Interesting that anyone found smoking on precluded premises will have an on-the-spot fine of £50 imposed, while someone caught with a mobile phone clamped to their ear while driving is only fined £30 and with time to pay.
Okay, so the smoker may or may not have an impact on the health of the people around him/her, by which I’m not trying to deny the effect of passive smoking. It can kill some of the people affected, but not everyone. Some will die of other causes before the cancer etc kicks in — RTAs, DVT, broken-hearts, you name it. The point is that death by passive smoking, as is death by active smoking, is long-term cause and effect.
But what about the mobile-using drivers? Their actions can have an immediate impact on our health quite literally by totalling some poor sod on the motorway and yet the fine is 40% less and isn’t on-the-spot. Is that relative justice?
By nature, I’m a liberal soul and banning anything is something I shy away from. If it’s legal and pays its taxes, well that’s down to individual choice.
I wasn’t happy about banning fox-hunting, for example, not out of any personal interest — it’s just that if someone wants to look like a pillock on horseback dressed in red, supping spirits from a glass you can’t put down because it won’t stand up, to chase a vicious little bastard that kills chickens and anything else it gets its jaws round with a pack of dogs that want to return the favour, all to get your face painted with (possibly infected?) gore, well, if it rocks your cradle, who am I to argue?
It’s fun Jim, but not as I know it. A centuries old tussle that had been going on with neither side — human or fox — seemingly getting the upper hand. Both thriving still, staggering down the street at three in the morning, raiding the rubbish bins, and that’s just the homo sapiens.
Anyway, of the three, using a mobbie while driving makes sense, while smoking and hunting with hounds are right out of the ‘because we say so’ handbook. Even then they made a complete horlicks of it.