The Injustice of the Smoking Ban

Jax left a great comment late last night, so I’m going to reproduce it here:

I certainly object to the smoking ban for much more than just because of the negative effect it has had on me personally. In many ways, it is more concerning to me because this particular piece of legislation runs so contrary to so many of the basic principles for which the law should stand, and, legally speaking, it has had several pretty fundamental deleterious effects. For example:

1. No matter how it’s worded, in effect it’s the first piece of legislation which makes one adult (a pub landlord) more harshly punishable for an offence committed by another adult (a smoker lighting up in his pub) than the person actually committing the offence – to my mind, a dangerous deviation away from one of the most basic principles of British law that “if you do the crime, you do the time.”

2. It’s unfair, plain and simple. The wording of the Health Act makes it quite plain that it, as a law, is “against” one group and “for” another. For a piece of legislation to so blatantly favour one group of people over another, again, runs completely contrary to the whole purpose of having laws at all. Laws are, after all, supposed to ensure that – as far as is possible in a complex and imperfect world – everyone has a chance to be treated fairly. Isn’t that why it’s called the “justice” system? Where’s the justice in a law which only sets out to protect the interests of one group, at the direct expense of another?

3. It’s supplied a template law which can (and I have no doubt will) be used in any context, on the basis that “well, it was OK, and massively popular, and hugely successful, and saved countless lives, etc etc etc” for smoking, so why not apply it to [latest Proclaimed Evil]?” When the Public Drinking Ban, or the Town Driving Ban, or the Fried Foods Ban, or whatever else comes in, as it surely will, I’ll bet the wording of the actual legislation will be almost identical with just a bit of tweaking. So one bad law will form the foundation for a whole host of others.

4. It’s unreasonable, by very determinedly and deliberately giving no quarter to smokers at all. How on earth is a Man in a Van, alone, having a cigarette on his way home, hurting anyone else at all with his “passive smoke?” Why is it not permitted that a group of smokers start up a members-only pub or club of their own, with only smoker members permitted and only staffed by smokers? How would that hurt non-smokers? And isn’t the law supposed to be the very embodiment of “reasonable?” Reasonable force, punishment to fit the crime, mitigating/aggravating factors and all that. Isn’t that an attempt to keep things in perspective, i.e. “reasonable.” So, doesn’t an unreasonablelaw such as this show a worrying move away from reasonability and towards a dictatorial approach? Is that really what we want our laws to be – a bludgeon to force people to do as they are told?

5. It’s essentially protected the intolerant, the rude, the selfish, the demanding and the uncompromising in our society, i.e. the very people whom the law should be reining in rather than encouraging, and given them legitimacy. By enshrining in law the fact that it was OK for people to be prejudiced against smokers, it’s essentially approved prejudice per se. Prejudice, it has essentially said, is sometimes OK. And that is a terrible thing for any law to say. Ever. Intolerance and self-righteousness in this country has increased exponentially over the last decade, in no small part due to the subtle but nonetheless very easily-understood message given out by this wicked piece of legislation.

6. It’s given hope to a multitude of off-shoot groups who are against this, that or the other “pet peeve,” that they can “achieve the same success in respect of ….., as the anti-smoking movement has” It’s given countless busybody campaigners hope that they in turn will manage to “denormalise” whatever it is that they don’t like and has spurred them on to greater efforts in trying to become the “new ASH,” with the result that we now have Action on Sugar, the Alcohol Health Alliance, BRAKE, the National Obesity Forum and CASH snapping eagerly at our freedoms, too. If this law had been strangled at birth they’d all still be sitting in their little boxes, quiet as mice.

So, a bad law all round, for all number of reasons. And therefore one which, in a civilised country such as we like to think we are (although sometimes I do wonder whether we still are), should – and would – be watered down, relaxed or, better still, repealed altogether.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to The Injustice of the Smoking Ban

  1. jaxthefirst says:

    Thank you, Frank! Glad you liked it!

    • Its truly a victimless crime! Except when smokers get killed or beaten or robbed or exposure to the elements etc etc………those are real everything else we already know is BS.

  2. avandelay • 22 minutes ago

    Congratulation Jack, you sound like a dipsh!t who is shilling for a deadly and dying industry! Good luck with your campaign to save smoking!!

    Jack Listerio > avandelay • 43 minutes ago

    I don’t have to save anything,its you that has to keep the propaganda pot stirred or people forget your even around or even your smoking ban. People do as they please regardless of insane laws based upon junk science. Everyday theres another story about people not obeying the anti smoking laws here and there literally everywhere. Seems self enforcement doesn’t work nor does making business men your cops for your insane law that costs businesses all their business.

    http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/2015/04/15/social-media-campaign-launched-for-smoke-free-fayetteville/

    • smokervoter says:

      Harley, I’m thoroughly steamed about hearing that your Waffle House went smoke-free. Isn’t that where you hung out with your buddies and smoked in peace? Actually I was jealous as hell, what I’d give to be able to smoke again at a restaurant while downing massive quantities of nice, regular Americana coffeeshop coffee (not hippied-out, 21st century rich beatnik, Starbuck’s crap @ $5 a cup).

      Is this the place?

      Check out the 2nd comment down from a Diane R. of Floriduh.

      “Breakfast was good and service adequate. Definitely not the cleanest Waffle House I’ve ever been in (and I’ve been into quite a few). But the biggest complaint by far is that they still allow smoking inside this location. This chain should go smoke-free nationwide.”

      How much you wanna bet she’s an ACS astroturfer!

      As much as I despise Yelp in general for supplying Way Too Much Information* about nothing, you might want to get in there and refute her.

      * – I’m sick and tired of the internet’s grating tendency towards making you have to listen out loud to what everybody else in the room is thinking. I don’t much care, and never did. I’m the emperor of my world.

      • Yep that was it and now its just as empty as that photo. If the camera shot was across the street or just to the side weve still got 2 there with smoking. Then 3 more new places in town with smoking. Then if I go the other way from home Ive got 4 more places with smoking indoors.

        Its just the wafflehouse was the it for smokers everywhere and corporate knows it too.

        The location the lady who made the complaint was from San Francisco.

        The first day they went non smoking you couldn’t find 2 cars there and across the road 17 and that was at 11 am when peak WH time is at hand. No more.

        They’ll get the weekend crowd from 7-12 Saturday and sunday but that’s it.

        They’ve already cut staff and reduced hours from what Ive heard.

        • It says Venice Fla. But she dies to much traveling and making reviews of every off the path restaurant she can find. Likely an ACS plant to find any place with smoking still and making complaints. Its easy she should go to someplace else and if she went down the road to Portland she would have found a 15 year old WH that looks brand new with nobody in it as usual since the ban down there in 2007. But because I made a phone call to corporate 2 years ago I saved us 2 more years of smoking in it.
          Anyway everybodys meetin up at a new place now. Aint saying where Nazis probably watching.

  3. cherie79 says:

    Excellent post, quite chilling when you see it set out so clearly.

  4. Lepercolonist says:

    Excellent article, Jax. Very clear, coherent and cogent.

  5. Smoking Lamp says:

    Smoking bans are certainly unjust! I just read an editorial from Canada where the paper is pro outdoor bans with the rationale that smokers on patios are forcing non-smokers indoors. See: “Non-smokers should applaud changes in Northumberland,” Northumberland News, http://www.northumberlandnews.com/opinion-story/5559103-non-smokers-should-applaud-changes-in-northumberland/ It seems they forget that smokers were forced outdoors just a few years back! This is the current rage in Ontario which enacted outdoor patio bans earlier this year. They are starting to advocate for patios/terrace bans in Quebec too!

  6. malagabay says:

    Excellent post

    It’s the thin end of the wedge….
    At the moment they are focused on banning…
    They will move on to enforcing…
    I wouldn’t be surprised if forced vaccination is at the top of their list…
    After all its for our own good according to their Settled Science [and balance sheets].

    It always happens when you encourage “milk monitors”, “telephone sanitisers”, “social workers”, “trick cyclists”, “gravy trainers” and “snake oil salesmen” of every hew….

  7. Rose says:

    Just a reminder,

    6 May 2009 Column 609

    Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I welcome the sentiment of this amendment. The Government are fully committed to implementing the articles and guidelines of the World Health Organisation’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The UK Government’s policy on engagement with the tobacco industry is to abide by the guidelines for implementation in Article 5.3.

