England's Anti-Smoking Legislation
Fair or Foul?
|
"Yet, Freedom, yet thy banner torn but flying,
|
|---|
|
The Campaign to Amend England's Smoking Ban | |
|---|---|---|
|
Topics covered in this page are listed below and subject to ongoing development: -----1. What will become of us? -----2. The passive smoking debate -----3. The travesty of reasoning and debate behind the legislation -----4. The solution -----5. The need to fight for freedom of choice -----6. What can we do to change things? - the Campaign -----6. Summary argument of the Campaign 1. What will become of us? So here we are, the beleaguered and despised remnants of a whole class of people who once smoked freely and with a clear conscience! What has happened to make normal non-smoking members of society rise up in this way and adopt a truly bigoted approach to all forms of smoking. That it is bigoted and the health effects, particularly of passive smoking (or Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) as it tends to be known), are based on evidence exaggerated to the point of falsification can be clearly seen if you browse these pages, their links to other sites, and commit to investigate the real facts for yourself. It is clear to me, and almost all other smokers I have met, that those who don't like secondhand smoke should not have to suffer it - whether it causes them harm or not. Neither should workers be forced to accept it. However, if there are ways of achieving this without banning smoking across every enclosed public space then what fair-minded person would object? What person with even a minimal amount of commitment to civil liberties could argue otherwise, unless they let their personal prejudice overcome their reasoning? It is no doubt beneficial that smokers are now more aware of the harm they may do themselves, the often unpleasant environment they create, and the potential harm continuous exposure to a heavily smoke laden atmosphere may cause others in the long term. But, there must be more even-handed ways of dealing with the difficulties created by smoking, while retaining personal freedoms which are so important to us all? Most people would agree that smoking moderate to large numbers of cigarettes per day is not particularly good for a person's health - but then, how many other activities fall into this category? Eating? drinking?, motorcycling?, bicycling, playing computer games, watching television? - to say nothing of exposure to industrial processes/pollutants upon which the wealth of the world relies? But surely smokers do not have to be treated as outcasts of society in the way that they are? Could one argue that 'Drinking' to excess causes as much, if not more, overall disease and direct family distress than smoking? What about over-eating and lack of exercise? It seems evident that being substantially overweight and taking little if any exercise will kill me early and I might pass on my over-eating and dilatory exercise habits to my children. So, I harm myself and could harm others. Legislation in this area doesn't seem to be particularly imminent, but just wait..... it will be coming your way to change your way of life in due course - unless a stand is made now. All thinking people should reject the travesty of reasoning which forced this legislation through Government. If this precedent is allowed to stand, then the way will be open for any well organised pressure group to manipulate the passing of legislation which will ensure that your way of life complies with their own personal viewpoint. back to topics list 2. The passive smoking debate Legislation against smoking can only be legitimately justified on the basis of any harmful effect the activity has on others, primarily those exposed to heavily smoke-laden atmospheres for extended periods of time. Accepting the premise that continued exposure to a heavily smoke-laden atmosphere can cause harm (a reasonable premise when "continued" and "heavily smoke-laden" are properly quantified), there must be a point at which lowering the frequency of exposure to, and/or the concentration of smoke in the atmosphere, reduces the risk of harm to insignificant levels. It is nonsense for the anti-smoking lobby to claim otherwise, and their stance demonstrates that their campaign is as much about ideology as it is about health. 
