For something to be an offence or crime, it must return a victim. A common characteristic of most or all offences or crimes is that the person committing it has a reason to feel guilty of doing so. When a person is not guilty of what they are doing but maintain their innocence, there should be no reason to apply arbitrary punishment which should only be directed against a person’s guilt.
The word ‘arbitrary’ is key to anti-smoking legislation and other instances of legislation like COVID restrictions which punish innocent activities that give no reason to anyone to feel guilty of their performance. This should not be permitted to the politicians themselves, by means of applying and enforcing a state constitution which limits their power to what is necessary for the benefit of all members of society.
Smoking inside or outside is an activity that is innocent instead of guilty because it does not return a victim and is well-intentional, however, this is not the same claim that is made by the legislation that prohibits indoor smoking which alleges that smoking in smoke-free places is an offence. This in turn is not what has been decided by society instead of the state, government or parliament in the absence of society and social consent and in the absence of complying to the constitution on their behalf.
The Health Act 2006 containing the notoriously constrictive smoking ban mentions that “A person who smokes in a smoke-free place commits an offence… A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding a level on the standard scale specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”.
If the act of smoking when situated under a roof was not declared as an offence by this legislation then there would be no way to punish it. But this is not an excuse for making false statements in writing and claiming false allegations against the general public by means of the laws that they are trying hard to obey, since smoking under a roof, which is every person’s natural right, does not return a victim, and nobody would call the authorities with a valid claim against this action by being offended by it to claim back their own rights, as it happens with real and organic offences.
Smoking inside is not an offence according to society and what has been agreed by its members, it may or may not be according to the state by disagreeing with it. And it has no victim to claim which is what must be present for an offence to be proclaimed.
The law must not lie to those who are trying hard in their daily life to obey its instructions, and has no entitlement to make arbitrary choices and allegations which is what describes the choices exerted by governments that have chosen arbitrary offences such as smoking inside, trading decorated tobacco products, convening with the China virus present among people or whatever else they choose or have already done so. And for the minister choosing what can become a crime by writing it down and then using the authorities with his pen to punish it, the law must not lie nevertheless at all.
Bring Back Smoking Freedom 