The most invidious part of ‘health authoritarianism’ is that it takes a very reasonable aspect of a state’s responsibility, that of defending against the truly collective threat of infectious plagues, and debases it to interfere with non-infectious diseases which only pose a risk to people who voluntarily enter private property where certain very obvious conditions pertain.
And so we have the smoking ban on enclosed non-residential private property in Britain being imposed by classifying private property as ‘public places’. Never mind that you do not have to enter that privately owned property if you do not like the smell of it, or that the owners should be able to exclude people they want to exclude (such as smokers or for that matter, non-smokers) or that employees who do not like the working conditions can quit and go work somewhere else.
No, the political class loves the idea of eliminating emergent civil society and extending political control ever deeper into people’s lives (this is usually described as making things “more democratic”), and the idea that private property is actually private is an intolerable obstacle to those whose world view is based on violence backed control of the lives of others.
Many people have a deep seated psychological need to see others controlled, not because they are genuinely threatened by them but because they simply get off on controlling other people. The world is full of curtain twitching busy bodies who feel enlivened by calling down the power of the state on those of whom they disapprove for no other reason that it ’empowers’ them (it used to be ‘queers’ who got reported, now it is different types of nonconformists). No totalitarian system that has ever come to power has been able to sustain itself for long without appealing to this all too common psychologically defective demographic, relying on denouncement and informers to perpetuate a political order.
And the only way to resist is to, well, resist. Find ways not to obey the rules. Subvert the meaning of statutes. Do not accept the ‘rightness’ of the prevailing bigotries. Speak out against the orthodoxies of though that underpin the control freaks. Call them what they are. Just find ways to be awkward, find ways not to cooperate, and confront those who assume they on on the moral higher ground and pour contempt on their world view. Just do not meekly cooperate.
Before I continue, I will state that I agree that the ban on smoking in so-called “public places” is dastardly.
Having got that out of the way, I will now mention a notice I saw many years ago, on a military base. It described the unpleasant side-effects of product of smoking — tobacco smoke — upon non-smokers. Specifically, the stench that adheres to their clothes and hair. It continued by suggesting that as the writer’s preferred vice was drinking, the side-effect of which was copious urine production, it should be just as acceptable for him to urinate upon the clothes and hair of those in his vicinity as it is for smokers to blow smoke upon him.
It is well known that drinking, and therefore urination, takes place in pubs and bars, so anyone wanting to keep dry and odour-free could simply avoid going into them…
I do not allow smoking in my house (I let them smoke in my garden) because I personally dislike it but that does not change my view on the subject at all.
Similarly, my view is not changed.
Nevertheless I find it fascinating that of the two behaviours that little note described, one is generally considered acceptable (except by the modern statist) and the other beyond the pale. Yet, is the principle not the same in each case?
“Yet, is the principle not the same in each case?”
Yes indeed – and there would be no more reason to ban uncontrolled urination in pubs than there is to ban smoking. Both may be unpleasant but the decision as what to permit ought to be entirely a matter for the land owner. As you say, anyone wanting to keep dry and odour-free could simply avoid going into them…
Indeed ironically there is a better case for banning smoking in the open air than there is for banning it in pubs.
Julius
Is it “smoking” if you light a cigarette and hold it. Is burning incense smoking? Is grilling in a public park smoking? Funny how certain “minorities” can be discriminated against for personal behavior while others are lofty victims to be shielded from all criticism of their behavior.
. . . they simply get off on controlling other people.
This explains the obvious satisfaction the control freaks display with petty little victories.
It doesn’t explain their viciousness, and complete disregard for civilized behaviour, when they encounter resistance. In a local Cafe recently, some of the locals were discussing the comparative tax burden among the western U.S. states. A couple in a table across the room were visibly annoyed by some of our opinions. Though they had not been invited into the discussion, the woman came over to our table and proceeded to lecture us, in the typical Progressive fashion, about our being selfish, having no compassion, being probably racist, and how we had better get used to meeting our responsibilities to the community. We burst into laughter at this P.C. rant, which only made things worse. Her companion became beligerent, at which point the cafe owner intervened and ejected the couple from the premises. Good riddance.
