The bigger picture
Saturday, April 21, 2007 
Having started the thread ('Can you Adam and Eve it?', April 17th), I feel I ought to come to the defence of Rob Simpson who is currently under fire (in the comments section) for defending smokers' rights. Richard Canzio, for example, argues that "To use smoking as a platform for the erosion of freedom ... is quite frankly self-indulgent. There are far more worrying issues that affect everyone." Yes, Richard, there ARE far more important issues than the right to smoke in a pub or private members' club but if, like me, you believe in individual freedom, personal responsibility and market forces, there are some important principles at stake.
As a non-smoker, I believe the smoking issue is important on a number of levels, not least the fraudulent nature of the passive smoking campaign. If it's OK to exaggerate and mislead people about the effects of passive smoking (which I'm convinced the government is doing), how can we be surprised when we're misled about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? If politicians are allowed to play fast and loose with the truth on issues like secondhand smoke, how can we complain when lying spinning becomes a habit?
I want to live in a liberal, tolerant democracy. Banning smoking in EVERY indoor public place may not matter to many, but it is neither liberal nor tolerant. It's not even democratic. Non-smokers may be in a majority but poll after poll, including government-funded research, has consistently found that an overwhelming majority of people in the UK - when given a range of options rather than a simple 'Yes', 'No' - favour a choice of smoking and non-smoking facilities in pubs, clubs and bars.
Society changes and attitudes towards smoking have been changing for 30-40 years. It's the pace of change that I object to because it's not based on public opinion, which is relatively benign on the issue, nor market forces. It's driven by a small but vociferous group of well-organised, well-funded campaigners who represent no-one but themselves. Meanwhile they are supported by craven politicians who by actively seeking to stigmatise a substantial section of the population are going way beyond their remit in a free society. (Whatever happened to education, education, education? In Blair's Britain it's become coercion, coercion, coercion.)
I'm not sure if this a good analogy, but there were those who argued that the Falkland Islands were not important enough to defend by going to war. At the time many of us believed that we were right to fight because, had we not, it would have given the wrong signal to rogue states throughout the world and a loss of freedom for the Falkland islanders could have been the catalyst for a series of land grabs by dictatorships and other regimes throughout the world. We'll never know because we won that particular battle.
The point is, if people are not prepared to defend relatively minor freedoms, you may one day lose a far more precious freedom that DOES matter to you. That is why we have set up The Free Society. We want to show that there is a link between the war on tobacco and what many of us perceive to be an erosion of freedom in other areas. The idea is to establish a loose coalition of genuine (not phoney) libertarians who understand the need for less not more government involvement in our daily lives and have the integrity to defend things that they themselves have no direct interest in. That's our big idea. Smoking is a small but important part of it.
Reader Comments (29)
I'm getting the impression that at least one person believes the function of the comment box is to have your say and whatever that is, is to remain unchallenged by any other posters.
Personally, I see it as an opportunity to enagage in a discussion with other posters with the original article as the central theme.
If that ISN'T the intent of the site owner than he'd best tell me now.
With that in mind I agree wholeheartedly with Simon about the erosion of liberties with lies, half truths and junk science being the only justification.
Smoking is only the latest in a series of liberties that have been removed. It is however the most widereaching - effecting some 15 million Britons, but is far from being the last. We're already seeing limitations being imposed on the advertising of junk food, and did anyone notice the ban on trans-fats that went through with barely a blip?
Alcohol is already coming under fire and it's only going to get worse.
The important part of the smoking ban is that it demonstrates that the government can quite easily get away with curbing the liberties of millions and the rights of thousands (I'm talking about the property rights of the bar owners here) without having to actually prove their case first. It is a dangerous president to allow to go unchallenged.
Consider alcohol. Ah! I can hear some people getting the "my drinking doesn't harm other people" argument ready, but take a look in your local A&E on a Friday and Saturday night at the victims of alcohol induced violence. Or how about the 600+ people killed by drunk driver's every year? Yes, I realise there are laws against beating people up and driving whilst under the influence, but there were laws against shooting people as well, but that wasn't enough to stop them from banning handguns.
Although I may not agree with your point of view, as I've seen a very different turn of events in Ireland, you put forward your views in an articulate manner that I feel encourages discussion. Currently living in London, I see the erosion of personal freedoms as much more of an issue than it is in Dublin - Heaven forbid should your Oyster card malfunction!
But, it seems that Mr Simpson has come under fire, and I believe deservedly, because of his dismissive attitude to opinions that differ from his. Anyone who doesn't agree is either indulging in fantasy, name calling or just making things up. Reminiscent of the Slate on MSN where anyone who disagrees with the right wing mob that seem to dominate their messageboards are automatically dismissed as "Lefties" and "Dems".
I hope it is possible to stand for individual liberties (such as smoking in a pub with one's friends - it's not asking much, for God's sake) without being a right-winger or even a great fan of market forces.
Wood smoke is far more dangerous than tobacco smoke.This is not my opinion,it is the result of a scientific investigation by the clean air revival project which campaigns for clean air which we all breathe.Their study can be found at http://burningissues.org/ws-more-damage-ts.html
The study shows that wood smoke is 40 times more dangerous to the cells of the body than tobacco smoke.How many of us,both smokers and non-smokers have sat in a country pub ad enjoyed a pint and a meal in a bar heated by a log fire.It is said that there is no safe level which can be set,not even with the most modern ventilation systems,in which a room can be declared to be safe from tobacco smoke,yet it appears that the same room can be safe from the far more dangerous wood smoke by it being ventilated by the most ancient of ventilation systems,the chimney.If you ask a politician who is in favour of the indoor smoking ban why it is needed,they will reply "to protect the staff" but evidently the staff do not need to be protected from the far more dangerous wood smoke.I have yet to meet a barworker who has been asked if they want to be protected from tobacco smoke,surely the must be asked this question if we are to have freedom of choice.
Nigel: I'm glad you made that point. I'm not going to hide my personal views but it's important to stress that friends of Forest (and The Free Society) come from all sides of the political spectrum. For example, a regular speaker at Forest events is Claire Fox, director of the Institute of Ideas. Prior to that she was co-publisher of Living Marxism. Claire is neither a right-winger nor (to my knowledge) a great fan of market forces. But she is a libertarian who believes in individual liberties. We don't agree on everything but with regard to individual liberties we share some important values, and that's the platform on which we intend to develop The Free Society.
To Mr Conran
I have been and will always be dismissive of claims of knowledge of majority opinion. You claimed to know the opinion of the majority of smokers. That would require you have information regarding the opinions of approximately 1 million people - a vast undertaking. I would have accepted a survey of several thousand as a good indicator. In your case I suspect the number to be two orders of magnitude less. To then extrapolate up from the few handfuls to the million and expect the results to coincide IS to indulge in fantasy.
Had to said something along the lines of "most of the smokers I've met" then I wouldn't have a problem, but then you didn't put it that way - you framed it such that it encompassed all of Ireland and I rushed in point out that you couldn't possibly know this.
As for pointing out name calling - calling someone ignorant IS name-calling, or do you have another word for it?
In these and other online forums I try very hard to only attack the arguments and opinions and not the person him/herself. If you want a discussion then look at my works and point out where you believe I'm wrong.
I may be dismissive of certain arguments but I certinaly won't ignore them (not all of them anyway) in favour of launching a personal attack on the poster. If only everyone else could say the same.
I would say that Rob defended his corner appropriately. He is right to question anecdotal evidence. Smoker bans are enacted based on fraudulent science by shrill control freaks who demand that we all live life according to their narrow-minded view. Having studied this issue for two years now, I was not at all surprised to find that anti-tobacco groups use the Delphi Technique to brainwash their cult members. Cunningly disguised as a process to achieve "consensus", it is then abused to make the cultists agree with, and disemminate consensus sold as "fact". Here's an example:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/pubs/public-consult/2000decision/4-tech-delphi_e.html
"Consensus", I need to remind you, is not science.
"Consensus", is not always right. History tells me that "consensus" was responsible for: apartheid, slavery, chidren up chimneys, children down mineshafts, the deaths of 53 million Africans with the removal of DDT as the most effective weapon against malaria (Thanks go to the WHO and just ONE junk science study), and many, many other examples. In short, "consensus" can be mighty dangerous.
Before long, thanks to "consensus" (AKA the Delphi Technique) you have billions of people around the globe genuinely believing that second hand smoke is harmful. It is not. The science is abundantly clear on this. Only when the data is tortured do we end up with meaningful numbers. Its a scam and a hoax. And if you think for one minute this is about your health or mine, think again.Its about money, greed, power, and control. No more, no less.
Billions of people now suffer from a syndrome called Mistaken Certainty. 60 years of propoganda will do this. Pro-choice groups, like mine, have no money, and no time to de-program the unfortunate myth believers.
You may well inform us that, "anecdotally", Ireland is orgasmic as a result of the smoker ban.
I can tell you factually that over 1200 pub owners are less than ecstatic about the ban. I can tell you factually that 26,000 newly unemployed are not so enthusiastic about being "protected" from this manufactured terror of a few harmless wisps of tobacco smoke.
