Pictures for an exhibition
Thursday, May 17, 2007 
Designer, musician and photographer Dan Donovan (above) - currently working on several Forest projects - writes:
"We live in a culture driven by fear and draconian legislation. After years of anti-smoking propaganda people seem to accept the ban without too much thought. A total blanket ban is shortsighted and unfair on those who enjoy the smoking culture. July 1st will be a sad day and an insult to the smoking community.
"To counteract the demonisation of smokers I want to put together a photographic piece of work featuring smokers in indoor public spaces. If you are a smoker and would like to be part of this exhibition please get in touch so we can arrange to take your picture."
Email dan@design-dell.com.
Simon Clark
Dan reports that since yesterday he's heard from 30 or more people who want to be involved. "Bob Geldof's violin player is up for it, so too a Sir Galahad Falklands' survivor, a cigar club in Cornwall, a 70-year-old man in Kent. It's great, I've had mail from Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Kent, Cornwall and everywhere in between." Keep those emails coming.
Reader Comments (12)
Good for him. Dan who?
Apart from the chance to take photographs of people smoking indoors I do think that the next 6 weeks presents a window of opportunity for those opposed to the 1st July smoking laws to present their arguments to a wider audience.
Rather than reacting to news stories and being on the back foot all the time, Forest could take the lead by demonstrating the effect of indoor ventilation on passive smoking. Why not chose any pub in England with the very best and most effective ventilation. Get some independent assessors in to check air quality, even witnessed by television and newspaper reporters.
Regardless of people's views on the new indoor smoking laws it would make for a more interesting debate and it would make a refreshing change to see Forest take the lead rather than reacting to others' stories and assertions.
What an excellent idea Robert! Well Simon?
Robert, Good idea but years too late. From 1997 another campaign group, AIR (Atmosphere Improves Results), did everything in its power to persuade government of the benefits of effective ventilation. AIR highlighted lots of pubs and bars with good ventilation and in 2004 independent researchers did exactly as you suggest and tested the air quality of the Doublet Bar in Glasgow and found that an effective ventilation system could remove up to 90% of all gases and particles from secondhand smoke. The results were distributed widely to media and politicians.
Government didn't listen because what they really want is to for people to quit. Effective ventilation (ie enabling people to smoke in the same bar or restaurant without bothering non-smokers) would hinder rather than help that objective. Today the battle has moved on and ventilation is not (at present) on the political agenda. No-one, politicians or media, would be interested in your suggestion.
BTW, the idea that Forest is permanently on the back foot and only reacts to the other side's stories and assertions is a common misconception. It's understandable because the media does tend to quote us responding to anti-smoking stories (of which there are many), but it is wrong to think that we are not proactive.
In recent years Forest has commissioned regular opinion polls and launched advertising campaigns in national and local newspapers. We have published essays and pamphlets, lobbied national and local politicians with a variety of campaign tools, submitted reports to local and national government, given evidence (in person) to a variety of government bodies, generated support from the likes of David Hockney, Antony Worrall Thompson, Joe Jackson and others, organised special events in London and at party political conferences etc etc etc.
If that's not proactive I don't know what is. It's true that our initiatives struggle to get the publicity that anti-smoking stories enjoy, but we can't control the media and - in a hostile climate - I think we do a pretty good job getting our message across. Winning the battle is something else ... hence our Free Society initiative which is a long-term project that (I am under no illusion) could take years to bear fruit.
That is interesting about FOREST Simon and not in the least surprising to me.
I don't care for "conspiracy" theories as it really doesn't matter who first thought up some evil deed. The fact of the evil deed is what counts. And with that I will now present my conspiracy theory.
If, as we have always been told, the ASH types and governments were only interested in health then they would have only presented real evidence and would have acted upon solutions to the problem of health. They obviously have not done so and I don't need to document any of this here. Those of us who have studied the tobacco studies and the clean air studies are well aware of this.
So I don't believe it was ever about health and arguing to ASH types and governments about health will get nowhere. The ASH types are those who dress up "studies" to make the case for legal action. They know what they are doing and are not just misguided people conscientiously doing there thankless jobs. I'm also sure that the government people also know what they are doing.
The actual target of smoking bans, as opposed to what the media presents, is property rights. Smokers never had a right to smoke in a public house if the owner of that public house said he didn't allow it. A proof of this is those pubs who opted to go smoke free before the ban comes into place.
Under communism practically all property is owned by the state. This country has fortunately become immune to that. But under fascism, if you care to read up on what it actually is rather than just think it means Nazi death camps, property is not owned by the state but it is controlled by the state. We are a long way from being immune to this.
If you think about what it means to own something you can see at once that the end result of fascism is much the same as under communism. It doesn't matter who has the piece of paper confirming ownership. What matters is who controls the property.
So the smoking ban is factually fascistic not just figuratively.
So am I saying we're heading for Nazism? No. But we are increasingly doing things that the Nazis did. Is this a right wing conspiracy? Not at all. I don't believe in those wings anyway. They obscure much more than they reveal. The "extreme left" is supposed to be communist. The "extreme right" is supposed to be fascist. The fact is that both of those extremes are remarkably similar. But what is completely obscured is any position for those who want government restricted to defending our rights and nothing else. They don't fit on the left/right spectrum at all.
Property are never mentioned by governments on this issue and yet that is the only thing that will be changed. As stated above smokers never had a right to smoke on the property of someone who said he didn't allow it. So the only people directly affected by this law is property owners. Indirectly smokers are affected but not directly.
Why is this important? It affects far more than just smokers. If you agree it was never about health then what has occurred here is a bit more of the wedge of fascism to be pushed through under the guise of "caring" and "health".
This is a much bigger issue than feeling sorry for a few poor souls who have to go out in the rain for a fag.
You are right Bernie for it is a much bigger issue than feeling sorry for a few poor souls who have to go out in the rain for a fag. Unfortunately, we seem to be too far gone down the road to "1984."
There is so much affected after all: property rights, medical fraud, mistreatment of the vulnerable, a mercantile agenda that wants to sell a near useless product (NRT), the diminutions of freedom and a government that behaves with extreme irresponsibility.
Where Nu-Labour is concerned that should not be surprising of course. They've failed at so much and it's handy to have a scapegoat when their handling of the NHS has been so appalling. You can see how it goes though: a government that has failed on both law and order and the health service wants to keep everyone safe by wrapping them in cotton wool. In addition, they are desperate to be popular so again we have the scapegoat factor plus the delusion that smoking bans are going to put them in the history books as the great saviours of mankind. This is, in many ways, a seriously irrational government that now subscribes to a mania along with the bulk of the now well programmed British public. It's really scary and again, not from a smoking perspective, but from the power wielded to promote sheer bullshit for the purposes of social control.
Bernie and Blad - Excellent posts and excellent points. I never knew that fascism meant that the state controlled public property. I think that should be shouted from the rooftops - as it might just be the key to waking people up. People who don't understand the statistical manipulations and don't want to read up on it all from that perspective will surely understand the property rights perspective and will have no trouble imagining where that will lead.
Blad - I thought you 'nutshelled' my own feelings beautifully with the following:
"...a seriously irrational government that now subscribes to a mania..."
Good points, to all of the foreposters. But personally I think this smoking ban is about 2 issues:
1. money
2. alibi-protection
point 1:
It was recently ruled by the European court that taxes on tobacco imposed by Britain were not in line with the rest of the European Community and had to come down. Bang, goes a nice little earner and suddenly smoking is no longer an attractive means to rake in revenue.
Ironically, government has, also recently, approved a number of new casinos nationwide, with an expected tax revenue in excess of 250 billion per annum(!!).
I think it is fair to say that gambling and debt have ruined far more people's lives than smoking ever could, yet this type of addiction is happily promoted with no regard to the consequences. Shame on you, Government, for being such a bunch of hypocrites and double-shame on you for lying in a way that grossly insults my intelligence!
point 2:
Having failed abysmally to control crime, anti-social behaviour and all related issues, we smokers are being made the new scapegoats who must be persecuted at all cost! Why? Because we are a soft target: we don't get violent. It costs between 250,000 and 350,000 pounds sterling to deal with just one anti-social problem family (source: Respect website) whilst most smokers I know lead active lives, work full-time and contribute by paying taxes and other related dues. Yet we are held responsible for incurring too high health care costs.
It is so much easier to witchhunt smokers than deal with the real issues in this country, such as crime, anti-social behaviour and binge-drinking.
If my Government is that concerned about my health I suggest they make the streets safe again to walk in; at least by lighting up I make a conscious choice to risk my health; getting beaten to a pulp by some mindless yob gives me no such choice.
There are so many holes in the arguments for the smoking ban and I am finding it very hard to believe that this legislation actually made it through! It says a lot about us as a nation that no one thought to pull the emergency brake and put a stop to this complete and utter madness. Thankfully, most of our neighbours on the continent seem to have a little more sense which is why ever more people leave Britain.
In 10 years' time (if not sooner), those who can will have left and Britain will be a free-for-all for benefit cheats, binge-drinkers whilst those who have financed the system will have taken their working abilities, skills, buying power and taxes to a better place.
Is there really no one going to stand up and stop this?
Hi I am a smoker of small cigars, I have just returned from a two day trip to Glasgow, whilst there I used the airport, stayed in a 4 star hotel used taxi cabs,trains a bus and a coach, I also went to the UEFA cup final and visited pubs and a casino, I was fully aware of their smoking ban before I went to Glasgow, but did not realise the full true effect that an all out ban would have.It did not help that during the two day visit it rained,I could smoke in my hotel bedroom, (I never do at home), but no facilitys were available to smoke in or near the hotel bar, the casino had a smoking area called the air room, which turned out to be an outside courtyard with no roof, one bar had built a dry shelter with ten halogen heaters,the barman told me this was of great expense, other than that I spent alot of time standing on street corners grabbing a quick smoke in the rain, I must point out the people of Glasgow were very hospitable, but I am sad to say I will never return whilst this smoking ban is in force, at 57 I am seriously thinking of leaving England and moving to a European country that have a fairer system for smokers.Roger Foulser
Bernie - Your point is EXACTLY what this is all about. My local Publican has made a notice to go alongside the obligitory NO SMOKING sign after 1st July. It simply reads 'WARNING - MY PUB IS NOW UNDER STATE CONTROL'
The last time I visited a Scottish bar was in Aberdeen on March 28th 2006. In this bar was a sign saying "We are really, really sorry that the Scottish Executive has enacted this stupid law. We really, really didnt mind you good people smoking in OUR bar". It was signed by the publican and his wife. Both non smokers.
Colin - is there a PO Box address (and to whom should I make a cheque payable)? - I went on to freedom2choose website and signed up etc. signed the petition and would like to make a donation. I make a mess of on-line payment procedures. Thanks. (I believe I saw something written by you on that website yesterday)