De-normalisation of Non-smokers (2)

I think that this topic is worth exploring a bit more.

Without being able to verbalise it, for the last several years, I have struggled to understand how it came to be that everyone who smoked was smoking in the pub on 30th June 2007, and then, on 1st July 2007 none of those smokers were smoking in the pub. Did non-smokers breath a sigh of relief? Did they feel that they had been being poisoned for years and years and were now glad that the poisoning would cease? If that was so, then it would be reasonable to ask how they became so addicted to going to the pub that they could not stop themselves from going into a place where they were being poisoned. So, on 30th June 2007, they were not being poisoned, but on 1st July, they were being poisoned. Weird, do you not think? Before the ban, they were not being poisoned, but after the ban they were being poisoned.

But what is even weirder is that the pub associations and breweries did nothing whatsoever to defend their members and publicans. What were they afraid of? Why did they not shout from the rooftops with loud-halers that publicans were not enforcers? Why did the breweries not legally assist those publicans who refused to be enforcers? Why did they not engage top barristers to defend those rebels? I cannot believe that breweries actually believed ASH’s surveys which said that masses of people were just waiting for smoking bans before inundating pubs.

There is a massive problem with ‘LAW’. The problem is that no one seems to want to change it. That is why TC just loves new laws and advocates for them. Laws are sacrosanct and stand for decades.

It is heartening that Trump seems to intend to ‘amend’ Obama Care. I have seen statements that one of the first things that he will do is change that imposition. But if he is to ‘drain the swamp’, he must get rid of the masses and masses of comparatively small drains on the public purse. Masses and masses and masses of them. It is no accident that there are loads and loads of charities advertising for funding on the TV. They have quietly had their funding reduced. But why is it that the de-funding has been kept so quiet? You would think that politicians would brag about such de-funding. There are things that we do not know. For all we know, Government might be paying for the adverts on TV on the grounds that it is cheaper than donating directly to the charity. In a way, that is not a bad idea. Those charities have to rely upon public donations, and the Government helps them to attract public donations, but does not give them money directly. Thus, the public actually decide whether or not a particular charity is worth supporting.

‘Draining the swamp’ really, really matters, if we are to be free individuals. For example, the persecution of smokers must stop. It is not a matter of ‘world population health’. It is a matter for free individuals to decide for themselves. Smoke a lot and accept the possibility that you might die at the age of 75 rather than 85. What is absolutely certain is that you will die. It is no accident that those who live to, say, 120, are wizened, shrunken, crumpled creatures. They are abnormal. Please do not think that I am saying that such people should be disposed of. What I am saying is that age takes its toll. Almost everyone dies because their bodies become old and, eventually, a major organ fails. Very ancient people tend to be wrinkled and small, despite the fact that they may have been big and strong in their youth. I don’t know if epidemiology has ever described ageing. I doubt it.

I’m not sure that Government realises that THE PEOPLE are totally pissed off with the spread of laws and regulations. PM Cameron had the chance. He could have instituted a roll-back of the State. But he did not. Instead, he made it worse. I can only give, as examples, the Plain Packaging law and the Sugar Tax (not forgetting the plastic shopping bag levy).

The crazy thing is that he whole point of MPs is TO RESIST! That is what they are for. They exist, and are voted for, to RESIST Government. Government is The Civil Service. I read somewhere that the reason that the Roman Empire collapsed was that its Civil Service (as it was 2000 years ago) became obese. Its military strength was replaced by ‘regulations’.

In order to denormalise smoking, it is imperative to denormalise non-smoking. Non-smoking has, hitherto, been neutral. Now, it is abnormally POSITIVE. Is that not a crazy idea? NOT being productive is best.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “De-normalisation of Non-smokers (2)”

  1. Vlad Says:

    As a matter of principle, I haven’t gone to a pub since the smoking was banned and I don’t intend to go in the future. It feels like they’re emasculated places now.

  2. Smoking Lamp Says:

    I agree non-smoking is abnormal. I remember when the antismokers first started gaining steam in the mid-70s when you could still smoke in cinemas and just about everywhere else. They started asking for separate smoking areas. That seemed like reasonable accommodation and things should return to that point but antismokers reject accommodation and seek their own extreme vision. Their extreme smoke-free vision must be extinguished.

    • junican Says:

      The reason that smoking rooms were not permitted was entirely to do with ‘one size fits all’. Think of the complexities of describing a smoking room legally.
      Our argument is that smoking bans ought never to have been imposed since non-smokers would have gravitated to those pubs which declared themselves to be ‘smoke-free’, leaving the smoking pubs to their own devices. The anti-smoking propaganda would have caused the fearful to go to non-smoking pubs.
      I am still absolutely amazed that the smoking ban was passed.

  3. Smoking Lamp Says:

    I agree that the market would have sorted itself out–if allowed. In the US, there were smoking and nonsmoking areas in restaurants (all bars were smoking establishments), smoking and non-smoking areas in public spaces (like airport and bus terminals). It worked fine and there was no anti-smoker sentiment until the smoking bans were forced and reinforced with propaganda. Now they are banning smoking outdoors as well.

    • junican Says:

      Indeed. Everyone was happy. In the bar in Mallorca which the wife and I used to frequent. They had a no-smoking area at the far end of the room. There was a small fan in the wall at the near end where the entrance was. (Note, only a small wall fan, but adequate) Smoke was drawn away from the no-smoking area. But, since smoke rises, the fan adequately kept the whole room ‘smoke-free’.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: