Nothing like a liberal

In my view smokers who currently stand outside a pub or restaurant having a fag should have to stand at least several yards away from the front door, to save the 79% of us who don\’t smoke from breathing in their smoke when we go in or out. We should curtail the rights of the 21% and increase their responsibilities towards the 79%. In other words, we should stop them killing us and our children.

Studies estimate that about 11,000 people a year die because of passive smoking. This isn\’t nanny statism, Big Brother, or wrongful interference in people\’s personal freedoms – it\’s the right thing to do to protect the health of the vast majority of us who don\’t smoke from the declining minority who do.

Smoking should be banned in cars, and particularly any vehicle with children in it. On a school visit I met a 12-year-boy who wanted to be an athlete who told me that every morning his mother lit up when she was driving to school, even though he\’d begged her to stop. He should be able to report her to the police.

It should also be illegal to smoke at home in front of children. I accept that enforcing such a law would be difficult, but it would send a message that such behaviour is unacceptable.

Absolutely nothing like a liberal at all.

8 thoughts on “Nothing like a liberal”

  1. “Smoking should be banned in cars, and particularly any vehicle with children in it.”

    We should disregard this merely for the idea of particularly banning something already banned. Away to the Grammar Gulag with them!

  2. I’d have thought that after the crap that has passed for legislation over the last decade or so we’d be keen to avoid any more just to “send a message”

  3. Many fraudulant studies show second hand smoke to be harmful. Genuine studies vary from showing a benefit to showing harm, and they average out as showing no effect. This of course is because any study involves sampling, and thus random error. Of course one of the principal frauds employed is to ignore those studies which do not show harm.
    Secondly, no-one is obliged to go to a pub orto work in one- so anyone who dislikes smoke for any reason has an alternative. Indeed if there are as many as suggested then there would be no need for a smoking ban, the pubs would ban it themselves in order to save their trade.
    An example of someone who has failed to convince the people of his point of view even by the use of lies and seeks to bully people to get his own way.

  4. “pubs would ban it themselves in order to save their trade.”

    Just as the restaurant I dined in while in Paris banned speaking English in order to appease its bigoted French customers.

  5. Pingback: …..which is worse? « And there was me thinking…..

  6. So if a 79% majority can discriminate against a 21% minority, I guess that means the smaller minorities are fair game too. That’s the homosexuals (both sexes), the non-native Brits, the disabled and assorted religious groups all stuffed then.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *