Germany: smoking ban unconstitutional
Wednesday, July 30, 2008 The Press Association reports that "Germany's high court says smoking bans in two states are unconstitutional, a decision which will force country-wide reviews of smoking prohibitions.
"The Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe today ruled on appeals brought by the owners of one-room pubs in the states of Baden Wuerttemberg and Berlin.
"Most German states currently allow larger establishments to have smoking rooms but the court ruled that this discriminates against the single-room pubs which can't offer smoking areas.
The court says either states have to eliminate smoking entirely in all establishments or change their rules regarding the smaller pubs. It gave state parliaments until the end of next year to come up with new laws."
It's an interesting development but there is a very real danger that in order to create a level playing field, the German states will now ban smoking in every bar. (Don't forget that in England, when it was suggested that private members' clubs might be exempt, the pub industry lobbied hard for a total ban.)
The best solution - for Germany, the UK and the rest of Europe - is to follow the Spanish example whereby bars and restaurants over 100 square metres can opt to have a separate smoking room; smaller establishments can choose to be "smoking" or "non-smoking".
But will common sense prevail?
Simon Clark
I have just received the following email from a reader in Germany: "Today the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled that smoking must be allowed in small pubs. Formally this decision is valid only in the Laender (states) Berlin and Baden-Wuerttemberg, but it will change the law in the other laender as well.
"Up to the moment smoking was banned in all small one-room pubs whilst in larger pubs smoking could be allowed in a separate smokers room. In Germany smoking is also allowed in all private clubs, so many former pubs closed formally and refounded themselves as 'Members only Smokers Clubs'.
"In Germany it is unconstitunal to ban smoking in private clubs and instutions, which are formally private rooms. You may become a member of such a smoking club by signing a list, stating your personal data, which includes a declaration that you willingly join the club understanding that there might be a danger by smoke or even 'second-hand' smoke and mostly by paying a nominal one time fee."
Simon Clark
Reader Comments (56)
It is both good news and bad news. The good is that a judge has actually told them that it is unconstitutional, and if this comes under European ruling, it could also mean (maybe) that our law on this is also unconstitutional.
The bad news, is of course, that they could change their laws on this completely, and make it a blanket ban like we have here in Nazi Great Britain.
You state: "The best solution - for Germany, the UK and the rest of Europe - is to follow the Spanish example whereby bars and restaurants over 100 square metres can opt to have a separate smoking room; smaller establishments can choose to be "smoking" or "non-smoking".
But will common sense prevail?"
Will common sense prevail? Does it ever? It isn't just a case of common sense. It boils down to common decency as well, and decency doesn't seem to be a word that the "ban'em brigade" even understands the meaning of.
You quote Spain as having the perfect solution, but I wonder, for how much longer? There is some ghastly woman at work there now, even as we speak, demanding tougher laws on smoking throughout the Andalucia region of Spain. If she gets her own way there, then the rest of Spain will surely follow.
All believers in freedom are closely monitoring what is happening, and I, along with millions more Brits, absolutely love Spain and the freedom it gives us all, but I don't think any of us are holding our breath.
Spain continues to remain under threat from antismokers, at the local level. This Spanish link reports that 8 of 10 people in Gallicia (North-West Spain) want the present law tightened. Needless to say, the poll seems to have been carried out by some medical organisation.
The thing about Spain is that they have very autonomous regions. I have said it before, and I will say it again, they had a dictator until 1977, and now they are probably one of the most democratic Countries in Europe, even the World. Spain passes legislation, but regionally, they do what is most practical. To be honest, they have upheld the smoking law (not anti smoking law may I add) where it is practical to do so. Where it has not been practical, they have more or less ignored it, and would continue to do so. For example, a cabaret bar in a tourist hotspot which is above a certain size are supposed to have a perspex screen to separate the smoking and non smoking area. This was not practical, so they took the signs down. That is the Spanish way, they look after each other. Do I like Spain? Benidorm is my second home, I go there abou five or six times a year, and in 2010 I will be leaving unGreat Britain, the United Mess for good.
The smoking ban does vary, even in this country. Some councils enforce the ban vigorously, while others have a relaxed attitude. I understand that my local council only has one smoking inspector and I have never heard of anybody being prosecuted for any smoking offence.
We even have bus shelters, which are the property and care of the council. The shelters are about five sixths enclosed and do not have any no smoking signs.
Chas
Which country are you talking about? Can't be the UK!
Sylvia
I live in Suffolk. If you google 'suffolk cc bus shelters' you will see a picture of our bus shelters,.Even the one in the picture doesn't show any signs. Other parts of Suffolk may have signs on them.
Galicia and that part of Spain, have always been left leaning, Idlex, so when they talk of 8 out of 10 wanting the law tightened there, I think they should elaborate more, and tell us who was actually polled.
I don't know a great deal of people from that area, but I do know a few, and I have asked them this morning, and surprise, surprise, none of them had heard of any such poll.
But there again, the people I know, are just ordinary people, they are not left wing politicians, or journalists, they are not left wing students, and they certainly don't work for the Government.
So just where do the pollsters get their subjects from? Could it be from the same sources as the pollsters here in the UK? In other words, from "poll friendly" sources.
For a poll to be completely fair, it should be advertised in the National Press, complete with a printed form for anyone who wants to take part, to send off. Other than that, it is not worth the lies that it comes up with.
Is Galicia left-leaning? Perhaps so. My impression of Spain is that of the two places I've visited quite a lot - Barcelona and Galicia - the former is far more left-leaning than the latter. If nothing else, Franco was born in Ferrol in Galicia.
In addition there is the odd fact that the present Spanish government, that brought in their relaxed smoking band, is a left-wing government.
Apart from that, I agree that polls about smoking bans should be treated with scepticism.
I agree there is a danger that smoking in German pubs may now be banned completely. Incidentally, by using the level playing field argument, the antismokers appear to be admitting that there is not much of a market for nonsmoking pubs. I actually wish there was. I'd be happy if 50% of pubs went nonsmoking given the choice. The only problem I see with the Spanish model is that in places with few bars, all small, nonsmokers might be left with little choice. The most important thing is to keep the ordinary nonsmoker happy. If you read anti-smoking activist instruction manuals, you see that a key idea is to not let a stable equilibrium, where the vast majority are happy, evolve. It is then much harder to bring in more tobacco control laws and this is why it was imperative that the UK ban was total. A more stable model than the Spanish, though less attractive to smokers, might be for bars to bid for a limited number of tobacco licences. This would ensure that the profitability of bars is independent of smoking status. If the money raised subsidised local taxes, non-smokers would gain twice, as drinks in smokers bars would be slightly more expensive.
Pursuing the question of whether Galicia is left-leaning or not, I've found this map which shows Galicia in the nationalist-Francoist zone during the Spanish civil war. However, Galicia, like Catalonia and the Basque country, has its own language, and entertains ambitions for autonomy or independence, in opposition to Francoist nationalism. So I really don't know.
Anyway, here's a thoughtful ex-pat Galician blog.
Idlex, I have always considered Northern Spain to be left leaning, probably a lot to do with the threat of ETA for many years. I know that ETA have been very quiet recently, especially since Zapatero has been in power, but I always have the feeling that they are just lying there, like a bear, dormant, ready to wake up and start their killing campaign again at any time.
I love Barcelona, and think that the reason you might think it to be more left leaning, than the Galicia region, is that Barcelona attracts many more students and artists, who, as we know, are mostly left wing by tradition.
Have a look at this site, http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=4819 I know it is a few years out of date, but it still makes interesting reading.
Getting back to polls, I think we should treat all polls, smoking ban or otherwise, with great scepticism. In order for me to believe any of them, I need to see complete openness with the way they are carried out.
I quite agree with your comment on Polls, Peter.
Off the subject for the moment, we have a beautiful park (well it was!), until a couple of years ago the council decided to put a concret monstrosity on it, called a skateboard park! This would have been better cited across town near the football club, however, the council said they couldn't put it there because it flooded! Another story, but briefly, they then wanted to build houses there instead!
