So James Reilly is back again.
Perceptive readers will remember that his name has cropped up here once or twice in the past?
For those of you blessed with ignorance of this waste of human organs, he is an ex-politician who for a while was our Minister for Health. Once the election was over and the various ministries were being handed out, he was first in line for Health with promises of great things to come.
Once he had his seat though he cast off his cloak of respectable doctor and showed his true colours – he was a rabid and fanatical anti-smoker. So while the health service descended further into chaos he devoted his entire energies to feathering his own nest and demanding more and more anti-smoker measures. He’s the one behind our “plain packaging” laws.
His fanaticism was not based on any science or medical reasoning but was based purely on the fact that his father had died of cancer and had been a smoker, and we were told repeatedly that his father would still be alive if it weren’t for the evil cigarette. His ignorance on the subject was astounding and on one occasion he stated in evidence and as medical fact that Snus users cut their gums and insert the package under the skin – unfortunately the video is now missing but Chris Snowdon had a piece about it.
Thankfully he went the way of all really bad politicians – even his own party was sick of him – and he is no longer a public representative having been demoted to the Senate. Things have been mercifully quiet since his departure, as his successor is much too busy trying to sort out the appalling mess in the Health Department that he inherited.
But now Reilly is back again calling for a ban on smoking in outdoor spaces where food is served. He hasn’t changed. He is still exaggerating and ranting that “nobody can enjoy a meal outside, without being surrounded by cigarettes“. I couldn’t even be bothered to reply to that ridiculous statement.
We have a referendum on the horizon about liberalising our abortion laws. Thanks to James Reilly alone I shall be voting in favour of liberalising them.
I wonder if they can make the laws retrospective?