If you want to debate the science, bring it on. I am more than ready for you, Mr Conran.
When the ban was introduced in Ireland the sale of alcohol in bars plummetted and when questioned the Health Minister Micheal Martin said that was a good thing as the Irish drink too much anyway. So what was he trying to do-cut smoking ,drinking or both? He is also famous for stopping at a pub for a drink and proceeding to unwrap his own sandwiches to eat. A true friend of publicans and their staff indeed!
As John Reid said- the smoking ban is a middle class obsession with a working class pastime and allows the chattering anti-smoking brigade to get one over on the rest. And as proven in Ireland these same people will not fill the void left by the smokers leaving but will turn their attention to some other pursuit that they want to spoil.
Finally, as mentioned before bars in I
To continue above, bars in Ireland ignore the ban after closing and many have private rooms for smokers. This is necessary to survive and publicans are risking everything just to provide a service and feed their families. I know as I live in Ireland.
It is great to see this debate as we did not have it in Ireland. The publicans caved in when bribed by the government. There was to be deregulation of the licensed sector allowing continental cafe style bars but the plans were shelved when publicans dropped their opposition to the ban. This shows that the ban was coming in for no other reason than the obsession of one man and at all costs.
P.S. He left Health in a mess and with a multi-million euro bill after his policies were deemed to be illegal concerning old people in homes.
But that is another matter.
"Passive smoking is a killer" how often have you heard that said? There is even an NHS funded advert on TV which makes the same claim.
In Gt.Britain we have been recording deaths since 1837,the GRO must have on file many 10s of millions of death certificates,as far as I am aware not one death certificate to date has been found which cites the cause of death as passive smoking.The above mentioned TV advert is now to be investigated by the ASA,I for one will await with interest the outcome of that investigaton
Is that the "silent killer" commercial? I rather to object to that one as they cite the 25% increase in risk of the like of heart disease, but fail to mention thast this is after decades of sustained exposure and that the 25% is actually widely considered "statistically insignificant".
I have been looking at the petition on the Downing St.website in favour of exempting shisha cafe's from the extremist,intolerant,indoor smoking ban.You only have to read the list of names on the petition to see that this petition has united people from different cultures against the ridiculous attempt to isolate the the culture of shisha smoking.How foolish of the government in these days of terrorism when we are trying to bring all the cultures of Britain together to fight the terrorist threat,to show the Arabic and Moslem world that we only want them on our terms,and to hell with what they think.This is so typical of the Britain that Blair has created,but I do not forget that the attack on the smoker is also supported by the Tories and the laughingly called Lib-Dems.
I find it ironic that the only political party against the intolerant indoor smoking ban is the BNP,does it come any more ironic than that?
I have to confess to being a little amused at those who say they are in favor of individual liberties but not necessarily in favor of market forces. I'd love to know how they define the two.
The smoking issue seems to have nudged a few people to come to a state of slight awakeness. Alcohol and food are not "next". They have both been targets for regulations and taxes for hundreds of years.
In fact I challenge those who think we live in a "free country" to name any aspect of life that isn't regulated. I'm not saying you won't come up with any but you'll find the list is a lot shorter than it should be.
In my book Simon this is not about the right to smoke – it's the right of people to community, social and private routines that sustain relationships everywhere, and about not being subject to police surveillance for acts of instinctive generosity like offering somebody a light, an ashtray or even a seat. Rob was right to point out that my right to so-called clean air is no right at all unless I can choose to forgo it for the sake of a more important principle. You rightly point out the misinformation behind the legislation, and this is another factor. We were told this week that HRT increases the risk of ovarian cancer in women by 20 per cent, but somebody was sensible enough to point out what a small risk this is ...
Belinda: all good points.
Bernie makes some interesting points not least of which is his comment regarding food and drink being targets for regulation and taxes for hundreds of years. He is of course quite correct and I won't argue this, but some explanation as to what people mean when the say "next" might be warranted.
I can only suggest my own point of view obviously.
Tobacco has been heavily taxed and regulated for years but in recent years government and pressure approach to it has been increasingly heavy handed to the point of open hostility.
Advertising is banned, smoking is or is about to be banned in indoor public places and it's only matter of time before it spreads to outdoor areas.
The goal of the likes of ASH is to remove it from society altogether - no one should EVER doubt their end game. And that's the heart of the matter when it comes to saying fatty foods and booze are next; that sooner or later pressure groups are going to start becomming increasingly vocal about erradicating obesity and drunkeness from society.
The primary arguments of health and cost used to push smoking towards social unacceptability (though it's nowhere near that yet) can be used on certain foods and alcohol.
