Shattered Communities Everywhere

H/T Bill Gibson on Facebook for something I don’t remember noticing 4 months ago.

25 September 2015

A UKIP MEP has told the party’s conference the ban on smoking in public places in England has “damaged more communities than the pit closures did”.

At a fringe meeting about which political party best spoke for the working class, Tim Aker said the 2005 ban had upped levels of hidden drinking by forcing people “to retreat inwards”.

It was evidence of a “bankrupt” Labour telling people “what to do and think”.

Senior UKIP figures have also targeted new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

UKIP made big inroads into traditional Labour heartlands in May’s election – coming second to the party in a host of seats in the north of England – but it has been suggested that Mr Corbyn’s election could halt this momentum.

But Mr Aker, who lost to Labour by 800 votes in Thurrock in May, said Labour had “ceased to exist” as a party of working people, choosing to “lecture rather than represent them”.

Citing the smoking ban as an example of a policy that had hit C1 and C2 workers, he said: “They (Labour) say all the time, despite ignoring the facts, that it was the pit closures that destroyed all the communities.

“But I put it to you that the smoking ban has destroyed more communities than any any pit closure has done because when people don’t have a place to meet, a place to socialise, they retreat in.

Always good to see someone telling it like it is.

Except that it’s worse than that. The pit closures he was talking about happened, from memory, in the 1980s after Margaret Thatcher took on the coal miners under Arthur Scargill – and won. A lot of pits closed down, and that’s what shattered a great many coal mining communities.

But not everybody in Britain was a coal miner. Nobody else was affected very much. And that’s where the smoking ban was worse than the coal mine closures. Because it affected everybody – everybody who ever went to pubs or cafes or wherever they used to smoke – all over Britain. In England, Scotland, Wales. Everywhere.

And once smokers were “exiled to the outdoors” like Deborah Arnott predicted, that was bound to shatter communities. It certainly shattered mine. There’s nothing left.

But it’s even worse than that. Because it’s not as if Britain has been the only place in the world that has been introducing smoking bans. Pretty much everywhere else in the world is doing the same. There are shattered communities in the USA and Canada and Australia and New Zealand. And there are shattered communities all over Europe – in Spain and France and Holland and Germany , and all over the Middle East. And now Russia and China as well. In some places the laws aren’t as draconian as elsewhere. And in some places – like Greece – it seems the law just gets ignored. But apart from that it’s the same everywhere.

It’s global in its scale. That’s what is really shocking. This atrocity is being committed pretty much everywhere, all around the world.

But there’s nobody much in any of the mainstream political parties that pay any attention to it at all. Not even Donald Trump mentions it. It falls to fringe parties like UKIP to tell the truth that the rest won’t tell.

The only surprise is that the BBC actually reported it.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

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

22 Responses to Shattered Communities Everywhere

  1. Smoking Lamp says:

    I agree smoking bans destroy communities. Perhaps the real goal is to divide and conquer. After all there are no real health affects from second hand smoke despite the propaganda claiming no safe exposure. Now they are moving toward prohibition of tobacco and alcohol and banning smoking in public housing. They will evict smokers who don’t comply. Remember the call to ban smoking and exile smokers to the outdoors! It’s all about social control and you can’t control if people can freely assemble and discuss the blatant lies.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      I don’t think its going to go to far evicting blacks from the projects over smoking since they cant even do it over drugs or shootings.

    • Joe L. says:

      As the pseudoscience regarding smoking continues to increase in its absurdity while governments worldwide continue to reference it as validation for passing increasingly restrictive bans and encouraging discrimination against smokers, I become more and more convinced that the goal (or at least one of the goals) of this social engineering is “divide and conquer.”

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    Consumers want smoking rooms

    Posted on August 11, 2015

    Younger people don’t appreciate just how devastating the smoking ban has been. In the years that followed its introduction in the UK thousands of pubs closed.

    Jobs were lost and the ban ruined many people’s social lives. Older people in particular stayed at home and politicians have the cheek to tell us that loneliness poses a serious health risk!

    Not for the first time government ignored public opinion when the legislation was introduced. According to a 2005 poll 66% said pubs, bars and clubs should be able to accommodate smokers.

    Two-thirds said they thought it should be up to licensees rather than politicians to determine their own smoking policy.

    Compliance has been high but that’s because people are generally law-abiding. Many are still angry at the extent of the ban.

