In the comments here, Mr. Wallis asked for evidence that passive smoking was not dangerous. My response was along the lines of 'it is not possible to prove that anything is not dangerous. What has not been proved is that it is dangerous'.
Thinking on it further, it is not necessary to prove anything either way concerning passive smoking in order to show that the smoking ban is simply a spite-filled oppressive bullying piece of thuggery implemented, enforced and supported by vicious filth who love nothing more than to watch someone else suffer.
The smoking ban, you see, is not about passive smoking. It's not about health. It is not even about smoking.
It is about control.
You still think it's about protecting you from smokers? Have a look at this and explain to me how that judge's decision protects anyone from smoke. Explain why it is not simply about making smokers suffer.
There is no proven threat from passive smoking, other than the threat to businesses. None. On the basis of this non-threat, smokers are villified and non-smokers are terrified. They believe the lunatic assertion that smoke can travel through walls from the flat next door because 'an expert says so'. They believe the insanity that a single particle of tobacco smoke is more likely to cause cancer than their children's glow-in-the-dark toys. Apple will not service warranty claims on their products if they are bought by smokers, because there might be a molecule of nicotine on them. As a smoker, I will never buy an Apple product because the warranty is void as soon as I touch it.
Last week's New Scientist bemoaned the 'denier culture'. Why won't people just believe what we scientists say, they cried. Then they conflated 'climate heretic' and 'smoking ban opponent' with 'holocaust denier'. Yet they cannot see why people won't believe what they say.
The whole climate change thing (remember when it used to be 'global warming'? Remember before that when it was 'The Ice Age Cometh'?) has been beset with demonstrable lies, faked and cherry-picked data, ludicrous scare stories and general smug 'if you don't believe, you must be a flat-earther' put-downs. Why would anyone with half a brain simply 'believe' in this? Every religion on the planet is more credible than this so-called 'science' at the moment and what do they do? Do they take a step back and think 'Right. We have some screwups in our work. Sort those out, double-check the data and present it correctly this time'.
No. They think 'They are not under control. Force them to comply'.
If there is real global warming happening, I'm afraid nobody is going to just 'believe' on the basis of 'an expert says'. You're going to have to prove it, and you'll need more proof now than if you had simply been honest in the first place - because now, you start from the position of a proven liar.
Yet we are to become reliant on wind power even though there has been not a breath of wind here for well over a week. The air is thick and humid and opening a window achieves nothing because the air doesn't move. We are to pay more and more for all forms of fuel, we are to use mercury-loaded dimlights instead of filament bulbs, we are to pay green taxes to support green jobs and all based on a lie. Question it, and what do you hear? Do you hear proof to back up these measures imposed on us?
No, you hear 'Well, if you're so sure, prove it isn't happening'. Prove a negative. Can't be done. We should not be expected to try because those of us who do not accept the lies are not trying to impose anything on anyone. Those who are forcing their control measures on us should be the ones to prove their case.
They don't. They make statements as if they are facts and then challenge us to prove the negative.
So it is with the smoking ban. There is no evidence at all for passive smoking. It is less dangerous than using a mobile phone and that has been scientifically proven. So why is smoking banned and mobile phone use encouraged?
They can't track a signal from your tobacco.
The smoking ban is not about passive smoking and never was. It is a Witchfinder distraction. Its purpose is to force people to do and think as they are told. Does anyone now believe that the witches killed during the English Civil War were really witches? Does anyone really believe they flew on brooms and sailed in sieves? Does anyone really believe they were making cattle barren and making crops fail? The people of the time believed it absolutely. A Expert said it was true and so they believed.
Now it is the smokers who are making your pets wheeze and your children develop asthma and you believe it, just as you would have been at the front of the mob surrounding the old lady and her herb garden. There was no requirement to prove that she was a witch, you know. She had to prove she wasn't. Which is impossible.
Are you still beating your wife? Answer yes or no.
There is no way out of a question phrased in that way. There never has been. It is the same technique.
You don't need evidence to support a witch hunt. All you need do is switch the burden of proof onto the witch. State that she is a witch and when she denies it, shout 'Prove it!' State that man-made global warming is happening and if anyone suggests otherwise, shout 'Prove it!' State that people die of passive smoking and when someone points out that nobody has been shown to even become mildly ill as a result of it, shout 'Prove it!'
Minimum pricing on alcohol will save lives. You say otherwise? Prove it! Salt is deadly. Don't agree? Prove it! Oh, the Righteous don't need to prove that their prohibition will do anything other than allow them to sit back and enjoy their spite. They have decided what's best for you and if you don't agree you have to prove the negative. You can't so they will set the mob on you unless you conform.
Except... they don't really care what is best for you. They just want to see the puppets dance. They want you to do as you are told because once you are trained to do as you are told, you will do anything you are told.
That is the true goal of the smoking ban and of any kind of ban. Not for your benefit. For theirs.
I believe it was Longrider who mentioned compulsory motorbike helmets. Not being equipped for motorbiking, I've never driven one but the point of the motorbike helmet is that it 'saves lives'.
Whose? If I am hit by a motorbike and the rider piles into me, he is going to do me a lot more damage if he has a hard hat on. So the helmet is of no benefit to me. It might be of benefit to the rider but that should be the rider's choice. They know the risks and should be free to choose whether to wear a helmet or not. That decision has absolutely no effect whatsoever on anyone else.
Compulsory seat belt wearing (with a fine of course) benefits only those in the car - unless the car turns over and they are trapped by the belt while the roof caves in. Making it a legal requirement made no difference to the pedestrian.
These rules were not brought in for your benefit. They were brought in to make you do as you are told.
So was the smoking ban. So is the new Cleggeron drink-price controls (incidentally, illegal under EU law. They've missed that part). None of these rules really benefit anyone and were never intended to.
You're being housetrained. Sit. Roll over. Beg.
There's a smoker. Get him, boy.