This bit of HA 2006 banned the enjoyment of tobacco in all enclosed places to which the public have access or where people work. The Act needs to be amended in order to exclude PRIVATE PROPERTY.  I would define ‘private property’ as a building or an area of land which does not belong to the state (in its various forms): ‘belong’ means owning or leasing or renting, or similar. In my opinion, the enjoyment of tobacco on private property is not something in which the state should be interested, unless there is a risk of contagion, in the sense of diseases.

The imposition of these rules in or on PRIVATE PROPERTY is unreasonable. There is no risk of contagion of some DISEASE resulting from the enjoyment of tobacco, because there is no such thing.

The smoking ban is, frankly, silly and stupid. Anyone who has risked his live as a member of the Armed Forces will know that there is a VAST difference between real and present danger, and the putative dangers of passive smoking (which, by the way, have been proved to be non-existent).

If there are reasons that my suggestion cannot be realise in its entirety, then at least give the owners of private property permission to have ‘smoking rooms’.

There is one more thing. By law, pigs have to have adequate shelter from the elements. The provisions of the Health Act 2006 require that Human Beings who enjoy tobacco MUST not.

Why is this idea important?

Thousands of public houses have closed since the smoking ban was introduced. Some are surviving only because the owners (the breweries) are subsidising them.  But we must note that many of these pubs are ‘magnificent edifices’, which require loads of money for their upkeep. Since the smoking ban was introduced, many of these ‘magnificent edifices’ are no longer viable as business entities. Many of them have been demolished and their slates and stones re-cycled.  The problem with the smoking ban is that it inhibits the replacement of these ‘magnificent edifices’ with simple, small bars. The ban has seriously inhibited economic development, and the natural change in the way in which the ‘fun’ that people want is provided for. What people want is more important than what the state wants. People need to be able to conduct their lives as they wish (give or take a bit). It is not acceptable that a few people (corrupt MPs, no matter how smart and clever they may be) should be able to dictate to us how we live our lives.  Nor should anti-smoking zealots be allowed to get away with the very obvious corruption of data and statistics. It ought to be a criminal offence to provide to newspapers corrupt data. This point is very clearly illustrated by the `survey’ conducted by the British Lung Foundation. Very briefly, the survey was about smoking in cars, but the survey was conducted on Mumsnet, and 97%  were women. How much more ‘biased’ is it possible to be? Not only that, people who voted on that site were voting on the basis of ‘smells’.

The whole smoking ban was enacted on the basis that MPs, generally speaking, are easily led. Few of them have the courage and willingness to learn the facts. I have no confidence that anything has changed or will change.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.