Teresa May, I could learn to like even you. Just deal with the BMA as you have dealt with the Police Federation.
Soon, soon, oh let the day be soon!
Doctors vote for ban on UK cigarette sales to those born after 2000.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
The British Medical Association – auf den Tag!June 24th, 2014 |
 20 comments to The British Medical Association – auf den Tag! |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Just in time for the e-Cigarette making tobacco obsolete.
Do you think these control-freaks won’t seek to ban e-cigs too?
I vote to ban alcohol sales to doctors born before 2000.
The claim is that they want to tackle teenagers taking up smoking. It is already illegal for those under 18 to buy tobacco. It isn’t children they want to stop smoking but adults, just not all at once and using the initial age as a foot in the door. Very devious tactics and all for such a pathetic ‘progressive’ goal. As the article says:
Policy pissing contests suffer from the same diminishing returns as everything else. From the glorious and righteous heights of combating slavery, expanding voting rights and independence for former colonies our political culture has descended to such grubby goals as prohibiting smoking by the backdoor, how many miles of high speed rail track the UK has compared to other nations and stopping people being mean to others on twitter.
“I vote to ban alcohol sales to doctors born before 2000.”
SQotW, if ever there was one.
A cigarette Volstead Act? I imagine a number of Sicilian violin virtuosos will be pricking up their ears at this point.
My favorite quote is this: ” “Smoking is not a rational, informed choice of adulthood,”
The arrogance and assumptions underlying that claim are spectacular. I suppose choosing to be a soldier or a crab fisherman, or eating fish and chips are also not rational informed choices of adulthood.
The doctors probably own shares in the tobacco companies. What better way to force the price up than to ban it? Governments know that prohibition doesn’t work, but it is popular with the electorate, and politicians like to be seen to be doing things about problems, AND an unending war (poverty, drugs, tobacco, maybe a war on war is next) gives them scope for government controls and enhancement of their powers.
The American Medical Association claims to speak for all physicians, but as I understand it, it is ideologically out of step with most of them and generally loathed by them. Is that also the case with the BMA? I would be horrified to learn that this position is mainstream in the UK.
If I was born on January 1st 2000 at midnight. Can I dispute my date of birth to be one second older?
That’s a law that’ll stand up in European Courts!
Also, can racist police officers just arrest any black person who smokes on the pretext that “they all look like they were born since 2000”? If so, thank you BMA!
Thanks also for greeting an investment opportunity. Selling black market cigarettes to anyone born since 2000 is going to be the growth market to end all growth markets…
Jordan, I’m no expert but my impression is that with the BMA it’s not a case of the doctors opposing its authoritarianism as of them agreeing in a lukewarm way with what their union supports in a passionate way.
Like many unions the BMA is run by people of a rather fanatical type who can be bothered to spend their lives politicking in meetings.
Like the AMA, the BMA has wormed its way into structures of government unresisted by those who would freak out at the prospect of e.g. the transport workers’ union ever again having similar access to the levers of power as they did in the 70’s. The Police Federation mentioned in the post, and the UK lawyers’ union, the Law Society, are similar cases of unions for professionals and posh people having become over-mighty.
So, they propose a law that means that two adults, born a day apart, one can buy a pack of cigarettes and the other is prohibited by law from doing so.
Whatever happened to equality under the law?
Snag, I wouldn’t worry about that, as I’m sure the discrimination is only temporary. I believe such measures are called ‘pilots’.
Yes of course they will want to “regulate” e.cigs.
As for using health as an excuse to order people about – why not ban (or tax)fatty foods, or sugar, or anything?
Of course they are in favour of all that as well.
I’d be a lot more impressed if she cut off all funding to ACPO.
Plus, of course, she’s resurrecting all this bollocks again: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10923624/Theresa-May-New-surveillance-powers-question-of-life-and-death.html
So, no, not impressed really.
Oops sorry wrong thread. My bad.
On the e-cig thing:
Couple of weeks ago, got the ferry over to Dover. Sitting in the bar, watching the Channel roll past through the window, thought I’d have a few tokes on the e-cig. Next thing I know, I’ve got the barman coming over. “Excuse me, Sir, but I’ll have to ask you not to use that here.”
I give a puzzled look round. Nearest other passenger is a good 20 feet away. “What’s it got to do with you?”
“The ship’s rules are e-cigs may not be used within the ship”
“There’s a law against smoking. This isn’t smoking. Get lost”
Sorry. I don’t do politeness but I do do awkwardness so I took my e-cig to have a puff by the information desk.
“I’ve just been told I can’t use this on the ship. Why?”
“Can I ask you to stop using that, Sir. We don’t permit their use on the ship” Then he played his ace. “It’s the Captain’s Rules!” You could hear the capital letters.
And got trumped. “Oh you mean the bus driver. What’s he got to do with it? It’s a bloody ferry, not a battleship. I paid for a ferry ticket. There’s nothing I saw in the regulations about e-cigs. Far as I’m concerned I’m going about my lawful business & you lot are harassing me. Are you going to insist I get off the boat? In mid Channel? Want to meet my lawyer? ”
Now we get some frantic phoning about & someone with a bigger cap appears behind the desk.
“I’ll have to ask you to stop using that, Sir. It’s against Company Rules!”
“Why?”
“It’s liable to set off smoke alarms.”
“Load of (expletives deleted). Smoke alarms detect particulates. This isn’t particulate. It’s vapour. It’ll no more likely to set off a smoke alarm than a hot cup of coffee.” (You can try this at home, kids)
So I wandered off. Puffing on my e-cig.
They’ve started, haven’t they?
#***s!
And what happens when medical science advances a little further and makes cancer and other such diseases about as serious as a common cold?
Can we resurrect the (Athenian?) practice of executing those who propse new laws but fail to persuade their fellow citizens to adopt them?
As the proposer of this law, I note that my timing exempts me from an appointment at the gallows..
Bloke,
Being cantankerous properly is an art form – one you have perfected. Chapeau!
As to the contents of the OP, it is one of the less considered downsides to an NHS that people feel entitled to comment on how well you look after your body. “If I have to pay for it, I demand a say in its upkeep…”. Such an attitude is of cours an excellent argument for disolving the NHS, not for micromanaging everyone’s lives.
It extends to other areas of state control as well. Roads for example. “If I have to pay for it, I don’t want cyclists to be allowed to use them….”, schools “If I have to pay for it, I don’t want there to be religious schools”, and so on and so on…
State funding seems to bring out the little Hitler in everyone. Often when pressed they’ll concede it’s not ideal that they should be paying for things they don’t want, but they’ll insist the solution to this is to make them dictator for life over everyone else in the country…..
What’s strange is that those advocates for denying NHS treatment to ‘self-inflicted’ conditions arising from smoking, drinking etc. seem to have no problem with abortion on demand.
Presumably pregnancy is a stork-related condition that can befall anyone at any time, regardless of conduct.
@JV
You have only the highlights, severely edited for brevity. The whole process took about half an hour. The bar keep was actually apologetic after my response to him. He’s an e-cig aficionado himself. That’s partially why I was intent on stirring shit. It’s not just that these people are intent on imposing on one’s freedoms. They compel those under their control to do likewise. But I don’t have any problem with them suffering the consequences. They’ll feel the heat of my wrath.
This whole process of interference in our lives depends on a chain of consent. From those who chose to implement policy, through those employed to compel it, to us who give in to it for a “quiet life”. The chain has to be cut & it doesn’t matter where along its length. It doesn’t matter where as long as it’s broken.
Am I justified on the issue? I can accept people may have objection to behaviour that might affect them. I might be considerate about smoking in proximity to a smoke-phobe. But not, as once occurred, to one who’s freely chosen to enter my home, full well knowing I & my friends are smokers. The boot behind their arse will be more than figurative. And it’s degree of consideration. It doesn’t extend to complying with their foibles. Simply that they don’t like something doesn’t earn it. There’s a lot of things I don’t like. Do they wish for me to visit my hang-ups on them? Once you start this, where does it end? Consideration’s a two way street. Otherwise, f**k ’em & the horse they’re riding on.