I don't know if it is so much a nanny state as one that is quite prepared/happy/eager to restrict freedoms using the excuse that the restriction is somehow beneficial.
With the smoking ban the primary excuse is that passive smoking is harmful, even though there is serious doubt that this is true. More likely, from a TP and many non smokers point of view, the suggestion that passive smoking is harmful is seized on because they dislike smoky atmospheres - which provides an excuse for them to get things just as they want even though based on a false claim [this may be a conscious or unconscious act].
This is considerably aggravated, particularly for smokers [and publicans], when it is realised that it is relatively easy to provide comfortable smoking facilities in pubs and other public places without causing the non smokers harm or discomfort.
The interesting question for me is why did they not ban alcohol - it is certainly harmful to the consumer and non consumers are much more likely to be seriously hurt by an alcohol fuelled group of youngsters than they are by them smoking.
Does this simply go much deeper, that the government no longer sees its self as the provider of a free society to be enjoyed by the many, but as a thinly veiled dictatorship. If so, what was the root of this change and from where did it come?
|