Smokers will be fined for puffing on cigarettes on hospital grounds and eventually banned from smoking altogether under radical new plans in Sandwell.
The hardline proposals, put forward by Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Hospital Trust, would see smokers confined only to smoking ‘shelters’ for three years – before a total ban on taking a drag is introduced in 2018.
Trust board members discussed their options on how to tackle smokers inhaling in and around hospitals at a meeting on Thursday.
The smoking shelters would be the only place smokers can puff away in the first instance and if they are caught doing so anywhere else they would be slapped with a fixed penalty notice.
The trust aims to introduce a new policy next year at its hospitals – Sandwell General, City and Rowley Regis – before bringing in the zero tolerance ban at all sites when the new Midland Metropolitan Hospital opens in 2018.
Medical director Doctor Roger Stedman said: “I think [the opening of] the Midland Metropolitan Hospital is an opportunity.
“No cigarettes will cross the threshold of that hospital – not even in the car park.
“That sets us an objective and target which accords with our philosophy [to tackle smoking].”
This would apply to all staff, visitors and patients, and smokers would be given advice and help on how to quit.
Members were in agreement that the staged plan – starting with the shelters and penalty notices and then bringing in the total ban in three years – would provide the best chance of tackling the underlying issues around smoking.
Chief nurse Colin Ovington said: “Having a staged approach to try to get people to stop smoking is the right thing to do morally.”
The board also discussed whether e-cigarette users should be treated the same way as normal cigarette smokers.
As research into the effects of e-cigarettes is not yet comprehensive, creating a ‘semi-detached’ shelter for both e-cig and normal cigarette smokers was suggested.
This would stop e-cigarette smokers inhaling smoke from cigarettes.
The board members agreed a decision in principle to bring in the shelters early next year and then start its zero tolerance crackdown on all smoking in 2018. This will be confirmed at its next meeting in December.
They plan to wait for more research into the harm of e-cigs before making a decision.
Chief executive Toby Lewis said: “If we can cohort people in shelters then we can target support at them. That gives our staff and visitors who smoke a period of three years of support.
“A Fixed Penalty Notice gives us a remedy, as opposed to simply saying ‘you shouldn’t be doing this’ then walking away.”
I wonder where their “philosophy” comes from? Is it something that the Trust board has dreamt up itself? Or have they been getting their “philosophy” from the BMA or the WHO? And what if their “philosophy” is in collision with the “philosophy” of their patients?
To what extent have patients or staff in the hospital been consulted?
If their “philosophy” included tackling obesity, would they starve patients they deemed overweight. If their “philosophy” included tackling meat, would they force all patients to eat vegetarian meals? If their “philosophy” included keeping fit, would they force all patients to exercise?
Who pays the Trust board’s wages? To whom are they answerable?
I’ve been wondering today how to find answers to these sorts of questions. Where does one go? I decided to ask the Chief Executive. Here’s what I sent him:
I read today in the Express and Star that the Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Hospital Trust board has decided upon a “zero tolerance crackdown” on smoking, I further read that Medical director Doctor Roger Stedman has said “That sets us an objective and target which accords with our philosophy [to tackle smoking].”
I wondered whether the board’s “philosophy” might be set out on its website. I couldn’t find any philosophy (perhaps you might ask Dr Stedman where I may find it), but I did find on your Values and Promises page.
The nine care standards, or promises are:
I will… make you feel welcomeI will… make time to listen to youI will… be polite, courteous and respectfulI will… keep you informed and explain what is happeningI will… admit to mistakes and do all I can to put them rightI will… value your point of viewI will… be caring and kindI will… keep you involvedI will… go the extra mile
May I ask in what way a “zero tolerance crackdown” on smoking will make smoking patients “feel welcome”? And equally in what way such a crackdown is “polite, courteous and respectful”? Or indeed “caring and kind”? And it seems to me that it will be your smoking patients who will actually be “going the extra mile” (to find somewhere to smoke).
