A Niemöller Avalanche

As instances of 'we told you so' go, this is a bit of a biggie.

Many have put forward the idea that the assault on smokers is extremely dangerous for the precedent it sets. That other unapproved, or even exhiliarating, life choices could be curtailed once it was established that personal and property rights are open to being obliterated in the pursuit of a risk free society.

Of course, those who just don't like the smell of smoke - even in another building, in another town - were quite happy for this little freedom to be refused to others. The nutjobs would never come after them, would they?

We tried to point out that some similarly find perfume objectionable, so should there be a law on that? Should the cost to the NHS of extreme sports be similarly penalised? Beer drinkers may be next, how would you like that? How about the overweight?

"Preposterous!", they used to reply, "smoking is different". Hmmm, sure about that?

The perfume industry, you see, has its very own regulatory body called Ifra, based in Brussels. And its board of scientific experts is issuing ever more draconian regulations restricting the use of fragrance materials that might conceivably cause an allergic reaction in someone, somewhere.

A growing number of perfumers are getting tetchy at being bossed around by a panel of scientists that includes toxicologists and dermatologists.

What really annoys the perfumers is that some of the ingredients on the list includes stuff that we can actually eat, such as basil or lemon.

We told you so.

We also mentioned that the absurd exaggerations applied in the area of tobacco control are deeply sinister and bring out the very worst in people. And guess what? Looks like we were correct again.

NHS Grampian wants to extend the smoking ban in hospitals to all its grounds, car parks – and even to staff arriving for work in their uniforms.

Once the ban is fully implemented by the beginning of 2012, patients will face the threat of treatment being withdrawn if they ignore requests to stub out.

Papers going before the board reveal that the ban would even stop staff from smoking while wearing their uniforms – or even just an NHS badge – at any time.

Any staff found not complying with the ban will face disciplinary action and could be sacked. Even carrying tobacco will be deemed an offence.

Because nurses are salt of the earth; fulfilling a vocation; must be protected at all costs; angels of mercy ... unless they smoke of course, in which case, fuck 'em.

Still nodding in agreement? Perhaps you didn't see this comment to the article then.

This ban is absolutely right. Healthcare is a right, but it is not unconditional. It is incumbent on anyone wishing to benefit from the unlimited health care offered by the NHS at the common expense, not to participate in self-negligent activities. Likewise, in the current climate where economic rationing of healthcare is being imposed without reference to need or medical condition, those who put stress on the A&E service by indulging in high-risk activities at speed in cars, on mountains and crags or by imbibing known poisons should be required to contribute or their health benefit reduced to 'patchup and survive'.

We told you so.

OK, you don't wear perfume, smoke, or spend weekends hanging from mountains. Like a drink, do you? I do hope it's a healthy one.

The introduction of health as a licensing objective could give unelected health bodies a veto over licensing — the BII has warned.

“It is not fair to lay it all at the door of the on-trade. Whilst responsible licensees can and do take harm minimisation measures, and support health objectives, they are not and can not be expert health promoters, which requires specialist training,” [BII chief executive Neil Robertson] said.

“Secondly, who will be the judge of this? We can imagine a scenario where misguided and unelected — so unaccountable — health bodies, such as Primary Care Trusts, can influence the process unduly.

Hey, CAMRA, we told you so.

Still, that doesn't worry the modern pubgoer, eh? They're more interested in the sumptuous food now being served. Err, best plump for the green salad, I reckon.

The NHS will have no choice but to remove some free treatment currently available and to penalise unhealthy behaviour, Friends Provident believes.

A Friends Provident report, Visions of Britain 2020, condemns Government health campaigns as 'failing' and predicts similar legislation to the smoking ban will be imposed to curb obesity.

Dr Sarah Brewer, Visions of Britain 2020 expert consulted for the report, says; "Something has to give. One scenario is that people may well end up being charged for certain treatments or denied certain non-essential treatment, particularly if their unhealthy lifestyle was a contributory factor.

We told you so.

The floodgates are wide open now. Anti-smoking lunatics have picked the lock and every single issue fruitcake is queueing up to dictate the way you live your life. What's more, they are very confident that - with the denormalisation of smokers as a guide - government, badgered by the joyless health-obsessed, will be happy to accommodate them.

At least in Niemöller's observation each minority was targeted in sequence. The articles above span a mere couple of weeks, the last two were only published today. And there will be more in the next week, and the weeks after that, all becoming ever more shrill and urgent in their hyperbole.

The small matter of dictating to smokers has now become an avalanche of righteous ecstasy as every avenue of your life is now open to scrutiny and control.

Err, we did tell you so.

UPDATE: Hey, drinkers, it's worse than we thought. You're right up shit creek in London. Oh yeah, and Manchester, too.