Point is, these people actively resent and despise anyone who has more of (fill in the blank) than (fill in the blank). They become incensed when anyone, anywhere, is percieved as too comfortable (much less successful). They want contrition, obedience, and acknowledgement of their right to make the rules of everyone elses life.
I think we’ve seen this sort before . . .
Hey! I’ve been SMITTEN!
Cool. I was beginning to feel left out.
When I was a kid there was an expression we use, “You can put that in your pipe and smoke it”.
I feel it is time to bring that one back…
All this anti-smoking business is a stalking horse—a camel’s nose. Anyone who doesn’t see that very clearly by now just isn’t paying attention.
Nick.
I feel you are holding back on this one!
Let it rip sunshine let it rip !! 😉
RAB,
Words fail…
Perry,
enclosed non-residential private property
Au contraire mon ami! It also includes the parts of the house that the self-employed and working from home (such as me and my wife) treat primarily as “places of business”. I’m typing this in my den / workshop / office / lurk whilst smoking a fag. I’m breaking the law as sure as if I were beating up a silver-haired Granny for her pension.
I’m up there with Osama-bin-fucking-Laden.
I know this because Manchester-bastarding-City-fucking-council sent us two (!) leaflets to advise on “Strategies for becoming a smoke free workplace”. This, obviously at the expense of the PBTP.
But we sure are grateful for it. I never knew before that smoking could result in disease. Neither did my wife. Oh the divine benevolence of our beloved council!
Did they not perhaps pause to think that me and the missus (sole-traders, both) might just be able to look after ourselves? Did they not consider that I spent umpty years studying science and my wife has picked up a lot of information translating Swedish and Danish cancer drug trials?
Nah, did they hell! This isn’t even a nanny-state because (such is my understanding) nannies don’t usually extort the pocket money directly from their charges as “payment” for telling them to wash behind their ears.
This is totalitarianism pure and simple.
The worst thing is, as VR put it, most people don’t understand that it will get their “vices” too. We are just going to go like lambs to the slaughter over this and whatever else or Lords and Masters decide.
And yes, worse than anything, they regard the money we get left through the tax system as “pocket money”.
I’m so utterly fucked-off that…
Words fail.
Speaking of not meekly accepting.
I cannot get the html link to work. Try this;
http://www.icanhelpit.co.uk/blog
Absolutely.
Case in point:
Smoking has been banned completely on campus starting next year. This in place of a quite sensible old rule that said smokers had to smoke outside and stand 30ft. away from the entraces to buildings while doing so so as not to inconvenience nonsmokers. Such a rule was, I thought, a nice compromise between the perrogative of smokers to indulge in their chosen habit and the desire of many nonsmokers not to have to breathe the stuff in second hand.
But apparently that wasn’t enough. The outgoing president decided to ban smoking outright. What’s worse, our student fees will now be partly diverted to paying for programs to help people quit. That’s them being “responsible” with our money, I guess. What gets me about the whole thing, however, is that they’re trying to pass this off as “concern” for the health of students. Give me a goddamned break. On a campus where Pizza Hut is easier to find in Meal Services establishments than a traditional two-veggies-plus-meat meal, I can assure you with a great deal of certainty that student health isn’t a top concern of university officials.
Fuck them.
What I can’t decide is whether I’m on ethical grounds smoking cigars on campus starting in September just to annoy them. The ban is completely unenforceable (campus cops can’t exactly make me show ID) – but the question is whether I’m to respect this public university as private property or not. It’s a state-funded public university, and so in that sense a “public” place. But then again, it has a lot of private donations etc. and operates largely independently of the state, and is in that sense private (and therefore allowed to set its own smoking policy). It’s an ambiguous case. But I have two months to think about it.
Here in the antipodean colonies, the State government has just banned smoking in pubs, but with the exception that some areas can be smoking areas. Why not suggest this as a reasonable compromise?
As for finding ways around rules, I remember the case of the British man fined for using Imperial measures because his customers wanted them, but the EU has a strict Metrics-only policy. I thought then, why not have some Imperial scales in the shop, and label them as historic curiosities, and let the customers play around with them as toys, just for amusement? That would be a circummetric measure.
Is there anything they don’t want to police?
The same people who wail and gnash their teeth at skinny models also want to police fat people.
I guess there is some justification for banning smoking though, government schools have caused such a high level of illiteracy that people can’t read the government mandated labels.
Joshua,
The ban is completely unenforceable (campus cops can’t exactly make me show ID)
Are you completely sure?
Nick M,
Only two? In my NO2ID capacity alone I’ve had 4 warnings from the building owner, and six increasingly minatory letters form Lambeth Borough Council (a ‘Liberal Democrat’ local authority).
I have enough ‘free’ (paid for from my taxes, and possibly my rent) smoking-is-illegal-here stickers in the statutory form – overseas visitors may not be aware it is not just a crime to fail to display a no-smoking sign at any entrance to premises, it is a crime to fail to display one that deviates from the official format – to wallpaper a telephone kiosk. … Speaking of which, isn’t BT riding for an enormous fine at the moment?
Don’t forget your car, if it is used for business and might have a passenger. (Spot the tax-trap.) It needs a sign, and to be kept “smoke-free,” too.
Nick M. is correct. If you work from home, even if no-one else ever comes into the premises, it is treated for the purpose of this law as a place of work, and smoking is banned. I’d love to know how this spiteful and oppressive rule gets enforced.
The problem is that I worry that there are tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of people who get some sort of sexual/psychological buzz from oppressing others, stamping out things they don’t like, etc. On a separate comment thread, a commenter stated that he/she hoped that “chavs” did not take their holidays in certain places as it would be unbearable. Maybe. But you know what, when Tory leader David Cameron proposed taxing cheap flights, I could not help wondering whether it was a desire to oppress the unwashed British plebs as much as anything to do with protecting the planet and curbing pollution.
The real question here is the classification of private property and public space.
If for instance you steal nuts or crisps from Tesco’s, or even a pub, you cannot be charged with theft.
Because they are ‘private property’ police can only charge them with burglary.
This is set in law, therefore if you smoke in a pub, make sure you nick a packet of nuts as well, so that if it goes to court, surely the court must apply the same rules to both charges, i.e. that it is not public space but private property.
That at least would test this in law, and set a precedent.
The particularly nasty thing about the smoking ban is that it becomes a criminal offence for property owners to allow smoking on their property.
It is a form of collective punishment. If I go to my local and light up in the corner, my landlord could be prosecuted. For this reason I wouldn’t resist.
Collective punishment is an effective way of enforcing immoral laws because because decent people feel guilty when their actions will have bad results for others. This is the reason for the meekness.
We can expect more of this as more immoral laws are passed.
Any suggestions, Perry?
Jonathan Pearce: I’d love to know how this spiteful and oppressive rule gets enforced.
They will bide their time until they decide they want to disrupt your place of work . These are fence-posts, after all.
As for taxing cheap flights – I understand it involve a form of transferable rationing per person and so was a means to tax the middle classes who would have to buy from those who never fly. It limits not just the poor, but the middle classes too, who, I suspect, Dave feels are getting far to numerous and wealthy. He also is half a step towards “exit visas”.
Joshua: Frankly I think you need to accept their position, as long as those enforcing have the authority. It is WORLDS APART from the State busting into a private place that does NOT want to enforce it.
IanP: They will not charge you with the theft then, or suggest very carefully to the landlord that it would not be in their interests to press that charge…
p.s. Smoking is NOT PERMITTED in my home, but that is MY rule in MY home. I do not smoke (except for the odd cigar) and hate the smell of cigarettes, but that does not stop me from going to a pub with other smokers. If they want to ban smoking, ban it in a place where I have no choice but to stand or be, like bus queues, before even THINKING about pubs and restaurants. But once you use the bus queue example, the ridiculous, authoritarian nature of this law becomes plain.
Guy,
I’ve actually seen loads of no-smoking signs in BT kiosks. I’ve seen them at swimming pools, in the actual pool area(!?) presumably to discourage Vicky Pollard.
