Smoking ban will help save the lives of many
A ‘nanny state’ that cares for its citizens should be applauded
IT DEPENDS of course where you sit and what affects your view, but politics aside, you would have to be a hard-hearted so-and-so not to agree that a smoking ban is a good thing.
Amid all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about civil liberties, I can’t help but think this is a move that will ultimately save a lot of lives. In essence, the legal age from which you can buy cigarettes will increase by a year every year from 2027, meaning anyone born after 2009 will never legally be able to buy cigarettes. Great!
I was never a professional smoker myself, and instead was one of those tiresome types who had snout with a pint on a Friday night, and that was it. I did enjoy an occasional cigar, particularly after a dinner in the officers’ mess, but then they forbade smoking in public and that was it.
And I’m glad. Banning smoking will help far more people than it will ever harm.
Something else I have heard repeatedly whilst the smoking ban was being discussed is that we are living in a ‘nanny state’. Sorry...that’s a bad thing?
I’m glad that the party some elected to govern all looks after the people who pay for it through ever-increasing taxes by actually doing things. Bring it on.
Nanny me daft, please. Government costs us enough, the very least we can expect, regardless of party politics, is that it governs.
Re-nationalise every utility. Thames Water shows how disgusting privatised utilities are. Billions of pounds of public money in subsidies, paid to shareholders rather than being invested in infrastructure, requiring a bail out of more public money and hugely increased bills paid for by, yes, you’ve guessed it, the public, confirms that these businesses should be run by the country, not
a company.
I might be tempted to draw the line at big government when it comes to the Rwanda scheme, though. The plan, to reduce migrant boats crossing the English Channel by sending those who survive the journey to Africa, is set to start over the summer.
I think it is an audacious plan, and one which might well work, because similar schemes elsewhere, particularly Australia, have proved successful. Make the ultimate destination somewhere unpleasant, and fewer people
will attempt the crossing. Fair enough.
But from a humanitarian point of view, I might be less keen to punish these people even further by sending them where they don’t want to go on yet another risky journey. Not when this country is crying out for staff, particularly in the vital hospitality and care sectors.
But then again, none of this may ever come to pass if, as looks likely, Labour win the election and reverse all the marquee policies.