“The no-smoking Nazis are such a drag”
Alasdair Palmer: Daily Telegraph 18/2/07
Read the article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/02/18/do1805.xml
There is an element of “straw man” in suggesting that the smoking ban is being implemented simply because government departments need something to do. There is a “false dilemma” in suggesting that the money could otherwise have been spent on medical research and caring for cancer patients.
Presumably, the parking attendants are already fully occupied enforcing parking regulations! There may also be differences between enforcing parking and smoking regulations and, even if parking attendants could do two jobs, they may need some additional training on the new legislation.
The author claims that only 11 fixed penalties have been issued on licenced premises but he does not tell us how many have been issued elsewhere. Maybe the enforcers are not targeting licenced premises. If only 11 fixed penalties have been issued on licenced premises, it does not necessarily follow that people are abiding by the law and it is possible that even more enforcers are needed to catch those who are getting away with breaking the law. Alternatively, if people are abiding by the law it may be because of the enforcers, who may have a deterrent effect. If there were no enforcers, it is possible that the law would be widely flouted.
There is an appeal to pity (the daughter’s car had broken down and she had left her son with a child-minder but that is not necessarily an excuse for smoking in a taxi).
The author is generalising from a single example (hasty generalisation).
Ad Hominem/poisoning the wells. The author calls the enforcers “bullies” who make miserable the lives of ordinary people going about their business.
There is a slippery slope. The author claims that the smoking ban will result in a situation where everything that is not prohibited is compulsory and no one is allowed to make any free choices at all.