    Tobacco is a legal product and it’s wrong to ban people from smoking in every pub and club in the country. As artist David Hockney once said, “Pubs aren’t health clubs.”

    It’s not too late to amend the legislation. Allowing separate, well-ventilated smoking rooms would give everyone – publicans, customers and staff – a choice.

    It would be popular too. In a recent national poll 57 per cent of adults supported the idea.

    At the very least the regulations on outdoor smoking shelters should be relaxed so people can smoke outside in a warm, comfortable environment all year round.

    Is that too much to ask?
    http://www.actiononchoice.org/smoking/publicans-and-consumers-deserve-choice/

    • prog says:

      Unfortunately, this kind of hand wringing simply doesn’t wash with TPTB. Compliance has indeed been high, but only because publicans and other business owners have the most to lose if the ban is flouted. This is the ONLY thing that has served to ensure continuing success. In effect, we have seen absolutely no official movement with regard to easing the ban and, unless a major political shake up occurs, we never shall. People who write such articles have no understanding that the smoking ban was not about the health of staff, but about persecution and ‘denormalisation’ (as per SL, above) – a crucial step along the road to nowhere. The current government is party to this deceit and has totally betrayed those who naively believed that the nanny state would be rolled back once the Tories achieved power.

  3. Timothy Goodacre says:

    Good points. The pub industry has been decimated by the antics of these anti smoking bigots as has my lifestyle. Pubs are now dead most of the time or full of spoilt little brats running round long after their bedtime. Smoking bans must be opposed, flouted or ignored.

  4. harleyrider1978 says:

    Anti-smoking brigade think they have carte blanch to berate us

    NOTE with interest the letter (January 20) from Ash Scotland chief executive Sheila Duffy in response to my own (January 19). The anti-smoking lobby have long denied those who smoke the ability to socialise and implied that we must be some form of lower being. After all why would someone continue to smoke when shown the pictures on packets of cigarettes? We must be stupid … except that several of these pictures have nothing to do with smoking having happened by other means to people who happened to smoke.

    Anti-smoking is a business, with large amounts of money to be made from encouraging the idea that stopping smoking is difficult. We smokers are to be looked at with a mixture of compassionate anger and hypocrisy over how weak-willed we are.

    I once sat down on a public bench in Glasgow to rest and have a cigarette. This is something which happens to me quite often, given that I need 16 pills a day just to be able to walk around. Someone else wanted to sit on the bench – an anti-smoker who berated me and told me in no uncertain terms that I should move so they could sit there. These are the kind of people the anti-smoking lobby breed. Anti-smoking has given carte blanche for any person to tell another that they are a second-class human being and should go away. And this has been backed up by our politicians who have turned it into law.

    Last year the results of an extensive study into the so-called results of second-hand smoke was published in the United States. This found that there is no link whatsoever between second-hand smoke and the likelihood of cancer. The scientists who were engaged in this research were berated by the anti-smoking lobby and urged to recant on their research or they would make sure that their universities fired them.

    Perhaps Ms Duffy would like to go along to the Scottish Parliament and view the work of my old friend and mentor John Bellany, who when I knew him in Winchester and London would often say that we needed to stand back and have a cigarette and view the canvas to figure out whether it could be improved, or not.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14227133.Anti_smoking_brigade_think_they_have_carte_blanch_to_berate_us/

  5. harleyrider1978 says:

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Or even “sod it, I’ll just tell ’em that New Research suggests

      They all say that then the reporter on tv looks up at the camera to the viewing public with a facial expression of you do believe me dont you and the reporter is still trying to believe the trash himself even though he knows he is looking like BOZO the clown to the whole viewing public.

