Photo: Greg Bowker/Herald

I read that New York’s Health Commissioner, Thomas Farley, has said he wants to take the Big Apple’s war on smokers to the city’s beaches and parks. There will be the inevitable cries of ‘Nanny State’ from smokers and possibly even from some civil libertarians. My own view is that the only right smokers have consists in the freedom to very slowly take their own lives, as uncomplainingly and as far away from the rest of us as possible. This may seem harsh, but there really is no difference between the smoker and the heroin user. Both are drug addicts. I hear no argument in favour of junkies having the right to shoot up in public places, whether indoor or out.

Like ‘PC’, the use of  ‘Nanny State’ to decry any legislation designed to enhance wellbeing or preserve the environment or protect the responsible citizen from the irresponsible, now provides a failsafe indication that the user has neither intelligence nor argument. Our own history of ‘Nanny State’ intrusion in the lives of citizens should properly include fluoridation of public water supplies, all forms of immunisation against disease, all traffic laws, especially the compulsory wearing of seatbelts, all laws against the personal use of narcotics, all restrictions on smoking and, most recently, any restriction of the rights of parents to raise their children in whatever way they see fit.

The list is of course far too short, since any law which, in the interest of the general good,  restricts the freedom of the individual, is really an example of the ‘Nanny State’ in action. So we have the unwelcome spectacle of the Leader of the Opposition renouncing his party’s previous attempts to conserve water and power and to prevent parents using ‘reasonable force’ as a defence against the charge of having abused their children, on the grounds that these ‘Nanny State’ policies meant that Labour was perceived as having ‘taken its eye off the ball’ and lost votes in the process. Never mind that these policies might actually have been for the general good.

The logical extension of such populist thinking might seem to be the repeal of all the previous ‘Nanny State’ legislation mentioned above. But, as a means of regaining widespread voter support, it wouldn’t work. People would not want to go back to the days when it was legal to travel in a fast-moving vehicle without buckling up, or acceptable to fill the air in public places with life-threatening chemicals. For most of us life is  better because of laws that we once thought intrusive. That’s the thing about Nanny: In time she almost always comes in from the cold.

Speaking of cold, the advent of Spring means that for the next six months or more, smokers’ rights will actually take precedence over the rights of non-smokers. In cold weather smokers are disadvantaged by having to go outside – cafes, restaurants or their place of work –  to smoke. They sit shivering at kerbside tables or huddled in office doorways, sucking in death with the damp, icy air. Poor things.

But in fine, warm weather the smokers come into their own. In fine, warm weather everyone wants to be outside. But, for the non-smoker, being outside means having to put up with the noxious, appetite-killing fumes drifting across from neighbouring tables. The worst table to sit next to is one with a mixed party of smokers and non-smokers. The smokers, aware of the discomfort their smoking may cause their non-smoking companions, either exhale their smoke vertically into the air, from where the breeze wafts it gently to the adjacent tables, or ‘considerately’ hold the burning cigarette down behind their chair, well away from the guests at their own table, but directly next to yours.

So in Spring I’m more than ever with Mr Farley. It’s time to take the next logical step in the war against the weed. NO SMOKING IN ANY PUBLIC PLACE, INSIDE OR OUT! (BY ORDER OF NANNY)

And while I’m at it, here’s a non-PC aside. We already know that there is a correlation between unemployment and smoking. If my observations are correct, there’s also a correlation between smoking and obesity. A disproportionate number of fat people seem to be smokers as well, thus doubling their risk of heart attack, stroke and diabetes, to name but three.

My theory is that these are people who find themselves in a downward spiral of boredom, low self-esteem and depression which they attempt to allay with comfort food and the narcotic and boredom-relieving effects of smoking, resulting in further weight gain, poorer health, loss of energy and vitality along with sexual and social attractiveness, in turn leading to greater boredom, loss of self-esteem and depression…

I could be totally wrong of course. But what is absolutely clear is that the more difficult you make it for people to smoke, the fewer people smoke. I’m with Nanny. I know you don’t like it, but it’s good for you. One day you’ll thank me. (Isn’t that really infuriating? Don’t you want to kill both Nanny  and me?)

By the way, I used to be a sixty a day man. I know what you’re going to say –  nothing worse than a convert. But I can feel your pain.