Tuesday, 27 November 2018

Aren't You Forgetting Something?

There's been predictable outrage at the suggestion that new social housing should be made non-smoking:
Simon Clark, of Forest, the smokers' campaign group, said: “Reaching into smokers’ homes takes tobacco control in a new and rather sinister direction.”
Dave Jennings, 71, said he had no plans to stop smoking in his council house.
“It is just nonsense,” he told the Mirror near his home in Poplar, east London. “It is not anyone’s business what I do in my house,” he said.
Non-smoker Gary Brown, 66, said people smoking in their homes was no one’s business but their own.
It's not 'their house'. It belongs to someone else. It belongs to the state. And if you are a social housing tenant you are, literally, living in someone else's house.

What they say goes. It's that simple.

H/T: LegIron via Twitter

17 comments:

  1. Give it time.... State housing is just the soft target here. Soon they will be targeting private homes. First they will go for homes where there are children, just as they did with private cars.

    So, yes, you have a valid point - they do not own the home, however, there's another, bigger issue here. It's one of those where liberties collide.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I await the calls for them to stop eating sugar in their 'not-their-home' to follow soon.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Would you say the same if they said "no drinking"?

    ReplyDelete
  4. What Longrider said.
    They can't target homeowners with this nonsense, so they will get their foot in the door with people who don't own their homes
    They're not just looking at people living off the taxpayer either. They've also identified private tennants as targets. This is the pub situation all over again. It should be the property owner who decides, not the state

    ReplyDelete
  5. Even private housing is “not their, or your home”. After you pay off the mortgage you still have annual taxes as a subtle reminder of who really owns the property. Against that background it’s not a stretch to having the State in your living room, bedroom and everywhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, the bricks and land may belong to someone else, in many cases the the bank. But there is a reasonable expectation the you can mostly do what you want your home. Banning recreational sex in peoples homes may well cut down on sexually transmitted diseases but is that compatible with notions of liberty? One could go a step further and ban sex completely and insist that procreation happens as a medical procedure. Or ban alcohol use to cut down on domestic violence? etc,etc

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think that it is a deeply unpleasant character trait to want to interfere in other people's lives in this way. Sadly there seem to be far too many people who have said trait and like to get themselves into the kind of positions where they can impose their prejudices on other people. I say this as someone who is no fan of smoking, but if other people want to smoke I consider it to be non of my business.

    Stonyground

    ReplyDelete
  8. As with any other form of "for your own good" state prohibition/interference, this would just be the thin end of the wedge.

    Longrider and Bucko are completely correct in what they say. How long would it be before we have Orwell's telescreens and compulsory monitored morning exercise "to counter obesity"?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well up to a point there's a civil liberty issue here, and if social housing tenants paid a market rent, including dilapidation, then fair enough, say I.

    But the simple fact is that smoking stinks the place up, discolours the decorations and so on, and if the tenancy changed hands, would require the property to be redecorated first. That's not really fair on the owners (which is us).

    On the other hand, quite a lot of social housing requires fumigation before it can be re-let, and the taxpayer has bottomless pockets, so it's maybe not a big issue in the scheme of things.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anon - If the owner is you, why don't you decide if you want to allow smoking or not?

    ReplyDelete
  11. But the simple fact is that smoking stinks the place up, discolours the decorations and so on, and if the tenancy changed hands, would require the property to be redecorated first. That's not really fair on the owners (which is us).

    For private rentals, this is what the deposit would be used for.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Private let's are an easy target. Simply encourage providers of landlord insurance to make it financially ruinous to insure smoking tenants.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes there is a difference between ownership and possession but in the majority of instances the law treats them as identical.

    ReplyDelete
  14. +Andrew Scarborough in a free market, all it would take is one insurer to discount the others by five per cent to get all the business. These Stalinesque policies don't work outside of gulags.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Give it time.... State housing is just the soft target here."

    Oh, indeed. But it's not a ditch I'd die in. Not this.

    "I await the calls for them to stop eating sugar in their 'not-their-home' to follow soon."

    Can't really claim harm to the structure as a result, can they?

    "Would you say the same if they said "no drinking"?"

    See above. No toxins resulting from alcohol fumes.

    "They're not just looking at people living off the taxpayer either. They've also identified private tennants as targets."

    No, that's the landlords themselves. They need to protect their investment.

    "Even private housing is “not their, or your home”. After you pay off the mortgage you still have annual taxes as a subtle reminder of who really owns the property."

    Technically, yes.

    ReplyDelete
  16. " One could go a step further ..."

    And they will, as Longrider & Bucko pointed out.

    "I think that it is a deeply unpleasant character trait to want to interfere in other people's lives in this way. "

    Yup. I have never subscribed to it, even though I'm not a smoker. But if harm (to infrastructure) results from it?

    "How long would it be before we have Orwell's telescreens and compulsory monitored morning exercise "to counter obesity"?"

    Probably 2023 the way things are going!

    "+Andrew Scarborough in a free market, all it would take is one insurer to discount the others by five per cent to get all the business. These Stalinesque policies don't work outside of gulags."

    Good point!

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Can't really claim harm to the structure as a result, can they?"

    "But if harm (to infrastructure) results from it?"


    What harm to what infrastructure?

    Especially over and above any 'harm' that would be caused by, for example, non-smoking tenants with small animals or children, with a propensity to urinate everywhere and use the walls and other immobile fixtures as scratching posts.

    Those last two apply to pets as well, for the avoidance of doubt.

    ReplyDelete