A couple of days ago I was involved in a debate about smoking on another blog. The debate centred on the belief the blog owner held. I'd just like to outline it because I was quite surprised by it. She (I'll call her Jane) believes that smokers should be able to have smoking rooms within pubs and that the smoking ban has restricted her choice to smoke. Jane made claims that the government has taken away her choice. Jane then extended her thoughts to explain that there was a secret conspiracy between the pharmaceutical companies who produced nicotine patches and the government to promote non-smoking in order to sell nicotine patches and anti-smoking aids. She called these "antis" . She believes that these chemical pharmaceutical companies are funding research to find links between smoking and cancer. She also believes that they'd funded research to find links between passive smoking and cancer. This funding, she claimed, was therefore weighted in that it showed links between cigarette smoke and various diseases. She didn't believe that those links truly existed.
The blogger believes that the government and the big pharmaceutical companies had been brainwashing everyone in the world for the last 30 years with propaganda that stated these incorrect scientific findings and encouraged the general population to give up smoking. The aim of the 'antis' was to create a smoke-free society, not for a better more healthy population, but at the cost of providing a remedy to help giving up nicotine.
She believed that smoking wasn't an addiction, despite me quoting the dictionary definition of "addiction" where it actually used as an example a smoker! She said it was a habit and to reinforce this, she said she could give up anytime she wanted with no withdrawal symptoms.
The debate continued when Jane stated her belief that smoking was a part of her culture, be it that she was Italian and she had a right to exorcise that culture wherever she saw fit.. including smoking in the presense of other people!
Any scientific evidence that I presented to show that cigarettes were a health risk, she and other bloggers debunked by saying that my evidence was out of date and that it wasn't true. When I asked if they could prove that smoking and passive smoking was completely harmless, one of the bloggers said that I was asking a loaded question and how could he prove a negative!?
Jane continued by stated that believed she wasn't being selfish in putting her cigarette smoke before other people’s health!
She said that her issue was that people should either be allowed the choice of smoking rooms or ventilation in pubs, or a blanket ban! When I said to her that it would be impossible to ventilate to the standard the government required for clean air, she didn’t want to accept it. Clearly she wouldn't accept a blanket ban, and smoking rooms without pubs isn't going to work. Nor could she accept that choice meant that she had to smoke outside.
Jane is very strong minded and I respect her enthusiasm for her cause. She believes that smoking is as much a part of her as her limbs are. "Why should I give up?" she said.. "it was a free choice to smoke!" I agreed it was a free choice to smoke, but public buildings are filled with other people and their freedom to not inhale her smoke surely comes BEFORE her right to smoke.
Half way throught the debate Jane told me that being able to smoke was about freedom and choice. She said that people had given their lives so that I could be a vegan! I said that with freedom and choices comes with responsibility. Choosing to smoke is fine, but the responsible act is to not force secondary smoke on other people.
After over a day of debating and posting well over 100 comments on her blog I realised that there was no way she would ever see the other side to the arguement. Sadly all of her other blogger friends rallied round her and insisted that every statement I said was wrong and that I'd just been brain washed and/or was a victim of this pharmaceutical propaganda. I felt so frustrated that I decided to delete all my comments from her blog.
In the end, after she'd denied that passive smoking kills, I commented that even if she didn't believe the evidence surely she should just err on the side of caution and not smoke infront of other people just incase. However all she only cared about the fact that she had to stand outside in the cold to smoke and made constant references to feeling like a Jew in Nazi Germany!
My views on smoking are really simple. It is your choice to smoke and I don't have a problem with it. I don't think it's right for a smoker to smoke in an enclosed space where other people are at risk of breathing in poisonous toxins. The answer isn't to set up a smoking only pub, because there are bound to be people who are working there who don't smoke. The governments own health and safety law should provide protection from dangerous toxins in the work place (not exclude pub workers!) No ventilation system will remove smoke from the air to satifactory levels and even if it could some of the pubs in the UK are hundreds of years old and listed buildings - those buildings just can't have ventilation systems inserted into their framework. The only real option is for smokers to not smoke inside the building. I don't feel sorry for smokers, no more than I feel sorry for someone who likes to walk around with headphones blasting out music in a library.
*The name of the blog owner has been changed to protect her privacy.







