Those of us that live on the estate around this park all hate it and it is very little used, except as an area for youngsters to congregate, dump their rubbish, drink, smoke and use/trade drugs! We asked about public consultation or at least a poll of people living in the area, but were told a poll was done and all those asked approved.
This year we have had a wetland imposed on us (well it is more like a bog really) and it is right beside the toddlers play area. Currently it looks a complete mess! Again we asked where was the consultation, who was polled? We found out that the polls were carried out at the local bowling club (most of whom do not live on the estate); 2 local (but not on the park) care homes; a couple of schools (but not the one by the park) and the Abbey!
All of these people apparently said 'Yes' to this bog, which leaves us believing that either members of these groups, etc are personal friends of the councillors wanting to put this in place or they were doing favours owed or being paid, either cash or kind for voting as the council wanted them to! Apparently, they do not need many to agree to something for them to go ahead with it!
Out of around 6,000 in our town they only need, I believe, around 12 from a cross section of the community - which, essentially they had by including the bowling club, care homes, schools and the Abbey!
All politicians, in my opinion, national or local, are as corrupt as they possibly can be (perhaps with very, very, few exceptions) and are there for the prestige, the freebies and how much they can line their back pockets with!
It is disgusting. I have said it before and will say it again - it is about time they remembered or were reminded that they are, in fact, our SERVANTS not our MASTERS!
Finally, Timbone, good luck to you when you finally manage to escape this sorry excuse for a country. If I am still stuck here when you leave, can I come with you? Pretty Please?
Lyn -
Re your comment to Timbone:
"good luck to you when you finally manage to escape this sorry excuse for a country........"
I know what you mean but:
Please don't blame The Country (England, in my case) for the ghastly creeps who are currently 'running' it.
She deserves better than that, surely......?
Paul Flynn (amongst his potentially libellous comments)doesn't seem to think smoking bans will ever be repealed.
http://paulflynnmp.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/06/smoke-damaged-brains.html?cid=124731320#comments
Andy,
His contempt for smokers is absolute, isn't it. I always find it shocking when I see blatant examples of the degree of disdain that MPs have for members of the public.
I think that the smokers in his constituency might be interested to know just how ridiculous he finds them.
I do hope that Colin blasts him - the man's beyond alienation.
Couldn't have put it better myself Joyce - well said
He's on the verge of getting the Kerry treatment.
Rightly so.
Just think how many of his constituents have lost their livelihoods and community focal points since the ban.
Yes, Andy, I wonder how they would feel if they were to read his opinion of them in their local papers. Of course, as a Labour MP, he might just be demob happy, no longer giving a damn how offensive he is.
There's an anti in there now - claiming to be a smoker!!!!
Chris,
I'm inclined to agree - his remarks don't ring true.
There again, I suppose he might be a smoker who's believed the spin and is beating himself up and hating anyone who doesn't 'share his pain'!!
It looks like Paul Flynn has now done what any self-respecting Labour MP resorts to when challenged - he's stifled discussion by removing the comments!!
Hi Martin
Sorry if you were offended by my comment - this sorry excuse for a country - but I do blame the country insofar as it is the people of this country that have allowed politicians to ride rough shod over them (me included) for so many years now that they actually believe they are our masters, when in fact it is the other way around.
As I stated to Kerry in response to her blog about the success of the smoking ban, when she tried to defend herself by saying how much SHE was against smoking - that is not what she was voted in to do, she was voted in to represent the people of her constituency, not to take advantage of the position for her own personal ends, likes, dislikes, whatever. Obviously the same goes for all politicians, but they have become so complacent and disrespectful of us, the people, they just don't care anymore.
So, yes, I am sorry, I do mean 'the country' which is England in my case too, because we have let these power hungry morons get away with treating us like dirt and now it is starting to hurt, we are bleating about it!
I must apologise - Paul Flynn hasn't removed comments, they seem to get hidden when they've built up to a certain level. They can be accessed.
