The war on smoke.

The U.K. parliament has voted for a total ban on smoking in all public areas. One spokeswoman of the Liverpool anti-smoking campaign pointed out how they had been inspired by advisors from California, where the trend in this direction had started. A decisive argument for the ban in Britain however had been to protect the health of workers. From the time of the mining industry, pubs already closed early in Britain, to help workers go to bed and get up early. This has changed since last year. Yet, workers have always enjoyed much protection as such, not necessarily as individuals.
Ronald Reagan, who moved California and the world in the rightist direction, was an initiator of the war on drugs. Influential people like Noble Prize winner Milton Friedman have stated that such a war is an exercise in futility and can never be morally or successfully won, as it criminalizes the whole of society.
So it has been.
As indeed this war could not be won, its frustrated adherents have fabricated a ban on smoking as a form of compensation. The war on terror was based on the same premises, and perhaps the U.K has realized its error more gravely than the U.S in its involvement.
After the identity pass had been introduced in several European countries and then Britain, in the context of the war on terror- to make up for a lack of inner identity, we saw no terrorists being arrested, on this account, but many of the elderly and children.
Something similar we have observed with the Dutch ban on so-called 'wild' urination, one other variation on the war on terror. Only the elderly and children were caught from behind a tree, hardly any drunken hooligans pissing at your front door. High fines were given in many parks by an alerted police, hiding in the bush, in this moral renaissance. In the same line also are to be seen the many street benches in Amsterdam (Holland), having been divided by two iron bars, to technically prevent the homeless from lying down and rest.
The ban on smoking was inevitable in a global war.
Because the war on terror was a waste of time and a loss of face, the only effect perhaps having been rising oil prices, the U.K. could only vote for a ban.
Since the Masters of the Wisdom have returned to the everyday world, it seems only the least relevant aspect of their presence, their suggested immortality, has been absorbed by clever and ambitious people, who have immediately claimed this to be theirs, their own merit and succes, and even a favour to us, provided nobody around is smoking, that is. Yet, the aura of many such people remains quite smoky, even polluting. And those who are one of a kind won't prohibit each other poisoning- not either the spiritually more advanced minority. Instead of smoking, also so-called for others, people are now watching and hating each other, speechlessly.
In many public places it is not even allowed anymore to sit and read. Suspicion and consumption by the clock are already taken to be the same norm as non smoking since a long time, and either complete silence or talking, shouting affirmative nonsense about the many brands of beer in stock, is tolerated by law.
If politicians have nothing to do, let them at least not run wild and ruin all social structures by pretending to be busy. Let us pay sufficient taxes for their income on condition they keep their mouth shut once in a while and do nothing. To do nothing is at least not yet to do harm.
The problem is that full employment is needed to be able to destroy planet earth.
There is one negative side to a ban on smoking that has been overlooked. It has been scientifically proved how schizophrenics who smoke have a smaller risk in getting lung cancer.
And there are hardly any smokers who are schizophrenic. Who knows is smoking not an antidote to schizophrenia?!
Whom the cap fits, let him wear it.