They just can't leave us alone, can they?

Firstly, the Scottish "Government" wants to raise the age at which alcohol can be legally drunk to 21. Why? Because "we all know that Scotland as a nation has a drink problem and the implications of this are very serious - not least for our health." So because of the potential of some health problems caused by a few youngsters habitually over-drinking, they are considering banning all under-21s from drinking alcohol completely. And what exactly will stop them crossing the border to England - assuming the Union still exists - and getting drunk there and then coming back? Nothing.

And on the English side of the border the British Government - as we're not allowed an English one - wants to ban all cigarette vending machines and force cigarettes to be sold from under the counter. Like I said when this idea was originally suggested, banning the sale of cigarettes from vending machines or making them being sold from under the counter won't prevent under-aged - or just "young" - people from smoking. They have already banned smoking in public places and raised the smoking age from 16 to 18, but now that just isn't enough for them. It really is just a case of Nanny State bansturbation.

We can't they just leave us alone? It is our health and our money to do with as we please. Bansturbation won't help, and will just make the problem worse by increasing the mystique of smoking and cigarettes. The only way to reduce the bad effects of smoking and excessive alcohol consumption is through education about the effects it has on our body. Then leave us to make our own choices, whether they be good or bad.

Well, at least those from vending machines:

How can it be justified to ban cigarette vending machines just because one in six child smokers use them to buy their cigarettes. That is absolutely ridiculous. Smoking has recently been banned in all enclosed public spaces, and the smoking age raised to 18. It certainly appears that smokers are the favourite whipping-boys of this government.

Banning the sale of cigarettes from vending machines won't prevent under-aged people from smoking - after all, only one in six get their cigarettes from them! So five out of six don't. It really is a case of bansturbation.

More attempts to make people stop smoking, this time using pictures:

Why are they doing this? Aren't the current 'warnings' such as "smoking kills" etc. good enough? Why do they want to change it all? And what do they expect it to achieve? Either the government think that smokers are too stupid to read, hence the pictures, or they are on a crusade against people making their own choices.

People will not stop smoking because of a few nasty pictures, any more than they will due to a line of text telling them how bad smoking is for them - something smokers already know. Yet they actually made a mistake on at least one of the new warnings - the one I've used in the picture [right] says "Smoking causes fatal lung cancer". The truth is actually that smoking can, potentially, cause lung cancer - which may or may not be fatal. But I suppose that wouldn't fit on quite so easily.

Smoker choose to do so. The government has already tried almost everything to stop them from doing so - that constant addition of tax, the ban on smoking in public spaces, the first attempt at warning labels, and probably many others I've forgotten. These new warning labels will make no difference to those who smoke and those who want to smoke. They already know it's bad for them, they already know that it is addictive. Yet they smoke anyway.

What business of the government's is it to stop them from harming themselves? The government's job stops at the education of the potential risks. After they have done that, it is up to the individual to make their choice. To smoke or not to smoke, to drink or not to drink. That is the question, and the answer can only be made by the individual themselves.

Sources: BBC, The Telegraph

No fines or cautions have been issued for flouting the smoking ban, which came into force in England on July 1 at 6am - despite a number of pub landlords who are ignoring it. 100% of the premises visited are said to have been complying with the ban.

Thus, either the secret police environmental officers who have the job of policing the ban are visiting the wrong places, being fooled, or ignoring those who continue to smoke and allow smoking. I wouldn't be surprised if they are deliberately ignoring the 'likely suspects' in order to give them a chance to decide to comply with the ban of their own free will eventually, before they are inspected and either cautioned or fined - £2,500 for the pub landlord and £50 for individual smokers.

It is of course likely to be only a matter of time before a fine or caution is given. What will happen then? Would they just pay up, or will that pub or individual fight the ban in the courts? I expect we'll find out when and, indeed, if it happens.

Source: The Telegraph

"A smoke-free country will improve the health of thousands of people, reduce the temptation to smoke and encourage smokers to quit."
- Alan Johnson, Health Secretary

A plethora of "No Smoking" signs have now gone up across England, outside all "enclosed public spaces". But England is not going to be "smoke-free," like Alan Johnson claims, unless somehow smoking was made illegal without any of us noticing. The ban, now in place [since 6am this morning], only exists in enclosed public spaces. There is no provision or legal standing for the prevention of smoking in other places. However, this hasn't of course stopped some councils, who have unilaterally decided to extend the ban to playgrounds and parks. This is, however, not legally enforceable. Councils do not have the ability or right to prevent people smoking there.

Smoking is only illegal inside - not outside. Thus England certainly won't be "smoke-free" - the smokers will simply all move outside. What it will mean is that doorways and beer gardens become pretty much the preserve of smokers. Whilst some smokers will kick the habit due to the law and a disgusting attempt to get children to morally blackmail their parents, I very much doubt that the vast majority will.

This sort of authoritarian ban will not make England "smoke-free" at all. Instead, it will simply persecute a minority for having a legitimate habit - quite disgusting, yes, but legitimate. And that is simply wrong. If you want a "smoke-free country" then make smoking illegal, Alan Johnson. Actually bite the bullet. We all know that that is what you and Labour want to do.

Sources: BBC, The Times, The Telegraph

The smoking ban in England comes into force at 6am tomorrow [Sunday], from which time all enclosed public spaces must be smoke-free, or face a large fine. Some pubs have erected outdoor areas for smokers, and at least one plans simply to provide hi-vis jackets for the use of smokers. And one other plans to attempt to circumnavigate the ban by becoming the official embassy of an uninhabited island. Some pubs also plan to offer passive resistance to the ban by continuing to allow smoking on their premises.

For myself, I am both very much looking forward to the ban and despising it. As I have written before, I very much dislike smoking - but it is the market which should decide whether or not pubs allow smoking through their choice of watering hole, not the government though draconian legislation. If the law had even some way for pubs to continue to allow smoking - such as through a certain level of ventilation and the granting of a licence - I could offer little argument against it, and would certainly feel far less inclined to oppose it considering my dislike of smoke. But it does not, and is thus an authoritarian law which has no place in Great Britain.

There are only a few short hours in which freedom to smoke - indeed to freedom to choose - exists in England. For in eight hours time, the smoking ban will come into effect. I wonder what will be next on their list of things to ban? Probably alcohol next, as I predicted before, because it is "bad" for us - and thus we should not be allowed to do it. Well fuck them. They better not even fucking dare to think of it.

Why am I just not at all surprised at this story?

"The government is considering a ban on the sale of packs of 10 cigarettes because it believes they encourage children to take up smoking.
The move is part of a new wave of antitobacco legislation being considered by Patricia Hewitt, the health secretary, to maintain momentum in the campaign against smoking after it is banned in enclosed public places from July 1.
Other planned curbs on tobacco sales include outlawing the display of cigarettes in newsagents and supermarkets and removing cigarette vending machines from pubs.
Hewitt believes the measures should be targeted at preventing teenagers from becoming hooked on cigarettes." (The Times)

It is just another really bad thought out and completely unnecessarily intrusive idea.

Smoking is not illegal, and therefore the government should stay away from dictating how people who choose to smoke do it. They may wish to buy packets of ten, twenty, or any other number that is made - and that is their choice. They are already telling people that they can't smoke in pubs - and virtually all other public spaces - from July 1. Is that not enough dictation into how and where people who choose to smoke do it?! Obviously not for Nanny State.

Next they'll be saying that off-licences can't sell beer in single cans or even packs of four or cider in bottles less than 5 or 10 litres in size!

If you really think about it, why would packs of ten make teenagers more likely to smoke? Surely eradicating them would cause more to smoke? After all, twenty is twice as many cigarettes as ten, and if you've spent so much money on them, you might as well smoke them... I just can't see how packets of ten cigarettes can cause teenagers to smoke any more than any other size, especially since packs of twenty cost less per cigarette than ten-packs. If this stupid idea every made it into law, I would fully support, and laugh heartily, if tobacco companies produced packs of 12 or something instead.

Why is Patricia Hewitt saying this sort of stuff anyway? Everyone knows she will be out of a job from June 27!

Image by Cigarette Packet Generator
Source: The Times

It appears that the government is going even further in it's efforts to ban pleasure.

First Nanny said "put warning labels on smoking packets", and so it was done. But people kept smoking because they wanted to. Then Nanny said "let's put warning labels on alcohol too!" Now Nanny wants to even further, as people have continued smoking and drinking even though Nanny has told them that it's bad.

Now smokers could be denied surgery - even on operations that have nothing to do with smoking, and that smoking could not possibly have caused or effected. Although emergency operations would not be denied, for any "routine" surgery a smoker has to give up at least a month beforehand.

But smoking is not alone in being attacked by Nanny State as a "bad thing". Alcohol, too, is under that heading in Nanny's little red book. And it is Nanny's aim to make drunkenness as socially unacceptable as smoking. Nanny wants to "educate" middle-class wine drinkers particularly, because "[t]hey do not realise the damage they are doing to their health and that they risk developing liver disease ." But I think that, yes, they do know the risks inherent in drinking alcohol. Just like smokers know the risks inherent in smokers, and sportsmen and women know the risks inherent in playing sport. But they choose to do it anyway.

Nanny also wants to legislate to ensure that all alcoholic drinks sold in bottles and cans carry labels with the number of units in that drink and "recommended safe drinking limits". Drinks already carry that, and as proof, here's a photo of beer from my fridge [left, click to enlarge]. They already carry the number of units, and anyone who drinks from them isn't going to pay any attention to the "recommended safe drinking limits" written on them. People already know what is safe to drink, usually through experimentation and feeling the after effects - a far better preventative than Nanny's preaching.

Raising taxes won't stop people from drinking. It didn't [and won't] stop them smoking, after all! It is taxes from alcohol and cigarettes which pay for more than treating any injuries and illnesses which they cause. That they can suggest that smokers should be denied surgery is disgusting, and if that comes into force, then taxes on smoking should be lowered to take into account the lack of service smokers can expect. People should be encouraged not to smoke or drink excessively, through educating people of what the effects can be - but in the end it is their choice, not Nanny's. We live in a free, liberal democratic state, not Stalin's Russia. If someone wants to drink or smoke themselves to death, than that is their own choice, and it is not up to anyone, and especially not Nanny State, to force them to stop.

Sources: The Telegraph, The Times