Smoke And Mirrors (Should smoking be banned in public places?)

Member Name: I Like Blue

Product:	Should smoking be banned in public places?
Date:	02/07/07 (432 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Respecting wishes of others

Disadvantages: It might not stop here!

So, here we are, the smoking ban is now in force and we are now told by our beloved Nanny State that we are now living in a healthier England.

I am a smoker, yes, but I’ve also been a non-smoker. In principle I agree with the ban but I feel there has been way too much sensationalism, scare tactics and misinterpretation of what this latest ban actually means.

What really frustrates me firstly is how badly this ban is misinterpreted as a ban on smoking in public. This would indicate, and has been perceived by many people I’ve met and/or know who don’t smoke, that smoking is not allowed anywhere at all, especially out in public, including open spaces. The ban is quite clear in stating that it is restricted to enclosed public places including pubs, clubs and in the workplace.

As a smoker I am still allowed to smoke outside but that doesn’t mean I am going to be irresponsible about it and flaunt my now restricted choice of lifestyle. I try, and always have done, to be careful where I smoke as I’m sure many other smokers do.

The thing about this ban is that, especially for a lot of smokers if not all, this is nothing new or out of the blue. There has been a gradual ban on smoking over many years; this ban in particular is the final piece of an ongoing anti-smoking legislative procedure. For example where I worked (I am now in the process of changing careers) there has been a ban on smoking inside our building since 2000. I also like to eat out occasionally and nearly every restaurant I’ve been to have had a smoking ban for a number of years already. So you see I’m already used to a smoking ban. In fact for me personally this latest piece of legislation doesn’t really affect me as I rarely stand at bus stops, go drinking in pubs or even go clubbing. I’m sure I’m not the only smoker in England where this latest ban will have little or no difference.

Although a smoker, like I said at the beginning, in principle I agree with the ban, and it is nice to eat in a restaurant or drink in a pub/club in a smoke-free atmosphere. I also agree that the smell of cigarette smoke isn’t nice at all and if I don’t really like it being a smoker myself (and liked it even less as a non-smoker) then I’m very aware that it’s not very pleasant for other people, especially non-smokers.

However, the danger is, I feel, is that this won’t be the end of it. It’s already been seen in the USA where a smoking ban has been extended where I think the ultimate goal is to have a completely smoking free state where you won’t be allowed to smoke absolutely anywhere! Then we’ll probably see something similar here; let’s hope not as I feel the smoking ban has gone far enough. On the other side though I partly feel that such a ‘final’ ban as this wasn’t really necessary for the reasons I give above in that most places had a smoking ban already and for a number of other reasons which I’ll try to qualify for you below.

For many years now there has been more awareness about smoking and the possible increased effect on health and through this there have been many ‘educational’ campaigns and gradual bans to get/help smokers to quit or at least cut down. As a result a lot less people smoke now and there is currently about 1 in 4 people who smoke (only those people of legal smoking age are counted for official records) as opposed to about 8 in 10 who smoked in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s.
If this ‘educational’ approach had been continued then I’m sure the amount of smokers would decrease even further, but education costs and it’s far easier and cheaper to run scare tactic and misinformation campaigns (mainly through the tabloid press) followed by bans to try and get smokers to quit.

As bad as it may seem, especially to a non-smoker, I have made a conscious decision to smoke and I am fully aware that I am putting my health at an increased risk, but then there are many other people who make certain lifestyle choices who also put their health at increased risk. In the bigger picture though there are plenty of other things out there that causes an increased risk to our health that isn’t of our own choice.

Now, I’m not trying to justify smokers and smoking what I am trying to say is that one thing that really irks me is the lack of parity. Smoking is, and has been for some years now, depicted as the greatest evil ever and is, very more often than not, totally focused on as the only lifestyle evil that affects our society, atmosphere and health.

This is probably one of the main thrusts of my opinion – the lack of parity of treatment. Yes, in principle, I welcome the ban, but I feel the treatment of smokers and our chosen lifestyle has been unfairly targeted to the seemingly total exclusion of any other health threatening lifestyle, and in particular alcohol consumption.

I very rarely drink alcohol and it could be said that I am probably the anti-alcohol equivalent of an anti-smoker but I don’t create about it, I don’t look at drinkers as a sub-species, I don’t want all places that sell or provide alcohol closed down and I don’t want it completely banned. I do however wish there was the same clamp-down campaign on alcohol consumption that smoking and smokers are subjected to for parity of treatment’s sake.

I was a policeman for 22 years and in all that time I never had to deal with an incident that involved people fighting or arguing because they smoked too much, I never had to take someone to, or attend an A&E Department because they were either injured/assaulted as a result of smoking and of all the domestic dispute or domestic violence incidents I dealt with none were cigarette fuelled, most, if not nearly all of them, were alcohol fuelled. Yet alcohol advertising on TV, billboards and in magazines etc is still allowed.

The usual non-smoker argument and constant media coverage about smoking costing the NHS so much money is misinformed too in relation to alcohol. Yes, it may cost the NHS £1.5 billion per year to treat smoking related diseases but it costs the NHS at least £2.5 billion per year to treat alcohol related diseases and I’m not sure if that includes the treatment and manpower costs of all those Friday and Saturday night drunks, people involved in alcohol fuelled fighting and assault victims filling up A&E Departments. Then consider that until recently tax revenue from cigarettes/tobacco was around £12 billion whereas the same revenue from alcohol was between £10-£11 billion. Recent calculations though show that in the past couple of years tax revenue from cigarettes/tobacco has decreased to around £8-£9 billion despite the tax increases. This shows that even less people are smoking; this begs the question that if less people are smoking why do the government and anti-smoking groups believe there is an increased threat to health?