    We take seriously our responsibilities under the FCTC. Indeed, we have already contributed as a partner country to the development of guidelines for Articles 8 and 11, which concern protection from second-hand smoke and the packaging and labelling of tobacco. We continue as partners in the development of guidelines for implementing Articles 9 and 10, which regulate the contents and disclosures of tobacco products, and we are formally facilitating the development of Article 14 guidelines on demand reduction measures concerning tobacco dependence and cessation.

    Article 5.3 guidelines were agreed at the third conference of the parties to the FCTC in November last year, and the UK worked with EU counterparts to refine, improve and gain consensus for the final guidelines. The UK Government abide by their responsibilities under the guidelines for implementing Article 5.3.”
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90506-0010.htm

    [Article 8]
    24. This creates an obligation to provide universal protection by ensuring that all indoor public places, all indoor workplaces, all public transport and possibly other (outdoor or quasi-outdoor) public places are free from exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke.

    No exemptions are justified on the basis of health or law arguments.

    If exemptions must be considered on the basis of other arguments, these should be minimal. In addition, if a Party is unable to achieve universal coverage immediately,Article 8 creates a continuing obligation to move as quickly as possible to remove any exemptions and make the protection universal.”
    http://www.who.int/fctc/cop/art%208%20guidelines_english.pdf

    • Rose says:

      Guidelines for implementation of Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
      on the protection of public health policies
      with respect to tobacco control from commercial
      and other vested interests of the tobacco industry

      22. The involvement of organizations or individuals with commercial or vested interests in the tobacco industry in public health policies with respect to tobacco control is most likely to have a negative effect.

      Clear rules regarding conflicts of interest for government officials and employees working in tobacco control are important means for protecting such policies from interference by the tobacco industry.
      http://www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/article_5_3.pdf

      This is why the public consultations are pointless and any contrary opinions from anyone are ignored.

      Tobacco Retailers Concerns ‘Air-Brushed Out’ By Government, UK
      December 2008

      “Members of the Tobacco Retailers Alliance, a coalition of 25,000 independent retailers, have expressed outrage that their views were excluded from a Government report into retail displays of tobacco.

      In a report on the Future of Tobacco Control consultation published on Tuesday 9th December 2008, the Department of Health appears to have deliberately omitted evidence offered by the Tobacco Retailers Alliance.

      Ken Patel, Leicester retailer and National Spokesman for the Tobacco Retailers Alliance, said: “First the Minister refused to meet with retailers, now they have censored our formal response to a public consultation.”

      Campaign Manager Katherine Graham said; “We are not listed as one of the respondents although our response was submitted by email and also sent by post, so we can be certain it was received. For some reason the views of 25,000 shopkeepers just seem to have been air-brushed out of the consultation report.”

      “Retailers are very concerned to see that their views were not taken into account, even though the Government said it wanted to hear from us.

      It feels as though we have been gagged, even though this measure will have a massive impact on our businesses.”
      http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/132901.php

      • Rose says:

        Fears rise over DIY tobacco display ban gantries by independents

        January

        “Thousands of independent convenience store owners are facing large fines if they implement their own solutions to the tobacco display ban on 6 April, according to new research.

        The research by point-of-sale specialist CJ Retail Solutions revealed that 25% of c-store owners were “determined to implement their own DIY solutions to the display ban”.

        These solutions included hanging curtains in front of the tobacco gantry and even using existing roller shutters to cover stock.

        The danger of such an approach, said the company, was retailers could leave themselves open to fines of up to £5,000 or two years in prison.”

        “The problem is that they do not understand the details of the legislation – namely that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland only 1.5sq m of their tobacco display can be exposed and even then just when they are re-stocking or serving customers.”
        http://www.talkingretail.com/category-news/independent-news/fears-rise-diy-tobacco-display-ban-gantries-independents/

        Still, bottles of bleach and packets of rat poison can continue to be sold in plain sight.

        “Nicotine is an alkaloid found in the nightshade family of plants (Solanaceae), predominantly in tobacco, and in lower quantities in tomato, potato, eggplant (aubergine), and green pepper.”
        http: //www.sciencedaily.com/articles/n/nicotine.htm

        In the fullness of time small shopkeepers are going to need a lot of big covers.

    • Literally Rose the treaty itself will cause widespread outcry to dissolve the UNITED NATIONS in the end……….People wont stand for it , its gone to far.

  8. Jonathan Bagley says:

    Excellent comment, Jax. I’ll add that secure mental hospitals were originally exempted, but not any longer. In effect, people accused of no crime are being imprisoned (sectioned) and prohibited from smoking.

    • What it means is people will not go near them for help at all in the future. Its hard enuf for homeless folks with real mental distress to even go near a hospital for treatment to begin with,its a major step when they finally decide to seek help. Now this will put the finishing touch on none of them going. Unless arrested and forced into the place. Likely next will be vagrancy laws.

  9. Here it comes ALCOHOL POHIBITION ACT 2

    Alcohol controls should match those on smoking

    by Carwyn Hooper, April 16 2015, 06:41

    TEN years ago the World Health Organisation’s (WHO’s) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) came into force. It was not the first international health treaty negotiated by the WHO, but in many ways it was the most remarkable. Achieving global consensus around any kind of public health treaty is quite a feat. So achieving a consensus when the main target of the treaty was, in effect, that most slippery and dangerous of customers — Big Tobacco — was close to miraculous.

    Within a year, 168 states had signed the treaty and many more are now parties to the convention. As the WHO loudly (and rightly) trumpets, this makes it “one of the most rapidly and widely embraced treaties in the history of the United Nations”. In the decade that has passed since the FCTC earthquake shook the international health law landscape, the global public health community has increasingly turned its attention to another industry: Big Alcohol. So far the WHO has stopped short of using its authority to create a Framework Convention on Alcohol Control (FCAC).

    Instead, it has opted for a more softly-softly approach. This has taken the form of a global strategy to reduce the harmful use of alcohol that was endorsed by the 63rd World Health Assembly in 2010.

    This strategy is designed to tackle the growing effect of alcohol on individuals and society. However, as a “portfolio of policy options and measures that could be considered for implementation and adjusted as appropriate at the national level” it growls more than it bites.

    The unwillingness of the WHO to grasp the framework nettle has annoyed many a medical expert. The World Medical Association, the American Public Health Association and the American Society of Addiction Medicine have issued policy statements calling for an international convention to control alcohol, and many leading medical journals such as The Lancet have published supportive editorials.

    The underlying reason for these calls relates to the fact that alcohol is beginning to rival tobacco in the deadly harvest it reaps.

    Tobacco still rules the roost in terms of the global effect on health; about half of the billion-strong smokers living today will probably die of tobacco-related diseases.

    However, the global burden of disease attributable to alcohol is very similar to the burden attributable to tobacco and in certain groups, especially the young, alcohol may already cause more havoc. In 2012, 5.9% of all global deaths and 5.1% of the global burden of disease and injury were attributable to drinking alcohol. This translates into 3.3-million souls succumbing to the allure of beer, wine and spirits.

    The problem is especially acute in countries such as Russia. But the UK is badly affected too.

    Alcohol, like tobacco, can also affect third parties. Adults and children who cultivate tobacco are exposed to a number of hazards and may develop conditions such as acute nicotine sickness.

    Passive smokers are also at risk. However, alcohol has many more wide-ranging effects on third parties. Road traffic incidents and domestic violence are prime examples.

    Alcohol also downs a lot of resources. The UK’s National Health Service (NHS) forks out £3.5bn annually to treat the consequences of alcohol misuse. This is a bit more than the cost to the NHS of treating diseases caused by smoking.

    When other costs, such as policing and lost productivity, are added, the total bill for England alone is about £21bn a year. This dwarfs the UK-wide tax receipts from alcohol duties, which amounted to £10bn in 2013-14.

    Given the similarities between alcohol and tobacco, it may seem odd that there is a legal framework for tobacco but not for alcohol.

    Two simple explanations for the difference in approach can be dismissed quite quickly. The first is that tobacco, unlike alcohol, is always dangerous. The second is that alcohol, unlike tobacco, has health benefits.

    The first claim is strained. If your total tobacco consumption amounts to smoking one — and only one — cigar on your birthday, the extra risk to your health is either non-existent or infinitesimally small.

