted against equal rights for gays?
Is he against all minority groups?
I am sometimes reminded of something which brought a smile to my face then, and still does now. I was tutoring a group of fifteen years olds, and they were working in groups while I got on with something of my own. I overheard a a conversation among a few young ladies about boyfriends. One of them said that her boyfriend smoked, which she didn't, but she didn't mind kissing him, in fact it was quite nice!
The jumped up Laird IS an idiot, and a nasty small minded man. He was always an extremist as a politician, so don't be suprised by his uninformed veiws.NOT a fool? everything he utters is foolish and does not deserve any publicity.
"How can people operate to the maximum of their ability when they are continually working out little ploys to get outside for a tobacco break?
Answer: Let them smoke inside! Since it is the non-smokers who seem to want "fresh" air, make them stand outside. If we reversed the law for a few weeks during winter, people would be clamouring for reform of this "silly" law, which is based more on superstition than science.
Incidentally doesn't it strike you a little odd that it is NOT against the law to smoke in the Houses of Parliament?
"Since it is the non-smokers who seem to want "fresh" air, make them stand outside."
haha there is a comedian in Benidorm who asks how many of the audience are non smokers. He than says that if he were prime minister, he would make all the non smokers stand outside.
He must have heard it from you John lol
You may hope he'll shoot himsef in the foot , personally, I'd prefer him to aim higher....
Joyce -
Personally, I blame the apparent lack of any Spirit of Resistance among the Young on modern pop music: having to listen for more than a decade to SO much dreary, tin-eared, tuneless, whining self-indulgence would probably have taken the 'fight' out of me, too.
That, and the cancerous spread of the Fear Culture..........(you name it, we'll tell you why you should be Afraid - Very Afraid of it)
Gimme Shelter..... (and preferably one I can smoke in) !
From 1976 to 2005 he was chairman of John Laird Public Relations. Today, he is visiting professor of public relations at the University of Ulster.
How laughable.
"the second question asked, what proposals do they have to ban smoking in public open air spaces?"
He doesn't need to ask, councils are doing it for him. Sutton Council have just trumpeted themselves as the first to implement an outdoor smoking ban.
"Sutton Councillors have agreed the first outdoor smoking ban, which covers any public play area where children could be exposed to tobacco.
Other areas in the borough are expected to follow the example of the Beddington & Wallington local committee by voting to banish smokers from open air spaces. A borough-wide ban would cost £20,000."
The Tories are having a pop at the barmy Lib Dems though.
"Marion Williams, a Tory Councillor for Beddington South said "Keeping children safe is a top priority but, rightly or wrongly, smoking in the open air is not illegal, therefore this 'ban' is useless. Alarmingly, Lib Dem councillors wanted to use police time on an unenforceable smoking ban, when we think they should be out catching criminals"
So much for the flimsy argument about smoking bans protecting workers in an enclosed environment then.
... and just how many studies exactly have been done on the dangers of passive smoking in the open air?
Time for an MP letter:
Dear Paul Burstow,
I have just read, partly with disbelief at the incompetence of this Lib Dem Council, and partly in hilarity at the over-importance with which they seem to view themselves, the article in the Sutton Guardian this week about a 'first outdoor smoking ban' implemented by the increasingly detached-from-reality Lib Dem council.
I should like to ask a few questions about this.
How many scientific studies have concluded that passive smoking in the open air environment of a park is dangerous to any person's health except the smoker themselves?
Where in the Health Act 2006 does it say that Councils are enabled to enforce a smoking ban in an outdoor area?
How will the boundaries between where one can smoke and one cannot be marked?
Lastly, could you please explain the meaning of the word 'Liberal' in your party's name as I don't understand how this could be termed as such.
Yours sincerely,
Martin Cullip
May I remind you that John Reid himself said that this ban was not about passive smoking but to get the figures down to 21% by 2010. A House of Lords working party post ban were uneasy about SHS (which they admitted was a weak argument) being used as a reason for a ban which was not really about that. Non smokers (not necessarily anti) have no concept of what being a smoker is. They only want to remove it from society. These unlearned decision makers want to denormalise it, they don't want children to see it. They obviously never thought of the fact that more children were going to see it when people had to stand outside to have a smoke. They are stupidly still trying to use the SHS argument to ban it wherever they can. I say stupidly, because I genuinly believe this SHS argument is going to backfire on the perpetrators of it, and I am getting increasingly excited about the prospect.
Martin -
I hope you have more luck with your letter than many of us, when writing to our local Gauleiter (sorry, 'MP').
I'm still somewhat confused about the Conservative Party's stance on this matter, however.
Assuming they HAVE a stance, that is:
I note with some dismay, for example, Marion Williams' statement that "RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, smoking in the open air is not illegal."
Don't you mean 'Rightly', Marion - WITHOUT the qualification ?
Leaving aside for the moment the obvious fact that even that is not QUITE true anyway, does this mean that she WOULD support such a measure - provided that the appropriate Fuhrer Order were given to MAKE it illegal ?
Or would she fight tooth and nail to prevent such an absurdity occurring (Yes - even where Die Kinder are involved) ?
And David Cameron's recent REJECTION of the notion that the Conservative Party 'is all about freedom' - coupled with his odd notion that Libertarianism is about having 'the right to do whatever we want, REGARDLESS of the EFFECT ON OTHERS' (such as SHS, David ?) at least suggests to me that we may, after all, be about to exchange one form of nannyism for another.
Young Dave is clearly confusing 'Libertarianism' with 'Libertinism', and 'Conservatism' with 'Paternalism'.
He couples these sentiments with a somewhat over-emphatic use of the word 'responsibility'.
Well, unless he's forgotten all those lecture notes from his Oxford days, he is clearly NOT an unqualified admirer of John Stuart Mill, that's for sure.
But I, for one, should HATE to live in a society in which people were not allowed the freedom to be 'irresponsible' from time to time - whether by virtue of social pressure or State diktat.
And no - I'm NOT talking about lobbing bricks at Lollipop Ladies or shooting dolphins.
Thank goodness NO-ONE has yet suggested that smoking is 'irresponsible'......................have they ?
"Thank goodness NO-ONE has yet suggested that smoking is 'irresponsible'......................have they ?"
Sorry Martin V, I cannot give you the name and place, but my memory palace gave me a metaphorical nudge - yes they have!
Reading some of the posts about Sutton trying to ban smoking in the open air (excuse the following pun) but are Sutton trying to put up a smokescreen to divert attention away from the council tax payers' money they have just lost in Iceland? Smells fishy to me.
Timbone -
Now that I come to think of it - you COULD just be right there............................
Silly me ;-)
Lets make tobacco illegal...after all it worked with cannabis,heroin,cocaine etc didn't it ?
all these anti smoking politicians are over paid jumped up pigs next time any of you vote remember the smoking ban and if your MP agrees with the smoking ban then dont vote for them get rid of them. They make me bloody sick the whole lot of them how dare they take taxes from the sale of cigarettes and then tell us we are out on the street as far as im concerned they can go to hell. No One will change my mind about enjoying a cigarette only myself if one day i decide to quit.
As I have believed all along, none of the 3 major parties can be trusted and I think it is highly unlikely that any of them will amend the smoking ban in favour of the smokers in any way, shape or form.
For this reason I still intend to make a protest vote and hope that many others do too!
No, I do not expect a minority party to win, but the better some of the lesser parties do at the expense of votes to Labour, Tory and Lib Dems, the bigger the kick up the arse they will get! Perhaps that is the only thing that will get them back in line and on track to start doing properly the job they were elected to do! Yeah, ok, I know, pigs fly as well!
Think of the children for a second....
I wonder if anyone has added up the cost of the smoking ban in lost revenue in pubs, restaurants and clubs. Loss of jobs, closures it must all add up. Why are all these places clsing or if still open empty, where are all these non smokers who were going to fill these places up! now that the nasty smokers have gone?
Thanks god for Spain, I am cutting back on smoking a bit, all in a good cause as I can move to Spain quicker!