The tap water is poisoned. Our cookware is riddled with hazardous chemicals. Foods are suffused with health-decimating pesticides. Even the toilet roll is not safe (probably why they wanted us to bulk-buy it during the fake plague...).

Yet we are to believe that the UK's Keir "Stalin" Starmer wants to ban smoking outside pubs for the good of our health?

In a widely slammed but also ultimately unsurprising move (we all knew Starmer would vigorously bring the ban-hammer down on anything and everything fun "for our safety"), Starmer has alleged that his government will police the fresh air, by outlawing smoking outside pubs and clubs, and in other outside areas, such as parks.

Starmer claims this ban will stop people from dying (really? Had smokers known giving up would make them immortal, perhaps many of them would have considered quitting some time ago), as well as - that old chestnut - "reduce the burden on the holy, sacred, sacrosanct NHS (may PPE be upon it)".

Yet this statement is manifestly false for a number of reasons. For one thing, with the exorbitant tax they pay, smokers are effectively bankrolling the ever-ailing, always over-burdened (gee, think it might not be fit for purpose?) National Health Service.

Despite constituting a small fraction of the population (less than 13% of people smoke), smokers will contribute a staggering £8.8 billion in tax this financial year.

This being the case - and this coupled with the fact that nearly 90% of the country does not smoke - the wisdom of banning smoking outside to "improve national health", whether physical or financial, does not appear to make a great deal of sense.

If the UK government genuinely wished to improve the national health with various bans, why not ban something that actually affects the majority of people, such as glyphosate in food, aluminium in water, or many and various carcinogens in medications and vaccinations?

Targeting a minority group that pay for their own healthcare many times over in taxes (and please note that, contrary to popular belief, the large majority of lifelong smokers never develop lung cancer) does not make any sense if the real goal is to improve the overall health of the nation and relieve the burden on the NHS.

Also, what evidence is there that banning smoking outside certain venues will actually reduce the amount anyone smokes? If anything, this ban will make them smoke more, as when one is in a warm pub, the thought of shivering outside in the rain for a cigarette isn't that enticing. But if smokers boycott pubs once this ban is in place (as many have said they will) and instead drink at home, where they can smoke freely in the comfortable warmth of their front room, isn't it reasonable to postulate they will actually smoke more?

So - and needless to say - improving anyone's health isn't the real goal of this ban. As my go-to conspiracy theorist, Henry Makow, says: "whenever the elites do anything, there are always two reasons for it: 1) the reason given to the public to make it palatable, and 2) the real reason".

So what is the real reason for this ban?

The first one, clearly, is to finish off for good British pub culture, because once smoking is no longer allowed outside pubs and clubs, millions of regular patrons will simply stop going, just as happened when the 2007 smoking ban banned smoking inside licensed premises.

This ban will also affect bar staff, a disproportionately large number of whom smoke, and for whom nipping out for a quick cig is a vital part of their shift. If they can no longer do that, they are likely to seek alternative employment.

Bar staff will also be very unwilling to enforce the smoking ban, knowing as they do that telling drunk people to stop smoking is likely to be met with aggression and even violence. Therefore, if bar staff (many of whom are young and/or female and/or slightly built) are told they have to enforce this ban, despite the risks to themselves of so-doing, or lose their job, many/most will simply quit.

Bar work is typically minimum wage - so hardly worth jeopardising your personal safety for, when you could earn the same or more safely working from home in telemarketing etc.

Of course, those pulling the strings of Starmer-Stalin know all of this, and driving willing staff away from pubs - or making the job so dangerous that publicans will have to make bar positions much more well-remunerated, therefore jeopardising their own solvency - are all intended effects of this ban.

This is, to put it mildly, kicking them whilst they're down, as pubs are still profoundly struggling with the lasting legacy of "lockdown", when the government unilaterally forced them all to shut down lest some patrons caught a cold.

Deemed "non-essential" throughout the fake plague, pubs were prohibited from opening their doors for many months - and when they were allowed to open, hit with so many ridiculous rules and restrictions (no standing at the bar, no sitting outside your bubble, no alcoholic drinks if not accompanied with liberal lashings of Scotch Egg), that many former patrons continued to forego them.

As a result, almost 23,000 hospitality venues have closed permanently since 2020.

This is, of course, all by design, and the pub is a particular target of despotic authoritarians everywhere for two simple reasons:

1) It facilitates too much enjoyment and this can lead to longer life (studies have consistently found that regular drinkers outlive teetotallers, and this is theorised to be because frequenting premises where alcohol is consumed is such a social and morale-boosting activity, that it can actively cancel out any detrimental effect the alcohol might have had and therefore lengthen life), and...