Here the anti-smoking lobby reveals its true colours and tends to put forward arguments in pure black and white. The information is also often distorted to the point of falsification and becomes mere propaganda, see for example comments on
" Better Off Dead: Lies, damned lies and statistics only serve to cloud the whole debate about smoking " in the British press by George Szamuely back in Jan'01. The picture alongside accompanied the original article with the title " Hollywood star Marlene Dietrich is one of those perceived to have boosted the glamour of smoking. Health Authorities now worry smoking scenes are on the rise again in box-office hits, but should society be concerned that cigarettes are sexy once more? " The article (Nov 2004) by Tim Luckhurst in another British newspaper highlights similar concerns about the misleading use of smoking statistics. He says "The anti-tobacco lobby exaggerates how dangerous cigarettes really are.. " See also, Sue Jeffers, with criticism of the American Lung Association's approach to interpretation of passive smoking statistics - She says - " (The supposed high toxicity of) Secondhand smoke will someday become known as the biggest fraud to ever be forced on the American public." And on the same theme, see this damning appraisal of the science behind the health impact of secondhand smoke, published in Spring 2007 from a former Deputy Director of the Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention at the National Cancer Institute USA, on why the perceived hazards of secondhand smoke have little foundation at all. There are countless articles in the media criticising the way the health issues associated with smoking and passive smoke are misrepresented by the anti-smoking lobby, but they just ignore or shout down the criticisms and refuse to enter into (and actively try to prevent) any balanced public discussion. They cannot be allowed to get away with this attitude any longer. Some of the more extreme anti-smoking campaigners, seeing passive smoking as an area where most fog can be produced and where they can muster support from impressionable and often well-meaning individuals, have gone so far as to suggest that there is no safe limit for passive smoking. They promote the view that secondhand smoke is harmful in practise to everyone at vanishingly low levels of concentration. Common sense implies this is untrue. Also, I believe that in toxicity testing research there appears to be a "J" shaped response curve (see: Deadly Poisons Reveal their Friendly Side), where below a certain concentration the contaminant appears to have a positive and beneficial effect (an effect known as hormesis). The reason for this is unclear, but one hypothesis put forward suggests that at low concentrations the body's repair mechanisms are stimulated to repair the damage, and once having been stimulated may mop up other damage in the process. As ever, there are differing scientific views with the "establishment" generally disputing its validity and usefulness, but others, for example, arguing that ignoring the issue may be missing opportunities to improve our understanding of how toxins at low levels affect health and how best to advise on avoidance and treatment. Could this be the reason behind those epidemiology results which show that passive smoking actually reduces the chance of getting cancer? However, even if second-hand smoke were to be as toxic (which it isn't), the same logic would then have to apply to other contaminants such as car exhaust particulates, industrial smokestacks, pesticide residues, radioactivity, etc., etc. All processes on which our society depends would then come under renewed scrutiny for the harm they cause at even vanishingly low levels. This is not the approach adopted by government for these other pollutants, so why is environmental tobacco smoke treated differently? The answer lies in the ideology and fanaticism of the anti-smoking lobby and the way they have manipulated political and public opinion. The whole issue to me comes down to a matter of degree, and should be dealt with in exactly the same way as we deal with other polluting activities:- "Society controls polluting emissions by ensuring that the residual environmental concentration of any contaminant emitted is kept below a level that is considered harmful to man and/or the environment." back to topics list 3. The travesty of reasoning and debate behind the enactment of the current anti-smoking legislation The argument which carried the recent Irish, Scottish and English bans on smoking in all public buildings was ostensibly based on the health and safety aspect of employees within the working environment. However, if you listened to the embarrassingly naive and bigoted debate in the various Parliaments, the logic applied was clearly corrupted by the thinly veiled overriding agenda to ban smoking in public places regardless of the facts or the issues. (Scottish debate was so uncompromisingly antagonistic it has earned them the title of the "Tartan Taliban") And, with notable exceptions, most of those who surely must have known better failed to raise their heads above the parapet...... If there is any health justification for minimising passive smoking, then a regulated environment is the best way forward. Here we must now give three cheers (perhaps a little muted!) for the former British Health Secretary John Reid for at least trying to apply some common sense to the issues and not buckling completely under sustained pressure from the anti-smoking lobby to follow the Ireland and Scotland approach. The White Paper on Public Health planned to make most enclosed public areas, including offices and factories, smoke-free. Only private clubs, where members voted to allow smoking, and pubs which do not serve prepared food would be exempt. This was after all vaguely in line with the approach agreed in Labour's election manifesto. Even this cobbled together and inadequate solution was in the end thrown out. It was sad to see how the argument went, and even those who wanted to uphold some individual freedoms gradually succumbed to the pressure. The whole debate was a shameful political spectacle - having little basis in logic and mostly driven by mis-guided