Quite rightly the smoking legislation is to protect the rights of non-smokers not to have to endure working in a smoky atmosphere . However, in its present form the legislation has gone too far and makes the life of the third of the population that smoke a misery. The gasp in no way supports the view of some smokers that they can smoke wherever they like. The object of the gasp is to campaign for a change in the legislation to allow for smoking rooms in workplaces and public buildings. Further to this any place that is licensed to serve alcohol such as pubs and restaurants should be allowed to choose whether or not to permit smoking. The gasp believes that it is important not to alienate non smokers, many who also think the legislation has gone too far. Smokers do need the support of non smokers. The gasp does not believe that non-smokers should have to suffer second hand smoke but in turn non-smokers should not expect smokers to stand outside in the pouring rain to smoke.
HOW IS THE GASP GOING TO ACHIEVE THIS? By increasing awareness of the website and its aims. The main activity of the gasp will be to remove MPs that voted for the smoking ban by encouraging people not to vote for them. The gasp will also support MPs that voted against the smoking ban and if necessary support its own candidates. Smokers make up around one third of the voting population. This is more than enough for smokers to bring down any government, so please don't think you can't change things you can.
THE GASP NEEDS YOUR HELP! The gasp will only be interested in you if you have lawful intentions, it does not welcome extremists.
If you want to play a more active role in the development of this website and legal protest activities then please write to
The gasp
C/o David Simmons
77D Beach Rd
Littlehampton
BN17 5JH
We are particularly interested in those with computer/website skills. Landlords of pubs can help us by advertising our website etc.
DON'T VOTE FOR THESE MPs AS THEY SUPPORT THE SMOKING BAN:
Nick Gibb Member for Littlehampton and Bognor Regis.
THE ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF THE SMOKING BAN
Passive smoking we are told kills around 1,000 people annually everyone a tragedy but really a drop in the ocean compared to the obesity crisis. After all second hand smoke is not anthrax. The ban is supported by doctors on health grounds and yet these same doctors will quite happily treat all those who get Sexually transmitted infections through unprotected sex, thugs who injure themselves in their criminal activities etc,etc. It is a myth that smokers cost the NHS money. If smokers gave up smoking the government would lose billions in tobacco taxes they would all live longer drawing more pensions and eventually die of something else that would have to be treated by the NHS. It would be a financial disaster. Some employers such as the NHS in some cases will not even allow staff to smoke anywhere on their grounds. They then wonder why it is difficult to get staff ?. If you was an unemployed smoker would you bother getting a job in such a place ?. Stastically the unemployed have a larger proportion of smokers then the rest of the population and therefore not only does the ban discriminate against them it acts as a barrier to them finding gainful employment. Has anybody considered the environmental impact ?. The government has pledged to reduce co2 emissions but by forcing establishments to build outside smoking shelters with heating and lighting systems it is actually increasing them. All the extra electricity used puts an increased demand on a limited supply which will push up the cost for all domestic users and subsequently inflation.
THE SMOKING BAN IS UNENFORCEABLE! How are the authorities ever going to successfully prosecute someone that smokes in a toilet without breaking the law themselves ?. What are they going to do ? Put cameras down the u bend or arm enforcement officers with cameras and pogo sticks ?. One can imagine a scenario where someone is accused of smoking in a toilet . Well it wasn't me, prove it, but in the meantime I am going to report you to the Police for being a toilet cruising pervert.
THE SMOKING BAN IS A HYPOCRITICAL ACT SUPPORTED BY HYPOCRITS
A non smoker can now drive to a pub in a polluting 4x4, consume excessive amounts of alcohol and artery clogging food and then preach about how his health has improved because there is no passive smoke . All of the three activities mentioned cause far more deaths than passive smoking. If these non-smokers want to be healthy then why not force them to walk to the pub and make them consume mineral water and eat salads. They will then be forced to practice what they preach ?.
Unions have generally supported the smoking ban so why should a smoker want to join a union that has made their working life a misery?.
The medical charities have supported the smoking ban because it reduces the incidences of cancer and heart problems. However, these same charities are quite happy to let countless people suffer cardiac arrest and even fatalities on their barbaric fundraising endurance events such as the marathons and bike rides.
THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 AND ITS RELEVANCE TO THE SMOKING BAN.
ARTICLE 3 – PROHIBITION OF TORTURE – no one shall be subject to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment.
The problem for the authorities here is that some years ago the courts ruled that anything out of due legal process that leads to stress and anxiety can be classified as torture within the confines of the act. As nicotine is a legally permissible addictive substance can then its withdrawal be described as torture ?. Further to this what can be more inhuman or degrading then being forced to smoke outside in the pouring rain ?. It would be interesting as a test case if a smoker who can not smoke in a Police station or court of law said I confess to what you accuse me of and a few more for good measure now let me go and have a cigarette. Would the validity of this confession and subsequent conviction hold up on appeal ?.
ARTICLE 14 – PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION ON THE GROUNDS OF NATIONALITY, RACE, RELIGION AND SOCIAL ORIGIN -
As smokers form a larger part of the unemployed / unskilled workers than the population as a whole then the smoking ban discriminates against them ?.
THIS SITE IS OWNED AND OPERATED BY TONGA CONSULTANCY LTD