Thoughts on the Smoking Ban
Last night (Saturday 30th June) I was presiding at a private dinner, at a privately owned venue. The people who had served the meal had withdrawn, and the doors had been closed, so the justification for the legislation - that employees might be affected by secondary smoking - did not apply. Nevertheless, from the following evening onwards event would have been caught by the new ban on smoking.
So after the toast to the Queen, I said to the people present that, although I do not smoke myself and do not normally encourage others to do so, I thought it would be very churlish to deprive those members present who do smoke of their last opportunity to do so legally.
Several people said to me afterwards that they appreciated the gesture - one or two felt very strongly that it is no business of the government to tell members of private clubs what they should do in private.
I support the principle that those who want to breathe clean air should be able to do so but that those who smoke in private, or indeed in public places where cigarette smoke is not thereby imposed on people who are required to be there, should be able to make that decision.
The problem with this act is that the practical implementation of it, which sometimes goes way beyond what the legislation actually says, (as where some councils have banned smoking in parks), sometimes goes beyong enabling those of us who want to breathe clean air to do so, and can come close to vindictive harrassment of smokers.
At the rate we are going, with eased restrictions on soft drugs and increased restrictions on smoking, it will not be long before cigarette smoking is treated more severely than drug abuse.
So after the toast to the Queen, I said to the people present that, although I do not smoke myself and do not normally encourage others to do so, I thought it would be very churlish to deprive those members present who do smoke of their last opportunity to do so legally.
Several people said to me afterwards that they appreciated the gesture - one or two felt very strongly that it is no business of the government to tell members of private clubs what they should do in private.
I support the principle that those who want to breathe clean air should be able to do so but that those who smoke in private, or indeed in public places where cigarette smoke is not thereby imposed on people who are required to be there, should be able to make that decision.
The problem with this act is that the practical implementation of it, which sometimes goes way beyond what the legislation actually says, (as where some councils have banned smoking in parks), sometimes goes beyong enabling those of us who want to breathe clean air to do so, and can come close to vindictive harrassment of smokers.
At the rate we are going, with eased restrictions on soft drugs and increased restrictions on smoking, it will not be long before cigarette smoking is treated more severely than drug abuse.
Comments
Or smoking something purely for pleasure that kills you and those around you isn't abuse?
I loathe cigarettes: I won't let anyone smoke them in my house or in my car. It is my right to make that rule for people who are on my private property. But where other adults are in their homes or their private property, then if they decide to smoke that should be their choice.
I used the specific terms "soft drugs" and "drug abuse" both of which have meanings in common parlance which the vast majority of people broadly understand. And neither of those terms would normally be understood to include smoking a cigarette.
If you are going to be pedantic, the drug associated with cigarettes is nicotine.
And if you must be pedantic, I suggest looking up the definition of drug in your OED.
A drug is any chemical or biological substance, synthetic or non-synthetic, that when taken into the organism's body, will in some way alter the functions of that organism.
There are over 4,000 chemicals in a cigarette
For a start, the legislation specifically includes private clubs. That was the particular point I was making.
Further the way some authorities are interpreting the legislation, or going well beyond it, includes cases of smoking being banned in parks. We've also had some pretty daft decisions involving bus shelters - see today's post on this blog or tomorrow's Whitehaven News.
As for your nit-picking points, I didn't start the pedantry. The expressions "soft drugs" and "drug abuse" have currency and neither includes tobacco or smoking a cigarette.