Is smoking in my own garden anti-social?
Monday, August 4, 2014 at 12:18 Email received over the weekend:
I have been a smoker for nearly 50 years now. My wife does not smoke, so up until recently I have smoked in my garden for years. I have been living in the same house for 35 years.
Up until about a month ago I had no idea I offended my next door neighbour with smoking outside (neighbours for eight or nine years who have regular log fires in the winter). It started with the odd comment that was obviously intended for me to hear and then something else happened, and I won’t go into details, that was done to show their annoyance and frightened me a bit. I am now really concerned as smoking is described by some as anti social.
Can smoking cigarettes/tobacco in your own home or garden considered to be anti social behaviour? My garden is about 30 yards long and even smoking right at the end wouldn’t make any difference. When I want a cigarette now I go to a large garden shed towards the back of my garden with door and window shut – but again I’m not sure that has made any difference.
I am not the type that wants to deliberately cause offence to anyone. In normal circumstances I would talk to them about it but after the incident of showing their annoyance I am not sure that would be wise. I am afraid I live in a much less tolerant society in recent years.
I responded as follows:
Dear xxxx,
Thank you for your email. I would suggest this is an entirely subjective opinion. There is no law against smoking in your garden and – speaking as a non-smoker – I would be astounded someone accused you of being anti-social.
It is true however we live in a much more intolerant age and I suppose it depends on whether clouds of smoke are drifting into a neighbour's garden. In my experience that seems unlikely but government policy on smoking has undoubtedly resulted in more people becoming intolerant of any level of tobacco smoke.
You don't explain what the 'something else happened' was but if you have had a falling out with your neighbours they could perhaps be looking for any little thing to complain about.
I'm afraid I can't offer advice. This seems to be something that ought to be resolved with a little common sense on both sides. Are you speaking to them at all at the moment? It would be a pity if the situation got worse because it's not nice to fall out with your neighbours but – without knowing all the circumstances – I find it hard to believe you are doing anything wrong by smoking in your own garden.
Comments welcome.
PS. The Guardian reports 'Victoria to ban smoking in all outdoor dining areas'.
It's pretty clear that smoking outside is the next battlefield, whether that be parks, beaches or outdoor dining/drinking areas.
The more smoking is banned outside, on the spurious grounds of passive smoking and the alleged danger to other people's health, the more "anti social" it will become, in some people's eyes.
This issue has to be addressed now because once momentum builds it will be very difficult to stop.
Reader Comments (13)
I just can't believe the World we live in now! No wonder, I as a 68 year old harken back longingly to the Swinging Sixties, with the freedom we had.
The proposed “Victoria” ban is interesting. It’s the only Australian state that hasn’t banned smoking in al fresco areas…. yet.
The “arguments” being peddled are pretty well the same as for indoor bans. Even though there is no [contrived] evidence of hazard in outdoor settings, the usual finger-wagging lot, e.g., cancer society, keep spouting that there is. This promotes mental dysfunction, i.e., the [superstitious] belief in a non-existent hazard. The gullible then demand “protection” from a non-existent hazard.
This time the “we must protect The Children™” argument is also being flung about. Again, there is no demonstrable hazard. What the zealots really mean is that they don’t want The Children™ to see smoking as a “normal” behavior. They want The Children™ to see smoking/smokers as social outcasts engaged in an abnormal, immoral act. “The Children™” argument is how moralizing antismoking typically degenerates.
