Like an archaelogist dusting off some remnant of an earlier age, Taking Liberties has found out that a formerly regular question, now deemed to be taboo, is still being asked, albeit quietly.
In Britain as a whole, the majority support a smoking ban, with just seven per cent saying that smoking should be freely allowed. However, the level of restriction, whether a complete ban or simply restricted to certain areas, divides the public.
While just under half (46 per cent) support a ban on smoking in pubs and bars altogether, a similar proportion (41 per cent) prefer limiting smoking to certain areas of pubs and bars.
Of course, this isn't much of a surprise, considering the three option question was a staple of annual interrogation from 1996 onwards.
Long-serving readers here (I feel for you, honest) might remember my pointing out just such an ancient custom.
Since 1996, they have split the responses between those who approve of an outright ban, those who favoured some restrictions, and the numbers calling for none at all.
The figures up to 2005 were:
2003: 20%, 70% and 8% respectively.
2004: 31%, 63% and 5%
2005: 33%, 61% and 5%
Note that the first figure is those in favour of what has now been inflicted on us. The significant majority didn't want it. This could have been embarrassing to Labour, in the wake of their authoritarian Health Act 2006, if the ONS hadn't changed the way they presented the stats ... which is exactly what they did. I'm sure they still asked the same questions, but tables were published showing 66% agreeing with restrictions (a flatline from the previous two years by their own admission), without any further detail.
Lo and behold, a majority now in favour, whereas before they were struggling for a third of those surveyed. As Paul Daniels might say, now that's magic.
With the ban a fait accompli, the question was considered no longer necessary, or so it seemed until the BSA report was studied more closely.
And you sure as shit aren't going to read that the majority of the country don't favour a blanket smoking ban from the BBC or the legions of public funded bansturbators.
Thus it would have been buried under the rubble of a bygone, more free, era until today told us a truth that only the most blinkered of anti-smoking bigots would deny.
It is quite impossible for a public, any public on the face of the earth, to go from 66% disapproval of a blanket smoking ban, to 76% the other way ... in a couple of years (this is the best link ASH could find, so step forward Warrington, the worldly font of fuckwittery).
How many times have you read that the smoking ban is overwhelmingly popular? That it is a reaction to the will of the public? Well, as VGIF highlights today, there are but a few who foist this view ... and they are paid from the public purse and by companies which benefit greatly from the deception.
Despite the lack of any evidence apart from a shonky, duped northern newspaper, the latest ASH accounts continue the mendacity which they, themselves, created - and use it as a motivation to push for more intrusion into your life.
Following the successful implementation of the overwhelmingly popular and effective smokefree law in July 2007, ASH has been at the forefront of a new campaign for a national tobacco control plan.
There. Right there. Is the lie and is provably so. Not just this year, but for every year since 1996 when the question was first asked.
There is no justification for a blanket ban in this country. Not if we value democracy and freedom of choice. Not if we value the voice of the people over coercion by the state and its lackeys. Not if we believe that vested interests who, addicted to lies can spill four or five before their morning toast is even crisp, are more important than the choices of the public.
The majority - count it, the majority - want the smoking ban amended. They didn't want the current all-encompassing ban to begin with, they never have wanted it.
Now, Tories. Labour are corrupt and in the pocket of these unutterably disgusting and self-serving fucknuts. If they regain power, the electorate may as well consider China as a realistic emigration option.
So we're left with Cameron and his health goon, Andrew Lansley. Well, both, What are YOU going to do about this?