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