I really must realise that I'm computer illiterate...
I was flabbergasted to read this Flynn-character’s blog. In my country (Netherlands) MPs would never get away with openly talking about people like that. Let alone insinuating they’re in the pay of tobacco companies, or any other company for that matter. That kind of behaviour is deemed unworthy of a politician. Earlier this year we had one who was overcritical about Muslims and he got grilled left, right and center. (Rightly so in my opinion, because the man was quite unreasonable about it.)
Another thing that struck me is that so many people who advocate legalisation of cannabis (like Flynn seems to do) consider themselves superior to tobacco smokers. I still use both tobacco and cannabis and I remember well when we were flouting the law in order to get cannabis accepted in the 70s, the end result being the famous laid back attitude towards cannabis the Dutch nowadays have. I didn’t feel myself superior to anyone back then... It’s really weird how easily some people forget.
Speaking of the Netherlands: we got the pub smoking ban 1st July and all hell is breaking loose. Publicans are uniting and hiring lawyers to start court cases. Many are openly flouting the rules. They phone the authorities themselves and tell them: "I’m allowing smoking in my pub, what are you going to do about it?" Reminds me of a Dutch obstetrician in the fifties, who was one of the few doctors who performed abortions, which was illegal back then. Beforehand, he always rang the authorities and said: "I’m going to do it again, send in your troops now!" Which they never did, of course.
Even the Youth Members of our largest ruling political party are planning to hand out cigars in the streets to protest the antismoking bullies, heheheh.
Off topic:
@Joyce, I’m sorry I never got to replying to your comments about ‘Brave New World’ over a month ago. I run a little business, together with my husband, and it’s been a madhouse over here lately. (But in a positive way: lots and lots of work!) I promise I’ll re-read BNW whenever I have more time and get back to you. :)
Lyn -
Don't worry - I wasn't in the least bit 'offended': I'm not a politician....................
And I WAS only teasing, really.
In any case, all this discussion may soon be entirely futile, anyway.
I've just read that another Champion of Liberty, one 'AVRIL DOYLE' - a Fine Gael MEP - has called for the SALE of tobacco throughout the EU to be BANNED by 2025.......
Gosh - so it WASN'T just about 'protecting the staff' after all !
With the likes of the WHO (the Inquisition de nos jours), Bill Gates, Bloomberg, and now even - God Save Us - P and O pushing, WHEN will this bandwagon ever slow down (never mind stop) ?
But I'm sure that Our Dave is even now rolling up his sleeves in preparation for the Big Fight that lies ahead with these Goliaths of Righteousness.
Just hope nobody nicks his slingshot...........;-)
Anna
Really enjoyed your post about what's happening in Holland - thanks.
Unfortunatley, here in the UK, our citizens appear to have become so brain-washed with the heavily funded propaganda, that they have lost the will to fight.
Keep it up Holland!
Helen, the funny thing is we are being spoonfed the same propaganda. But somehow people over here don’t swallow it that easily. If you read the comments on Dutch news sites, there are mainly people who are very, very cross. Smokers as well as many nonsmokers. The Dutch obviously don’t like being told what to do. They resent intrusions into their personal lives. They don’t take kindly to governments trying to run their business. Perhaps it’s because we’ve always been tradespeople, we prefer to figure things out for ourselves.
Earlier this week there was a story in our papers about some madwoman who was lobbying the government to ban smoking in the streets. She got so much flak that she had to shutdown the lobby’s website and remove her personal information from the internet...
Of course I don’t think people should ever be intimidated. But it illustrates the current atmosphere.
Anna,
Keep it up in Holland - it would be good to hear that another ban had bitten the dust because the people were not ready to be saved!!
Please don't worry about not having replied to me and I hope that your business continues to be so busy that you don't have time to read BNW!
It's strange, isn't it, that in the UK we just accept the ban with only a few murmurings of dissent, yet in Holland people seem to be up in arms. If only OUR publicans had been as vocal. Does a higher percentage of the population smoke in Holland? Is the enforcement system less harsh? Do people have a happier outlook so that they're more tolerant?
