A simple question

Thinking about my last post during my morning ablutions, a simple question occurred to me (and before lunch simple questions really are all I can manage). I know it’s been asked before but I think it’s worth asking again:

If tobacco and alcohol are so dangerous why aren’t the anti smoking/drinking campaigns asking for them to be banned?

Seriously think about it, none of the pressure groups that claim that smoke and drink are destroying lives, wrecking society and killing thousands of people a year at extreme cost to the NHS are actually asking for them to be banned. If they’re really that dangerous why not? After all we banned the use of asbestos, we’ve reclassified numerous other drugs as illegal why no campaign for an out right ban? Just more and more taxes and greater restrictions.

ASH themselves say:
We do not attack smokers or condemn smoking.
But why not if they want to eliminate the “harm caused by smoking”, how can they not condemn smoking, if it’s as dangerous as they say. Surely that’s a bit like saying:
“We want to eliminate the harm caused by people shooting themselves in the foot, but we’re quite happy for people to shoot themselves in the foot”

I suspect there are three obvious answers:
1) They’re lying but going for an out right ban they know wouldn’t work (pretty much proved by prohibition).
2) They’re self serving control freaks, that know if they ever get us all to stop with our filthy habits they’d have to get real jobs and they’re much rather just meddle in other peoples lives.
3) Both of the above.

If anyone’s got an alternative answer to why none of these health campaigns don’t out right ask for things to be criminalised (as the anti-drugs groups do), I’d love to hear it.

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to A simple question

  1. Bill says:

    Ash & co are funded by HM Government which robs the British People blind with draconian taxes on cigs to pay for the bombing of some Iraqui/Afghan/Libyan peeps so they can keep their place on the UN security council but as long as the cigs are on sale the money will keep flowing as the annual cranking of the tax handle proves. Cigs, booze and fuel only ever get their taxes increased but the consuption doesn’t drop1

    Ban cigs they go underground and all tax revenue ceases to flow. If they did actually ban cigs they might just have to legalise marijuana so every cloud and all that!

    • Giolla says:

      It’d be interesting to see how they’d handle “marijuana” given the fuss about “smoking” without too much worry about if it’s tobacco or not. Otherwise there shouldn’t be a problem with smoking herbals in side should there…

      But yeah tax is certainly a huge factor, as was commented to a previous post if they could get us to buy the things and pay the taxes without being able to smoke anywhere they’d be quite happy with that. Perhaps that’ll be the next thing an “ex-smokers tax” to cover the lost revenue once they go for the ban.

  2. Ian B says:

    They do want a ban. They just learned from alcohol prohibition that if you (a) move too fast and (b) don’t get a globally coordinated ban, your prohibition will collapse. So they have been working gradually over the decades to make smoking so despised that when the time for the last push- for total prohibition- comes, there will be nobody and no means to stand against it.

    By that point, there will already be a virtually complete ban anyway. The product itself will be legal, but there will be nowhere to do it; not in public buildings, not in the outdoors, then not in your car, then not in your home if anyone else is present, so that all that will be left is somebody single and childless who never has any visitors. The argument at that point will have metamorphosised into “well, it’s not much further having a total ban, is it?”

    They’re just not calling en masse for a total ban yet because they’re not quite there in the programme, although they’re getting there very fast, and already discussing it amongst themselves, and in public health journals, and so on. It’s just not quite ready to be rolled out over us untermenschen yet.

    • Giolla says:

      So option one then :( I think I’ll stay much happier not reading public health journals (fortunately don’t have time to do so anyway).

      Will have to keep with the e-cig just to add a tiny voice to keeping it socially acceptable and of course to play with peoples heads.

  3. PJ and the woodstocks says:

    just a thought for you: have your insurance companies started down the slippery slope of charging more for “unhealthy” ppl, or is it the nature of your health system that “you can’t do that?”

    I’m raising the point (for you, not for publication, eep) b/c here, insurance companies, verily, employers, cannot “discrimintae” against the obese or smokers or ppl with chronic health conditions (who? moi?)… but they can charge such outrageous fees for health insurance to ensure these folks can’t possibly take a job with these companies; i.e increase the corporate actuarial liability

    (if it truly does that, of course the data will be out on that for deacdes… perhaps it would be more accurate to check the thermometers in your kitchen ;) )

    I’ve been reading these blog entries with interest. you are aware of the counties in califoria (insert spit here) that voluntarily “ban” smoking and remedy other health concerns for the betterment of their communities… I’m sure they have a tofu and seitan obligation clause in some of these places, I KNOW it, g…

    sorry, I’m ranting…

    background on the railing against seitan: I was deathly allergic to chocolate for years as a child (duh, wonder why, hon?) and mom tried and tried to get me to accept “carob” as a “delicious” alternative… *retch puke vomit* have you ever tried carob? I wouldn’t bake it in cookies and give it to my dog…

    point (again) it’s like giving a smoker a carrot stick (or worse, a celery stick without the benefit of cream cheese, lol) and teling them to suck on it, it’ll take care of the craving and they’ll get used to it, no less…

    one last thing (bwahaha) : I find it particularly nefarious that your government would feel the need to go after anything that “looks” like a ciggie “just to be sure”: whoah… gotta be careful that all those giollas puffing on electric caffeine so they can be social with their friends but who have no real interest in nicotine aren’t really putting banned stuff in their bodies but aren’t about to police their friends.

    scenario: you know, Shari, you can eat the whole damn pizza, but you aren’t going to puke in my house, that sort of thing, lol: that’s friends not letting friends driving bulimic, or under the influence of nicotine, or whatever… am I digressing, lol?

    “offensive” ? like meth? pseudoephedrine? what about ipecac, a personal nemesis, eep…

    lol, the stuff that Your Protectorate keeps behind the pharmacy counter to save ya’alls from yourselves astonishes me …

    the hazmat teams are still cleaning the wreckage of the motel that got blown up a few miles from my parents house when the latest candidates for the Darwin awards here in Goldsboro didn’t ventilate while they were cooking their home brew meth… and no, I have no idea how to make it… that isn’t my kind of pharmacology, lol.

    as they say in the 12 step meetings, “thanks for letting me share”… hey, what are ya’alls going to do with the populace that smokes if you do ban the stuff? send them all to rehab, bwahaha? omg, what a mess…. and I thought we had a problem with pathologizing things, hee. At least here in the bible belt, they grow the tobacco and they’re as proud of it as their Bibles and their guns, ha!

    Billy Joel sings “Somewhere Along the Line” (he is sitting by the seine smoking a sweet Virginia cigarette and he knows its gonna kill him, along with most of his behavior, “somewhere along the line”) … great tune. Gotta lov the New Yawkers.

    Keep writing you.

    XXOO Us