Scraping The Barrel Of Justification

Simon Clark today highlights the pointlessness of the ban on smoking in cars with kids present:

http://taking-liberties.squarespace.com/blog/2018/6/9/smoking-in-cars.html

Only one person in the whole of Yorkshire and the Humber was fined in the first two years after it became illegal to smoke in cars carrying a child, a new analysis has found.

I am surprised that there was even one. Perhaps someone smoking in a car with kids present stepped outside his car and called a policeman over and said, “Look. I’m smoking with my son in the car. He’s only ten, so I demand that you persecute/prosecute me”. “Erm, let’s not be so quick. I suspect a trap. I suspect that you are trying to make a fool of me. What’s this law thing again? I’ll have to radio in”. Perhaps even the culprit was an ASH stooge who deliberately lit up right beside a cop and called him over. After all, if ASH is paying the fine and there are no penalty points associated, why not?

But what amused me most was ASH’s justification. Arnott:

Compliance with the legislation on smoking in cars with children is dependent on the level of public support not enforcement action. And people are complying with this popular law which protects children from the harm caused by secondhand smoke.”

That statement is laughable. Some sort of vague, generic ‘public support’ has nothing to do with compliance with laws. Compliance with laws is a consequence of fear – fear of ‘being caught’ and punished. Further, “this popular law”? It is ‘popular’ only because non-smokers had a vote in one or more ‘surveys’. I am not interested in football, and I believe that far too much TV time is granted to football. Football should be banished from TV. Yes or No? YES!!!!! Of course, I exaggerate. I quite like football sometimes. I shall almost certainly watch the England matches, and perhaps ever the British matches, including Ireland (if any of them qualified, which I do not know).

And, if people are complying out of some sort of conscience about SHS harming kids, then there was no need for the law at all. It would have been simple to have ads on TV, repeated over and over again, shouting, “YOUR SECOND HAND SMOKE IS KILLING YOUR KIDS!!!” Oh, wait. The same could be applied to homes, and ASH ET AL do not want to go there yet.

But Arnott’s statement also reinforces the fact that all the anti-smoking rhetoric is a confidence trick, and always has been. Smoking in pubs never did anyone any significant harm. The concentration of smoke in the air is nothing even remotely similar to taking a puff and inhaling it.

The problem is that our noses are very sensitive. Our sense of smell is very acute. We can detect very small amounts of molecules in the air. “…..and we are able to detect odours even in infinitesimal quantities.” is one authoritative statement. So the fear of SHS is similar to the fear that animals have when the detect smoke in the air. Animals run away as fast as possible. Smokerphobes also run away as fast as possible.

This evening, I detected the smell of gas in the kitchen. I did not run away, which is what an animal would have done. I investigated and found that a gas tap on the cooker had been accidentally turned on. I am not sure, but I suspect that the cooker had already closed the tap because the smell was not that strong. My nose was able to detect the remnants of the gas which had been emitted, before the cooker automatically closed the tap. Modern technology is a wonderful thing.

Modern technology is a wonderful thing. It would have been quite easy for Blair and the rest of the corrupt politicians to have demanded that smoking should only be allowed in pubs if the technology of air cleaning was good enough. Pubs would have had a choice. But I suspect that Blair et al knew full well that SHS was not dangerous.

The simple fact is that none of the MPs who voted for the smoking ban have ever justified their vote.

I do not have the clout to ask them, but you would think that an investigative journalist might just possibly contact all the MPs, present and past, who voted for the ban and ask them why they thought SHS was dangerous.

‘Risk’ is not an adequate word. Walking along a pavement is risky. The real measurement is ‘danger’. How dangerous is walking along a pavement? You might invent the phrase, “The risk of danger”. I do not know if that idea makes sense.

Our problem as smokers is that we are not political. We are not Social Justice Warriors. It is a wonder, in retrospect, that the happening at Stony Stratford had the effect of demolishing the proposed smoking ban in streets by a nutter who described himself as a ‘public health professional’ when he was in fact an ambulance driver. Further, he later lost his seat.

Would it not be lovely is anti-smoker MPs were driven out of office because of their vicious persecution of smokers? Bans, taxes, sainthoods, etc. The fact is, as illustrated above, is that anti-smoker zealots are confidence tricksters and snake-oil salesmen.

And they are crude. They employ apparently sophisticated statistical analysis, but their solutions to the problems revealed are crude. “Quit or Die!”

The situation is horrific, and I do not see why politicians are not aware of it. When politicians start to persecute their own people, even if the persecuted are a minority, that persecution will rebound sooner or later.

The reputations of Blair, Brown, Cameron must be ground to dust, simply because they persecuted their own people.

 

 

Advertisements

%d bloggers like this: