There is a lot of understandable anger amongst smokers, owners of pubs and many other kinds of premises, and others who are not in the least connected with smoking or the hospitality industry over the coming ban on smoking in "public" places due to start on July 1st.

Some very few have made it into the news; David Hockney, Joe Jackson, Bill Wyman, Anthony Worrall-Thompson and a few others. I support their anger but not all their arguments. They claim to be losing something they never had, and what has been taken away by this law is far more important and hardly seems to have been noticed. It also affects all of us rather than just those who smoke.

The right to go to a pub and smoke has never existed, unless it was your pub. We never had that right. Owners always had the right to make their premises smoke free if they wished to do so. Some did so over the last few years. Other people such as restaurant owners have also always had the right to deny smokers the PRIVILEGE of lighting up in their places of business. Those owners adopted whatever policy they operated usually on the basis of whether or not they felt it would be good for their business. They are  losing that option. Ironically those who may have gained a competitive advantage by being smoke free over rival businesses that allowed smoking will be losing that  advantage.

True rights, that we can all live with and that enable us to avoid conflicts and live more or less harmoniously, are based on property. He who owns the property has the moral right to decide how that property can be used and who by.No one else has a moral right to make those kinds of decisions. If all your local pubs went smoke free and you felt there were enough smokers to justify it then you could open your own pub purely for smokers. You would morally have the right to ban anyone who didn't smoke if you so wished as well.

Governments do not acknowledge property rights. Instead of "he who owns the property makes the rules" they operate on the basis of "he who has the guns makes the rules".

This law is not aimed at avoiding conflicts but creating them. It is not intended to create harmony but disharmony. I do not believe these will be "unintended" consequences. It is obvious in the way the law has been framed, promoted and funded that these are the intentions. If a majority of pub goers (and bingo hall punters, etc.) wanted these places to be smoke free then it doesn't take a genius in economics to know that many of these places would already be smoke free or offer smoke free facilities. It is therefore obvious that a significant majority of those who use such premises do not wish to have them smoke free. That is a lot of people for a government to piss off in one move. Millions of pounds will be spent policing this new law yet we have been told everyone welcomes it. If the government ministers involved have commited millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to police the law then it is obvious the law is not wanted by those it will affect. Conflict is being deliberately created here amongst several different groups. None would be necessary in a civilized society.

And whining about something as vague as the "freedom to choose" is even worse. There is always the chance of having been misquoted but it appears that Bill Wyman has said he will ignore the ban and will continue to smoke in pubs and bars. If true this is wrong on two counts. Firstly he will be putting the owner of the bar at risk of a £2500 fine for each time he is caught. Wyman might be willing to pay this on the owner's behalf of course, but he can do nothing to restore the man's license to operate if he loses that as a result of the local authorities making an example of him. The second wrongness about this quote is that Bill Wyman has his own restaurant but doesn't say anything about continuing to allow smokers to smoke there.

Wake up people. Property owners are losing a right, an incredibly important right to all of us regardless of what or how much property we might own. The right to decide what we will allow to be done with our own property is fundamental.

One of the few significant differences between communism and fascism is that under communism the state owns all businesses where under fascism businesses remain in private hands, as far as title is concerned, but they are state controlled. Same result but it isn't so obvious that fascists are still thieves.

Anyone who now goes pleading to the government for "exemptions" has utterly missed the point. That is like pleading with the thief who stole your car if he might just possibly perhaps if he can see his way to maybe let you have a contribution to your bus fare home.