Why Irish health minister James Reilly should resign
Thursday, May 30, 2013 at 11:00 Whenever I'm in Ireland I choose my words very carefully.
A decade or so ago I was persuaded (wrongly, as it happens) not to set up a branch of Forest in Ireland because "the Irish won't take kindly to being told what to do by the English".
That was never my intention. I've lived in Scotland, for heaven's sake. I'm not completely stupid.
We eventually launched Forest Eireann in 2010 and spokesman John Mallon has just finished his second media tour of the country.
I met John in Dublin on Tuesday and, as ever, I kept my opinions about the Irish Government to myself, even when health minister James Reilly announced that the Cabinet had agreed to draft legislation to introduce plain packaging.
I helped write a press release but I sat back while John talked to the media and I maintained a similar diplomatic silence when I met a handful of Irish libertarians in a pre-arranged meeting on Tuesday night.
They probably represented the entire libertarian movement in Ireland so I didn't want to offend even one of them by berating their government, especially as they were more than capable of doing that themselves.
In short, I treat my Irish contacts the same way I treat my in-laws. I would no more criticise the Irish government in front of an Irishman than I would speak ill of my mother-in-law in front of my wife. (For the record, I get on very well with my mother-in-law but you get the point!)
Anyway, having spoken to a number of people in Dublin this week, there is general agreement on the following points:
- The Irish Government will do anything to distract attention from the state of the economy.
- Health minister James Reilly will do anything to distract attention from the state of the health service, A&E waiting times in particular.
- The Irish Government is employing the same trick it used when it became the first country in the world to introduce a comprehensive public smoking ban. This time it wants to trade on the fact that it will be the first country in Europe to introduce plain packaging, as if this is something to be proud of.
Another, important, point is this:
James Reilly made a big issue this week of the 'fact' that both his brother and his father had suffered from smoking-related illnesses:
Dr Reilly said he had been touched personally by suffering caused by smoking after his brother died of lung cancer and his father went blind following a stroke.
See: James Reilly reveals father and brother died from smoking illness (Irish Independent)
His brother's story was already known. I understand he was a doctor who died aged 46. An intelligent and educated man, he must have known about the health risks of smoking yet still chose to smoke. Why should his death, tragic though it was for his family, be used to de-normalise others who choose to smoke? Is that what he would have wanted?
The story about his father was news to people I spoke to this week. I understand that Reilly's father - also a doctor - had been blind for ten years following a stroke. According to the health minister this was the result of smoking.
Now, while I have enormous sympathy for anyone who has suffered such a loss, I would seriously question whether it is right that a politician with so much emotional interest in a product is personally responsible for legislation that will directly affect that product.
In many board meetings, anyone with such a close personal interest in a subject would be asked to leave the meeting while the matter was discussed by colleagues who could arguably offer a more objective assessment.
Understandably, perhaps, James Reilly has an emotional commitment to reducing smoking rates in Ireland.
That does not make him the best person to drive legislation through parliament. It could make him the worst because – it could be argued – his judgement may be clouded.
It's not for me to tell the Irish Government what to do but the more I read Reilly's comments the more I think he should either hand responsibility for tobacco-related legislation to a colleague, or he should resign as health minister and continue what appears to be a crusade against smoking from the backbenches.
Reader Comments (7)
I agree with this blog post 100%.
I think you'll find that with very few exceptions, everybody crusading for an end to tobacco use has had someone in their family die "from smoking" as they put it. Ailsa Rutter is a prime example. This colours their perspective, distorts their view so that they believe in only one outcome. It's the classic "We need a law so that nobody ever has to go through what I've gone through" crap.
What we actually need is to stop listening to people who want to ban something to save others' lives when they have a personal stake in the matter, which is what you suggested.
I would like to think that the Irish will get rid of Reilly somehow -- I don't even care how. Vote him out, force him out, make up some BS paedo/BBC story... who cares. Just get rid of this menace to society.
This reminds me of when I went to see my MP after the HOC reception.
He began by saying " I hate smoking. My father died of Lung cancer " followed by " he smoked all his life and used to send me to the shop for cigarettes" at which point I gather, I was supposed to look shocked.
What did he do for a living ?
Worked down a coal mine.
Well said. I've smoked more years than Reilly's poor brother lived but I have found through my long experience of knowing mostly smokers, that to die young from smoking is the exception and not the norm.
Genetics could be involved as to why some of us appear to smoke unharmed to very old age while others don't. Sadly such useful research, which would mean that people can avoid definite risks or indulge risk free, will never be known because it doesn't suit the political agenda to find out. Much better to scaremonger and attack people who refuse to be scared, it seems.
Take a note from what Forest didn't do but should have done in Ireland years ago as far as Wales in concerned. There are people there crying out for representation. Forest is all they've got and as such has a duty to help them defend themselves against the attacks of puritans, bigots, or just self-obsessed people who think they have a God Given right to force people who disagree with them to think exactly as they do.
Oh and Jay - I can't believe that people like Ailsa really give a damn about tobacco consumers given the awful abuse they continually throw our way backed with public money.
If you care and want to help someone you don't call them names like stinky, selfish or disgusting. They've even called us terrorists before now and they do equate a simple cigarette with the machete carried by the Woolwich butchers.
We've never met, she doesn't know the name of my children or grandchildren nor does she give a damn. I'm sorry she couldn't save her dad but there are other ways kids lose their parents - including NHS neglect as I lost mine.
Because of all of the above, I think people like her, who probably began because they cared, have long since lost the plot. It's now about keeping their jobs, funding and salary and ensuring that no matter what, their vision of a perfect Utopia will be enforced using any method fair or foul.
You're a pantomime bad guy apparently:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/30/laws-curb-junk-food-smoking-society
:-)
Ha ha! Just seen it.
Gray is well meaning and intends to be liberal and by some standards she's not too bad. However, she's also well brainwashed - note, the carcinogenic tobacco smoke in cars.
What perpetually puzzles me is how anybody with half a brain just does not stop and think about the foolishness of this remark. I remember when I first heard about second hand smoke being more dangerous than which the smoker inhales. It was 1977 and I was deeply sceptical even then, because I wondered how something so obviously heavily diluted could possibly be so.
I do not consider myself to be a member of the intelligentsia but I wonder at some of those people who are classed as such (such as Guardian readers). Frankly, the term should now be redefined to signify people who are able to talk meaningfully about absolute rubbish.