    THE second claim has more force, especially (perhaps) when the alcohol consumed takes the form of red wine.

    However, the health benefits of alcohol are increasingly contested and according to some experts may evaporate entirely when the evidence is properly scrutinised.

    What other reason could there be for the different approach to alcohol? One procedural explanation is that international legal treaties take a lot of time and effort to negotiate — the FCTC took 10 years and cost in excess of $34m. Having expended so much effort on the convention, is it possible that framework fatigue has already kicked in?

    A more cynical explanation is that Big Alcohol has lobbied the WHO more effectively than Big Tobacco ever managed to do.

    The recent debacle in England regarding a minimum price for a unit of alcohol certainly suggests that policy makers can be under the influence.

    Even the most ardent supporter of tobacco and alcohol — and I speak as one who has never smoked but is a regular drinker — must admit that these products are causing an immense amount of ill-health to users around the world, and significant harm to children and third parties. A firm legislative and global response is needed.

    This is not some kind of paean to prohibition. Aside from the fact that criminalising consumption or sale of alcohol or tobacco does not work, competent adults have the right to take risks with their own health.

    Instead, this is a call for legally binding international conventions to help defend tobacco and alcohol control policies in trade courts and help countries deal with issues, such as web advertising, that can leak across national borders.

    It is also a call for global conventions that would enable ministries of health to implement strong domestic regulation and would empower nongovernmental organisations to bring legal and social pressure to bear on corporations and corrupt legislators.

    Thanks to the WHO we already live in a world governed by such a convention relating to tobacco.

    We should now call time on the soft approach to Big Alcohol by implementing some hard law.

    • Hooper is a senior lecturer in medical ethics and law at the medical school St George’s, University of London.

    http://www.bdlive.co.za/life/health/2015/04/16/alcohol-controls-should-match-those-on-smoking

    • Rose says:

      LIQUOR: Gentlemanly Temperance
      1935

      “In the two decades before Prohibition, those lifelong teetotalers John D. Rockefeller Jr. and his father gave the Anti-Saloon League their stanch moral support and $350,323.67. When he declared for Repeal in 1932, Mr. Rockefeller by no means meant that he was quitting his long war on liquor. Having despaired at last of temperance by statute, he set his agents searching the world for other methods of attack.”

      “What the Council proposes to do is spend $100,000 or more per year in attempting to persuade U. S. citizens to drink like gentlemen, to acquire “an attitude of individual responsibility toward the use of liquor.”

      “Our messages will travel over the airwaves, reach the eye and ear through the screen and stage, and fashion public thought through advertising and other kinds of publicity.”
      http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,755063,00.html

      • Rose Id say we smokers are fixing to get a whole lot more activists on our side and they wont even know it…………….

        • Rose says:

          Maybe, Harley, but I doubt that most of them are clever enough to put the two together, after all, they were always told that tobacco was different.

          The clues were there.

          2011
          “Dr Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics for the British Medical Association, said: “We have to start de-normalising alcohol – it is not like other types of food and drink.”
          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12599471

          Though I doubt most people even recognise the word as applied to people.

        • Rose the enemy is the same whether it be tobacco or alcohol. Those who fight them over alcohol are our compatriots.

        • Rose says:

          But do they know that, Harley?

        • That’s my point Rose it doesn’t matter if they know. They end up fighting our enemy too.
          That’s why the army grows and grows even if they themselves are haters of smokers….

          The Nazis make enemies of everyone and with that everyone targets them singularly or together matters not. The Nazis end up like Hitler fighting so many fronts they cant keep it up and they have to drain tobacco funds to throw into other fights…….Like depleting troops on a front back and forth they go. All the while their funding gets cut here and there until they are dwindled down to nothing.

  10. It’s supplied a template law which can (and I have no doubt will) be used in any context, on the basis that “well, it was OK, and massively popular, and hugely successful, and saved countless lives, etc etc etc” for smoking, so why not apply it to [latest Proclaimed Evil]?” When the Public Drinking Ban, or the Town Driving Ban, or the Fried Foods Ban, or whatever else comes in, as it surely will, I’ll bet the wording of the actual legislation will be almost identical with just a bit of tweaking. So one bad law will form the foundation for a whole host of others.