In fact, I could find no mention of a “crackdown” on smoking anywhere on the Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Hospital website. It’s not even mentioned in your blog. Although in June of 2013 I find you writing:
In the next few weeks we will place before our Board proposals to define our future role in tackling health inequalities and amenable mortality. This is a huge agenda nationally and of course locally. No one part of the economy can work alone to change behaviours and enhance opportunity but as a large employer, with experts in the field, and important opportunities to make every patient contact count, we see ourselves playing a very important role in tackling smoking, alcohol misuse and physical inactivity which together to do so much to damage the health of the people we serve.
May I ask to what extent “changing behaviours” is compatible with your care standards and promises, listed above? It seems to me that the aim of changing the behaviour of smokers does not, for example, value the smokers’ point of view.
And finally, may I ask whether the “philosophy” of the board is decided by its members, or whether it has been handed down as an edict from some higher body?
I think that’s quite a nice letter! And, who knows, I might even get a nice reply!
It IS a very nice letter…somehow I don’t think you’ll get a nice reply, but we can live in hope!
One other thing occurred to me is that, in a time when the NHS is short of cash, why would you want to ‘strangle’ a very valuable source of income, namely the tax on tobacco products? As usual no joined up thinking here!
More than nice. Right in-their-face brilliant. And likely unanswerable. How could he answer after having been skewered–except possibly, in his self-righteosness, to miss the point of the skewer and claim a new twist on the meaning of “caring” and “respect.” Aside from the obvious, what gets me is their thinking 3 years is an ease-in. It’s not an ease-in for a smoker first admitted to the hospital in January 2018. It’s plain cold turkey. And what makes them think that unpleasant stressful forced abstinence for the duration of a hospital stay will “change behavior”? Even for visitors who may be under the strain of visiting dying friends or relatives? The only thing that might change as a result is people’s attitude towards “care-givers” (hatred) and their sudden reluctance to seek medical care when they need it.
Oh and as for cash, fining smokers becomes a direct source if it. Hotels do it now. Add the steep fine (often $250 supposedly needed to fumigate the room) to the bill. As for collection, I suppose the hospital too could at least try to add it on to the bill, or deduct it from staff pay, but it would be interesting to see how they’d collect it from a poor soon-to-be widow. Do they enlist police? Force her to provide ID and then turn it over to nagging debt collectors to make threatening phone calls? Refuse to feed her sick husbband till she pays ? I’d seriously be interested in how they plan to do this
waly they cant fine smokers for smoking in a room,its the same damn thing if somebody spilt drinks on the floor or whatever its called normal use of a space same as a rental. AVIS here tries to say you will pay a cleaning fine if you smoke in their cars………Ive yet to see anyone charged for it anywhere. Not even in the news. Like I said they have no legal ability to charge you anything for normal use. If you smoke or stink of perfume so loud is that also a 250 cleaning bill fine……………like I said its insanity to try and pull a stunt like that charging you for doing what you always do inside a space that you pay for.
‘And it seems to me that it will be your smoking patients who will actually be “going the extra mile” (to find somewhere to smoke).’
He’s in the right place to be treated for that burn *sucks teeth* Ouchy!
Particularly good one, Frank :-) Both your blog comments and the letter.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep
repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be
maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from
the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus
becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to
repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus
by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
First off Hospitals are not law enforcement agencies and cannot give out tickets or fine anyone. They have no such authority,at least not in the US. Private property doesn’t mean you can charge for crossing whats deemed a public thru way like the driveway or the road or the sidewalk. Its meant for public travel. Meaning they have given up certain rights to the public for that usage of a free fare access. Its even worse if they charge you a fee for access as they have no authority over the inside of a persons personal vehicle its private property. Itd be the same as trying to pick your pocket on the sidewalk. your pocket and its contents are private not public. No lil so called rent a cop/security guard has legal authority to search you or anything else in the public right of way that the hospital created for that purpose. They can tell you to leave but they sure as hell cant write you a fine,if that was the case we could sit in our front yards issuing our own tickets to anyone who walked on our land…………Its absurd unless legislation was made to create a legal police force backed by courts of law ti issue said fines. The last I heard the law in England was you cant ban anyone frm smoking outside not even in NHS property.
Frank sounds to me like you politely gut and quartered his ass……………Left him no wiggle room at all except to look like a first class EUGENICIST.
