Pete Robinson: Zero tolerance on smokers
23 August, 2007
Many activities are risky to your health so why have smokers been singled out?
The government announced today that in the interests of public health they will introduce legislation effectively banning all gay bars, saying "We have evidence to suggest a high proportion of AIDS, HIV and Hepatitis is transmitted by the homosexual community. We would be failing in our duty if we did not act to protect the public from the risk of proliferation of these killer diseases".
Of course they're not really. It's a headline you will never read because, quite apart from such ideas being non-PC, we are such a tolerant society. But are we really as über-tolerant as we'd like to believe?
What's missing is choice. I can choose to go into a gay bar or gay club. In fact I have done so, many times. Some of my best friends are gay and I enjoy their company, although not in the biblical sense. Yet I'm sufficiently tolerant and open minded to accompany them to a gay bar and I know what to expect when we get there.
Such establishments are generally meeting places for promiscuous homosexual males, the spring boards for many a man-to-man 'one night stand'. As such the health risks are plain to see. However in today's society we turn a blind eye to any negative aspects of such things.
If anyone finds such antics offensive they have the choice 'not' to go to a gay bar/club. So if they do visit they have no reasonable grounds for complaint. It is legal when all's said and done.
Smoking is also a legal activity, but not in pubs and bars. I cannot go to a smoking bar where both non-smokers and 'antis' alike have the choice to avoid if they want to. "Aha!", I can hear the antis crowing immediately. "But we must have the choice NOT to be subjected to your evil, cancer-inducing smoke... blah blah... sore throats and eyes... blah blah... 800 deaths a year... blah blah... Roy Castle... blah blah... smelling like an ashtray... etc, etc".
Fair enough. If you believe all that twaddle we'll allow publicans the option of separate, sealed and ventilated indoor smoking areas. Or let's return to the government's 2005 election manifesto pledge then we'll have both smoking and non-smoking pubs. You can have as many as you want.
But do you really need all of them? Where's the 'choice' in that? "But WE had no choice before the smoking ban", antis will always reply. "Why should you have one now?"
Well first of all I don't accept the 'tit-for-tat' argument. Smokers never set out to ruin your pleasure and have been only too willing to compromise. Antis were offered a choice before the ban. Many establishments tried the non-smoking option only to find it was not sufficiently supported to make the project viable. The demand simply didn't exist.
However in every town there were pubs that had invested heavily in professionally designed, superior ventilation with large no-smoking areas. For many years it's been easy to find somewhere to have a drink without being irritated by the smoke of others. Fully non-smoking restaurants were also an available option pre-ban.
We smokers didn't campaign to put those pubs and restaurants out of business. We didn't heavily lobby government to force 'all' premises to become smoking venues. We didn't spout skewed junk-science or compile creatively engineered statistics to 'prove' our case. We didn't wage a relentless, obsessive propaganda war against anti-smokers.
Perhaps we should have done. But it's never too late to learn.
Readers' comments
The draconian, facist, nanny state, fear mongering government planned this all along as part of their final solution on population and social control I know how to stop them! at the count of 3 1...................... 2...................... 3...................... PUT ON YOUR TINFOIL HATS NOW!!!
Dave: All doctors, surgeons, etc are against smoking - I don't think so. To start with try Pro Choice Smoking Doctor blog. Secondly I know several doctors of varying levels and specialities who smoke, some of whom will admit to smoking and some who won't for fear it will damage their prospects. If SHS is so potent, how come as the number of people smoking has decreased by so many to the lowest ever, the incidents of cancer have apparently increased? What is far more toxic than smoking, first or second hand, is vehicle fumes and these are prevalent in any pub or other business that is on a street with traffic passing. Everytime the door is opened more toxins flow in. If you do not believe this then try sitting in a garage with a car engine running for an hour and see if you come out alive. If you do, try sitting in a garage with 20 or so people smoking for an hour and apart from maybe sore eyes and throat, you will not be affected! Which is the more dangerous? This is a fact that you cannot dispute. Wake up and see what is going on here, as others have said, smokers are just the first targets, you will be affected sooner or later by other draconian measures brought in by this spineless, lying and corrupt government.
