Last week I wrote to my MP to protest against the coercion of prisoners in UK prisons: prisoners are now being forced to stop smoking. It is perhaps the most obvious and blatant example of coercion by Tobacco Control. The prisoners are, quite literally, a captive population who can be forced to submit to any measures whatsoever. They also form a laboratory population on whom different experimental forms of coercion can be used, out of sight of public scrutiny. The results of these experiments will then be used to extend successful coercive measures to the wider population outside the prison system.
For Tobacco Control is essentially coercive in nature. It always acts to reduce the freedom of smokers. Initially, it was only mildly coercive, banning smoking on some carriages on public transport. But it is always becoming more and more coercive. After each new level of coercion has been successfully employed (i.e. has not met with resistance), the level of coercion is ratcheted up another notch. So, after smoking was banned on some carriages or compartments on public transport, it was fairly soon extended to all carriages or compartments – something that was probably thought to be a little too coercive to do from the outset.
It was only when smoking had already been banned everywhere on public transport, and in most public buildings (museums, cinemas, theatres, etc) that it was felt possible (in 2007 in the UK) to extend smoking bans to all pubs, cafes, and restaurants. In this case, the coercion extended beyond smokers to the employees in these establishments, who were to act as unpaid police to ensure compliance by their customers.
At the same time, smoking bans began to extend outdoors. In hospitals, indoor smoking bans began to be extended to hospital grounds, and even to neighbouring streets. The same began to happen around schools. And public parks and beaches began to introduce piecemeal bans. On 1 July 2011, the 4th anniversary of the 2007 ban, the BBC reported:
A Buckinghamshire town is considering banning smoking from its streets.
Councillor Paul Bartlett has proposed a new bylaw to outlaw smoking in any public place in Stony Stratford.
If the plan is approved by the town council, smokers who light up in public in the town could face on-the-spot fines.
“Stony Stratford is a historic town which is blighted by cigarette butts,” said Mr Bartlett.
“The plan that I am trying to put forward is for smoking to be banned in public in the High Street, surrounding streets, and preferably elsewhere as well.”
This proposed ban triggered a protest that was attended by not only several hundred smokers but also by several high profile politicians (e.g. Nigel Farage), and also received TV coverage. Here for once Tobacco Control’s latest coercive proposals met with resistance. They’d gone too far, too fast. Although that didn’t stop them for continuing to call for outdoor smoking bans.
And at the same time, long after smoking had been banned on public transport, moves began to made to ban smoking in private cars, this time where children were present. And tobacco displayed in shops had to be concealed.
And while tobacco advertising had long been banned, tobacco products now began to be used to advertise the dangers of smoking to the smokers who bought them: an example of advertising being inverted to serve an opposite purpose – to dissuade customers from buying a product. Another feature of this measure was the mendacious name that was given to it: “plain packaging”. This was mendacious because the new packages were anything but plain: they were covered in loud warnings and obscene images. The warnings were also mendacious, with the probabilities associated with smoking exaggerated into certainties.
Lying has become standard practice for Tobacco Control. And so when they were caught by surprise by the appearance of vaping products, they very rapidly declared, without a shred of evidence, that these new products were just as dangerous as the tobacco products they were designed to replace. So now vaping has been as quickly banned almost everywhere that smoking is banned.
For Tobacco Control, the end – eradicating smoking – always justifies the means. And so any degree of coercion (or lying) will be acceptable to Tobacco Control if it succeeds in eradicating smoking. This is why Tobacco Control has supported the extreme measures of Islamic fundamentalist organisations like ISIS in severely punishing smoking, and even executing smokers. For Tobacco Control is itself an extremist organisation. Its only concern is that it will one day be recognised as an extremist organisation whose values are antithetical to those of civil society.
Tobacco Control is always using more and more extreme forms of coercion to achieve its aims. And this naturally entails telling bigger and bigger lies.
One lie that Tobacco Control is using is that it is “helping” smokers to stop smoking. This is usually accompanied by the lie that 70% of all smokers want to stop smoking (in reality, 95% don’t want to stop smoking). But these twin lies can be used to portray Tobacco Control as acting benignly to help people, rather than – as is actually the case – coercing them into submission.
The current highly coercive smoking bans being introduced in prisons (which are the prisoners’ own homes) are almost certain, sooner or later, to be introduced in ordinary people’s own homes. The prison smoking bans appear to be being introduced prison by prison, rather than in all prisons simultaneously. They also appear to be accompanied by riot squads who can forcibly suppress any prison revolts that may (and very often do) result from the complete suppression of all smoking. This suggests that there is now in existence a mobile riot squad which can be moved from one prison to the next, as smoking bans are introduced in first one prison and then another.
And the same riot squads may then be used to suppress revolts in public housing, as they begin to be introduced after prison smoking bans have been completed. We can expect to see armed police present in large numbers when smoking bans are introduced in first public housing and then private housing. There will be house-to-house searches for tobacco and vaping products. Only when it is felt that 100% compliance with the home smoking ban in one district has been achieved will the armed police be withdrawn and relocated to the next district where private smoking is to be completely suppressed.
In this manner, home smoking (as well as all outdoor smoking) will be gradually suppressed everywhere. It may even be that the suppression of home smoking will be preceded by residents of selected districts being publicly informed of an impending total smoking ban in all homes, in order to give residents time in which to smoke their last cigarettes. It may also be that all homes will be required to be fitted with smoke detectors that are able to identify tobacco smoke.
And then, once all smokers have been forced to stop smoking, the same procedure will then be used to stop them drinking alcohol, or eating meat or salt or sugar, or doing anything else that has been deemed “unhealthy” or “antisocial” or “unacceptable”.