It was in the midst of the “health” hysteria in America and Germany, i.e., eugenics, early last century that The Children™ also became the focus of the zealots. The moralizing zealots have to concede that a subset of adults is a “lost cause”; they just don’t conform to the terrorizing propaganda. But if The Children™ can be gotten to early enough, they can be shaped into the required beliefs by the zealots’ propaganda so that they become good conformist citizens as adults. Urgent measures had to be instituted to protect children from ever becoming one of those “terrible, dirty, smoking addicts”. In America, children took pledges to never smoke. In America, children took pledges to not smoke. In Germany:
“Proctor (1997) continues that “throughout this period, magazines like Genussgifte (Poisons of taste or habit), Auf der Wacht (On Guard), and Reine Luft (Pure air) published a regular drumbeat against this ‘insidious poison’ [tobacco], along with articles charting the unhealthful effects of alcohol, teenage dancing, cocaine, and other vices. Dozens of books and pamphlets denounced the ‘smoking slavery’ or ‘cultural degeneration’ feared from the growth of tobacco use. Tobacco was branded ‘the enemy of world peace’, and there was even talk of ‘tobacco terror’ and ‘tobacco capitalism’ …. The Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls both published antismoking propaganda, and the Association for the Struggle against the Tobacco Danger organized counseling centers where the ‘tobacco ill’ could seek help” (p.456-457); “Hitler Youth had anti-smoking patrols all over Germany, outside movie houses and in entertainment areas, sports fields etc., and smoking was strictly forbidden to these millions of German youth growing up under Hitler.” (www.zundelsite – January 27, 1998.htm)”
Probably the most vile antismoking conduct is the “smoking bans are good for business” argument. This was the slogan incessantly peddled concerning indoor bans. Antismokers must view people as not only stupid but incredibly stupid. They’re using the same nonsense second time around. The counter argument is if indoor bans were so wonderful for businesses, then why haven’t most hospitality venues already voluntarily banned outdoor smoking? The answer should be pretty clear – once bitten, twice shy.
Nonsmokers are simply people that do not smoke. There are nonsmokers that like the aroma of tobacco smoke and there are plenty more that are not fussed one way or the other. Antismokers, on the other hand, are a different mentality altogether. Antismokers hate [tobacco] smoke/smoking/smokers. There’s even a name that’s been given to this hatred of smoke that probably originated in the antismoking fanaticism in America a century ago – “misocapnist”. Even with the antismoking barrage of the last 30 years, antismokers are still a small group. So, to get their way with legislators they typically hijack the entire nonsmokers group, pretending to speak for all nonsmokers. The history of antismoking is that antismokers will hijack anything – science, religion, history, language – to depict their bizarre hatred as “normal”. It’s rabid antismokers that are neurotic bigots.
It’s antismokers that find tobacco smoke as “obnoxious”…. that it “stinks”. It’s antismokers’ subjective experience that they then depict as “objective”. And then follows the “filthy”, “disgusting”, “dirty” barrage. Antismokers’ hyper-reactivity to tobacco smoke is inordinate, disproportionate; many react to even a whiff of smoke as if they’re being led to the gallows. Even their vocabulary in describing smoke is terribly exaggerated – they have to negotiate “walls” or “tunnels” or “clouds” of smoke. Just spend a little time with a rabid antismoker and it becomes quickly apparent that they can’t be reacting to the physical properties of smoke. They seem to be troubled minds projecting their significant inner turmoil (fear/hate) onto smoke.
State-sponsored inflammatory propaganda concerning tobacco smoke promotes irrational belief, fear and hatred on a mass scale. The fear-mongering has produced a nocebo effect (e.g., anxiety disorder, hypochondria, somatization) in the gullible. Here’s a short but useful video on the nocebo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2hO4_UEe-4&feature=youtu.be&a
From Bayer & Stuber
“…..In the last half century the cigarette has been transformed. The fragrant has become foul. . . . An emblem of attraction has become repulsive. A mark of sociability has become deviant. A public behavior is now virtually private. Not only has the meaning of the cigarette been transformed but even more the meaning of the smoker [who] has become a pariah . . . the object of scorn and hostility.”