Nice post and nice letter. Hopefully others in the UK and elsewhere mirror your push back against the totalitarian extension of smoking bans. The move toward outdoor smoking bans must be stopped in its tracks. Next indoor bans should be reversed.
If I were a smoker and some busybody prod nose official tried to impose a self made law on me he or she would end up in the A&E of their own hospital.
I got a reply!
I should of course pass on Toby Lewis’ injunction to not “disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail”.
So don’t tell your mum.
The predictable fob off…but kudos for writing to him.
I wonder if/when they’ll get round to banning chocolate, sweets, sugary drinks and crisps etc from on site vending machines and on-site shops. It’s not as though consumers of such products pay 600% tax on what is now regarded by the healthists as some of major causes of non-communicable illness that are such a financial burden to the NHS.
Funny thing is, when smoking rates were much higher the NHS didn’t seem to lurch from one crisis to the next.
I wonder if/when they’ll get round to banning chocolate, sweets, sugary drinks and crisps etc from on site vending machines and on-site shops.
It’s already happened here…
Director-General of Health Chai Chuah has written to all DHBs, expecting to see a full ban at all hospital premises from 30 September 2015, New Zealand Doctor reports.
About three quarters of DHBs already have bans on fizzy drinks, sugar-added fruit juices (more than 90kJ per 100ml), sports drinks (more than 50kJ per 100ml) and full-fat flavoured milks.
And some hospitals have had a sugary drinks ban in place for nearly a decade. For example, fast-food outlets at Auckland DHB’s hospital premises took sugar-sweetened drinks off the menu nine years ago. Subway, Muffin Break and cafés within DHB premises all agreed not to sell sugary drinks – and instead sell diet drinks.
I gather everyone brown bags then………..
‘Of course it reflects the policy we adopted in 2913 in our public health plan.’
They’re from the future and smoking rates are still at 20-25%?
How much fucking dosh have their wasted ion trying to get people to stop smoking in the intervening centuries? I bet it’s a lot… they love throwing good money after bad.
Nice one, but I think God’ll press re-format button long before that.
Frank he didn’t mention where he has legal authority to issue FINES did he…….lmao Id put that one right up his arse and state chapter title and verse if theres law that allows private or public non police powered groups to charge and issue fines to anyone.
It aint like docking your pay for clocking in late now is it.
Thanks, Frank! Well done on getting a response.
It’s odd that he spelled ‘smoking’ with a capital ‘s’ in the final para.: ‘so barring Smoking’ versus ‘drinking of alcohol’ in the same sentence.
Smoking = the great Satan? ;)
Something subconscious there. Or maybe it was merely a typo. :)
Sadly, it still sounds as if smokers are on a losing wicket at that hospital. :/
The thing that hacks people off is that their nearest and dearest are seriously ill or dying. Who the heck is going to say ‘Sorry, you can’t smoke here’. Only someone who ‘wants to help’.
And a fine? Well, maybe. After all, it is government property. PFI won’t dilute that.
He doesn’t mean : “Our message is we want to help people to quit.” He means our intention is to force people to quit by treating them in an inhumane way and making them feel like outcasts. Well done Frank for trying to talk and reason with these people. They are bullies and thugs and it is about time they got that message loud and clear. #LeaveUsAlone
Sandwell have form for persecuting smokers:
Can a hospital issue a fixed penalty notice for outdoor, or even indoor smoking?
Johnathan from wjat I remember they cannot fine anyone for smoking out of doors anywhere unless its a flammable area. Under UK law,we addressed this issue about 2 years ago and dick puddlecoat I believe put up that it wasn’t against the law anywhere not even on NHS property to say you cant smoke.
A brilliant letter, Frank, and what a pathetic reply!
Your action prompted me, as a patient with COPD, to look more closely at the policies and procedures of my own local hospitals that are part of the Somerset Partnership NHS Trust as writing to them has been on my ‘to do’ list for some time and I’ve been slowly gathering evidence. The Trust had a number of pdf files under the headings Clinical, Corporate, Finance, Health and Safety, Human Resources, Infection Control, Information and IT, and finally Safeguarding.
