________________________________________________________________
The Govt is taking sides by introducing the smoking ban and the result is legal justification of discrimination and exclusion against a minority group, argues lifelong smoker Pat Nurse.
________________________________________________________________
In the years before July 1st last year, when the spectre of the smoking ban hung in the air like a putrid smell, I made my own feeble stand against it by refusing to go to any restaurants, cafes, pubs, public halls, hotels and centres that didn’t have facilities for smokers.
I also complained when confronted with offensive signs in some no-smoking establishments such as “For the comfort of ALL our customers, this is a no-smoking café..” and “Smoking is prohibited because it spoils the taste of our coffee..“
I politely pointed out that this is clearly not the case in either circumstance for smoking customers who are obviously not welcome in such places. I also argued that a simple neutral sign saying “No Smoking” was less offensive and a perfectly adequate message.
I naively believed that other smokers, and tolerant non-smokers, would take this same stance, that they would add their voice to the debate and the consultation, and the Government would be persuaded that a ban was bad for business and a total smoking ban, as opposed to a well ventilated choice, went against Britain’s internationally renowned “just, equal, and tolerant society.“
When the Govt announced the blanket ban, and said smokers didn’t have the right to go out and kill other people, and we should be made to stop for our own good, it was like a kick in the teeth.
I was in despair at how my Government could take sides with anti-smoking groups who over the previous 40 years had engaged in a long, oppressive and scurrilous campaign aimed at making me hate myself and others hate me even more because I like tobacco.
My objections to the smoking ban have never been about not being able to smoke, or not having the right to smoke where I like. They have always been based on my view that a ban gives justification to intolerance towards people who like to do things that others don’t. .. even if what they do doesn’t harm anyone else.
The anti-smoking lobby has successfully persuaded Government that smokers are suicidal serial killers and ministers seem to have taken no account that for every study that says passive smoking is harmful to others there are many more that say it isn’t.
The Government shouldn’t be taking sides or giving my taxes via the NHS to campaigns that ostracise me. It certainly shouldn’t create legislation in support of one side of an argument that hasn’t yet been proved, but unfairly discriminates against a minority group of people, and in particular a smaller proportion, like me, who say smoking is embedded in their culture.
I’ve rarely been out since the smoking ban. I don’t feel welcome and I’m not comfortable in places where I can’t smoke. I don’t see the fun in being banished to the cold outside whenever I want a cigarette. It makes me feel “dirty” , excluded and undignified. Dogs are more welcome inside a hotel or a pub these days than smokers.
Kicking smokers outside has, in my opinion, only made things worse for those who hate smoking. Before the ban, we were contained in special designated areas where no-one was affected except those who smoked and those who worked there.
Now, the smell of smoke is constantly on the streets, and smokers, non-smokers and anti-smokers mix on nice days in beer or restaurant gardens and there is friction.
No-one wants to return to the days when smoking was allowed everywhere, but let’s have balance. Let people choose whether they want to go to smoking or non-smoking establishments, and let workers decide which of these they want to work in.
The current situation has just forced us all together which can only lead to outright war. If a ban is disproportionably extended to outside areas, then people like me will become even more reclusive.
I believe the ban has also promoted smoking in a way we haven’t seen since the old days when tobacco companies were allowed to advertise.
I’m starting to see huge signs appear in the street such as “Heated smoking garden here..“ and with smoking and yet more possible restrictions in the news almost every day, the issue is brought to the attention of children and young people in way it never has before.
Pubs, clubs, restaurants, hotels and private enterprise should be allowed to make their own choices. What is wrong with choice? It should never be a radical idea in a democratic society.
I would never give up smoking. I’ve done it all my life. A smoker is who I am and I don‘t wish to be different to please other people. I don’t smoke less because of the ban. I smoke more in protest although I’ve threatened to give up for the first time in 40 years only if the smoking ban is fully reversed!
I don’t go outside with a cigarette in my hand like a serial killer with an axe looking for victims. Personally, I’ve always been a polite smoker, recognising that some people don’t like it and good manners are important.
Before the hate campaign against smokers began, I always asked before lighting up if the person next to me objected. Most times they didn’t, and if they did, I was happy to move. Even before the latest offensive “dirty chucker” campaign I always disposed of my cigarette ends in a bin. I don’t drop any kind of litter and never have because I respect my environment.
The litter campaign of the 1970s had a lifelong impact on me. This sort of campaign, along with a reminder to smokers to employ good manners when around those who don’t like smoke, would have been a far more positive way to attack the “sin” without demonising the “sinner.“
If this had been done, perhaps both smokers and anti--smokers would now be more tolerant of each other.
I’ve watched as the war on smokers has got nastier, infecting the public with fear over their good health, which in turn has led to prejudice and a stereo-typical image of smokers as dirty, uncaring, and selfish people. Inevitably, we are now seeing discrimination against smokers because of such a shameful campaign.
First it was the NHS that began to be selective about treating smokers, who have a right to health services they pay for through taxes, and then some employers began to discriminate by employing non-smokers only and in some cases sacking workers simply because they smoked even if it had nothing to do with their ability to do the job they were paid for.
The smoking ban adds credence, legal and moral justification to the above and that is why, in my opinion, the Health Act is such a bad piece of legislation. To misquote singer Tracy Chapman : “Please give my honest regards to the (minister) for disregarding me” .
I feel that is exactly what Patricia Hewitt and Labour did when they introduced this spiteful ban and my vote will reflect this. I hope other smokers angry at their shabby treatment will choose wisely and not vote in more of the same from any of the three main parties who don’t seem to care about smokers and can’t understand what all the fuss is about.
Many smokers are angry about being ignored, neglected, rejected and demonised. They will use their vote at the next election and if they are like me, it certainly won’t be for New Labour who have proved how much they dislike me and my kind. The party that gets my vote will be the one that proposes to treat me like an adult human being.
We may be in the minority but our combined 12 million votes could make the difference between whether a party wins or loses the next election. Those that want the smokers’ vote, in my opinion, should look at the whole smoking issue afresh and with impartiality.