Soup of the Day

Smokers are the sorest losers

It seems as the UK national ban on smoking in public places approaches, the smokers are getting up in arms about it. One smoker in particular who doesn’t like this piece of European Law is my girlfriend, who has been smoking for longer than she can remember. The problem for her is simply that she will now be forced to go outside when she wants a cigarette rather than sitting in the comfy confines of a bar. She interprets the new smoking laws as a breach of her rights to enjoy be free to do what one wants to do, after-all this is a free country is this not?

Well, probably unsurprisingly to you, I do not agree. I think the smoking ban is a very good thing and long overdue. To put some perspective of where I am coming from I have smoked up until 3 weeks ago, not nearly the at the rate Siân does, but certainly more than is healthy at any rate; i.e more than none. I gave up because I know what was coming and I thought it would be far better to do it on my own terms than by force. But being a former smoker, I am certainly not in the anti-smoking lobby. Simply we all (yes we do) know that smoking is bad for us, but we do it anyway.

So why don’t I agree with Siân’s views on her rights. Well I simply think her argument is flawed fundamentally and cannot be justified at all. In one particular heated exchange on the subject I rose the point that what ever complaints smokers had about the ban, there was no way they could get away from the fact that it was a breach of basic human rights. In response I was told that it was a breach of smokers human rights if they couldn’t smoke freely, but I disagree.

My interpretation of human rights is that all individuals have a right to exist. Any act of another individual that effects this right to life breaches those of the said individual Secondary smoke from a cigarette seriously damages (prolonged exposure causes cancer among other things) anybody around the source, particularly in pubs and bars. Therefore smoking in a public place is a breach of basic human rights.

In response to this the point was made that alcohol leads to violent clashes late at night when all the bars close. It is a good point and those clashes are breaching the rights laid out above, particularly for the innocent bystander who usually gets the worst of it. But, and this is a big BUT, the resulting breach of rights was not as of a result of the consumption of alcohol. At the point of consumption no harm was done to anyone and you can say this about almost any other drug other than tobacco. Unfortunately the consumption of tobacco through smoking instantly and uncontrollably effects everyone in the vicinity and this is what makes it unjustifiable.

I have no problem with people smoking at all, no one should be ultimately told what they should and shouldn’t do. But what ever you do in life, you should always consider others. Smoking is a killer, it kills non-smokers and smokers alike at a shocking rate. But why should so many non-smokers be effected by secondary smoke? Why should they have to stay away from certain bars when they are not the ones effecting anyone else? They shouldn’t.

At the point of consumption smoking is the most anti-social drug there is, all the others do not directly effect anyone other than the user. So whatever rights the smokers think they have in public when smoking, non-smokers have more as they are not in any way negatively effecting the health of the smoker.