Simon Clark, director of FOREST said in a speech last night, "We have lost the battle but we haven't lost the war. The smoking ban is out of all proportion to the risk from second-hand smoke. We urge the government to amend the legislation to allow designated smoking rooms in some pubs and allow private clubs to devise a policy on smoking in accordance with their member's wishes.

"Britain is developing into a nanny state. When you leave school you are considered to be an adult. You should be mature enough to make informed choices about eating, drinking, smoking and other activities that give you pleasure but involve a degree of risk. Instead, politicians and campaigners are lining up to lecture, harass and insult those of us who choose to smoke a perfectly legal product.

"I don't want to live in a nanny state. I want to live in a mature, tolerant, diverse society where people accept that in order to enjoy the personal freedoms that matter to them, they must be tolerant of other people's freedoms, and that includes the freedom to smoke in some enclosed public places."

In case you don't see what I see I will dissect.

"The smoking ban is out of all proportion to the risk from second-hand smoke."

No question as to the risk being real or exaggerated. The risk is completely accepted. He does not protest the law as such, just that it is out of proportion. In other words there should be a law because second-hand smoke is a risk but that there should be some exemptions.

"We urge the government to amend the legislation to allow designated smoking rooms in some pubs and allow private clubs to devise a policy on smoking in accordance with their member's wishes."

You are right to make this law further abridging our property rights. But please could you make an exception that will be grossly unfair to those who couldn't take advantage of it.

"Britain is developing into a nanny state."

We are only developing into a nanny state. We aren't there yet? Haven't we had extra taxes on tobacco and alcohol for decades? Haven't we had seat belt laws for decades? Haven't we had warnings about foods and drugs for decades? In fact is there any part of life that isn't regulated in some way "for our own good"?

"When you leave school you are considered an adult." Perhaps, but that is putting the argument in it's weakest form. What about when you are in your 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s etc.?

"You should be mature enough to make informed choices about eating, drinking, smoking and other activities that give you pleasure but involve a degree of risk." You SHOULD be. That furthers any doubts a reader may have about considering a school leaver to be mature. "Should" does not mean you have to be. This allows a listener to think not only that you may not be but also permits the idea that if you aren't then the government has a duty to look after you.

"Instead, politicians and campaigners are lining up to lecture, harass and insult those of us who choose to smoke a perfectly legal product."

A perfectly legal product. This suggests that we wouldn't have a leg to stand on were the product made illegal. He makes no case at all as to why it shouldn't be made illegal and even tells the opposition what they should do to shut him up.

"I don't want to live in a nanny state. I want to live in a mature, tolerant, diverse society where people accept that in order to enjoy the personal freedoms that matter to them, they must be tolerant of other people's freedoms, and that includes the freedom to smoke in some enclosed public places."

This is the icing on the cake for those who created the law. Non smokers must be tolerant of smokers wanting somewhere to smoke. No mention of property rights anywhere. Worse in fact, he ignores the fact that pubs, clubs and restaurants are not public property but private property as if this has no bearing on the argument. The government has the right to do anything it likes but please please please make a few little exceptions.

Maybe it is because FOREST is based on a false premise in the first place. Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco. The right to enjoy smoking tobacco is a very weak "right" to defend. The reason it is weak is because it is not a right at all. An individual has the right to do with his body whatever he wishes but he doesn't have a right to smoke. He must first own the tobacco and the means of smoking it. He must also be on property whose owner does not object. Given these conditions he can smoke. Does this seem overly picky? It probably does. But the importance of it makes the difference between defending something that would have very wide agreement and defending a minority on very dodgy ground.

If you have a right then you don't need anyone else's permission to exercise your right. Most of what are claimed as rights are not rights but merely privileges. A privilege is granted to you by someone else who owns the property in question and it can be taken away as easily as it can be granted.

The important rights are suppressed and muddled all the time by those who wish to control our thinking and and our behaviour but pretty much everyone still understands them and uses them. The important rights are property rights. Property rights are not the rights that property has. Only people have rights. And all people have property rights. Property rights are not limited to those who have lots of property.

You own your own life and you own your own body. We could also say that you have the rights to your life and body but it is clearer to say you own them. Ownership means that you have the right to control whatever it is that you own. It also means that you are entirely responsible for it. Now if each of us owns our own life and body then it follows that no one can own anyone else or that none of us have the right to control another without that other person's permission and consent. The only exception to this is where someone has already violated your rights. In that case you have the right to restrain from further violations.

In order to live at all we need many things; food, shelter, and heat are the least of these. We also need other things to make life interesting. If we are to obtain these things we need to have the cooperation of other people. Many of the things we need to obtain are scarce. We cannot pluck a bar of chocolate or a medical operation out of the air whenever we would like one. These two factors; the need for the cooperation of others and the scarcity of goods we need or want, compel us to use a system of rights so that we can have the willing cooperation of others and so that we can enjoy the things we acquire without conflict with others. Property rights are that system. Through property rights we are able to offer our services to others in exchange for the things we want. Where there is respect for property rights all exchanges are voluntarily made and none are coercive.

You have the right to be fully responsible for your own life and to interact and cooperate with others on a mutual consent and voluntary basis. You also have the obligation to be fully responsible for your own life and to interact and cooperate with others on a mutual consent and voluntary basis. That is the fundamental argument that is totally ignored not only by the government but also by FOREST.

Non smokers who do not wish to be around second hand smoke are not forced to go where they will be exposed to it. If they do go where they will be exposed to it they are demonstrating their willingness to do so as it is they who bring their bodies to the pubs and not the pubs who pull them in by the use of force. But another factor is at play here too. Pub owners absolutely do not want to turn substantial business away if there is something they can do to accommodate it. So if an owner thinks there is sufficient demand for no smoking areas he will create them. He wants to make money. The only way to make money if you respect property rights is to offer something your intended customers will value.

Anything that attacks property rights, no matter how well meaning it may seem, will inevitably cause conflicts. A law that forces pub owners not to allow smoking on their premises when they would otherwise do so with the willing consent of their customers is obviously wrong. Simon Clark wants the government to allow "some" pubs to do otherwise. He doesn't even address the issue. It isn't even "on his radar". By not acknowledging the importance of property rights, and that the core of this issue is property rights, he adds to the problem rather than pointing to the outrage.