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    Well here it is the END GAME in print

    Factors Associated with Complete Home Smoking Ban among Chinese Parents of Young Children

    Abstract
    (1) Background: The home environment is a major source of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) exposure among children especially in early childhood. ETS exposure is an important health risk among children and can cause severe and chronic diseases, such as asthma, bronchitis, and premature death. However, ETS exposure at home has often been neglected in the Chinese families. Identification of factors that facilitate or otherwise hamper the adoption of home smoking ban will help in the design and implementation of evidence-based intervention programs. This study identifies factors correlated with home smoking bans in Chinese families with children. (2) Methods: A cross-sectional survey of parents living in Nanning city, Guangxi Province, China with at least one smoker and a child in the household was conducted between September, 2013 and January, 2014. A Chi-square test was used to compare categorical variables differences between the parents who had home smoking bans and those with no home smoking ban. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors correlated with home smoking bans. (3) Results: 969 completed questionnaires were collected with a response rate of 92.29% (969/1050). Of the respondents (n = 969), 14.34% had complete home smoking bans. Factors that were associated with home smoking bans were: having no other smokers in the family (OR = 2.173), attaining education up to high school (OR = 2.471), believing that paternal smoking would increase the risk of lower respiratory tract illnesses (OR = 2.755), perceiving the fact that smoking cigarettes in the presence of the child will hurt the child’s health (OR = 1.547), believing that adopting a no smoking policy at home is very important (OR = 2.816), and being confident to prevent others to smoke at home (OR = 1.950). Additionally, parents who perceived difficulty in adopting a no smoking policy at home would not have a home smoking ban (OR = 0.523). (4) Conclusions: A home smoking ban is not widely adopted by families of hospitalized children in Guangxi Province, China. To protect the health of children, there is a need to develop and test interventions to promote home smoking bans. Factors identified as predictors of home smoking ban should be considered in the design of interventions.

    http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/13/2/161

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    Conclusions: A home smoking ban is not widely adopted by families of hospitalized children in Guangxi Province, China. To protect the health of children, there is a need to develop and test interventions to promote home smoking bans. Factors identified as predictors of home smoking ban should be considered in the design of interventions.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      So the ratz working on using sick kids to attack smoking parents at home invent a study to use to coordinate efforts at government to push for mandantory smokefree homes or likely lose your kids. Thats how I see it.

  8. harleyrider1978 says:

    This hogwash junk study is full of the usual SHIT all the way thru it………..This has got to be the most utter bullshit ever created.

    Introduction

    Secondhand Smoke (SHS) is defined as “the combination of smoke emitted from the burning end of a cigarette or other tobacco products and smoke exhaled by the smoker” [1]. Thirdhand smoke (THS) is a complex phenomenon resulting from residual tobacco smoke pollutants that adhere to the clothing and hair of smokers and to surfaces, furnishings, and dust in indoor environments [2]. Protano and Vitali proposed that “environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)” be used as a more inclusive term to describe any tobacco smoke exposure outside of active smoking [2], to describe SHS and THS. ETS is one of the most common and important sources of indoor air pollution in the home environment. An estimated 600,000 deaths each year worldwide are caused by ETS exposure, accounting to more than 1% of all deaths [3]. ETS exposure increases childrens’ risk of having a carotid atherosclerotic plaque [4], respiratory tract infections, otitis media, asthma, and sudden infant death syndrome [5]. Eliminating indoor smoking practices in households can greatly protect children from the health effects of ETS exposure [6]. Study showed that the impact of at-home-smoking practices on children’s ETS exposure is highlighted by the significant and progressive increases in urinary cotinine levels from children not living with smoker(s) to children living with smoker(s) who do not smoke at home to children living with smoker(s) who only smoke at home when the child is not there, and finally to children living with smoker(s) who smoke at home even if the child is in [7]. Implementing smoke-free policies in work places and public places have been proven to contribute to improving the public’s knowledge of the harm of SHS exposure and changes in their smoking behavior, which could lead to increased adoption of voluntary home smoking bans [6,8].

    China is the largest producer and consumer of tobacco globally, with more than 350 million smokers [9] and 740 million non-smokers passively exposed to ETS exposure, including 180 million children under 15 years old [10,11]. ETS exposure is associated with an estimated 100,000 deaths annually in China [10]. The 2010 China Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) reported that 67% of non-smokers are exposed to ETS in their homes, 73% in public places, 63% in work places, 58% in government buildings, and 37% in schools [12]. Household ETS exposure rates in China were higher than in the United States [13], Korea [14], and Mexico [15]. Results from China National Behavior Monitoring, indicated the prevalence of ETS exposure in China persisted without any decline from 2002 to 2010 [8,16]. Since 2010, smoking bans policies have been gradually implemented in public areas including government buildings, public transportation, healthcare facilities, schools, workplaces, bars, and restaurants in China [17]. However, ETS exposure at home has often been neglected, despite being a major source of exposure to tobacco smoke among children, especially preschool children, who spent much of their time at home [18]. The low rates of home smoking ban in China, ranging between 6.3%–26% [19,20], indicate the fact that a large proportion of Chinese children are exposed to ETS at home, underscoring the need to identify factors that are associated with adopting home smoking bans. A home smoking ban is an effective, feasible, and relatively new measure to prevent ETS exposure among children. Studies have shown that implementation of a home smoking ban in families with a smoker will greatly reduce ETS (or SHS) exposure among children [21,22]. It is important to identify factors that facilitate or hamper the adoption of home smoking bans in order to develop intervention strategies to reduce ETS exposure for children in the home environment. Nevertheless, there are few studies that reported factors influencing the implementation of complete home smoking ban in China.

