Report - Smokefree Ideology (in the UK)

[Duke of Erinmore]

Via Spiked I came across a really frightening report by Josie Appleton (a non-smoker) for a Civil Liberties magazine:

Now they want to ban smoking at home

Some UK councils restrict smoking in your place of residence. How much further will this go?

www.spiked-online.com

Full report here.

 

[Casual]

It’s going to be a much different world when the pendulum swings back. I probably won’t be around to see it, though. In some ways, I hope I won’t be around to see it.

 

[derhammer]

Ridiculous.
Soon I will need a permission just to fart in my own house.

 

[bullet08]

There was a story/book, a fiction, about last group of smokers being hunted down by government. The smoker's were hiding out in a desert cave savoring the last few cigarettes while the hunters were approaching. Can't remember the name of the story, but sure feels like it might turn into a reality.

 

[Duke of Erinmore]

There was a story/book, a fiction, about last group of smokers being hunted down by government. The smoker's were hiding out in a desert cave savoring the last few cigarettes while the hunters were approaching. Can't remember the name of the story, but sure feels like it might turn into a reality.

Indeed. See this quote from the Spiked article:

Such new restrictions on outdoor smoking are no longer even nominally justified by concrete health risks posed by smokers to other people. Instead, they are part of a new political and moral framework, a smokefree ideology, that is taking hold at all levels of the state structure, particularly regional governments and local authorities. This programme is seeking an end to the sight and presence of smoking in public spaces, not only as a public-health goal but as a political and moral good and a means of social transformation.

These measures (examples are that bars and restaurants are only granted additional OUTDOOR seats when they commit to have them smoke-free) are way above the original goal to safeguard people's health. It's just a ban for the sake of its own.

 

[warren]

As I've pointed out each time someone brings up the subject, the health risks are no longer part of the discussion. The general public is simply tired of leaving bars and such smelling of stale smoke, cigarette, pipe or cigar. Add, that to the fact that smoking is a purely selfish decision ... Well, there you have it.

Smoking is being pushed back to it's roots, private clubs or one's home/farm. Of course one wuld need to own one's own home. Banks will soon, I'm convinced, refuse home loans to smokers when finally permitted to. Landlords are now selective with respect to smokers. They simply don't need the expense of changing out draperies, repainting and new carpet in their property each time a smoker moves out. Employers, since unions started demanding health insurance, wish to improve their bottom line by banning or, at the least, reduce the number of smokers employed. Health insurers can readily show the stats which show smokers as a body are risk takers and have worse attendance records than nonsmoking employees.

Smoking is a purely selfish choice which impacts others in ways they do not like. Just accept that we are engaging in a purely selfish act which is no longer tolerated by society in general. So, move indoors, buy a bigger plot of land and accept the fact that we, as smokers are not to be tolerated for a number of very valid reasons. I defy any of us here to put up an argument that supports smoking other than, "I like/enjoy it."

I suspect doctors are out there who, for a fee, would write a prescription for smoking as necessary for a patient to ... well, something, relax? I doubt it would withstand a challenge though.

 

[workman]

As I've pointed out each time someone brings up the subject, the health risks are no longer part of the discussion. The general public is simply tired of leaving bars and such smelling of stale smoke, cigarette, pipe or cigar. Add, that to the fact that smoking is a purely selfish decision ... Well, there you have it.

Smoking is being pushed back to it's roots, private clubs or one's home/farm. Of course one wuld need to own one's own home. Banks will soon, I'm convinced, refuse home loans to smokers when finally permitted to. Landlords are now selective with respect to smokers. They simply don't need the expense of changing out draperies, repainting and new carpet in their property each time a smoker moves out. Employers, since unions started demanding health insurance, wish to improve their bottom line by banning or, at the least, reduce the number of smokers employed. Health insurers can readily show the stats which show smokers as a body are risk takers and have worse attendance records than nonsmoking employees.

Smoking is a purely selfish choice which impacts others in ways they do not like. Just accept that we are engaging in a purely selfish act which is no longer tolerated by society in general. So, move indoors, buy a bigger plot of land and accept the fact that we, as smokers are not to be tolerated for a number of very valid reasons. I defy any of us here to put up an argument that supports smoking other than, "I like/enjoy it."

I suspect doctors are out there who, for a fee, would write a prescription for smoking as necessary for a patient to ... well, something, relax? I doubt it would withstand a challenge though.

True.

 

[didimauw]

It's been banned in my residence since me and the wife got together. I've not lived on my own without her. Lol

 

[olkofri]

Ridiculous.
Soon I will need a permission just to fart in my own house.

The enviro-loons are already working on it.

I've joked numerous times that now with smart-toilets and 5G, the gov't will be able to analyse your shit and fine you for eating too much meat, fat, or whatever they deem dangerous to the environment or that makes you require more of their 'free' medicare. Expect a fine for shitting more than once a day.

Yeah, I've joked... back in the 50's people used to joke about smoking in public becoming illegal, didn't they? ?

 

[hoosierpipeguy]

It’s going to be a much different world when the pendulum swings back. I probably won’t be around to see it, though. In some ways, I hope I won’t be around to see it.

Unfortunately,I don't think this pendulum is going to swing back. We're heading down a path where smoking weed will be legal and socially acceptable in public while smoking tobacco will be a felony regardless of where you're smoking it. I hope I'm wrong and you're right.

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

Unfortunately,I don't think this pendulum is going to swing back. We're heading down a path where smoking weed will be legal and socially acceptable in public while smoking tobacco will be a felony regardless of where you're smoking it. I hope I'm wrong and you're right.

