Sunday, March 26, 2006
No Smoking - Jack's Found An Easy Way To Justify His Salary.
“The single biggest contribution devolved government can make is to reduce the toll of preventable death caused by smoking,” said First Minister Jack McConnell about the ban on smoking in public places which came into effect in Scotland today.
What he means is that it was easier than doing anything important, stuff our pretendy wee parliament find are beyond their limited talents, like dealing with the serious issues in Scotland.
How about sorting out the failing health service, or dealing with the disgrace of this country that is child poverty, or the problems in schools? No... that's not so easy, and takes brains, which are in short supply in Holyrood.
But would improving these not be a bigger contribution than a nice easy smoking ban?
The toll of preventable deaths and illnesses will, in many instances, be transferred from adult smokers to their children at home, and I fear we may see one or two preventable deaths occurring when the usual holier-than-thou crew start telling smokers to "extinguish that nasty cigarette," only to get a six inch blade stuck in their ribs.
Because, of course, Jack has failed miserably at reducing the epidemic of knife crime in Scotland.
Too many of the non-smokers who carry around their feelings of superiority everywhere they go don't know when to shut up, and Jack is encouraging them to report and inform on people.
It may be that in the not so distant future McConnell will find out that Scotland's working class and the bedrock of the Labour party, who already feel remote from government and don't like state nannying, will take the opportunity of voting day to tell him just what they think of his "single biggest contribution."
See all recent posts.
What he means is that it was easier than doing anything important, stuff our pretendy wee parliament find are beyond their limited talents, like dealing with the serious issues in Scotland.
How about sorting out the failing health service, or dealing with the disgrace of this country that is child poverty, or the problems in schools? No... that's not so easy, and takes brains, which are in short supply in Holyrood.
But would improving these not be a bigger contribution than a nice easy smoking ban?
The toll of preventable deaths and illnesses will, in many instances, be transferred from adult smokers to their children at home, and I fear we may see one or two preventable deaths occurring when the usual holier-than-thou crew start telling smokers to "extinguish that nasty cigarette," only to get a six inch blade stuck in their ribs.
Because, of course, Jack has failed miserably at reducing the epidemic of knife crime in Scotland.
Too many of the non-smokers who carry around their feelings of superiority everywhere they go don't know when to shut up, and Jack is encouraging them to report and inform on people.
It may be that in the not so distant future McConnell will find out that Scotland's working class and the bedrock of the Labour party, who already feel remote from government and don't like state nannying, will take the opportunity of voting day to tell him just what they think of his "single biggest contribution."
See all recent posts.
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Thanks Byronb.
The feckin' Taliban would do a better job here than Jack the Political Pygmy.
Gordon Brown has more sense than to involve himself with this bunch.
Our parliament, I should say, is a good thing and I'm all for devolution.
We just need some real politicians of all persuasions in the place, rather than the set of jumped up local councilors we are unfortunate to have at the moment.
The feckin' Taliban would do a better job here than Jack the Political Pygmy.
Gordon Brown has more sense than to involve himself with this bunch.
Our parliament, I should say, is a good thing and I'm all for devolution.
We just need some real politicians of all persuasions in the place, rather than the set of jumped up local councilors we are unfortunate to have at the moment.
I have to disagree. Ok, no doubt Jack's motivations are not among the best. However, to me banning smoking in public spaces is simply logical. It is about defending the rights of those who don't wish to smoke as well as those who, like me enjoy smoking, but don't wish to do so in an enclosed space. I just don't understand this talk of non-smokers as having feelings of superiority. Why should they have to tolerate smoke? It's the same as with polluting cars. Some woman interviewed by the BBC said people should have the right to waste their money on such cars. That simply ignores the fact that the rest of us also suffer from pollution, both directly through our respiratory systems as well as indirectly through the effects on the planet. So no, polluters don't have the right to make others suffer!
That said, I would not encourage informants. however, I utterly and completely disagree that this is a case of the nanny state. The state is there to uphold the rights of everyone to live safely. If someone wants to harm themself, then they should have the right to do so, but not if they harm another person in the process.
Jez, I don't agree. It's nannying, and it's another tiny step towards state control, and citizens are being encouraged to police the law by informing, as the real PC Plod refuses to get involved.
It doesn't affect me much, although I smoke, and while I agree with many aspects of the ban, I object to the draconian nature of it, and the stupidity of much of it.
And the dangers of passive smoking are highly debatable and more about spin than serious research findings.
It would have been relatively easy to strike a balance that would have allowed those who wish a "risk free" life (as you suggest we are all entitled to and is governments role to enforce) to not have to suffer the smell and possible effects of smoke, and allow the minority who wish to smoke do so, at least within pubs and private clubs who choose to allow it and who don't serve food.
This is more to do with political correctness and political convenience than rights, and certainly shows scant regard for minority rights.
It doesn't affect me much, although I smoke, and while I agree with many aspects of the ban, I object to the draconian nature of it, and the stupidity of much of it.
And the dangers of passive smoking are highly debatable and more about spin than serious research findings.
It would have been relatively easy to strike a balance that would have allowed those who wish a "risk free" life (as you suggest we are all entitled to and is governments role to enforce) to not have to suffer the smell and possible effects of smoke, and allow the minority who wish to smoke do so, at least within pubs and private clubs who choose to allow it and who don't serve food.
This is more to do with political correctness and political convenience than rights, and certainly shows scant regard for minority rights.
hmmm. I don't agree colcam.
sorry if I'm sounding like a health fascist, but the risks of passive smoking have actually been fairly well researched, and the body of evidence is growing. an overview of the evidence can be found here
there was one fairly recent article in the BMJ that stated that the risks were not as great as previously thought, however this has been largely criticised as it was funded by tobacco companies with conflicting interests, and the data was too old to be accurately interpreted.
another small but significant and important study (BMJ 5 april 2004) done in helena in montana (a geographically isolated town, that introduced a smoking ban) showed a significant reduction in admissions from heart attack in the 6 months of the study. this has important implications for Scotland, where heart disease is the biggest killer (and expenditure in the nhs)
yes, people have the right to smoke, but don't non-smokers have the right not to breathe other people's smoke too? what about people who work in clubs and pubs - should they be forced to put their own health at risk so they can earn a crust?
yep, I'll stop now. definitely sounding like a health fascist, but in my defence, it's my job :)
sorry if I'm sounding like a health fascist, but the risks of passive smoking have actually been fairly well researched, and the body of evidence is growing. an overview of the evidence can be found here
there was one fairly recent article in the BMJ that stated that the risks were not as great as previously thought, however this has been largely criticised as it was funded by tobacco companies with conflicting interests, and the data was too old to be accurately interpreted.
another small but significant and important study (BMJ 5 april 2004) done in helena in montana (a geographically isolated town, that introduced a smoking ban) showed a significant reduction in admissions from heart attack in the 6 months of the study. this has important implications for Scotland, where heart disease is the biggest killer (and expenditure in the nhs)
yes, people have the right to smoke, but don't non-smokers have the right not to breathe other people's smoke too? what about people who work in clubs and pubs - should they be forced to put their own health at risk so they can earn a crust?
yep, I'll stop now. definitely sounding like a health fascist, but in my defence, it's my job :)
I think as long as you accept smoking is bad for your health, then it's fairly obvious passive smoking is going to have a detrimental effect too. That's logic.
Now, please do not twist my words. I did not say 'enforce', but 'defend'. You believe the government is being dictatorial, I believe the state is upholding the right to all to enjoy life in public spaces while protecting their health. I have heard that there has already been one smoking club set up for smokers. That's fine, but a pub is a place open to all, and those who most need defending are those who do not wish their health to suffer. Also, there are those who work in pubs.
I already said I do not condone spying and informing. That is not an argument against a smoking ban, I'm afraid.
Now, please do not twist my words. I did not say 'enforce', but 'defend'. You believe the government is being dictatorial, I believe the state is upholding the right to all to enjoy life in public spaces while protecting their health. I have heard that there has already been one smoking club set up for smokers. That's fine, but a pub is a place open to all, and those who most need defending are those who do not wish their health to suffer. Also, there are those who work in pubs.
I already said I do not condone spying and informing. That is not an argument against a smoking ban, I'm afraid.
Apologies Jez, I didn't intend to twist your words, I assure you.
I would be most interested to hear about a smoking club being set up. My understanding is that that would most certainly be illegal, as the legislation covers all private clubs, with no exceptions.
I'm afraid I cannot argue further on this at present - I did say earlier that I was in danger of being in conflict with another piece I am working on, and I have already come too close to stepping over a line that could cause me some considerable loss.
So for the next month or so... I can comment no further.
Sorry.
I would be most interested to hear about a smoking club being set up. My understanding is that that would most certainly be illegal, as the legislation covers all private clubs, with no exceptions.
I'm afraid I cannot argue further on this at present - I did say earlier that I was in danger of being in conflict with another piece I am working on, and I have already come too close to stepping over a line that could cause me some considerable loss.
So for the next month or so... I can comment no further.
Sorry.
Mushsis, thanks for commenting, and good luck with quitting.
As I, too, am in the middle of earning a crust, I am commenting no further at present. As I have explained to Jez (above) I am in an awkward situation at present with this, and probably shouldn't have mentioned the subject at all at this time
As I, too, am in the middle of earning a crust, I am commenting no further at present. As I have explained to Jez (above) I am in an awkward situation at present with this, and probably shouldn't have mentioned the subject at all at this time
Apologies accepted, and no problem!
No doubt there are draconian, possibly NewLabour-ishly dictatorial elements to the new law, but in itself, I can only agree with it. Once again, I fear it is a problem of being forced into a situation where we have to be either for or against it. So, I can only be for it, as I see non-smokers' rights as more important than smokers' rights (on the subject of smoking, of course).
Looking forward to your piece..
No doubt there are draconian, possibly NewLabour-ishly dictatorial elements to the new law, but in itself, I can only agree with it. Once again, I fear it is a problem of being forced into a situation where we have to be either for or against it. So, I can only be for it, as I see non-smokers' rights as more important than smokers' rights (on the subject of smoking, of course).
Looking forward to your piece..
Thanks Jez. Hope the piece ever actually gets published - it's one thing battering out any old crap in this blog, another thing entirely doing 2,000/3,000 words with high quality images for a publication that pays.
And I'm very, very rusty on the words bit!
Post a Comment
And I'm very, very rusty on the words bit!
Links to this post:
<< Home
© Colcam 2005-2007
