ThunderDragon Blog

Peter Mandelson is actually doing something positive for the country! I know that you’re probably sceptical of this, but it’s true - he is indeed:

Peter Mandelson is at the centre of a Whitehall row over a planned clampdown on cigarette sales which threatens to overshadow this week’s Queen’s Speech.

Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, is said to have legislation which would ban big displays of cigarettes – effectively forcing their sale under the counter – “ready to go” as a key part of the Government’s programme for the next 12 months.

However, Mr Mandelson’s department, Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), is said to be objecting to the proposals on the grounds that they would harm the profitability of small businesses during the slump. (The Telegraph)

Even though this is likely to be nothing to do with the Dark Lord himself, at the very least he isn’t overruling his department.

This legislation would make the credit crunch and recession even more devastating than it would otherwise be for small retail businesses, something I thought the government were supposed to be trying to prevent - albeit rather poorly - rather than cause?

Even if we ignore the economic case against this, the personal choice one is more than strong enough alone - people know that cigarettes are bad for them and can decide for themselves whether or not to smoke.

Maybe Mandelson can redeem himself one tiny iota by saving us from such horrific legislation, born of an unholy alliance between economic imbeciles and nanny-staters.

That is indeed the question…

Fail Blog

This government just keeps on plowing out illiberal shit. Anything to prevent us from being able to make our own decisions and take responsibility for our own actions.

First of all, they want to ban cigarette vending machines and packs of ten. To “prevent children and young people smoking”. They have already raised the cigarette purchasing age to 18 and banned smoking in all public enclosed areas, and just want to keep on with their vendetta against smoking.

Let me make one point clear now: I am not, never have been, and never will be a smoker. But I believe that smoking and smokers should not be villified or outlawed.

Cigarette vending machines are used by one in six child smokers. The simple way to prevent these underage children smoking is, for vending machines, to make them credit card operated.

But the other five in six children buy cigarettes from shops. The way to combat this is not to make packs of 10 illegal or to remove cigarettes from view - which will be counter-productive since it will make cigraettes even cheaper ["Under current pricing, a packet of 10 cigarettes cost about £3, compared to nearly £6 for 20"] and make them more mysterious and elusive and hence appealing to children - but to provide simple education to children in school about how smoking can cause them such large problems.

The only good thing about the proposals above is that it’s not quite as illiberal as this idea for smokers to have to purchase licences.

This proposal is just as illiberal, but I just can’t be arsed to rip it to shreds right now.

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