Hurray for the smoking ban!
Westminster has finally got around to catching up with Ireland, Scotland, Wales, some U.S. states and a good portion of Europe, and agreed to ban smoking in almost all public places by the summer of 2007.
I'm a liberal. How can I possibly support such an apparently indefensible encroachment on our civil liberties? Simple. Because the freedom to smoke in a public space encroaches on the liberties of others, namely the right to be free from assault. Where your personal freedoms clash with mine, there must be a debate about who wins. I think the compromise solution is perfectly obvious in these circumstances: take your pollution somewhere where only you have to endure it.
The social smoker says "Fine, ok, so I won't smoke in a shop, or in the bank, or at a concert. But everyone knows the pub is a place where people smoke. When I go to the pub, I am taking my pollution where only me, and other people who have agreed to endure it, must do so." A fair point, and this is where the debate lies. Do smokers have a right make pubs, clubs and bars theirs? Or, more to the point, why don't the non-smokers go to their own pubs, clubs and bars? The answer lies in an analysis of the particular circumstances: there is no simple universal truth to apply here.
First and foremost, cigarette smoke is very pervasive. In Oxford the number of smokers is extremely low. Yet in a smallish pub just one or two smokers can make the atmosphere unpleasant for everyone; it can leave a smell in everyone's hair and everyone's clothes (and everyone's lungs). There is an argument that adequate ventilation is the key, but I haven't seen this happen, or work. Neither have I seen a successful smoking/no-smoking area, which I will discuss later. Effectively, in Oxford at least, a minority of people can bully the majority out of the pub. Inevitably, then, you will have pubs filled with smokers and you can claim that they are the majority. But are they really the majority of people that would use the pub?
So if there are so many potential punters for a no-smoking pub, why aren't there any (or many) no-smoking pubs? I think it's because of the strength of the idea that smoking and drinking go together, and because there are smokers throughout society, not just in particular areas or groups. So, firstly, non-smokers expect to get smoky in a pub, and so put up with it. Which means that landlords don't really notice the business they are losing by allowing smoking (because the people who really can't stand smoke would never go to the pub in the first place). Since no landlord wants to lose any business, they don't see why they should push away their few smokers if nobody is going to be too bothered.
The spread of smokers means that in any group of people going out to a pub, club or bar, there's a good chance there'll be a smoker. The choice about where to go, in an imaginary environment where there are plenty of both smoking and non-smoking places, is defined by the smoker, not by the non-smokers. Why? Because we're lame-arses, and the smokers are often blind to the effect they have, to the extent that some believe that simply making sure they exhale upwards or away from you is sufficient to avoid getting anything on you.
In effect, the smoker in a group is saying: "We can't go to that pub because I can't smoke. I have to smoke, but you don't have to be free from smoke." Since we're lame-arses and we're prepared to put up with it if we must for the sake of cameraderie, the choice is the smoking pub. We've lamely agreed that the smoker's addiction is more important than our own health and enjoyment. Not only is it obvious that this attitude was not going to change, but the health evidence for passive smoking is not yet strong enough. I imagine if we were really certain that our risk of death was high from passive smoking, we would be more assertive. But really it's about putting up with the stink. And we defer to the smoker's condition, not blinking an eyelid at the fact that all the smoker needs to do is go without a cigarette for a few hours, not give up entirely!
If you had any doubts that smokers have this sort of attitude, try testing it: go to a pub with some smokers and some non-smokers (more than one), and attempt to sit in the non-smoking section. You will find first that the smokers try to make you sit in the smoking section, but if you refuse, they will quickly form a group of their own in the smoking section, starting with "I'm just popping into the other room for a fag." The smokers don't see this as selfish. To them it was a perfectly natural evolution of events, not a deliberate decision to be antisocial. But let us not shirk away from what this means: your company is not as important to them as their addiction. Tough, but true.
Smoking and non-smoking areas are not ineffective only for this reason. They are ineffective because they are impractical as well. I personally have seen several attempts to separate the smokers and the non-smokers, and they all fail miserably. And not just because, for some reason, it is the non-smokers who must be removed to a separate area rather than the smokers.
I still don't think I've adequately explained why we can't have smoking and non-smoking pubs, clubs, and bars. Sure, so the non-smokers are not being assertive enough to push for their own places, but that's their fault, isn't it? In the past I might have agreed. I think more assertive non-smokers forcing their smoking friends to join them in non-smoking places might be a better solution for preserving civil liberties. But in policy and public health we must deal with the reality of the human condition. The fact is, only a quarter of the people in Britain smoke at all, yet there are a negligible number of smoke-free pubs, clubs, and bars. Pressure and opinion simply wasn't working. Smokers had the upper hand, forcing people who like to drink (which is an entirely personal pollution) to smoke as well. This balance had to be redressed.