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2005.071886
This change from fragrant to foul has not come from the smoke which has remained a constant. The shift is an entirely psychological one. Unfortunately, the way the shift is manufactured is through negative conditioning. The constant play on fear and hatred through inflammatory propaganda warps perception. Ambient tobacco smoke was essentially a background phenomenon. Now exposure to tobacco smoke (SHS) has been fraudulently manufactured into something on a par with a bio-weapon – if not worse - like, say, sarin gas. There are now quite a few who screech that they “can’t stand” the “stench” of smoke, or the smoke is “overwhelming”; there are now those, hand cupped over mouth, that attempt to avoid even a whiff of dilute remnants of smoke – even outdoors. There are those that claim that, arriving from a night out, they had to put all of their clothes in the washing machine and scrape the “smoke” off their skin in the shower. There are even those that claim they are “allergic” to tobacco smoke. Yet there are no allergens (proteins) in tobacco smoke to be allergic to.
And it didn’t stop with just the smoke. Cigarette butts – heretofore unheard of – suddenly became a “monumental problem” too – akin to improvised explosive devices, requiring drastic action. These are all recent phenomena born of toxic propaganda; it is an expanding hysteria. It says nothing about the physical properties/propensities of tobacco smoke. These people are demonstrating that they have been successfully conditioned (brainwashed) into aversion. They are now suffering mental dysfunction such as anxiety disorder, hypochondria, or somatization. Typical symptoms of anxiety disorder are heart palpitations, chest tightness, shortness of breath, headache, dizziness, etc. These capnophobics (smokephobics) are no different to those irrationally attempting to avoid cracks in the pavement lest their mental world come crashing down. Questionable social engineering requires putting many into mental disorder to advance the ideological/financial agenda. It is the antismoking fanatics/zealots/extremists and their toxic mentality and propaganda that have long been in need of urgent scrutiny.
This from only last week in Kansas, USA.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2014/jul/26/petition-calls-smoking-ban-massachusetts-street/?c=2429362
A “progressive”, rabid antismoker lodged a petition to ban smoking in the main street of his locality. If you read down the comments, he gives the reason why he found it necessary to promote this petition. He was convinced that on getting home from walking down the main street one evening he had a layer of cigarette “tar/goop” in his hair. It’s crazy. But don’t try telling neurotic bigots that. Fortunately the petition has only had 169 in support out of a town of about 70,000. But it got the standard hysterical responses – I’m allergic to smoke, my throat closes up from even a whiff.
State-sponsored fear and hate-mongering has created a small cult of believers/disciples whose primary [deranged] belief is that they never be exposed to even the slightest hint of tobacco smoke – ever. This is the deluded anti-social lot. And we need to look at the State and the “charity” groups that promote this derangement as a matter of course in the quest for their smokefree “utopia”.
Apparently Cameron was talking about freedom today.
What a shame him and the other Establishment politicians don't practice it.
Yet who complains about a neighbour's charcoal BBQ, that potentially emits many 1000 x the toxins in SHS? Ignorance and bigotry can easily be neutralised by pointing out that no one in their right mind would use one inside - I'm fairly sure that BBQs and bags of charcoal have written warnings not to do so. Still, how long before similar advice appears on fag packets? In fact, I'm surprised this hasn't already been suggested.
Take heart, Simon. Oz is about the only place where outdoor smoking bans seem to be getting through the legislative process. There have been several attempts in the (usually) smoke-phobic USA to implement them, but with a few exceptions, most have failed, as have many proposed indoor smoking bans which have been proposed in States that don’t already have them. Indeed, California Capitol politicians (different from the State ones, I understand), have recently stated that they intend to accept donations from Tobacco Companies again, saying that attitudes have changed and such funding is no longer seen as politically “toxic” any more. So it looks as if the anti-smoking movement there is on the wane. And, as we all know, what happens over there inevitably happens over here. Fingers crossed! Maybe people over there, like here, are simply getting fed up with every problem in the world being blamed on smoking. Or maybe they’ve simply realised (real-life experience being the excellent teacher that it is) that the diminishing number of smokers hasn’t resulted in a diminishing of all the problems it was supposedly causing, ergo … maybe – just maybe – something else was causing them all along??
