Posted by: Lee | July 1, 2007

Hahaha…bye bye smokers!!

This is a first for me, something you won’t see happen very often, I actually want to congratulate the government. That congratulations is for the smoking ban, the ban on that dirty, smelly and extremely selfish habit that has been inflicted on the non smoking community for many years. It is about time it was brought in and I praise the government for finally having the balls to do it.

To me smoking is like religion, you have the right to believe what you want but don’t try and force your views onto others. For years smokers have forced the larger non smoking population to either stay away from pubs and clubs or put up with their disgusting smelling cigarettes, physically harming our lungs in the process (even if a lot smokers are in denial about the existence of passive smoking, news flash it exists, deal with it! Seriously, what do you think will happen if you breathe in cigarette smoke that is full of chemicals, duh!) and also making our clothes and hair smell of that repulsive vial stale cigarette odour. This is the equivalent of trying to force your religion on me. I have no shame in expressing my utter hatred of this.

We live in an educated world these days, educated to the effects of cigarettes and that education proves that there is simply no justification for smoking whatsoever. If you want to smoke then that’s fine, but you should be restricted to doing it in your own home. It is a chemical addiction which serves no benefit to the smoker or society. Many smokers would argue that it benefits them as it helps them relax, here is another news flash for you, the only reason it helps you relax is because your body is addicted to the chemicals within the cigarettes. Your body is craving the poisonous chemicals and providing them relieves the craving therefore making you relax.

I have read many articles in the recent weeks approaching the ban and more and more these articles have confirmed my view that smokers are really quite deluded, selfish people. Here is an argument I read today. A landlord of a pub believes he has the right to smoke in the pub as he lives above it so it therefore serves as is home and is private property. In his view, as long he abides by licensing laws he is not doing anything wrong……hmmmm, let us think about this for a moment, what does pub mean…..oh yes PUBLIC house. A pub is an enclosed establishment open to the public and is also a place of employment, smoking ban applies, full stop! He may be able to smoke in the residential area located on top of the pub but any area which is enclosed and the public have access to i.e. the pub part can not be smoked in.  

Next argument, a group of smokers is approaching the high court with a case stating that the smoking ban violates their human rights to enjoy their personal possesions. I refer the smokers to 2 examples. One is a breach of human rights, one isn’t. A teacher was banned from wearing a full face vale at a school she worked at. She went to court saying this was a breach of human rights. The court (both British and European) rejected the claim, the argument being that proportionately it was a greater breach of the pupils human rights to a good education. The pupils found it difficult to understand the woman when her faced was covered, it was not a Muslim school either. As the woman in question could quite easily get a job at another school which allowed her to wear the vale, of which there were many in her area, there was no justification in supporting her claim.

Another Human right case involved the Army’s attempt to ban a individual from enlisting because of his sexuality. This was challenged under the Human rights act as being a breach and the challenge was upheld, why….because it comes down to proportions again. By banning him for being gay, they were preventing him from ever being in the army. The teacher in the previous case was not being banned from teaching, or from wearing a vale, she could do both at another school quite easily.

This is why the smokers have no case, it comes down to proportions, there are far more non smokers that there are smokers. Smokers second hand smoke, is unpleasant and harms the health of others. Smokers are not being banned from smoking full stop, they can go outside and stand on the street to have a cigarette. They are merely being told that they no longer have the right to subject the larger number of non smokers to their second hand smoke in an enclosed environment. To do so would be a far greater breach of the non smokers human rights. Like the teacher had the choice to go to another school, the smokers have the choice to go outside. Yes you could argue that the smokers should be able to set up their own private smoking establishments for smokers only, but what about the employees. The law covers places of employment, non smokers should not have to be subjected to second hand smoke. You could counter that with the argument that they have the choice to work there but then you can counter that argument as well. It comes down to that word again….proportionality, which is the greater breach of human rights?…..because of the health implications, non smokers will win everytime.

Humans are creatures of habit, they don’t like change. Smokers have a habit which they selfishly don’t want to change, but they are just going to have to wise up to the fact that things do indeed change. Smoking isn’t as socially acceptable as it once was, especially as a society we now very aware of the health implications.

The change the smokers should really be fighting for is not getting rid of the ban, it should be for free nicotine patches to help them kick their habit for good!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: