nanny states and smokers

Durragh is one smoker who is not concerned about anti-smoking propaganda lasting for much longer because the Nanny State, like Humpty Dumpty, is due for a big fall because the private doctors it's imposing upon to enforce its draconian measures don't have time to lecture patients and most see a clear distinction between public health and personal health.

"Public health used to be concerned with protecting the public against easily transmissible diseases that we couldn't protect ourselves from without the help of the government," says Durragh. "You know, clean water, sanitation, and vaccines against commonly communicable and often fatal diseases."

"Having achieved that aim, public health officials found themselves with little to do between outbreaks of new epidemics and began to justify their existence by getting involved in matters that are none of their business," laughs Durragh. "They stuck their sticky beaks into our bedrooms, kitchens and lounge rooms and started dictating to us how to live our lives."

"The Nanny State took away our personal responsibility and took upon itself the job of protecting us against our lifestyle choices and any disease that might result from them," says Durragh. "Okay, nobody should mind a nanny telling you not to do this or that because this or that could happen to you, but that's where it should stop."

"When a Nanny State gets into prohibition, punitive behavior, taxing 'naughties' and using health professionals as a police force it has clearly blown itself up out of all proportion," says Durragh. "And the people we are going to thank for ending this madness -- soon, I hope -- is the white coats."

"We've been grumbling for years about increasing Nanny State interference in our health choices -- don't smoke, don't eat junk food, use a condom, buckle up, use a sunscreen, get vaccinated against rare viruses, etc -- and now the medical professionals are starting to grumble because the Nanny State is trying to make them legally responsible for our lifestyle choices."

"It's no longer a matter of how much government interference in personal health decisions we're going to tolerate," says Durragh, "it's a matter of how much legal interference the white coats are going to tolerate in relation to how they treat their patients."

"Anti-tobacco lawyer John Banzhaf -- the founder of ASH -- has had so much success suing cigarette makers and companies that expose workers to tobacco smoke that he's been pushing for litigation against doctors who fail to follow Public Health guidelines," explains Durragh. "And, because he's also an anti-fat lawyer, you know what's coming next."

"Doctors would not now be open to litigation if those guidelines in relation to advising smokers of the health risks of smoking had not been published by the Nanny State," says Durragh. "It makes you shudder at the thought of what other guidelines the Nanny State has published in relation to our personal and private lifestyle choices that are next going to be jumped on and legally enforced."

"My doctor and I have a good relationship," says Durragh. "I don't tell him I smoke and he doesn't ask (even though he's seen me smoking outside)."

"I am having regular blood pressure checks so I suppose he should be asking about my smoking habits," says Durragh, "but I guess he no more wants to become a white coated Nanny State Nazi enforcer than I want to be lectured on the potential evils of my drug of choice."

"Should I succumb to a smoking-related illness I consider that to be my business, my responsibility, my risk -- I am a big girl now and I can read the warnings on the pack -- and I'm certainly not going to hire a gun to sue my doctor," says Durragh. "However, there are probably plenty of smokers out there who would try to sue and this scares some doctors."

"The anti-smoking lawyers are not really doing this to make money," explains Durragh. "They are already handsomely paid by the lobbyists."

"Their main goal -- like that of the Nanny State health officials -- is to stop people smoking and to this end they presume that by scaring doctors with the prospect of laws suits that they will act as willing anti-smoking enforcers."

"The threat to doctors is this: if you're not part of the anti-smoking solution we are going to treat you as one of the causes and hold you legally liable," says Durragh. "And this sort of threat is not going down well with doctors as you can well imagine."

"Not content with cigarette pack warnings, anti-smoking ordinances banning smoking in nearly all public places and tough enforcement policies that are going to tie up police departments arresting smokers rather than chasing criminals," sighs Durragh, "they are now dragooning doctors into their cause."

"Doctors are smart people, much smarter than politicians and lawyers," laughs Durragh, "and if some of them toed the official anti-smoking line in the past for personal reasons or otherwise they won't be doing it for much longer."

"Oh sure, there are going to be those who have no alternative but to toe the party line or lose their jobs -- and those who can be seduced into becoming anti-smoking enforcers with big enough sweeteners," adds Durragh, "but any doctor worth his or her salt in private practice is not going to be dictated to and threatened by the Nanny State zealots."

"Despite what their personal beliefs about smoking are, they know that once they are legally required to lecture patients about smoking they are also going to be legally required to lecture them about all the other lifestyle factors that cause preventable diseases -- overeating, lack of exercise, promiscuity, binge drinking, illegal drugs and so many other things. Things, I may add, that many doctors themselves are guilty of indulging in once in a while if not more often."

"Doctors are busy people and they just don't have the time to devote to this sort of lecturing even if they were inclined to give it," says Durragh. "They see a clear distinction between public health and personal health, and although they may not like seeing patients with preventable diseases they are likely to defend their patients' rights and bad choices when it comes to the crunch."

"And the crunch is coming soon."