Defending the indefensible?
Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 11:35 
I've spent a fair bit of time over the last few days defending the indefensible.
Well, that's what it felt like.
Scotland has just caught up with England and banned smoking in cars with children. Someone had to put the case for the opposition and once again it fell to Forest.
I was quoted in most Scottish newspapers (Sundays and dailies) and I also did several TV and radio interviews.
The most uncomfortable moment was on BBC Radio Scotland when I went head-to-head with Jim Hume, the former Lib Dem MSP whose bill led to the new law.
We had a bit of a barny that finished with an awkward silence. After what felt like several seconds of dead air presenter John Beattie, the former Scottish rugby union international, stepped in and said, somewhat frostily, "I think we've taken that as far as we can."
I enjoy an argument but Hume's attitude genuinely pissed me off. He had every right to feel pleased with himself (if banning things turns you on) but every time I spoke I could hear him laughing, sighing or chuntering in the background.
I didn't say anything but I thought, "What a prick."
He even tried to suggest that I'm in favour of smoking in cars with children when I've made it clear many times that Forest doesn't condone it. We're simply against excessive regulations.
Later Beattie asked if I accepted that children were at risk if exposed to tobacco smoke in a car.
Fair question.
The gist of my answer was that the dose is the poison, to which I added that few if any children are exposed day after day, year after year, to smoke in someone's car.
At that point Hume started tut-tutting as if I'd said something incomprehensibly stupid or wicked. I was glad, frankly, when the 'discussion' came to an end.
Before that I took part in a phone-in, also on Radio Scotland. One by one a number of dour, crabby Scots came on the line to support the ban. One or two urged the authorities to go further and ban smoking in all vehicles.
As regular readers know, I grew up in Scotland. I went to university in Aberdeen. My wife is Scottish. We spent our wedding night on Skye. My children were born in Edinburgh. I support a Scottish football team.
I've visited every corner of Scotland from Stranraer to John O'Groats. I've been to Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles. I go to Scotland as often as I can. (I'm going next week, as it happens.)
However I no longer recognise the country I grew up in. Paternalism runs deep in Scottish society (think lairds and crofters) but in the Sixties and Seventies it was largely benign. Those with prohibitionist or puritannical tendencies (like the Free Church of Scotland aka the "Wee Frees") were at the margins and a source of humour not fear.
There were restrictions (you couldn't take your drink outside the pub, for example) but nothing that made drinkers (or smokers) feel like second or third class citizens.
Devolution has helped change that. Politically and culturally Scotland is now run by an authoritarian, sanctimonious elite that seeks to exercise every power they have to force people to change their ways.
The media has bought in to this (the relationship between government ministers and political journalists in Scotland is nauseatingly sycophantic) and it's encouraged a puritanical minority to speak out.
Those of a more moderate persuasion have gone to ground and in the last few days Forest has been a lone voice opposing what we believe are "unnecessary and patronising" regulations.
In fairness to the media they haven't baulked at publishing or broadcasting our views so I've no complaints on that score.
What disappointed me was the complete silence from so-called libertarian groups and campaigners who have clearly decided that this issue (smoking in cars with children) is too hot to touch so they've kept quiet.
The same, btw, is true of smoking in children's play areas. We don't condone it but we don't condemn it either. What we're against are excessive regulations instructing people how behave in public and private spaces.
Some people seem to think you can pick and choose the battles you fight. It doesn't work like that. By staying mute you are effectively endorsing the regulations and by doing that you are inadvertently giving the green light to further legislation.
Talking of which, on Monday the Scotsman's front page led with the BMA's demand for a ban on smoking in ALL private vehicles to protect "vulnerable adults".
The BMA has been calling for a complete ban on smoking in cars since 2011 but I can't remember hearing that phrase in this context before. It's always been about "vulnerable children".
It shows how tobacco control loves to move on even before the impact of new legislation can be reviewed and analysed.
Again, Forest was the only voice of protest although one or two editorials did imply it might be a step too far.
Hopefully there will be more voices opposing an outright ban. I wouldn't bet on it, though, especially in Scotland.
Reader Comments (9)
I wonder what we would do without you. As for these so called libertarians banging on about drinking, gambling and ecigs, they could more accurately be described as hypocrites these days. Either they believe in the right to be left alone without harassment when consuming a legal product or they don't. They should not pick and choose the legitimate actions they defend.
It is true to say though that it is hard to defend consumers slandered to the point of being thought worse than ISIS terrorists and anyone who does is smeared themselves and made to feel as if they are human traffickers selling children for sex just because they defend their parent's rights against Big Bullying Govt and Greedy intolerant prohibitionist puritans.
Right there in all you said is why I would never go to Scotland. I won't support fascist and oppressive regimes and like Australia, I don't think it is a safe country for smokers to visit.