They'll be after the weed again in 10 or 20 years.. IMO

 

[warren]

Why in the world would the pendulum swing back to public smoking? Who, besides we smokers, wants to go around reeking of stale smoke? Sit down to a nicely and expensive prepared restuarant meal wreathed in smoke? Rent a car that stinks? Walk a sidewalk behind a someone leaving a trail of smoke? Share office space with smoking co-workers? Nope, I doubt seriously society will want to run the "public smoking" experiment again. We had our near century of it and thankfully a lot of us had the timing to be a part of it. The generations to come won't ever have to suffer through what many of our neighbors, fellow diners, airline seatmates, children, spouses, and etc. experienced. It was a good run, glad I didn't miss it. I am glad it's over though.

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

Why in the world would the pendulum swing back to public smoking? Who, besides we smokers, wants to go around reeking of stale smoke? Sit down to a nicely and expensive prepared restuarant meal wreathed in smoke? Rent a car that stinks? Walk a sidewalk behind a someone leaving a trail of smoke? Share office space with smoking co-workers? Nope, I doubt seriously society will want to run the "public smoking" experiment again. We had our near century of it and thankfully a lot of us had the timing to be a part of it. The generations to come won't ever have to suffer through what many of our neighbors, fellow diners, airline seatmates, children, spouses, and etc. experienced. It was a good run, glad I didn't miss it. I am glad it's over though.

It has swung before.

I smoke most any place I go.. Whether you like it or not.

 

[hoosierpipeguy]

They'll be after the weed again in 10 or 20 years.. IMO

I doubt it. The government prefers most voters to be in a dazed, stupified state. It's easier to screw them over.

 

[olkofri]

@hoosierpipeguy: what blend are you smoking to-night, mate? You're on a roll of damn-right-ness! ?

 

[hoosierpipeguy]

@hoosierpipeguy: what blend are you smoking to-night, mate? You're on a roll of damn-right-ness! ?

Thus far tonight, since dinner, I've smoked F&T CVP. Peretti 150th and working on a bowl of 2013 FVF as I type this.

 

[karam]

In a lot of places, in blocks of flats or smaller shared plots smoking is not allowed in the UK, you have to go out of the block, usually walk around the corner/to the edge of the parking lot to smoke or even vape.

I'm beginning to even agree with it when we're talking about any sort of shared space. What bugs me though is how precious and childish a lot of people are getting nowadays. Makes me think they're not people you can rely on if shit hits the fan, say they witness a mugging, an abduction of a child, robbery, racist abuse etc etc etc, will they get in and help or will they stand there to video with their phones, or walk on pretending not to notice not to mess their nice clothes?

I was looking for a house in the UK last year and was told that tenants without children are preferred in one place, which to me is borderline as bad as saying people of colour are "not preferred", so if people go that far where do you think smoking stands?

 

[olkofri]

I was looking for a house in the UK last year and was told that tenants without children are preferred in one place, which to me is borderline as bad as saying people of colour are "not preferred", so if people go that far where do you think smoking stands?

Some buildings are just not suitable for children, and in other cases, with the status of parenting nowadays, children are just too darn noisy and unruly and they're causing commotions all the time. Some buildings have a character for fellows who prefer quiet living, and these will leave if there are continuous rackets taking place. I'm in favour of landlords having full power to decide, without intervention of the state, whom they want to rent their properties to.

 

[Duke of Erinmore]

As I've pointed out each time someone brings up the subject, the health risks are no longer part of the discussion. The general public is simply tired of leaving bars and such smelling of stale smoke, cigarette, pipe or cigar. Add, that to the fact that smoking is a purely selfish decision ... Well, there you have it.

Smoking is being pushed back to it's roots, private clubs or one's home/farm. Of course one wuld need to own one's own home. Banks will soon, I'm convinced, refuse home loans to smokers when finally permitted to. Landlords are now selective with respect to smokers. They simply don't need the expense of changing out draperies, repainting and new carpet in their property each time a smoker moves out. Employers, since unions started demanding health insurance, wish to improve their bottom line by banning or, at the least, reduce the number of smokers employed. Health insurers can readily show the stats which show smokers as a body are risk takers and have worse attendance records than nonsmoking employees.

Smoking is a purely selfish choice which impacts others in ways they do not like. Just accept that we are engaging in a purely selfish act which is no longer tolerated by society in general. So, move indoors, buy a bigger plot of land and accept the fact that we, as smokers are not to be tolerated for a number of very valid reasons. I defy any of us here to put up an argument that supports smoking other than, "I like/enjoy it."

I suspect doctors are out there who, for a fee, would write a prescription for smoking as necessary for a patient to ... well, something, relax? I doubt it would withstand a challenge though.

This seems to be a sound argument, dear Warren, but for some reason I'm not buying it because probably there's a little libertarian in me that rebels against it.

To me your argument has two gaps in it: the first gap is - I don't find it sufficient to forbid something just for the reason "people don't like it" if it doesn't cause physical harm. Outside smoking in pubs doesn't cause physical harm, and even the "my clothes smell" reason is not really convincing.

And for inside smoking - if the majority was so overwhelming against smoke in bars, why do we need the government to enforce that and not let the landlord decide? Non-smoking bars would be florishing and smoking bars wouldn't find customers anyway, wouldn't they?

But the second gap is even more important: I find it unfair to say to people with little income "if you want to smoke at home, you just need to go buy your own property".

 

[karam]

Edit: don't want to get into a forum argument.

I can't argue with the parenting comment, as a parent I see a lot of kids behaving like I'd never dreamed to behave, growing up in the 80s-90s.

Sure they can chose who to let their properties to, same as I chose who gets my money. It's the attitude I have a problem with, we have all become very intolerant of everything not strictly within our personal little bubble.