Cherie Blair to Represent Club Owner on Smoking Ban Challenge

by Anne Landman — July 9, 2007 - 5:25pm
Share/Save Share this

Cherie Blair and David WestTony Blair's wife, lawyer and barrister Cherie Blair, is representing David West, the owner of the sex-themed London nightclub Hey Jo. The flamboyant, pink-suited millionaire is challenging the U.K. government's July 1 ban on smoking in enclosed spaces on the grounds that, since he lives above his nightclub, Hey Jo is an extension of his home and thus smoking should be allowed. In taking on the case Mrs. Blair, a human rights lawyer who operates under her professional name of Cherie Booth QC, will be challenging the public health law enacted by her husband. West recently showed Booth around Hey Jo, which features mens-room urinals shaped like lips and waitresses dressed like naughty nurses. Not surprisingly, West's associate Harry Barnett told PR Week that they are looking for a PR agency to help out.

Main Source: 
BBC News, June 22, 2007

Comments

It Is All About Them

Submitted by Pani113 on July 10, 2007 - 1:23pm.

Wasn't Blair's administration responsible for all kinds of health police tactics when he was in office? This shows that they really could care less about health one way or another. They take the side that somehow benefits them the most, and will switch at a moment's notice for a better offer. That being said, I think some clubs and restaurants should be allowed to allow smoking. I think they should have special licenses. (More revenue for whatever $grubbing gov they are located in.) It should be clearly post on the door. If people choose to go in, that is their business. I wouldn't enter as I prefer to kill myself in other ways. Like the brain hemorages I get when reading about the neocons. Still, it should be an individual's choice. And for those who cry about how much smokers cost the rest of us, don't forget to subtract the social security and medicare they won't be using by dying at a younger age.

I wish that were a joke, but it's not.

Submitted by Mutternich on July 10, 2007 - 2:55pm.

And for those who cry about how much smokers cost the rest of us, don't forget to subtract the social security and medicare they won't be using by dying at a younger age.

Philip Morris actually made that pitch to the government of the Czech Republic.

http://tobaccofreekids.org/reports/philipmorris/#czech

There isn't any "them and us" here. We're all in it together.

Fair is Fair

Submitted by Pani113 on July 11, 2007 - 4:04pm.

I realize that sounds very cold hearted. But stigma and scapegoating are equally as cold hearted. I don't believe the tobacco companies should be allowed to HIDE the risks. But, after all the education campaigns, if people still choose to smoke, I say leave them alone as long as they do it in a way that doesn't harm the rest of us. We have become a nation of fingerpointers. But I know alot of healthier than thou "my body is a temple" types who get in their car and drive 20 miles over the speed limit every day. Or have unsafe sex. Or climb mountains on weekends. I am no fan of big tobacco, and am allergic to smoke. I have also gotten in a few tiffs because I am quite vocal about people blowing smoke in my face. But fair is fair. If we are going to scapegoat, we had better do it both fairly and with completely accurate social risk assessments.

Fair to whom?

Submitted by Sheldon Rampton on July 11, 2007 - 5:40pm.

Pani113 wrote, "I know alot of healthier than thou 'my body is a temple' types who get in their car and drive 20 miles over the speed limit every day."

There are laws against speeding, though. Someone who drives 5-10 miles over the speed limit usually gets away with it, but someone who routinely drives 20 miles over the speed limit is eventually going to get ticketed, pay a fine, and -- if caught several times -- lose their license to drive.

With regard to tobacco (as with speeding), part of the issue here is that someone who smokes in a bar isn't simply exposing him/herself to the smoke but also is exposing other customers and the bar's employees to that same danger. It's certainly fair to say that people have a right to decide which risks they choose for themselves, but they don't have the right to force those same risks on others. You might argue that other customers have the right to simply choose not to patronize establishments where smoking is tolerated, but the people who work in those establishments don't often have the freedom to just quit their job. We don't allow companies to expose their workers to cyanide fumes or asbestos as a condition of employment, so why should companies be allowed to expose their workers to carcinogens and other health hazards in the form of secondhand tobacco smoke?

On a personal note, I happen to know a jazz trombonist named Earl who is a highly respected artist in his field and has toured in Europe and other countries with the Charles Mingus Orchestra. He happens to be very sensitive to tobacco smoke, and although he has excellent lungs and breathing control (necessary to play his instrument), the cigarette smoke in some of those establishments makes it almost impossible for him to get through the night. He wears a portable humidifier around his neck to dampen down some of the smoke, and even so he coughs and has a hard time breathing after some of his gigs. As a touring musician, moroever, he has no way of saying, "I'll only play in those establishments that disallow smoking." No band would be able to employ him if he made that sort of demand. Is it really "fair" to suggest that he should have to choose between his career and his health?

That wasn't really my argument

Submitted by Pani113 on July 12, 2007 - 12:25pm.

That is why in my original comment, I said they should allow SOME establishments (perhaps 10%) to allow smoking and have special licenses for them. I think your point about staff is very valid, but if it took a bit of time to switch over, most staff could find another job if they were worth their salt. Good bar tenders are hard to find. So those establishments would be left with people who make a choice to be there. Some smokers probably would like to work in their own subculture. I completely agree no one should subject anyone else to their smoke. I am the kind of person who speaks up, and not everyone appreciates it. Some smokers are in your face nasty. Some fool also wakes me up every single night by smoking under my window in the wee a.m. Even though I am on the 4th floor, it still wakes me up.

My scapegoating comment was anticipating the argument that smokers cost the tax payers money; therefore, they should have a few places set aside for them. EVERYONE does something to cost society money. I just don't want to be a hypocrite although my personal preference would be not to have to share the continent with smokers.

C'est logique.

Submitted by Mutternich on July 10, 2007 - 9:43am.

"...since he lives above his nightclub, Hey Jo is an extension of his home and thus smoking should be allowed."

I think the court should allow that if West would agree to having the ventilation system blow the smoke up into his bedroom. Didn't that other Brit said he wouldn't hesitate to feed his kids hamburgers during the Mad Cow outbreak?