Is there anywhere left in this sad world where politicians still remember that at the end of the day they, too, are just people who will have to live with the same loss of freedoms, choicies and liberties as they exultantly impose upon others when they are in power? Just what is it about these people that they become so petty and vindictive when they get voted into office? Why is it that the lure of serving – and never lose sight of the fact that the intention of government is to serve the people – so often turns them into tyrants who believe they know best and wish to impose their petty, small-minded visions onto the rest of us. The rest of us, I might add, who just want to get on with life and make our own decisions about what we do and do not do.

I’d like to offer my support to the smokers of Californian towns Belmont and Oakland this morning where it has been decreed that as from next week they can no longer smoke in ATM lines, parks, bus stops, golf courses, apartment buildings and condominiums. The move to force smokers to only smoke ten feet away from any building was quashed on safety fears. Well – that’s two Californian towns that won’t be seeing any of my tourist dollars in the future.

With just a couple of weeks to go before my freedom of choice and action as a smoker becomes seriously curtailed, the whining has begun.

There was a small snippet on BBC News 24 today, detailing the work that is currently being undertaken in pubs up and down the length of England. Costing landlords many thousands of pounds, garden areas are being created to protect us new-age lepers from the elements, outdoor heating and lighting is being installed and new furniture is being distributed.

But like a toddler who has been denied an ice-cream, already the voice of the meddling ‘do-gooders’ with their PC handbooks and twisted knickers are already raised in a tantrum of shouts of “It’s not fair! We wont want to sit outside with all these smokers”.

Well tough shit. It’s not what landlords wanted – it’s not what smokers wanted and if the public at large had been offered a proper debate between an outside leper colony or properly ventilated smoking rooms it quite possibly isn’t what would have happened. But you kept up the attack, went on and on, continued to bring out biased and unsupported research until you had your meddling way with the arrival of a bankrupt government who have had a field day restricting everyones freedom and liberty. And now you’ve got to live with it.

So – if you don’t like the smoke in the garden, stay inside. To quote one of your own campaigning slogans – used to appease the notion that you were actually calling for a curtailment of my freedom of choice – it’s for your own good. And remember – you have that choice. Thanks to you, a whole section of our society no longer has.

Christopher Hitchens and Simon Hoggart went head to head in yesterdays Guardian in an article entitled Is the smoking ban a good idea? This is a part of what Hoggart had to say:

Smoking is not like drinking. Booze has its drawbacks, as a visit to any British town centre on a Friday night will demonstrate. But we drink wine and beer because we like it. People do not like smoking. They smoke because smoking is the only relief from the pain of not having a cigarette. It is a wholly negative pleasure. That is why there has been so little fuss over the ban. Most smokers are privately relieved that it might help them give up.

And this is not a freedom issue. It is no stride on the long march to serfdom. Smokers do not regard the ban as an infringement of their ancient liberties. They think of it as a helpful way to help them help themselves. And if they must, they can always smoke at home, or in the street, or under the patio heater outside the pub.

And Hitchens:

The upcoming general ban – Ms Hewitt’s triumphant legislative monument – crosses a completely different line. It is no longer “about” the protection of non-smokers. It is “about” state-enforced behaviour-modification. Another and more old-fashioned name for it is prohibition.

I have to say that I am not so much alarmed and depressed by the swift and total nature of the ban as I am struck by the ease of its victory. I haven’t actually lived in Britain for some time, but I would have expected a bit more resistance to such a crude extension of state and schoolmarm power. Is it really true that people do not mind having the cigarette snatched from their hands, everywhere from the boozer to the night-club to the billiard hall? Are they aware how soon the other shoe will drop, and that people will be told (as they already are being told in some parts of America) that they may not smoke if they live in public housing or use public parks or public beaches? I say it at the risk of embarrassment, but if people have become this accustomed to being told what to do, then I think we have lost something else that cannot quite be quantified.

Yes – this is everything to do with my freedom – my right to choose and decide for myself – freedoms that have been slowly eroded over recent years and are now disappearing at an ever quickening pace. Hoggart finishes his piece with the fatuous:

In America I saw this sign in an office: “My pleasure is beer, and this creates urine. Your pleasure is smoking, and this creates poisonous fumes. Don’t pollute my air space, and I promise not to piss on your desk.” Precisely.

to which I enjoyed this rejoinder from my friend Mike Power:

Precisely?!

No woman was ever beaten up or raped because some guy had too much to smoke. The pools of vomit I see on Union Street every Sunday morning aren’t caused by overindulgence of Lambert and Butlers. And as for pissing. Check out the urine-stained doorways in any major town centre. Almost all the wooden doors in Aberdeen’s main street suffer from piss-rot.

Precisely.

I am not against the formation of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. We probably need a central agency that crosses boundaries in the fight against drug and human trafficking, money laundering and serious fraud. But, as Wonko’s World points out, SOCA officers have the same powers as police officers, immigration officers and customs officers. This means that unlike the Police, they do not need a warrant or court approval to enter your house, seize your property or indeed, to seize you. And that’s more KGB than FBI.

Taken from a letter from the office of John Prescott: “I assume you are referring to the Census form that has no facility for stating English nationality. This is because there is no such nationality as English as laid down by various acts of Parliament and accession. Persons born in the United Kingdom are citizens of the United Kingdom and are therefore British/English.” So how come there is the option to declare yourself a Scot?