2) It's where, typically, people have met to network, organise, and ultimately conspire against the government.

Therefore, government officials did not want us meeting in pubs during the pretend pandemic, because there was too high a chance of our organising a coherent and effective resistance against them (and noticing that, much like ourselves, all our fellow pub-goers were not dropping dead from the virus so deadly that one of the most common symptoms was having no symptoms).

Hence, they do not want to give us this option for any impending future terror and tyranny they have planned, either. They want us sitting at home, alone, glued to the television in terror whilst they endlessly scaremonger by telling us there is such-and-such diabolical threat outside - not our venturing out into the world ourselves, where we can verify this threat has been wildly overblown, laugh about it over a few drinks (and smokes), and work out how we can fight back.

The pub - and not other hospitality venues, such as coffee shops - is being targeted in particular, specifically because of the sociability it engenders. After all, how many times have you struck up a conversation with a stranger or group of strangers in a coffee shop? Maybe it's happened once or twice, but it's certainly not a common theme: whereas chatting to new people and making new friends is the norm for pubs - including and especially for smokers, whose shared habit gives them an immediate reason to start chatting as they puff away.

That's why the pub generally and smokers in particular are earmarked for abolition.

Prominent social engineering vehicles, like the sitcom 'Friends', have pre-programmed us for this in various ways. Note that the popular sitcom that directly preceded Friends was the show 'Cheers', which was set in a bar ("where everybody knows your name, and you're always glad you came"), whereas Friends pivots around a coffee shop ('Central Perk'), where the six main characters almost exclusively interact with each other, very rarely striking up conversations with new people.

Tellingly, flashback scenes of Friends reveal Central Perk began life as a bar, where people did approach each other (one scene shows a tipsy Chandler approaching the then-unknown to him Rachel, as she drinks with friends). Yet for unknown reasons, the bar shuts down and becomes a coffee shop a year before the 'Friends' pilot.

In another Friends episode, we see non-smoker Rachel briefly take up the habit as all the important decisions at her work are made outside amongst the smokers.

Interestingly, although the character Rachel was not a smoker, the actress who played her, Jennifer Aniston, was.

In fact, a surprisingly large number of famously health-conscious celebrities are smokers.

And of course, whenever the elites ban something for us but continue to widely participate themselves, we can easily conclude that something is up.

While I would not make the claim that smoking is some sort of health elixir, it is certainly the case that there are some health benefits to it which have been vigorously downplayed.

And frankly, the fact is, if smoking was as bad for us as the elites claim it is, they wouldn't be making it prohibitively expensive and banning it everywhere: they'd be heavily subsidising and encouraging it, because they are self-confessed depopulationists who are constantly trying to cull the herd.

That's why they poison our food (food being consumed by 100% of people), poison our water (water being consumed by 100% of people), and festoon our environment with all sorts of health-decimating toxins that affect us all from the moment of birth... but pretend that by selectively banning a habit only indulged in by around 12% of people (a ban which will probably cause them to smoke more than ever in their own homes), they are seeking to improve the nation's health.

We all know the risks of smoking - which, unlike the other poisons listed above, we are constantly warned about including with ridiculously graphic illustrations on cigarette packets - and some make the choice to smoke anyway, which is and should remain entirely up to them. They're taxed to the hilt for this choice, and beyond that, it's really none of the government's business.

As we had to remind our "elected representatives" many times during the pantodemic: even if there had been a real threat to the nation's health (there wasn't), it is not the government's job to protect our health: it is their job to protect our rights, including the right to make "unhealthy" choices if we so choose, and that is, in fact, the only legitimate job they have.

Banning things under the guise of improving our health has always been the tyrant's tactic of choice, and as the eerily prophetic Demolition Man (set in a future where smoking, meat, swearing, and sex are all banned) advised, through the speech of a pro-freedom rebel:

"I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind if guy who wants to sit in a greasy spoon and think, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol. I want to eat bacon, butter and buckets of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in a non-smoking section. I wanna run through the streets naked with green Jello all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to. Okay, pal? I've seen the future, you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sittin' around in his beige pyjamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake singing "I'm an Oscar-Meyer Wiener".

Please note that Demolition Man accurately predicted Zoom, social distancing, and a nationwide toilet roll shortage... So we have to do all we can to ensure none of its other predictions prove accurate, either.

Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...

1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon or Substack (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you'd like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.