    There in lies the key to its own downfall……………..they never stop and that’s what happened last time around. Then it all fell apart and the idiots still couldn’t understand why except to beg forgiveness of the people for causing so much trouble in the end. They never meant a word of it they were just trying to save face until enuf time past they could come back and butt rape everyone again. Their kind never go away they wait back in the shadows of history building a new cause but still the same cause. To control everyone.

  11. Country Life wages war to make litter ‘as uncool as smoking and drinking’

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/countryside/11541681/Country-Life-wages-war-to-make-litter-as-uncool-as-smoking-and-drinking.html

    Country Life wages war to make litter ‘as uncool as smoking and drinking’

    Country Life magazine launches campaign to make littering as ‘uncool’ as smoking and drinking for a new generation

  12. Rose says:

    I don’t quite know what to say.

    Christians in Pakistan pray for Nigel Farage and Ukip to win general election

    “Instead, Pastor Francis Bashir says he is putting his support behind Ukip because it stands up for Christians and the Commonwealth.

    Pakistan’s Christian community of 2.5 million has been the target of increased persecution in recent times, with the number of attacks against it’s members increasing in regularity.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/christians-in-pakistan-pray-for-nigel-farage-and-ukip-to-win-general-election–video-10180885.html

    I suppose I am too.

    • beobrigitte says:

      I don’t know what to say, either….

      But then, even though I have no problem respecting other religions, I do find my own (Christianity) is being gradually pushed to some margin in our, CHRISTIAN, society in order to follow poltical correctness and profit.

      For a large %-age of our population the holiest Bank Holidays have become normal work days. I grew up with Good Friday being a solemn day; a day of reflection. I grew up with Christmas being a 2 1/2 days time for family gatherings and celebrations. Not for running into town to shop like never before.

      It has become very easy to push Christianity out of our lives because sheepishly we follow whatever the media has been nudged to blurt out.

  13. The cut of the Tobacco Quitline leaves Illinois the only state in the nation without a hotline to help smokers kick the habit. File/The State Journal-Regi
    By Dean Olsen, Staff Writer

    Posted Apr. 15, 2015 at 10:00 PM
    Updated at 11:05 AM

    Twenty-seven people were laid off Wednesday as the Springfield-based Illinois Tobacco Quitline shut down for the first time in its 15-year history.

    The free program was a victim of the state’s budget woes and Gov. Bruce Rauner’s recent decision to immediately suspend $26 million in various social service grants.

    The funding cut resulted in callers hearing a brief voice message when they dialed (866) QUIT-YES (784-8937). The cut leaves Illinois the only state in the nation without a hotline to help smokers kick the habit.

    “This particular cut, and probably many of them, may be penny-wise but pound foolish,” said Kathy Drea, vice president of advocacy for the American Lung Association of the Upper Midwest. “Health care costs in Illinois will skyrocket. We all pay for sick smokers in our taxes and insurance premiums.”

    The Republican governor has proposed resuming funding for the Quitline at a reduced rate, but not until the new fiscal year, which begins July 1.

    It would be difficult to quickly replace the specially trained nurses and respiratory therapists who served clients of the Quitline, Drea said. Many laid-off staffers will have found new jobs by then, she said.

    Unless the cut is reversed right away, the state will miss an opportunity to assist many Quitline clients who had summoned the courage to seek help, she said.

    “There are so many people — thousands of them — who are in the midst of quitting, and they are going to be left hanging,” Drea said.

    The association operated Illinois’ Quitline entirely with money that came from the state’s share of the 1998 landmark nationwide settlement with tobacco companies.

    Illinois receives more than $250 million annually from that settlement, with policymakers diverting a majority of that money to pay medical bills incurred by Medicaid patients

    http://www.sj-r.com/article/20150415/NEWS/150419664

  14. beobrigitte says:

    It’s only my view:
    1. No matter how it’s worded, in effect it’s the first piece of legislation which makes one adult (a pub landlord) more harshly punishable for an offence committed by another adult (a smoker lighting up in his pub)
    Not only this; the fines imposed on these e.g. pub landlords exceeds the fine a careless driver receives for killing a crowd of people on a road.
    Whilst these people (often being VERY healthy!) are well and truly dead I am still looking for the tobacco dead where I see only deaths caused by old peoples’ diseases.

