What has often been described as creeping prohibition has become common place and is “progressing” in more and more areas of our daily lives of what one can and cannot do. Exercising your natural inalienable right to smoke under a roof has been falsely criminalised and banned since 2007, and the use of intellectual property for the sale of related tobacco products has been confiscated by the state in so many countries. The continuation of this story with the anti-smoking campaign becoming the opinion of the government is still evolving never-ending.
What is important to register in relation to improvised offences by the law, such as indoor smoking etc., is that our society does not belong exclusively to the same state of the same country, but to each of its members, and the existence of offences is not defined by the writing of the law on its own, but by the legal science as has been proven by the laws of reason in relation to interpersonal relationships existing between the members of our society. What is and what is not an offence is not what has been decided by the author of the law – and especially not them alone – instead of what has been decided by society and the interpersonal relationships between its members.
One example is the sale of alcohol to those underaged, which is an organically real – or actual – offence. But serving alcohol to children dining in restaurants is not an offence in most of the world if the alcohol has not been sold to them but to their parents. Trying to convert serving alcohol to children dining in restaurants escorted by their parents to an offence on behalf of the legislator is then the same as suggesting that serving the alcohol to children at home by their parents is the same “offence” even being bought by them. This has to do with the laws of reason which dictate that the same is not an offence.
Indoor smoking and its prohibition has more to do with interpersonal relationships rather than with the laws of reason, although it is because of both why it is not an actual offence, but an imaginary or hypothetical one, where the same hypothesis is made by the law.
What is an offence has been decided by society and the same decision does not only belong to the state. Interpersonal relationships revolving around indoor smoking, which is the same action carried out by the same person as outdoor smoking, suggest that society has decided that smoking under a roof is not an organic offence which could be punished for somebody else to claim back their basic rights. There are no consequences from doing so and no victims claimed, and the same action does not invoke the guilt of the individual performing it. Nevertheless the smoking ban is still declaring that the same activity is an offence without this being proven by science or logic. This is clearly an arbitrary decision and a false statement with no truth in it.
Arbitrary decisions exerted by politicians are strictly prohibited by the national state constitution of almost every country, and they result in the abuse of power and turning it against the citizens who elected them so as to punish them for their innocence, and abuse of the parliamentary body and its power that is being used to enact those arbitrary decisions. No-one deserves to be punished over their proven innocence by the legislator as if he was in the position of a judge, and the punishment of the law should only be directed against guilt and never be applied to innocence, for laws to confer justice to citizens.
Bring Back Smoking Freedom 