I have not looked at Health and Safety yet (that I think is relevant) but went to Safeguarding, I looked at just one document called ‘Staff-Patient Relationships and the Prevention of Abuse Policy’ as I consider the existing smoking arrangements so cruel and divisive that it undermines patients’ already compromised autonomy and independence – the power imbalance is generally recognised so ALL patients are considered ‘vulnerable’. A total ban would remove the last vestige of any illusion of dignity, respect, autonomy or independence, disregard the care needs of patients who are smokers such as me (neglect) who have not found Nicotine Replacement Therapies effective and who do not want to be pressured (again) into accepting them. It deprives us of our liberty, holds back recovery and, in my case, it deters me from seeking advice or treatment in the first place. Staff/patient trust is significantly eroded. Policies like these meet the regulatory definition of abuse (see Reg. 13 below) in my opinion.
There are real harms being done so Toby’s claim “The rationale for barring smoking is health related” is very one-sided. He must take the harms into consideration and provide solid evidence.
He goes on to say “Smoking causes or exacerbates diseases we treat daily…”. I can only speak for myself as a patient that smokes (I make roll ups and use a holder). The course of my disease has not borne any similarity with the characterisation of COPD found on numerous websites, etc. that’s supposed to be due to smoking. I am NOT getting frequent infections (it’s years since I got a cold even). Despite now being classified as having ‘severe’ COPD (emphysema), I have NEVER been hospitalised. My annual lung function tests do NOT show an accelerated decline compared to non-smokers. I do NOT find cigarette smoke irritates my lungs or throat or make me cough even in the company of other smokers – the weather, bonfires, BBQs, hot cooking oil fumes, solvents and car exhausts do have a small but discernible effect however.
All hospital policies are supposed to be based on the same statutory regulations. I find it difficult to see how these draconian measures even begin to square with these. So, finally, for example, I quote Regulation 10 and 13:
Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 (Part 3)
Dignity and respect
10.—(1) Service users must be treated with dignity and respect.
(2) Without limiting paragraph (1), the things which a registered person is required to do to comply with paragraph (1) include in particular—
(a) ensuring the privacy of the service user;
(b) supporting the autonomy, independence and involvement in the community of the service user;
(c) having due regard to any relevant protected characteristics (as defined in section 149(7) of the Equality Act 2010) of the service user.
Safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment
13.—(1) Service users must be protected from abuse and improper treatment in accordance with this regulation.
(2) Systems and processes must be established and operated effectively to prevent abuse of service users.
(3) Systems and processes must be established and operated effectively to investigate, immediately upon becoming aware of, any allegation or evidence of such abuse.
(4) Care or treatment for service users must not be provided in a way that—
(a) includes discrimination against a service user on grounds of any protected characteristic (as defined in section 4 of the Equality Act 2010) of the service user,
(b) includes acts intended to control or restrain a service user that are not necessary to prevent, or not a proportionate response to, a risk of harm posed to the service user or another individual if the service user was not subject to control or restraint,
(c) is degrading for the service user, or
(d) significantly disregards the needs of the service user for care or treatment.
(5) A service user must not be deprived of their liberty for the purpose of receiving care or treatment without lawful authority.
(6) For the purposes of this regulation— “abuse” means—
(a) any behaviour towards a service user that is an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003(17),
(b) ill-treatment (whether of a physical or psychological nature) of a service user,
(c) theft, misuse or misappropriation of money or property belonging to a service user, or
(d) neglect of a service user.
(7) For the purposes of this regulation, a person controls or restrains a service user if that person—
(a) uses, or threatens to use, force to secure the doing of an act which the service user resists, or
(b) restricts the service user’s liberty of movement, whether or not the service user resists,
including by use of physical, mechanical or chemical means.
We might also inform the man of the over 3500 chemical releases from human breathing and indoor VOCs,besides auto’s releasing tens of millions of equal cigarettes each day by the front doors…….remember its the same as banning alcohol consumption on site right………its for health right…………..under his guise he will have to ban everything for the same reasons.
sounds like its time to get a lawyer and sue!
Thanks for that.
Smoking causes or exacerbates diseases we treat daily
JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS”
7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
“5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”
In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.
The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.