    2. For a piece of legislation to so blatantly favour one group of people over another, again, runs completely contrary to the whole purpose of having laws at all. Laws are, after all, supposed to ensure that – as far as is possible in a complex and imperfect world – everyone has a chance to be treated fairly.
    Fairness has no place in the lobbygroups’ world. Recently the BBC ran a few Nazi camp survivors and 5 minutes later it ran anti-smoker propaganda. Am I the only one finding this a bit difficult to take?

    3. It’s supplied a template law which can (and I have no doubt will) be used in any context, on the basis that “well, it was OK, and massively popular, and hugely successful, and saved countless lives, etc etc etc” for smoking, so why not apply it to [latest Proclaimed Evil]?”
    This is well underway. Currently it’s alcohol again. Perhaps the BBC had to lay off the overweight people since anorexia cases are soaring again.

    4. It’s unreasonable, by very determinedly and deliberately giving no quarter to smokers at all. How on earth is a Man in a Van, alone, having a cigarette on his way home, hurting anyone else at all with his “passive smoke?” Why is it not permitted that a group of smokers start up a members-only pub or club of their own, with only smoker members permitted and only staffed by smokers? How would that hurt non-smokers?
    The non-smokers I know were never hurt – and they spoke up: “Can you open a window for a bit?” They never DEMANDED smokers to be kicked to the outside and from the outside 500 yards from the entrance and from there being banned even in e.g. parks.
    Indeed, why SHOULDN’T smokers have their own SMOKING CLUB? Perhaps it would be too popular, which would greatly interfere with the anti-smokers’ goal of destroying the tobacco industry, regardless of the number of people losing their jobs, thus putting families into poverty, hence seriously damaging an ever increasing number of CHILDREN who end up going to school in the morning with little/no breakfast.

    5. It’s essentially protected the intolerant, the rude, the selfish, the demanding and the uncompromising in our society, i.e. the very people whom the law should be reining in rather than encouraging, and given them legitimacy.
    There shouldn’t be a place in law for the intolerant, the rude, the selfish, the demanding and the uncompromising in our society. But then, as Bloomberg so nicely demonstrated, EVERYTHING can be bought. You just need to ruthlessly work your way to the top (and be arrogantly proud of it) – you MAKE your obsessions to a law.

    6. If this law had been strangled at birth they’d all still be sitting in their little boxes, quiet as mice.
    And they would be in the margin of society they are paying politicians to place smokers in.

    On a more positive note:
    I have been watching other smokers lately – rather than huddling in corners they openly light up more and more as I see the numbers of vapers decrease. Exiling vapers to the outdoors with the smokers was the best thing tobacco control could do to erode 50 years of their work!

    • Yep most thought they could use vaping to beat the indoor bans whether they liked the device or not. Then the Nazis treated them the same and if that’s happening no need for an ecig go back to the real thing.

  15. Hi!
    Non-smoking was a fraud from the start. The start was the report on 60-Minutes some 20 years ago. Below is the reality.
    The data on lung cancer from smoking were collected from people who smoked in 60’s and earlier. At that time cigarets were aromatised with COUMARIN that later was found to be a carcinogen and removed. I worked with it to cause chromosome abnormalities (stretching etc.)
    The real cause of the hysteria was that smokers in fact are people who deviate from the crowd as disobeying orders, free thinking, more inventive, etc. This is probably due to a different hormonal/genetic constitution. I heard the report on such study. These qualities are unwanted, smokers (not the tobacco) are set for extermination.
    Scientifically, the prevalence of disease does not indicate the cause with any certainty, period. The absence of disease in many smokers, however, indicates that the cause can be different. There are parallel processes which today are ignored and fraudulently substituted with statistics which is also manipulated. Typically, a “study” is launched when the crooks need a certain answer, politically correct one, for sure.
    ——————–
    Please, see also my web site http://www.universitytorontofraud.com
    This story and the 50 documents are prohibited for reporting in the media.
    If you like to help me, please, make an effort to publish it, or give a link.
    Michael Pyshnov
    (My email is probably hacked.)

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s