Nannying by big government has been with us for a while now, but when the smoking ban came into force a whole new door was opened.
Banning smoking in pubs and restaurants removed the rights of property owners to allow legal activities to take place on their premises. The government in effect took control of private property and began to dictate themselves what goes on within.
Pubs and restaurants are already heavily regulated, that is why they are collectively known as the licenced trade, but up until the smoking ban, activities that were legal for adults to do in public were legal within.
It was never about health because the public have always had the right to choose not to enter a pub if they were concerned about their health. The ban was about a seizure of property by the state.
This opens the next door for the Tobacco Control Industry; Banning smoking in cars.
Cars are also private property but the government has decided it now controls private property so they can also dictate what you do in your car.
Banning smoking in cars would be for one reason and one reason only – To protect children. There is no other argument in favour of a ban in cars. In order to effectively police this law however, the ban must extend to all cars.
Simply banning smoking in cars where children are present would be unenforceable. Small children cannot often be seen in cars and it’s hard to tell exactly how old teenagers are.
Police would have to pull over all smokers to find out if children are present in the car and to verify their age. It would be a logistical nightmare.
Therefore, smoking must be banned in all cars to make the ban work. All to protect the children.
Which opens the door to the next round of tobacco control – Banning smoking in the home.
Once the government decides it is unlawful to smoke in the presence of a child in a confined space like a car, they have to extend that ban to the home. There is no other logical choice. People are currently allowed to smoke around their children in their own homes. If smoking in a car causes children harm them smoking in the home must do so too.
The fact that the home is private property no longer matters. The government has removed property rights completely. This is the principle of extension that makes it impossible for anyone who did not object to the pub ban to complain about a ban in cars or in the home.
Of course this ban must also extend to all homes, regardless of if children are present. And how will they enforce it?
By opening the door to the next card in the tobacco control deck – Licences for smokers.
By purchasing a smoking licence you will automatically be agreeing to inspectors coming to your house to look for evidence you have been smoking inside.
None of this is about health. It’s about a confiscation of property rights, the government letting you know who is boss and above all, money.
The Tobacco Control Industry tell us that there is no slippery slope because tobacco is a unique product. The fact is that the slippery slope has been around ever since the seat belt laws were enacted in the eighties. Tobacco Control is just a rather nasty slope.
The seat belt laws were not brought in to protect others from your actions, they were brought in to protect you from yourself. When that happened, the government decided it could make your choices for you, that it knew better about how to protect you than you did.
In my younger days as a boy racer with a souped up car I discovered that insurance companies would penalise you heavily for fitting a roll cage. Why? Because they believe such a safety device gives you a feeling of invincibility. One safety device is compulsory yet another is frowned upon.
Seat belts, air bags, side impact bars, ABS brakes and traction control can all work to provide an illusory sense of safety to to some drivers of a certain mindset.
Horrible injuries have been caused during a crash by unsecured articles such as pens and phones flying around the interior of the cab.
Car accidents are by definition, nasty and dangerous occurrences. Many things can make them worse and many things can mitigate injury, yet we don’t legislate for everything.
We do legislate for wearing a seat belt, and because of that legislation we fine drivers who have caused no harm to others, themselves or even been involved in a accident. We fine them for the simple action of not taking the precaution of wearing a seat belt.
For their own good apparently. When a driver who has not been involved in an accident is fined for not wearing a seat belt, chances are they will do a number of things that very day that put them at risk of injury to a certain degree, and probably a much larger degree than driving without a seat belt.
We can’t legislate against all risks so why do it for any of them?
Take mobile phones for instance. Drivers can be distracted while driving if using a phone. So what?
If a driver is checking out a lass in a shot skirt when he should be looking at the road and causes an accident, in all likelihood he will be charged with dangerous driving, yet there is no specific law against checking out totty while at the wheel.
Neither is there a law against changing a CD, yelling at the kids on the back seat or playing naked twister while driving. Why not?
Nanny state laws are not about health or safety, they are about what the government can get away with.
If you ban or criminalise an act in the name of protecting you from yourself then the new law always comes with a fine. It’s the fine that the government wants. They need your money to waste and when they can’t get away with taxing you any further they will criminalise something you do then fine you for doing it.
They just have to draw that fine line between bans they can get away with such as using a phone or smoking in a car, and bans they can’t get away with. They will always push as far as possible but not so far that the sheep storm the pens.
Usually the government will rely on pressure groups to bring about the next ban. The government will of course sow the seeds of the next big scare but they will then sit back and wait for the charities and mothers groups to spring up and demand action. Action which they are more than happy to provide, because with action comes fines. Kerching!
Nannying has never been about health, it’s never been about safety and it’s never been about the good of society.
Nannying is a tax. It also lets you know who’s really boss.
The most self-destructive things that I do are to smoke and drink, both in moderation, although I should quit the former. However, it’s my (and my family’s business). The government can go bugger itself. They are doing many of the same things here in the States, by the way. What will they do when the smokers don’t pop off early, and start taxing the healthcare system, without providing revenue in the form of tobacco taxes?
Agree that it is your choice, VoR, but why ‘should’ you quit smoking?
No sarcasm meant here, but would that be because of societal conditioning brought about by bogus science? Peer pressure? Distorted photos on ciggy packs? The opprobrium of anti-smokers? Each plays its part.
Agreed. Quit smoking if you wish but only do it because it is waht you want to do.
Because it would make my wife happy, and she nurses a great many patients dying untimely deaths from smoking. Plus, I have young children that I had in my 40′s. However, I refuse to go quietly moulding away in a home.
It’s something to look forward to after a long healthy life isn’t it. Dying neglected in an underfunded care home.
The most remarkable thing about this is that it will absolutely create and empower a new criminal class of smugglers (already present) and criminalise smokers to the extent we can look forward to new “speak-easy” set-ups in people’s back rooms. It will also deny government revenue (good, but you would think they would oppose that) and apparently leave us alive longer to draw pensions and demand health care.
Probibition is known to be an unenforceable disaster if anyone cares to look, yet down the same road we gallop.
The government can’t see that they will loose a lot of money through smokers giving up / buying abroad and criminals making fakes.
ASH and the like don’t beleive that any pubs have closed or any criminals will make money from prohibition.
They’re a bit of a short sighted bunch really
That’s because they’re really religious zealots.
DaveE.
Those who warned five years ago that this was but the slippery slope of property ownership were derided as being conspiracy theorists, panicky and other things.
Remember how people would respond with:
‘It’s about HEALTH not PROPERTY. Are you stupid or what?’
Yet, what did Deborah Arnott say in 2006, before the ban came in? That essentially this was about social change. They only used the ‘health’ angle to get the smoking ban through (because they just don’t like the idea of people enjoying themselves as adults should).
It was a con trick all along, as Deborah tells you herself — a must read — highlights mine below:
link to guardian.co.uk
‘… It marks the culmination of one of the most successful social change lobbying campaigns of recent times. The campaign showed the importance of sound strategy, sharp tactics and a lot of luck, and holds lessons for future campaigners.
‘First, frame the argument. For years, action on smoking in public places was mired in discussion about the claimed “freedom” and “rights” of smokers, and the need for “voluntary” shifts towards compromise solutions, particularly in pubs, restaurants and clubs. We changed the terms of the debate to health and safety at work. We argued that secondhand smoke is a killer – making a smoke-free workplace a right for everyone, and that there is no “compromise” solution …
‘The next step is to split the opposition. In every country where smoke-free legislation has been mooted, the most vocal opponents are the tobacco trade and the hospitality industry. But the preferences of these allies are subtly different …
‘… John Reid (an ex-smoker), publicly stated that banning smoking in public places was not on his agenda. “Show us the votes,” said his political adviser, when we tried to convince him of the public health arguments. But Reid overreached himself. His description of smoking as a “working-class pleasure” created a media firestorm that we could exploit …
‘It is essential that campaigners create the impression of inevitable success. Campaigning of this kind is literally a confidence trick: the appearance of confidence both creates confidence and demoralises the opposition. The week before the free vote we made sure the government got the message that we “knew” we were going to win and it would be better for them to be on the winning side …’
Or blackmail, as it’s otherwise known, Churchmouse.
On behalf of the admins, I do apologize. One of your comments, Dick and one of CM’s was caught in our system. Why – I have no idea. Just doing my rounds now and saw it.
No probs, James, I expected it. Been flagged up as dangerous on many sites, so I have. It’s very encouraging. Someone is very upset and wants to shut me up.
Ta for spotting it quickly as other sites I could mention are not so observant.
Indeed. That Arnott woman has a lot of answer for
XX The Tobacco Control Industry tell us that there is no slippery slope because tobacco is a unique product. The fact is that the slippery slope has been around ever since the seat belt laws were enacted in the eighties. XX
It goes back further. Here is a copy of a letter I recieved from the Motorcycle Action Group last month;
link to i72.photobucket.com
The helmet law was earlier “for our own good”, although I would not go as far as to say even THAT was the first. But you can SEE “first” from there if nothing else.
Sorry it is a bit small, but with good eyes, or a magnifying glass…..
Same with the seat belt laws in the United States which came into being in the early to mid-1980s.
They seemed to come out of nowhere in a number of states. They were positioned as being ‘optional’, however, if you were in an accident or stopped for a moving violation, you could be fined / prosecuted for not wearing one. Therefore, to be within the law, seat belts became obligatory. I doubt many people remember the ‘optional’ nature of these laws.
The other elements used in the seat belt law were safety and ‘think of the children’ with lots of adverts and documentaries showing crash test dummies from the 1970s. ‘You wouldn’t want this to happen to your child, would you?’
A few things begin as voluntary but never stay that way for long. No fines in it.
Not being a biker and being a lover of cars I forgot to include the bike helment laws in my post. They’re a very good example
One of the first, dating back to 1973.