How Will Smoking Bans End?

I think that I have talked about this before, but it is always worth recapping.

Is there a ‘risk’ (as ASH ET AL would see it) that an MP will introduce a Private Member’s Bill to repeal the requirement for publicans to police the ban and that smoking would be allowed in ‘smoking rooms’, and that his Bill would succeed? For smokers and publicans, that would be a wonderful thing, but will it ever happen?

It all depends.

What I vaguely envisage is that somewhere in the world, which could be Majorca for example, a local authority (Majorca is largely self-ruled) will look at the diminishing tourism income and ask itself why it is losing so much business. It might ask all sorts of ‘interested parties’ for their opinions. But what is more important is that it might ask ‘interested parties’ how it could quite quickly greatly improve its attraction to tourists.

And this is where it gets interesting.

Suppose that I was invited to complete a survey from, say, Crete. Suppose that the survey asked me if I was more likely to visit Crete if there was no smoking ban. The survey would have to be cleverly designed to exclude non-smokers and anti-smokers. Or maybe Forest could do the survey using its huge data base. Or maybe people standing outside pubs smoking could be surveyed.

In fact, such a survey could be very nicely targeted. For example, it could contrast Majorca with Ibeza. The two islands are adjacent to each other and are much the same.

So the question would be:

“If Majorca had no smoking ban in bars, but Ibeza had a total ban, would you be more likely to go to Majorca than Ibeza?”

I wonder what the result would be? I have no doubt that there would be enough terrified, guilt-ridden, desperate to give up smoking, smokers around to vote for Ibeza to some extent, but I would expect that the vast majority (70%?) would vote for Majorca.

Suppose that such a survey took place, and convinced law-makers in Majorca that they could gain loads and loads of smoker-tourists if they relaxed the ban to exclude bars with adequate ventilation. Adequate? I remember some arsehole American Zealot (Rapace-ious?) saying that ventilation would have to have tornado force winds to remove tobacco smoke. In the bar in Mallorca which herself and I spent most of our time, the ventilation was a small fan near the top of the wall in the main room near the door. It was quite adequate. They had a not-well-defined non-smoking area at the far end of the room from the fan. It worked. Terrified non-smokers congregated at the non-smoking end of the room. The fan sucked out the ‘smoky’ air quite adequately. That bar used to be a busy bar with different acts on every night. For the last three or four years, it has been closed for most of the season.

Smoker-tourists are a different brand from others. They want fun rather than the group therapy of sightseeing. I remember going on a cruise which took us to the Azores. There was an organised trip which took us to the top of an extinct volcano. We were invited to look down into the crater and marvel that there were two lakes at the bottom, one of which was blue and the other green. The guide explained that the two lakes were situated in separate places where the volcano had erupted thousands of years ago, and that the stuff spewed out was different stuff so that ‘metals’ lined the sides and bottom of the lakes which were different, giving the different colours.

So I said to myself, “Right. Where’s the bar?”

But I was impressed by the size of the volcano. We do not always realise just how huge volcanic eruptions are. They are on an atomic bomb scale. Frank Smith was talking about volcanoes a few days ago, but I am not sure that Frank has ever stood on the rim of a volcano. If you want to know more, google ‘Vesuvius’.

“Right. Where’s the bar?” is the important thing. I have discovered that I am not much interested in sightseeing. People-watching, eating, smoking and drinking in warm conditions is more my thing.

But there is something else. I am not much interested in watching someone else take risks. There have been times in my life when I have taken risks and been horrified later by my actions. But all my deplorable risk-taking has been immediate and stupid. And that is what ‘taking risks’ is – it is immediate. The ‘risks’ of smoking are ephemeral, ghost-like, decades in realisation.

It seems that ‘Arnott’ has made a statement that smoking outside spreads SHS more widely than would be the case in an ‘enclosed place’, due to dispersion, and so, she says, SHS is more likely to poison people further away.

I think that there will come a point where even the most culpable of MPs will see that Arnott and co are beyond the pail. Just cut them out. Cut them out. If you defund them, then they will not be able to demand that you do what they say. Cut them out.

So I see the governors of a place somewhere where tourism is important, amending the ban. Just a bit. Just so as to permit small bars with fans to allow smoking indoors. Food would be irrelevant since the decision to eat is that of the tourist.

I can visualise that island doing very well. After all, smokers are more fun-loving.

And so, after a while, competition will cause other islands to move in the same direction. And then bar owners in far away places like Cyprus will demand similar treatment because of competition.

Thus, it will be islands which will demolish the stranglehold of the Zealots.

Once the dam breaks, it will wash away the likes of Arnott and co.

Very few human beings take enormous risks. Hitler took a massive risk when he launched WW2. He took a massive, massive risk and caused massive, massive death and destruction.

It is not unreasonable to compare Arnott et al with Hitler, even though the scale is at a much lower level. Both use the same methods of vilification and persecution.

I understand why Simon Clark from Forest said that he does not ‘hate’ Arnott. Nor do I. I see her as ‘the anti-Christ’ – the epitome of ‘the dark side’ By that I mean the slow but deliberate imposition of control. Do not do as your ‘conscience’ tells you to do. Do what we tell your ‘conscience’ to do.

And that is what I hate about politicians. None of them, from PM May downwards,  have the foggiest idea what to do about Brexit. They were all taken by surprise so that it had never occurred to them what the consequences of leaving the EU would be. I am not talking about trade and such. I am talking about PROPAGANDA.

The Soviet Union persisted for a decade or so purely as a result of PROPAGANDA. All the people knew that it was unsustainable.

Smoking bans must collapse if only because they are BANS. They are prohibitions. There is always an under current of resentment about prohibitions – there always has been.

The future is rosy for us smokers, but I am not sure that that ‘future’ will be in my life-time. I have been smoking today a blend of 2/3 Burley and 1/3 Virginia stuff which is very tasty indeed. It has a sweetness.

Why are smokers denied the basic human right to smoke blends of their choice as a result of the ban on importing tobacco leaves imposed by ‘permits’ which will not be granted? No other person in the EU is persecuted in this way.

Again an again, we come up against both direct and indirect persecution.

I do not know what to do. Should I write to my MP? What should I write? How could I explain the persecution in a way that resonates with her? In any case, would it matter to her.

‘There is a tide in the affairs of men’. Indeed there is, but the likes of Arnott always seem to sneak away into oblivion, even though they have caused no end of damage. But, even worse, is that their superiors are not even known.


2 Responses to “How Will Smoking Bans End?”

  1. Smoking Lamp Says:

    I would choose to go on holiday to the location that allowed smoking.

    James Repace is an antismoking fanatic who has made a living as an advocate for smoking bans. He claims to be s biophysicist but doesn’t emphasize that he spent most of his career as a policy analyst and has a MSc in physics. In one Maryland court case he tried to demonstrate the dire effects of second hand some but his measurements showed the same level of particulates in the smoker courtroom as found in the plaintiff’s living room that was allegedly affected by second hand smoke.

    • junican Says:

      I remember reading about the case in question. Shot down in smoke particulates is a nice phase to apply to Rapace-ious. I suppose that he was retired after that disgrace since I have not seen anything from him. Fatso Stanton Grants stepped up to the plate, and he is even worse. I have a feeling that there is a ‘high command’ which picks out such people and protects them.
      In the Chech Republic cigs are relatively cheap – €2.50 when I went a few years ago. But the €/£ ratio was much more favourable to us then. The trouble was that I found the city rather ugly and the weather was not good. I much prefer sunnier climes, even though the price of cigs is around €4.20. Even with the adverse exchange rate, I pay around half price.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: