Archive: smoking

Will Howells writes about the unintended consequences of the smoking bans (although I personally cannot wait for them).

When I first stepped on a GNER train I found it all terribly confusing. There seems to be a special carriage for everything. And then when you finally do find a carriage that isn’t special in some way, all the seats are reserved! I think coach D is the quiet coach where you’re not allowed personal stereos or mobile phones and somebody goes “shhh!” if you cough. Coach F is for people who wear hats, while coach B which is the smoking carriage. Although they may as well call it the “addicts” carriage because I recall half of the passengers were drinking aswell. It hits you as soon as you enter. You can’t miss it really. The amount of smoke in there is just ridiculous and seeing anything becomes an achievement. Going into the smoking carriage, even just to pass through it, is a mistake.

Recently when I was on a nice normal First ScotRail train the guard dude made an announcement (his emphasis): “Passengers are reminded that smoking in the toilet is prohibited,” before somebody came out of the toilet looking pretty sheepish.

Last night was when I changed my mind about the upcoming ban on smoking in public places again.

You see, initially I was in favour of the ban for purely selfish reasons, because I don’t smoke you see.

Then I sympathised with the libertarian argument. Nobody forces me to go into a smoky pub. It is a matter of choice for everybody concerned: the customers — smoking and non-smoking; the staff; the pub owners. Just as I was thinking about posting on this subject, Simon at The Liberal Dissenter posted about why he holds this view.

But while I have officially been against the smoking ban for liberal reasons, I simply cannot wait for it to come into force. I’m not overly concerned about the health issues. I guess my exposure to cigarette smoke is minimal enough for me to get away with it.

My problem is with the general unpleasentness of it all. To put it mildly, it is not nice to breathe in smoky air. When I emerge from the pub, the stench from my clothes is no less unpleasent than it would be had I been urinated upon. It gets in my hair aswell, and I have hardly any hair.

AH! But it’s their right to smoke, it’s my right not to go into the pub if I don’t want to, etcetera.

But nobody would stand for it if that creepy guy in the corner was able to urinate all over you. But I mean, it’s his right to urinate if he wants to, and it’s my right not to go into pubs with creepy guys in them if I don’t want to.

Simon claims that 90% of restaurants are already smoke-free without the need for legislation. Which is all very well, but that’s useless for me sitting here in Kirkcaldy. I can’t think of a single pub or restaurant anywhere around here that is smoke-free. And yes, no smoking areas are useless.

But don’t I have a choice to not go to the pub if I don’t want to?

Er, sort of. But I’ve found it too easy to get a reputation as an unsociable party pooper; I can’t really say I don’t want to go to the pub… in case I come out stinking of smoke.

But I reckon most of my contemporaries would sympathise. I can’t think of anybody who has complained to me about the upcoming ban. Out of the people I most regularly go out with, I can count the number of smokers on one finger (you know who you are!). It is fair enough for people to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own home. But out in the open, you should treat your fellow members of the public with respect. Smokers are in a minority and for them to dirty the atmosphere so much is, at the very least, pretty damn rude.

Whether it should be illegal or not is another matter. But I look at it this way: Will I be happier when the new legislation comes in? Yes. Will most people be happier? I’m pretty sure of it.

I can’t wait.

MSPs set to raise legal age for buying cigarettes to 18.

Hmm. I’m not at all sure about this. Sixteen-year-olds are smart enough to know that cigarettes are bad for you. And obviously this legislation would hardly stop under-18s — or under-16s for that matter — getting cigarettes.

This sort of age is very confusing for knowing where you stand in the grand scheme of things. At the age of 16 you can get married, but you can’t have a pint, you can’t drive a car and you can’t vote. And who decided that 17-year-olds should be allowed to drive — did they pull that number out of a hat?

I’m not a fan of age restrictions in general really. Take driving for instance. I don’t think accidents are caused by under-25s more per se. But that’s kind of beside the point. If a driver is so bad, they shouldn’t be on the road, whether they are 17, 35, 75 or 14.

16-year-olds aren’t kids. If they’re going to drink and smoke — and they are — then why not? Their bodies are more than likely as developed as any adult’s. They are old enough and educated enough to know about the risks involved. A little law is hardly going to stop them anyway.