Thank you Mr Robinson, for your article. This is a hateful ban as many tolerant non-smokers will say too. I do not know of anyone who speaks like the Antis. They are in the minority and will not fill all the venues. Taxis drivers and HGV drivers have a high rate of lung cancer. Can you imagine not being able to call a cab, or going to empty supermarkets. Getting out of bed nowadays gets riskier by the day, with all the health scares. Thank you for putting some balance into this miserable madness. The power these antis have is very unhealthy. The helana heart attack scandal is doing the rounds again I see. That's the trouble when so many lies are told, it is, knowing what to believe anymore. freedom2choose.info for tolerant non-smokers and smokers alike. Please help us amend this ban to include ventilation, for those who wish to choose it. No-one banned the antis from opening their own venues, so why didn't they?
Dave:It seems you are one of the many who are happy to roll over an except what ever leigislation this government throws at you and to accept any spin also. I fear for the industry when they tighten up drinking and food,make you put up signs showing salt and cholesterol content,signs about getting drunk,fines if you don't. If you really think the issue is just about smoking,you have missed the point by a country mile.
Pete: It seems that unfortunately you've been taken in by the fanatical pro-smokers. All of their 'evidence' relies on hopelessly outdated propaganda from the tobacco industries' "SHS is harmless" era, of which the tobacco companies abandoned years ago. These companies now quite clearly state on their websites the dangers of SHS and how they support smoking bans. A view supported by WHO, NHS and every doctor, surgeon and medical scientist alive today. Pro-smokers have dug out this propaganda, dusted it off and are trying to present it as fact, DESPITE being discreditted many years ago. I don't think this website is really the forum for 'conspiracy theories' do you?
Does marc jones really presume to speak on behalf of all bar staff? For his information, every smoking barmaid/barman I've spoken to since July 1st hates this ban as much as their smoking regulars. Not one of them takes that ridiculous 'second-hand smoke' stuff seriously. As for pubs banning smoking at the bar - many of them did this at about the same time they made their restaurant areas non-smoking. They took these measures in an attempt to appease the anti-smoking lobby, thinking that by offering a choice they'd avoid the kind of situation you can now read about on the pages of this publication.
All of a sudded,everyone is an expert on the effects of passive smoking,go and search the internet and you will find indisputable evidence that makes a mockery of what our government says. When you have an informed and balanced view you will realise that you laid down and had your tummy tickled by the nanny state. You will then have to stand by and watch while thet bring draconian measures in to control drinking,make you produce menu's with salt and fat levels displayed etc.etc. Might even make you put up signs like "cholesterol could make you chubby."
Dave - The theme was 'tolerance' so I wouldn't for one moment expect you to comprehend. I could point out the working staff are almost exclusively young, attractive gay males hence the health implications are obvious. But I won't because you 'antis' never listen. Neither will I bother to explain in detail how your 'scientific evidence' is discredited. Suffice to say people are reviewing genuine research for themselves and your big lie is out in the open, exposed for the contrived bunkum it always was, a discredit to scientific research. However I'm sure publicans are breathing a sigh of relief in the knowledge that their unprecedented losses will be offset by your biannual visit with your family..
Yes we can all make trivial , quick win comments about the smoking ban and go on about freedom of choice. This prolific piece of Health legislation is aimed at the protection of the worker in their working environment not at preventing old Tom from enjoying a fag and apint. The law is there for the protection of bar staff from the harmful effects of tobacco smoke whilst at work. Yes, I know that the prevalence of smoking within the hospitality industry is far higher than amongst the general population however even bar staff who smoke have the right to choose when and how much they smoke and even the brand! Consider any other job where you have to suffer from a Gauloise chain smoker at less than 2 paces. If pubs and breweries had just acted and prevented smoking at the bar counter back in 1998 when this legislation was first proposed the legislation would probably not have gone the way it has. Instead ,listening to the Tobacco indisurty and the likes of Forest was like sticking your heads in the sand. As an ex licencee I applaud the courage of the legislators to provide a protection for the worker. Don't go down the road of "they don't have to work in the trade if they don' like it" Do that and we'd still have little boys up chimneys. Learn to live with the legislation and your buisness will grow. The big supermarkets are far more a challenge to the local pubs than the ban on smoking.
Barstaff do not face the risks of promiscuous homosexual activity if they choose not to take part. If you go into a gay bar as a customer it's unlikely that you'll be involved in sexual activity against your choice. Unfortunately the option 'not to breathe' is unavailable to either bar staff or non-smoking customers. Your comparison is meaningless. You say: "For many years it's been easy to find somewhere to have a drink without being irritated by the smoke of others", which I see as trivialisation of the lethal effects of passive smoking. Smoke irritates; the chemicals in smoke cause cancer. Your inconvenience of smoking outside is greatly appreciated by my family and I, if it means I avoid an early death.