The Scottish Hospitals’ Outdoor Smoking Bans:::The Election

You should read Dick Puddlecote’s take on this here:

It seems that the zealots are in hysterics because no one is taking any notice of their their notices.

Actually, I reckon that the zealots knew perfectly well that no one would take any notice. The whole business of plastering the hospital grounds with (expensive) signs and notices was so that they would be ignored! Here is an indicator of what it is all about:

Every NHS board was asked to sign up to the edict at the request of the Scottish Government, which is consulting on whether or not to make it a statutory offence to smoke in hospital grounds. 

If the measure is included in the forthcoming Public Health Bill, ministers are said to be largely in favour of voting it through.

Get it? The whole charade is a put up job. The objective is to get the Scottish Government to legislate.

The newspaper article which DP quotes is here:

Read it, if you don’t mind your brain being hurt a bit. It is a feast of whingeing. “Boo Hoo! Mummy (the Government)! No one is obeying our notices! What will you do!”

Note especially that last sentence:

If the measure is included in the forthcoming Public Health Bill, ministers are said to be largely in favour of voting it through.

Note the ‘ifs and buts’ – “If……. are said to be……. largely in favour….. It seems to me that the author is wish-thinking. But there is no doubt that we are seeing a salami slicing exercise again.

Is it too much to expect that ‘ministers’ will be aware of the fruitlessness of such open-air bans? They must surely be aware that such bans cannot possibly have any health benefits whatsoever. None. Zilch. Further, there is no way in which the police will allow themselves to become involved in enforcement. Imagine the situation. A patient, in pyjamas, with a drip, is standing outside the building having a fag. If they were to attend, two cops and police car, what would they do? Would they arrest the patient and cart him/her off to jail?  And if they do not, why should they arrest someone who is not a patient but is a visitor?

No, what we are seeing is another example of a demand from legislation for its own sake. It has no point and is worthless, but it is a ‘victory’ for ‘Public Health’. What seems to me to be happening is that more and more people are realising that ‘Public Health’ is itself a charade which has given up any real concern for Health. The more of these ‘victories’ that the Zealots chalk up, the more diminished becomes the reputation of ‘Public Health’. The Bristol public square ‘voluntary’ ban? Lord Darsi’s parks ban? No mention of a beach ban yet, but I suppose that it will come eventually.

What do we see as a commonality? I think that there is a concerted effort to get an outdoor ban – anywhere at all for any reason at all will do. Just to get a toe-hold on the outdoors. We should expect that, after the election, the Zealots will start the hysteria over smoking in cars with youths in the car. Again, the objective is to get a toe-hold on private ‘substantially enclosed places’. Parliament voted for a car smoking ban with kids present. It will happen, but every time such a pointless and valueless ban (from a Health point of view) is enacted, the original pub smoking ban is weakened and ‘Public Health’s’ reputation is diminished. Voices are being raised demanding smoking rooms in pubs. The voices are quite muted at the moment, but they are there in the media. The logic is beginning to surface.

What is the logic?

It is this:

If the objective of Tobacco Control is to deter ‘young people’ from ever starting smoking, why did they start their campaign by getting a ban in places where children rarely go? That is, pubs and clubs? Why did they not start in the home where children spend almost all their early years?

Thus, it makes no sense ‘to exile smokers to the outdoors’ if those are the places where children will see smoking most often – outside pubs, clubs, restaurants, town halls, schools, etc.

But also, logically, the ‘effort’ becomes more and more defused. More and more money is chasing a lower and lower return. It is like a commercial company suffering lower and lower sales, and spending more and more money on advertising its inferior goods. Think film-based cameras. In those circumstances, more and more legislation becomes self-defeating – it does not matter whether people obey the new laws or not. And, the new laws tend to provoke defiance, as has been seen in ‘the war on drugs’. And, the defiance grows and grows, as we have seen regarding self-sufficiency in all its forms (home-growing and smoky-drinkies, etc). Such was the situation during Prohibition in the USA. It does not matter that the new eugenicist approach is salami sliced. In fact, it is better that it should be so, since recognition of its worthlessness will come sooner the more that it costs and produces nothing of value.

It is interesting, is it not, how the WHO’s reputation has plummeted with the Ebola crisis, especially (and, surely, it must be true!) when the top people in the WHO enjoyed a junket in Moscow about promoting Big Pharma products while the Ebola crisis was raging out of control.

Politicians are always talking about ‘a fresh start’, or similar platitudes. Odd, is it not, that UK Ministers cannot see that ‘a fresh start’ also applies to  organisations such as the UN, the WHO and the EU. All of them are parasites. But these parasites are different from what we usually assume parasites to be. We usually understand parasites to be small things which attach themselves to bigger bodies, such as leaches. In this case, that is not correct. The UN, WHO, EU parasite is a huge octopus which is ‘parasitic’ upon a multitude of zombie nations. In the UK, we must recognise that fact. Somehow, we must take out the Common Purpose traitors.


So, to the crux. What about the election? In my constituency, Labour is supreme. So I will vote UKIP. But, if I lived in a constituency which had an anti-smoker MP, whatever the colour, I would vote for whoever has the best chance of replacing said person. But where the result is uncontested, then vote UKIP. Clearly, if UKIP had the remotest chance of winning, then I would vote for them.

My last paragraph is really very sad since it reveals the corruption of democracy. Political parties are not people – they are things. I shall not vote for ‘a thing’.




15 Responses to “The Scottish Hospitals’ Outdoor Smoking Bans:::The Election”

  1. moss hart Says:

    Junican, from my recent observations, there are just as many youngsters smoking tobacco as there were when you and I were young teenagers. Where on this earth the zealots get their information from, is anyone’s guess ! Obviously they make it up as they go along because they are seriously losing ground. Any statistics they put forward are countered by the unknown number of illicit cigarettes being sold under the counter – you cannot make a statement of fact without being fully aware of the facts, and the truth is – they do not know the facts !

    I am aware of numerous people who only smoke illicit cigarettes – the popular brands being far too expensive for their purse. All these half-brained zealots have genuinely succeeded in is, ensuring that people are forced to purchase the alternative – illicit smokes. Could it be, I wonder, that whoever is behind this farcical bullsh*t, also have a vested interest in foreign imported tobacco ? Personally. I believe their disguise is wearing rather thin .

    • junican Says:

      I know of a person, via comments on this blog, who uses a Zen (?) machine to make 400 cigs per day. They cannot be for his own consumption, can they? 20 packs at, say, £4 per pack is £80. Not a huge sum, but multiplied by, say, 5 days, equals £400. Cost of materials? Maybe £30. Profit ££370. But the whole scenario depends upon TRUST – a closed circle. It is that sort of scenario which is totally hidden and cannot even be estimated. It is that sort of scenario which TC has created, and that scenario will spread and spread.
      My recent experience in Mallorca is much the same as yours re youth smoking. But it is all very ephemeral. All I can say is that it seemed that, whenever a group of youths sat down near me as I played chess, there were, say, two out of five who lit up.

  2. Jude Says:

    I think they are looking for more money from smokers, and the only way left is to criminalise them, they wont go down the route of jailing smokers who disobey their dictates, they will be looking to fine them. With gradual increases in fines to prop up the falling tobacco taxes. This is also why they desperately want to include vaping in these bans, and to criminalise anyone who dares to switch to these alternative products.

    Its all about the MONEY, and keeping the jobs for the puritan nutters.

    • junican Says:

      Precisely. But how do you fine a person standing outside a hospital in pyjamas with a drip in their arm? The idea is monstrous. In fact, the whole idea of fining people who smoke in the open air outside hospital buildings in stressful circumstances is monstrous. It is blatant persecution.

      • Jude Says:

        A few years ago Junican, I would have agreed, it will never be enforced, now though, I think this is exactly what will happen.