Thank you again for all you do. I fear you are the last voice to speak for us. Even tobacco companies and their staff have turned against us because they know they can make bigger profits in other ways and not have to put up with the hate campaign as we do if they just do as they are told by the thugs in tobacco control.
I will never apologise for using that word to describe those people because more than any other, it sums up perfectly the sort of monsters they are. They are no longer well meaning. They are supporting and designing a hate campaign and they know it.
Simon,
Do not worry too much about this as the Scottish Nazi Party are on the way out, they just do not realise it yet. The majority of Scots are easy going and carefree, they just do not boast about, we go about our business in our own way and if necessary we tell the bullies to Foxtrot Oscar and if that does not work, well the old fashioned way of dealing with bullies always works. Keep up your good work Simon and As we Scots say F--- them
On lifestyle issues, David, there's very little to choose between the mainstream political parties in Scotland. The SNP, Labour and the Lib Dems are pretty much united in support of every new regulation, and with one or two exceptions the Scottish Tories aren't much better. Worse, with the exception of Allan Massie, I can't think of a single journalist in Scotland who might put the case for a laissez-faire approach to smoking in particular. It's that bad.
The middle classes have, by and large, bought into the idea of Scotland as a 'sick' nation that needs to be forcibly saved through state intervention. The majority may be easy going but they also believe that "something has to be done".
Ireland is similar. People said the "easy going" Irish would ignore or rebel against the smoking ban. It never happened. The reason is perhaps that smoking and heavy drinking are associated with 'old' Ireland and younger generations want to be part of a 'new' Ireland. The smoking ban is part of that and in their eyes subsequent anti-smoking regulations demonstrate how 'modern' and forward-looking Ireland is.
I may be wrong but that's how I see it. Scotland is similar, I think.
Next all cars, then the big one. Homes with children, homes that children visit, all homes.
Mr Hume, whose mother Joyce died of lung cancer caused by second-hand smoke
Read more at: http://www.scotsman.com/news/top-doctors-call-for-complete-ban-on-smoking-in-cars-1-4308787
Insane!
Simon, First of all smoking isn't actually indefensible. Not if you look at history and look outside the tobacco control echo chamber. The assault against smoking in general and smoking in cars is contrived and reinforced by propaganda.
Second, if smoking in cars near children was such a threat (it isn't) they would have banned it before smoking in pubs since by their own logic the vulnerable children must be protected at all costs. Of course the entire second hand smoke threat contrived itself as a means of instilling fear in the service of building support for prohibition.
Finally the more extreme they become the more fragile their hold on opinion. Their hateful movement contains the seeds of its own destruction and the are nearing the end as is always the case with intolerant ideologues. This isn't about health, it's about power and control and one day very soon the antismoking cult will wake up to find they have neither.
Until then continue on as the voice of reason and liberty.
Those people are regressive and not progressive Simon. They are taking us back to a time when hate was legitimised if the targeted group could be made unpopular enough. Just ask gays who suffered the type of indignities that this new lot would impose upon us and are working to remove all of our rights to homes, work and friends. I have heard it said many times that smokers are the new "niggers".
The only thing that is new about smoker persecution is the group targeted by hyping up prejudicial fears with a view to imposing inequality and social exclusion.
The so called new "progressives" in both Scotland and Ireland also lack imagination if they think that forcing people to quit smoking is all that is needed to create a new world.
The arrogance is astounding. Why does this select group of puritanical elites get to decide the future of others? Who says the majority want their spiteful new, cold, intolerant and bigoted world? We don't but of course if we disagree then, according to these weirdos, we want to sell children for sex.
And then they wonder why ordinary people like smokers and others are rebelling against this elite and trying their damned best to stop this vile vision of the sanctimonious bigots' selective and elitist new world. Our lives do not belong to them and neither does our bodies or our families
I take it I'm not in the 'hypocrites' bracket Pat? Perhaps I can remind you otherwise.
I've thanked you and appreciate all you have done and continue to do for smokers but your priorities have changed.
The ecig and smoking fights overlap but they are not the same. Some orgs like the the freedom association could cheerlead for us and support forest more on the smoking issue but seem beguiled by a chance to win the ecigs battle even at the expense of smoking.
Ukip that once had us believe it was libertarian leaning, at least on this issue, also seems silent on the prospect of more bans so, yes, I do believe at organisational level there is lots of hypocrisy and at individual level there are other battles that can be won even if sacrifices have to be made. There is after all, only so much that people on their own can do.
I recall the last time we spoke, we said despite battles ahead with our differing freedom issue priorities, we would still be friends.
My friends are not hypocrites but I am old fashioned and hope they will stand up for me as I hope I can stand up for them.