"Imagine if Mr Clark was Secretary of State for Health"
Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 9:21 Oops. I didn't know I had published this.
I was in Starbucks at Stansted waiting for a flight to Dublin and to pass the time I uploaded (in what I thought was draft form) a comment that had been posted on another thread.
I was going to tidy it up before publication but I must have pressed the wrong button before I rushed to Gate 40.
I am now in Dublin and only I realised I had published it in its, er, loose form when I saw people had started commenting. Oh, well.
Anyway, to recap, what follows was posted by someone called Trevor. I've tidied it up as best I can - it was a bit of a mess, frankly. (Long-winded comments like this are one of the reasons I use comment moderation.)
Here goes:
I just feel sad that grown men will have a conversation on national radio and TV defending the right to continue paying to ruin their health as well as the health of non smokers.
I mean these are men who will avoid a pothole in the road in order to avoid unnecessary damage to their cars but they will walk with their eyes wide open into the habit of smoking with no concern whatsoever about the harm which is done to their health.
I thought Britain is meant to be a civilized society? I'm clearly wrong, right? If I decided to steal the contents of my neighbors flat I'm liable to be punished by the law, but the same law will allow me to indirectly slaughter countless people by means of cigarettes and rake in countless billions part of which taken by the exchequer in tax revenue.
The same law condemns drug dealing (and rightly so) but if the condemnation is on the basis of threat to health. How can cigarette dealing be justified? All of that is the norm under the rule of Law and yet look at the harm it has caused and yet Simon Clark stands up and defends it?
Consider too the impact smoking has upon the NHS. Imagine if Mr Clark was Secretary of State for Health. Is it unreasonable to predict that the cost of running the NHS would increase simply cause he refuses to see smoking for what it represents?
The idea of people having the right to smoke is utter nonsense. That law was created to serve the interests of the Exchequer so that it would gain what would otherwise go into the coffers of criminals and rather than rejecting smoking and seeing it as a bad idea the government embraced it because they saw it as a dependable source of revenue and were therefore willing to allow it to be advertised in order to get as many people interested in it as possible and once they achieved their objective they cut back on advertising because they were clever enough to know that nicotine is powerful enough to keep the smokers going back for more cigarettes.
The apparent change of heart on the part of the government is nothing but window dressing because now it is fashionable to persecute smokers and so the people who initially betrayed the public who are now either dead from smoking related diseases or waiting to die from COPD, are now attempting to mislead the public into believing they have suddenly become responsible...hence the ban on smoking in public enclosed places and the laughable ban on smoking in cars with children etc etc. while at the same time 18 year old's are allowed by law to start smoking.
I'll be very surprised if this post is permitted to go live cause I'm being too bold in speaking out against a great wrong in British society but at the end of the day if you chose to be a fool to yourself, Simon.
Go ahead, but remember that your choice affects the lives and health of other people. You are in a position of influence, Simon. Why use that influence in a selfish and irresponsible way?
Without question selfishness greed and irresponsibility was at the heart of government when it legalized smoking. They were focused solely on what was beneficial to the economy rather than what is beneficial to public health.
Selfish and irresponsible people in positions of authority and influence does much harm to a society, Simon. It's as if you are closing your eyes to a stark reality, viewing smoking as a pleasure rather than a threat to health and life?
Evrry time I hear you on the radio defenfing the right to smoke I sigh deeply and shake my head in sadness that a grown man is willing to be a fool to himself and encourage others to imitate him.
I decided to be blunt with you cause you are blunt in defending what is clearly wrong so why should I sugarcoat my thoughts on the habit of smoking and those who support it?
My intention is not to offend but to give you much needed food for thought. After all, a society which has people defending something which has needlessly claimed the lives of millions is in desperate need of the voice of reason.
After reading that I need a drink and thankfully there's a pub - The Ginger Man - directly across the road from my hotel in Fenian Street.
If anyone else is in Dublin tonight come and have a pint.
Reader Comments (6)
Oh dear, the usual myths. Smokers costing the NHS more is one of them. He clearly didn't see the Czech study that showed in fact we cost health services far less.
These people really can't see past their own prejudices can they.
Simon Clark for health minister?? Bring it on ;) (Winky face for the intellectually challenged sort such as Trevor Ellis.)
Try telling Syrians, incidentally, that they have no right to smoke. That is one of the first things they mention about the way ISIS has ruined life over there. ISIS is killing and torturing smokers but the silence from the likes of Ellis and ideologues such as Debs Arnott is deafening because to them a smoker's life is worthless and smokers have no right to life either so what do they care about how they're treated in Syria? In fact, I'm guessing they're discussing as we speak about how much anti-smoker money they can shove at ISIS to help them create their smoke free Syria.
A measure of a free country is how free its citizens are to smoke. All but the most avid smokerphobics see that. https://www.facebook.com/skynews/videos/vb.164665060214766/1254775441203717/?type=2&theater
The children of Syria also know the real meaning of poison and would cry at the silly smokerphobics exaggeration of tobacco as "poison".
Ellis may be stupid enough to welcome propaganda force fed down his throat, and happily abuses others who disagree profoundly with him, because they can see the bigger picture, but most normal, rational, reasonable and non phobic people know does makes poison, there really is a safe level of smoking, and life is about much more than smoking or not smoking.
I'm sure tobacco being legal came before tobacco taxes, not the other way around.
Is this Trevor bonkers ? I think so.
Come on, be fair. He's only after a gong or a job with TC and sees this as the way to be noticed by them.
He, obviously, has what it takes to be a raving success there, unquestioning, thoughtless repetition of all the mantras which he's, no doubt, learnt by heart. He's done his homework, fair play to him and he's not stupid to identify TC as a good, taxpayer funded, cash cow.
Here's hoping darling Debs smiles benignly on him and takes him under her wing. After all, a complete prat deserves to be tutored by the Queen Bee.
The idea of people having the right to smoke is utter nonsense. That law was created to serve the interests of the Exchequer ...”
“Without question selfishness greed and irresponsibility was at the heart of government when it legalized smoking.”
Huh? Both comments seem to indicate that our Trevor is labouring under the delusion that tobacco was, once upon a time, illegal in this country. After all, to be “legalised,” something has (like marijuana) to be illegal in the first place. To my knowledge, even Arnott hasn’t claimed that at some mystical point in history, tobacco was “legalised.” Oh, I do wish that these zealots would do their homework before putting pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard)!
PS: I also like the idea of "Simon Clark for Health Minister." Ever thought of applying for the job when it become vacant, Simon? :) Second thoughts - no, please don't. We need you too much here!
Tobacco is a legal product. If smokers have no right to consume it then no one else has the right to consume any other legal product whether it's sugar donuts or alcoholic beer or wine.
That "no right to smoke" line has always been utter nonsense but the smokerphobic regressives are so prejudicial that they fail to see reason and common sense.