Smoking is an emotive subject. It tends to raise strong emotions in nearly everybody and can provoke near-hysterical argument in otherwise rational people. As with everything that has confirmed and irrefutable health consequences, people seem to think that they have a right to lecture others. The moral high ground has been seized and is being ferociously defended.
Smoking in the workplace and in enclosed public spaces has been banned in Britain for the last five or so years. Despite the fact that I am not a smoker, I am dead against this ban. My opposition is not so much defending the rite to smoke as defending the right to make one's own choices. I really, REALLY do not like being dictated to by some condescending busybodies who think it their god-given right to interfere in the lives of others. It is now established fact that smoking leads to all manner of unpleasant health issues however if people want to smoke (and make no mistake, this ban was enacted to try and deter people from smoking) then bloody well let them. I have a great deal of admiration for the late Sir John Mortimer for many reasons but one I particularly like was his decision to take up smoking at the time of the ban as a protest.
The most obvious counter-argument to this is the health consequences. Smoking causes disease, disease gets treated by the NHS therefore smoking costs the NHS money. Perhaps. But here's an uncomfortable truth. We are all going to get ill and die at some point. These days, the illness is likely to be eked out by modern medicine. This will happen regardless of an individual's past smoking (or other health) behaviours. So let's not pretend that by not smoking we will all happily live illness-free forever.
What irks me most is the totality of the ban and it's not just conceptually that I have a problem with it. It has been widely reported in the press that the rate of pub closure has increased since the smoking ban too. Now again, you could argue this is a good thing since pub-based activities are rarely healthy. However they are fun, sociable and generally agreeable. The pub also provides a social hub for communities and it would be a shame if these were lost.
The gold standard would be a selective ban. A vehicle by which enclosed public spaces and workplaces have the legal right to ban smoking without the legal duty to do so. Therefore one pub could decide to be smoker-friendly while the one down the road decides that it's no-smoking. Hey presto; two businesses supported for the price of one. Private member's clubs could re-instate their smoking rooms (and give staff the option of whether to serve in them or not) and workplaces could be free to make their own decisions based on common sense.
There is more to this than the choice to smoke. It's an absolute pain battling through the almost inevitable scrum of smokers round the pub door and being kippered in the process only to find ones self in a pub that smells of stale human; arguably more unpleasant. The feeling of having one's every behaviour legislated is also claustrophobic and oppressive.
I do have one argument against smoking in the workplace and, on the face of it, it may seem quite petty but hear me out. Smokers get an easier ride in the workplace. To go for a cigarette in my office takes the guts of 10 minutes (by the time you get to the designated smoking area, smoke your cigarette, get back to your desk, log back in and finally start concentrating again). Assuming someone smokes three cigarettes over the course of a working day (a figure picked out of mid-air but hopefully a fair representation); that's half an hour a day or two and a half hours a week. Now imagine if a non-smoker decided to down tools for short periods outside of agreed breaks. I think the management would have something to say. Yet smokers essentially get 10 hours a month free because of a habit. That doesn't sit easily with me. As an additional extra kick, there is also the unintentional networking. Smokers form a cosy fraternity. I have seen this in many workplaces; bosses are particularly close to employees they have a fag break with and the associated (totally informal) chat. Obviously I'm emphasising this point for effect. I'm not that paranoid but it is still something to consider.
Despite the last paragraph, my conclusion is still that the ban should be reverse. Let individuals and institutions make their own choices based on their own values. Stop treating an entire population like slightly dim children.
JR
Smoking in the workplace and in enclosed public spaces has been banned in Britain for the last five or so years. Despite the fact that I am not a smoker, I am dead against this ban. My opposition is not so much defending the rite to smoke as defending the right to make one's own choices. I really, REALLY do not like being dictated to by some condescending busybodies who think it their god-given right to interfere in the lives of others. It is now established fact that smoking leads to all manner of unpleasant health issues however if people want to smoke (and make no mistake, this ban was enacted to try and deter people from smoking) then bloody well let them. I have a great deal of admiration for the late Sir John Mortimer for many reasons but one I particularly like was his decision to take up smoking at the time of the ban as a protest.
The most obvious counter-argument to this is the health consequences. Smoking causes disease, disease gets treated by the NHS therefore smoking costs the NHS money. Perhaps. But here's an uncomfortable truth. We are all going to get ill and die at some point. These days, the illness is likely to be eked out by modern medicine. This will happen regardless of an individual's past smoking (or other health) behaviours. So let's not pretend that by not smoking we will all happily live illness-free forever.
What irks me most is the totality of the ban and it's not just conceptually that I have a problem with it. It has been widely reported in the press that the rate of pub closure has increased since the smoking ban too. Now again, you could argue this is a good thing since pub-based activities are rarely healthy. However they are fun, sociable and generally agreeable. The pub also provides a social hub for communities and it would be a shame if these were lost.
The gold standard would be a selective ban. A vehicle by which enclosed public spaces and workplaces have the legal right to ban smoking without the legal duty to do so. Therefore one pub could decide to be smoker-friendly while the one down the road decides that it's no-smoking. Hey presto; two businesses supported for the price of one. Private member's clubs could re-instate their smoking rooms (and give staff the option of whether to serve in them or not) and workplaces could be free to make their own decisions based on common sense.
There is more to this than the choice to smoke. It's an absolute pain battling through the almost inevitable scrum of smokers round the pub door and being kippered in the process only to find ones self in a pub that smells of stale human; arguably more unpleasant. The feeling of having one's every behaviour legislated is also claustrophobic and oppressive.
I do have one argument against smoking in the workplace and, on the face of it, it may seem quite petty but hear me out. Smokers get an easier ride in the workplace. To go for a cigarette in my office takes the guts of 10 minutes (by the time you get to the designated smoking area, smoke your cigarette, get back to your desk, log back in and finally start concentrating again). Assuming someone smokes three cigarettes over the course of a working day (a figure picked out of mid-air but hopefully a fair representation); that's half an hour a day or two and a half hours a week. Now imagine if a non-smoker decided to down tools for short periods outside of agreed breaks. I think the management would have something to say. Yet smokers essentially get 10 hours a month free because of a habit. That doesn't sit easily with me. As an additional extra kick, there is also the unintentional networking. Smokers form a cosy fraternity. I have seen this in many workplaces; bosses are particularly close to employees they have a fag break with and the associated (totally informal) chat. Obviously I'm emphasising this point for effect. I'm not that paranoid but it is still something to consider.
Despite the last paragraph, my conclusion is still that the ban should be reverse. Let individuals and institutions make their own choices based on their own values. Stop treating an entire population like slightly dim children.
JR