A form of the SHS argument can be applied directly to alcohol - if it's deemed anacceptable for bar workers to be subjected to SHS surely it's even MORE unacceptable to expect them to have to endure drunken and unruly patrons?
Or how about if it's unacceptable for tax payers to cough up £1.5 billion every year to the NHS to treat smoke related illnesses SURELY it's even more unacceptable to cough up £9 billion to pay for obesity related illnesses?
A correction to the last comment from Abbeyfield.
1. UKIP has publically stated its opposition to the smoking ban and would amend the law if elected.
2. The majority of conservative MPs voted against the smoking ban legislation on 14th Feb 2006.
It is also a sign of the times that such an odious party like to BNP is only one of two opponents currently.
Bill – one of three opponents. The Publican Party has come up with six candidates in five of the Scottish regions to fight the election on the single issue of allowing clubs and pubs a well ventilated smoking room. The regions are Mid Scotland and Fife, Highand, Lothians, Central Scotland, and Glasgow.
Simon, you were quoted today by Mike Duffy in the Sunday Post as saying that there should be an 'exemption for private clubs, especially working men's clubs because they are the heart of the community'. It is not only clubs that are at the heart of people's social lives – pubs fill the same role. If you are convinced that the government is misleading people about the effects of secondary smoke, surely a recreational centre such as a pub should also be exempt on the same grounds. Or did you just say this because the article was about clubs, or were you misquoted?
Belinda: I was asked to comment on the impact of the ban on one specific working men's club not pubs in general.
Rob I agree with much that you say but I'm not sure I'd agree with what you think is the goal of ASH, viz to outlaw smoking altogether. That may be the case but if so then the key players involved would be making sure of their places in the new anti obesity etc. groups before they achieve such a goal. It is interesting to see where past chairmen have moved on to and, in the American scene, what the anti tobacco lawyers have been up to since the settlements of a few years ago.
On the points that Belinda made about Scotland and the various parties who might take a stand against these laws I think it is wrong to go for amendments. The laws should be scrapped altogether along with many other laws, but I s'pose that is a different subject, and full property rights should be restored.
It is not the "right to smoke" that has been lost here. We never had a "right" to smoke in other people's property if the owners objected. It is the owners of the "public" properties that have lost their rights to say what is and isn't allowed on their premises. It amazes me that this fact is never mentioned in the MSM. One reason is that if, as the likes of ASH would have the world believe, that most people support the smoking bans then why have so many restaurant and pub owners been so stupid as to not have banned smoking long ago of their own accord? Surely if those who frequent such places would rather have a smoke free environment then the places would make more money by having bans already in place. If the public wanted this there would be no need for any legislation or the huge amounts of taxpayers money to be used for enforcement.
Bernie
The ban is so comprehensive and sweeping that I can barely believe – and am quite delighted – that we have any candidates at all who are prepared to put it on their manifesto. We have just been arguing with an anti-smoker who is accusing the local candidate of wanting to turn back the clock http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=663&id=618532007. This is clearly not what he has said: he is seeking amendments, and only UKIP Scotland has expressed an intention to 'scrap' the ban.
Since the ban is based on bad science, it is hard to see why it needs to be comprehensive, but much damage has now been done since many thousands of people have swallowed the propaganda and seem to believe quite genuinely that their friends' and neighbours' smoke is killing them. It emerges that some people claim to hate the smell and others actually to despise the smokers. Perhaps there is now a demand for separation that there would not have been had the original misrepresentations about passive smoking not been launched on the public.
One solution (the one adopted by Freedom to Choose and that is being lobbied for in Europe) is to adopt a Regulated Indoor Air Quality Standard. This measures and controls for air pollution regardless of the source, and since secondary smoke comes nowhere near the Permitted Exposure Levels enshrined by standards such as OSHA (Occupational Health and Safety Administration) this would both make bans on smoking nonsensical and ensure that people would be protected from other sources of air pollution.
I live in Glasgow and i am a student, also i have never smoked, i think the ban is fantastic otherwise i would be unable to go out with my mates because of the smoke in the bars. This is because the smoke makes me feel ill.
Kevin. As the ban has been implimented in Scotland your night out is inconveniencing millions and has cost hundreds, perhaps thousands, their jobs.
Before you come shooting back on that one, no one is suggesting everywhere allow smoking, but given that 25% of the population smoke and the SHS issue is far from proven it would seem unreasonable to have everywhere non-smoking? Would you agree with that?
A partial ban. Or, as someone suggested above licensing scheme would have brought us to a compromise situation where some places allowed smoking and others didn't and everyone could be catered to.