    This study estimated the prevalence of home smoking bans in Guangxi Province, China, through a quantitative study of parents whose children were hospitalized in two major hospitals. The study identified factors correlated with hospitalized children’s home smoking bans, and provided recommendations for implementing measures that promote home smoking bans. The home smoking ban considered in this study applies not only to parental smoking, but also to smoking by other cohabitants and visiting guests

    http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/13/2/161/htm

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Factors Associated with Complete No Human Breathing Exhalations Ban among Chinese Parents of Young Children

      Abstract
      (1) Background: The home environment is a major source of No Human Breathing Exhalations (HBE) exposure among children especially in early childhood. HBE exposure is an important health risk among children and can cause severe and chronic diseases, such as asthma, bronchitis, and premature death. However, HBE exposure at home has often been neglected in the Chinese families. Identification of factors that facilitate or otherwise hamper the adoption of home HBE bans will help in the design and implementation of evidence-based intervention programs. This study identifies factors correlated with home HBE bans in Chinese families with children. (2) Methods: A cross-sectional survey of parents living in Nanning city, Guangxi Province, China with at least one Breather and a child in the household was conducted between September, 2013 and January, 2014. A Chi-square test was used to compare categorical variables differences between the parents who had home HBE bans and those with no home HBE ban. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors correlated with home HBE bans. (3) Results: 969 completed questionnaires were collected with a response rate of 92.29% (969/1050). Of the respondents (n = 969), 14.34% had complete home HBE bans. Factors that were associated with home HBE bans were: having no other HBE’s in the family (OR = 2.173), attaining education up to high school (OR = 2.471), believing that HBE would increase the risk of lower respiratory tract illnesses (OR = 2.755), perceiving the fact that HB EXHALATIONS in the presence of the child will hurt the child’s health (OR = 1.547), believing that adopting a no HBE policy at home is very important (OR = 2.816), and being confident to prevent others from EXHALING at home (OR = 1.950). Additionally, parents who perceived difficulty in adopting a HBE policy at home would not have a home HBE ban (OR = 0.523). (4) Conclusions: A home HBE ban is not widely adopted by families of hospitalized children in Guangxi Province, China. To protect the health of children, there is a need to develop and test interventions to promote home HBE bans. Factors identified as predictors of home HBE bans should be considered in the design of interventions.

      HBE contains over 3500 known chemicals and residual chemicals collecting on walls and furnishings is also a danger to young children. HBE has been identified as causing 100,000 deaths a year in CHINA.

      HUMAN BREATH EXHALED (HBE) is defined as “the combination of HUMAN BREATH emitted from the HUMAN and 3500 chemicals” [1]. Thirdhand (HBE) is a complex phenomenon resulting from residual HBE pollutants that adhere to the clothing and hair of children and to surfaces, furnishings, and dust in indoor environments [2]. Protano and Vitali proposed that “HUMAN BREATH EXHALATIONS (HBE)” be used as a more inclusive term to describe any HUMAN BREATH exposure outside of Inactive Breathing [2], to describe HBE and THIRD HBE EXPOSURES. HBE is one of the most common and important sources of indoor air pollution in the home environment. An estimated 600,000 deaths each year worldwide are caused by HBE exposure, accounting to more than 1% of all deaths [3]. HBE exposure increases childrens’ risk of having a carotid atherosclerotic plaque [4], respiratory tract infections, otitis media, asthma, and sudden infant death syndrome [5]. Eliminating indoor HBE practices in households can greatly protect children from the health effects of HBE exposure [6]. Study showed that the impact of at-home-HBE practices on children’s HBE exposure is highlighted by the significant and progressive increases in urinary ISOPRENE levels from children not living with HBE(s) to children living with HBE(s) who do not EXHALE at home to children living with HBE(s) who only BREATH at home when the child is not there, and finally to children living with HBE(s) who BREATH at home even if the child is in [7]. Implementing HBE-free policies in work places and public places have been proven to contribute to improving the public’s knowledge of the harm of HBE exposure and changes in their HBE behavior, which could lead to increased adoption of voluntary home HBE bans [6,8].

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Chemical analysis of exhaled human breath using a terahertz spectroscopic approach
        2013

        “As many as 3500 chemicals are reported in exhaled human breath. Many of these chemicals are linked to certain health conditions and environmental exposures. This experiment demonstrated a method of breath analysis utilizing a high resolution spectroscopic technique for the detection of ethanol, methanol, and acetone in the exhaled breath of a person who consumed alcohol. This technique is applicable to a wide range of polar molecules. For select species, unambiguous detection in a part per trillion dilution range with a total sample size in a femtomol range is feasible.”
        http: //scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/apl/103/13/10.1063/1.4823544

        “Cynthia Lyons, East Sussex County Council acting director of public health, said, “Second hand smoke can harm our health and contains over 4,000 chemicals, some of which are known to cause cancer.”

        Well compared to the 3500 chemicals reported in human breath, some of them known to cause contagion, Cynthia Lyons’ concern over only 4,000 seems quite pathetic,

        I don’t particularly want to breath the contents of some stranger’s lungs either, but up until now had considered it unavoidable.
        Of course banning other people breathing in all enclosed public spaces would be impracticable – compulsory masks, perhaps?

        I THINK MISS ROSE WROTE THE ABOVE

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    The European Union is based on the Nazi plans published in Berlin in 1942

    Written by Julia Gorin “The European Union is based on the Nazi plans published in Berlin in 1942.” In 2008, director of the Freenations site Rodney Atkins

    http://www.vaseljenska.com/english/the-european-union-is-based-on-the-nazi-plans-published-in-berlin-in-1942/

    In 2008, director of the Freenations site Rodney Atkinson — former British Ministerial Adviser, author, and lecturer at University of Mainz in Germany — sent out the following press release:

    26th June 2008 – “THE NAZIS AND FASCISTS WHO FOUNDED THE EUROPEAN UNION – AND THEIR INFLUENCE TODAY: RECORDING ON CD of a speech given at a public meeting at the House of Commons in February 2008 chaired by Philip Davies MP by Rodney Atkinson

    “NAZI LEADERSHIP OFFICER” BECAME FIRST HEAD OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION IN 1957

    In the cd “The Nazis and Fascists who founded the European Union”…Rodney Atkinson tells the detailed story of an unmentionable truth — that:

    “The EU was founded and initially led by ‘former’ Nazis and Fascists, as was the Charlemagne Prize awarded to Tony Blair, Edward Heath, Roy Jenkins and others for their role in removing democratic sovereignty from the nation states of Europe.” No wonder, says Atkinson, that the EU has today reproduced the policies and structures of 1940s Europe and shows all the characteristics of a totalitarian anti democratic corporatist Empire — for that is what its fascist founders intended.

    In this speech — delivered at a public meeting held at The House of Commons on Tuesday 26th February 2008 — Atkinson describes in detail the backgrounds of those Nazis and Fascists who were so prominent in founding and supporting that “European Union” which now governs Britain — he describes how, among many others:

    Walter Hallstein, a “Nazi Leadership Officer” who promoted Nazism in Universities and the Law became the First President of the European Commission in 1957.

    Paul Henri Spaak openly rejected the democracies in favour of the fascist powers and warned the Allies not to attack Germany through Belgium. He became a Founding Father of the European Union.

    Walter Funk was a Minister under Goebbels at the Nazi Propaganda Ministry and as [the] Reich’s Economics Minister was responsible for dispossessing Jews of their property. He wrote the economic blueprint for a united Europe adopted by the European Union. He was employed in the Lower Saxony Education Ministry from 1957 to 1960.

    Hans Josef Globke drafted the Nuremburg Race Laws and then became Director of the German Chancellor’s Office from 1953 to 1963 when the European Economic Community was created.

    Lady Diana Mosley, the Hitler-admiring wife of [Oswald] Mosley (a supporter of the European Union and leader of the British Union of Fascists) expressed her admiration for the European Union in a BBC interview shortly before her death.

    No wonder, says Atkinson, that “The EU has promoted the ethnic cleansing of 1m people in the Balkans, mainly Serbs, Jews and gypsies, from Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo which all provided Waffen SS divisions for the Nazis in the 1940s.”

    “Either what those political elements wanted in the 1940s was reasonable, in which case we should not have fought the Second World War to prevent their “integrated Europe,” or they were extremely dangerous people and we must reject the European Union which they helped to create and which [has] their ideological stamp today.”

    Atkinson also describes a number of post war political figures…who have framed modern Europe and whose suspect political beliefs made inevitable the grave crisis facing democrats and freedom-loving peoples in Europe today.

    Rodney Atkinson is a former adviser to Ministers and an internationally praised author of 6 books on political economy and the crisis caused by the European Superstate, including “Europe’s Full Circle” and “Fascist Europe Rising” …He founded the international cross party website Freenations and The British Declaration of Independence. He has broadcast on radio and television in the UK, Germany, Poland, Yugoslavia, Australia and the USA and his books have sold in more than 50 countries. […]

    One no longer has to order a CD to hear the speech that Atkinson delivered to British Parliament. The recording and accompanying images appear on youtube:

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    Smokers: still coughing up

    Posted on January 26, 2016

    Cancer Research UK (CRUK) today demanded that the government ‘make the tobacco industry pay for the damage it causes and help reduce the number of people killed by its deadly product’ by slapping a levy of 20 pence on a standard pack of cigarettes. This is a dizzying piece of spin. In reality, it’s another case of public-health campaigners demanding a ‘sin tax’. Enough is enough.

    Smokers have been coughing up for far too long. As of March 2015, excise duty on cigarettes is set at 16.5 per cent of the retail price, plus 19 pence per cigarette. So, for a pack selling for £7, the excise duty alone would be over £5 per pack. But there’s also VAT at 20 per cent, so the final tax is over £6 per pack. Thus, tax makes up over 80 per cent of the selling price of a packet of cigarettes – or to state the case in the way we would whenever we think about applying VAT to other products, a total tax is applied to the basic price of cigarettes of about 400 per cent. And now the puritans in public health want to whack another 20 pence on top of that.

    Someone who smokes a pack of 20 per day thus hands over to the Treasury well over £2000 per year for the privilege of enjoying a cigarette. That’s not a mild rebuke for smoking – that’s the financial equivalent of a punishment beating. No wonder smokers are more likely to be poor – they’re victims of grand larceny on a daily basis.

    Yet there is no satisfying the public-health crusaders. For them, enough is never enough. CRUK claims it wants the new levy to fund government anti-smoking campaigns and NHS stop smoking services. It’s worth noting there’s an ironic footnote to the CRUK press release, which admits ‘Since the advent of e-cigarettes and campaigns such as Stoptober, we have seen the number of users of smoking cessation services fall’. Forget the reference to Stoptober, that’s just another piece of spin. The reality is that e-cigs have given smokers an alternative that allows them to carry on enjoying nicotine free from the clutches of nannying health workers. CRUK is so alarmed at the fact that its comrades-in-arms in the public health army are being made practically and even legally redundant that it wants to hammer smokers even more to save them – and try to ‘save smokers from themselves’ in the process.

    This latest demand for cash from smokers should be provide a salutary lesson to drinkers, vapers and anyone who enjoys sugar that public-health campaigners never give up. The temperance lobby, the swivel-eyed anti-nicotine loons and the food faddists have seen the success of anti-tobacco campaigns and are copying them religiously. There is no point at which there is ‘reasonable’ taxation or ‘enough’ regulation, short of total prohibition. Most of the time, politicians have had enough nous to reject the most egregious demands. But increasingly in recent years, Whitehall and Westminster have become sympathetic to this illiberal crap. Just take David Cameron’s recent change in tone on a sugar tax from ‘no need for it’ to ‘shouldn’t rule it out’.

    Anyone who believes in freedom of choice should be aghast at yet another attack on our liberties. But even those non-smokers who still think ‘well, at least it’s not going to affect me’ should sit up and take notice, too. You’re next.

    http://www.actiononchoice.org/smoking/smokers-still-coughing/

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