British Democracy Forum - View Single Post

gc · 24-04-2008, 10:37 AM

Tom Wise MEP in the European Parliament Ind - Dem Group UK Independence Party UKIP Eastern Region Region

I must say I find it surprising but most of all disappointing when I hear smokers protest about the smoking ban (and often deliberately flout it) with the arguments ‘well what about my human rights: it is just the ‘nanny state’ gone mad’ and ‘there is nothing wrong with smoking, we’ve been doing it for centuries’. I absolutely agree that to smoke or not to smoke is a personal choice: however, I am not sure I am in agreement with the human rights argument, or that there is nothing wrong with smoking! Medical evidence strongly suggests otherwise: however, if a person chooses to smoke well then that is their choice and it is their decision not to heed the warnings (not least to their wallets).

However, I do think the militant mindset of some who believe the smoking ban to be ‘a breach of their human rights’ is not only blinkered but also outdated. Yes smoking was socially acceptable, but then in days gone by a dog fouling on the pavement or in the park was also not seen as a problem. That was until medical evidence proved that not only is dog mess rather unpleasant stuck on your shoe, but more importantly can lead to blindness in children. Suddenly, although sadly not entirely throughout Britain’s society, it was not socially acceptable to allow your dog to foul in public places without cleaning up behind it.

I think we can all agree that this is not only a social obligation (often reinforced by local by-laws) that is sensible but also necessary. So why do smokers believe they have the right not to adapt to how society perceives actions, most especially in the light of overwhelming medical evidence. Yes indeed there is always conflicting scientific evidence on issues, but in regard to smoking and the damaging effect it has on not only smokers’ health but also on ‘passive smokers’, the evidence is overwhelming. And in regard to ‘their human right’ well nobody is stopping them smoking full-stop; and therefore I cannot see how it is infringing this rather warped perspective of a ‘human right’ (it also amazes me that most people who are claiming this right usually denounce human rights legislation)! All that the smoking ban ensures is that smokers just cannot smoke within public places, thus ensuring that the right of good health is not denied to those who have to work in public establishments. I really am not quite sure what is so wrong with that!

Tom Wise MEP

Strasbourg, 23 April 2008.

24-04-2008, 10:37 AM	#1 (permalink)
gc Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 369	Out of date & out of touch! Tom Wise MEP in the European Parliament Ind - Dem Group UK Independence Party UKIP Eastern Region Region I must say I find it surprising but most of all disappointing when I hear smokers protest about the smoking ban (and often deliberately flout it) with the arguments ‘well what about my human rights: it is just the ‘nanny state’ gone mad’ and ‘there is nothing wrong with smoking, we’ve been doing it for centuries’. I absolutely agree that to smoke or not to smoke is a personal choice: however, I am not sure I am in agreement with the human rights argument, or that there is nothing wrong with smoking! Medical evidence strongly suggests otherwise: however, if a person chooses to smoke well then that is their choice and it is their decision not to heed the warnings (not least to their wallets). However, I do think the militant mindset of some who believe the smoking ban to be ‘a breach of their human rights’ is not only blinkered but also outdated. Yes smoking was socially acceptable, but then in days gone by a dog fouling on the pavement or in the park was also not seen as a problem. That was until medical evidence proved that not only is dog mess rather unpleasant stuck on your shoe, but more importantly can lead to blindness in children. Suddenly, although sadly not entirely throughout Britain’s society, it was not socially acceptable to allow your dog to foul in public places without cleaning up behind it. I think we can all agree that this is not only a social obligation (often reinforced by local by-laws) that is sensible but also necessary. So why do smokers believe they have the right not to adapt to how society perceives actions, most especially in the light of overwhelming medical evidence. Yes indeed there is always conflicting scientific evidence on issues, but in regard to smoking and the damaging effect it has on not only smokers’ health but also on ‘passive smokers’, the evidence is overwhelming. And in regard to ‘their human right’ well nobody is stopping them smoking full-stop; and therefore I cannot see how it is infringing this rather warped perspective of a ‘human right’ (it also amazes me that most people who are claiming this right usually denounce human rights legislation)! All that the smoking ban ensures is that smokers just cannot smoke within public places, thus ensuring that the right of good health is not denied to those who have to work in public establishments. I really am not quite sure what is so wrong with that! Tom Wise MEP Strasbourg, 23 April 2008.