Only a couple of days ago, in The Genocidal Programme of Tobacco Control, I wrote:
Someone recently told me, for example, that in some places in London, which had smoking bans inside and for several yards outside, he had concluded that the only place anyone could smoke a cigarette was in the middle of the road. What more dangerous place is there than the middle of a road?
Exactly this is now happening in some of out hospitals. H/T Rose for this Telegraph report:
Hospital smoking ban forces patients onto dangerous roads, says trust
An NHS hospital is refusing to ban smoking on its premises because it believes doing so would put patients in danger of speeding vehicles.
The bosses of Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals in Dorset are defending their use of designated smoking areas despite pressure from Government health officials.
The trust said it had previously tried a ban of smoking on its grounds, but that this had only forced smokers dangerously close to the adjacent main road where cars and lorries frequently travel at 50 mph.
“Deborah Arnott, chief executive of the campaign group ASH, said: “Smoking is still the leading cause of preventable premature death in Britain killing nearly 100,000 people a year compared to less than 2,000 who die from road traffic accidents.
“The single most important change that smokers can make to improve their health is quit – Bournemouth should be doing more to support quitting not facilitating smoking.”
So ASH boss Deborah Arnott wants this Dorset hospital to drive smokers off the hospital grounds onto the streets outside, and into the path of speeding vehicles.
The first thing to remark is that the 100,000 smoking-caused deaths is an imaginary number. It’s a projected estimate of expected deaths. It is the product of a mathematical calculation of the form ax² + by³ + cz = 100,000, where a and b and c are constants, and x, y, and z variables. Establish the value of these various numbers, and perform the calculation, and out pops the magic number: 100,000. There are no actual deaths. There are no real dead bodies lying in morgues with their cause of death identified as smoking.
By contrast, the deaths from road traffic accidents are very real deaths. They are not the product of mathematical calculations. There are actual bodies in morgues, with their cause of death firmly established beyond any doubt.
In this manner, a phantom menace is being used to exacerbate a real menace.
Another remarkable feature of this story is that Deborah Arnott – who probably has no medical qualifications whatsoever, and probably couldn’t tell the arse from the elbow of a mangled road traffic accident corpse – has set out to tell a hospital how to conduct its internal affairs, and how to improve the health of its patients – in this case by driving them out onto the streets outside the hospital grounds.
What’s also remarkable is that, in many UK hospitals, smoking is now banned not just inside the hospitals, but also in the grounds outside them. There is no medical justification for this (there is never any medical justification for any smoking ban). It is simply that once a smoking ban has been established somewhere, it becomes easy to extend it to adjoining areas. First it’s no smoking inside the hospital, and then within 10 yards of the doors of the hospital, and then it’s 50 yards, and finally the smoking ban extends to the entire hospital grounds – and beyond.
And, in fact, in some cases, there are calls for smoking bans to extend not just throughout the hospital grounds, but also onto adjacent streets beyond the jurisdiction of the hospital.
And this is probably the reason for Arnott’s wrath. Because it is probably ASH’s intention that smoking bans must be extended from inside hospitals to their outside grounds, and then to adjoining streets and houses. It won’t just be no smoking within 10 yards of a hospital door, or even 100 yards, but instead one mile or 10 miles or even 100 miles. In this manner, smoke-free zones will gradually extend, in an ever-widening stain, around every single medical facility in Britain – all in the name of “health”. Prominent signs will warn drivers and pedestrians that they are now entering a smoke-free zone. Similar zones will gradually extend around schools and nursing homes. So when local Dorset hospital administrators thwart the extension of smoking bans, they’re thwarting not just the national goals of ASH UK, but also the global ambitions of the WHO, who are determined to wipe out what they describe as a global tobacco epidemic. Deborah Arnott is probably already taking up the matter at the very highest levels of government, and also in the WHO and UN and maybe even the World Bank, from whom orders will eventually emanate to overrule the recalcitrant administrators of this Dorset hospital.
For once smoking bans have been extended in an ever-widening cordon sanitaire around schools and hospitals, they can be utilised to introduce further bans within these ‘-free’ zones. They will not just become smoke-free, but also alcohol-free, sugar-free, salt-free, fat-free, fast-food-free, and carbon-free – where, as is usually the case with Tobacco Control and healthism generally, ‘freedom’ has come to mean its own negation, and become constraint.
It will become possible to install lifestyle management regimes inside these ‘-free’ zones in order to completely regulate and control all behaviours, not just smoking. They will be porn-free, Christianity-free, Conservative-free, gun-free, book-free, laughter-free safe spaces.