. I don’t smoke – never have! But I defend the right of other people to smoke if that is a risk they wish to take – it’s called freedom of choice and it is a concept that sits uneasily with the BBC left wing intelligentsia . Take it’s enthusiastic reporting this morning of the proposals that government may ban vending machines, packets of ten and all branded logos from the front of packets of cigarettes. Not only that but government may also demand that retailers place cigarettes below the counter or in a locked cabinet. I listened to an interview on Today this morning with a spokesman for Independent retailers who made the fatal error of saying that he thought this “consultation” reeked of the Nanny State. You can imagine the chill from the BBC interviewer that greeted this observation. All his points concerning the impracticability of these draconian proposals were met with studied indifference – it is clear that the BBC fully supports the idea of more bans from the government. Why are there no interviews with Tobacco companies and those who gain employment from such enterprises? Why is there this all prevailing sense of “if it produces smoke, just ban it”? (Unless it’s illegal drugs producing the smoke of course, in which case it IS personal choice in Beebworld) To repeat, I do not advocate that anyone smokes but I do believe in the concept of personal choice. Given the BBC’s demand that we all pay it our money, I suppose choice is a dirty word for the BBC, maybe even dirtier than cigarettes?
SMOKING KILL JOYS
Bookmark the permalink.
Who would you rather meet late on a Friday evening, someone who had smoked 12 cigarettes or someone who had drunk 12 beers? Virtually no antisocial behaviour can be ascribed to smoking. When did a lawyer use the influence of tobacco as a defence? If cigarettes are to b banned from being overtly on sale, perhaps they will ban my local Coop (that ethical organisation which funds the Labour party) from putting Buckie next to the till for all the neds to buy.
The only thing we should ban are politicians and those who spend more time worrying about my health rather than their own!
There is an irony in the fact that smokers live longer than non smokers – even though they might well die of smoking. There is also a worry that the idea that smoking does cause lung cancer doesn’t quite hold the water that we are lead to believe. However, the BBC of all people are not known for championing a truth when it goes against their beliefs!
Don’t be an idiot. Smoking is a strong risk factor for lung cancer. And passive smoking is a risk factor in bladder cancer.
The COOP is not ‘ethical’ in any meaningful sense of the word, so that’s irrelevant either way.
david -> i smoke – so lets get that out of the way.
i dont mind NOT smoking in pubs. if that makes the majority who are non-smokers have a more pleasant environment to have a pint, well, i dont mind that – i’m a civil sort of person.
BUT , i really do believe that this is a buttering up – a testing so to speak – to see if the British public can roll over and accept a limitation on a freedom that they had for , well, going on since tobacco was discovered over 400 years ago.
you are starting to see this which the subtle change in propaganda and BBC “news” stories now focussing on alcholhol..
notice how tobacco consumption has dropped off the headlines since the smoking ban?
mark my words – before you know it , you’ll have an ID card with your “units” consumed for the week digitally recorded on it. you’ll have to present that card before a publican or off license will serve you alchohol…
notice a similar thread going on with “underage drinking”… they are framing the media stories in order to create “problem” which only big government can answer.
this is part of the reason why the Church of England came out with that report this weekend complaining that Christian charity is ignored..
if you are involved in knife crime or drugs or drink or whatever , there are already counsellors available who are NON-STATE, and entirely free – its called your local priest (or vicar..)!!!
“Nearly Oxfordian | 03.06.08 – 10:02 pm”
my grandmother, who drank a pint of guiness and smoke like a trooper lived until the age of 95.
my aunt, who was a daughter of my nan, went the “healthy” route, tee total, and non smoker.
died of cancer, aged 50.
i can give far more examples from my extended Irish family, but i’d only take over the thread…
“jason | 31.05.08 – 8:37 pm ”
amazing how psychology works. i get a sense of superiority over the likes of you not-smoking, but actually smoking.
its the inner rebel in me, that is obviously very childish and i shouldnt be doing it… but god damn – when i smoke a ciggie, i really do feel as if i’m kicking Dawn Primarillo and the other androids in the face.
silly and childish i know. if your off the fags, then well done.
sidenote: and this is a genuine observation from california about a decade ago, when their smoking ban came into force.
in Cali, the law was constructed so that it respected private property rights – so if the bar owner liked his Havanas , then he could allow smoking in his bar. if the bar owner was a non-smoker, then he equally could instantly dismiss any employee caught smoking and was free to ban it in his premises.
a comprimise, that respected the rights of business owners. which i thought made a lot of common sense.
trouble is – anytime i went out in california , the smoking bars were packed full of students, “rebelling”.. for want of a word.
the latest stats i came across in ireland , show that teenage smokers have actually INCREASED since the ban. i could have predicted that 10 year ago, based on what i saw in california.
government is never the answer. especially bansturbation by a socialist government.