        If they hate smokers enough to ban smoking in hospital grounds, after years of removing anywhere warm and dry where smokers could be comfortable, forcing them to stand out in the weather, regardless of the consequences to their health, fining them for “breaking the law” , (and remember this is their next step to lobby for legislation), is a very small step.

        It absolutely is blatant persecution, and its been happening for years now.

  3. Rose Says:

    They thought they’d get away with it because people who smoked were always so polite and amenable, accepting new restrictions with barely a murmur.

    When they felt confident enough in declaring open war on them under the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, they must have been very surprised at the result.

    The NHS as an organisation is coming out of this very badly, the mask has finally slipped.

    When Blair’s government demanded such brutal treatment of the sick and elderly the answer from a genuinely caring service should have been a resounding No.


    “Patients caught smoking inside or outside hospitals face being discharged under new government legislation, which will abolish hospital smoking rooms and encourage a total ban in all grounds.”

    “Patients too frail to endure low temperatures outside will be offered “nicotine replacement therapy” in the form of gum and patches.

    Other measures will include putting up “older person” signs around hospitals for patients crossing busy roads to smoke.”

    The blaring tannoys and guards complete the picture.

    • beobrigitte Says:

      When Blair’s government demanded such brutal treatment of the sick and elderly the answer from a genuinely caring service should have been a resounding No.

      Miliband is following Blairs footsteps. Isn’t it amazing the LABOUR thinks it’s ok for medics to treat PEOPLE according to their smoking status? ?

    • junican Says:

      There was never even the remotest possibility that such ‘punishment’ would actually happen. It was all propaganda. There is no doubt that the current version is also all propaganda. If the Zealots get legislation, then the imposition of the consequences is not their business. The lot falls upon someone else, the police?, and they are immune.

  4. beobrigitte Says:

    If they were to attend, two cops and police car, what would they do? Would they arrest the patient and cart him/her off to jail?
    They’ll probably kick the patient out and deny treatment. So much for the hipoocratic oath!! Yep, medics can be bought.
    Smokers are denied many forms of treatment already on the NHS. Take dental implants. Paid for non-smokers; smokers have to pay out of their pockets. Apparently in 5% of smokers the implants do not take well. That is 5 people/100. In non-smokers this is 3%. (supposedly)

    And if they do not, why should they arrest someone who is not a patient but is a visitor?
    The problem is: it is mostly STAFF. Sacking staff for smoking outside? When the hospital ground smoking bans have no legal foundation?

    • junican Says:

      This is where the Unions get themselves into a mess. On the one hand, they welcomed the smoking ban in pubs etc as a way to bash employers. It seems not to have occurred to them that their attitude could lead the the bullying of their members. Hospital staff seem to be a case in point.

  5. Smoking Lamp Says:

    Smoking bans need tone repealed. First priority is stopping new bans, second rolling back outdoor bans, third amending indoor bans for pubs, fourth repeal of most indoor bans (allowing smoking and non-smoking sections, i,e,, designated smoking areas….

    • junican Says:

      Erm… No, SL. The whole point of my post is that the original presumptions were false. The way back is the repeal/amendment of the original smoking ban in ‘public’ places. The basic reason is that the places involved were not ‘public’, combined with the lack of evidence of SHS harm. It is important to understand that SHS harm and ‘public places’ were inextricably linked. New bans do not matter, other than having marginally nuisance value. Hospital grounds ban? Just a nuisance. Parks ban? Just a nuisance.

      • Smoking Lamp Says:

        I agree the original presumptions are false. The only way I see to stop the trend is to stop new bans and then expose the lies so all bans can be rolled back. I don;t think we disagree on principles or outcome, perhaps just tactics (but many tactics have to be tried). There is no heath risk from second hand smoke so all bans should be removed. It is a matter of how to get there when the masses have been brainwashed about the risk.

  6. richard john Says:

    NZ is experience the same symptoms

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: