In the Telegraph, Peter Oborne praises Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, with one exception:
Mr Hunt has, however, utterly failed in one respect. He has not sought to challenge the air of invincible bossiness that has long been the most obtrusive characteristic of the Department of Health. Its officials are convinced that they know better than the rest of us what we should eat, drink and how we should behave, not just in public, but also in private. For some reason Mr Hunt has chosen to sanction this state-sponsored bossiness, and this August has seen an epidemic of edicts from government bodies telling us what and what not to do.
Just examine the events of the past week. Yesterday, the All-Party Committee on Alcohol Misuse (a body of which I had not previously heard) demanded that alcoholic drinks be labelled with a warning, as cigarettes are. On Friday, Public Health England (PHE), an executive agency of the NHS, urged us to abstain for a full 24 hours after taking a drink.
Dick Puddlecote highlights Alcohol Concern’s manifesto:
You see, for most of us, the manifesto would seem rather extreme and largely unwarranted, including as it does:
– Appointment of a minister for booze
– Minimum alcohol pricing (aka “the poor shouldn’t drink”)
– Public health to be involved in pub/retail licensing
– More bans on beer ads
– Tobacco style warnings on wine bottles
– Scaremongering anti-drinking TV adverts
– Near halving the drink driving limit
Not so for the BMA. And especially not so for their hero Ian Gilmore, the head of the Alcohol Health Alliance, a bunch of temperance lobbyists in the mould of 1920s America’s Anti-Saloon League.
‘The Westminster government urgently needs to start tackling the public health harms of alcohol. The measures laid out in the APPG manifesto are a crucial first step.’
All of which reminds me of Professor Gerard Hastings‘ dream of a Public Health state, in which Public Health will be vastly more powerful than it already is.
Why is it that Public Health is becoming steadily more powerful? I don’t know the answer, but in Britain it may simply be that Britons no longer govern Britain, and that it is instead governed by the EU and the UN and the WHO, and in fact more or less anyone but the British people. And Health Secretaries like Jeremy Hunt, and indeed the UK Parliament, are simply there to provide the cosmetic appearance of self-government.
It would certainly explain why we have bossy health chiefs, drunk on power.
Frank Davis 
So the push for PROHIBITIONISM OF ALCOHOL TRULY BECOMES A FRONT PAGE STORY LINE NOW!
A short while back I responded thusly to a comment from the good wobbler2012 in which he opined to Rose that we smokers should have fought back far more vociferously from the very beginning of smoking bans:
“That’s exactly how comedian/philosopher Adam Carolla sees it. He’s a fellow native Californian who lived through the eye of the storm (our pub ban started a full 9 years before the UK Ban) and wanted to punch a few lights out when it first hit. He’s a fellow carpenter as well. Look him up, check out his podcasts, he’s a very funny and wise fellow.”
Ladies and gentleman, now that I am A.) finally back in the good graces of YouTube and their smoker hatin’ owners Google Inc. and B.) have mastered how to embed said YouTube videos; at this time I humbly present Exhibit A in the form of “Adam Carolla on Progressivism”
PS. If you’re in a ridiculously mad rush you can skip to 1:00, when he first talks about smoking on the beach. Heck, it’s only 10:29 all told out of your busy life; I highly recommend listening to the whole enchilada start to finish; it’s a thing of absolute furious beauty.
Pass it on. Blanket the earth with it. Make it go hog wild viral…
Hilarious, and bang on the point. The trouble is that, although he stated the problem as clearly as it can be stated, he could not provide a solution (apart from the suggestion that a million people congregate on the beach and do what is forbidden).
What is the solution? It can only be that the people we elect are the right sort of people. People who will say the the Zealots, “Bugger off”. People who de-fund Zealot organisations. People with common sense.
he’s a very funny and wise fellow
That would describe you Junican, good sir, to a T as well. I’ve learned a lot from your seniority, wisdom and your uncanny ability to condense byzantine scientific/legal/political treatises into easily digestible terms. And all done in perfect, classical English with the shalls and shants properly employed. It is like a symphony compared to rap music to my ears. And with a generous dollop of sharp wit thrown in the mix as well.
Now…
he could not provide a solution (apart from the suggestion that a million people congregate on the beach and do what is forbidden).
Well, there’s a lot to be said for mass civil disobedience. Stony Stratford comes to mind. Sure, it wasn’t a million smokers and it was a pre-emptive action which didn’t put its participants at risk of imprisonment or economic loss, but it was a smashing success nonetheless. That councilperson Bartlett? was humiliated and sacked? was he not. The sidewalk smoking ban was averted.
That being said, I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for a million smoker March on Washington like American Blacks did during the 60’s to materialize. They weren’t exactly risking arrest either – it was legal to be Black in America. But it was hard to get jobs, obtain housing, get education, rent hotel rooms and get served at bars and restaurants and they wanted that to change.
Gee, why does that sound familiar to me?
the people we elect are the right sort of people
To that I might add the people doing the electing might want to accelerate their efforts. To my thinking there’s about 7 million <likely smokervoters in Britain, easily enough to get Nigel Farage and UKIP to within striking distance of some real power and certainly influence on proposed paternalistic and interventionist British legislation.
They might want to show up in greater force also. Try making that 8 million by uniting vapers, pipe, cigar and hookah-smokers.
I know, it all sounds very Pollyannish. The alternative is more of the same.
You’re very fortunate to have a Nigel Farage and UKIP on offer. The closest thing we have here is the Rand Paul wing of the Republican party. Even the fellow who ran on the Libertarian ticket in 2012 was a certifiable capnophobic it turns out. Slim Pickings indeed.
And speaking of beaches and smoking and funny people. I pointed out that Leg-iron and Frank are two witty sonofabitches the other day. Well, Frank wrote one of the funniest pieces I’ve ever read a long time ago. I still get lots of unearned comedy props by telling people that I think that sand should be removed from our beaches on the grounds that it is a huge overlooked public health hazard which could result in an epidemic of silicosis.
I can always distinguish a nouveau puritan drone from a humor-capable Unrighteous by their reaction. The drones don’t laugh and some actually even think it’s a swell, doable idea !
Come to think of it, if there was some way to direct Carolla to this post it would be some great comedy performance material. He’s just the guy to deliver it. Provided, of course, that he pays Frank handsomely for it.
Welcome Sir Liam
Stony Stratford comes to mind. Sure, it wasn’t a million smokers and it was a pre-emptive action which didn’t put its participants at risk of imprisonment or economic loss,
Nothing so dramatic, I’m afraid. It was a meeting in a pub in Stony Stratford, which had been pre-booked by Dick Puddlecote. Several people had placards (including me), but we didn’t march on the streets (unless I missed that bit). And nobody was in any danger of being arrested. There weren’t even any police present.
Apart from that, it was a great success in that it demonstrated (on BBC TV too) that people were prepared to come from far and wide to protest against a proposal to ban smoking in the street. And the local councillor who had proposed the measure lost his seat a few months later.
Forest’s Simon Clark said that he’d expected only a handful of people to show up. Instead there were more like 200.
I’ve said it a few times. Faking concern about health (and safety), the environment and equality/tolerance/human rights allows the Government/EU/UN to control the population; raise us like cattle to be herded.
We know the smoking ban has nothing to do with health. I know from my own experiences with the NHS that my health is the last thing they care about. (Hint: their salary and pension is what matters most to the majority.) An ex local councillor who used to have to work with the Health Board told me that their job is to protect the image of the NHS, not the patients. Another friend who works for the NHS told me that the Health Board doesn’t care about the employees either.
Hundreds of alternative remedies have been banned (thanks to the WHO and capitulating ‘government’) so we are even more at the mercy of the Pharmers.
If the WHO and governments really cared about our health, they’d be banning the poisons in food, like aspartame and many other additives and they’d be stopping GM crops entering the food chain until the long-term effects are crystal clear. They would be regulating or banning the growth hormones and antibiotics pumped into livestock.
The increased rates of cancers, autism and other behavioural conditions, diabetes, etc., etc. What is causing this? Do they even care? It’s obviously not smoking and drinking!
No, the sneaky politicians have thousands of fake taxpayer-funded organisations ‘advising’ them so that they have what looks like public and expert opinion on their side when they carry out the totalitarian work of the UN because it’s all about control and eugenics.
You make it sound like the only thing left is open rebellion………………..maybe that’s what they want so they can exterminate us all in mass! We must have equal firepower in order to fight em.
I don’t know what the answer is. All we’re left with in the UK is crossbows and pitchforks! They’d probably love an armed revolt (for want of a better phrase) so they could impose even harsher rule. People need to get educated as to how the world really works. As for me, I’ll soon hopefully be living off-grid and relatively free.
The Coming Smoking Ban Will Be More Than a Failure
By Letters to the Editor @ 5:00 PM August 12, 2014
By Laura Stuart
First of two parts
Re “Smoking Ban in Apartments Appears on Its Way”
This whole “ban smoking in multi-family housing” is ridiculous.
First, it is not up to the city to regulate personal habits that are legal. If a property owner says that “I am going to allow smoking in my building” – disclosure, in writing, to new tenants is all there needs to be for them to make an informed decision.
For condominium homeowners, they already have a governing body called the HOA, to determine when and where someone can smoke in the condos and complex.
When you are purchasing a condo, you are given the CC&RS to read prior to purchasing. They would have these rules.
Nor is it up to the City Council to make a legal habit illegal. As we all know, the war on drugs is a failure. This venture not only will be a failure but can become a lawsuit regarding constitutional rights and discrimination.
As a former smoker, I know that quitting smoking is difficult and stressful. Some people simply cannot and do not want to quit smoking. That is their right. Smoking itself is not illegal. It is unhealthy but not illegal.
It is the right of property owners to determine if they want their properties, whether single-family residences or multi-family residences, to be smoking or non-smoking facilities. It is up to them to enforce the same through Leases and Tenant Rules.
(To be continued)
http://www.thefrontpageonline.com/articles1-15084/TheComingSmokingBanWillBeMoreThanaFailure
I nominate Leggy for Minister for Booze, let the smoky-drinky begin:)
With all this talk of plain cigarette packs and plain labels on alcohol, why can’t this be used for General elections? Each party would show a black silhouette of their (unnamed) candidate with the words, “Electing this person could be dangerous to your wealth”, “Electing this person could lead to lack of national security”, “Electing this person could lead to an illegal war being declared on some country the candidate doesn’t like”, or even “Electing this person could lead to loads of fraudulent expenses being claimed”. The possibilities are endless but, you must admit, would show an element of truth in advertising. There are dangers that complete idiotic unknowns would be elected, so no change there then, or Lithuanian counterfeiters would ship in fake politicians hoping that no one would know any difference. And would we?