BBC Say “Smoking Ban in Cars With Children Present Will Start in October”

H/T Longrider.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30513439

According to the BBC article:

“The regulations laid before Parliament propose banning smoking in cars containing under 18s.”

And:

“MPs will vote on the plans before the election – and if they are passed the change in law will come into force on 1 October.”

And:

“Public health minister Jane Ellison said: “Second-hand smoke is a real threat to children’s health and we want them to grow up free from the risks of smoking. The only effective way to protect children is to prevent them breathing second-hand smoke and our plans to stop smoking in cars carrying children will help us to do this.”

Note the bolded words. Could there be any clearer indication that bans on smoking in homes “with children present” is on the cards? The ban in cars is only intended to “help” in the protection of children – it is not intended to be the only measure in this protection racket.

Personally, I don’t give a toss about this regulation in itself since it will not affect me in the slightest. Nevertheless, I find it enormously depressing for all sorts of reasons.

Is Jane Ellison really a conservative? Was Soubry really a conservative? Was Milton really a conservative? How is that three health ministers on the trot have turned out to be Zealots? Ellison’s statement is straight out of the anti-smoker hymn-book. It lumps together several different threads, all  of which are wrong. SHS is NOT ‘a real threat to children’s health’. It never has been a threat to healthy youngsters’ health, as most of us rather ancient folks know from experience. She says that she wants them ‘to grow up free from the risks of smoking’. Is that not a very odd statement? What does it mean? Since they cannot buy tobacco products before they are 18, then they are (officially) not at risk of smoking until they are 18, are they? If that is not true, then the risk of smoking (and thereby, the risks of smoking) will not be averted by adults smoking in cars while these children are in the car, since the children will not be smoking. Finally, one would think that children sat in cars day after day breathing in tobacco smoke. As we all know, such occasions of children in cars are almost always short runs to and from school, or the shops, or to visit grandparents, and such.

But what is most disheartening is that the whole thing is clearly a cold-blooded, political ploy. Ellison’s blandishments are cover for the use of smoking in cars as a sop to the medical profession and, at the same time, to block accusations from Labour of feet dragging. Note how the vote in parliament will only take place ‘before the election’ (as late as possible, I suppose). What have been the cold-blooded calculations? Well, I suppose that the Tories do not expect much voter opposition. After all, most voters don’t smoke and will see only the ‘for the children’ aspect. It is also probable that few smokers smoke in their cars on the routine journeys with their children in the car. So its a pretty safe bet, don’t you think?

Also, we note that the word ‘child’ is defined as ‘up to 18 years old’. Has anyone ever seen a report in a newspaper which says, “A 17 year old male child has has been arrested for …..”? No. But I have often seen the phrase ‘seventeen year old man has been arrested for …..’. Ah well, just another example of the infantilisation of the people.

Further, we see the extension of the principle established in the smoking ban of forcing publicans to enforce the law. It will be the responsibility of the driver (?) to stop himself and others smoking in the presence of children. But there is no law which prohibits children from smoking!! So, in theory, a ‘child’ could smoke in a car, and the driver can be fined for allowing smoking in the car ‘when a child is present’. That is, be fined for allowing a ‘child’ to breath SHS even though said ‘child’ is legally not prohibited from smoking, and is indeed smoking. The seatbelt law does not require the driver to force passengers to belt up, unless they are real children. This law forces the driver to force others not to smoke. Which is more dangerous – being in a car crash when not wearing a seatbelt, or breathing a a bit of tobacco smoke while on a car journey?  And yet the driver is NOT forced to force people to wear seatbelts, but IS forced to force people not to smoke.

—-

But, above all, when the political gamesmanship is over, and the ban is passed, and the force is applied, what will be the result?

I was coming home from Manchester airport by taxi. The driver coolly and surreptitiously lit a fag, keeping it well out of sight. I have used him lots of times and we are quite friendly. He knew that it would not bother me and that he was in no danger from me. Should I have asked him if he minded if I also smoked in his taxi? Absolutely not! For I would have been asking his permission to break the law, which he could not give. The fact that he was breaking the law is for him alone and has nothing to do with me. But it must be true that he has to keep a look out for lawmen and anyone who might snitch, which means that his attention is just a little distracted. Very little in this case, and he is a professional driver. But imagine a person desperate for a fag on a motorway. How much more would that person’s attention be diverted? Expect this law to cause death and destruction on motorways from time to time, but no one will ever blame the ban – it will always be because of the smoking. The politicians will not be blamed; the drivers will be demonised – disgusting, filthy addicts.

But it goes further. Imagine a family on a long drive on holiday. The father (or mother) drives for a couple of hours and then pulls into a service station. Either or both want a smoke with their coffee and doughnut. But it is pouring with rain. What are they to do? Stand outside the car in the pouring rain? Or could they be inventive? Suppose that these persons have given the matter some thought. Suppose that they invent some sort of shield which can be clipped to the wrist so that it shelters a cig held in the hand which is outside the car via an open window, and suppose that the person wears a plastic bag over his head while he sticks his head through the window to take a drag.

PROBLEM SOLVED!! But totally ridiculous.

====

But perhaps such a law will be a good thing if it shows to people how far the Zealots have intruded into private lives and private property. Already, Zealots have taken control of private pubs, clubs, etc, and forced citizens to employ force to stop smoking on their private properties. Why, in the USA, believe it or not, one City (or County, or whatever) has already proposed, or even passed, a law which requires restaurants not to serve obese people. Perhaps the insanity has to be allowed to run its course. It may be a good thing that politicians are making fools of themselves, because it might be easier to get rid of the worst of them.

UKIP will gain from this foolishness. But it seems that some silly ‘kippers’ have been talking to the Daily Mail and complaining that Nige has accepted a million euros from the EU to set up a grouping. The complainers, within UKIP, seem not to have realised that, had Nige not accepted the money, it would have gone to some other group, and not be returned to taxpayers. What are these complainers hoping to achieve by speaking to the Mail? Do they not know that their words will be turned and twisted to suit the Mail’s Tory agenda? Even so, UKIP will gain more support because the recent bye-elections have shown that the general population is not as docile as the politicians think.

——

Finally, for tonight, I made a decision when I started this blog, that it would be apolitical in the sense of favouring no particular political party. I still hold that that idea, and so I do not recommend any party. Thus, I merely present ideas. My own preference is not to leave the EU, but for the UK to disobey and get thrown out. A recent case in point has been the treatment of ecigs in the tobacco directive. It appears that the UK opposed some of the proposals but was outvoted. Does that mean that our ‘leaders’ must shrug their shoulders and accept the directive? Well, yes, it does. But it would be simple for the UK to refuse to accept it in the UK. Unlimited immigration is similar – just refuse to accept it. That is, negotiate from strength and not from weakness – or let Germany and France chuck us out.

In my opinion, the EU has been running before it can walk. It has become obese in the process. Is this an example of exercise having the contrary effect? The more effort engaged, the greater the obesity? Well, yes, because the effort is engaged in stuffing the face with grub. The ‘running before it can walk’ means taking in more and more calories as fast as possible.

It looks as though there is an experiment going on. The experiment seems to be to create an Empire without using physical force. But, even if it succeeds, it will still be an Empire, and it will still be dictatorial, fascist and totalitarian.