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.

Why oh why oh why?

How can this possibly be justified in any way? It really does seem that smokers are the whipping-boys at the moment. Consider this: the smoking ban, raising the legal age of purchase to 18, and now requiring a licence. All points to one end aim: making smoking illegal.

I really don't like smoking. I consider it a horrible and disgusting habit. But I also think that it sure as hell isn't up to me to tell smokers whether or not they can smoke. An age limit - and proof of age being required before cigarettes being purchased is surely enough? If they want to smoke, they've made their aim pretty clear by asking for cigarettes at the counter. Why is a licence to do this - especially at time of purchase - at all necessary or justifiable under anything bar dictatorship?

Totally illiberal and totally wrong.

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.

When the smoking ban was introduced, it was obvious that the next step would be to ban drinking alcohol. It seems that this has already begun. Peter Fahy, the Chief Constable of Cheshire, wants a ban on drinking outdoors, a reversal from the existing situation where it is legal unless otherwise stated - the same way the law works in all areas in England. He wants to make drinking alcohol in public illegal because seeing alcohol being drunk apparently glamorises it for children.

He also proposes that the age of drinking be raised from 18 to 21 because "[a]lcohol is too cheap and too readily available and is too strong. Young people cannot handle it" - which is an abysmal argument. Alcohol is available because people want it. It isn't exactly cheap, and making it more expensive wouldn't make much of a difference anyway - note the failure to achieve much decline in cigarette sales through the constant price hikes by tax. Raising the legal age at which alcohol can be bought will not accomplish the aims that he wants it to, and will have positive outcomes in any way. All that it will mean is that more people are drinking illegally.

What Fahy is proposing is illiberal, badly thought out, and pointless to boot. Making it illegal to do a legal activity anywhere in public except where designated goes against our entire legal system. Unless it is specifically made illegal, then it is legal - and long may that continue.

The reason that we have a society where "adults feel scared to go out and challenge youngsters up to no good" is because the police have utterly failed in their duties. Far too much time and effort is spent on paperwork and pursuing crimes against political correctness. If the police spent more time on the beat and doing useful work, society would not be in this position. It is you and your ilk who are to blame for that, Mr Fahy, not the availability of alcohol.

What is the next step that will be called for? Making all drinking of alcohol illegal because it can cause health problems, can cause public order problems etc? They just keep on coming with these anti-alcohol proposals. Why can't they just bugger off and leave us in peace?!

Sources: BBC, The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian

Since the smoking ban came into force in England on 1 July, more than a month ago now, smoking has been illegal in all pubs in the UK. But it appears that the ending of smoking in pubs have had at least undesirable, though obviously foreseeable, effect - now pubs stink. With no more tobacco smoke smell to mask that of sweaty bodies, stale beer, etc. pubs are beginning to stink. Despite the claims of pro-ban people that pubs would smell sweeter without tobacco smoke, that was obvious bollocks, and has been proven so.

I noticed this the first time I visited a pub after the ban came into force, and it was especially bad a week or so ago when I went out in the town centre with some friends. As much as I disliked smoking, and coming home smelling of smoke, the odour that many pubs and bars have, especially on crowded Friday and Saturday nights, is really quite nauseating.

But it seems that some pubs have thought of a solution - they plan to pump perfumes into the air in order to disguise the other smells that have risen to the fore. I'm not sure how effective this could be, really, and there is almost certainly some Health and Safety directive dictating something about particles in the air or some such rubbish.

Source: The Times

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

The oppressive law that comes into force in England on July 1st will face a campaign of civil disobedience on its first day in force. Landlords of up to 200 pubs are planning to hold a "day of defiance" when the legislation comes into force, by allowing smoking inside their premises on 1st July - and beyond if that is what their customers want. This comes as the absolute ban on smoking in virtually all public places is facing three high court challenges.

A figurehead of the resistance to the ban, Nick Hogan of The Swan pub in Bolton, Lancashire, said:

"This protest is growing and we are still a month away. It is a -protest against dictatorship. It is not about being pro-smoking. It is about the freedom to choose."

That is precisely the point. The way that the smoking ban is universal in all enclosed public areas, irrespective of any other factors, is wrong. If the act held any way by which a pub could continue to allow smoking, such as be the granting of a licence, the requirement of a certain level of ventilation, and the declaration of its smoking status at the entrance, then I would support it.

Thus, I support this traditional form of British resistance to a badly made law. I dislike smoking, but I can, and do, enact my right and ability to go and drink elsewhere. It is the compulsory nature of the law that make it unacceptable.

Source: The Telegraph

Almost half of the country are unaware that England's smoking ban comes into force on July 1. 90% do know that a ban is coming in, however, just when when and to what it applies. I don't understand how 10% can not know that one is coming in, or how so many can know that a ban is coming in but not when. That's like knowing there is a speed limit on the road you're driving on, but not knowing what it is.

The government has launched a TV advert to try to educate people [watch here, courtesy of the BBC] showing a man walking through a variety of locations and describing how they will all have to be smoke free from July 1. I think it's rather a poor ad, but it may well do the job.

The ban is apparently supported by 87% of non-smokers and 44% of smokers (I'm not going to write about why I oppose the smoking ban, as I have written about that before: here, here, and here) and will cause 15% to go to the pub more often, and 7% less often, and make no difference to two thirds of the population. These percentages are hardly surprising, and had the legislation had a means by which some pubs could continue to be smoking pubs through the provision of extra ventilation and licensing I would have been amongst the 87% of non-smokers whoa re pro-ban.

I am sure that by the time the ban comes into effect, the vast majority will know that it is, and when, since it will fill the media in the run-up. Though I am also sure that there will be much confusion over precisely where the ban does and doesn't apply.

Source: BBC