Diane Abbott treats us to her thoughts on Andrew Lansley’s moves to further control tobacco in the UK. Given that he is merely following the footsteps left by the outgoing Labour administration, she is naturally in favour. She trots out the line used by anti-smokers that this is a public health matter and uses words like “epidemic”. Yet, unlike the potable water example that she cites, smoking is not a public health issue. Smoking affects those who choose to smoke and despite the propaganda, it does not adversely affect those of us who refrain. And, until someone can come up with hard evidence that second hand, third hand or fourth hand smoke does, indeed cause actual harm – as opposed to rampant hysteria and vapours in the anti-smoking brigade – propaganda is all it is. Also, as smoking is a habit chosen by practitioners, it is not a disease. Therefore it is not an epidemic. What we have is a hard core of people who have decided, for whatever reason, to resist the propaganda, the ostracising, the hateful bile and the increasingly malicious law making and continue to light up. Their decision to do so is no one’s concern but theirs. If this causes them to suffer harm, then so be it. It’s not as if they have any excuse for not knowing what tobacco smoke may do – after all, they’ve had it shouted in their faces for long enough.
Perhaps most absurd is Abbott’s statement that Lansley should not legislate – or refrain from legislating on the basis of what may be popular. Or in this case, unpopular. Those of us with fully functioning irony meters may well be trawling Amazon at this point in the hope of securing a replacement. This, after all, comes from someone whose party legislated on the basis of headlines for over a decade. But, perhaps, a more important point is missed in Abbott’s desire to legislate for our own good; government by consent. If the demos don’t like a policy, then surely they, not the politicians are the ones who should decide? Unfortunately in our representative democracy, we, the people, get no say whatsoever. Our vote, for what it is worth, is meaningless. We do not choose policy, the parties do and you can barely get a fag paper twixt them. Manifestos are worthless and ignored once power is achieved. The political parties decide what is in our best interests and what determines public health and our opinions count for nothing. Given this, I’m not sure why Diane Abbott is worried. Lansley will do exactly what his Labour counterpart did when in power; legislate and be damned. Popularity is irrelevant. We are irrelevant. Our opinions are irrelevant, our consent is irrelevant.
While the thrust of Abbott’s article is clearly directed at smoking and tobacco control, it is equally clear that lifestyle choices as a whole are in the cross hairs. The middle classes and their penchant for a glass of vino do not escape, neither do the salad dodgers and their burgers. Popularity be damned. You will comply like good little drones. It’s for your own good, you know. Ms Abbott and her fellow troughers know best.
———————————-
Update; Nearly forgot… Abbott asks (well, more of a statement really), would anyone now overturn the smoking ban?
But nobody now would reverse any of it (except cigarette manufacturers).
Yes, absolutely, I would.
In fairness to Abbott, she was never in favour of legislation on the basis of headlines; she was in favour of legislation on the basis of socialism. Evil and stupid, then, not a mere opportunist.
Fair point.
Some very knowledgeable commenters on that thread. And a large majority excoriating Abbot (and the government) for her stance. It’s becoming increasingly so of late, perhaps tobacco control has jumped the shark … now we just need government to notice.
Yes, I’ve noticed that trend of late. The one about Katherine Birbalsingh earlier today had similarly off-message comments. The CiF demographic is either changing or people are wising up.
I’m still waiting for Abbott to give a coherent answer to the question Andrew Neil asked her last summer.
I presume you’ve packed your sleeping bag.
Can we have a complete ban on the epidemic of people clamouring for bans, please?
I know it’s an ‘epidemic’ because people (including my good self) have become heartily sick of it.
“Yes, absolutely, I would.”
So would I. And I don’t even smoke.
Bill, it’s also highly infectious 👿
Julia, neither do I.
Whilst the apparent agenda is to ban tobacco, alcohol, saturated fats, red meats, lack of exercise, use of cars, freedom of movement, etc, etc, there is surely a deeper agenda. It seems to this Yokel that what they are really about is producing a subservient, supine, populace (sheeple was the phrase a few years ago) who will unquestioningly, and instantly, do the State’s bidding. My fear is that it can only get worse.
Standout post, for its sheer moron content and the fact that it had been recommended by 116 other morons, was the one complaining that his daughter had to see smokers swearing and drinking, and smoking of course, outside the pub, thanks to the nasty wasty smoking ban. I have to see him and his children while I walk on the public pavement. I think I have the worse deal.