Another piece of news that confirms the ineffectiveness of both smoking prohibition and antismoking propaganda.
Two points of this article are worth highlighting. The first is the empirical evidence that prohibition and demonization obtain exactly the opposite of what Big Health wants. Such is the result when ugly methods are conceived by fascist pinheads.
“Smoking bans in NSW pubs and clubs have coincided with a rise in the number of smokers in the state, rather than pushing smoking rates down as has been the trend overseas.”
Well done, Australians! The second point highlights even more the fascist faith in oppression of public health:
“The increase has been blamed on lax enforcement of smoking bans – not a single fine has been issued for breaching the new rules – and the loose definition of an outdoor smoking area, where patrons can smoke as long as 25 per cent of the space is open.”
Read: “It is not because we are stupid, paternalistic fascists who have contempt for human rights and don’t understand the nature of people. It is because we have been too lax, too lenient, too soft. We have to change that: more enforcement, more persecution! Harder laws, harsher punishments! When people are squashed, humiliated and terrified they will, trembling, do what is ‘good’ for them – that is, what we want them to do. They will be grateful later, upon completion of their conditioning. We persecute them because we love them.”
In short, it is all just a matter of force.
So be it: if force is the only thing the health fascists respect, then let’s give them a dose of their own medicine, dear Australian smokers. Smoke more. Smoke anytime. Smoke anywhere. Smoke in their faces. Convince more and more people to smoke – if for no other reason, to make a political statement. Let us become the majority again. Then, as such, we will administer the same tobacco control medicine to the ideologues of Tobacco Control, the other way around – but still "for their own good". We "help them" because "we love them". For example:
Tolerate smoking on the job or go outside. Better still, take up smoking or be fired. We will make sure of that — by making you pee in a glass once a month: no cotinine, no job. In your scientific research, make opening ideological statements that smoking is good, or your paper will not be published. Mass-produce epidemiological trash that says that passive smoking is absolute good or you will lose your job at the university, will get no grants and become the targets of ad hominem attacks. Smoke or forfeit social services. Smoke or be a pariah, a bastard and a piece of social scum. Smoke or we’ll take your children away or prevent you from adopting one. Smoke or we may spit on you in the streets. Non smoking old folks in hospitals or nursing homes will be kicked out to die in arctic climates, and we’ll blame their deaths on their own "choice": after all, they could have chosen to stay inside, smoke and obey the law.
You don’t agree with the linear logic of let the "majority" rule? You may still be sane – but then you cannot possibly agree when the same is applied against smokers. Two weights and two measures cannot be used by those who intone about “fairness” and “equality".
At least two things are fundamentally essential for a truly free and fair society:
That “justice for all” does not mean oppression for all under the same tyrant.
That coherence is applied in the administration of social justice.
If the spirit of a self-proclaimed free nation is that of fostering liberty and equality, it follows that there cannot be better citizens and worse citizens, more free or less free citizens, but just citizens who are treated the same, whether their lawful behaviour happens to fit with the state’s wishes or not – or justice and fairness have no meaning at all.
One final observation: the journalist does not mention that the smoking prevalence in Ireland subsequently rose. It is now 29 %, higher than the pre ban prevalence.
This omission is deliberate. It is supposed to leave the reader with the impression that the Australian development is unique. It is just is fluke. That is the pretence. The reader does not suspect anything. The reader is led to believe that smoking bans always lead to lower smoking rates. It is the result of the art of deliberate omission. It is no coincidence.