On the unlucky 1st of July of 2007 the Labour government under prime minister Gordon Brown just for some days before used its parliamentary majority to upvote the notorious and devastating to our liberty smoking ban extending it from Scotland to the rest of the UK. This might have never happened if Tony Blair was still in power, but he allegedly mishandled the Iran-Iraq war having devastating consequences and gave in to pressure revolving around the relevant scandal.
Across the Commonwealth it is Labour or Labor Parties that are responsible for most explicitly counter-smoking legislation. The Tories are not responsible for the smoking ban, although a Tory health minister, Jane Ellison, is responsible for plain packaging legislation.
The Labour Party is responsible for counter-smoking legislation and for supporting it. The Labor Parties in the rest of the Commonwealth are responsible for counter-smoking legislation in Oceania and Canada as well.
When Jane Ellison passed plain packaging legislation through parliament, she acted alone under the disagreement of the prime minister who was then David Cameron. These events are unconstitutional and the minister herself cannot act alone without the agreement of the prime minister. The government is presided over and led by the prime minister and so is the cabinet. The one’s for health or any other minister’s plan must coincide with the intentions of the government and be in line with whatever the prime minister as leader of the governing party supports, not in opposition.
Jane Ellison acted unconstitutionally on her own without the agreement of the government’s leader. This is unacceptable and needs to be corrected about what she has done with the parliament.
The Labour or Labor for that matter party usually supports and implements anti-smoking legislation, which is also unconstitutional because what it is handling is related to civil rights and liberties and cannot be enforced by the direct use of the law that is punishable. This matter falls within the scope of the national constitution and not within the scope of the law itself. What it has to do with meat consumption is that the Labour Party intended from 2017 to prohibit meat consumption, which is one of the applications of the law and what the law can be used for doing. This was upheld by the reputable lawyer and Labour Party member Michael Mansfield and gained support from most of the 2017 conference in Brighton. Michael Mansfield who is now 81 years old as of 2023 described killing animals for obtaining our food as ecocide. Is it not a proven fact besides that reducing or quitting smoking results in increased food intake and gaining of weight?
If you prohibit meat consumption by law you cannot expect to further use the same law to restrict things such as smoking and daily harmless activities for the neighbouring person. By meaning that harmful activities towards the neighbouring person have an aggressive and intentional nature that are directed against them. Considering banning meat consumption would therefore result in smoking and further anti-smoking restrictions not being a priority anymore. This is in effect what should happen to take the weight off smoking and place it correctly on what the law is properly meant to be used for.
Bring Back Smoking Freedom 