Something's rotten in the state of Britain
Anon writes: With hindsight it is obvious that all bars, pubs and restaurants should have made sure their ventilation was adequate when this ban-smoking hysteria erupted. Then the government would have a weak case. Now it's a lost battle.
But the tactics we have seen from the anti smoke propaganda machine has been astounding. Everyone knows that when you have a bar/pub/restaurant with a non-smoking section the smoking section is about three times as crowded. Why? And if it were true that so many guests wanted smoke free environments, wouldn't most B/P/R-owners voluntarily make their establishments smoke-free? It would seem like good business.
Something's rotten in the state of this matter, and I wouldn't be surprised if we'll see new and glorious attemts to limit other rights and freedoms. Every day you can read about some new law being passed to prevent people from doing something. The health fascists are taking over! It seems anything that can be excused by referring to a health scare will pass without question. Sooner or later they'll ban alcohol so that everyone stays at home watching government propaganda on TV.
posted by Simon Clark @ 21:01
4 comments
4 Comments:
Yes it would be nice to see how much the anti-smokers ASH spent on all this propaganda, as I have been reading about ward closure already. Also just read it may cost up to two million pounds to police it. Shame they can't catch real criminals. Wonder if the total cost of all this will ever get reported. All we asked for really was better ventilation or a seperate room. The Anti-smokers should have a word with themselves because smokers put far more money into the NHS than most. Smoking in our cars or outside does not affect them only the smell. So what really has it got to do with passive smoking!!! Not one of the charities who decided to judge on this issue will no longer be getting any support from me. After 25 years approx supporting Candis I have decided they will no longer be needing so much funding now all these illnesses which passive smoking is supposed to cause should be erradicated.
In all honesty I don't think we should be too rueful about what pubs & restaurants did or didn't do in the past. After all there are lots of pubs across the UK with perfectly adequate ventilation - and the 'atmosphere' is often as sterile as the air in them.
No, what we have here is a bandwagon (public-place smoking bans) that started rolling in California in the mid 1990s and has gained speed as it rolled across the USA and into Eire, Norway and now the UK.
3 Years ago it would have been inconceivable that the UK parliament would pass such an illiberal and vindictive piece of legislation, but, such is the pace of the anti-smoking bandwagon that Labour MPs (and the Illiberal-Undemocrats and 47 disgraceful Tories) felt it was an easy 'hit'. Why did they do it? Because they could, that's why! And they knew from the experiences of Eire and New York that if they set the financial penalties so high, and force the hospitality business owners to be the policemen - on pain of potential bankruptcy - then it would be nearly impossible for opponents to exercise dissent.
Meanwhile the Government's case is most definitely weak, but, as with the justification for invading Iraq, the reasoning given for the impending ban is very fluid. In the final analysis my own view, for what its worth, is that most 'anti' smoking actions are predicated on one thing and one thing alone. That is the personal dislike of smoke and smokers. All of the other arguments about the health risks from 'passive smoking', the desire to help smokers overcome their 'addictions', the need to 'protect the children' etc are nothing but straw men designed to provide some form of post-hoc verification of their (very) personal biases.
To have passed such swingeing legislation, taking away 400-year old freedoms from 13 million people, on the selfish, personal whims of 380 MPs, is nothig short of a disgrace to democracy. To have based this action upon so many lies and distortions of true facts is something that one associates with Nazi Germany - a regime that this once great country fought against - and beat.
The only comfort to me, at present, is that the 'antis' in the USA - which started all of this nonsense - are beginning to go too far, and there are small, but hopeful, signs of the beginning of a backlash. The web-site of Forces International (http://www.forces.org) is well worth a visit, as their main goal is to collect and provide a repository of evidence that counters the reasoning and arguments of the antismoking bigots. It is worth remembering that Forces only came into being when the draconian bans started in the USA, and, far from disappearing and 'accepting the inevitable' as our own antis argue (on this site) and our own nanny government would clearly hope, they have grown and continue to grow as the insidious anti-smoking fascism spreads across the USA and the rest of the world.
It is true, "Something IS wrong in the state of Britain", as it is elsewhere in the world. But as long as this whole bandwagon is based upon a massive public health fraud, supported by myriad other lies told by 'the establishment' it must eventually fail, as the truth will always conquer.
We must never give up the fight. Our cause is right as TRUTH is on our side. Even if the ban proceeds, as it almost certainly will now, we must continue to work to return to some kind of position of common-sense, when the personal preferences and whims of smokers and the silent, sensible majority of non-smokers alike can be catered for without the hysterical baying of the anti-smokers being allowed to dominate the debate.
Nil carborundum illegitimi
To Anon - I agree with you wholeheartedly, and with regard to other limitations etc being put on people, did you not see in The News of The World, Sunday 19 Feb, that from 2007 Speed Cameras will no longer have to be painted yellow and they will not be restricted to accident blackspots as they are supposed to be now, but will put wherever with the sole purpose of catching anyone speeding.
You see, it has started already. That snuck through very quietly whilst all this other furor was going on. Even the RAC spokesman said that in terms of safety it just did not make any sense! But what should he know? He's only in the business of motoring.
Join the rest of us who are looking at moving abroad, whilst we are still sane enough.
"Passive Smoking Kills" they cry. Who says? I did notice, on GMTv last week, the b**ch from ASH jumping in so fast with 'Roy Castle' when the point was argued as not proven. I remember Roy Castle and have every sympathy for him and his family, however, was he the only entertainer who started out working in smoke filled pubs and clubs? If not, where are all the others that should have died of 'passive smoking'? I am also sure that he was not the only high profile act to come out of the clubs and pubs, so where are they? We would surely have of heard of them, ASH would have made sure of that!
Also, I noticed today on the BBC site that BT have decided to ban smoking in all its offices and vehicles from 26 March this year. They expect it to reduce absenteeism! In the last 20 years I can categorically say that wherever I have worked, in large firms or small, the smokers rarely if ever have time off sick, it is the non smokers that are always off with colds and flu! It is about time that the report from Australia (the one that has been mentioned on this site before) showing that smokers are healthier than non smokers and ex smokers were published over here and shoved under the noses of these so called experts in the field and see if they can disprove it. Considering that Australia has been an anti smoking country far longer than any other I know of, it is quite a turn up that this report was done in the first place.
The link, for anyone interested, is: www.forces.org/evidence/aussie/forest.htm
Post a Comment
<< Home