Note the sudden appearance of the word “WE” in the last sentence. It is a trick that the Zealots employ constantly. The correct word is “THEY”, since we can reasonably assume that the writer is already smoke-free, alcohol-free and skinny.

“THEY must be forced to change if THEY are not prepared to do so voluntarily.” 

“It’s not just Tobacco Control these days – it’s the whole Health Control Industry.”

Indeed, but it is/was Tobacco Control which provided the first and most fundamental building-block for all the other attacks.  It’s the springboard from which all the others launch themselves.  One of the cleverest lies which was pumped out (and enthusiastically believed) in the first instance was that “this would only apply to smokers” because “tobacco is a uniquely dangerous product,” thus lulling the masses into a false sense of security that their own little vices – a few drinks of an evening, the odd chocolate bar, a piece of cake in their coffee break, a fast-food lunch every couple of days or so, a smattering of salt on their dinner – would be safe, because these harsh rulings would “only apply to smokers.”  And unfortunately, having fallen for this ruse, and thus passively accepted the principle that it was OK for the State to make intrusive rules and regulations whenever they deemed it necessary, it’s now virtually impossible for anyone who enjoys any of these other “unhealthy” activities to argue meaningfully against similar restrictions without being brushed aside as mere hypocrites: “Of course, you would say that, though, wouldn’t you? You’re a [drinker/fast-food lover/sugar addict] etc.” Just, in fact, like they said to any smokers who dared to argue against them in the early days of the anti-smoking movement in order to block their input into any debate.  And all the while, those who don’t enjoy the currently-targeted “sins” will sit back smugly, nodding frantically in agreement, safe in the knowledge that their personal indulgences aren’t in the firing line, and steadfastly believing the promises of the “experts” that they never will be (until they are, that is)

Many of the enjoyers of the new tobacco-style health “threats” point to the passive smoking angle as if it’s a failsafe defence for them.  “There’s no such thing as Passive Drinking,” they cry; or “There’s no such thing as Passive Eating.”  But they’re naïve and they’re wrong.  There was, after all, no such thing as Passive Smoking until the anti-smoking groups stumbled across the concept (and we all know where they found that, now, don’t we, boys and girls?) and ramped it up to hysteria levels through an extraordinarily energetic programme of faux “research,” skewed studies and cherry-picked meta-analyses designed precisely to persuade gullible politicians that “the science was settled” and that they – the politicians, that is – had a moral obligation to “do something” about it. 

Do drinkers honestly believe that the links between crime, social disorder, town-centre rowdiness, and vehicle accidents won’t be made much of by the anti-booze brigade?  “No such thing as Passive Drinking.”  Wow!  They really are handing themselves to the anti-booze brigade on a plate with that one!  Just add a question mark at the end, a backdrop of a rather nasty pile-up, ambulances and a covered up body on the road, preferably with a cute teddy bear lying forlornly beside it, the word “Really?” at the bottom, and in and of itself that phrase is tailor-made for a poster campaign proving that, actually yes, there absolutely is such a thing. 

Of course, we smokers will recognise it exactly for what it is – a shameless manipulation of people’s strong emotional reactions to tragedies like road accidents and a blatant attempt to direct that emotional reaction towards the “bad person” who they can blame for causing it. But drinkers, not having been there, seen the movie and bought the t-shirt etc, simply won’t see it for the “first step” toward the demonisation of alcohol that it truly is, poor fools.  They’ll just think that it’s a one-off campaign against drinking and driving, tell themselves that it doesn’t apply to them (because, of course, they’re “responsible” drinkers, aren’t they?), and keep on bleating that “at least we don’t smoke …” without realising for a second that it’s precisely because they insist on adhering, like limpets to a rock, to the same old anti-smoking mantra that they are making themselves vulnerable to exactly the same treatment.  Idiots.

To bring any huge edifice down, you have first to destroy the foundations. And, when it comes to Health Control, that is anti-smoking. If that doesn’t go, neither does anything else.