Oh looky here the AHA is crying because they cant get smokefree laws in every major city in America due to pre-emption laws! lol
They act like their convention is over 10 thousand people when likely it wouldn’t draw more than 1200 tops. How many paid activists can they fly in on money that’s dwindling to nothing in the smokefree business. Every state has stolen their MSA moneys damn near. Even California took a lot oftheir MSA money because they took massive loans against the future on them thru wall street.
AHA Says Sayonara to Smoking-Friendly Cities
—Not taking conference anywhere without strong smoke-free laws
The American Heart Association will not be returning to Orlando — or any other city without comprehensive smoke-free laws.
The new policy for any national event that requires registration goes into place in 2017 and may have some influence, according to AHA staff, who pointed out that the association lobbied New Orleans to enact such legislation, a city that the association’s annual Scientific Sessions will be returning to in 2016.
New Orleans this year became one of the nation’s last major cities to adopt a comprehensive indoor smoking ban, including in bars and casinos. The AHA had praised the Big Easy for passing “one of the strongest smoke-free laws in the nation.”
Orlando already wasn’t in the lineup for Sessions for the next several years because it already took its turn this year. However, the city could have an issue getting back on the list because Florida’s indoor air laws preempt cities from having more restrictive laws than in effect at the state-level, AHA staffers pointed out.
Another city on the short list that the AHA has used in the past that could be in jeopardy under the new policy is Nashville, Tenn.
“For Sessions, there are only a handful of cities around the country that can accommodate a conference of this size,” said Amit Chitre, AHA executive vice president for corporate communications. “So to have a city with smoke-free laws it makes it that much more attractive.”
As a media public health writer I find it quite odd the AHA would go as far as condemning cities that don’t have a choise over statewide tobacco pre-emption laws. In fact its pretty silly. Nashville Tenn has a wonderful brand new convention center with plenty of hotel space available within walking distance of the convention center.
Has the AHA gone so overboard on the anti-tobacco issue as to now be openly Prohibitional and fanatically controlled that they think they have the power to put down cities that have no power over such laws.
Im considering writing a few op eds on this subject in the cities you have mentioned in your above article. Im sure Nashville would love to know they are a targeted and victimized city simply because state law allows a few places to have smoking whle everything else is Non.
In fact I may just write about how the ACS,ALA and AHA were created by Mr. Rockefellor at the end of the last round of Prohibition in America.
It seems the AHA thinks they are the almighty and can force their views upon anyone without regard to free choise or free trade.
While trying to get people to stop smoking is an admirable cause using the power of criminal law to justify your crusade its truly becoming a tyrannical way of dealing with smokers. May we soon see the AHA pushing for laws against peope with obesity from being fed in restaraunts next or perhaps they will choose alcohol and sugar prohibition laws next. Itd be ashame to know a small child somewhere was enjoying a ice creame without your approval,ehh!
Take some advice AHA you did better when you simply went with advertising and teaching about smoking hazards,then came your criminal laws defacto prohibition for a free person simply enjoying a smoke in a venue the owner will allow. That’s the American way not criminal laws for doing an activity that is highly taxed and is legal!
Looks like Belgiums fixing to go underground on cafes and smoking………I wonder how much the loss in state revenues will be after they start shutting down left and right over say ten or 20 years.
A café shut down for not respecting the smoking ban for the first time
For the first time in Belgium, a café has been shut down because the owner broke the ban on smoking in catering establishments several times, the Mediahuis papers reported on Saturday.
The Café Milano in Ghent, which is now called Venus, was closed by police on Friday. The owner had been fined for not respecting the smoking ban in cafés and restaurants nine times. As well as a 4,800 euro fine, the owner has to keep his establishment closed for a month, until the 5th of December.
Two other owners decided to shut their cafés themselves following a sanction.
These are the first cafés to close for this reason, according to the Eastern Flanders Prosecutor’s office. “We have always had a zero tolerance policy on smoking in cafés, and we are pleased that those who refuse to obey the law are being severely punished”, the Prosecutor’s office said. They are expecting further closures over the coming months.
Finally after 5 days with the flu Im finally starting to feel a bit better. I actually just ate my first real meal in 5 days minutes ago without wanting to go OMG…..Its the B type Influenza going around here the hospital said………..Its a MOFO head to toe full blown flu! watch out for it.
Do you think you are recovering more quickly because you smoke? Are other smokers?
