TAMWORTH looks like becoming the first council area to introduce a full-blown cigarette smoking ban in a wide area of public spaces and sports and people places.
And that blanket ban in many civic places could be in place within two months. Moves to bring in a smoke-free zone in the inner eight blocks of the Tamworth city centre, outside of schools, childcare centres and health facilities, near council-owned buildings, at sporting grounds and parks, and near alfresco restaurants and cafes, look likely to be imposed before the end of the year.
Tamworth Regional Council has endorsed a new wide-ranging smoke-free environment policy – which, while not a groundbreaker in itself, is a first when it comes to an all- inclusive ban which includes the use of the new, contemporary electronic cigarettes as well.
The continuing cascade of anti-smoking regulation from the Federal Government through the states to local government is really starting to become a civil liberties issue. Those advocating the Tamworth ban have the same smug, moral authoritarian tone that we have come to expect. Aren't we good to be doing this for you?
The actual health benefits of the proposed actions are highly suspect. It won't affect passive smoking. It is unlikely to force smokers to stop, although it may bring further changes in smoking habits that are not necessarily good. It will certainly affect the way that smokers respond to Tamworth.
I wonder how they expect to enforce the ban during Country Music Week for example? There seems to be an immediate expectation that Council can rely on persuasion, "education", rather than coercion. However, should "education" fail, coercion will no doubt follow. After all, it is for your own good!
I may smoke, but I do not want to encourage smoking. However, there has to be a balance in this type of stuff, and I think that balance has been lost. Frankly, the Tamworth proposals are screwy on any objective measure. Perhaps its time for smokers to respond to all these pressures by selective boycotts? Like boycotting Tamworth?
Postscript
Even the Poms are laughing at our Nanny State now!
12 comments:
Nanny state seems to be the wrong term to describe regulation that exists to persecute a minority.
"Historically, going back several decades"
As I do myself, but it quite puts the Creationists to shame - never mind your own mining of Aboriginal history. Give it up Jim; we've elected some useful idiots and they are now being quoted by the otherwise unemployable.
Also, Winton has a valid point.
kvd
Winton's point is, I think, wrong. The nanny state always pursues minorities, relying on the apathy of most and the hostility of some to have it's way. The point is, it's not a one issue mind-set. At some time, all of us will be inconvenienced (at best) by the nanny state.
As I've remarked before, e-cigarettes are dorky, but primarily model e-smoking, not smoking itself. By banning both, and tarring both with the same reputation, why wouldn't a 'beginning consumer' go for the real thing and get the tobacco hit?
An open air country and western festival without smoking? Are they going to ban alcohol? What about songs about marital breakups, truck crashes and dogs dying as well? You know my opinions about smoking and enjoyment, but in this case, the non-smoker can choose to just move away!
Beg to differ tanners. 'Nanny State' refers to government regulation 'for the good' despite how it might impinge upon the personal rights of the governed.
I think Winton is talking about activities which are already a minority pasttime being (over?) regulated - with no actual 'public benefit' beyond restricting personal freedom.
Contrast the possible regulation that rock fishermen should be required to wear life jackets with heavily nudged vaccination policies. The first is regulating a very tiny minority - sort of what Winton is maybe thinking of; the second is probably a good example of 'nanny' in action.
So I don't think 'nanny' correctly covers both.
kvd
I was making a different point, but let that slide.
I'm perfectly happy to define 'nanny state' in its pejorative sense as regulation or further regulation of an identifiable group beyond what offers societal benefits and particularly when justified in terms of 'for the good of those being further regulated'.
I'm not sure where I stand on rock fishermen - I have no idea of the frequency of incidents, the costs and the cost of enforcement for instance. And perhaps, to quote Larry Niven, we should 'think of it as evolution in action.'
On vaccination, if by saying "a good example of 'nanny' in action", you meant "nanny got it right this time", I couldn't agree more. Nanny is doing this for everyone, not just anti-vaxxers themselves.
Hello all,
kvd understands my point, I think.
The proposed action in Tamworth goes beyond paternalistic intervention to protect people from harming themselves. I expect that the effect of the ban will be to cause people to smoke in their cars rather than in public places. It is probably more harmful to health to smoke in an enclosed space rather than in an open space. The adverse impact on children of smokers is likely to be much greater.
I don't smoke. I've never smoked. And these proposed laws are ridiculous. I'd love to see a smoker's boycott!
tanners, it's one thing for the State to protect its population from those who either don't care or are ignorant, but anotheralltogetherdifferent beast which simply regulates to protect the careless from themselves.
kvd
can't wait to hear your take on #borderforce #operationfortitude
I came in late on the fiasco and had some difficulty in working out what was going on. I still can't believe quite what happened. I will respond properly in the morning.
Be interesting to find out what the right hand was doing while the left hand was flapping about so ineffectually.
kvd
One of the interesting points about the discussion lies in the exact definition of the nanny state. The standard definition appears to be the government regarded as overprotective or as interfering unduly with personal choice. But from this broad definition, the argument can go in multiple ways. As the discussion illustrates!
Post a Comment