MY PERSONAL THOUGHTS ABOUT THE SMOKING BAN

My name is Tim.  I write and publish music.  I am fifty six years of age.  I smoke cigarettes.

As a smoker, I am aware that, like many things which I enjoy, it carries certain health risks, consequently, I attempt to moderate my tobacco consumption, just as I do with fatty food, excess salt and alcohol.

I am also aware that tobacco smoke may be unpleasant to a non smoker.  In some cases, it will obviously exacerbate existing respiratory conditions.  This is a subject I will touch on later.

I have always accepted smoking restrictions, which have taken place over a period of time, which has included indoor public buildings, shops, places of work, cinemas, hospitals to name but a few.  Cafes, pubs, restaurants, airports, hotels and guest houses had smoking or non smoking areas, in some cases, a café, restaurant, hotel or guest house would be completely non smoking, and I could choose whether to go there or not.  I accepted non smoking on public transport.  I have to admit as a smoker, that a plane journey did not excite me, but as long as I was able to have a cigarette before my flight in a smoking area at the airport, I could handle this temporary restriction.  I did become alarmed when, for some reason, smoking began to be forbidden in car parks or hospital grounds.

I was even more alarmed, and confused, by the smoking ban which has now been thrust upon us.  I am alarmed that a legal substance has been criminalised.  I am confused by the fact that places which for many years have been non smoking establishments, like shops for instance, now have to have a sign saying that it is an offence to smoke there.  Of course, it is both pythonesque in humorous terms, and an insult to the intelligence of the general public to have to have these signs in Churches.  Also, why is the sole trader not allowed to smoke in his/her office?  Why is the self employed or franchised driver not able to smoke in his/her vehicle, even though they are the only person who uses it?

Since this ban was introduced in England on 1^st July 2007, I have been reading up on the issue of passive smoking/environmental tobacco smoke/second hand smoke.  I remember when this was first mentioned some years ago.  I thought about it, and as I said earlier, I could see that it could be an aggravation to certain people.  It was when certain anti smoking groups like ASH began to say that second hand smoke caused lung cancer and heart disease in non smokers that I became worried.  They said that this was based on medical research, and I believed it. 

When I was told that we needed to invade Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction, I believed that as well.  I felt both foolish and angry when it turned out that there had been no real evidence for this, and that there were not any there.  I have read  medical documents since the smoking ban was introduced, based on years of research, which have clearly stated that the risk from second hand smoke is insignificant and of no consequence.  Why have these valuable pieces of research been left on the shelf, while the less authoritative medical evidence suggesting that second hand smoke is a killer have been used to bring about this unbelievable encroachment on  personal freedom?

ASH was formed some time ago in the USA..  Founders of this group were concerned that warnings to smokers about the health risks associated with consuming tobacco were not working as well as they would have liked.  They needed a new strategy, an element of fear, not of the damage smokers could do to themselves, but of the damage they could do to others.  ASH and other anti smoking organisations and individuals have become ‘evangelical’ in their fanaticism.  (webmaster's note - ASH in the UK was set up in the early '70s by the Royal College of physicians)
This makes me think of fanatical religious or political groups who will take their particular scripture or the writings and philosophies of their leader, and make it say what they want it to say.  In some cases, they will even add spurious text so that it will make people believe what they want them to believe, to fulfil their desired aim.  They will even use their self regulated propaganda to attack other people!

My father is eighty seven years of age and still goes about his daily routine like a young man, he would still go up a ladder if I let him!  A man of his age has obviously grown up in a society where many people smoked, and there were no restrictions, in fact, he smoked himself until he was sixty three.  His career has included hotel work, office work and he always worked in a bar, even if it was part time.  Passive Smoking? He has done it all his life.  My Mother grew up with a father who smoked, (who died of old age), her husband smoked for many years, and when he Managed his own pubs and clubs, she was part of it.  My mother was also a singer, many years of her life performing in smoke filled venues.  My mother died when she was eighty five.  What did she die of, lung cancer, which eventually spread to the liver.  Passive smoking? No.  My mother had been diagnosed with breast cancer in 1997, and following a mastectomy, had lived another six years in good health, until she developed a secondary tumour in the lung.  My mother did not die of passive smoking, although I am sure that the anti smoking despots would find some insignificant medical theory and blow it up out of all proportion to say that she did!

Performing in smoke filled places of entertainment.  When Roy Castle, a very talented trumpeter, comedy actor and presenter, a healthy non smoker, was diagnosed with lung cancer, questions were asked.  He had performed regularly in smoke filled clubs, especially at the start of his career, and in a very short time, theory had become fact, he was killed by second hand smoke.  Was he?  With the greatest respect to Roy Castle and his memory, there are thousands of musicians and singers who have regularly performed in smoke filled clubs, I have never heard any of them talk of smoking related illness. Here are a few you may have heard of, who are still going strong, Kenny Ball, Acker Bilk, Chris Barber, Cleo Lane, Humphrey Lyttelton, Eric Delaney, and the list could go on and on.  I am sorry if my doubts about the reason given for Roy contracting lung cancer offend anyone, it is just that I automatically think of the thousands and thousands of jazz musicians, smokers and non smokers, who have performed in smoky jazz clubs for generations.  I only named a handful who had become well known through popular music and radio, there are thousands of them. 

It is true that smoking can cause lung cancer, but lung cancer is not only caused by smoking.  There is something I have always wondered about second hand smoke.  According to the anti smoking fanatics, a non smoker in a smoky atmosphere is ingesting the same as the smoker him/herself.  If this is the case, why do I still desire and enjoy a cigarette in this environment, surely, with lots of others smoking, I wouldn’t need to. 

As I said at the beginning of this document, I readily accept smoking restriction, and these restrictions have been in place for years, which is why I am confused as to the reason for this draconian law.  What I cannot accept is the removal of the freedom to smoke in places where you go out of choice, the pub, club or bingo hall.  Neither can I  accept a blanket ban in places where a person cannot choose to leave very easily, hospital, other institutions where a person may be too frail or handicapped, mental hospitals, airports.  What is wrong with smoking areas?  Why can’t you have smoking areas in restaurants and cafes.  Why can’t a hotel have a smoking bar?  Why can’t social venues choose for themselves whether to be a smoking or non smoking establishment, especially if they are small, so unable to have a separate smoking area.  Apparently, the pub and club exemption in the original Labour manifesto was overturned because it would mean the possibility of non smokers having to work in these establishments.  If there was a democratic freedom of choice, there would be non smoking establishments for them to work in.  Remove the right of a quarter of the population because non smokers may want to work there?  Let me get this right, a pub, which has chosen to allow smoking, has one hundred people who have chosen to go there, twenty five of them smoke, the bar person, who has chosen to work there, is a non smoker, so ban smoking!

I will finish with two more points.  It seems that those who don’t like people smoking have jumped on the bandwagon, and are banning it in the open air.  Environmental Tobacco Smoke.  There are many fumes and chemicals in the air, second hand tobacco smoke will have no effect on a person in the open air, but it is the one that can be seen and smelt, unlike really harmful air pollutants.  I have seen councillors, MP’s and others talking about the smoking ban who came across as smug, vitriolic bullies.  So what is the reason for the ban, are these medical experts, the representatives of ASH, and people in authority caring human beings?

_____________________________________________________________________

Tim Paton, writer and publisher, TP Music