Comment: Sky News asking itself “how a smoking ban would work” as if there is not one that is currently valid

Sky News asking “how a smoking ban would work” as if there is not one already in place!

We’ve already got one, we don’t need another. And punishing actions that are innocent and carry no guilt for them should not be allowed for politicians to do. It has already been decided by society in advance that innocent actions and activities are not punishable instead of guilty ones, and it is not guilty to smoke inside or to buy cigarettes from a nineteen-year-old. Punishing actions that are innocent is a violation of human rights and a violation of the country’s constitution, that does not permit it for politicians and they have no jurisdiction on deciding and performing decisions for somebody else that belong to somebody else.

Politicians are not allowed to decide on individual actions and decisions that belong to somebody else just because they are politicians and have a seat in parliament, and are neither allowed to vote on it, and there must be an end to the abuse of power and of political power that is turned against those who voted for them. They have to refer to the national constitution that is in force since 1215 and read it again and act accordingly and in constitutional compliance.

It is mentioned in the Magna Carta that, “No free man (citizen who may also smoke) shall be ceased or imprisoned or stripped of his rights or possessions (his or her right to smoke or the fine imposed), or deprived of his standing in any way (what anti-smokers do to smokers), nor will we proceed with force against him (the threat of the antismoking law and its exchange), or send others to do so (the Police who charge fines for smoking), except by the lawful judgement of his equals (the dissemination of what is fair and what is not), or by the law of the land (which had not passed through parliament if it is so before all of the above took place). It is stated clearly that they had no right to pass smoking bans of any nature or kind.

Last week from now the generational smoking ban was declared unconstitutional in Malaysia, and Malaysia is an underdeveloped third-world country, while the UK is a western developed nation where the same should have happened as a reaction to Rishi Sunak’s announcement with himself included.

You cannot expect a nineteen-year-old to be placed in the same category as underaged children and teenagers and prevent them from exchanging cigarettes with money for the same reason as the nineteen-year old or a thirty-year-old just because both were born after 2009, where is the ethos in the law that says that underaged children and teenagers cannot exchange money with cigarettes for exactly the same reason and not another one, and that should remain as such and should not be manipulated for external purposes to the law that are political or utilitarianly oriented?

It is a form of condemnation to do so, and the people of this country do not deserve to be condemned and neither because of who we are. Growing up to die in the same way that we got born is called condemnation, because you could not buy cigarettes when you were growing up, so why should this be the permanent case for the rest of your life and especially declared to be so until you die, as if anyone wants to?

We must be free to do and try the things that we can do on our own without being punished for it, and punishing innocent activities and actions should not be allowed anyway.

Commented under https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoHO1yp3nK8