To this day Irish politicians still boast that Ireland was the first to introduce a comprehensive indoor smoking ban.
Likewise some Australians like to bask in the fact that their country was the first to introduce plain packaging of tobacco.
Here in the UK politicians in Holyrood take pride in the knowledge that Scotland banned smoking in enclosed public places before England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Not to be outdone Greater Manchester has set itself the goal of 'Making Smoking History' but it's Oxfordshire that hopes to win the race to become the first 'smoke-free' county in England by 2025.
Tomorrow, a year after Oxfordshire County Council announced its 'smoke free' strategy, officials will discuss proposals to achieve their goal.
According to the Oxford Mail:
One of the key aims for the strategy this year is to prevent more people from smoking cigarettes.
One of the ways Oxfordshire public health officials plan to do this is to 'support the implementation of smoke free indoor and outdoor places', including workplaces.
Given that smoking is already banned in all indoor public places, the reference to 'indoor' places can only mean one thing – they want to target the home (council houses in particular).
As for outdoor spaces, I imagine that in addition to workplaces the council will focus on parks and outdoor drinking and dining areas.
West Oxfordshire District Council, supported by Oxfordshire County Council, has already made new pavement licences conditional on there being 'no smoking'.
Meanwhile, note the use of the word 'prevent'. 'Smoke free' is not about encouraging people to quit smoking voluntarily, the aim is to actively stop smokers from lighting up.
And that's the crux. Whether it's 2025 (Oxfordshire), 2030 (England) or 2034 (Scotland), no 'smoke free' target will ever be met without further coercion – higher taxes, more smoking bans etc.
Meanwhile UK vaping advocates insist that the Government can meet its 'smoke free' goal but to do so it has to fully embrace reduce risk products and remove restrictive regulations that may deter smokers from switching.
If only it was that simple! The reality is that in tobacco control circles the stick will always be preferred to the carrot.
This is partly because what drives many anti-smoking activists is not a desire to improve the health of the nation (although that may be a factor) but a visceral hatred of the tobacco companies.
Big Tobacco must be punished for their historical 'sins' and consumers who enjoy smoking and don't want to quit are merely collateral damage.
So let's be clear. Anyone who supports a 'smoke free' target date is no friend of the smoker because there is no chance that government or the anti-smoking industry will settle for a strategy that puts education above coercion.
Tobacco control (there's a clue in the name) is driven by the need to bully, cajole or force smokers to quit. Leopards don't change their spots and nor will anti-smoking campaigners and their lackeys in parliament.
See: Butt out, campaigners tell council (Forest)