Non-smokers always seem to be down for two weeks with the flu — meaning off work.
My sep daughter whosea nurse just left a bit ago and her girlfriends hubby had it for 11 days and he smokes. Its just a rough ass flu bug type B influenza is what I was told. seems to be averaging right at 7-10 days to get over it for most folks. Wish I had got a flu shot now.I usually don’t get one but when I do I usually don’t get it until late November because the shots only good for about 3 months and here peak flu is January to February just at the time the flu shot wears off…………..that’s how it works only yhe flu hit early this year.
Poll: Should taxpayers’ money be used to help people stop smoking?
Telford & Wrekin Council is to spend £190,000 less a year on programmes to help people in the borough quit smoking, it has been revealed.
It is part of a near £750,000 cut to the authority’s public health budget which also includes plans to scrap free swimming for over-50s at the council’s four leisure centres.
The quit smoking schemes have been acknowledged as being as massive success. Nearly 120 pregnant women were supported to give up smoking in 2014/15 and in total more than 1,000 smokers were supported to stop lighting up in the same period.
The authority had planned to spend £562,000 on quit smoking guidance and programmes in the 2015/16 financial year.
But in a report due to go before the council’s ruling cabinet on Thursday, proposals are revealed to slash £190,000 from that to absorb some of the cuts from Whitehall.
I left as a comment if it gets published ”Why waste any money on it to start with its been a totl failure since day one……….
NRT Failure Rate Soars to 98.4%
New revelations confirm that Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) has a documented long term failure rate of 98.4%.
PRLog (Press Release) – Apr 03, 2009 –
New revelations confirm that Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) has a documented long term failure rate of 98.4%.
NRT is the Government’s recommended treatment for its smoking cessation programmes and is heavily funded by the tax-payer.
Pro-choice group Freedom2choose are alarmed at these revelations and the obvious waste of tax-payers’ funds. Colin Grainger, vice chairman of the group states, “NRT products are obviously unfit for the purpose for which they are sold. This is fraud, wrong and immoral.”
Freedom2choose have previously highlighted alternative ways to successfully quit smoking, including the Allen Carr method, with a documented success rate of 58% for those choosing to give up. The Allen Carr method even promises a money back guarantee to those that don’t successfully quit.
“More worryingly,” continues Colin Grainger “is the shock that the scientists who put the study together even work for the manufacturers of NRT. This clearly shows how the Big Pharmaceutical companies influence the outcome of studies.”
The revelations were originally made public by long-term anti-smoking campaigner Professor Michael Siegel who states “With a long-term smoking cessation percentage of only 1.6%, one can hardly call NRT treatment an “effective” intervention. In fact, the logical conclusion from this paper is that NRT was a dismal intervention.”
Friday, July 27, 2012
Pharmaceutical Nicotine and Chantix: 93% Failure Rate Reconfirmed
A study published in the European Journal of Internal Medicine indicates that pharmaceutical nicotine and Chantix (varenicline) had 93% failure rates at two inner city academic health center clinics with predominantly Medicaid patients (abstract here).
Dear Mr Davis
Our supposed public servants are becoming ever more enamoured of their immunity from redress against whatever abuses they send our way.
The Declaration of Rights 1688/9 provides constitutional protections against the abuse by government:
That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;
Further, those forcibly restrained in mental health hospitals ought to be protected:
That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
At what point does the current public service mania for bans and the abuse of smokers finally morph into misconduct in a public office? Even a fraction of the current level of abuse directed at smokers and, strangely, vapers, whom they wish to abuse as if they were ‘normal cigarette smokers’, would not be tolerated if it were directed against Jews or Muslims or homosexuals.
If chief executive Toby Lewis is quoted correctly, he has invented a new meaning for a word: cohort, a noun, becomes a verb. I suspect what he meant was ‘corral’ or ‘herd’, which would fit the ‘public as livestock’ philosophy pervading every area of government.
In the report in the Express and Star, the members of the board of trustees come over as a bunch of kids playing with the dressing up box. And we pay them.
Pingback: What’s Right and Wrong? | Frank Davis
Pingback: Is There Conflict Between Standard and Preventive Medicine? | Frank Davis