Re: the garden story. Bearing in mind that this person sounds like a conciliatory type who doesn’t want to cause any trouble, I’d suggest that he goes on smoking just as he always has, but I’d also suggest that he makes a deliberate and very obvious attempt to be overly jolly and friendly with the neighbours every time he sees them. Why? Well, for two reasons (1) it would give them the opportunity to raise the subject directly so that a sensible dialogue could be established before a big row develops (which it sounds like he wants to avoid), but, more importantly (2) it’s actually jolly difficult for someone to be really nasty to someone who’s being terribly friendly and nice to them; if you’re a nasty type (which many anti-smokers are), it’s much easier to be horrible or ever-so-slightly threatening to a neighbour who only ever scowls over the garden fence at you than it is to be mean to someone who greets you with a cheery wave and a big smile. Being ever-so-chummy with people like that really throws them off balance – they’re much more used to (often understandable) aggressive or angry responses from most people. Nice people they find really hard to cope with using their usual tactics. Smother them with niceness - always worth a try …
I heartily agree with Misty - in fact, I was going to make a similar suggestion. Be ever so cheery, but take it to an extreme. Tell the neighbour to shout over the fence when he/she is in the garden and promise not to smoke when he is there (but carry on smoking!). In other words, put the ball in his court every time. If he is the one who has to instigate the non-smoking every time, then he might realise how silly he is being.
Last year I was sitting on the grass waiting for my taxi and having a cigarette when the enormous woman came up to me and said, "your smoke will kill me" ! without even thinking I said not as fast as your fat will! you have never seen anyone scurry away so fast. How dare these people feel they have a right to criticise me when I wouldn't dream of saying to her she was a fat pig. I am usually polite but I have had enough and will not put up with it any more. There was no one near me and she went out of her road to stage a confrontation but didn't expect my response. I hope she thinks twice before being so rude in future. I certainly would not allow any neighbours to intimidate me in my own home or garden.
I think this is serious, in that it exemplifies the great divisions which can now occur in hitherto loving and friendly relationships created by the jihad against tobacco. No-one has complained to me, but on the one occasion I lit up my pipe in my garden, my neighbour registered it - though saying he liked the smell. Meanwhile no-one comments on Barbeques or the passing traffic. Odd, this programming of people's reactions. But it does, really matter, about how people get on with each other.
I was expecting this kind of thing to happen when I realised that the Smoking Ban was really going to go ahead and the first thing I did was to get my immediate neighbours onside.
People fear what they don't understand, I grew tobacco plants so they could see and touch them and explained that a lot of commonly eaten vegetables contained small amounts of nicotine too.
Nobody is scared by a tobacco plant, they are not intimidating in the least, so I would suggest a large bed of fragrant Nicotiana Sylvestris where the neighbour can see them, as a talking point.
Seeds are available at local garden centres and as easy to grow as a tomato plant to which they are closely related.
A selection of ornamental tobacco varieties.
"In Victorian times another species of nicotiana (Nicotiana sylvestris) was planted along walkways and paths so that those strolling by could enjoy the sweet fragrance of its flowers."
http://ipm.missouri.edu/MEG/2009/1/2009-The-Year-of-Nicotiana/
Anti-smokerism is anti-social and it's about time people stopped putting up with it.. They have no right to tell people what to do in their own gardens or public outdoor areas that we are all entitled to enjoy. We allowed them to tell people what to do inside their own private property and we let them chase us out of pubs and other places - even those they didn't use that have now closed - but enough's enough. No more.
Every smoker has a duty to ignore outdoor bans. There is not one shred of evidence to suggest smoking outdoors harms anyone so the only reason for it is to exclude members of the public from enjoying places they have every right to be in.
Smokerphobia is very harmful to others when exercised both indoors and outdoors and harmful to smokerphobics who suffer from imaginary illnesses brought on by unfounded fear and phobia of something that won't harm them.
The Govt should not be encouraging rabid anti-social extremists who quite frankly suffer from some form of mental illness which funding should be made available to investigate more thoroughly.