Smoking in Cars with Kids bla bla

Courtesy of Frank Davis, it seems that the ‘Government’ has decided to introduce a ban on smoking in cars with children present. The plans have been revealed in an article in the Daily Mail:

But the article in the Mail is a derivation from an article in The Times. I don’t know what The Times article says. The article says that:

Health ministers are expected to unveil details of the new law in December

There is no actual statement from a Minister to that effect, but I suppose that it is true. There again, it might easily be people like Andrew Black and his Common Purpose friends using their ‘leadership beyond authority’ powers to force Cameron et al to toe the line.

Actually, there was a consultation about this matter between July and August. I don’t know if I knew about it or not. Not that it matters. The previous PP consultation shows that. It is all a political game to the Elite. If Cameron and Hunt (Health Sec) have decided to proceed with this silly law, then they have almost certainly done so for political reasons. They must know that such a ban will make no difference whatsoever to the health of children. None whatsoever. I suspect that they have got wind of some intention of Labour to start shouting about it and have pre-empted the intended criticisms. Why not? As Cameron etc see these things, 80% of voters are in favour, but since 80% are non-smokers (or should that be 70%?) don’t smoke, such a majority can be expected. But what that actually means is that all these people simply don’t really give a toss. It does not affect them personally, so why not agree? It makes them feel important.

But, to be honest, I do not give a shit about whether or not smoking is banned in cars with children present. Since my own children are now grown up, the likelihood of me ever carrying children is minute. In fact, apart from the remote possibility that one or other of the two grandchildren who are still under 18, I shall make it a rule that no child will ever set foot in my car. But my own situation is not important and is not the reason that I don’t give a shit. The actual reason is that the matter is, in itself, trivial. Really, really trivial. It just does not matter one bit.

However, what is really, really important is the implications. If this law goes through, then there is nothing whatsoever to stop the use the same argument (protection of children) for a whole stack of anti-smoking restrictions anywhere and everywhere, to protect children. Not only smoking, but any number of other petty restrictions.

I sometime wonder about the mentality of politicians. They seem to be intelligent if their ‘qualifications’ to be MPs is anything to go by, but they behave with the low cunning and stupidity of a petty criminal. The sort of petty criminal who gives his correct name and address when he commits some sort of petty fraud. But they are intelligent enough to know about the consequences. They just don’t care if they can get some tiny political advantage.


Sometimes I think that we have taken the wrong approach for the last several year. It may have been better to pretend to be a supporter of restrictions. It may have been better to demand more and more restrictions. That is, bring it on as fast as possible. Don’t allow ASH ET AL to control the timetable. Bring on the alcohol bans and minimum unit prices. Demand control of ecigs as restrictive as possible. Demand a UN ‘Framework Convention on Sugar Consumption’. Demand the abolition of diesel and petrol engines “to save the planet and future generations of children”. Why not? It is clearly useless to try to reason with such people, so why not join them? But, of course, make your reasons for demanding these controls as stupid as you possibly can whilst retaining a veneer of logicality.

I won a competition organised by the Tobacco Control Magazine (I forget its correct name). I won with the phrase, “The profits from tobacco sales leave the UK but the health consequences stay behind”. Rot, of course, but, with the help of a few friends, my offering won the prize (a year’s subscription to the magazine). Needless to say, I never received my prize, once I pointed out that I had conned them. Not that I was bothered.

For there is no doubt whatsoever that this new law will inevitably lead to a demand for a ban on smoking in the home ‘with children present’. No doubt a hotline will be set up for seventeen year-old ‘children’ to report their parents for smoking. Being victims, they will be believed whether it is true or not. What a wonderful way to get back at your Dad if he refuses to give you money to buy your ecstasy tablets! I cannot see any reason whatsoever that such a demand can be refused once the car smoking ban is enacted.

But bring it on, bring it on, bring it on as fast as possible. Have parents condemned because their children are plump. It is the only way for the idiocy to be defeated. It has always been the same. The puritans always go too far and their edifices built upon sand always collapse.

But, as Frank D pointed out, all this nonsense is very good news for UKIP. The general population is not quite as subservient as one might think. Reading some of the comments on the Mail article, there were many which were from non-smokers who were, shall we say, doubtful. At least, there is ‘unease’ about this measure. Perhaps the Tories have calculated that it is more important to draw Labour’s sting than to lose votes to UKIP. Perhaps they have calculated that, even with the loss of votes to UKIP, the loss of votes will not be sufficient to affect their prospects at the polls – next year. To them, a further five years forward is an eternity away.

Perhaps we should all take into account the ‘immediacy’ of politics. Perhaps that is part of the reason for our economic, legal, criminal, etc problems. Perhaps politicians should only have an effect on the ‘here and now’, and that all their laws should be time-limited. After all, no Government can commit a future Government. Perhaps a law forbidding smoking in cars with children present should be in the nature of a sort of treaty – it only has effect while it is needed. Perhaps all laws which are ‘statutory’ laws should be time-limited. Common Law is permanent, but Statutory Law is temporary. For example, if everyone in the UK stopped smoking, all the laws prohibiting smoking here and there would become defunct. But the Common Law about murder and injury to others would continue, even if such murders and injuries became very uncommon.


The demands of the Tobacco Control Industry are becoming more and more concentrated on minor targets, like people who import a few kilos of tobacco leaf and parents who smoke in their cars on the school run. None of these targets matter at all, but from a Tobacco Control Industry point of view, they are nice little earners. The same is true of the attack on ecigs. I was pleasantly amused today to listen to Arnott debating with Lorien Jollye, who seems to be some sort of spokesperson for the ecig industry:

(1 hour 20 mins in)

LJ tied Arnott up into knots. It particularly amused me how Jollye turned Tobacco Control mantras back onto them. For example (and I thought that this was very clever of Jollye, even if she had already anticipated the way in which the conversation would go), Jollye said that all advertisers use ‘glamour’ to advertise their products, such as toothpaste adverts, and that ecigs are just as ‘valuable’ as toothpaste, and thus have every right to be ‘glamorous’. Arnott said, “Ah but, ecigs are not the same thing as toothpaste”, to which Jollye replied, “Precisely!!! They are much more important than toothpaste” That made me giggle, because the Tobacco Control Industry has been claiming that tobacco is like no other product. It is wonderful to hear someone turn that argument around so easily and simply. Arnott was lost for words and utterly defeated. But she is just the representative of the Royal College of Physicians, which ‘owns’ ASH. Thus, the RCP was also utterly defeated. Further, I like the way in which all these ecig discussions bring the EU proposed regulations into disrepute. Without accepting the tobacco harm hypothesis, it is abundantly clear that ecigs MUST be much safer, if only because the thousands of chemicals in cigs are removed. It is abundantly obvious that the more smokers who take up ecigs, the better (provided that tobacco harm is true). They might also take up the use of snus or other harm reduction devices. By opposing these devices, the Tobacco Control Industry has shown its basic ignorance. It is nothing more that a propaganda machine, working for Big Pharma, which is in ‘partnership’ with the WHO and the UN.



If the Zealots manage to cut off my supplies of tobacco leaf, they will not force me to buy the products of Tobacco Companies. I absolutely refuse, unless I buy them in in foreign parts where the duty is acceptable to me. Ultimately, I may be forced onto ecigs. I don’t mind that much, provided that I do not pay a penny for the Zealots and for the likes of Williams MP and the likes of  Andrew Black. Further, I shall not give a penny to charities which support the persecution imposed upon me. Nor shall I vote for a political party which does not have the guts to oppose the persecution of people who enjoy tobacco.


%d bloggers like this: