Looking at the ideas in the comments of the last post and in other forums I get the impression we'd like to make a big impact. I would also prefer the big effect, especially if it could be achieved with minimal effort. And indeed it can. Apparently. Well maybe not zero effort, and maybe there is a lot of planning involved, but it is possible to create quite big effects without lots of money or the media on your side.

We have stickers and posters and t-shirts on this site and several others. I'm also looking into umbrellas and already have some bumper stickers coming soon.

We have our knowledge and our passion about the issue. We have to wake people up. We might use the spectacular stunts of groups like Fathers4Justice but we also need to use everyday things that won't lead to us getting arrested. Wearing t-shirts and badges and getting business owners to agree to put an anti fascist sticker next to their compulsory no smoking sticker would go a long way to starting the process.

We can do stunts and we can dress to express. But the question I still have to ask is what is the message? And who should we address?

The antis' campaign and PR for the ban has been well done but not perfectly done. It has a few weaknesses that can be exploited. The government framed the "debate" as being a balance between the rights of smokers and the health of non smokers. Many of us, including those who should have known better, fell for this way of framing the argument and therefore lost it before we even began. It is a vital principle of war not to let your enemy choose the field of battle.

The framing was false in several ways. The law being proposed wasn't going to remove any rights that smokers had. There is no law or human rights principle that says we have a right to smoke wherever we choose whether the owner of the property has given consent or not.

That framing was a very effective way of having people look at just that question and obviously come down on the side of health. To do otherwise would be to look ridiculous and selfish. The real question that should have been debated was whether the government had the right to further abridge the rights of private property owners by stealing from them the right to decide what is permitted on their property. That is an outrage affecting everyone that was never even mentioned on TV or in the press. Another outrage neatly sidestepped by the framing is the idea that individuals are not fully responsible for their own health and that government has an obligation to "protect" us from our own decisions.

There might also have been a debate on the accuracy of the research into SHS but that would have been secondary. In truth if large sections of the public did not agree the state has a right to interfere with our own decisions about our own health the whole concept of SHS would never have been invented.

The issue as I see it is about property rights, personal responsibility and the right to offer services to those sections of the public one chooses to offer services to and that can be engaged in on a purely voluntary mutual consent basis. The right of a pub owner to cater for smokers or non smokers who care to go to his pub.

These affect everyone not just those who smoke. This is good as it means we can get further support from lots more people. In order to bring about a return of property rights, or any other change in law, I believe we need the widespread support of non smokers as well as smokers.

The government and groups like ASH would like nothing more than for those against the ban to claim they are victims who are being discriminated against. It is easy for them to then claim the apparent moral high ground and state that saving lives is far more important than your non right to smoke. I'm also sure they are quite happy when those against the ban say the law should allow for smokers and non smokers to have their own pubs or rooms within pubs. I believe that is the way to go if we want to lose. That is wrong for two reasons;

1. It says that the individual is not fully responsible for his own health and lifestyle. It says that the state must take responsibility for the health of each of us.

2. It says the government has the right to regulate property rights.

For these reasons I do not think it a good idea to talk about the "right to choose" or the "right to use a legal product" or the "right to smoke". I especially cringe when I hear that term "legal product". It suggests the obvious solution of making it illegal. Using any of these terms is fighting on the battlefield chosen by the enemy.

There is another aspect of the current campaign that provides a moral advantage to us. That is the ubiquitous "no smoking" signs. They are everywhere and appear on buildings such as churches and libraries where no one has ever smoked. They are an insult to everyone. They are also intended, I believe, to sneer at smokers in a childishly spiteful way. "You can't smoke here. You can't smoke here". I can think of no other reason for their presence. Apparently this is being picked up by anti smokers who are somewhat emboldened and have audibly sneered at smokers outside buildings. Maybe that was intended also.

I see two major strategies we could adopt. One is to point out to people how we are being victimised. The other is to point out to people how we are all being conned into fascism. I am not the least bit interested in being a whining victim saying it isn't fair that smokers are being discriminated against. My personal preference is to subvert the campaign of the government and groups like ASH.

They have control of the mainstream media on this issue so trying to get the press or air media to listen to us is pretty pointless. I do not believe that "any publicity is good publicity" all the time and for any cause.

I think the message we have to get out is that the smoking ban is further evidence of our descent into fascism. We need regular people to understand this. It won't happen through the media that is part of how we got here. So we need to get the message out in different ways.

We are not powerless. We have ways of getting the message out. If we did nothing more than put anti fascist stickers up with a web address on it we would find new people to join with us. We need a web site for them to go to that will brief them on what is happening and what they can do about it.

Do you agree? Have I missed something huge? Is this your kind of game?