Thursday, 2 July 2009

Lunatic ban on smoking in the open air

There is no evidence that one single person has ever, ever, died from the effects of passive smoking. Let me repeat. There is no evidence whatsoever that passive smoking has ever killed anyone. Over the years Numberwatch has catalogued this government's abuse of science in support of the indefensible, summarised in The March of the Zealots.

I am grateful to Witterings from Witney to drawing my attention in a comment to a post below to a lunatic proposal to ban smoking in the open air. Well, it's already started. South Eastern Trains have already banned smoking on open station platforms, and I expect it won't be too long before my local council bans smoking in its parks.

In a beautifully excoriating post, the Devil sums up the recent history of attacks on smokers, and now drinkers, all founded on a fouled tissue of outright lies, false science and emotive propaganda. The demonisation of smokers exempt from any discrimination law, though, could well prove to be the undoing of the zealots.

For if there is no offence in discriminating against smokers, there can be no offence in smokers discriminating against non-smokers. Where's the smokers' paper in which I can place employment adverts?

Just as gay people, fed up with an underlying hostility, used the strength of the 'pink pound' to run their own hotels, bars and facilities, I can see the advent before long of a whole network of smoker-friendly facilities. I'd love to arrange travel and accommodation on a website dedicated to the smoker's needs; a list of hotels with smoking encouraged in all rooms, even airlines that permitted smoking. Pubs and bars rated with stars on the quality of their smoking accommodation. I'm overdue for a short holiday; where are the world's most smoker-friendly destinations?

At the same time, a very small number of legal challenges to the EU smoking bans is growing. The prospect of class actions across the EU as well as a low level civil disobedience beyond the resources of the State to police can regain much of the ground lost to the Zealots. Where's my directory of smoke-friendly solicitors? Where's the legal advice line for smokers?

At a time when financial services are under pressure, I'm astonished that the pensions and annuities sector isn't making more of the enhanced benefits available to smokers. Where are the entrepreneurs chartering smoker's flights to Luxembourg to stock up on 3,200 cheap ciggies each and back the same day? Every flight would be filled to capacity.

The time for whingeing has ended. The fightback must begin. Let us smokers use our financial resources, our flair, skill and expertise and carve out for ourselves a future despite the Zealots.


The Great Simpleton said...

This non-smoker of 25 years wishes you luck.

If we must have some banning, I would rather it was banned outdoors rather than pubs. I have a choice whether or not to go in to a pub, I don't have much choice about walking down the street and getting a gob full of smoke when someone lights up in front of me. Not because of the bogus passive snoking argument, I just don't like the smell and taste.

Raedwald said...

I'm sympathetic - I can't stand cheap perfume or aftershave (not ahem that I'm suggesting you wear either ..)or particularly that nasty body spray that some office girls use in the morning in lieu of bathing, and fast food eaten on the street and the tooth-rattling thump of car boom boom systems, but would I ban them all? Surely some unpleasantnesses are worth tolerating?

Anonymous said...

You might find Sweden more to your liking; I noticed a smoking room at Arlanda airport (indoors, no compromises!), the women are good-looking, nobody is fat, and the sailing is excellent.

Rather a pricey place, though.

The Great Simpleton said...

I did say - if they must have some banning. I was, and still am, against the ban in all its forms.

Dick Puddlecote said...

Great article. It has been noticeable that the hysteria from the anti-smoking zealots has now reached such shrill, fanatical proportion, that it is turning people against them.

It's good that more are realising that, hey, they are lying the big one.

Anonymous said...

If it comes down to it, there's not all that much evidence that having a few cigs does you any harm either, when any so-called 'scientist' wanting to promote himself can fiddle about with some random statistics without the aid of a lot of rational sense. In the meanwhile millions of cars eject fumes in clouds...not to mention those revolting 'perfumes' which smell lethal to my nose

Anonymous said...

An outdoor ban would be completely unnecessary. It would be yet more use of junk pseudo science (which they claim to be credible scientific evidence) concerning second hand smoke. The likes of ASH would probably argue they are targeting smokers to get them to quit! Well there is a fine line between this and persecuting people that smoke and believe me they have already well crossed that one.
Such bans amount to the persecution of a minority group for their perfectly legal lifestyle choice.
Outdoor bans and pub/ club smoking ban laws are the mark of a dictatorship where adult freedom of choice is a thing of the past.