Martin
We can hope that politicians have the sense to realise that banning the sale of tobacco will only drive it underground and add to the problem of illegal drugs. Governments which enjoy huge revenue from tobacco will be reluctant, anyway, to lose it.
Anna -
Yes - please keep the posts coming: they are MOST heartening................
Joyce -
You say:
"Governments which enjoy huge revenue from tobacco will be reluctant, anyway, to lose it."
I can't fault your logic on that one - but has not the Great Harriet Harman (whom God and All His Angels protect) herself not said that she wishes to see ALL smoking removed from our land by 2025 ?
It seems that the ONLY time you CAN'T rely on these B.......ds to go for the Greed Option is when it may - coincidentally - ALSO benefit the cause of Freedom.
I fear that their aseptic little minds are now immune to such sensible considerations as you suggest (as the past few months have surely demonstrated).
With such skewed 'principles', I don't think we can depend on anything, do you ?
At any rate, I'm beginning to see my garden in a different light these days..................(roll on, Climate Change !!)
Martin,
Hattie's days are numbered, with about 730 of them left, after which she and the rest of this ghastly government will be on the opposite side of the HOC - if they're lucky (going by the Henley by-election result!). There is nothing that they can pull out of a hat to keep them in power. We can only hope that the Tories will not make such a mess that NuLabour gets back in again, soon. At least the Tories aren't blinded by ideology as Labour is and will, no doubt, use 'small' government as the reason to justify the much-needed income that we smokers provide.
Paul Flynn's site is interesting. Thanks to the earlier poster for that link. I just watched his 'Cannabis Sense' video, where he appears to be strongly against drug prohibition, and very much for the legalisation of drugs. He takes the position that you tell people the risks and let them make their own minds up.
On all these points, I agree with him. Yet he supports the smoking ban. Presumably he doesn't see it as a stepping stone to prohibition. I find that deeply curious, since the word 'denormalisation' has been flung around enough to make many of us think that this is the clear objective.
Struggling Spirit
Of course prohibition is the clear objective.
The RCP recently stated a 20 year target in which to achieve this.If Mr Flynn doesn't realise this then he is even more gullible than his views on SHS suggest. If he does realise this, then his views on drug prohibition are contradictory and hypocritical.
He has just explained his position in a comment and he says, "Drugs laws kill people. Smoking bans save lives".
Since he's keen that people have the right to choose whether to damage their own health, he must be against government interference in relation to active smoking.
"Drugs laws kill people. Smoking bans save lives". An empty meaningless mantra if ever there was one. I wonder if Mr. Flynn will still think the same way when the prohibitionists start aiming their arrows at ‘passive toking’. Because very soon they will.
Joyce, to answer your questions: about a third of Dutch adults smoke. In my experience, the difference between working class and middle+ classes is marginal. Like everywhere else, Dutch antismokers too insist that smoking is an activity of the poor and uneducated. But this is not the impression I get from what I see around me. (I don’t know about the upper classes though, but it is said Queen Beatrix keeps a nice collection of ashtrays in her office ánd uses them, heheh!)
Our media do publish the usual scare stories and junk science. But on the other hand they also publish on the negative effects of the smoking ban on the hospitality industry. This news does not get buried, but has made the headlines a couple of times already. “Smoking Ban Is An Astounding Success” is *not* a headline you’re likely to see in a Dutch paper!
Of course this generates a lot of debate on internet news forums. Interestingly, most commenters are anti-ban. Even most nonsmokers say this ‘smoker-bashing’ has gone way too far. Many worry about the slippery slope: “What if they ban something I like next?” Of course we have our fair share of rabid antis, but usually they’re put in their place by other commenters very fast. On forums with rating systems you can immediately spot the anti’s comments by looking at the number of minuses next to their posts!
Enforcement of the ban is, AFAIK, still quite weak. The papers report a lot of hostility towards the ‘enforcers’, so probably they’re not very motivated to do their jobs. In an earlier post I wrote about publicans calling the authorities asking for an ‘enforcement visit’ (a publican has to get fined first before he/she can start a court case). These publicans are still waiting, the authorities say they haven’t got the manpower.
