Holy smoke (2)

I had no idea this post whould have a prophetic side to it. Sam has been devoting not one, but two posts on the recently held debate in the UK about a total ban on smoking in pubs, clubs and restaurants. Apparently, he cares a lot about this topic. Well, Sam, so do I. I hope that 'blog buddies' (as Andrea calls them) can remain just that even when they disagree. Because  I am not with you on this one, Sam. A blog post is probably too limited a space to present all the ins and outs of this discussion. But it should suffise for me to present my point of view in as brief a way as I can as well as some links to content which holds a large number of the arguments I would only be repeating.

Yes, I smoke. No, I am not proud of that. But I am not ashamed either. I enjoy it. I am not a heavy smoker (one or maximum two packs a week, the odd small cigar not included), but I smoke. No, I would no be thrilled with joy when my kids would one day come to tell me they have picked up the habit. As a matter of fact, I think I would even try and forbid it until they reach 'the age of reason' (I admit I still have to work out when that is going to be - I guess it depends on the person in question? I can also imagine, by the way, this prohibition would not have much effect - it did not on me, anyway). But my point is that I dread the thought even more that my kids will be growing up in a world where the so-called moral majority is able to curtail their individual right of making their own choices. This moral majority, by the way, is, when checked, often not the majority of the public at all (in Britain, for example, apparently only 22% of the public felt the previous anti-smoking measures did not go far enough and needed to be toughened). But moreover: its (usually politicised) reason of existence is polarisation and stigmatisation, not the general interest. Who thinks otherwise, is either blind or misinformed.

And the latter ís very likely. When scrutinising statitics and "scientific proof" about the effects of smoking and 'second hand smoking', a lot of flaws surface. Following some of the logic often put forward as the ultimate argument, I would only have to buy twenty lottery tickets instead of one in order to stand a really good chance of becoming a millionaire. After all, my chances of winning would increase by twenty or, in other words, go up by no less than 2000%. Holy smoke: wow! Small detail most of these statistics forget to mention: 20 times almost nothing still remains an infinitesimally small number...

But let's not get into a "does not/does too" discussion. I can imagine there are a lot of pro smoking studies, not rarely financed by the tobacco lobby, that are equally biassed. Does any of this mean smoking is healthy? No. Does this mean I would encourage anybody else to start smoking? Certainly not. Does this mean cigarettes have stopped stinking? Of course not. But it illustrates the way in which the whole debate has been 'organised'.

I am prepared to take the wishes of non-smokers in my surroundings into consideration. I can imagine that their patience in the presence of those who do smoke is often pushed to the limits. I would have no problem joining them for a drink in a non-smoking pub (should the owners of pubs today voluntarily choose to ban smoking in their privately-run business). I'll gladly wait till everybody around me has finished his lunch or dinner in a restaurant before lighting a cigarette, and I'll probably even ask nicely if it bothers anybody. I am totally prepared not to smoke in public spaces (no pun intended, Sam  ;-) ). After all, here is where smokers and non-smokers are 'forced' to meet. The prohibition of smoking here is a logical measure, for obvious reasons. Moreover: the government "owns" these places, so they probably have the right to decide what is acceptable there and what is not.

The key question in my opinion, however, is whether we will allow a government, or anybody else, to organise and control our own private choices and beliefs. I hope not. Or is it something else directing society towards zero-tolerance in more than one situation? Are we, perhaps, so convinced that every aspect of life can be organised in a way that living is a risk-free activity? Let's think again, then.

Personally, I think this essay by (singer/(song)writer) Joe Jackson sums it up quite nicely. I do not agree with every letter of it, but I can see his point. And I get the impression I am probably not the only one, judging by this article in the Guardian. Let me put it this way: I am not pro smoking, but I am pro making our own choices. A total ban does not allow personal choice: not by smokers, not  by owners of pubs, not by their personnel, and funnily enough, not by non-smokers either. Unfortunately, the arguments I have used here, are also often (ab)used by the people who can be found at the right-wing spectrum of politics and society. They are not the kind of people I like to be associated with. On the other hand, political correctness has brought those of us on the other side of the political spectrum not very far either...

Bottom line: work it out for yourself, but stay critical ànd tolerant. Read this as well as that. So yes, you will have to think for yourself. And please do not agree with me if you don't feel like it. And talking about thinking, perhaps a question to finish: can anybody tell me the reasons why Great Britain is becoming a 'mini me' of the United States in more and more ways? I know: that's a really simplified picture of reality. But then again: no smoke without fire... ;-D

Comments

[Sam Smith]

Nothing like a bit of 'healthy' debate in the blogosphere eh Serge? Of course that's all it is and it would take a bit more than a disagreement with one of my opinions to stop me thinking of you as a 'blog buddy' :)

However, this is a biggy for me. I have no problem with smokers exercising their right to choose to smoke. It's their informed decision and the freedom to choose our actions must be observed in any civilised society. But, and there's always a but (no pun intended), where those choices adversely affect others, that choice takes on a different hue.