emotion, the ideology of the anti-smoking lobby and headline-grabbing misrepresentations of the statistics. The Governments involved should be heartily ashamed of themselves. To redress the situation, the Government should commit to new legislation for buildings open to the public which allows for the installation of appropriate air extraction facilities to keep the residual level of ETS below that which would harm workers employed there. Smokers will have to see how businesses respond to the current legislation and positively boycott those not supporting smokers by providing comfortable, heated and partially enclosed outside areas. back to topics list 4. The Solution The logical approach would be to ensure that smoking is only allowed in buildings/rooms open to the public where effective air extraction facilities are in place, with residual levels of ETS kept below a level considered to be harmful to workers employed there. With this approach everyone should be satisfied - public demand would also ensure the continuation of completely smoke-free rooms in public buildings for those not wishing to encounter secondhand smoke. People have a right, however stupid or unsavoury others may think it is, to smoke if they so desire. By all means educate people to the risks, BUT those who oppose smoking should not go so far as to say it should be banned for the good of the people involved. Going down this road is but a short track to authoritarian government. Smokers could, and probably would, be made to pay for additional costs of effective ventilation and segregation. However, it should be remembered, and with some irony, that society (and that includes those who despise smokers) receives substantial support ( ~ £7 - £8 billion) from the tax revenues raised by smokers, which more than covers even the reputed (exaggerated) costs of their extra health care. Smokers must fight to retain the so-called freedom of choice that we all like to think we have in our western society. BUT, it is accepted that they do not have a right to harm others significantly in pursuit of their pleasure. I use the word "significantly" since it is impossible, living in the close and integrated society that we do, to avoid all impact on others by our separate activities. Smokers should attempt to minimise any hazard and inconvenience. This is consistent with the way we treat (or should treat) all other activities enjoyed by different minority groups across our society. back to topics list 5. The need to fight for freedom of choice Let's be clear, this campaign is not about bringing back smoky cafés, bars and restaurants that everyone would have to suffer - this is about providing separate rooms, properly ventilated, where smokers could enjoy their drink or meal, conversation, relaxation and cigarette/cigar away from the non-smoking public. If we follow the logic of the anti-smoking lobby, then there are virtually no activities we undertake which fall outside the jurisdiction of their authoritarian approach - and one senses, behind their crusading arguments and patronising and often misplaced logic, that their whiff of success against smokers sets their tongues lolling, and eyes rolling, in anticipation of further success in stamping their personal views on all society through compulsory legal constraint. Living in such a crowded and interdependent society, there are countless activities that aggravate, annoy, distress and affect the harmony, well-being and health of others, but the trick we have evolved to enable us to live together is to keep the harm/annoyance below a critical threshold. This works much of the time, although there is no sharp dividing line between the acceptable and unacceptable. Most of us (perhaps all of us) do not live on the clear black or white side of this dividing line, we pursue our lives in the wide expanse of murky grey between. It is here that we must be careful how we define in an holistic sense what is "not so good" and "not so bad". It is also here that emotive, poorly thought through and often specious arguments can be used with advantage, particularly on the unsuspecting public, to try and persuade people to adopt a particular view and impose it across the whole society. There are vast numbers of pressure groups that would like to control what we all can and can't do. I remember a suggestion some time ago, put forward by some misguided individual/politician on the radio, that riding bicycles (push bikes) was dangerous for both riders and pedestrians. Riders should be licensed and wear a fluorescent over-jacket with the licence number clearly printed on the back. Helmets would be compulsory. It would be illegal for children under 5 (if I remember correctly) to ride a bike since they could injure themselves when they fall off. I spent the next few hours transfixed in open-mouthed astonishment. You had better believe it, there are many out there who, given half a chance, would remove our freedom of choice to do anything for which they had a personal dislike. There is no room for complacency. The smoking opposition is as determined as it is fanatical and if you still need to be convinced look at the Tobacco Control Legal Consortium (TCLC) website and a key publication to see how well organised the anti-smoking lobby is - it provides advice on how to ensure you can successfully obtain legal bans on smoking and describes how to manipulate government and the public to avoid the common pitfalls, threats and challenges. This is where we should be particularly vigilant in fighting to retain our rights to as much personal freedom as is possible within our democratic society. back to topics list 6. What can we do to change things? - the Campaign For those of you who have scanned the web for news about the smoking ban, and how smokers and businesses are coping, you will have observed the intense frustration of most smokers (and supportive non-smokers) in having to suffer the injustice unfairly heaped on them - and the frustration isn't helped by the sneering messages from the more spiteful of the anti-smoking lobby, most of whom are having a field day rubbing our noses in it. It hurts. It hurts a lot. And for some publicans who have stood up to the ban, it is more than hurting, it is destroying them, their health and their families. You can read their stories on the web and, if you can afford to help them, then make a donation to them through "Forest" or "Freedom2Choose" (see below) to at least try and help defray their enormous costs to date. To my mind, the key players on the smokers-rights side should be telling them to "keep their powder dry", they can't stride into battle alone, they will just get taken apart and dismembered by the authorities. Smokers will need their commitment and steadfastness when the time comes for concerted action - and come it will sooner or later........ But where can we see the big assault, the big movement coming from? There is plenty of individual activity out there, and some individuals/groups are putting enormous effort into trying to move their schemes forwards, but at the moment they are unfortunately having little overall impact on public opinion, while day after day the anti-smoking propaganda becomes more consolidated in the public's perception. And even worse, not satisfied with one injustice, the more fanatical of the anti-smoking lobby, flushed with the success of their recent tactics now intend to really go in for the kill - and ban smoking in the house, in your car, and on the street. They must be stopped - and they will be stopped - we just need the right approach...... .....rational, truthful, quiet, calm and convincing...... One Small Step for You One small thing you can do as an individual is to keep trying to raise the profile of the issues involved. Try (in a truthful and thoughtful way) to counter the anti-smoking propaganda that "the smoking ban is fine, everyone is accepting it, liking it, and it's the best thing to have happened to society in recent years". To help with this the link below goes to a "Summary Argument for Amending the Legislation in England" which describes the failure of the current legislation to protect civil liberties and to use the normal pollution control principles for managing ETS, hence :-
And make it clear that those politicians who are not prepared to defend the civil liberties of smokers will in due course feel the wrath of a good proportion of the ~10 million smokers at the ballot box. NO SMOKE - NO VOTE The Next Steps Having spent yet another pretty miserable winter huddled in doorways, wrapped up in arctic gear, getting cold and wet, it has seemed to me that we are a big enough pressure group to get things changed if only we become organised, and have a clear strategy, with plans we can understand and are prepared to sign up to. Look at what the anti-smoking lobby has achieved on the back of half truths, deceit, lies and suspect statistics - how have they achieved this? - through superb organisation and control. They have all united, and using force of numbers and positions of authority have convinced the generally ambivalent public that smokers are killing them and should be put out of business. They have played the media brilliantly and controlled academic establishments and individuals with dubious financial and peer-pressure leverage (I avoid using the word blackmail). What could the smokers-rights lobby achieve if fully united - and with substantially more truth and reason on their side? But therein lies the problem - at the moment they are, broadly speaking, a disparate group of organisations, businesses and individuals subjugated by the unjust legislation and generally working their own themes. So how do we get everyone together, the libertarian groups, pubs, hotels, restaurants, private clubs, tobacconists, bingo halls, etc, and, of course, the individuals who like smoking and want to continue? We need a clear and sensible strategy for achieving the amendment of the unjust legislation. All need to unite under the one common movement and commit support to a well thought through set of actions which will put the truth of the situation to the country. And put it with dignity - in a rational, truthful, quiet, calm and convincing way. Smokers-Rights Sites to Visit The sites listed below are the main smokers-rights sites in England. Visit these sites and read what they have to say. Tell them that they need to unite and move forward under one agreed strategy, incorporating a timetabled plan of actions which will lead to an amendment being tabled in Parliament. • Forest (www.forestonline.org) Forest is the largest and most longstanding player in England supporting smokers rights. It has recently been updating its website so it can more effectively put the case for smokers rights and also provide better support to smokers. It has two additional linked sites:
Taking Liberties was launched in March 2007. It is part blog, part diary and is closely allied to The Free Society blog which is part of their new campaign. • The Free Society(http://www.thefreesociety.org/) The Free Society has been launched to give a voice to those who want less not more government interference in their daily lives. • Freedom2Choose (www.freedom2choose.info) Committed to halting the erosion of individual liberties. An organisation with the aim of challenging the use of fraudulent information to enact unjust legislation, using the methods deployed in recent anti-smoking legislation as first challenge. Visit the site to learn more about how you can support a campaign to halt the gradual infringement of individual liberties, and in the process support the amendment of England's anti-smoking legislation, and at the least read/listen to their Mission Statement Support this group if you are concerned about individual freedom (even if you are not particularly excited by the smoking debate) - for if the establishment is allowed to get away with the travesty of reasoning which produced the current smoking ban, then the next autocratic decision could well affect you and your own way of life. This well organised group had been calling for support to challenge the legislation through a judicial review, but the costs have been deemed beyond them (need around £500,000 apparently) at the current time. They adopt a generally level-headed approach, based on the facts, not conjecture, and identify valid reasons as to why a review of the legislation is necessary. Please e-mail any views you have on this issue - for or against...! |