As for your question whether we have a happier outlook which makes us more tolerant… that’s a difficult one. The Dutch have this propensity to be extremely vocal in their opinions. And we like to criticise everyone and everything. We can be a bit like Victor Meldrew, which makes us appear grumpy and intolerant.
But we’ve also learned to ‘agree to disagree’. We prefer bickering amongst ourselves over an enforced consensus. Because we don’t believe uniformity is a condition for social stability or economic progress. We get by quite nicely with diversity and dissent. We might b*tch about it, but we wouldn’t want it any other way.
So the answer to your question must be yes. That is, if you look beneath the surface and beyond the moaning. ;)
But I don’t think we should be cheering too soon. Even if the Dutch ban should be revised like in Germany. Heaven knows what one-size-fits-all legislation Brussels could have up their sleeves in the future.
Anyway, I’ll keep you posted about what’s going on over here. And I’ll post shorter stories next time, I promise!
Thanks for your replies, Andy and Joyce. Just had another look at the blog and it seems that point has been raised since my last viewing - and it also appears (from his more recent, differently-titled blog) that he's decided not to respond to any further comments on the matter.
I found this today - I must say I have wondered why no-one has come up with this idea before, since religious practice is afforded fairly substantial protections, I believe:
"Smoking Ban Leads to New Religion"
Linketh here:
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2008/07/smoking_ban_leads_to_new_relig.php
As soon as the arguement turns heavily to the so-called risk of passive-smoking, he backs off. He gave his viewpoint to many of the other issues, but could not answer the issue of passive smoke is harmless - as has been proved over and over again. That is when he ran. No anti-smoking advocate can debate that arguement because the science does not stand up to prove that SHS is harmful.
The following stood out in what Anna wrote: Our media do publish the usual scare stories and junk science. But on the other hand they also publish on the negative effects of the smoking ban on the hospitality industry. This news does not get buried
This simply doesn't happen in Britain. There are no stories about the smoking ban in the mainstream media. Or next to none. It's as if the country had been invaded by Nazi stormtroopers with tanks and stukas, and the BBC didn't report any of it, and concentrated on Wimbledon and the Proms instead.
(Actually, there's no "as if" about it. The country has been invaded by Nazis. They just didn't come with tanks and stukas this time. They came disguised as doctors and health fetishists and petty council tyrants.)
If the British media had been reporting everything that's happening, there'd have been a public outcry, questions in the House, protests in the streets. But the media, who are supposed to be a public watchdog, have been totally silent. The dog hasn't barked. The Nazis must've gassed it or something.
I used to find it unreal that there was no reporting of a smoking ban that seemed to be a momentous, watershed event. We've been smoking in our pubs for 400 years, for heaven's sake. How could it not be reported? But I've got used to it now. I no longer expect the BBC or any other news organisation to report real news, but instead to pump out fearmongering propaganda about terrorism, or global warming, or knife crime or something similar. In a year or two TV is going digital, and - guess what - I'm not going to be buying a digital TV set. What's the point? The only place that there's any real debate, any reporting of real news, is on the internet.
But clearly the Dutch still have functioning public news media in ways that we British don't. That must be, to a very great extent, what motivates the Dutch to protest. We Brits only have our own personal, individual resources to fall back upon. We each of us have to make it alone, or not at all. Is it any wonder that we're all threshing around helplessly? We're all struggling spirits here.
And I've undergone the most spectactular collapse of confidence in pretty much all of our public institutions over the past year or two. They simply don't work any more. None of them. Our Nazi doctors were the first to go. But the whole of our Parliament, and every political party in it, were the next to disintegrate before my eyes. And then the news media. You name them, I have no faith in them any more. There is a reckoning coming. These people betrayed us. And they will answer for it.
I (sadly) agree, Idlex. I have no faith in our institutions any more either.
"I no longer expect the BBC or any other news organisation to report real news, but instead to pump out fearmongering propaganda about terrorism, or global warming, or knife crime or something similar".