I understand that it's a person's right to smoke but when their smoke affects the health of the person next to them or the person serving them and that person can't do anything about it, that's unfair. What about that person's right to choose not to subject themselves to the harmful effects of smoke?

Always a tricky subject when it comes to freedom of choice. You'll never solve it unless someone takes the initiative and compromises. But where a choice has such negative effects on the health of others, I think the compromise should come from the smokers.

I wonder if I'd think the same if they banned beer?

[Sam Smith]

BTW - there are still a few of us who are all for leaving the Americanisms to the Americans. Up the Albion!

[Kami Huyse]

Let me start by saying that I have athsma. Most of my friends that smoke (which aren't many anymore being this is America) know this and are very kind to me by not lightling up.

However, not everyone is my friend and not eveyone is as thoughtful as Serge is to those around him. I have had to ask to be moved when people started smoking near me (even if I was in the "non-smoking" section and it was drifting).

Is this fair? Is this what we mean by "personal" freedom? That said, I am much more likely to frequent a non-smoking establishment than a smoking one. So, should smokers have a place to hang out where I couldn't enter due to my health concerns? Maybe so.

[Andrea Weckerle]

Serge,

We'll continue this discussion in person when I travel across the Atlantic. We'll make it a Blogging Buddies debate, over a fine Belgian beer or two.

[Sam Smith]

Andrea - when are you planning on making the trip to 'yurp'? Let me know and if I can make the hop over the channel, I'll buy you both an Oerbier or 2

[Sidney]

There is no freedom of choice anymore... Freedom of choice is a myth. Look at all those rules and laws!
The ban on smoking in public spaces/pubs/restaurants is just another rule on top of countless others.

By the way, I repeat it, if you don't agree with me, I behead you !

[Andrea Weckerle]

Sam, my goal is to visit sometime between Summer and the end of the year, but more than that I don't know yet. It all depnds on the "home logistics." We'll all definitely get together when that happens.

[Serge Cornelus]

@Sam: ban beer? Then I predict a riot! Where the compromise is concerned: smokers have already compromised a lot. And so they should - after all, they are the ones producing the smoke. The question is, however, how far you can take this? Also: is the smoke that harmful as now is often hysterically claimed? Comparisons with exhaust fumes are ludicrous but because of that people are now thinking they are going to die instantly whenever someone smokes anywhere near them. But yes: you have the right not to expose yourself to cigarette smoke. But I will no longer have the right to do it the other way around. And the publican does not have the choice of making his pub smoke-free or not. He simply has to. That is not a choice. Smoke-free areas, smoke-free pubs,... no problem. But not by an imposed and general ban. The latter is of course the easiest solution; but simple solutions are not necessarily the best. Zero-tolerance does not bring people closer to each other, and does not create a situation in which they try and co-exist.
@Kami: sorry to hear about your asthma. I understand completely that smokers must be a nuisance to you. I feel sorry that smokers do not always take non-smokers' wishes into consideration. Isn't that always the problem: some spoil it for everybody else? And I guess restaurants should try harder to separate smoking from non-smoking sections. I prefer to eat at the non-smoking section myself. I'd settle for a small smoking corner somewhere anytime.
@Andrea: Just say when. But careful with Belgian Beer. Especially if you decide to go for Sam's offer of an Oerbier or two, you might end up in a state of uhm inebriety. And that's not allowed in public spaces, not even here (unless, of course, it is not too obvious :-) ).
@Sidney: so that's why you moved to Manila? ;-)

[Le rasoir chantant]

Serge, I concur. I do not wish to enter into a political debate because it surmounts my intellectual capacities by far, but why does the UK have to follow suit with the US? Yet the European and transatlantic political spectrums are full of contradictions. The UK has a so-called labour government yet implements right-of-center policies. Britain has become such a paranoid society obsessed with gun crime although civilians are no longer allowed to own guns, obsessed with binge drinking although drinking was restricted, and I could go on and on...

Mind you, I'm not saying that Europe is a better place because we have seen many silly laws introduced since the EU shifted into higher gear. I am glad however that Belgium is not following this pseudo-fascist (a burdened word, I know, but you'll all catch my drift) route.

On smoking: I was in Italy over the weekend where smoking has been banned in public places since 1 january. You might think otherwise about a country like Italy, but people were very disciplined. I heard no one complaining, not even smokers. A person wanting to smoke a fag simply goes outside for five minutes. Fantastic, everbody happy.

[Serge]

I know what you mean: at home I have to go outside if I want to smoke too. And I don't mind. And yes, everybody happy here too. If I were to live in Italy I would probably not mind stepping out either, but I am a big NIMBY ;-). No, seriously: in summertime - no sweat. But when it's pouring, freezing, ... like it often does around here: just a small smoker's corner isn't too much too ask for, no? Besides: outside there are too many exhaust fumes from cars passing by. And now THAT is something which is really harmful stuff!