In a way you have to admire the efforts of the “smokers’ union” who are still fighting last-ditch battles against the inexorable armies of Governments who seek further to marginalise them and outlaw the effects of their noxious habit.
Amongst these smokeheads are a bunch of writers and other articulate protesters who seek to equate their belief that they should be allowed to smoke when and where they like with a specious view that restrictions on smokers’ freedoms are in some way an infringement of civil liberties.
Take Claire Fox of the so-called “Institute of Ideas” for example. Writing recently in “The Spectator” Ms Fox says that modest proposals in the Scottish Parliament to restrict point of sale promotion of cigarette brands “… flies in the face of the very basis of a free democratic society”. In the same article she even invokes John Stuart Mill in specious support of her view that further anti-smoking legislation is in some way an infringement of our freedoms.
The strange thing about Claire Fox’s nonsense is that she and other smokeheads such as Rod Liddle and David Hockney are intelligent and articulate people who would see through the cant of all this hypocrisy if it was applied to subjects other than their phony “rights” to enjoy their tobacco habits unrestrained. In reality anti-smoking legislation such as the ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants is wholly consistent with the protection of freedoms not in conflict with them.
The majority of the adult population doesn’t smoke and it surely the wish of this majority to enjoy their food and drink in public places unhindered by tobacco smoke – and this a right that the legislation protects. That the majority in an increasing number of civilised countries can enjoy a meal without the risk of smoke from a nearby table invading them is surely commendable social progress.
Of course although Governments are acting in the interests of most of us this does not mean that the smokehead brigade lacks supporters. The celebrity of a David Hockney, for example, is such that he will always have a platform to express his views – however poisonous. Similarly the tobaccos giants, such as British American Tobacco (BAT), have enough money to peddle piffle about their repulsive trade. If you can stomach it take a look at BAT’s website where you will find plenty of reprehensible nonsense about BAT’s commitment to “Corporate Social Responsibility”. If ever there was an oxymoronic idea it is that a tobacco giant can be “socially responsible” – but they are also firm allies of the smokehead bridge who tell us that they are defending our freedoms.

















15 users commented in " The Smokeheads Fight Their Last Ditch Campaigns "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackSmokers rights newsletter
http://www.smokersclubi8nc.com
http://www.forces.org
Smoking bans and “sin” taxes deny the users of a legal product both the right to Free Assembly AND to “Equal Protection” under the law.
Here in the States our Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution is designed to protect the rights of Minorities against the “Mob Rule” Majority. Tobacco use should be no exception – especially in venues where “consenting adults” assemble.
The UnConstitutionality of smoking bans, and “unequal” taxation, has not yet been challenged here. (Although the illegality of the 1999 Master Settlement Agreement, which picks the pockets of smokers to fund anti-tobacco political lobbying, IS currently being heard in a U.S. Dist. Court.) However, as more and more public parks here are now being made inaccessible to smoking citizens, (by means of local “Nanny” edicts), a legal challenge is inevitable.
Since there is absolutely NO compelling health reason to ban outdoor smoking, (and most non-smokers would agree with this),the issue will become become one of: “Can the personal preferences of one group usurp the public access rights of another?” The answer must be a resounding, “No!”
The courts will then be challenged to revisit the rights of citizens to equal INDOOR access. That day cannot come soon enough for the 25% “minority” of adults who smoke!
Oh, and BTW …
There is no “safe” level of auto exhaust. Do you think most asthmatics drive?
Ms here in the UK it should be too as it says in the Magna Carta. The issue will become that these bans will be challanged and that the antismokers have gone too far in their pure arrogance. In the UK the “minority” is more than 25%.
Also dont forget you antimsokers are infringing on the private property rights of business owners to run their business as they see fit.
Paddy, Paddy, Paddy….did you ever hear of exercising your God given “free will” and patronizing one of the already numerous smoke-free restaurants?
Cigarettes are a legal product. If you don’t like the smoke then you exercise YOUR right to not patronize anyplace that allows smoking. If your favorite place allows smoking (which makes one wonder how it could be your favorite place to start with), then you are free to exercise YOUR right to petition the owner, with other like minded folks to show him how going smoke free would be to his advantage. THAT is how a free market works. Everyone gets their preference that way.
Now here’s where you your hypocrisy is totally transparent: YOU claim that smokers have NO right to smoke while drinking or dining; and then you DEMAND BY LAW that ALL venues be smoke free to satisfy YOUR personal preference. YOU use the law to deny a private property (your taxes do not build or maintain it) business owner from exercising his own free will to choose to allow smoking or go smoke free.
There is no reason why there cannot be both smoking allowed AND smoke-free venues, other than the majority suddenly feels they have some god-given right to trample all over a minority group just because they don’t like their chosen enjoyment.
Take it further, do you drive? You are just as guilty of poisoning others, more so actually, than anyone else. Don’t believe me? Go sit in your closed garage for 30 minutes with the car running. Let one of your non-smoking buddies sit in another closed garage with 100 smokers chain-smoking for 30 minutes. Then we’ll see who walks out.
In the 2006 report by the former U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona, you have to read beyond his “press release” to find the truth. A good 85% of the conclusions in the 727 pages behind that press release do NOT support his “no safe level” announcement. The other 15% of the conclusions only show a strong association and still no real CAUSE (as in absolute). Your bans and laws that you love are in place through outright lies. Don’t you wonder what else they’re lying about?
I’m all for reasonable restrictions, after all everyone does have a right to not be forced to accepting something they find offensive. However, you don’t have the right to force your personal preferences on others either.
I wonder if you’ll feel the same way when the protection of the government goes after something you do enjoy that they want to ban. When that happens, don’t come crying to us for we’ve been trying to warn you, and all I’ll say then would be “we told you so”.
While I use to respect your right to free speech and your right to come and go as you please………I have had a change of heart,knowing now that their are people like you. Who do not respect the same rights as others….The bigotry and hatred you hold against smokers must also be aimed at other groups of society you cant stand ie…..obesity.Does it affend your marxist attitude to see fat people gathered around a trough of food in a public eatery……..I would be assured it does as I have seen progressives already to try and OUTLAW fat people from public restaraunts in missippi.
To what end will you cease to prohibit people from living as they see fit…….Yes ,I understand limiting your sites on socialization as a prgressive must seem sinful in your glory to establish more GOVERNMENT CONTROL over peoples lives……..I only hope that you will see the error of your ways before some fine law abiding citizen finds it neccisary to protect their way of life by ending yours……….You take a lot upon yourself to legislate your morality upon others in a world where individual freedom is the rule. tata and please take another zanax as I know you must have a hard time sleeping at nite worried about the polar bears….meanwhile I am off to the shooting range to practice defending my rights from overzaelous NAZIS.
I am glad to note that the right to air ones opinion has not yet died in this country even if the authors position is indefensible! the fact that you openly resort to name calling amply demonstrates the weakness of your case.
Despite the fact that I am a smoker I and many like me choose to ask non smokers if they mind if I smoke most did not object and if they did I chose to move away to smoke, effectively their right of choice has been stolen from them too!
How about the rights of publicans? Some of these buisiness people have been denied their right to earn a living in the trade of their choice as a result of legislating for your right!
Have you not a shade of shame or remorse for the hurt and suffering that is being wrought in your name by the cold blooded violation of innocent peoples rights.
If Common Purpose get their way, there will be smoking bans inside people’s own homes as well.
If you don’t know what Common Purpose is, I suggest you find out.
Click on my name for link.
Well, well why do you have to be such a self sanctimonious idiot? Why not start on the drug companies who are responsible for many thousands of deaths every year – look it up. I would say you are definitely working for or have some connection to the big drug manufacturers. Lets face it nicotine replacement is worth billions! I bet you drive as well – not very green or kind on the lungs is it? Getting your knickers in a twist and being insulting is not big or clever. Are you working for ASH? maybe you have Deborah Arnott posters on your walls to help with the ‘morning glory’!
billee
You achieve nothing with your childish insults. If you can’t make a case without using insulting invective about me or without using specious and irrelevant comparisons it might be better not to try and make a case at all.
so Paddy i bet you haven’t even read the other posts. Not surprising to me.
Carlos
I’ve read all the posts – they tend to prove my point!
It appears “billy” has touched a sore point there, with Paddy Briggs. Could their be some substance in it, regarding Deborah Arnott and a “morning glory”?
What ever turns you on.
Anyway I will pursue my right to enjoy a legal product, from which the taxman collects billions through “sin taxes”! Smokers do happen to have inalienable rights, exercised with respect for others that may not choose to smoke. Freedom of Choice!
Paddy Briggs, do you even know the meaning of the term BIGOT?
I do not have time to write a long post but I congratulate those who put across excellent arguments and I find myself siding with the public who enjoy smoking.
Paddy Briggs has disgusted me with this post.
I take heed to the continuous health warnings. However equally from my point of view, I know hundreds of people of all ages who enjoy smoking and the vast majority of them only seem to be suffering from ‘tax related stress’. The passive problem I see everyday is poverty. Not health. The world should not be this way. I think Paddy Briggs should stop speaking for those who are unfairly mistreating and begin to speak for those who are being unfairly mistreated.
Interesting…. the banner at the top of the page appears to be at odds with the article;
“High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news”.
Whatever happened to tolerance, its a sad day Paddy…. a very sad day when you can not accommodate your fellow man, smoking and non smoking venues providing choice is the answer a tolerant man would be looking for.
Leave A Reply