And what about children? If the government is sincere about protecting those most vulnerable from second hand smoke, then why isn’t a ban on smoking in all households containing children, at least being considered?
Ultimately, the ban enacted on July 1 should not be the end of the legislative process but the beginning. The months and years to come should witness a wealth of legislation enacted by the government leading towards one ultimate goal: the abolition of smoking, whether public or private, throughout the land, forever.
Could we please make sure that this Chris Hallam is jeered and mocked wherever he goes? What a disgusting little shit he is.
It’s not just the impossibility of a ban, the creation of black markets, the loss of billions a year in revenue, the increased costs to the health and pension systems. It’s the perfect illiberality of the proposal. That people should not be allowed to do as they wish simply because he doesn’t want them to.
10 responses so far ↓
1 Mark Wadsworth // Dec 31, 2007 at 12:43 pm
I like the phrase “a wealth of legislation”.
2 Jock // Dec 31, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Is that a Malapropism? Should it be “welter”?
3 Maud Flanders // Dec 31, 2007 at 2:12 pm
The children! Will someone please think of the children?
4 Robert Hale // Dec 31, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Interesting to see that many of the comments on the Graun website are taking the mick out of this Hallam guy.
5 Longrider » Evil Little Fascist // Dec 31, 2007 at 6:26 pm
[…] Tim, DK and Bishop Hill, my post migraine stupor is disturbed by the inane, stupid, evil drivellings of […]
6 devilskitchen // Dec 31, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Chris has replied to his detractors. Naturally, he’s doing it for the good of society.
Equally naturally, I have replied.
DK
7 Cheeky Bob // Dec 31, 2007 at 7:44 pm
I thought Timetocare was Chris’s only supporter, not Chris himself.
Mind you, your explanation makes as much sense - but do you know for certain that they’re the same person?
8 Tim Almond // Dec 31, 2007 at 9:59 pm
If the government was sincere about protecting those most vulnerable, it wouldn’t have introduced a smoking ban in enclosed private places.
9 Monty // Jan 1, 2008 at 3:09 am
And the parents who turf their kids out of the house as soon as they get home from school, who give them money for chips every night, who never wash their childrens clothes, who never hear them read, who never set aside quiet time for homework, never cook any breakfast, who allow strangers to move into the house and abuse their children, they are OK are they?
This creep has no idea of the real problems faced by children, and he doesn’t want to know. He just wants to take a cheap shot at a sector of society which has become an easy target. Faced with a real kid with real problems, he would run a mile and take a shower.
Children in this country are beset by many problems. Smoking parents is nowhere on the scale of deprivation. Smirking hacks don’t help.
10 Cheeky Bob // Jan 1, 2008 at 10:31 am
“And the parents who turf their kids out of the house as soon as they get home from school, who give them money for chips every night, who never wash their childrens clothes, who never hear them read, who never set aside quiet time for homework, never cook any breakfast, who allow strangers to move into the house and abuse their children, they are OK are they?”
No, because they’re almost certainly smokers too. But if we banned smoking outright, all these other problems would melt into the ether, because of course giving up smoking doesn’t have any temperamental side-effects whatsoever. Good Lord, no.
(I shared an office with an ex chainsmoker once. It was four months of pure hell, and when I saw him light up again I inwardly cheered)
Leave a Comment