I was surprised to see that The Economist considers that the ban on smoking in all partially enclosed public places is cruel in this climate
It is particularly cruel on the elderly – particularly women unlikely to make use of the smoking areas provided by pubs. In the weeks just after the ban was introduced, when some people believed the headline version that all smoking in public is banned, it was surprising how often people would enquire Oh – is it OK to smoke here? of anyone sitting on an open-air bench. But that is of no use if it is or just has been raining
A lot of bus stops seem to be exempt from the ban because they do not fall into the enclosed category. I do not, did not even before the ban, generally smoke in or under a shelter because I do not want to blow my smoke over any non-smoker who may be there. One day I was standing smoking to one side when an elderly lady came along. We know each other by sight as regular passengers. I do not know what age she is, certainly well into her eighties, & despite quite severe arthritis still sprightly & cheerful.
She said something I did not catch about smoking - I assumed it was derogatory. But no – she had said I am damn well going to sit down & have a cigarette
Next we are going to get dirty pictures on cigarette packets to make us see the error of our ways
The last time that the medical profession (in this country) embraced aversion therapy with such enthusiasm was for the ‘treatment’ of homosexuality. Of course most doctors have seen the error in that – there may even have been a fashionable apology.
With smoking there are even siren voices calling for doctors – for our own good you understand – to use smoking as a diagnostic criterion for sectioning under the Mental Health Act. Very Soviet
And as the Economist points out they are going after supply next
People like Amanda Sandford of ASH should really sit down & think hard about the wisdom of that, & think hard about whether people who continue to smoke are just as ignorant or deluded or held in the grip of a demon addiction as she believes
Otherwise we may find ourselves trapped even further into the McMafia world described by Misha Glenny
Human beings have always needed their drugs & there is no reason to suppose that they will not continue to do so. Society needs to work out ways to control or mitigate the harm.
Tobacco has provided a good model of how to do this. Legitimate companies provide legitimate employment of products for sale in a controlled market. The industry contributes very significantly to government revenues
Although smoking may shorten the life of the individual who smokes, the damage it may do to others has been exaggerated – compared to the damage done by alcohol.
Or driving. Quite apart from accidents, the toll of death & damage to health through exhaust emissions is thought to be one worth paying because of the benefits of individual mobility. We attempt to mitigate the ill effects by changing the composition of the fuel, using catalytic converters, or turning the exhaust pipe so that it points at the car behind rather than the baby in a buggy on the pavement
Society has sought different ways in the past to control smoking – the provision of special rooms, bans on smoking in certain places (including most workplaces up until the permissive late 1960s). And, in my youth, it would not have been possible for me & my elderly friend to smoke at the bus stop because A lady never smokes in public
If I were a conspiracy theorist I would be tempted to believe that anti-smoking campaigners & those who sue tobacco companies are all being secretly financed by international drug barons who profit handsomely from dealing in the shadowy, unregulated, violence-controlled economy
Related post: Want to see a filthy postcard?