I totally agree Idlex.
I used to scour the newspapers daily for news of what I still regard as a major curtailment of liberty (the ban) but,as you say, hardly a word was published. Now I don't even buy a newspaper. The internet is the only place where you can find out what's really happening
Paul Flynn has now decided that he will blog on "the myth about passive smoking and the WHO".
Here it is, for what it's worth:
It's pretty vacant.
Like you, Idelx, Joyce, Struggling Spirit and JonS, I have no faith in any of our institutions any more, which also includes the police, who have not been specifically mentioned above, yet. They are all a load of cowtowing, wimps and yes men (or should that be persons?) who can no longer think nor act for themselves but for whatever favours find they need to lick the boots of government.
I have said it before, many times, and will say it again - When will people wake up to the fact that government, local and national, are actually OUR SERVANTS NOT OUR MASTERS! We are the Masters, we voted them into power to represent US, not to peddle their own agenda's, that was never the deal.
Does anyone know if it is possible to do them for breach of contract? Do they even have a contract, or have we, yet again, let them hoodwink us into believing that this once great country still plays fair, when in reality they are more corrupt than any fraudster currently in prison?
I have no faith, no trust but only contempt for the lot of them!
When will lot wake up to the fact that smoking is lethal to millions. Discouraging its use must be beneficial
Thank you joycebulpin.
Smoking is not 'lethal', it elevates the risk of contracting some illnesses.
I have been an adult for many years now and am generally trusted to assess many risks in everyday life. When I drive everyday for at least two hours, I am constantly exposed to and evaluating risk. I was capable of understanding the educational literature on the risks of smoking (in the days before education was replaced by indoctrination based on bullying and propaganda). I don't need others, no matter how well-meaning, to decide on my behalf, whether I should accept those risks. Should the day come when I decide that I no longer want to smoke, I shall stand in the street and shout that I want to be saved. I have absolutely no doubt that a number of eager individuals will fall over themselves in their zeal to cart me off to the local smoking cessation clinic. I would then join the ranks of the first class subjects of this country. I wouldn't expect my fellow first class subjects to be kinder, more honest or funnier than my present fellow second class subjects. I would expect, however, to find much smugness, sanctimony and a misplaced sense of superiority.
Idlex,
I think you're on the wrong piece. There's an extremely detailed one entitiled "Anatomy of a Myth" OK, who's got the studies at their fingertips?.
Thanks Joyce. I wouldn't have noticed otherwise.
It's quite fascinating to see MPs responding to the public directly isn't it?
On both the recent blogs we've seen I've been surprised at the language they use when addressing or referring to the public. Not really in keeping with the culture they're supposedly trying to create.
I'm very much getting an impression of 'we know best' and 'poor stupid fools don't know what's good for them and don't have two brain cells to rub together'.
... cut off early there, sorry.
Also some apparently knee-jerk responses and a reluctance to fully engage with the points raised.
Thank you Struggling Spirit for visiting my site and watching the video on 'Cannabis Sense'.
Prohibiting tobacco would create a new empire of criminals, with turf wars, untaxed profits and addicts driven into criminality to buy their next fix. The present ban is a commonsense restriction to protect the health, comfort and rights of non-smokers.
I know of no MP who would back the prohibition of a any new drug after the disasters of the prohibitions of alcohol and 'controlled' drugs. It's another empty scare story.
Keep struggling
Paul, if only MPs had the power. ASH or the EU won't give it to you.
MEP calls for EU ban on cigarettes by 2025
LEIGH PHILLIPS
18.07.2008 @ 17:31 CET
An Irish MEP has called for a total ban on tobacco products across the European Union within 15 years
http://euobserver.com/9/26515
The National Heart Foundation of Australia, The Cancer Council Australia and Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) have supported a call by their New Zealand counterparts for a smoke-free New Zealand by 2017.
http://www.ashaust.org.au/mediareleases/070905j.htm
paulflynn to Struggling Spirit:
"keep struggling"
Aren't our MPs lovely?