Lordy, how the hell do you cause secondhand smoke to anybody in a bloody phonebox? That’s assuming you’re not trying to get into the Guiness book of records – how many Korean midgets can you…
Ah the car… Well my wife smokes. Her driving instructor smokes and yes, I know it is now illegal for them to have a ruminative gasper after a particularly bad reverse park. He said he has to have it valeted if he’s had a smoker before taking a pupil to a test because if the examiner even smells smoke he gets reported to the DVLA. Funny thing is he said he’d always avoided smoking in the car if he knew he’d have a non-smoking pupil that day (ie most days). He did this because he’s not exactly the only driving instructor in Manchester and some of them might object and find another. That sort of logic seems ideal to solve the “smoking curse”. Similarly I wouldn’t go to a job interview with a fag hanging out my mouth (unless I was going for “Pete Docherty Impersonator” obviously).
This law is just vicious, nasty and once more words fail…
But I am glad that there are at least some non-smokers who grasp what it’s really about – a governmental invasion of private property and also the thin end of a slippery slope because if they get this one to work then…
An Englishman’s home is now his non-smoking castle. Long ago, it became his can’t shoot burglars castle. Soon it will be a no transfats, carbon-footprinted, 5-a-day, always use a condom, take a break after fifteen minutes at a computer, lights out at eleven (our planet is dying!!!) castle.
Well, with the unfolding events of the past days and the nationwide arrests of various Pakistani and Iraqi doctors at least we know now that the NHS really IS trying to kill us – its not just paranoia any more!
Julian,
As an inhabitant of Manchester I can assure you that no jihadi doctors will ever top our own dear Dr Shipman.
At least one landlord is planning to resist:
Just to be pedantic, it seems that you “only” need to make a room in your home “smokefree” if people who do not live with you either work there or visit to “give or receive goods or services”.
Source
My wife and I work 200 hours a week in this pub
Only if they work on Beatle time
8 days a week!!
I vote for sticking feathers in our hair and dropping tea into the South Platte River.
The alternative was to simultaneously smoke cigars, drink over-3.2 beer, fish over the limit without a license, have sex, and fire off fireworks (or 7.62X51 NATO tracers, better yet) in public places. However, this would require more coordination that I have, and for all I know some part of that might be illegal.
It’s Independence Day tomorrow. While I’m chasing complainant-refused fireworks calls, someone should be out celebrating What Should Have Been.
Rob,
That includes deliveries.
Sunfish,
If you could do all of those things simultaneously I vote you a most capital fellow (oh, and can you put it on YouTube).
Guy, what do the English statutory signs say? Here in Scotland, “It is an offence to smoke, or knowingly allow smoking to take place on these premises” (my emphasis) still makes my blood boil every time I see it.
Perry says : “Many people have a deep seated psychological need to see others controlled, not because they are genuinely threatened by them but because they simply get off on controlling other people.”
Harry Haddock of Nation of Shopkeepers coined the word that perfectly describes people who get off on ordering others about : BANSTURBATORS
ALan Douglas
I see no role for government at all in disease control, infectious or otherwise.
Of course, the Black Death could make me change my mind, except that the Black Death was cured without the involvement of government.(Except on a local level in San Francisco).
Hey, CFM, sounds like a great cafe.
Do they serve beers?
I’m not nearly that athletic or coordinated. I’m more of an idea guy. However, should anyone offer me evidence that he’s capable of doing all of those at once, I’ll round up the beverages, cigars, ammunition, bait, and contraceptives. And a camcorder to get footage of the health fascists crying.
pietr: Delicious Mexican beers. We’re a bit north of San Diego.
Another good bit – the Cafe owners are ethnic Chinese, refugees from Pol Pot’s Cambodia. Having seen the Dark Side of controlling personalities, speeches about one’s “responsibility to the Community” set off alarms in their heads.
A vicar who lit his pipe in a Kent police station as a protest against the smoking ban has failed in his attempt to get himself arrested.
how it would never break, this proves him wrong, thats why.
Dual control courtesy cars