One of the ‘arguments’ that has helped support the smoking ban is the supposed ‘passive’ or ‘secondary’ smoke one which is still not properly proved either way. Government funded investigations on the back of what is effectively a ‘fashionable’ hate of a society lifestyle to help get votes and deflect the populations’ attention away from more worthy things to get worked up about have helped get such a ban in place. What isn’t advertised or publicly disclosed are all the counter investigations showing that ‘passive’ smoking isn’t the threat the government make it out to be.

The government and all kinds of media coverage would have most people believe that one whiff of cigarette smoke will give a non-smoker all kinds of deadly life threatening diseases. Yes, might be unpleasant, but deadly to your health? No.

Let’s get this into perspective. As a non-smoker you may occasionally be subjected to cigarette smoke however, of a more serious threat to your health are exhaust emissions from the many millions of vehicles that clog our roads or the pollution from industries. In fact I’ll go further and tell you that it would be quite easy to use similar ‘research’ and arguments against smoking to support a ban on almost anything else we do or use as a society.

If nearly every area of how we live our lives was portrayed as smoking is then everything would be and should be banned.

Work in an area that has air conditioning? Increased health risks to your body and immune system.

Like drinking or using water? Health risk due to toxins in the water.

Like the furniture in your house? Health risk as the chemicals used in the production of most modern furniture emits toxins that are not detectable by smell.

As the smell of cigarette smoke isn’t masked it is obviously going to be rather repulsive. Nearly everything else we do or use has its natural smell masked. Petrol for example has a percentage of chemicals and additives that masks its real smell; it doesn’t take it away, it just masks it. So not only are exhaust emissions damaging to your health but the chemicals and additives within to mask the smell are also a risk to your health. Shall we push for a ban on driving in public?

For me, probably the greatest hypocrisy, is how there is such a campaign to stamp out smoking because of the effects on health and environment yet our governments continually argue over the Kyoto Agreement to cut worldwide industrial emissions and in turn cut pollution. The targets are still not properly agreed on and in some cases some countries’ emissions have increased since the time we realised they needed to be cut to help save the environment and the planet. Yet what is the main point of focus? Little ol’ cigarette smoke!

Another argument about smoking is the effect on our kids. Hold on a minute, let’s look at this some more. It is already known there are about 3 times less smokers than there was about 30 years ago or so, that means at least 3 times less smoke. Generally people smoke less now than they did before because of the increasing price of cigarettes (about 80% of a cost of a pack of 20 cigarettes is tax revenue) and because of the health education about smoking.

When I was a growing child, and cigarettes were extremely cheap, both my mother and father smoked and probably smoked about 40 cigarettes a day, each! Even as a smoker myself as an adult I have never had any chest or breathing problems, or even any smoking related problems. However, if that was today health and government officials would be having kittens if the situation was the same and I’d probably be whisked off into care or something! I’m sure I’m not alone in that either; I’m sure there are plenty of other children from a generation of parents who were heavy smokers who are in a similar situation.

Another problem with the smoking ban is enforcement. Okay all businesses etc will be briefed on the new legislation and how to implement it but what about this –

Say a smoker is having a cigarette in an area that may be defined as an enclosed public space, who is going to enforce the new ban? Will there be popping out from nowhere a Smoke Warden? Yes, if it is inside a pub, club or workplace etc then a member of staff may eject you from the premises for such a violation but how will the implementation of the supposed on the spot £50 fine be actioned or a court appearance?

Further, there is also supposed to be an on the spot littering fine of £80 for a smoker if he/she throws their cigarette butt on the ground. Who is going to enforce that? Parity of treatment again – how many people have you seen be fined on the spot for normal littering? Or, how many dog owners have you seen be fined if their pet leaves a ‘deposit’ where they shouldn’t? That side of the ban is not practical and has not been properly explained, if at all.

Also how often have you walked through your town/city and have to dodge chewing gum, empty beer cans, puke, urine, fast food containers and half eaten kebabs, pizzas or chips?
Then of course we have the spitting generation; the groups of youths who walk round aimlessly ‘gobbing’ nothing more than saliva or spittle usually onto the pavement/walkway? I think discarded cigarette butts are a minor concern compared to that.

If the authorities were serious about this then why not position ‘smoking bins’ around town centres, or rather where smoking is allowed to stop people throwing cigarette butts on the floor? Dog owners get their own bins for those responsible owners who pick up and dispose of their pets’ ‘deposits’ properly. If you want people to stop doing something then you have to provide them with the means to help them do so!

If the government want a ban on smoking then ban the sale of tobacco products completely! How can they criminalise a lifestyle they continue to (and essentially need) receive revenue from?

As I said before the ban doesn’t really affect me too much and I can make the adjustment to my lifestyle to keep within the current law and I’m sure this is true for most smokers, as I have been adjusting my chosen lifestyle within certain bans and restrictions for a number of years now.

In summary whilst I support the ban for a supposed cleaner and better environment and respecting other people’s (non-smokers) rights to ‘clean’ air, I feel the arguments and reasons to support and enforce such a ban are completely flawed. This is what irritates me and probably many other smokers.

Summary: Agree in principle but flawed arguments to support and no parity of treatment