Comment Special - The Smoking Ban

Comment Special—The Smoking Ban

"I believe that pipe smoking contributes to a somewhat calm and objective judgement in all human affairs." -Albert Einstein, 1950

The South West Pipe Club (UK)

To contact us, email:

The Club Secretary (bewm@fsmail.net)

The day the English gave away a little more of their liberty

That day has finally arrived. On 1st July 2007, England, in common with the rest of the British Isles, became smoke free. From this point onward, no-one can smoke in any enclosed space that is open to the public.

The result of this iniquitous piece of legislation is that the entire British Isles now has a new underclass; an underclass that can, it seems, be discriminated against without fear of repercussion from the authorities; an underclass that apparently does not have any human rights because of its choice of lifestyle... enjoying the currently legal pursuit of smoking tobacco.

The pretext for the ban was that it protects workers, particularly those in the hospitality industry from the “deadly” effects of second-hand smoke (SHS). The evidence for this, we are told, is overwhelming. Indeed, it is overwhelming, but only in the sense that there is a great deal of it. Very little of it has a basis in true scientific fact. The majority of the evidence that cites SHS as dangerous is “junk” science and fraudulent statistics. Exaggeration, the rhetoric of the extremist, has also played its part. Smoke permeating through solid walls? Air extraction that requires the power of several tornados to remove tobacco smoke? One billion people dying of a smoking-related disease this century? (the latter is a quote from the World Health Organisation—the same people who quashed a study they had commissioned which stated that pipesmokers could outlive non-smokers by three years, on average). No, not fantasy, but reality according to some so-called “professionals”. Why, when presented with “facts” like this, haven’t more people questioned them? Have we reached the point where we blindly accept the “truth” when it comes from an apparently reliable source?

Another justification for the ban is the amount claimed to be spent by the NHS in treating “smoking related” diseases, estimated to be around £1.7 billion per annum. Given that taxation on tobacco produces a revenue approximately 5 times the NHS expenditure, this justification is somewhat hollow. But where does this revenue go? Not to the hospitals, judging from the number that are understaffed, and riddled with infections like clostridium difficile and MRSA. Or if it, or a portion of it does, it is being wasted away by the incompetent, self-serving bureaucracy that manages the NHS. And, how much more has been wasted in mounting the recent publicity campaign? Money better spent providing drugs and treatment for those in need; for example, Alzheimer’s sufferers.

While a partial ban on smoking does make sense and, to many smokers and non-smokers, would be an acceptable solution, a total ban does not. Already many workplaces and shops have a ban in place; perfectly reasonable. In the case of the hospitality industry, however, a few common-sense safeguards would protect the staff and customers from any unpleasantness that some associate with tobacco smoke. For example, a no-smoking zone in the immediate bar area, good quality air extraction throughout the establishment, separate smoking rooms etc. etc. ... simple initiatives, perfectly capable of satisfying the needs of the average, tolerant individual on both sides of the argument.

But it seems that the days of common-sense, compromise and honesty are no more. A minority of extremists have inveigled their way into the corridors of power and now set the agenda under the guise of “public health”. To them, the truth doesn’t matter and, should the truth oppose their views, then it is altered or suppressed. Thanks to them, the government has steamrollered over freedom of choice, denying owners of pubs, restaurants and cafes the right to decide whether they allow smokers in their premises or not. Does any of this seem familiar to those of you who are conversant with recent history?

Gone, also, are the days, it seems, of an impartial media and the investigative journalist. The majority of TV and radio broadcasts, and newspaper editorials appear to have sided, mainly, with the anti-smoking lobby. Indeed, such is the extent of the bias, that a reporter on a national “prime time” TV documentary referred recently to smoking as a “filthy habit” - hardly an impartial statement. But, of course, those who have dealt with the media in the past know only too well how reality can be distorted. Any “research” cited seems to have been one-sided. Despite numerous sources providing valid counter-arguments to the anti-smoking lobby’s claims, very little of the research from these sources has been referred to. Browse to the Links page of this site, and you will find the websites of several pro-smoking groups that contain a great deal of evidence that contests the myth of SHS presenting a risk. To give one local newspaper its due, though, it did feature the tobacconist, McGahey’s of Exeter, pointing out that it is legal to purchase a sample of pipe tobacco or a cigar, light it and then leave the enclosed premises smoking it. Unfortunately, there are only around 15 specialist tobacconists in the country where smokers can enjoy such a privilege.

This ban has far deeper implications than many perhaps realise. As mentioned earlier, the freedom of the hospitality industry to choose whether smoking is permitted on its premises has been denied; the government has chosen to ignore the evidence that suggests there are the very minimum of risks to SHS and has legislated in a way that is the thin end of a wedge of social control. In a recent statement to Parliament, Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, alluded to a number of initiatives of constitutional reform that would create a democracy suited to the 21st century… “Britain is rightly proud to be the pioneer of the modern liberties of the individual.”. Liberties? These have not been given, rather they have been taken. Although in this time, it should be considered as fantasy, the film “V for Vendetta” portrays a chilling societal alternative that, if more liberties are unwittingly sacrificed, could become reality.

Is there a way to bring about change? Yes—the difference between the anti and the pro-smoking lobbies is that the former are currently better organised; they have had more time to formulate and implement their strategies and, having tasted the blood of victory, will be looking for more impositions on the smoker’s lifestyle. Pro-smoking lobbies, on the other hand face a massive amount of apathy. Ironic, considering there are around 15 million smokers in the UK, according to some statistics, plus an unknown number of non-smokers who disagree with the ban for political reasons. In order to turn the tide, pro-smokers need to adopt the tactics of their “enemy”. Let’s look in a little more detail at how the anti-smoking lobby has achieved its goals. It may seem surprising to realise that the hardcore of the anti-smoking lobby, for example, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) is quite small,… something of a minority organisation. Its effectiveness, though, has come from its understanding and manipulation of the dynamics of minority group influence. One model looks like this.

· The minority group disrupts the established norms and produces doubt in the mind of the majority

· It makes itself visible, focusing attention upon itself .

· With the aid of credible figureheads, the minority group shows that there is an alternative, coherent point

of view.

· It demonstrates faith in and commitment to this point of view.

· It indicates that it will not move or compromise.

· Finally, the minority group suggests that the only way to restore stability is for the majority to accept its

point of view.

Interestingly, there comes a point where the minority group’s influence diminishes. Ironically, it is when that group’s agenda is accepted by the majority—the minority group becomes absorbed, allowing other minority groups to grasp a similar opportunity.

This may already be happening judging from the unease of some members of the anti-smoking lobby. One way this appears to be evident is in website comments, invited by the media, which usually follow a controversial article. In the case of smoking, rational comments from pro-smokers are dismissed because they create a dissonance in the minds of anti-smokers whose recourse, quite often, is to respond on a instinctual rather than intellectual level.

It is time for the minority group that is now smokers to take a leaf from its opponents’ book and “up the ante”.