Skip to main content

Smoookin'!

First I have to declare my interest in this: I am non-smoker and I don't like cigarette smoke.

When I was about five (I am not sure of the exact age, but I was quite young), one of my slightly older neighbour friend offered me a cigarette (a Marlborough, I remember that much!) on which I drew one puff only to immediately cough my lungs out. I have never been tempted to go near a cigarette since. This incident is probably not the only reason why I have never smoked (I could cite the fact that no one smokes in my family, or simply my total disregard for dependence on anything other than books (!)) but I am sure it helped.

It seems that after long debates on the subject in the media, the government has finally come up with something and is planning, within the next two to three years (!), to ban smoking in England (and Wales?) in public places serving prepared food (restaurant, cafes and some pubs) and in workplaces (see the BBC's website). This raises the questions of what pubs not serving food and clubs are for people working there, if not their workplace? And what is "prepared food" anyway?

While, like campaigning associations, I rejoice in this; I do also think that this is not going far enough. Effectively the ban should reach about 80 to 90% of public places. That leaves a lot of pubs out. These are traditionally the hangouts of the poorer members of society, who are also the ones who smoke the most (I know I am generalising there), have lesser access to health care and information and generally are the more in need of help and incitement to stop smoking. I heard smokers say that a ban would be an incitement for them to stop smoking. Let's not forget the many smokers are dependent on their cancer lollies and, although they want to, are finding it very hard to quit.

People like Frank Dobson, Former Labour health secretary, hope that pubs outside the ban will soon join the rank and apply a voluntary ban. If we look at what is happening in Ireland (where there has been a total ban on smoking for over a year now), we see that profits made by pubs have fallen as a result of the ban. Why should a landlord take the risk of making less money if he doesn't have to by law? This scepticism on the pub owners' part could be reinforced by actions from the powerful tobacco industry. Why should they not start using the restriction on the ban attached to food sales to put pressure on pub owners and landlords to stop selling food and therefore allow smoking?

Apart from a few life long smokers, I don't think anybody contests the fact that smoking is dangerous. Even the cigarette manufacturers have relented, I believe. Pro-smoking people therefore brandish the flag of their undermined civil liberties to justify their opposition to the ban. First they still have the liberty of smoking at home or of blowing their smoke in our faces when outdoors. More importantly and unsurprisingly, they are blithely forgetting about the civil liberties of none smokers. A fundamental point in the definition of liberties (set out in the 1789 French Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen - article 4) is that the person creating the disruption is the one to be penalised and forced to restrain themselves, not the victims of the disruption (one's liberty stops where that of others starts). I don't care if smokers have decided to ruin their health and die early. What I don't want is to have their cigarette smoke forced on me. I have no choice in that. And don't tell me I should just go somewhere else: why should I have to? What about my liberty to be and go where I want to without being molested? If I started walking around with a radio playing loud music (which people would have no other choice but to listen to), I would be accused of disturbing the peace and would be forced to stop. And the lasty time I checked music was not dangerous for people's health...

The Tories, who oppose an outright ban (or any sort of ban for that matter), have clearly decided to use this contentious issue for their political gain. As often, their arguments are specious: they agree that is bad in public places but are ready to bow to the rich industry lobby groups. Their method of "voluntary agreement" means a lack of uniformity in the access to no smoking establishments. We also know what smokers can be like: they have no respect for non-smokers and always try to have their way: this is why we need an intervention from what they call the "nanny state". However sad this is, it is a fact that most people are lost if they don't have a nanny to wipe their bottom and tell them what to do! They also argue that if prevented to do so at the pub, smokers will stay home and smoke in front of their children and damage their health. Do they really think smokers will wait for a ban to smoke in front of their children?! Is it better to endanger stranger's health rather than your children's? what kind of argument it that?

To sum up: smoking is dangerous and is an imposition on none-smokers. It should therefore be totally banned in public places. This current proposition is not good enough! If we push the argument to it's bitter end; tobbaco should be banned altogether, like other drugs. However, as I said I am happy for people to do what they want with their lives as long as they don't impinge on mine. Is that fair?

Finally, I would say that yes, a ban is an important step but just as important is the need for making it harder for people to start smoking, for educating people and for providing help for smokers to give up on their sad habit.


For more information on the subject:
www.ash.org.uk

And for the "arguments" in support of smoking:
www.forestonline.org


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Short History of the Elephant and Castle and Its Name

Last night I attended a lecture by local historian Stephen Humphrey who discussed the general history of the Elephant & Castle, focussing more particularly on what he called its heyday (between 1850 and 1940). This is part of a week-long art project ( The Elephant Project ) hosted in an empty unit on the first floor of the infamous shopping centre, aiming to chart some of the changes currently happening to the area. When an historian starts talking about the Elephant and Castle, there is one subject he can not possibly avoid, even if he wanted to. Indeed my unsuspecting announcement on Facebook that I was attending such talk prompted a few people to ask the dreaded question: Where does the name of the area come from, for realz? Panoramic view of the Elephant and Castle around 1960/61. Those of us less badly informed than the rest have long discarded the theory that the name comes from the linguistic deformation of "Infanta de Castille", a name which would have become at

pink sauce | life, with a pink seasoning

As of tonight, my blog Aimless Ramblings of Zefrog , that "place where I can vent my frustration, express ideas and generally open my big gob without bothering too many people" which will be 6 in a couple of months, becomes Pink Sauce . While the URLs zefrog.blogspot.com and www.zefrog.eu are still valid to access this page, the main URL now becomes www.pinksauce.co.uk. There is a vague plan to create a proper website for www.zefrog.eu to which the blog would be linked. Why Pink Sauce , you may ask. It is both simple and complicated. For several years, I have grown out of love for the name of the blog. It felt a bit cumbersome and clumsy. That said, I never really looked into changing it, seriously. Tonight, for dinner, I had pasta with a special pink sauce of my concoction ; single cream and ketchup. I know most people while feel nauseous at the very though of the mixture but trust me, it's gorgeous. Don't knock it till you've tried it. After having had my platte

Review: Park Avenue Cat @ Arts Theatre

As we are steadily reminded throughout the hour and half hour of Park Avenue Cat , the new play by Frank Strausser, which had its "world premiere" this week-end at the Arts Theatre, time is money. Most of the play takes place in the office of a posh LA therapist who charges $200 per hour. So, having sat through the play, I am wondering why the author spent time writing it, why a production team spent time putting it up and why I and any audience member are asked to spent time (and money) watching it. The play, said to be "a triangle with four corners" (!), brings together a therapist (Tessa Peake-Jones), who is probably not enjoying her job all that much), Lily (Josefina Gabrielle - the eponymous Parc Avenue cat) as well as Philip (Gray O'Brien - aka Tony Gordon in Coronation Street) and Dorian (Daniel Weyman), Lily's lovers. In an interview on the play's dedicated website, Strausser (who was in the audience) explains that he thinks comedy comes out of a