Smoking is not being banned. What is being taken away is a smoker's right to impose a physical assault on other people through carcinogenic and corrosive pollution. And that should never have been a right.
I'm a liberal. How can I possibly support such an apparently indefensible encroachment on our civil liberties? Simple. Because the freedom to smoke in a public space encroaches on the liberties of others, namely the right to be free from assault. Where your personal freedoms clash with mine, there must be a debate about who wins. I think the compromise solution is perfectly obvious in these circumstances: take your pollution somewhere where only you have to endure it.
The social smoker says "Fine, ok, so I won't smoke in a shop, or in the bank, or at a concert. But everyone knows the pub is a place where people smoke. When I go to the pub, I am taking my pollution where only me, and other people who have agreed to endure it, must do so." A fair point, and this is where the debate lies. Do smokers have a right make pubs, clubs and bars theirs? Or, more to the point, why don't the non-smokers go to their own pubs, clubs and bars? The answer lies in an analysis of the particular circumstances: there is no simple universal truth to apply here.
First and foremost, cigarette smoke is very pervasive. In Oxford the number of smokers is extremely low. Yet in a smallish pub just one or two smokers can make the atmosphere unpleasant for everyone; it can leave a smell in everyone's hair and everyone's clothes (and everyone's lungs). There is an argument that adequate ventilation is the key, but I haven't seen this happen, or work. Neither have I seen a successful smoking/no-smoking area, which I will discuss later. Effectively, in Oxford at least, a minority of people can bully the majority out of the pub. Inevitably, then, you will have pubs filled with smokers and you can claim that they are the majority. But are they really the majority of people that would use the pub?
So if there are so many potential punters for a no-smoking pub, why aren't there any (or many) no-smoking pubs? I think it's because of the strength of the idea that smoking and drinking go together, and because there are smokers throughout society, not just in particular areas or groups. So, firstly, non-smokers expect to get smoky in a pub, and so put up with it. Which means that landlords don't really notice the business they are losing by allowing smoking (because the people who really can't stand smoke would never go to the pub in the first place). Since no landlord wants to lose any business, they don't see why they should push away their few smokers if nobody is going to be too bothered.
The spread of smokers means that in any group of people going out to a pub, club or bar, there's a good chance there'll be a smoker. The choice about where to go, in an imaginary environment where there are plenty of both smoking and non-smoking places, is defined by the smoker, not by the non-smokers. Why? Because we're lame-arses, and the smokers are often blind to the effect they have, to the extent that some believe that simply making sure they exhale upwards or away from you is sufficient to avoid getting anything on you.
In effect, the smoker in a group is saying: "We can't go to that pub because I can't smoke. I have to smoke, but you don't have to be free from smoke." Since we're lame-arses and we're prepared to put up with it if we must for the sake of cameraderie, the choice is the smoking pub. We've lamely agreed that the smoker's addiction is more important than our own health and enjoyment. Not only is it obvious that this attitude was not going to change, but the health evidence for passive smoking is not yet strong enough. I imagine if we were really certain that our risk of death was high from passive smoking, we would be more assertive. But really it's about putting up with the stink. And we defer to the smoker's condition, not blinking an eyelid at the fact that all the smoker needs to do is go without a cigarette for a few hours, not give up entirely!
If you had any doubts that smokers have this sort of attitude, try testing it: go to a pub with some smokers and some non-smokers (more than one), and attempt to sit in the non-smoking section. You will find first that the smokers try to make you sit in the smoking section, but if you refuse, they will quickly form a group of their own in the smoking section, starting with "I'm just popping into the other room for a fag." The smokers don't see this as selfish. To them it was a perfectly natural evolution of events, not a deliberate decision to be antisocial. But let us not shirk away from what this means: your company is not as important to them as their addiction. Tough, but true.
Smoking and non-smoking areas are not ineffective only for this reason. They are ineffective because they are impractical as well. I personally have seen several attempts to separate the smokers and the non-smokers, and they all fail miserably. And not just because, for some reason, it is the non-smokers who must be removed to a separate area rather than the smokers.
I still don't think I've adequately explained why we can't have smoking and non-smoking pubs, clubs, and bars. Sure, so the non-smokers are not being assertive enough to push for their own places, but that's their fault, isn't it? In the past I might have agreed. I think more assertive non-smokers forcing their smoking friends to join them in non-smoking places might be a better solution for preserving civil liberties. But in policy and public health we must deal with the reality of the human condition. The fact is, only a quarter of the people in Britain smoke at all, yet there are a negligible number of smoke-free pubs, clubs, and bars. Pressure and opinion simply wasn't working. Smokers had the upper hand, forcing people who like to drink (which is an entirely personal pollution) to smoke as well. This balance had to be redressed.
Smoking is not being banned. What is being taken away is a smoker's right to impose a physical assault on other people through carcinogenic and corrosive pollution. And that should never have been a right.
posted by extabgrad at 12:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home