it is quite remarkable how our glorious, celebrated new leader, Sir Keir Starmer, has managed to upset so many people in such a short space of time. already, look you see, he has told pensioners they are likely to freeze over winter, drivers (and as a knock on anyone who uses public transport) that they shall pay a lot more for fuel and anyone stupid enough to be employed can expect significant tax increases. up to now they only people he appears to have pleased are those employed in some capacity or another in the railway industry, giving them all of their ludicrous demands knowing (presumably) that quite soon they shall just ask for even more.
where next for Sir Keir to attack? cigarettes, or more specifically smokers, of course. we, for i am one of them (sorry) are always a rather easy, soft target. no one is saying that smoking is in any way "good" or should be encouraged, but the last couple of years has seen a demented onslaught against smokers, as if we are responsible for all ills in society.
new legislation is, apparently, on its way to yet further limit where people may not smoke. being fair is to say some of this makes sense, but not all. fascinatingly for justification he has said that smoking causes "80,000 deaths a year". leaving aside the convenient round number, he doesn't clarify if smoking was the only thing which caused any of the deaths. or if this is a bit like the new plague (covid), where there was instances of people being run over and killed being classed as a "covid death" as they happened to be infected at the time.
should the "leaked" information about the brave new smoking bans be accurate, it appears that it will be made illegal to smoke anywhere near hospitals (or let us say any clinic or medical facility), playgrounds and outside sports stadiums. leaving aside that fervent anti-smokers will say all are good ideas for bans, it's not quite so clear cut. here, consider this for the three (3) listed.
medical facilities - does seem to make sense, as no good health benefits come from smoking. one would not, for instance, be expected to be allowed to smoke inside one. but outside? what about those people who(m) have received bad, upsetting news (themselves or friends or relatives) and feel the need to have a cigarette as a coping mechanism? providing no smoking areas at all is a little harsh, and strikes me as being very much against the current trend for being supportive of mental health issues. you would wish to give someone bad news and not let them use a coping mechanism?
playgrounds - actually agree 100% here. even without the health side (and "second hand smoke" is dubious but still a bad smell) there's the example it sets, normalising it for children. i am loathe to do any sort of "what about" comment, but i do hope that they also ban parents from just staring blankly at phones at playgrounds too, for that also sets a bad example.
outside sports stadiums - now this is just plain f*****g stupid. inside, sure, you have that ban and it makes sense if for no reason other than limiting fire risks. but outside? well, how far away does one have to be to be considered outside the stadium but not outside it? just who will police anywhere between 20,000 and 80,000 people leaving a stadium, checking they are not smoking? also, what if it's not being used for sport? do they really think no one at the Oasis concerts in 2025 will smoke?
for the latter one it does feel like a move to a dangerous, dodgy area. most, if not all, sports stadiums are in public spaces, surrounded by public paths and roads. on which it is perfectly legal to smoke. here, then, starts a move in direction to trying to ban smoking in all public places. do be careful.
generally i don't like it when someone says "the authorities" are "taking away liberties" as normally it will be something morally dubious that they are defending with liberties. as things stand, however, smoking remains legal, and moving to ban it in public "for health reasons" really does open the door for them to ban other things which they shall claim "causes X deaths a year" and is "putting a strain on the health services".
just what shall they try and stop you doing in public next? so far as i am aware there are laws about consuming alcohol in public, or at least about being intoxicated. yet "obesity" is apparently another matter destroying the health service. will people protest when they ban drinking anything but water in public places? or how about eating takeaway food? if it feels preposterous reading that be assured it certainly does writing it too, but give people the ability to take away things "for your own good" does not and will not stop at only the things you don't like anyway.
there can be little doubt (at all) that the imminent first budget of the brave new Labour government will smack even more taxes on cigarettes. i really am not at all sure what they hope this will achieve. my guess is that it will simply send more people in the direction of the less official, more affordable way of obtaining cigarettes. currently the price of cigarettes (here in the UK) is north of £15. most independent sellers trade for easily half of that, in many instances one third. for some reason it makes revenue sense to sell me zero cigarettes at £16 (or so a packet) than as many as i would like for £8. and believe me they are going without the revenue, i am not going without the cigarettes.
yes, true, buying cigarettes on the (ahem) independent market probably means indirectly (or even directly, for all i care) some unsavoury, extremist organisations, such as Al Qaeda or Isis, people smuggling gangs, the SNP, the IRA (provisional or real), drug dealers and similar. well, so what. it is not like the government is going to reduce "legal" cigarette costs to sway people away from it, quite the opposite. put them at a sensibly punitive price and we can talk. if these gangs can somehow import the cigarettes and sell them for profit at between £5 and £7 a packet that's one heck of a statement about the legal pricing. i am sure some shall disagree.
people also tend to disagree with another observation what i have. Brexit could probably (or at least reasonably possibly) have been avoided if two referendums had equal treatment. when the SNP got their way and had a referendum on breaking up the union (not "independence" which was just a much more trendy way to brand it) then PM Cameron bribed Scotland mercilessly to vote to remain. for Brexit he went considerably less carrot and more stick, threatening us with all sorts of misery if we did not comply with his wishes. had we also been bribed, say a cast iron guarantee that cigarette prices would have been brought in line with the cheaper prices in the EU, he may well have bought enough votes. we shall never know.
oh, no, i did not forget that there's also plans to ban smoking in "beer gardens" and outside eating and drinking places. vaguely amusing, this, as we all got kicked out by the indoor ban in the first instance. quite odd how "ban smoking outside pubs" is only a thing in summer. never mind what weather us smokers comply with going outside in.
again, i am not keen on "what about", but alcohol. the number of deaths caused by cigarette smoking drivers each year is, i bet, less (or "fewer") than drink drivers. is it that most hospitals and A&E centres get overwhelmed on weekends by people doing things whilst smoking cigarettes or whilst or after drinking alcohol? wonder which is putting more "strain" on the NHS? no, i am not saying it should be a cigarette free for all as it isn't as bad as drinking, more that drinking shall be next.
let us be clear, the conservative government had to be removed, for they were an absolute disgrace by any measurement. it's just disappointing that we have stood by and watched similarly bad, or potentially worse, take its place. we are the damned.
be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment