Selfish Smoke

So, the Health Secretary believes that smoking is the only enjoyment available to the poor, and they should be left to get on with it. Quite how this squares up with his party's support for taxing a pack of twenty beyond the daily income of these same people is unclear. But more importantly, Reid misses the point. No one is suggesting that smoking should be banned. Instead, what we want is to reclaim public spaces for the three quarters of the adult population that does not participate in this noxious habit.

The core of the problem with smoking is the same issue at the core of many, many problems in our current society. People being selfish. As it stands the minority's right to smoke where and whenever they please trumps the majority's right to enjoy a meal, drink, or whatever without their senses of smell and taste being assaulted by tobacco fumes. That's the central issue - being near a smoker is unpleasant. They smell bad, they make the air taste bad. Food near them picks up an unpleasant taste that masks the true flavour. Very few of my friends smoke, so why shouldn't I be able to enjoy a quiet drink with them without somebody I don't even know polluting the atmosphere? Especially given that there is absolutely no reason why they have to smoke right now. The vast majority of smokers are perfectly capable of going several hours without a cigarette, if they have enough reason. Say, to watch a film or concert in a no smoking venue. Why should pubs and restaurants be any different? Most smokers are quite polite enough to not want to offend those around them, and it is only the current acceptability of smoking in pubs that makes this an issue at all. Within a decade of a ban, it will be a very rare person who considers smoking in public as anything other than odd, selfish, and rude.

All without mentioning the health issue. Despite the claims, the dangers of passive smoking are not limited to the admittedly rather small chance of dying horribly of lung cancer. Anyone who has ever watched a loved one suffer an asthma attack because of nearby smokers will know that smoking has many other dangers. Never mind those who died in cigarette-started fires.

The case against smoking in public is clear. The health and comfort of the vast majority would be improved by a ban. The arguments against are many, varied, and universally pretty weak. Take Reid's pair. Smoking is apparently a pleasure. As that maybe, there are many pleasures in life. Some of them are much cheaper than smoking - even free. Some are possible alone - others require a willing partner. Some of them I enjoy myself. Doesn't mean you want me enjoying such pleasures next to you while you're eating. I don't need to draw a picture, do I? Reid's other argument is this is a class issue - a middle class imposition on the working classes. Yet many working class people will benefit from smoke free working conditions, and many middle class smokers will be restricted. The idea that working class people are all uniformly happy to spend their working lives stinking of smoke is overly simplistic. The right to be free from smoke crosses class boundaries.

Other arguments are equally facile. "I'll stop smoking if you stop driving." Because smokers all walk everywhere. "Drinking causes more damage than smoking." The majority of drinkers cause no problem to anyone. At all. The minority of problem drinkers should be tackled, and there are many suggestions as to how to do so. Enforcing the existing ban on serving drunks by fining publicans who do so would seem the obvious first step. Even if drinking is a more serious problem, since when has the existence of one problem meant that no action could be taken to solve another?

In one sense, the last argument has a point. Smoking in public and problem drinking are both symptoms of a more general problem. Consideration for others seems to be an alien concept to some people. To some extent we are all guilty of being selfish. It is easy to cast our own actions in a better light than they deserve. But from smoking in public to speeding drivers, more consideration for others would solve many of our social problems.

Graham Robinson. 9th June 2004.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.