Bernie - ASH's official position says nothing about a complete ban. I realise that, but then ASH started out by campaigning for mandatory no-smoking sections IIRC. Now they're campaigning for smoke bans on beaches, in parks, in your car and in private apartments.
Perhaps not here, but certainly they're up to these things around the world.
In Scotland they want to "move towards limiting the times at which tobacco can be sold and the number of places that can sell it." They want to hide cigarettes under the counter and you KNOW how unacceptable they'll find all those dirty smokers standing out in the street smoking and SOMETHING will have to be done with them.
ASH have very clearly demonstrated that whenever the line changes that's simply the place where they start campaigning for the next restriction. The ultimate conclusion of this is a total ban. I simply don't see them stopping before that.
Rob you are right that they start campaigning from the point of the new line. I will explain why I don't think that means they want to ban smoking altogether.
We are dealing with what you might call the bureaucratic personality here. Once a tax financed gravy train is established it is a bureaucratic law that it cannot be abandoned. They have demonstrated the need for tobacco research and tobacco control and that is what they will do to the end of their days. They will always stop short of making tobacco illegal for that would stop the train. They also have to continually push for new measures in order to justify their continued existence.
It sounds quite sane on the surface to set up a government department that is tax funded to do something like keep the air clean or protect the children etc. Very laudable. Except that it will from that point on work ceaselessly to find or invent things that will pollute the air or be a threat to children. These things will always require new regulations and higher taxes. Even if some of the people working in such departments are honest, and I'm not trying to suggest that is completely beyond possibility, it is the nature of such departments to wish to continue their tax funded jobs rather than have to do something genuinely valuable for a living.
ASH is not itself a government department though it does receive money from the tax payer in the form of dept of Health grants. More than £150,000 per year 1999-2004. I don't have figures for other years and other amounts but I somehow doubt they have been funded through charity tins in pubs. Then you must consider the phenomenal amounts of money awarded for research grants for practically anything that will turn up something nasty about tobacco. What would happen to all that if tobacco was made illegal?
Bernie. Thank you explaining your position. I understand the pull of the gravy train and that that would stop if they attempted to start campaigning for the outlawing of tobacco. Afterall, tobacco is a large cash cow for the government and I'm sure they have no wish to lose it and will do their best to pull the rug out from ASH as soon as they start "going to far".
I can see them losing big pharma backing as well, afterall they'll be no one to sell NRT products to if anyone becomes a non-smoker.
And you might be right, perhaps they'll not go for an outright ban on tobacco, maybe they'll take the back door and make it almost impossible to smoke anywhere.
Looking around the world we can see the legislation reaching into the car and the home; there's a town in California where you can only smoke IN YOUR OWN HOME if it's a detatched property.
The ban expands to cover more and more outdoor areas. Parks and beaches in some places, even the streets in others.
If there's no where for you to actually smoke then in practical terms it's as good as banned.
To Bill Carlyle and Belinda,Thanks for the correction Bill on the UKIP position,I have been e-mailing all the parties for some months now,but UKIP have not replied,hence my belief that they are in favour of the ban.As to the Tories they are supposed to be the party of freedom,why then have they not come out in favour of amending the anti smoking bill to something far more sensible,the answers I received from their official spokesmen left me in despair.I was however delighted to hear from Belinda about the publican party,this is a new one on me,more power to their elbows.The post from the young student Kevin made me very sad,I cannot abide the stench of garlic,and the smell of tea makes me ill,but whoever heard of anyone wanting to ban garlic or tea.I am married to a wife who delights in playing bingo,it drives me mad,but she likes me to go with her,I do so only because I can smoke,now I will not be able to go with her,try to be a little less selfish Kevin.
I'd never heard of the Publican party and if they are a single issue party then they present an interesting bit of speculation. Let's say they won a majority and formed a government. Their one single act being to repeal the anti smoking laws and to not even be present in parliament for the rest of their term. That would be a long way from an ideal situation as they wouldn't be repealing any other laws but it would still be light years ahead of any other party. There would be no further increases in taxes or regulations.
Re Smoking, We are all getting so fed up with being treated like children!! I gather 800 pubs in Ireland have closed. I wonder how many pubs will close in uk I know that there are a vast number of people who will stay at home rather than being told No. Its so pathetic and really getting out of all control.What ever happened to Good proper Ventilation??? No doubt the MPS will still have their own Rooms and a bar too!! Its seems as its 1 Rule for them and another for us lot of smokers Tut Tut on us lot!! Well I am buying smoking pocket Ashstrays so No one can ever accuse me of dropping a ciggie on the ground.Regards Amanda H