|
As a smoker, it's been interesting during all this to find myself on the wrong side of the Government's intentions (and, so far as I can see this is substantially a Government-led initiative - non-smokers might've said, "actually that sounds like a good idea" when they heard the proposal, but the Government initiated the change rather than responding to a vehement groundswell of public opinion).
The first thing to admit is, that from a health point of view, the ban has a lot going for it, and pretty much nothing going against it. It's interesting to note, however, that both here on this board and elsewhere the average person's objection to smokey pubs has been couched in terms of the smell/nasty atmosphere rather than the chance that passive smoking is taking years off of their lives. Now, it might just be because it's late at night and I'm rather drunk, but I can't help seeing this as part of a broader neurosis; these days we don't bother much with what people are like - a far more important consideration is how they smell.
Look at the TV schedules, newspaper collumns, magazines: they're packed with items designed to make us feel ashamed about how we look, how clean our houses are, what we eat, etc etc. None of them try to make us better people because, let's face it, there's not much money to be made from that. (Am I the only person who finds those "quitting with nicotin" adverts offensive on the grounds that their basic claim is "buy our product and your kids will love you more"?)
I also think the *inconsistency* argument can't be swept under the carpet as easily as SPT and others might wish. There is something genuinely odd about the Government tackling the problem of an extremely unhealthy and addictive substance by severly restricting its use yet allowing it to be sold on every street corner in the country. The anology with porn falls down because porn isn't physically addictive, despite what certain sad bastards claim in order to justify their pathological behavior. Put it this way: I enjoy discussing philosophy but my life isn't made unpleasant if I'm not allowed to do it every time I go out for a drink or a meal. The same simply isn't true of smoking. Saying I'm free to smoke but only in my own home is pretty much like saying ID cards will be voluntary unless you want a passport, healthcare on the NHS, etc etc.
Next: the vehemence with which a surprising number of non-smokers are rallying to the cause is interesting. Perhaps I'm being paranoid, but from this side of the divide it feels like they're delighted to have found a group they can guiltlessly discriminate against and pour scorn upon.
Finally: I'm not working class, and don't claim to be, but it's hard to avoid the feeling that this ban represents yet another example of smug, anally-retentive middle-class people legislating on how the working class should live their lives. It goes hand-in-hand with Government directives on how much salt we should consume, our attitude to work, how much we should drink, how loud we should play music, which historical events we should revere, the ways in which we should express dissatisfaction - basically, pretty much everything which defines our civic lives. Whenever the Government talks about "rights and responsibilities" (and that's every single fucking day) you can be sure they mean "more responsibilities, fewer rights". Or, to put it more bluntly: behave how you like so long as it's in keeping with our milk-and-water vision of what constitutes a life.
Like Westie, I'm bothered by the idea that I'm just using high-handed arguments to justify a personal preference, but, as Halifax said, nothing has an uglier look to us than reason, when it is not on our side.
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
