Freedom fighter

Rob Lyons, deputy editor of Spiked and a guest at our party at Boisdale, has marked the first anniversary of the smoking ban in England with another excellent article. "It’s built on anti-pub prejudice, junk science and petty authoritarianism," says Rob. "So one year on, why do so few people see the ban as a blow to our freedom?" Full article HERE.

Comments

[Peter Thurgood]

Good article by Rob Lyons, which goes over a lot of ground we already know, and have been debating for the past year, but nevertheless, must continue to debate, argue against, and keep to the forefront of the general public's attention at all times.

One point that Rob reiterated on, was the definition of exactly where smoking is permitted. He points out the following: "Only places that are 'like homes' or are specifically excluded by the health secretary are exempt from the ban. In essence, smoking is only allowed outdoors and in private homes. Posters must be displayed in all workplaces reminding people that smoking is illegal. Individuals who defy the ban face a £50 on-the-spot fine; businesses can be fined £200 for allowing smoking or not displaying the signs".

As we all know, not all outdoor "sites" or "workplaces" are exempt. Bus shelters for instance, and railway station platforms, are still covered by the ban. Even bus garages, which have enormous open sided areas and equally large open doorways, are covered by the ban. Bear in mind that these garages have huge diesel engine busses, constantly belting out non stop toxic fumes which the workers no doubt are "forced" to inhale, but that doesn't seem to matter to the health freaks who now control our lives, they still consider smoking a cigarette to be more dangerous?

But, all this of course, we already know, and have probably been over time and time again. There is however, one aspect to this law, that as far as I know, has not been fully looked into, and that, as Rob points out, is the wording which states "all workplaces".

Please forgive me if I am wrong, but isn't a prostitute, or a sex worker, as they are now known, recognised by the law, as a genuine profession, and as such, are subject to income tax, and are also covered by health and safety laws? If this is so, and I have no reason to think otherwise, then their "patch" or place they ply their trade, is also their workplace.

Need I say more? Should they be reported if we see them smoking in the workplace? Should they be forced to wear signs around their necks (or elsewhere) and fined appropriately for not displaying such a sign? And surely, according to the law, they are endangering people who might enter their workplace by smoking on the job (so to speak)?

If, as I expect, the law does not cover sex workers, then surely the law is at fault in this aspect, and as such needs to be amended or even overturned. But as anyone with any sense would know, (yes, even our illustrious government) this is a ridiculous aspect of the law which could never be implemented, and therefore throws the whole law into disarray.

A legal challenge perhaps?